Legal gay marriage

This is exciting and very positive news.  Most of all, it is a breakthrough for those people who can now marry, or exercise the choice not to marry.  There are two other aspects of the decision which I like.  First, it keeps current the idea that the United States still is a world leader when it comes to liberty.  Second, it encourages the idea that there are significant freedoms still to be won.

Which freedom will be next?  Here is my earlier piece on Andrew Sullivan as the most influential public intellectual in recent times.  Andrew even wrote a new post for the occasion.

Comments

"significant freedoms still to be won."
Of course, freedom of speech (hate speech) and freedom of association (excluding whomever you want, even if he belongs to a government-protected victim group) are not among them.

You don't think gay marriage was a huge victory for freedom of association? Is there a more egregious violation of the right to association than prohibiting a person's ability to marry?

This nonsense overturns 25,000 years of human biology, culture, and society. One may marry anyone one wants as long as the person is of the opposite sex.

The US has entered the post-Constitutional era. I do not consent to be ruled by tyrannical idiots.

I like your "waaaaaaah!"

I would love to see documentation, if you could keep it, of how your next week is from last week. We regress against tyranny as a dummy variable.

let me fetch my bucket

Oh no, people are doing things that don't affect me at all. The end of civilization is nigh!

First Amendment is dead.

Several small businesses have been ruined for not playing this narcissistic game.

The test Church that adheres to its teachings on faith and morals and refuses to "marry" a same sex onanistic yoke will be sued in Federal kangaroo court and lose its tax-exempt status, and likely be banned.

let's put 'several small businesses' (which chose to offer public accommodation and thus are bound by basic anti-discrimination law) on one side of the balance and the fundamental equal rights of millions of americans on the other. it's not even close. as for churches, if your god demands you discriminate i'm sure he'll handsomely compensate you for your loss of a tax exemption. you'd think the devout would care not a whit for something as insignificant as having to cough up a little gold to caesar.

Humans are mammals, but newsflash, mammals are sometimes gay.

Is that sumpthin what you lernnded in pubick skool biology klass?

What facts do you have?

How many mammals?

Compared to what reproductive behaviors?

Have you had carnal relations, er, a loving relationship, with a nonhuman?

Was it consensual?

T. Shaw: Comparing sexuality across species is problematic because every species experiences sexuality differently--in citing other animals as examples we are merely anthropomorphizing non-human characteristics. However, for what it's worth, homosexuality has been directly observed in almost every species of mammal, and is also common in many other classes of animal, such as birds: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals#Mammals .

Gay marriage supporters are more prone to hurt butts it would seem.

A unique debate where each side ends up butt hurt!

Awe come on, if you just learn to relax, its not so bad.

scoff all you want bob, but we in the straight ally community tip our hats to the gays for making anal fun and pain-free. yet another knock-on benefit of supporting equal rights.

So that's what 'ibaien' means.

"The US has entered the post-Constitutional era."
We are being told it since 1861.

>This nonsense overturns 25,000 years of human biology, culture, and society.

Oh really, marriage in accordance with Christian theology is a 25,000 year old institution? Wait, I thought the Earth was only 4,000 years old though?

>One may marry anyone one wants as long as the person is of the opposite sex.

Uh oh, I better tell my heterosexual married friends and family to hide! The gays are coming, and they're going to gay marry them! Head for the hills and the bunkers!!!

> I do not consent to be ruled by tyrannical idiots.

SCOTUS agrees that people should not be ruled by tyrannical idiots.

Morally bankrupt.

overturns 25,000 years of human biology, culture, and society

tradition is a weak argument because blacks used to be slaves, women were not allowed to vote and democracy used to be an utopia that nobody believed could exist. Humans strive for progression, not tradition.

also biology disagrees because animals can be gay too.

bigot. fascist. dinosaur.

a more egregious violation of the right to association than prohibiting a person’s ability to marry?

What inhibited Andrew Sullivan's 'ability to marry' was a deficit of interest in women. That's not a legal problem.

Sadly for you, the Supreme Court disagrees. Please don't get carpal tunnel from all the hand-wringing you've been doing.

Ivy league graduates do often disagree with common sense.

Sadly for you, the Supreme Court disagrees.

Your preferred epistemology is the "I say it's spinach principle". You may not appreciate it when it's turned against you.

SCOTUS _follows_ public opinion. The public has decided. SC just affirming.

If you doubt that this triumphant movement is all about Freedom, then how do you account for how it freed Brendan Eich from the cares of a good job?

his former employers were free to cut ties with a bigot dumb enough to make contributions in his own name to a bigoted campaign. if he's so monumentally talented I'm sure the free market will find a position available willing to overlook his stupid bigotry.

Freedom for gays only!

What freedom did he lose again? That was taken away by the government?

Brendan Eich was liberated from the labors and stresses of having a job.

I'm sure Steve psoted at least a half dozen times over Van Jones' freedoms.

Because Steve cares about the blacks and the whites equally.

His employers never tried to cut ties with him. He just left because of social pressure.

Freedoms yet to be won? Public nudity, of course. Top of the list.

Oh, I forgot. Polygamy comes first. Then, public nudity.

But not for Mormons, definitely not Mormons. And probably not for Muslims, either.

But polygamy for black African immigrant indigenous spiritualists, now there's something that the zeitgeist could roll with.

And clan marriages of course. There's a huge tax advantage to be gamed. And money talks,

But not Klan marriages.

There are large numbers of really nice persons that you do not want to see naked.

I know no one is reading this anymore, but I'd like to point out for the record that once a person resorts to violence to prevent nudity, they are no longer nice. Unless of course "nice" means they smile and patiently listen while voting to have me dragged off by uniformed gunmen whenever I exist the way God made all living things.

"Which freedom will be next?"

The future arrived a couple of years ago when the New York Times, with World War G a done deal, launched World War T with a long article about how society discriminates against MMA fighter Fallon Fox for not letting her beat up women for money just because she was born male:

http://isteve.blogspot.com/2013/05/post-gay-marriage-cont.html

With the Kardashian Klan jumping all over this money making trend, WWT isn't the future, it's practically jumped the shark already. But transgenderism promises years of amusement.

i'm glad the struggle of people not like you to achieve the basic rights you take for granted provides you with 'years of amusement'. it must be nice.

The sacred seriousness of Caitlyn Jenner is beyond question.

Why do you have your bigoted followers care so much? By definition, you guys only want to interact with your own, straight white male kind. WHy not let the inferiors carry on with their lives?

I was on your side until this. I do object to cake makers being forced to make cakes for gay couples if they disapprove of gay marriage.

I was born male. Is it my basic right to beat up females for money?

#freedomofassociation #painispain

Not being criticized is a "basic right", eh?

But it's a win/win solution! They get to live their life as they want, and then they dwindle away to join the Dodo bird in extinction, darkening our demographic towels no more.

Once they're out of the closet, just statistically speaking, their fertility falls off a cliff. Soon, their numbers decrease, they go extinct, there are no more. It's a self-solving problem. You want fewer homosexuals? Let them live the gay life.

I believe the slogan is: "Born that way." If you believe there's a genetic component, the consequences are inevitable, and we should feel them very quickly. Dog breeders are always surprised at how quickly their efforts pay off. If that dog won't hunt, that dog won't breed, either. Most hunting dogs are enthusiastic hunters -- in their bones, so to speak.

The average age of death of a non-AIDS-infected male is 43, an AIDS-infected one, 39. This corroborates your assertions.

One nitpick, does it really keep us current? It feels like we're playing catch up with a lot of the developed world on this point. Canada beat us by a decade and even Ireland beat us by like a month.

Mexico too

But from here on out, we have that same liberty so going forward we are viewed as current

'Ireland beat us by like a month'

More than that, Ireland answered Chief Justice Robert's point in his dissent that such a decision should be made by the voters.

Ireland demonstrated the proper way to change the law and that is by a popular vote or vote by an elected legislature. Not by a court inventing a new constitutional right.

Exactly! Just like we did when we ended segregation and allowed interracial marriage and let married couples buy contraceptive devices. Only then will the outcome be truly legitimate.

It is to our national disgrace that these things have been done by the judicial branch, yes.

If you had that vote today, gay marriage would win by a landslide. At least 60% support it nationwide and that number will only grow over time.

All rights should of course be subjected to the whims of the majority. Minority populations should only have the rights that the majority chooses to give them. Nothing could go wrong with such principles...
Snark aside, if you disagree with the latest ruling, you also disagree with Loving v Virginia, and think it is ok for states to criminalize miscegenation.

These are considerations of interest only to shallow people.

Seriously. Since when has keeping up with the cool kids been sound basis for national policy? Hey, I heard France banned burqahs in public. Let's do that next. All the cool kids are oppressing their Muslim minorities!

It's amusing how Andrew's epochal gay marriage essay grew out of a NYC rent control squabble over an E. 54th St apartment:

http://www.unz.com/isteve/the-origin-of-gay-marriage-nyc-rent-control/

"Which freedom will be next?"

Jen Kirkman explains what she'd like to see next:

http://www.unz.com/isteve/jen-kirkman-on-marriage-equality/

For Christ's sake Steve, why are you so scared of writing your true opinions on gays and gay marriage? For a guy who is all about "common sense moderation" Why are all your posts on this issue qualified with either a putdown of the gay community or mockery? Do you support this decision, do you think it is the right one? Are you avoiding stating a position because of your bigoted commentators, to let them know, what's most important is that you, think of the gays they same way they do??

This is no joking matter!

Why are all your posts on this issue qualified with either a putdown of the gay community or mockery?

The subject matter almost demands it.

just don't read the comments there

Just hire a transgender prostitute already and get it out of your system.

So you really don't care about the constitution as a constitution-- i.e., stuff that is deliberately very hard to change. Do you think that the reasoning is internally consistent? Or do you just like the result? Does the structure of how this proceeded--- a massive decision based on the fact that Obama got to put in two SC justices rather than McCain worry you?

Chesterton's fence-- do you actually understand why the prohibition was there in the first place and so wide-spread? Do you think it was just 'hate'? Those horrible Greeks listening to Mosaic law? What gives?

Surely a moment's reflection will tell you that this *was* a hard change. By comparison to anti-miscegenation laws, the Court is trailing, not leading, public opinion:

http://www.salon.com/2015/06/26/a_history_lesson_for_bitter_conservatives_what_the_supreme_courts_marriage_equality_ruling_really_means/

It's in the nature of politics that elections affect court membership -- how could it be otherwise? And whenever the tipping point comes, it will be be ... tippy. 5-4. So what?

C's fence, absolutely! Advocates of prohibiting gay marriage have had *decades* to make their case, and come up embarrassingly empty-handed. That the standard counter-argument is a tautological bit about "definition of marriage" tells you how bankrupt their view is. Massive wisdom in Chesterton and Burke, but at *some* point you have to say nope, certain inherited institutions are wrong.

I don't have to tell you that slavery as an institution has much ancient sanction; the circumstances under which it became unthinkable are very recent indeed.

Why not respond to TC's more interesting question: what further freedoms are yet unwon?

sigh.

No problem. Another scotch?

It's not the Court's place to trail or lead popular opinion.

Slavery...there was a constitutional amendment about that, right?

Passed by a Congress in which half a country had no saying and ratified by the states with half a country under occupation.

Great, thanks, there was a Constitutional Amendment passed. The Southern States that ratified that amendment said that the 13th Amendment should not be construed to provide freed slaves with voting rights, so another Constitutional Amendment had to be passed for that, too. The Supreme Court didn't just proclaim it so. And when women wanted the right to vote, the Supreme Court didn't rule that women have an intrinsic right to vote and simply grant them freedom, but the States passed an Amendment for that. And then...

"The Southern States that ratified that amendment said that the 13th Amendment should not be construed to provide freed slaves with voting rights, so another Constitutional Amendment had to be passed for that, too."
Yes, another amendment was passed by an Union-only Congress and ratified by puppet governments in the former rebel states. Yet, you may recall that the rebel states had denied that as a matter of principle the federal government could outlaw slavery. States rights, you know. So self-insterested legalism is not exactly new and it is not exactly convincing. By the way, the same was said about the Civil Rights Act. So let's be honest here, the road which leads to ruling gay marriage unconstitutional is the same one which leads back to Jim Crow.
"And when women wanted the right to vote, the Supreme Court didn’t rule that women have an intrinsic right to vote and simply grant them freedom, but the States passed an Amendment for that."
They also passed an amendment prohibiting liquors and another one legalizing them. Should the Constitution have being amended to banish marijuana and crack?

The Civil Rights Act was an act of Congress governing interstate commerce. This is a ruling that invented a right out of nowhere that the people democratically decided did not exist. There is no analogy between your Twitter hash-tag and the people at Selma. There is also no analogy between you and Radical Republicans of the post-war era, who, despite all your protestations, believed that the Constitution can only change by AMENDMENT. You invented a right out of thin air. The Radical Republicans dealt with people like this: they called themselves Secessionists, who also invented a right out of thin air. Radical Republicans didn't like those people very much.

There is also no analogy between you and Radical Republicans of the post-war era, who, despite all your protestations, believed that the Constitution can only change by AMENDMENT.” Again, the amendments regarding the rights of former slaves were NOT passed by congressmen from the Confederation states and they were ratified by the military occupation governments as a condition for giving the Southern states their (Constitutional right to a) congressional representation back. Exactly what it has to do with American normal process is anyone’s guess. Do you think Obama should invade Texas? “The Civil Rights Act was an act of Congress governing interstate commerce.” No, it wasn’t, and you know as well as I do that the Civil Rights Act (not to mention the Voting Rights Act) had precious little (from Title I on) to do with anything the framers (or anyone who knows what “interstate” and “commerce” mean) would ever have recognized as “interstate commerce”. By the way, if the states’ power to prevent people from voting because of sex or color could only be curtailed by constitutional amendment (in the the second case, coupled with a military occupation which made all the representative aspect a sham), then curtailing their powers to impose qualifications on voters or discriminate in public places clearly demanded one amendment. It is not the first time the Constitution is changed from what it meant before without the arduous amendment proccess, it may be the first time it came to bother you. I am sure Barry Goldwater would have much to say about it (he opposed the federal intrusion into states’ affairs and into private affairs).

Burn the Constitution

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2011/03/burn-the-constitution/

"There is also no analogy between you and Radical Republicans of the post-war era, who, despite all your protestations, believed that the Constitution can only change by AMENDMENT."
Again, the amendments regarding the rights of former slaves were NOT passed by congressmen from the Confederation states and they were ratified by the military occupation governments as a condition for giving the Southern states their (Constitutional right to a) congressional representation back. Exactly what it has to do with American normal process is anyone's guess. Do you think Obama should invade Texas?
"The Civil Rights Act was an act of Congress governing interstate commerce."
No, it wasn't, and you know as well as I do that the Civil Rights Act (not to mention the Voting Rights Act) had precious little (from Title I on) to do with anything the framers (or anyone who knows what "interstate" and "commerce" mean) would ever have recognized as "interstate commerce". By the way, if the states' power to prevent people from voting because of sex or color could only be curtailed by constitutional amendment (in the the second case, coupled with a military occupation which made all the representative aspect a sham), then curtailing their powers to impose qualifications on voters or discriminate in public places clearly demanded one amendment. It is not the first time the Constitution is changed from what it meant before without the arduous amendment proccess, it may be the first time it came to bother you. I am sure Barry Goldwater would have much to say about it (he opposed the federal intrusion into states' affairs and into private affairs).

So this is good because: 1) Puppies and 2) Urop. Did I get the just of your commentary right?

That's pretty much it.

I would have expected TC to at least show some concern for issues of democratic process and constitutional interpretation.

Several states have physician-assisted suicide. I hope that expands. Intractable pain is no fun, even for a short time. Appropriate protections are built into these statutes.

The War on Drugs has been a disaster. Shifting to a no-penalty medical-treatment structure would have lots of positive ancillary effects, such as keeping young black men out of jail.

Prison reform. The Supreme Court needs to rule on extended solitary confinement as a start. But the US sentencing structure is crazy. Way too long.

Personally, I'd like the Fourth Amendment back.

Good list. Here are other suggestions:

Decriminalize prostitution.
Reduce the age of consent.
Allow children to "divorce" their parents and vice versa.
Voting rights for kids.
Animal liberation.

Overturn the National Firearms Act.

Tyler has gone Anthony Kennedy on us i.e., originally a smart, rational guy who eventually gives in to mood affiliation. Scalia and Roberts's dissents were blistering and though I am not a conservative, aptly illustrate the absurdity of wrecking the Constitution for dubious philosophical or political reasons (i.e., gay marriage would have won by legitimately democratic means anyway)

he's not making legal analysis. you can be happy with the result and find the legal explanations dubious all the same. obviously this extends to the healthcare case from yesterday: the finding was objectively a better result than the alternative, though the legal rationale is problematic. there's nothing inconsistent about that at all.

So in a nutshell, the Supreme Court is to make value judgements based on what's "best" rather than employ legal rationale?

America seems to be lurching rather quickly toward banana republic status: the IRS and EPA are politicized, Nixonian destruction of evidence commonplace and largely accepted, the sec of state operates her position as a private business, the border removed to admit new voters, debt is inhaled like air and politics has become a nauseating miasma of fear and paranoia.

neither tyler nor i are making that claim.

it's ok to be relieved that the supreme court ruled the way it did yesterday, even if you found the legal arguments poor. in my view, obamacare is a combination of some bad things and some good things that was probably, as a whole, somewhat better than previous status quo and much worse than ideal reform. if King had been decided otherwise, it would almost certainly have made the situation worse. this is a valid thing to believe, and it has nothing to do with the legal arguments.

it is ok to be happy for gay marriage while also being worried about the legal precedent. it's ok to believe that the gains outweigh the legal costs. none of these beliefs mean you want the SC to start using value judgments instead of legal rationale.

I could have a few drinks and mow down an old lady on the drive home. If the police know me to be a good guy and let it pass, I will be relieved that though they made a mockery of the law it turned out okay for me.

You're burning down your house to get warm. It's banana republic reasoning.

No reason for a court to pay attention to legal reasoning! It's all about results!

Some people have the quaint idea that the law is what should matter to judges.

Nixonian destruction of evidence commonplace

IIRC, Nixon (or Rose Mary Woods) erased about 20 minutes of one conversation. L. Patrick Gray threw away one file. And John Dean and Fred Fielding shredded a couple of notebooks. Other than Gray and that one file, there was no known cross communication between parties regarding any of this.

"America seems to be lurching rather quickly toward banana republic status."

Yes! Because nothing says "banana republic" like health insurance and freedom to marry who you want.

Except maybe a label that says "Banana Republic." Or a bunch of guys riding around in jeeps with mirrored sunglasses and automatic weapons. Or banana exports as the basis of the economy. Or ...

I agree with marrying who you want, but it is the process that makes it a legitimate decision.

btw, We've had health insurance for decades.

Argentina, baby. No obvious limit to where Kennedy's opinion leads. You can be in favor of gay marriage without being in favor of the nonsense Kennedy spouted. I don't think Tyler is going to like some of the "liberties" that lie in our future. I fear that some of those yet-to-be revealed "liberties" are going to be decidedly unliberal, depending upon who those five justices are. Speech codes, for instance, free the mind from the restrictions imposed by unwelcome thoughts.

So in a nutshell, the Supreme Court is to make value judgements based on what’s “best” rather than employ legal rationale?

Seems like almost everyone thinks so.

the IRS and EPA are politicized, Nixonian destruction of evidence commonplace and largely accepted, the sec of state operates her position as a private business, the border removed to admit new voters, debt is inhaled like air

Liberals don't disagree, but they're not bothered by these things, and spend their time thinking about confederate flags and transgender rights etc.

I got the sense, reading the opinion and the dissents, that the dissenters didn't spend much time on the consequences of permitting states to not recognize same-sex marriages performed in jurisdictions where they may be legally performed.

Not their job. The question at hand is whether a constitutional provision adopted in 1868 to extend some rights to freed slaves requires county clerks to issue marriage licenses to pairs of dudes (or sisters and brothers or whatever). To ask the question is to answer it (or it's to answer it in a public forum not suffused with humbug).

As for freedoms I'd like to see next, I think Bernie Sanders and CPUSA have a good list: freedom to have a guaranteed job, freedom to have a guaranteed free education, freedom from capitalism, freedom to have a guaranteed iPhone 6...and a few other freedoms I'll invent as time goes by. I believe all these freedoms meet the criteria of this particular "freedom" too. Puppies and Urop.

I have never been opposed to gay marriage. I am not opposed to anything an adult couple (or group) consensually agrees to in their own home (I suppose there might be some caveats), but I do feel that we have not really examined the ECONOMIC impacts of this. Much of the US tax system, social security and other safety net provisions were developed with the idea that a "family" was a working spouse (usually male) a non-working spouse (usually female) and children. The non-working spouse took care of the children and other household duties. Taxes were based on categories like "married, filing jointly". married filing separately", "single", "head of household" whatever -- all based on family status. Social Security provides for a non-working spouse such that a married couple with a non-working spouse gets 150% of what a single working person would. A non-working spouse 15 years younger than the other spouse could get "survivor benefits" for a long time. I am no expert on SS and maybe I am wrong, but it seems to me we are opening another chapter of SS and other benefits. Most employers that offer health insurance insure "families" -- such that the benefits for couples with a non-working spouse are greater than would be provided to a single person (admittedly, some agreements require "families" to pay a bigger portion of the benefits). Now that any two people can get "married", it may give them economic benefits in addition to emotional ones. I'm thinking that at some point, we have to get rid of all references to marriage status in our tax and social safety net system and focus exclusively on individuals (and children).

First, any change that impacts something like 2-4% of the population simply isn't capable of causing the sort of economic impacts you appear to be worrying about. Second, the family structure you describe (on working spouse, one non-working, children) has been in notable minority of family structures for the last forty years. There have certainly been large economic impacts to this, but they are pretty much baked into our institutions at this point.

I agree that we are talking about such a small percentage of the population that it's unlikely to cause much of a significant impact.

2-4%? Die from your own hatred, cis scum. Every enlightened person knows at least 10% of the population is LGBTQIA+.

I hope you are being sarcastic, but all recent studies put it at about 1.6%.

Yes, these changes in family structure have been going on for a long time. I'm not saying the change in same-sex marriage is the only impetus, just one more that should make us look at this.

Not being killed, arrested or imprisoned for no real crime seems the obvious candidate for next freedom to be realized in the U.S. A consensus seems to be building. The SCOTUS may help on the margins but I suspect most of the work will need to happen in legislatures and by referenda.

Pundits today have noted the unusual speed with which gay marriage progressed from fantasy to reality. We didn't have to wait for old voters to die. Old voters can't die fast enough, IMO.

The SC may rule that a dog's tail is a leg. But, the mongrel still has only four legs. Same same with this gay marriage bullshit.

You people are consistent. You know little about life, morals, and economics. It seems the only evils you recognize are hunger, illness and death.

All my (last week) labs came back normal. I'm not dying any time soon.

>All my (last week) labs came back normal. I’m not dying any time soon.

Your ideological allies are. Soon you, like the dinosaurs, will be a historical oddity.

Please check the results again.

Can we preserve liberal use of tasers?

tasers on liberals?

Liberals using tasers, duh.

Never Bring a Knife to a Gun Fight

Read more: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NeverBringAKnifeToAGunFight#ixzz3eHtbxNOT

Old voters can’t die fast enough, IMO.

Thanks Brandon. I can feel the love.

we eagerly await your demise. please hurry up.

What's next on the liberty front? In the short run maybe amnesty for the undocumented and legalizing marijuana. In the long run, well, Europe legalized polygamy about ten years after gay marriage didn't they?

I don't think they did. A quick google search says no.

Yet the case for polygamy is far stronger than the case for gay marriage, as practically everyone recognizes that polygamy IS marriage, even though it's a type of marriage that's prohibited in may countries.

This assumes the case is based on what "everyone" thinks, rather than the human right to equal treatment under the law.

How about freedom of speech for those who work for cigarette, alcohol and pharma companies.

Polygamy, incest, bestiality.

sure (I know a fair number of absolutely boring poly couples), fine (old order Amish and Mennonites have been intermarrying for centuries now), and once you can establish consent I don't have a problem with bestiality either. I mean, we already eat animals. none of this picks my pocket or breaks my leg.

Behold, the ubermensh! He just don't give a f---.

a maximalist approach to civil liberties, which i obviously support, indeed can be summed up as 'i don't give a fuck'. none of those choices cause me, or society at large, even the slightest bit of harm.

If that's your perspective, you should be in favor of all out abolition of family law. It's nothing but the a massive infringement on true freedom of contract. Expanding it to gays expands govt reach over private interaction.

Your perspective is myopic and naive libertarianism. People need to read a little more and go the classical liberal route. Read Hayek on the common law. You're taking the easy way out of actually thinking, and a la Bryan Caplan myth of the rational voter you're well compensated in public approbation for your enlightened views.

You're right, you don't give a f*** and your lack of meaningful insight is the direct consequence.

Extending legal equality (and more specifically the right to redress a lack of equality in courts) in the workplace, in housing and in applying for credit to LGBT citizens seems like the next logical step(s). There are already well-established frameworks and institutions in all of these areas for minorities and women and the elderly. No new infrastructure would be needed (maybe a few more employees in each state). All that would really be required (like the marriage reform) is a piece of legislation or a court decision.

Equality being code word for: give me preferential treatment or I'll sue you a**.

Freedom from income tax, freedom from paying into the ridiculously bankrupt social security system, freedom to use a personal genetic test without a doctor's approval, freedom from being discriminated against if you are a white male and want a gov't contract or enrollment at college. This is a good start. And when the prisoners are released like other commenters are advocating, I want the freedom to own a gun back.

I hope you'll be ok as a persecuted, gun toting white male who pays taxes and has lots of genes to test. It really is tough out there.

Yes. Caucasian males have it the WORST.

Where is the MLK for white people?

Caucasian males have it the worst, but only in countries they run (e.g., Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan)

nothing brings out the worst in the commentariat here faster than progress for people who aren't straight white males. I for one am popping champagne today.

Hopefully the SC will one day discover a right for all people without means to drink champagne.

you caught me, it was actually a reasonably priced pet nat. I fibbed. and I too would love something for the working class. perhaps the right to a guaranteed income.

Nothing brings out the worst in the commentariat here than a newly legally protected group of rent-seekers standing on an unconstitutional and nonsensical Supreme Court decision.

you're right, none of this ever had anything to do with basic recognition of a fundamental human relationship. it was all rent-seekers whose CPAs clued them in to a real sweet hustle. come on.

I hate this whole debate on both sides. The debate shouldn't be whether gays have the right to marry, but whether the government has any place in marriage licensing at all. It's *only* been used to discriminate.

I also think that for some (many?), this isn't about love or marriage itself, but about extending entitlements and legal benefits for married couples. It seems to me that such views can be framed as in favor of discriminating against non-married people.

No, no, no! This is Progressive government finally standing up to the white, cisheteronormative males, who own all the wealth, and were using their power to hold down oppressed groups which statistically vote Democrat!

No, no, no! Rights for me, not you.

Doesnt it take real maturity to understand that if the process was wrong its not a real victory, even if you like the result? Imagine a Supreme Court legislating in ways you really disapproved of. Imagine states rights disappearing entirely.

Pff! So what if SCOTUS made a decision on the basis of how cute puppies are? Do you not think puppies are cute? Hence...

I am surprised by how much more intense the reaction has been to the gay marriage decision than the Obamacare decision. Roberts may have miscalculated when he decided that there would be too much political blowback to use pure legal reasoning in the Obamacare decision. If the Court had overturned Obamacare the first time (when Roberts changed the fine to a tax), the political blowback might very well have been overwhelming. This time, though, not necessarily. Not only has the gay marriage decision caused so much elation, the Obamacare case this time was basically a slam dunk. Not only was the plain text of the law clear, there was a rational basis for it was well --- the incentive for states to establish exchanges, as Obamacare architect Gruber explained on those YouTube videos. It's puzzling how timid Roberts is. Isn't the point of a lifetime appointment so that judges will feel free to make legally sound decisions without worrying so much about the political environment?

In the age of NSA records of all of your electronic communicatons...?

Sorry, but no one intended the destruction of health care markets - despite one offhand comment by a non-legislator several years later. That all the states and vast armies of insurance workers and bureaucrats involved in implementing the law never once raised this issue and it was nowhere on the national consciousness until the plaintiff attorneys concocted their schemes shows the absurdity of the argument. And Roberts succinctly nailed it in the opening of his opinion - the intent of the government to create a functioning health insurance exchange was obvious. To read the law to destroy functioning health insurance exchanges is absurd. And it is a well settled maxim that the law should not be interpreted in a way to lead to an absurd result.
The only puzzling thing is how some folks deny all other evidence except that which would lead to the absurd result.

The next obvious extension of equality is for singles and the polyamorous and to be recognized as the equals of couples.

The best way to do this is to abolition of government recognition and discrimination based on claims of "marriage." The fairness of this is obvious, and it has the added bonus of the State not intruding on a traditionally religious realm. It can easily be defended as a requirement of separation of church and state.

The abolition of state marriage appears to be consistent with Kennedy's opinion. The majority found a right to equality before the state irrespective of a couple's gender pairing, more than a right to marriage. For instance, same-sex couples of first cousins are presumably still not allowed to marry in most states.

I don't think that you will find support on this for the left. After all, the regulations of marriage are there to restrain unbridled marriage.

No, you'd be surprised. Let's do this yesterday.

Libertarians don't want to live in a society, with customs, traditions, norms and a cultural identity. They want to live in a world where individual actions are not transgressions against norms, or immoral examples for others because there would be no norms and standards. In other words, they want to live in make believe fantasy land and they're trying to drag the rest of us along, with the help of the lunatic left who seem to have given up striving for economic fairness and taken up the task of advocating for every mentally deranged deviancy as long as they can point to potential victim behind it.

Libertarianism isn't the same thing as social liberalism.

There are libertarians who believe in free association and the right to establish societies with like minded individuals that share their preferred norms and standards, whatever they might be, including, for example, hanging homosexuals.

"Libertarians don’t want to live in a society, with customs, traditions, norms and a cultural identity. They want to live in a world where individual actions are not transgressions against norms, or immoral examples for others because there would be no norms and standards."
No, they just don't agree with your norms and standards (terms that can cover everything from slavery in the antebellum South to punishing people for eating ham in the Middle East) and just defend ones you don't agree with. There are standards and standards. And the only "standard" being disposed of here is, "I have a legal right to impose my religious prejudices on other people"

Libertarians don’t want to live in a society, with customs, traditions, norms and a cultural identity.

Or, more precisely, they prefer to live in a society where norms resemble those of suburban adolescents. The former director of the Buckeye Institute said his own departure from libertarianism began with the realization that the luminaries of the 'movement' were people with no children.

Friedman? Woods?

This is exciting and very positive news.

Again, libertarians are not your friends. Intellectual integrity? Out. Legal security? Out. Deliberative self-government? Out. An appreciation for the architecture of social relations? Out. There is nothing left but variations on a theme of Spicoli, which is very unbecoming and frankly silly being promoted by someone who is 53 years old.

What makes you think Cowen is a libertarian? He's clearly some sort of neo-liberal, regardless of what he calls himself.

"Neo-liberal"="non-Communist".

I'll set out a small bucket for you too, art.

This is sloppy thinking. Government granting a positive right is just cultural wrecking. Plenty of people chafe at prohibitions against sex in public. On the heels of this, government will be granting a right to polygamy. Sixty five year-old grandfathers are granted the right to use women's restrooms and eventually, there will be a right to bestialty. While we're at it, how about a right to sodomize your catamite on your front yard? The process should give everybody pause: an elite lawyer-class overruling democratic majorities simply because they can.

a bonus point awarded for 'catamite', try to work 'tribade' into your vocabulary too.

Do you clerk for Judge Selya?

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/02/04/the-linguistic-talents-of-judge-bruce-selya-2/

You forgot cats and dogs living together. Already a reality in some federal judicial circuits.

"Plenty of people chafe at prohibitions against sex in public."

Heh.

Well, in Europe they can use whichever restroom they want. World is still there ...

Why do we need men's and women's restrooms? Why not just...restrooms? Most restaurants in big cities these days have neutral poopers, seems to work fine. Re bestiality, no b/c an animal can't really consent. Polygamy? Ok, fine. Catamite, again, let's not be silly. Can't give meaningful consent.

Your bourgeoise so-called principles will be quite problematic, comrade. See you in ten years.

Your total lack of respect for anyone who isn't just like you and hesitance to give them rights is a bit...fascist? See you in the motherland, marching a line of strictly enforced cultural strictures, big boy.

Do animals consent to be slaughtered, or, really, to any aspect of their exploitation by humans? Pets included.

Perhaps this is the next frontier.

No. And maybe we shouldn't eat them?

Or house them. My dog never signed up for this.

By what right do we hold suzerainty over these poor creatures?

That's what I meant by the next frontier, tying back to Tyler's "Which freedom will be next?" theme.

Of course, there is a strong argument that, with respect to meat-eating, that people are BORN THAT WAY, and I feel less certainty navigating The Serenity Prayer around this issue than most people seem to.

Tyler, I believe you hold Ross Douthat in high esteem. What's your response to his column from this Sunday? (It's already up on the website). He makes a strong case against the greater good not being advanced by this ruling.

Ross knows his job. He must say what is expected of him.

You don't think its sincere? I have read nothing from him to lead me to believe that.

Douthat is the best analyst of the contemporary "culture war" type issues. He effectively understands and describes the stance of both sides.

Of course, the liberals mostly lack the ability to respond to Douthat - not because they are stupid (ie. many are not stupid) - but because they have lack self-awareness and have never attempted to articulate or defend what they fundamentally believe).

One big freedom yet to be won is that of the single person, who now alone will be excluded from the 1001+ benefits trough jammed cheek to jowl by the frenzied married feeders.

I am sympathetic to this argument. Maybe we should get rid of tax incentives for marriage related things. I am in favor of keeping them for people with kids, as that seems to be a pro-growth policy most think is useful.

Nothing says freedom or liberty like 5 unelected elderly Ivy League lawyers imposing their views on the country.

Religious freedom is certainly not "next" in line.

let me personally offer you condolences on the loss of your church's 501(c) exemption; the churches who won't marry "the whites to the coloreds" will be happy for the company I'm sure.

I don't think anyone is worried about the survival of th church. 300 Soviet divisions didn't stop them. Don't think a twitter hash tag will, either.

http://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/642228
You mean this guy is not sincere?

This is a great example of how Marginal Revolution has the worst comment section of all econ blogs.

Who has the best?
I apologize if I presume too much, but I bet it's one that is at least as crude as this one but agrees with you politically.

No way - Delong must have the worst comment section. He just hides that apparent reality behind mass deletions.

IMHO Megan McArdle over at Bloomberg View has the best comment section. Quality regulars, a few nutters, and the ever ellusive Blighter never cease to amaze.

It's pretty moot at this point, but why do smart people continually conflate "banning marriage" with "government not recognizing marriage"?
I know many progressives who often do this, but a surprising number of moderate make this mistake when it comes to gay marriage.

because a lack of recognition of a civil marriage is a de-facto ban? a fun play-pretend marriage is worth shit when your spouse is in the hospital and they won't let you in the room.

Apparently, that is a 'government benefit,' of the sort so many commenters seem to oppose as a just a way for same sex partners to exploit the system for their own gain.

Isn't that a benefit of a lowly civil union even?

it sure would have been, and there was a window of time where civil unions for all and church marriages for those who wanted god's blessing could have been a grand compromise. unfortunately the theocratic right grossly overplayed their hand, figured the public had their back, and refused to bargain. and now here we are.

If the Right had offered civil unions for all in 2004-2008, we likely wouldn't be having this discussion.

Instead they pushed through ballot initiatives that banned all legal recognition of same sex partnerships.

The only way for a same sex couple to win these rights was a complete repeal of those restrictions, leading to full marriage equality.

Maybe someone will get a conviction for cock fighting sent to the Supremes and people that don't like to gamble on the NFL will be able to legally surround the cock pit.

69. I vaguely recall from a law school hornbook (that's what they call those thick green hardcopies, not from the Incredible Hunk either you pervert) from the law school Crim Law class I attended before dropping out of law school, that in some southern state it's illegal to do cunnilingus as a 'crime against nature'.

Cunnilingus and fellatio, simultaneously, for you purists.

We'll see when the gays start hitting on your kids.

I'd prefer a girl to hit on my daughter over a teenage boy. Sorry, am I allowed to say that?

Who would you like her to marry? No cop out answers.

not to answer for jan but i'm going to go with 'i would like my child to marry whomever they love and loves them', which is hard enough to find in this world.

That's a cop out answer.

it's as silly a question as demanding to know whether I'd prefer my kid's partner have blue or brown eyes, or be left or right handed. there's no better answer I could give than a kind of half-bemused shrug.

"Which freedom will be next?"

Of the critically important to the society (like the kind that was ruled on today):
1. Polygamy
2. Incest
3. Zoophilia
4. Pedophilia

I haven't been able to take this debate seriously since "The Drew Carey Show" did its gay marriage storyline back around the turn of the century. It is notable that Drew and Craig Ferguson's characters got a civil union in order to qualify for government benefits. There is nothing new under the sun.

It's an odd definition of "liberty" that considers liberty being advanced when it is done on dubious constitutional grounds and when the liberty in question is a positive right to a host of entitlements. It's like saying that extending farm subsidies to a new group of farmers would be a great an advancement of liberty.

Do you come from the "liberty and entitlements for me, not you" school of thought? I think the farmer example is juuust a bit too far afield (pun) here, if you think about it for even like 1 minute.

I come from the school of thought which believes that liberty is promoted by cutting rather than expanding entitlements across the board so that fewer people get to gorge at the public trough (for cash, status, etc.).

If you think of this decision as a victory, consider
1) the tide has been moving in this direction, it seemed only a matter of time until legislatures made this moot
2) a decision cuts off the political/legislative process
3) If we believe that the political process not only reflects norms, but mediates the change, then that process has been cut off as well.

Was marriage really such a crime against humanity that we couldn't wait for legislatures to catch up? Will arbitrarily cutting off discussion and debate harden the position of the holdouts?

I guess Tyler is saying the ends justify the means.

We have a pretend President, pretend jurisprudence and pretend marriage. Let's all pretend to be whatever we want! That's the real frontier of liberty!

Let's cue some light mood affiliation music. Take it away, Professor Cowen!

It is a great day when corporations at last can get gay married. Thank you America!

A community 100% gay cannot exist into the future. Sure they can adopt or the women can conceive in a non traditional manner. The offspring however will be overwhelmingly hetero and there goes your gay community. I draw no implications from this but I'm sure there are some. Also our society has a strong basis in heterosexuality (of course) including economically. Gays get something of a free ride compared to most parental couples. For decades there was a "marriage tax." Is it is a coincidence that gay marriage suddenly became a big deal when the penalty was reduced? Couples with children invest very large amounts of time and money in their offspring. Is it fair that a group that largely contributes little to our futures can run around visiting all the latest trendy places and buying the latest wildly overpriced baubles while traditionals struggle with the financial and psychic issues of parenthood?

You are right, the "future" is a common good. Government must take over the "children-making business" to ensure we get production levels compatible with fast economic growth.

Sounds like you regret having kids..

Let's continue with the legalization of marijuana. That will provide quite a bit of liberty.

The good thing is young people are more wise on the subject than old farts like me. So it is only a matter of time.

6 Facts
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/04/14/6-facts-about-marijuana/

If you read the opinion of the majority, there is no underlying principle to stop marriage between any number or types of people. Now, I am perfectly fine with this, but I strongly suspect that most supporters of gay marriage aren't in my part of the libertarian camp.

Congratulations to all those who have gained the right to marry.

Personally, I would have found it more agreeable if the the struggle had succeeded through lobbying efforts in state legislatures and in Congress rather than in a sweeping judicial decision, but, hey, ok, congratulations anyway.

>Congratulations to all those who have gained the right to marry.

Sorry, but everyone has always had the right to marry.

Freedom is a word that is losing it's meaning. Homosexuals had the "constitutional right" to bugger each other since 2003. What this is about is the "freedom" to have special government recognition and status. That seems to be at odds with what "freedom" was traditionally understood to mean in Anglo-Saxon societies.

I made two posts about the matter on my blog:

https://jasonbayz.wordpress.com/2015/06/27/homosexual-marriage-why-my-generation-supports-it/

https://jasonbayz.wordpress.com/2015/06/27/homosexual-marriage-and-the-mainstream-right/

I think n-person civil unions would only work if they have the restriction that you can only grant a spousal visa to one non-citizen. Otherwise it would lead to cross-border arbitrage of one American marrying 50 Mexicans hoping to cross the border in exchange for who knows what.

Obviously you don't have children. Wait till they hit on the president's daughters.

The tears of red tribe assholes taste like unicorn milk. Your culture is dying. I'd suggest moving to Saudi Arabia.

OK, here are some new freedoms that are around the corner:

1) The Freedom for Republicans to prevent Obama from getting a new Supreme Court Justices, even if 8 of them die in a bus accident.

2) The Freedom for the Republican Presidential Nominee or his wife to start picking new drapes for the Lincoln Bedroom right after the convention.

3) The Freedom to for said Republican President to nominate the next 2-4 Supreme Court Justices to leave in the next 4 years (RBG, hello) with people along the lines of Ted Cruz.

4) The Freedom for Republicans to confirm such nominees irrespective of any attempts to a Democratic Filibuster or complaints about the dignity of the Senate.

5) The Freedom to overturn this 5-4 decision with another 5-4 decision, not to mention Roe V. Wade. I suspect Griswold vs. Connecticut may be in play at this point.

The Left has turned the Supreme Court into 9 Iron Thrones. And when you play the Game of Thrones, you win or you die.

>Which freedom will be next?

Hard to say. What we've gained here is the ability to define words however we wish, at the drop of a hat. With a power like that, it's difficult to predict what might come next.

Personally, as a male parent, I'm tired of being slapped with the label "father," when that is so obviously a second-rate term compared to "mother." And the only reason I get that term is because of my genitalia.

If I identify as the mother, I have the right to be called the mother. Don't tell me the Government has the right to make that decision for me.

Which freedom will be next?

Morphological freedom, mainly in the form of radical life extension and other biotechnological self- enhancement.

I consider aging to be a disease state, no different than any other such as cancer or CVD. However, some people at both ends of the political spectrum view aging as a natural process not to be construed as a disease state. These people sometimes oppose the development of effective anti-aging bio-medicine (such as SENS or stem-cell regeneration) because they think it will upset the "natural order", or is "playing god" or some other invented psychotic non-sense. Hence, the successful cure for aging is considered an enhancement rather than a mere therapy. Some of us seek to increase our cognitive ability as well as our immune systems.

All of these modifications of our bodies and mines fall under the rubric of "morphological freedom".

BTW, unlike marriage, morphological freedom is a purely negative right. As with any other negative right, opposition to it is completely illegitimate.

I don't understand why so many Americans revere their constitution. Hundreds of countries have a written constitution, and many of them are not very different from the American one. Why don't any other countries have the same reverence for their constitution?

Oh...The oddity of a society that bans heterosexual first cousin marriages but allows gay marriage :)

Comments for this post are closed