mcgilvra on December 18, 2007 at 2:05 PM

Yes. Another manifestation of fascism…or at least, fascistic tendencies.

But there’s no Hitler in sight…no SS…so it can’t be fascism…can it?

Ochlan on December 18, 2007 at 2:12 PM

Clearly we are on opposite sides of this fight…and I will continue to argue that you and your cohorts are tacitly endorsing an anti-liberty, unconstitutional, form of fascism.

You’ll continue to argue that I don’t know what I’m talking about, and that the mob can rule.

Let’s see how our respective fortunes play out over time.

Ochlan on December 18, 2007 at 2:10 PM

Considering my views are supported by various state constitutions which the people do in fact have the power to change through their representatives, I find yours to be the unconstitutional stance.

You want the constitution to say something that it doesn’t. You assume that any version of liberty that does not conform to your own standards is an incorrect one. Were you to take absolute power you would then impose these views on everyone else, since you seem to believe it isn’t really unconstitutional unless it disagrees with you.

That makes your position the fascist one, not mine.

BKennedy on December 18, 2007 at 2:20 PM

@ BKennedy on December 18, 2007 at 2:03 PM

Sure states can pass any laws they want. That doesnt mean that if taken to the supreme court that a gay marraige ban would stand up to the 14th amendment. Its a clear violation of equal protection under the law. Government cannot create a set of laws for a certain group of people and exclude others from that group. You would need a constitutional amendment to do what you are asking.

muyoso on December 18, 2007 at 2:28 PM

You would need a constitutional amendment to do what you are asking

Good point. We can pass any number of amendments to pave the way for all manner of fascistic law.

We’ll have to rename the country though….coz it certainly won’t be America any more.

Ochlan on December 18, 2007 at 2:32 PM

Sure states can pass any laws they want. That doesnt mean that if taken to the supreme court that a gay marraige ban would stand up to the 14th amendment. Its a clear violation of equal protection under the law. Government cannot create a set of laws for a certain group of people and exclude others from that group. You would need a constitutional amendment to do what you are asking.

muyoso on December 18, 2007 at 2:28 PM

If we used your logic then a blind person would be able to get a drivers license. Driving is not a right. It is a privilege.

Marriage is not a right and therefore not protected under the law of equal protection.

msipes on December 18, 2007 at 2:39 PM

75% of all African Americans in jail today were raised in a single family home with no father. That is a profound statistical statement!
msipes on December 18, 2007 at 2:32 PM

So how is the existence of current regulations working out?
I’ve said before, and I have no statistics to back it up, that the high rates of single parent household is because government steps in to take the place of the parents.

sweeper on December 18, 2007 at 2:42 PM

I’ve said before, and I have no statistics to back it up, that the high rates of single parent household is because government steps in to take the place of the parents.

sweeper on December 18, 2007 at 2:42 PM

I don’t think pointing to sanctioning marriage as a pre-cursor to single parent households is valid.

I would argue that it has more to do with immorality (irresponsible parents, etc) & the government handouts that exist (welfare, etc).

msipes on December 18, 2007 at 2:44 PM

Can we at least agree to first stop handing out government benefits?

sweeper on December 18, 2007 at 2:47 PM

Sure, but I’d much rather start with Medicare, Social Security, and other major entitlements.

BKennedy on December 18, 2007 at 2:51 PM

Without stable marriages, issue arise at a higher rate such as crime, poverty, alcoholism, drug addiction, and other social problems.

With the exception of investigation of crimes and prosecution of criminals, I don’t think any of the above is the government’s business. Poverty, alcoholism, drug addiction, etc are rightly described (as you did) as “social problems.” These are issues for churches and private charity to tackle.

The optimum family situation is between a man and woman raising a child.

I don’t disagree. I just don’t think the government has any business promoting one form of family life over another. This is the sort of idea that results in children being removed from their parents’ custody because the parents won’t medicate them the way people think they should, or won’t educate them the way people think they should, or because they don’t discipline them in a way that people think they should. These aren’t hypothetical slippery slope situations — these are real things that have happened. If you give them an opening, they’ll rip it wide open. I’m far more concerned about the palpable erosion of individual liberties and family privacy than about general trends that may be due to non-nuclear family arrangements. I think that’s the price you pay for liberty and privacy.

Mark Jaquith on December 18, 2007 at 3:05 PM

Sure, but I’d much rather start with Medicare, Social Security, and other major entitlements.

BKennedy on December 18, 2007 at 2:51 PM

Totally agree!

msipes on December 18, 2007 at 3:21 PM

Homosexuals aren’t excluded from getting married…they just can’t get married to each other.

If the state told you you were free to marry but only within your race, that would be a problem. It was a legal problem in the United States until the Supreme Court struck down state laws in 1963.

dedalus on December 18, 2007 at 3:26 PM

If the state told you you were free to marry but only within your race, that would be a problem. It was a legal problem in the United States until the Supreme Court struck down state laws in 1963.

dedalus on December 18, 2007 at 3:26 PM

Don’t even try to compare race with sexual preference. The color of your skin you can’t choose… Who you bed with you can.

msipes on December 18, 2007 at 3:28 PM

So our Pilgrim Fathers were fascists?

The Ugly American on December 18, 2007 at 4:19 PM

Race has no deciding factor in the stability or health of raising a family.

There is a lot of literature that disputes that, much of it now regarded as antiquated, unscientific and racist. However, even today a Nobel laureate and discoverer of DNA can make a claim for race and IQ being linked.

My point is that there have always been people who believe interracial marriage to be wrong. A hundred years ago, in some states it was a majority of the people. Were they right to believe that it was traditional and better for society if the races didn’t intermarry?

dedalus on December 18, 2007 at 4:36 PM

SCOTUS ruled in ‘Baker v Nelson’ (1972) that state laws restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples do not violate the federal Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection and due process of law.

Thanks. Some people disagreed with Plessy, some with Griswold, some with Roe.

I guess I disagree with Baker. Society has changed a lot in the last 35 years and the court decided Lawrence differently than Bowers.

dedalus on December 18, 2007 at 5:38 PM

What bothers me about this clip is the way that Ron Paul first said he, “Hadn’t thought about it completely,” and then proceeded to blunder on and accuse Huckabee of trying to imply he’s the only Christian running.

Paul clearly didn’t have a clue what he was talking about, but opined anyway.

What an embarrassing candidate Paul is.

JannyMae on December 18, 2007 at 6:07 PM

On this issue, I don’t think “society” has changed as much as you imagine. In addition to federal statute (Defense of Marriage Act), 26 states have enacted constitutional amendments defining marriage as between a man and a woman, and another 20 states have enacted statutory DOMAs.

We probably agree that society has changed a lot with regard to the visibility and acceptance of homosexuals since 1971. We might disagree on whether that is a good thing.

I agree with your point that the majority of Americans are against gay marriage and that DOMA-like legislation usually passes with support of the people.

I think that two people who want to enter into a lifelong commitment with each other is not only positive for society but is fundamental to the notion of liberty. Marriage is important to me, and it was legally easy since my attraction as a guy was always toward women. I’d hate to consider a world where my attraction to women was considered unnatural and the government told me I could only marry a guy.

I polling, opposition to gay marriage decreases with age. My guess is that domestic partnerships will become common over the next decade and gradually, it will become less of an issue. It would be better for the voters to handle than the courts.

dedalus on December 18, 2007 at 6:21 PM

Unless you are gay. Then it is superior to the alternative.

dedalus on December 18, 2007 at 3:21 PM

No, then its just acting on animal impulses, impulses more likely to cause you to contract AIDS and venereal diseases.

Gay marriage is always inferior to heterosexual marriage on a societal level. The former brings nothing but perversion and disease, the latter brings life.

BKennedy on December 18, 2007 at 6:45 PM

No, then its just acting on animal impulses, impulses more likely to cause you to contract AIDS and venereal diseases.

A lot of hetero attraction is based on hormonal or “animal” attraction. Teenagers, especially, know more about sexual desire than about love and commitment–I know I did. The existence of STD’s doesn’t diminish the fact that people find value in heterosexual relations.

Perhaps gay marriage is inferior, but it is the only marriage option available if you are gay. Perhaps some consider morbidly obese people disgusting and their sex lives nauseating, that’s no reason for the physically fit to limit the rights of the disgustingly fat.

A limited government shouldn’t prevent someone from marrying who they want. Their choice to marry doesn’t take away a right from someone else. Let religious organizations confer their blessings, or not, on a couple. The government should pave the roads, deliver the mail and let individuals live their lives.

dedalus on December 18, 2007 at 7:26 PM

Update: Bryan says this will “hurt” Huck about as much as Hitchens’s latest tirade will.

Is anyone really so stupid as to vote for this schmuck just to spite Hitchens or Paul?

Tzetzes on December 18, 2007 at 8:34 PM

Ron Paul is insane. Absolutely insane. The only people more insane are the ronulans.

If you think that Pat Robertson will run the country if anyone but PAUL!! is elected…..you might be a ronulan.

If you believe that 9/11 MIGHT have been an inside job….you might be a ronulan.

If you think that the jihadis are only mad cuz of our “foreign policy”..you might be a ronulan.

If you think that every person has the right to do ANY-F’ing -thing they want….you might be a ronulan.

If you think that Ron Paul is the messiah…………well….you’re just “bleeped”.

Ron Paul is a dangerous little freak and he has NO IDEA what a global economy is. Just HOW is Ronulan Sr. going to put the USA on top of the world as an exporter of goods and services???? Answer that you ronulans.

If the USA backs out of ALL inter-continental issues, how does the USA PROTECT ITSELF??? Ronulans……………answer please.

AND NOW!!! The Cross will bring America to facism?? Not those folks that flew those planes into those buildings. Nope! Just me and my Bible. I am the end of the world.

“BLEEP” Ron Paul and all of you that support him. He is nuts and so are ALL OF YOU. NUTS!

Enjoy your delusions.

Talon on December 18, 2007 at 9:10 PM

I’m sure to post this a few more times, but.. yes.

And now we return you to your facism-democracy semantic terminology debate..

Reaps on December 18, 2007 at 9:44 PM

OOOOOPS!!

Did I mention that Ron Paul is insane????

And did I mention that ALL of his FOLLOWERS are insane as well???

I N S A N E.

I typed slow so you ronulans could understand.

Talon on December 18, 2007 at 9:55 PM

Bizarre Ron spews without thinking.

profitsbeard on December 19, 2007 at 11:09 PM