Epic: Ann Coulter and John Stossel duke it out

posted at 12:41 pm on February 22, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

Outspoken firebrand conservative Ann Coulter versus outspoken firebrand libertarian John Stossel? …I love it. It’s like the two dueling voices of my innermost moral-political psyche having it out with verbal fisticuffs in an ideological boxing match.

My instincts tend to lean pretty libertarian on a lot of things (with a huge, resounding exception when it comes to foreign policy and security issues), and I agree with the Stossel camp that no way is it the federal government’s business to try to engineer society in any shape, manner, or form beyond enforcing contracts and common defense — but as Ann Coulter points out, however, our huge ever-burgeoning bureaucracy and welfare state mean that sometimes that simply and unfortunately is not the reality of the world in which we all live.

Anyhow, I’m going to let what I know are the many hardcore libertarians and staunch conservatives in the audience have fun with this one in the comments, but I think these are fantastic debates to have while we’re all talking anyway about all of the “soul searching” the Republican party needs to do, and the many areas in which conservatives and libertarians can mesh their ideas.

“We’re living in a country that is 70-percent socialist, the government takes 60 percent of your money. They are taking care of your health care, of your pensions. They’re telling you who you can hire, what the regulations will be. And you want to suck up to your little liberal friends and say, ‘Oh, but we want to legalize pot.’ You know, if you’re a little more manly you would tell them what your position on employment discrimination is. How about that? But it’s always ‘We want to legalize pot.’”

Stossel then asked: “Why can’t gays get married?” …

“This is another one where you’re just sucking up to liberals when there are big fights,” Coulter explained.

“No, we believe the individual should be left alone,” Stossel shot back. …

“First of all, for alleged individualists, you’re very mob-like,” Coulter snarked. “Second of all, it is my business because we are living in a welfare state … Right now, I have to pay for, it turns out, coming down the pike, your health care. I have to pay for your unemployment when you can’t hold a job. I have to pay for your food, for your housing. Yeah, it’s my business!”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

301

Bmore on February 22, 2013 at 6:00 PM

The repubs always find a way to argue against decreasing governmemnt, just like their dem counterpart. Coulter has been a big government repub cheerleader for years. She practically gives Hannity lap dances to get on his show.

Panther on February 22, 2013 at 6:01 PM

The repubs always find a way to argue against decreasing governmemnt, just like their dem counterpart. Coulter has been a big government repub cheerleader for years. She practically gives Hannity lap dances to get on his show.

Panther on February 22, 2013 at 6:01 PM

You people are a joke. You want to expand government’s role in defining marriage, impose the same government fiat on the population, demand pot while others pay the bill, and call that advocating reduced government?

sharrukin on February 22, 2013 at 6:05 PM

The gays having a little sex doesn’t have the possibility of producing a baby with a 3rd arm out sticking out of it’s back like incest does. Not quite the same argument.

deuce on February 22, 2013 at 5:46 PM

Both Libertarians and Liberals try to make social policy based on mere technicalities like that. But we don’t live our lives like technicians.

On what basis do we make value judgements then?

Cleombrotus on February 22, 2013 at 6:08 PM

Sorry Ann

I just don’t think that we can find a larger pussy than that giant donut gobbling, Obama seat sniffing, mega vagina Chris “Krispy Kreme” Christie that you tried to talk us into liking.

Well unless it is your dream candidate failure Mitt “Mom Jeans Camel-Toe” Romney who didn’t even have the balls to attack Obama on Benghazi in their last debate.

She represents why we keep losing – Mark Levin nails it.

Mark Levin Reads The Most Important Political Piece Of Our Lifetime

conservativeBC on February 22, 2013 at 6:08 PM

Birth control.

sharrukin on February 22, 2013 at 5:54 PM

I’ve been saying that all along, start handing that stuff out. I wonder what brought about the banning of incest, was it a morality issue, health issue, or just it being gross? If government isn’t very good at dictating morality I’d have to think its one of the last two.

deuce on February 22, 2013 at 6:13 PM

The young fellow’s points were both great:

- she does look fantastic, and
- we would all be much better off if the government was not involved in marriage for straight people or for gay people.

Jaibones on February 22, 2013 at 6:14 PM

You people are a joke. You want to expand government’s role in defining marriage, impose the same government fiat on the population, demand pot while others pay the bill, and call that advocating reduced government?

sharrukin on February 22, 2013 at 6:05 PM

What on earth are you talking about? The government already has an expansive role in defining legal marriage. Expanding the legal definition is NOT an expansion of its role. It just means it can prevent less people from qualifying under marriage-related laws. And who said that you have to pay for someone else’s pot?

NorthernCross on February 22, 2013 at 6:15 PM

Cleombrotus on February 22, 2013 at 6:08 PM

Agreed. Something weirdly excitable and yet clinical about libertarianism. Very offputting.

rrpjr on February 22, 2013 at 6:16 PM

. I wonder what brought about the banning of incest, was it a morality issue, health issue…

deuce on February 22, 2013 at 6:13 PM

The connection between the two is inescapable. A moral life is almost always a healthier life, physically, emotionally, and psychologically.

Our forefathers understood this.

Cleombrotus on February 22, 2013 at 6:16 PM

Both Libertarians and Liberals try to make social policy based on mere technicalities like that. But we don’t live our lives like technicians.

On what basis do we make value judgements then?

Cleombrotus on February 22, 2013 at 6:08 PM

Your rights go up to the point where you start impacting somebody else’s rights. As long as you aren’t impacting anybody else (as in possibly impacting a new born’s health for it’s entire life) get on and do what you wanna do, who am I to tell you otherwise. I don’t see that as a technicality, I see it as a good benchmark for a lot of questions on where we should legislate people and where we shouldn’t.

You are right about the technician part though, I’m often called out for being too black/white with no account for the grey area.

deuce on February 22, 2013 at 6:18 PM

If government isn’t very good at dictating morality I’d have to think its one of the last two.

deuce on February 22, 2013 at 6:13 PM

And yet you want the government to ban incestuous marriage.

sharrukin on February 22, 2013 at 6:20 PM

rrpjr on February 22, 2013 at 6:16 PM

I’ve always thought they were just trying to have their cake and eat it too.

Convince themselves that they’re not libertines but still have no functional restraint on whatever they decide they want to do.

Cleombrotus on February 22, 2013 at 6:21 PM

And who said that you have to pay for someone else’s pot?

NorthernCross on February 22, 2013 at 6:15 PM

Everyone has to pay for the consequences of your drug use. Welfare because you can’t hold a job, rehab, health benefits, etc.

sharrukin on February 22, 2013 at 6:21 PM

Cleombrotus on February 22, 2013 at 6:21 PM

Exactly. They want to claim the rationality of Conservatism without the discipline or responsibility.

kingsjester on February 22, 2013 at 6:23 PM

deuce on February 22, 2013 at 6:18 PM

We do not operate in a vacuum. What you call a completely neutral activity likely will have far reaching consequences which I call an impact.

astonerii on February 22, 2013 at 6:24 PM

Everyone has to pay for the consequences of your drug use. Welfare because you can’t hold a job, rehab, health benefits, etc.

sharrukin on February 22, 2013 at 6:21 PM

Well, we could just leave the tomato picking jobs to the pot smokers. Be a good replacement for the illegal alien I suspect.

astonerii on February 22, 2013 at 6:25 PM

Your rights go up to the point where you start impacting somebody else’s rights. As long as you aren’t impacting anybody else (as in possibly impacting a new born’s health for it’s entire life) get on and do what you wanna do, who am I to tell you otherwise. I don’t see that as a technicality, I see it as a good benchmark for a lot of questions on where we should legislate people and where we shouldn’t.

You are right about the technician part though, I’m often called out for being too black/white with no account for the grey area.

deuce on February 22, 2013 at 6:18 PM

You know, I actually agree with you here, deuce. The problem is, however, that we no longer, as a society, agree on just what “impacting anybody else” means – you know? And that comes about from having differing perspectives on reality and an understanding of just what is embodied in “being human”. We’ve incorporated a smorgasbord of ideas into our understanding without really questioning their sources or their validity.

Cleombrotus on February 22, 2013 at 6:25 PM

kingsjester on February 22, 2013 at 6:23 PM

Agreed. Scripture’s not too kind to such, as you well know. Spit you out of my mouth, and all that.

Cleombrotus on February 22, 2013 at 6:27 PM

Everyone has to pay for the consequences of your drug use. Welfare because you can’t hold a job, rehab, health benefits, etc.

sharrukin on February 22, 2013 at 6:21 PM

We need a better reason to ban something than the fact that our government has too many entitlements. If that were a good enough reason, then we’d outlaw alcoholism nationwide.

NorthernCross on February 22, 2013 at 6:27 PM

That was a very spirited debate..Ann did a very good job..:)

Dire Straits on February 22, 2013 at 6:29 PM

So, as someone who has never been able to figure out if I am libertarian or conservative explain to me the following:

How does allowing for gay marraige NOT impact my well being when the government will have to jack up my tax rates to make up for lost revenue from the unlimited spousal deduction, which was created to provide for children created by marraige, which gays cannot produce?

How does legalizing marijuana NOT impact me, when alcohol is already the leading cause of car accidents. Is it ok for your decisions to increase my car insurance, health insurance, and chance of being killed by someone under the influence?

I think what coulter was trying to tell you was, if that’s your idea of libertarian, the liberals are ROTFL.

Liberals…Want no consequences for their choices
Libertarians….Want their choices, consequences be damned.

WryTrvllr on February 22, 2013 at 6:31 PM

Well, we could just leave the tomato picking jobs to the pot smokers. Be a good replacement for the illegal alien I suspect.

astonerii on February 22, 2013 at 6:25 PM

Illegals make up only 24% of agricultural workers so it wouldn’t be that difficult to replace illegals.

illegals make up 24 percent of workers in agriculture, 17 percent in cleaning, 14 percent in construction, and 12 percent in food production.

http://old.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200603140822.asp

sharrukin on February 22, 2013 at 6:32 PM

marriage

WryTrvllr on February 22, 2013 at 6:33 PM

Say you got a small town of a couple hundred people. A guy starts smoking dope on his front porch. People ignore him, because like the libertarians say, he ain’t hurting anyone with it. Before long, he starts missing work, and comes up short on making his payments for life’s needs and life’s desires. He goes down the street hitting on doors asking for a little loan here, a little loan there. A few people help him out. It becomes a monthly or every other month habit with the loan amounts getting more and the days missed longer. But all the while, other people are watching, and noticing that he is doing ok, still has his car, house, eats and enough money for dope. More people start sitting on their porch flaunting society at large. More people go a begging and it becomes too burdensome on the people who have been floating the deadbeats. Pretty soon you have dozens of deadbeats and a hundred or more people who want to get out from supporting those deadbeats, but because of their charitable nature they are not willing to cut them off. An election is coming up and one of the charitable people decides to run for office with the promise to have the government of the small town help take care of the poor people. They get elected and enact a small tax… before long you have a welfare state.

So, all you libertarians who want to argue, hey, it is just a bit of pot. Explain how in a DEMOCRACY, which this nation has completely become, where the deadbeats and the bleeding heart liberals get to vote do you prevent the deadbeats and the bleeding heart liberals from creating this land of incentivized bad behavior. A constitution which explicitly tells the government what its limits are has not done it, so what will?

So, before you go about pushing me to back your deviant behaviors as neutral to me, you need to find a solution to the wealth transfers that are forced with government guns and prisons.

astonerii on February 22, 2013 at 6:34 PM

You know, I actually agree with you here, deuce. The problem is, however, that we no longer, as a society, agree on just what “impacting anybody else” means – you know? And that comes about from having differing perspectives on reality and an understanding of just what is embodied in “being human”. We’ve incorporated a smorgasbord of ideas into our understanding without really questioning their sources or their validity.

Cleombrotus on February 22, 2013 at 6:25 PM

You pretty much summed up quite a bit of the debate here. Everybody does have differing perspectives on what the impacts of their actions are. Some things may have very far, long reaching effects that we can’t see up close in the moment and therefore misjudge things. There is always the threshold of constitutes a great enough effect to warrant legislation.

As for “a smorgasbord of ideas into our understanding without really questioning their sources or their validity”, that is the perfect summary of the anti-gun legislation out there. Lots of ideas with no questioning of their validity as a solution. (We question it, but those putting forth the legislation don’t).

Was fun debating and seeing other people’s thoughts here. It’s Friday night though, so I’m off to go find some immoral activity to take part in :)

deuce on February 22, 2013 at 6:34 PM

Expanding the legal definition is NOT an expansion of its role.

Ummm…what? Perhaps, you meant: “tightening the legal definition (…)”. The Marxists have been expanding legal definitions for decades. Look where we are at.

98ZJUSMC on February 22, 2013 at 6:35 PM

astonerii on February 22, 2013 at 6:34 PM

+1

Very well said.

sharrukin on February 22, 2013 at 6:37 PM

i never understood the whole “legalize drugs” thing. yeah just what this country needs: more people messed up on drugs. i’m sure that will make this country a better place. XD

and also:

Stossel then asked: “Why can’t gays get married?” …

there’s no law that says “gays can’t get married.” anyone can get married if they are over a certain age, they just can’t marry someone of the same sex. or marry multiple people at once. or marry someone who is too young. or marry someone or something that’s not human. and for some reason, the ONLY THING people care about is that first thing. when i see gay-marriage advocates advocate equally for all those other things at the same time they advocate for gay marriage, then i’ll listen to them.

Sachiko on February 22, 2013 at 6:39 PM

It’s Friday night though, so I’m off to go find some immoral activity to take part in :)

deuce on February 22, 2013 at 6:34 PM

We’ll really start to worry when you stop calling it immoral.

Cleombrotus on February 22, 2013 at 6:40 PM

NorthernCross on February 22, 2013 at 4:44 PM

Based on what do you say that they would not be morally bound to themselves and their children? Sounds conclusory too me. Also, while I agree that gays can’t have children “without outside help”, I’d add that the same can easily be said about sterile people, and we don’t ban them from marrying.

That is a false comparison because it defines marriage as the commitment of two people to each other rather than to the family it is meant to support and protect and supplants the norm with the exceptions.

And while a “great majority of children are created and raised by and within the union of a man and a woman”, that alone is not sufficient to say that this is the way it must always be.

Thus the objection to this attempt at the redefinition of marriage and an undermining of that unit which is the ideal for children and society.

It is indeed sufficient because it has been proven over much time and history to be the best thing for the individual and for society. The social experiments and breaking down of traditional societal structures we have endured for the past forty or so years has yielded no benefit to the individual or society. Quite the opposite in fact.

In a free society, you need more than this to prohibit something.

Again, that is a false comparison, because there is nothing being prohibited but rather something being upheld as worthwhile and beneficial.

We are a free society, but a free society depends on the voluntary adherence to certain mores within that liberty for there to be a civil society without chaos.

Finally, while I absolutely agree that marriages are of societal concern, this alone is also not a reason to ban gay marriage. Gun ownership is also of societal concern, but we don’t ban that. Nor do we ban car ownership, even though we have a societal interest in regulating it.

Yet another false comparison. Gun ownership is a right guaranteed in our constitution. There is no need to regulate ownership. Laws are to set forth consequences for those who use that right to harm others.

Freedom of movement is also a right of the citizens of this country under our constitution. Automobiles are merely a way to exercise that right and society has every right to regulate the use of cars on public roads but not to ban it, unless the individual has abused the right and harmed others.

There is no right to marriage however, unless as a religious practice, so the argument that recognizing only the union of a man and woman as marriage is prohibitive or denying a right is false.

Jvette on February 22, 2013 at 6:42 PM

astonerii on February 22, 2013 at 6:34 PM

The welfare state started way before pot legalization in any state. This also lumps all moral, stand up, working, productive members of society who use pot in with the few low lifes that are a drain on society. That same style of argument is what the left is using to ban firearms. Highlight the few bad apples and exploit the situation while ignoring the thousands, millions, etc upstanding citizens that have not created a problem in society. Careful how you construct your argument.

Not sure if we have any research on how many welfare recipients are pot smokers, if we forced testing for entitlement we would have a better idea.

deuce on February 22, 2013 at 6:43 PM

How does allowing for gay marraige NOT impact my well being when the government will have to jack up my tax rates to make up for lost revenue from the unlimited spousal deduction, which was created to provide for children created by marraige, which gays cannot produce?

Excellent argument for simplifying the tax code and reducing government spending by radically reducing the size of government, thus eliminating the need for all these fancy deductions.

How does legalizing marijuana NOT impact me, when alcohol is already the leading cause of car accidents. Is it ok for your decisions to increase my car insurance, health insurance, and chance of being killed by someone under the influence?

Although libertarians are in favor of legalizing MJ, I know of no one who says that we should repeal DUI laws that prohibit the kind of conduct you object to. Just because someone can use something irresponsibly doesn’t mean we should prohibit even responsible use of that something. Otherwise, we’d ban the sale of cars.

Liberals…Want no consequences for their choices
Libertarians….Want their choices, consequences be damned.

WryTrvllr on February 22, 2013 at 6:31 PM

No, at best you’re only half right.

NorthernCross on February 22, 2013 at 6:46 PM

There is a neocon within our midst.

Hostile Gospel on February 22, 2013 at 12:48 PM

Depends on what kind foreign policy and security issues we are talking about. For instance I am not a Ron Paul libertarian on foreign policy and I am not a neo-con either.

You can be for a strong military without being for it being used like the Neo-Cons used it, which is a police force and international construction company.

In other words you don’t fight often in a direct fashion, but when you do you put the other guys lights out. Indirect actions such as arming the enemy of my enemy is far more productive, profitable, cheap and cost little in blood.

William Eaton on February 22, 2013 at 6:56 PM

And far be it from me to suggest that marriage DID NOT start in the church, but was around much longer than Christianity.

John the Libertarian on February 22, 2013 at 3:47 PM

I like you John. I probably agree with you more than anyone else HA, but you’ve tasted the poison on that one.

Pre-Christian “marriage”, isn’t marriage as we define it today. Most cultures bought and sold young girls, had multiple concubines or ganymedes, could legally kill their spouses, etc…

This wasn’t marriage, it was indentured servitude done in the name of a god-king.

This is really the problem with the current Libertarian movement. It’s becoming more libertine and therefore, more hostile towards religion. That’s the inroad the progs have been working on for sometime. It’s why Gary Johnson is more of a trojan horse than Libertarian leader. He promises sound fiscal policy, but would go total prog on social issues in a heartbeat.

budfox on February 22, 2013 at 6:57 PM

deuce on February 22, 2013 at 6:43 PM

It does not matter what the immoral behavior is, because the immoral behavior is only going to be ONE OF MANY that the individuals partake in. The pot smoker, the porn watching beat the meat at a lunatic degree, beer guzzling always out late at the bar playing pool, the slut and her many VD infested johns. These things lead to poor outcomes for many of their participants, and when they are down and out they go a begging, and people help them, and as it becomes apparent that people can survive well on those handouts, you get more and more of the bad behavior and more people to support and a bigger burden on those willing to help, until a critical mass eventually comes to pass that the solution becomes a socialist one of to each according to their need, from each according to their ability in the form of tax and transfers of wealth to individuals.

The last line of my argument, that you so carefully ignored.

So, before you go about pushing me to back your deviant behaviors as neutral to me, you need to find a solution to the wealth transfers that are forced with government guns and prisons.

astonerii on February 22, 2013 at 6:34 PM

Before you can expect my support in legalizing any additional bad behaviors that I will have to fund as a moral disabled war veteran who suffers through pain to a large degree rather than get hooked on pain killers and goes to work with migraine headaches in order to ensure my family is cared for, you are going to have to find a solution to my having to support with approximately 25% of my wealth creation those bad moral activities. It is just that plain simple.

You say you want small government, but in the same breath demand that we increase the roles of deadbeats by legalizing the activities that creates deadbeats. No thanks. Get rid of the social safety net, bar any future laws for personal wealth transfers, and then we can talk about how your pet immorality will not harm my freedom.

astonerii on February 22, 2013 at 7:00 PM

That is a false comparison because it defines marriage as the commitment of two people to each other rather than to the family it is meant to support and protect and supplants the norm with the exceptions.

My point is that the ability to biologically produce children, or lack thereof, is not a basis for prohibiting marriage between two people. And while you call it an “exception”, you should understand that this is a pretty big exception, since your approach would exclude menopausal and post-menopausal women.

Thus the objection to this attempt at the redefinition of marriage and an undermining of that unit which is the ideal for children and society.

It is indeed sufficient because it has been proven over much time and history to be the best thing for the individual and for society. The social experiments and breaking down of traditional societal structures we have endured for the past forty or so years has yielded no benefit to the individual or society. Quite the opposite in fact.

Even presuming you’re right about what’s “been proven over time and history”, as Americans we traditionally have not prohibited conduct merely because a certain act is not “the best thing for the individual and society.” In any event, this isn’t very experimental at this point. Gay families have existed in this country for at least some decades, whether or not the government recognizes them.

Again, that is a false comparison, because there is nothing being prohibited but rather something being upheld as worthwhile and beneficial.

We are a free society, but a free society depends on the voluntary adherence to certain mores within that liberty for there to be a civil society without chaos.

Actually, yes there are prohibitions. Unless I’m mistaken, current laws in numerous states prevent two people of the same sex adopting jointly. In any event, to say that gay marriages cause chaos in civil society is a bit of an overstatement, IMO.

I correct myself in another post regarding the analogy with gun ownership.

Freedom of movement is also a right of the citizens of this country under our constitution. Automobiles are merely a way to exercise that right and society has every right to regulate the use of cars on public roads but not to ban it, unless the individual has abused the right and harmed others.

There is no right to marriage however, unless as a religious practice, so the argument that recognizing only the union of a man and woman as marriage is prohibitive or denying a right is false.

The constitutional right to freedom of movement does not require that the government allow the sale and manufacture automobiles, and there is case law, AFAIK, that states this either. But I agree that in most jurisdictions, there is no legal right to gay marriage. The issue is whether there should be one.

NorthernCross on February 22, 2013 at 7:01 PM

Libertarians, some not all, are the bi curious political party. When they are with conservatives they are for smaller government, but when they are with liberals they are for gay marriage and drug legalization. Coulter is saying that the average libertarian has no desire to discuss the subject of reducing the size of government with Liberals because they fear a backlash. The reason you guys are getting trashed like a high school team playing an NFL team here is because you haven’t been able to explain away that basic hypocrisy.

DFCtomm on February 22, 2013 at 7:02 PM

deuce on February 22, 2013 at 6:43 PM

I think I directed that AT you, instead it should be read as, in general terms, “YOU”.

Sorry, bad week. A bit of an @ss the last few days.

astonerii on February 22, 2013 at 7:03 PM

Excellent argument for simplifying the tax code and reducing government spending by radically reducing the size of government, thus eliminating the need for all these fancy deductions.

Fine. Except that by spending my life rasing children of my own I help to perpetuate society at no small cost to myself. And no small benefit to everyone else.

Although libertarians are in favor of legalizing MJ, I know of no one who says that we should repeal DUI laws that prohibit the kind of conduct you object to. Just because someone can use something irresponsibly doesn’t mean we should prohibit even responsible use of that something. Otherwise, we’d ban the sale of cars.

Ahh. This is true. But you do realize nonetheless the consequence WILL be more traffic fatalities regardless of the DUI statutes. Liberals wish to ban guns even though killing people is already illegal. Where do you stand on that?

No I think I am mostly right, and becoming more conservative as time goes by.

WryTrvllr on February 22, 2013 at 7:03 PM

Ahh. This is true. But you do realize nonetheless the consequence WILL be more traffic fatalities regardless of the DUI statutes. Liberals wish to ban guns even though killing people is already illegal. Where do you stand on that?

No I think I am mostly right, and becoming more conservative as time goes by.

WryTrvllr on February 22, 2013 at 7:03 PM

Interesting thing about the Second Amendment. Done some personal research on the subject, and based on what I’ve learned it doesn’t seem to mean what everyone (and that includes libs, conservatives, and even libertarians) thinks it means. I believe that John Bingham, the principal author of the Fourteenth, meant for it to apply (through incorporation) as an individual right against state secession. Of course, the upshot of this is that we would be allowed by the Constitution to arm ourselves to whatever extent necessary to fight against our State in case it sought to secede. That said, you can end up with some bizarre results, since State governments usually have a lot of firepower at their disposal and, therefore, we would have to arm ourselves similarly to protect the country against State secessionists. But that’s another topic.

In any event, we have a right to bear arms protected by the Constitution. Full stop.

NorthernCross on February 22, 2013 at 7:15 PM

- we would all be much better off if the government was not involved in marriage for straight people or for gay people.

Jaibones on February 22, 2013 at 6:14 PM

Marriage is meaningless if not recognized by the government. There is no such thing as a “private marriage”; the whole point is public recognition. We could of course go back to negotiated marriage contracts instead of govt-issue licenses, but the gov’t would still be expected to recognize and enforce the marriage contract.

alwaysfiredup on February 22, 2013 at 7:15 PM

Wrong, I never said that nor presupposed a lack of legitimate interest for a license to exist

We HAVE a government for the sole purpose of pursuing the legitimate interests set for it. If you admit the existence of a legitimate interest, how does suggesting we just not pursue it make any sense? The government has a legitimate interest to control immigration. But it could just, you know, not, because, whatever…

But the government does have a legitimate interest in limiting car ownership, in light of dangers posed by the use of cars. That said, we accept that a balance approach can be taken in doing so rather than prohibiting all car ownership, which would be lawful, or even restricting entire non-criminal classes of people (with the exception of minors) simply because there is a legitimate governmental interest.

I’m glad you brought up this analogy, because you’re so close to actually seeing the point, you could probably sneeze on it. Each approach to limiting car use on public roads has to have a rational possibility of achieving the purpose. The purpose does not exist merely to justify implementing various approaches. For example, we can get fewer cars on the road by putting in carpool lanes to encourage people to carpool without forcing them to do so. But we don’t then just let everyone use the new carpool lane, as that would defeat the purpose. We certainly wouldn’t set up special privileges for single-people-with-no-friends to use the carpool lane. And we wouldn’t repaint every lane on every freeway as a “carpool optional” lane, to pander to the hurt feelings of those who COULD carpool, but for personal reasons prefer not to.

I don’t believe that, on balance, we need to restrict an entire class of people from marrying each other, and citing the mere existence of a legitimate government interest is not sufficient to make it good policy.

This is where you’re confused. We don’t restrict anyone from marrying each other. Anyone who wants to be married has the right to make any vows they want and be married, if they only believe it. Special exemptions to the requirements of a government issued license are not necessary. There is no point to a license if everyone can have one. You said yourself we shouldn’t give drivers’ licenses to the under-aged, so you understand in theory at least, that a licensed privilege is distinct from a right. You’re now just quibbling over the specific qualifications.

I don’t agree that we should limit marriage only to those who are able to produce children. Putting aside the fact that most people don’t believe we should prevent willfully childless couples from marrying, your approach would disqualify sterile couples from marrying.

This is just a reading comprehension issue on your part. MY approach is to have “‘someone of your complementary gender’ as the most broad requirement we can have that still serves to further the purpose of the license without imposing mandates or oppressive government intrusion into private relationships.” You see, when I warn you AGAINST the granular specificity approach to licensing, that is the OPPOSITE of making it “my” position. Ergo, you agreed and just didn’t know it.

This requirement defines a set with little ambiguity which contains a significant proportion capable of producing children, whether they choose to or not, whether all are capable or not. By altering this standard to include gay couples you are adding a subset which is 100% incapable of producing children. Regardless of whether you will admit this is detrimental, you can not possibly argue that this change somehow furthers the purpose of the license. You admitted above that the purpose is a legitimate interest. Therefore you are arguing for the dispensation of a rational standard in favor of an irrational one, in contravention of legitimate interests.

I don’t believe that the analogy is appropriate.

Well that’s too bad for you, because you’d be wrong. Two groups, one qualifies for a license, the other doesn’t, but that qualification says nothing about their worth, nor how much they are loved. I’d say you’re more likely upset because that analogy hit the nail on the head.

In any event, issues of parenting are best left to parents rather than government licensing programs.

Except we’re not discussing your straw-man “parenting issues,” we’re talking about foundational cultural norms.

I also don’t think that we should micromanage gay marriages. I’m not sure what, if anything, I said that led you to believe that we should.

That short memory again:

An argument can be made that the government has a significant interest in passing regulations involving gay marriage.

You already admitted you misunderstood the meaning of legitimate, which caused you to make this non-sequitur in the first place. Don’t then re-defend it later within the same post.

I’m pretty sure that I also didn’t say that we should “dispense with having any rational standard whatsoever.”

Actually you did. You wrote that the most broad rational standard wasn’t broad enough, and that narrower standards, however rational, are too onerous, then all that is left is broader but irrational standards. This is simple logic: A or B or C; but not A nor B; implies C.

CapnObvious on February 22, 2013 at 7:18 PM

My instincts tend to lean pretty libertarian on a lot of things (with a huge, resounding exception when it comes to foreign policy and security issues), and I agree with the Stossel camp that no way is it the federal government’s business to try to engineer society in any shape, manner, or form beyond enforcing contracts and common defense — but as Ann Coulter points out, however, our huge ever-burgeoning bureaucracy and welfare state mean that sometimes that simply and unfortunately is not the reality of the world in which we all live.

I’m with you Erika.

I also learn libertarian on alot of things with the exception of national security.

I’m actually for gay marriage and you could make the argument for the legalization of pretty much all drugs since conservatives should be all about individual responsibility not the gov’t telling you what to do and what’s good for you.

Ann does make some great points that we don’t live in that ideal world, that since we’re 70% socialist it does matter if someone is strung up on herion and I have to pay for them.

Finally this is Ann at her finest and why I used to like her. I just don’t like what she’s become in supporting Krispy Kreme Kristy and Romney in the primary. The RINOs she’s been supporting have the exact opposite of the policies that are needed to get back to small gov’t.

LevinFan on February 22, 2013 at 7:19 PM

“Don’t Tread On ME!” “All we want is to be left alone”.

Trim the feds back to 1905 level, repeal all laws/amendments since 1905.

Who is John Galt on February 22, 2013 at 7:19 PM

I’m not an Ann Coulter apologist. Lord knows she can defend herself. But the notion that she’s not conservative because she’s pragmatic is unreasonable. We lost ground in the TEA party movement because of the unwillingness to see reason. We aren’t going to win elections as long as we have to appease the middle and are unwilling to do so.

I’m a conservative. I’ve been a conservative for all my life. Love Coulter, Love Stossel, and a great melding of the two philosophies is what we need to get that middle to move in our direction.

Tennman on February 22, 2013 at 1:09 PM

Sorry bud. I’m sure you think of yourself as a conservative and Tea Party member in good standing, but The Movement is currently in the Robespierre/Stalinist phase of the Revolution cycle. Pragmatism = concessions to reality = less than 100& ideological purity = COUNTERREVOLUTIONARY TREASON AGAINST THE PEOPLE.

pauljc on February 22, 2013 at 7:22 PM

We aren’t going to win elections as long as we have to appease the middle and are unwilling to do so.

Tennman on February 22, 2013 at 1:09 PM

I am so, so, so tired of this attitude. ROMNEY WON THE MIDDLE. Look it up. Winning the middle no longer translates to winning elections. Motivating your people to turn out and vote is what wins elections these days. So ignore the tiny, tiny number of so-called “middle” votes and get with the Big Idea inspiration and sound-bite strategies for low-info voters. It’s marketing, not rocket science.

alwaysfiredup on February 22, 2013 at 7:25 PM

“Don’t Tread On ME!” “All we want is to be left alone”.

Trim the feds back to 1905 level, repeal all laws/amendments since 1905.

Who is John Galt on February 22, 2013 at 7:19 PM

I would be fine with that, but would you be willing to not add any?

No fault divorce.
Abortion laws.
etc.

sharrukin on February 22, 2013 at 7:30 PM

The Movement is currently in the Robespierre/Stalinist phase of the Revolution cycle.

pauljc on February 22, 2013 at 7:22 PM

Since it is an entirely voluntary group that simply makes no sense at all.

Not agreeing with you doesn’t make them Stalinist.

sharrukin on February 22, 2013 at 7:32 PM

Actually she wanted a drastic reduction in the welfare state and the size of government and the libertarians wanted their goodies right now regardless of the effect on others or who has to pay for the libertarian moochers lifestyle.

sharrukin on February 22, 2013 at 4:13 PM

I see both sides on this.

Ann is right in that given the welfare state and gov’t run healthcare we now sadly have that we can’t legalize all drugs b/c we’ll end up paying for all the addicts.

The libertarians are saying that if they didn’t force you go pay for their drug use then what’s it to you? Saying that in a ideal world w/out gov’t run healthcare that we could legalize drugs as people would be responsible for themselves. I agree with this in theory but it’ll probably never happen given the current direction our massive gov’t is going.

And Ann does have a point that there is way too much focus by liberatarians on drugs and gay marriage rather than on the basic free market principles we really should be fighting over.

Then again alot of social cons spend too much time worrying about gay marriage instead of saving the free market and fighting obamacare.

LevinFan on February 22, 2013 at 7:33 PM

I am so, so, so tired of this attitude. ROMNEY WON THE MIDDLE. Look it up. Winning the middle no longer translates to winning elections. Motivating your people to turn out and vote is what wins elections these days. So ignore the tiny, tiny number of so-called “middle” votes and get with the Big Idea inspiration and sound-bite strategies for low-info voters. It’s marketing, not rocket science.

alwaysfiredup on February 22, 2013 at 7:25 PM

That needs to be the biggest take home message from this past election. We lost b/c the base did not turn out. Period!!

Too bad the GOPe doesn’t get that and wants to pander to the middle even more.

LevinFan on February 22, 2013 at 7:34 PM

There is a neocon within our midst.

Hostile Gospel on February 22, 2013 at 12:48 PM

Better than being a paleocon.

LevinFan on February 22, 2013 at 7:36 PM

Coulter seems to be suggesting that two wrongs, somehow make a right. That’s exactly the kind of thinking that got us where we are and why we can’t get out of it. The first wrong is in having an income tax and welfare society, the second one is then using government to tell people what they can and cannot do with their individual liberty.

This exemplifies all that is wrong with modern politics.

fatlibertarianinokc on February 22, 2013 at 7:45 PM

Then again alot of social cons spend too much time worrying about gay marriage instead of saving the free market and fighting obamacare.

LevinFan on February 22, 2013 at 7:33 PM

And yet the last two elections OUR side has not made an issue out of the gay marriage at all. It has been the Dems. In fact, most socons would be happy with the President’s stated position(we all know he is lying though). Let the states legitimately decide what their marriage laws. It isn’t socons fighting against that though. Socons are ONLY RESPONDING to the left tactics of overturning the voters will, creating transgender locker rooms in schools, suing private people and businesses and churches..

melle1228 on February 22, 2013 at 7:45 PM

Ann is right in that given the welfare state and gov’t run healthcare we now sadly have that we can’t legalize all drugs b/c we’ll end up paying for all the addicts.

Leaving aside the criminal behavior that also accompanies drugs as well. We have seen drugs legalized in Mexico, Somalia, and elsewhere and it doesn’t result in pleasantry. That however is an argument for another day.

The libertarians are saying that if they didn’t force you go pay for their drug use then what’s it to you? Saying that in a ideal world w/out gov’t run healthcare that we could legalize drugs as people would be responsible for themselves. I agree with this in theory but it’ll probably never happen given the current direction our massive gov’t is going.

I would agree with it as well.

If people suffer the consequences of their own behavior then you have a self correcting dynamic. When others are required to backstop their behavior you are subsidizing self-destructive behavior.

And Ann does have a point that there is way too much focus by liberatarians on drugs and gay marriage rather than on the basic free market principles we really should be fighting over.

And their voting patterns suggest that these are overriding values. The economic arguments for too many of them seem like after the fact justification.

Then again alot of social cons spend too much time worrying about gay marriage instead of saving the free market and fighting obamacare.

LevinFan on February 22, 2013 at 7:33 PM

Well the conservative argument is that social controls must exist in society or it dissolves. No government is ever purely neutral or it would simply lack a reason to exist.

A moral people who control themselves allows a greater degree of control to be devolved to the lowest levels. If the people lack the moral self-control to govern themselves, then Leviathan steps in to manage things. The more out of control the population, the more in control the government. We have seen this dynamic throughout history too many times for it to be coincidental.

sharrukin on February 22, 2013 at 7:50 PM

The first wrong is in having an income tax and welfare society, the second one is then using government to tell people what they can and cannot do with their individual liberty.

fatlibertarianinokc on February 22, 2013 at 7:45 PM

And she is arguing that if you TRULY want to correct things then concentrate on the first wrong.

sharrukin on February 22, 2013 at 7:52 PM

We HAVE a government for the sole purpose of pursuing the legitimate interests set for it. If you admit the existence of a legitimate interest, how does suggesting we just not pursue it make any sense? The government has a legitimate interest to control immigration. But it could just, you know, not, because, whatever…

Just because a policy is lawful does not mean it makes good policy. The government has a legitimate interest in preventing fatal car accidents, and it would absolutely be lawful to make the purchase and sale of cars in pursuit of that interest illegal. It would also be bad policy, for reasons I’m sure would be clear to economic conservatives.

This is where you’re confused. We don’t restrict anyone from marrying each other. Anyone who wants to be married has the right to make any vows they want and be married, if they only believe it. Special exemptions to the requirements of a government issued license are not necessary. There is no point to a license if everyone can have one. You said yourself we shouldn’t give drivers’ licenses to the under-aged, so you understand in theory at least, that a licensed privilege is distinct from a right. You’re now just quibbling over the specific qualifications.

I may have misspoken at some point, but I’m 90% sure I never said that gay marriage is a nationwide right, or even a natural right. In fact, I’m not sure that marriage of any sort is a natural right. That said, I haven’t been persuaded by anything I’ve heard from conservatives to convince me that on balance, gay marriage should not be legally recognized as a matter of good public policy.

This is just a reading comprehension issue on your part. MY approach is to have “‘someone of your complementary gender’ as the most broad requirement we can have that still serves to further the purpose of the license without imposing mandates or oppressive government intrusion into private relationships.” You see, when I warn you AGAINST the granular specificity approach to licensing, that is the OPPOSITE of making it “my” position. Ergo, you agreed and just didn’t know it.

This requirement defines a set with little ambiguity which contains a significant proportion capable of producing children, whether they choose to or not, whether all are capable or not. By altering this standard to include gay couples you are adding a subset which is 100% incapable of producing children. Regardless of whether you will admit this is detrimental, you can not possibly argue that this change somehow furthers the purpose of the license. You admitted above that the purpose is a legitimate interest. Therefore you are arguing for the dispensation of a rational standard in favor of an irrational one, in contravention of legitimate interests.

I don’t claim that gay marriage furthers the government’s interest in having its citizens biologically producing children. I do believe it would serve other interests, however. In any event, removing a standard requiring that marriage must be between a man and a woman does not prevent the state from achieving its interest in having its citizens produce more children. And in fact, it allows the government to increase the pool of potential adoptive parents that can help to make sure orphans grow up to be productive contributors to their respective communities.

In any event, issues of parenting are best left to parents rather than government licensing programs.

Except we’re not discussing your straw-man “parenting issues,” we’re talking about foundational cultural norms.

This was in response to your comment about “stable nuclear families”, which I believe requires good parenting. It was in response to your own stawman argument suggesting that I advocate doing away with licensing requirements.

I also don’t think that we should micromanage gay marriages. I’m not sure what, if anything, I said that led you to believe that we should.

That short memory again:

An argument can be made that the government has a significant interest in passing regulations involving gay marriage.

Come on now, do you really need me to walk you through the distinction between “passing regulations” and “micromanage gay marriages?” You seem smart enough to know that these terms are not synonymous, so please don’t suggest otherwise.

I’m pretty sure that I also didn’t say that we should “dispense with having any rational standard whatsoever.”

Actually you did. You wrote that the most broad rational standard wasn’t broad enough, and that narrower standards, however rational, are too onerous, then all that is left is broader but irrational standards. This is simple logic: A or B or C; but not A nor B; implies C.

We both know I didn’t say that, since I never said that gay marriage could not be included in a “rational standard.” In fact, that goes to the core of our disagreement here. Please don’t distort my argument.

NorthernCross on February 22, 2013 at 7:52 PM

And yet the last two elections OUR side has not made an issue out of the gay marriage at all. It has been the Dems. In fact, most socons would be happy with the President’s stated position(we all know he is lying though). Let the states legitimately decide what their marriage laws. It isn’t socons fighting against that though. Socons are ONLY RESPONDING to the left tactics of overturning the voters will, creating transgender locker rooms in schools, suing private people and businesses and churches..

melle1228 on February 22, 2013 at 7:45 PM

I agree, to an extent.

Many social cons like Bachmann and Santorum have opened themselves up to alot of these questions. Ever hear the stories of Bachmann hiding out in the bushes spying on a gay marriage ceremony?

Look I supported both of them in the primaries b/c they both were the strongest in terms of fiscal and national conservatism.

LevinFan on February 22, 2013 at 7:55 PM

Leaving aside the criminal behavior that also accompanies drugs as well. We have seen drugs legalized in Mexico, Somalia, and elsewhere and it doesn’t result in pleasantry. That however is an argument for another day.

I think the track record in Portugal and Amsterdam where all drugs are legal is pretty good. I’ve heard Stossel say that drug use has actually gone down in those countries.

And their voting patterns suggest that these are overriding values. The economic arguments for too many of them seem like after the fact justification.

That’s a real shame then, I wasn’t aware of that. Seemed like the worst thing said before about libertarians was that Ron Paul and his craziness/blame America garbage seemed to overshadow their movement.

LevinFan on February 22, 2013 at 8:01 PM

I don’t claim that gay marriage furthers the government’s interest in having its citizens biologically producing children.

On second thought, I think it could in fact further this interest. I am reminded of a gay couple that wanted to have children to call their own. One of the women got pregnant in order to have a child, and the biological father agreed to relinquish parental rights so that the other woman could adopt the child. If gay marriage is allowed, more gay couples could go this route to produce more children, and they wouldn’t worry about issues of parental rights in the event that they split up.

NorthernCross on February 22, 2013 at 8:03 PM

I think the track record in Portugal and Amsterdam where all drugs are legal is pretty good. I’ve heard Stossel say that drug use has actually gone down in those countries.

That isn’t really true. For Holland it clearly isn’t and Portugal is the newest kid on the block.

According to UNODC 2009, “the number of murders [in Portugal] increased 40% during [2001 - 2006],” the report added that the deaths “might be related to the trafficking activity.” Eurostat’s ‘Statistics in Focus’ also revealed that the homicide rate in Portugal has increased from 105 to 148 per 100,000 population – a 41 per cent increase.

“Portugal was the only European country to show a significant increase in homicides between 2001 and 2006.” (WDR – World Drug Report, 2009)

“Behind Luxembourg, Portugal is the European country with the highest rate of consistent drug users and IV heroin dependents”. (Portuguese Drug Situation Annual Report, 2006.)

“Portugal keeps on being the country with the most cases of injected drug related AIDS (85 new cases per one million of citizens in 2005, while the majority of other EU countries do not exceed 5 cases per million) and the only one registering a recent increase. 36 more cases per one million of citizens were estimated in 2005 comparatively

“While amphetamines and cocaine consumption rates have doubled in Portugal, cocaine drug seizures have increased sevenfold between 2001 and 2006, the sixth highest in the world”.

(WDR – World Drug Report, June 2009)

That’s a real shame then, I wasn’t aware of that. Seemed like the worst thing said before about libertarians was that Ron Paul and his craziness/blame America garbage seemed to overshadow their movement.

LevinFan on February 22, 2013 at 8:01 PM

I think libertarians are a reflection of the liberal conquest of America. You cannot be a small government conservative and be a decent human being. Worse you certainly aren’t ‘cool’. If you don’t want to pay for the welfare state you can become a libertarian and still be part of decent society. The fear of ever judging someone is also at play here.

sharrukin on February 22, 2013 at 8:15 PM

sharrukin on February 22, 2013 at 6:05 PM

Brilliant. I may have to steal this later. Progressivism is a cancer on the body politic, and it affects the left, the right, and yes, libertarians – some of whom are so badly inflicted that they’ve come to be known as “liberaltarians”. “Conservative” liberatarians are the cure. (But note that I wouldn’t put Coulter in that camp.)

CanofSand on February 22, 2013 at 8:24 PM

You people are a joke. You want to expand government’s role in defining marriage,

sharrukin on February 22, 2013 at 6:05 PM

You’ve got that backward. Gay marriage is essentially completely unregulated right now. What you want to do is expand the governments role in marriage.

besser tot als rot on February 22, 2013 at 8:25 PM

301

Bmore on February 22, 2013 at 6:00 PM

I found it interesting Bmore, that in all of those pictures the only room that was pretty much intact was the library with actual … books!

rottenrobbie on February 22, 2013 at 8:29 PM

Gay marriage is essentially completely unregulated right now. What you want to do is expand the governments role in marriage.

besser tot als rot on February 22, 2013 at 8:25 PM

I want it to stay unregulated so how do you figure that?

sharrukin on February 22, 2013 at 8:29 PM

You people are a joke. You want to expand government’s role in defining marriage,
sharrukin on February 22, 2013 at 6:05 PM

Meh – I think I got the interpretation of your comment backward. I just find it amusing that people argue that expanding government regulation into the realm of gay marriage somehow equals less government.

besser tot als rot on February 22, 2013 at 8:31 PM

Coulter just needs to go away. I dont always like Stossel but Ive always found her annoying and she really does little to help our cause.

bucsox79 on February 22, 2013 at 8:32 PM

My point is that the ability to biologically produce children, or lack thereof, is not a basis for prohibiting marriage between two people. And while you call it an “exception”, you should understand that this is a pretty big exception, since your approach would exclude menopausal and post-menopausal women.

I understood your point and think it is pointless. Marriage as understood, practiced and sanctioned by society is for the purpose of creating, nurturing and protecting a family, mother, father and children. It is a red herring to throw out these others as if they are the norm, or equivalent to the norm. The idea is that society sees marriage, as traditionally defined as a benefit for society and therefore worth supporting and upholding as an institution of society.

I know that many of same sex couple supporters think that there is no harm done to marriage that hasn’t been done by heterosexuals themselves, but IMO, this push for same sex “marriage” is the last frontier in the destruction of the nuclear family. This push is the result of the decades of undermining of that basic unit of society and not the cause.

Even presuming you’re right about what’s “been proven over time and history”, as Americans we traditionally have not prohibited conduct merely because a certain act is not “the best thing for the individual and society.” In any event, this isn’t very experimental at this point. Gay families have existed in this country for at least some decades, whether or not the government recognizes them.

No presuming is needed as there is ample empirical proof of the fact that the traditional family is the best vehicle for the nurturing of a stable contributing member of society. Exceptions not withstanding, we have not yet fully seen the outcome of these gay families, though we have seen some hint of them. Some not so good.

Actually, yes there are prohibitions. Unless I’m mistaken, current laws in numerous states prevent two people of the same sex adopting jointly. In any event, to say that gay marriages cause chaos in civil society is a bit of an overstatement, IMO.

I did not say that gay marriages cause chaos. I said that a civil society depends on adherence to certain mores since it is obvious laws do not deter all criminal activity. So, I think you overstated me.

As for prohibitions to adoption. That is a right every state has as it concerns the welfare of its children and not a “right” to marry as there is no such right. The secular world accepts and supports marriage as a much needed component of a healthy society. Breaking it down, breaks down the family and eventually the society.

Look at any large city with a large population of children born out of wedlock to single mothers and absentee fathers. I don’t think I am overstating the very real disaster that exists and dare I say, chaos in these cities.

The constitutional right to freedom of movement does not require that the government allow the sale and manufacture automobiles, and there is case law, AFAIK, that states this either. But I agree that in most jurisdictions, there is no legal right to gay marriage. The issue is whether there should be one.

Actually the government does NOT have the right to infringe on this right as it cannot infringe on others. The government does not allow the sale and manufacture of cars, it does regulate the operation of such. In many cases, the government has overstepped its constitutional authority, but that’s an argument for another time.

There is actually no right for any individual to marry. There is a societal agreement to support the union through government protection because the institution is such an integral one to a healthy society.

Jvette on February 22, 2013 at 8:32 PM

I want it to stay unregulated so how do you figure that?

sharrukin on February 22, 2013 at 8:29 PM

Yeah – I didn’t read enough context. People seem to often try to make the limited government argument in favor of gay marriage, which I don think makes any sense.

besser tot als rot on February 22, 2013 at 8:33 PM

Meh – I think I got the interpretation of your comment backward. I just find it amusing that people argue that expanding government regulation into the realm of gay marriage somehow equals less government.

besser tot als rot on February 22, 2013 at 8:31 PM

No problem.

It becomes a problem in a society where everything is seen as coming from the government. Government has a legitimate role but it has expanded beyond any sane measure. A normal society dealt with much of what is now solely the governments role.

sharrukin on February 22, 2013 at 8:37 PM

I would be fine with that, but would you be willing to not add any?

No fault divorce.
Abortion laws.
etc.

sharrukin on February 22, 2013 at 7:30 PM

I’m thinking we could re-think it all since 1905, with (hopefully) better reasoning. Leaning toward Liberty, not Authoritarianism. Specifically Senators selected by State Legislatures to defend State’s Rights as designed; no Federal income tax, Gold Standard for currency instead of the current abomination. Ok. keep the Civil rights Act but remove Roe v. Wade and SS and Medicare.

cool?

Who is John Galt on February 22, 2013 at 8:38 PM

But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

But Romney was not conservative enough so you get the one for the next four years who picks your pocket and breaks your leg.

tjexcite on February 22, 2013 at 8:44 PM

I’m thinking we could re-think it all since 1905, with (hopefully) better reasoning. Leaning toward Liberty, not Authoritarianism. Specifically Senators selected by State Legislatures to defend State’s Rights as designed; no Federal income tax, Gold Standard for currency instead of the current abomination. Ok. keep the Civil rights Act but remove Roe v. Wade and SS and Medicare.

cool?

Who is John Galt on February 22, 2013 at 8:38 PM

Sign me up.

LevinFan on February 22, 2013 at 8:45 PM

cool?

Who is John Galt on February 22, 2013 at 8:38 PM

Cool, especially since you didn’t include no-fault divorce which has been economically devastating.

sharrukin on February 22, 2013 at 8:45 PM

But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

tjexcite on February 22, 2013 at 8:44 PM

We have no government armed in power capable of contending in human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other. – John Adams

I have lived, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth – that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? – Benjamin Franklin

The practice of morality being necessary for the well being of society, He [God] has taken care to impress its precepts so indelibly on our hearts that they shall not be effaced by the subtleties of our brain. We all agree in the obligation of the moral principles of Jesus and nowhere will they be found delivered in greater purity than in His discourses. – Thomas Jefferson

sharrukin on February 22, 2013 at 8:56 PM

Finally watched the video. Now I’m REALLY depressed. These are our future leaders.

Cleombrotus on February 22, 2013 at 8:59 PM

These are our future leaders.

Cleombrotus on February 22, 2013 at 8:59 PM

Well, assuming there’s actually something left to lead.

Cleombrotus on February 22, 2013 at 9:02 PM

I understood your point and think it is pointless. Marriage as understood, practiced and sanctioned by society is for the purpose of creating, nurturing and protecting a family, mother, father and children. It is a red herring to throw out these others as if they are the norm, or equivalent to the norm. The idea is that society sees marriage, as traditionally defined as a benefit for society and therefore worth supporting and upholding as an institution of society.

No one is saying that gay marriage is the norm in society at present, so you’re misunderstand my argument here. Moreover, you have not made clear how failing to recognize gay marriage undermines traditional families in which there is one mother, one father, and at least one child. Saying that traditional families benefit society does not prove your point.

I know that many of same sex couple supporters think that there is no harm done to marriage that hasn’t been done by heterosexuals themselves, but IMO, this push for same sex “marriage” is the last frontier in the destruction of the nuclear family. This push is the result of the decades of undermining of that basic unit of society and not the cause.

All right, cite me some empirical evidence of this. Show me instances in which a legally recognized gay marriage destroyed traditional nuclear families.

I did not say that gay marriages cause chaos. I said that a civil society depends on adherence to certain mores since it is obvious laws do not deter all criminal activity. So, I think you overstated me.

As for prohibitions to adoption. That is a right every state has as it concerns the welfare of its children and not a “right” to marry as there is no such right. The secular world accepts and supports marriage as a much needed component of a healthy society. Breaking it down, breaks down the family and eventually the society.

Look at any large city with a large population of children born out of wedlock to single mothers and absentee fathers. I don’t think I am overstating the very real disaster that exists and dare I say, chaos in these cities.

Again, show me empirical evidence of a gay marriage destroying a family. And what does children being born out of wedlock in large cities have to do with gay marriages?

Actually the government does NOT have the right to infringe on this right as it cannot infringe on others. The government does not allow the sale and manufacture of cars, it does regulate the operation of such. In many cases, the government has overstepped its constitutional authority, but that’s an argument for another time.

There is actually no right for any individual to marry. There is a societal agreement to support the union through government protection because the institution is such an integral one to a healthy society.

Jvette on February 22, 2013 at 8:32 PM

I agree there is not a nationwide right, or event in most cases, not even a state right for gays to marry. The disagreement here is on the issue of whether there should be.

As for the government’s authority to prohibit the sale and manufacture of cars, I can assure you that it exists under current case law, and that it’s the same authority that allows it to prohibit the sale and farming of marijuana. The issue about whether the courts have their legal analyses on this issue correct is indeed a different topic.

NorthernCross on February 22, 2013 at 9:03 PM

sharrukin on February 22, 2013 at 8:56 PM

Where are the statesmen or the orators of today who can match the erudition, the depth of thought, or the clarity of expression of such men?

Cleombrotus on February 22, 2013 at 9:04 PM

Correction:

No one is saying that gay marriage is the norm in society at present, so you’re misunderstand my argument here. Moreover, you have not made clear how failing to recognize gay marriage undermines traditional families in which there is one mother, one father, and at least one child. Saying that traditional families benefit society does not prove your point.

That should be, you have not made clear how recognizing gay marriage undermines traditional families in which there is one mother, one father, and at least one child.

NorthernCross on February 22, 2013 at 9:06 PM

Where are the statesmen or the orators of today who can match the erudition, the depth of thought, or the clarity of expression of such men?

Cleombrotus on February 22, 2013 at 9:04 PM

We would be lucky to get Sideshow freaks who won’t stab small government advocates in the back at this point.

sharrukin on February 22, 2013 at 9:08 PM

Stossel ought to get a more serious conservative to debate these things (Dr Albert Mohler comes to mind).

Coulter has some good things to say, but she too often is a bomb-thrower.

itsnotaboutme on February 22, 2013 at 9:09 PM

– we would all be much better off if the government was not involved in marriage for straight people or for gay people.

Jaibones on February 22, 2013 at 6:14 PM

Government has an interest in supporting marriage for straight people. Simply, straight people produce, raise, and bring up children. It is in the government’s interest to support a system that provides for the ordered upbringing of the next generation. The most reasonable system would be one that has those who produce the children be tasked with the responsibility of raising them. Thus, a couple enter a legal contract together with the expectation that if their union produces offspring, the children produced will be taken care of by those parents. Each parent has the responsibility to support their children and to the government has a responsibility to support those parents.

Government has no interest in gay “marriage” whatsoever and has no reason to recognize it or license it.

yongoro on February 22, 2013 at 9:11 PM

sharrukin on February 22, 2013 at 9:08 PM

We forget that their intellects were developed and refined through a rigorous process of discipline and sacrifice and that they are at the same time a reflection of the soul. We forget that such minds and hearts are not naturally occurring but have to be forged through discipline.

We have lost the knowledge of how this takes place.

Cleombrotus on February 22, 2013 at 9:14 PM

On second thought, I think it could in fact further this interest. I am reminded of a gay couple that wanted to have children to call their own. One of the women got pregnant in order to have a child, and the biological father agreed to relinquish parental rights so that the other woman could adopt the child. If gay marriage is allowed, more gay couples could go this route to produce more children, and they wouldn’t worry about issues of parental rights in the event that they split up.

NorthernCross on February 22, 2013 at 8:03 PM

So you would tell me that having their marriage recognized by the state would increase the likelihood of a lesbian couple having children?

I seem to read many articles today telling me that a spouse is not a requirement.

As far as adoption, I would personally consider it reprehensible to award a child (of which there are so few) to a pair of parents who were capable of having their own, but chose not to, over the multitude of couples who would love to adopt, but cannot for biological reasons.

WryTrvllr on February 22, 2013 at 9:16 PM

Coulter has been dead to me since she tried telling me that Romneycare was somehow conservative. Not buying it then, and I’m not buying the shit she’s peddling here, either.

gryphon202 on February 22, 2013 at 9:17 PM

Coulter has been dead to me since she tried telling me that Romneycare was somehow conservative. Not buying it then, and I’m not buying the shit she’s peddling here, either.

gryphon202 on February 22, 2013 at 9:17 PM

I didn’t like her after that, after pimping Christie, or when she stabbed Palin in the back.

That being said, Coulter knows how to talk the talk and she did an excellent job of it here.

LevinFan on February 22, 2013 at 9:21 PM

So you would tell me that having their marriage recognized by the state would increase the likelihood of a lesbian couple having children?

I seem to read many articles today telling me that a spouse is not a requirement.

That is what the whole SSM marriage thing is about. Right now you see these articles about how you need a dad and single mother hood is bad, but they are setting it up to turn that around.

The studies coming out show that gay couples can raise a child meaning and mom and a dad are expendable.

The studies in ten year will show that a single mom is just as good and we know that one sex is expendable due to gay marriage and the only reason that two parents are actually needed is to provide a decent income, so if the government can provide that to single mothers kids should grow up just fine. And wallahh studies show daddy government is just as good as a real daddy. Mark my words- ten years tops.

melle1228 on February 22, 2013 at 9:21 PM

So you would tell me that having their marriage recognized by the state would increase the likelihood of a lesbian couple having children?

I seem to read many articles today telling me that a spouse is not a requirement.

As far as adoption, I would personally consider it reprehensible to award a child (of which there are so few) to a pair of parents who were capable of having their own, but chose not to, over the multitude of couples who would love to adopt, but cannot for biological reasons.

WryTrvllr on February 22, 2013 at 9:16 PM

A spouse is not a biological requirement to have children, it’s true. But I believe it’s better to be raised by two parents instead of one. Call me old fashioned.

Regarding adoption for people who can have their own children, well what I was talking about was at least one of the couple actually giving birth to a child and allowing the other of the couple to adopt him/her. In my mind, that would be better than both lesbians forgoing having a child at all, especially since as a country we need to have more babies.

NorthernCross on February 22, 2013 at 9:21 PM

We forget that their intellects were developed and refined through a rigorous process of discipline and sacrifice and that they are at the same time a reflection of the soul. We forget that such minds and hearts are not naturally occurring but have to be forged through discipline.

We have lost the knowledge of how this takes place.

Cleombrotus on February 22, 2013 at 9:14 PM

The Thirteen Colonies must have been an amazing place.

I think it’s over, but I hope I am wrong.

sharrukin on February 22, 2013 at 9:24 PM

The Thirteen Colonies must have been an amazing place.

I think it’s over, but I hope I am wrong.

sharrukin on February 22, 2013 at 9:24 PM

What is crooked cannot be made straight,
and what is lacking cannot be numbered.

For in much wisdom is much vexation,
and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow. Ecclesiastes 1: 15; 18.

Cleombrotus on February 22, 2013 at 9:33 PM

If gay marriage is allowed, more gay couples could go this route to produce more children, and they wouldn’t worry about issues of parental rights in the event that they split up.

NorthernCross on February 22, 2013 at 8:03 PM

A guy did this for a gay couple in the news recently where he was demanded to pay child support for the child after the low life scum bucket gay couple chose to break up.

astonerii on February 22, 2013 at 9:43 PM

Ann is a gem. But wrong on “we get to control your life because there is a welfare state.” And John is a gem.

AshleyTKing on February 22, 2013 at 10:11 PM

That being said, Coulter knows how to talk the talk and she did an excellent job of it here.

LevinFan on February 22, 2013 at 9:21 PM

Yeah…and I’m just waiting for the next time she’ll sell it all down the river out of cowardice.

gryphon202 on February 22, 2013 at 10:12 PM

Why are repubs so focused on marriage and drugs? That the problem with the stupid party, you can’t concentrate long enough to cut government expansion.

Panther on February 22, 2013 at 10:19 PM

John Stossel looks like his head should be frozen in a chryogenic chamber.

tomas on February 22, 2013 at 10:22 PM

cryogenic.

tomas on February 22, 2013 at 10:22 PM

Why are repubs so focused on marriage and drugs? That the problem with the stupid party, you can’t concentrate long enough to cut government expansion.

Panther on February 22, 2013 at 10:19 PM

The more deviant deadbeats in the society the more votes there are for big government to force money out of other peoples pockets and into theirs.
The fact that you cannot put things together to see the drivers of the big government means you will never come up with a solution.

astonerii on February 22, 2013 at 10:29 PM

Why are repubs so focused on marriage and drugs?

Panther on February 22, 2013 at 10:19 PM

And yet when the libertarians asked Coulter questions, they were all about drugs, and marriage.

sharrukin on February 22, 2013 at 10:30 PM

Ann is a gem. But wrong on “we get to control your life because there is a welfare state.” And John is a gem.

AshleyTKing on February 22, 2013 at 10:11 PM

What, when there are more deadbeat druggies demanding and VOTING for more welfare, do you think we will become a freer nation?
When there are more gays and fewer children to pay for the aids treatments for them, do you think we will end with a freer nation?

astonerii on February 22, 2013 at 10:31 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6