Comments on: Chairman of the Board for Hypocrisy

By: jpeckjr

jpeckjr — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 17:00:15 +0000

Additional thought.

The sentence I quoted suggests that the next canard from the anti-equality forces will be to use the documented falling birth rates as evidence that same-sex marriage is a threat to the continuation of society.

See, before 2004, when the gays in Massachusetts could get married, American women were popping out the babies at rates that would at least sustain the society. Now that the gays can marry, women don’t want to have babies anymore. And they can get contraceptives and abortions, too.

Oh, if only we could use federal law to keep women from getting an education, joining the workforce, pursuing their own ambitions, receiving contraceptives, terminating a pregnancy, voting, or being a human being separate from their man! Why, I remember when Constitutional rights applied only to white heterosexual male property owners — those were the days!

By: jpeckjr

jpeckjr — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 16:48:41 +0000

Did Mr. Eastman just endorse mandatory child-bearing, federally mandated child-bearing, for all married persons? I’m sure he’s just referring to federal tax codes that provide benefits for having children. But are those limited to children born to married people? My single mom (dad died) got those benefits.

But, I suppose under DOMA, a same-sex couple that adopts a child who was not aborted (something conservatives encourage) does not get those benefits unless, I suppose, the child is adopted legally by only one of the couple, so it’s a single parent family for purposes of the law.

And what is he suggesting about the federal role in parenting? That the parents of children who become irresponsible adults should, what, have to repay their tax benefits? Be charged for the public costs of dealing with their adult children’s irresponsibility?

“Federal laws encourage men and women to marry and have children because society has a profound interest in ensuring that children are born (to continue society) and then raised by their parents to become responsible adults.”

The interventionism implied in that sentence is massive, and way beyond keeping the gays from marrying.

By: Jay

Jay — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 15:41:09 +0000

Republicans are against taxes on heterosexuals because, you know, taxes are tyrannical. But they are all in favor of “fag taxes.”

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 14:48:46 +0000

Steve, you seem to live in a world much dissimilar to the one that I live in.

By: Steve

Steve — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 14:35:34 +0000

Most American Libertarians – at least the public and vocal ones – are merely anarcho-capitalists who wants complete and absolute power for businesses. Personal liberty doesn’t play much of a role for them. There may be other ones, but they are like liberal Christians: silent, complicit and inconsequential

By: Steve

Steve — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 07:06:21 +0000

Its the same hypocrisy.
It doesnt seem to matter how gays win, when they win its always “unfair” or “rigged” or “conspiratorial”.
If elected officials vote in gay rights, its a violation.
If the people vote in gay rights, theres still a violation and they RUN to the elected officials to enforce things like DOMA.
Gay people have run this battle six different ways from Sunday. And I think most people are getting a bit tired of the tyrannical hypocrisy of the opposition.

By: John

John — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 03:41:26 +0000

Thanks for the correction regarding “American Libertarians” Tim, the vast majority of whom were for same sex marriage long before even a single Democrat got with the program.

By: Hyhybt

Hyhybt — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 02:49:21 +0000

Eventually, for some issue, everybody° runs into a situation where their values conflict, and has to prioritize one or the other.

And if the conflict is between “states take precedence over feds” and “allowing gay people to marry will destroy civilization,” however completely insane the latter is, it’s not at all odd he’d put that one first.

°Near enough everybody, anyway.

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 01:56:37 +0000

Steve,

American libertarians most definitely DO NOT have the same mindset. By definition.

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 01:55:49 +0000

“It’s the constitutional duty of our elected officials to decide what burden taxpayers bear in dealing with same-sex couples.”

And that is fascinating – and an obvious dig at the Windsor case.

Although I never thought I’d actually read one from a legal scholar, this is actually an argument that the federal government can and should tax gay people at higher rates than straight people.

Oh please let someone try that in front of the SCOTUS. Please please please.