Why aren’t other members of the gay community as offended as I am about this disgusting tribute to one of the most infamous homophobes (and murderers of homosexual men) of the 20th century? Che Guevara explicitly wrote volumes of vitriolic hatred towards gay men, and considered them deviant/threats to his society. He blatantly, personally executed hundreds of men because they were admitted “homosexuals”. When are the hipsters and their wealthy, [privileged], naive New York sponsors going to get an education? So sad…
— Miami Herald Commenter Frederick Stebbins on W Hotel’s artistic homage to Che Guevara.
By supporting democracy, you’re saying that on certain issues this lady has as much a say on your life as you do.
Related: On The Illegitimacy of Democracy
(Source: youtube.com)
[O]ne need not be a Rawlsian to think that, so long as the state is involved in areas where by libertarian standards it shouldn’t be, there’s a prima facie case for its involvement at least being conducted in as nondiscriminatory manner as possible. Perhaps roads should be privatized, but given that the state is currently building and funding them, they clearly should be open to drivers of all creeds, races, etc.; the analogous point holds for marriage law.
—
Indeed. Ultimately, though, the state should stay out of it altogether: how individuals wish to peaceably associate and live their lives should not be subject to majority opinion nor permission from “superiors.”
Thank the Influence of Money in Politics for Obama’s Gay Marriage “Evolution” →
No matter how you interpret the President’s decision to articulate his support for same-sex marriage, in the same manner, in fact, as former Vice President Dick Cheney did while he was in office, one thing’s for sure: it’s been a money winner for the Obama campaign, which apparently raised $1 million in the 90 minutes after his support for same-sex marriage became public alone. Just an hour ago, in fact, I got another text from the Obama campaign: “If you’re proud of our president, get his back by pitching in today,” along with a handy link to donate!
The influence money had on the President’s decision to again endorse same-sex marriage is undeniable. One out of six bundlers for the Obama campaign are gay, for example, and the campaign has been lagging in donations from its entertainment business donors…
The President may lament the influence of money in politics publicly, and his base even agrees, but without the financial pressure exerted on the Obama campaign by gay donors and backers, it’s unlikely the President’s view on same-sex marriage would “evolve” back to what it was before Obama became a mainstream candidate. Now if one in six Obama bundlers were Muslims or victims of the drug war, maybe we’d see some evolution in Barack Obama’s views on the never-ending war on terror or war on drugs too.
UPDATE: The President raised $15 million for his campaign at a Hollywood fundraiser headlined by George Clooney tonight. He hit upon the theme of gay rights repeatedly there and elsewhere on his West Coast campaign tour.
Of course, we could properly eliminate money in politics by eliminating the “politics” side of the equation. With no monopoly on force granting some the power to hand out favors, there’s no one powerful enough to be worth buying…
Related: Money and Speech
On North Carolina’s Amendment One
As I’ve said repeatedly: how individuals wish to peaceably associate and live their lives should not be subject to majority opinion nor permission from “superiors.” Why should anyone need permission from politicians or the public at large or any third party to peacefully pursue their happiness?
Get government out of marriage.
(And I can’t help but think of those many disagreements with statists that ended with the outrageous counter “If you don’t like it, you can leave.” Many of those same statists have expressed disgust at today’s electoral results in North Carolina. Perhaps now they can understand the preposterousness of their riposte.)
Re: One Libertarian Doubles Down
Over at his L.A. Liberty blog, a libertarian responds to my quotation of Steve Horwitz’s argument about federal recognition of same-sex marriage by doubling down on a love of liberty:
Being against the government’s involvement in marriage isn’t really about being “against federal recognition of same-sex marriage,” much less “limiting someone’s liberty”; it’s about recognizing that the solution isn’t to demand the state “approve” or “sanction” a relationship but to affirm that the state is illegitimate in such a role. Demanding such a thing requires implicit acknowledgement of the state’s authority over the relationships of consenting individuals. How individuals wish to peaceably associate and live their lives should not be subject to majority opinion nor permission from “superiors.” In this case, practicing ”pragmatism” only entrenches the state’s dominion over our lives.
Believe me, I get the argument. I understand how in our less-than-ideal reality, liberty for some may be restored through the state’s participation. As I said with regards to Prop 8’s passage:
I am very pleased that the ruling has restored more liberty to some residents of California: there is absolutely no rational reason for the government to treat homosexual couples differently than heterosexual couples. None. We are, after all, only as free as the least free among us.
But as I stated above, using the state in this manner only entrenches its dominion, and is counter-productive in the long-run. Yes it would help, but there is a better solution. And this is our argument, which in no way whatsoever is one of “limiting someone’s liberty.”
Leaving aside that the author believes I’m somehow always being disingenuous when I post anything that touches on libertarianism, what I want to say is that the argument he makes seems to simply play right into Horwitz’s hands. I fully recognize the libertarian position that it would be better if the government had nothing whatsoever to do with marriage. That’s just fine. But this is where Horwitz begins and so it’s also where I began my quotation of his post. Indeed, Horwitz’s challenge is directed at precisely the argument made by the libertarian blogger. I’ll quote it again, in case you missed it the first time:
For my libertarian friends who argue that federal recognition from the Supreme Court would mean more state power or overturn federalism, and that we should only insist on a world where the state is out of the marriage business, I pose the following challenge:
Suppose we had a Social Security system in which all residents of the US paid FICA but only white ones received the benefits. Would you argue that the libertarian position is to continue to deny people of color access to Social Security benefits on the grounds that giving the benefits to them would “extend federal power?” Would you continue to insist that the only libertarian position is to argue for the elimination of Social Security even though it continues to benefit only whites?
It seems to me that the principle of equality before the law, which is fundamental to classical liberalism, demands that the state treat all citizens equally and that libertarians ought to be outraged if such a system existed.
What Horwitz is saying is that, sure, libertarians would prefer no governmental authority with regard to marriage. But since governmental authority with regard to marriage exists right now, libertarian principles require support for federal recognition of same-sex marriage just as liberatarian principles require that Social Security benefits should be extended to everyone who pays into the program, despite a continued opposition to Social Security.
Maybe Horwitz is tilting at straw men here; I admit that I don’t know. Maybe libertarians all think that marriage equality is a no-brainer.
Now, my friend Jeff Miller tells me that this might be a quirky issue of old and new libertarians or academic and non-academic libertarians. He believes that most new — or young or non-academic — libertarians are perfectly open-minded about same-sex marriage and that this is an instance of the old guard hashing out something that the new folks have already figured out. If so, that’s terrific; it means that, as Horwitz want to see, libertarians are getting out from under the weighty problem of always making the perfect the enemy of the good (or, as they are sometimes accused, of insisting upon living in a fantasy world). Miller might very well be right, as so many of the comments on Horwitz’s post are tackling questions of religious freedom and not fighting out whether or not same-sex marriage should be recognized. (This, of course, raises a new question — about who precisely would be in the business of recognizing marriages if the government had nothing to do with it — but I’ll save that for another time.)
But, interestingly, the libertarian blogger I quoted above seems to maintain an interest in this fantasy world, at least to some extent. He writes that “there is absolutely no rational reason for the government to treat homosexual couples differently than heterosexual couples. None. We are, after all, only as free as the least free among us.” So perhaps he is, as Miller believes, amongst the new breed of libertarians. But his main point is effectively to double down on his love of liberty, to continue to insist that so much of our government is simply illegitimate, and to argue that this is the best possible response to the question of whether or not the government should recognize same-sex marriage. Of course it shouldn’t, he says, because the federal government shouldn’t recognize any marriages.
In his words, “using the state in this manner only entrenches its dominion, and is counter-productive in the long-run. Yes it would help, but there is a better solution.”
When the state does recognize some marriages and not others, to say that “there is a better solution” is likely cold comfort to those who are facing the discrimination. It amounts to recognition that a policy is discriminatory — and is thus infringing on the rights and liberty of some citizens, precisely the point that Horwitz was making with his challenge — but to focus more energy and attention on the fantasy of doing away with government than on the practical possibility of simply ending the discriminatory policy.
That a libertarian believes it would be better to have less government is clear, but in the meantime Horwitz insists that libertarians embrace a policy position that doesn’t allow for discrimination and infringement on the rights of some group or other.
Your condescension aside, I think that on substance we are probably close in agreement. My objection was to your statement that someone who wants the state out of the marriage business altogether is somehow “in favor of limiting someone’s liberty.” This is a profound misrepresentation, which is why I singled out that sentence and only that sentence in my reply.
Now perhaps this misrepresentation stems from your take of Horwitz’s “state’s rights” fallacy and his own misrepresentations of the anti-statists, like myself, who champion removal of the state’s claws from our consensual associations. We do not condone, approve, or would otherwise be comfortable with a state curbing liberty so long as the federal government isn’t. States, of course, do not have rights - only individuals do. The point is that libertarian non-interventionist ideals aren’t merely for foreign policy. Just as people in the United States have no right in dictating how the people in, say, Russia peaceably live their lives; neither do the people in Alabama have any right dictating how the people in Oregon peaceably live their lives. The idea is to continue this trend of non-aggression to be as localized as possible, until we recognize that no individual has any right to interfere with how another individual peaceably lives his life.
Further, the Constitutional federalism that many libertarians promote is based on the understanding that because the Constitution is the reason the federal government ostensibly has any authority to begin with, and the Constitution is clear that the states which compose the union have only bestowed limited authority to the federal government, then we must at the very least recognize those limitations in power or conclude that the Constitution, and thus the federal government itself, is illegitimate.
In any case, allow me to offer a perhaps crude analogy. Imagine two slaves and a master. One slave has benefits, days off, the ability to make personal choices about his clothing and food, earns a decent wage, and is allowed many other comforts. The other slave works long hours, suffers beatings, receives no pay, is malnourished, and is treated deplorably. It would be unquestionably right and good for the slave-owner to be made to treat the second slave as well as the first. And if this can be achieved, it would be foolish to not capitalize on the opportunity to offer the second slave a better life. But however well the slave-owner treats them, both would remain slaves. To only advocate for equal and fair treatment of slaves would be preposterous because the slavery itself is what should be advocated against - especially if achieving better treatment of the second slave requires the slaves to implicitly acknowledge the legitimacy of their master’s superiority over their lives.
And it was not long ago that those who fancied a world free of chattel slavery were considered “living in a fantasy world.”
Requiring individuals to obtain permission from some third party or group to peaceably and consensually associate means that we do not own ourselves. This is unacceptable.
This is not making the perfect the enemy of the good (although there is no compromise when it comes to self-ownership: “[M]y self-ownership is absolute - in decisions large and small… There is no finite number of objections I am willing to raise when government meddles.”). This also is not shunning “the good.” This is pointing out that, yes, what is “less morally wrong” is better, but it is still not “morally right” - and it is also denying that what is “morally right” is simply fantasy.
I’m fascinated by the idea that someone who identifies as a libertarian might be in favor of limiting someone’s liberty. …
—
Ari Kohen - A Challenge for Libertarians Against Federal Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage
Being against the government’s involvement in marriage isn’t really about being “against federal recognition of same-sex marriage,” much less “limiting someone’s liberty”; it’s about recognizing that the solution isn’t to demand the state “approve” or “sanction” a relationship but to affirm that the state is illegitimate in such a role. Demanding such a thing requires implicit acknowledgement of the state’s authority over the relationships of consenting individuals. How individuals wish to peaceably associate and live their lives should not be subject to majority opinion nor permission from “superiors.” In this case, practicing ”pragmatism” only entrenches the state’s dominion over our lives.
Believe me, I get the argument. I understand how in our less-than-ideal reality, liberty for some may be restored through the state’s participation. As I said with regards to Prop 8’s passage:
I am very pleased that the ruling has restored more liberty to some residents of California: there is absolutely no rational reason for the government to treat homosexual couples differently than heterosexual couples. None. We are, after all, only as free as the least free among us.
But as I stated above, using the state in this manner only entrenches its dominion, and is counter-productive in the long-run. Yes it would help, but there is a better solution. And this is our argument, which in no way whatsoever is one of “limiting someone’s liberty.”
I’m fascinated by the practice of someone who identifies as an intellectual and an educator but can so regularly misrepresent others’ positions and employ non-sequiturs (see here, here, here, here, and here).
Even Imaginary Guns Save Lives →
All I could think to do was to get to my backpack and find my phone. As I fumbled for the phone, I heard one of them say, “Does he have a gun?”
So I kept my hand in my backpack, allowing them to wonder whether I was reaching for a gun. Then a couple of them started to run away, and the others soon followed. I got back on my bike and pedaled as fast as I could out of there.
When I got home, I began to reflect on what had happened, and more disturbingly what could have happened. I am in contact with the LGBT unit of the police department to file a report. But I’ve thought a lot about the turning point of the situation — the fact that one of them thought that I might have a gun. None of them said, “There’s a law against antigay hate crimes!” That wasn’t the deterrent. It was the possibility that I might have had a gun that saved my life Friday night.
Michelle Bachmann is a dolt. →
She claims to favor the 10th Amendment… while supporting a constitutional amendment federally defining marriage.
In related news, I’ve spent the last few days with family in New York - and the general public seem very pleased with their state government restoring liberty to its citizens. It’s all over local media and its oft-discussed on sidewalks and subways. This feeling of restored liberty is something they are unaccustomed to, what with it being the least free state in the union (today’s case in point: NY is cracking down on cheese selling in NYC Greenmarket farmers’ markets).
Why should some New Yorkers - or anyone else - need permission from politicians or even the public at large to pursue their happiness?
How individuals wish to live their lives should not be subject to majority opinion.
I’m Jewish. Eating pork or shellfish is not allowed in my tradition, but I would never ask the government to impose that on our fellow citizens. We have to be careful about trying to enshrine our beliefs, however religiously valid you may believe them to be, in the Minnesota Constitution.
—
Minn. State Rep. Steve Simon, advocating against a state amendment that would define marriage as between a man and a woman. The amendment would pass.
While this is encouraging, how individuals wish to live their lives should not be subject to majority opinion.
Get government out of marriage.
(Source: gallup.com)
Being Gay in Cuba still gets you arrested →
Just like when racist, intolerant murderer Che was traipsing about the island. Except he preferred to kill them.
On Prop 8 and Gay Marriage
Marriage is a societal construct, not a civil construct. Society - mankind, interacting individuals - created and defined marriage long ago, typically with a religious connection. Government serves no role in marriage outside of recognizing the right of the people to associate as well as the upholding of contracts (since that is, essentially, what marriage is: a contract). The government cannot decide what constitutes marriage any more than it can decide what constitutes baptisms or luaus or backyard football teams. Again, marriage is a societal construct - a creation or establishment of the people - and therefore the people decide what marriage is.
In California, the people “decided” through a popular vote - twice - how they wished to define marriage. I heavily disagreed with the use of government (and democracy - which stifles peaceful minority opinion) in “making” that definition since it essentially made individual associations subject to the majority opinion of whoever voted. The ruling that overturned Proposition 8 was partially right: the argument against allowing gay marriage was weak as it was based on maintaining societal norms and upholding moral qualifications.
From Judge Vaughn Walker’s decision:
“The evidence shows conclusively that Proposition 8 enacts, without reason, a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite sex couples.”
I’m not sure how conclusive the evidence was, or that the inferiority of same-sex couples was truly the crux of Prop 8. Since marriage has existed around the world as a more or less certain, specific thing for thousands of years (a cultural/religious institution establishing a union between a male and a female, often primarily for the purposes of procreation though historically also a diplomatic or economic activity), is the public’s unwillingness to see it as something different simply bigotry? I’m not sure I would agree; but there is some merit to the judge’s ruling. Clearly, the state should have no say in deciding (or in this case, upholding) social norms and “private moral views” (or anything, really, outside of the Silver Rule/Natural Law). But that’s the same argument with regards to the state’s role in only recognizing the domestic partnership of heterosexual couples. So in this sense, the ruling was also wrong: the judge not only further entrenched government’s role in marriage, he ruled that marriage was a “fundamental right.”
But this is not quite true.
Marriage is not, in and of itself, a natural, fundamental right - nor even a per se civil right - outside of the aforementioned right of association. In other words, marriage is the execution of a true fundamental right (association). Since “marriage” or ay variation thereof is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, it is, according to the Tenth Amendment, at most a state matter. Per the Fourteenth Amendment, which the judge cited in his decision, all people have “equal protection under the law,” and were granted the protection that “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” The government need not issue marriage licenses - much less define what a marriage is - to uphold those equal protections or keep from abridging a citizen’s ‘privileges or immunities’ (as vague as that clause may be…).
Of course, there are certain legal protections and benefits that come with having the status of ‘spouse’ that apply to taxes and insurance and other obligations - legal protections that may not be extended to homosexual couples if same-gender unions are not recognized. But for the purposes of extending legal protections and benefits, why does ‘marriage’ need an official, government-sanctioned definition? The state should recognize any contractually-binding partnership between consenting adults - it should not matter to the state what gender the consenting adults are the same way it shouldn’t matter if they are truly in love or what race they are or their procreational viability or if they are even attracted to each other.
This goes beyond gay or straight - this is a matter of freedom for all. (Re-)Privatizing marriage means that any consenting adults should be allowed to form domestic or civil unions, even privately or publicly calling it “marriage,” however they define that: two people of any gender in monogamous love, or two dudes who are just buddies and have no sexual interest in each other, or perhaps hermit siblings that have sworn celibacy, or a couple of best-friend old maids who gave up finding Mr. Right, or - yes - even groups. Why should adults not be allowed to do something they consent to? Do they not have the right, since marriage is a societal construct, to personally define marriage however they wish? Do they not have both the right to formulate and express opinions (even what people may view as ‘wrong’ ones) as well as the right to associate? Friends and neighbors - society - will certainly exercise their right to express their opinions of approval or disapproval. Society can determine if they feel these people are weird or immoral, or if simply their definition of marriage is ‘wrong’ - and said ‘married’ can choose to ignore said society.
Marriage has undeniably been defined a certain way by society for thousands of year; but it was people, privately through individual or voluntary group action, and even independently of other cultures, that made that definition - because what is society but individuals. If some people believe that ‘marriage’ is too sacred a term, with a too long-standing tradition, to be defined as anything but a partnership between a man and a woman, so be it; as long as they don’t force others to conform to their beliefs and, in the eyes of the government, all are treated equally. We have to realize that ‘the state’ is not ‘society,’ ‘the government’ is not ‘the people.’ Ultimately, why should motives matter to the government as long as no one is violating anyone else’s natural rights of life, liberty, or property?
I am very pleased that the ruling has restored more liberty to some residents of California: there is absolutely no rational reason for the government to treat homosexual couples differently than heterosexual couples. None. We are, after all, only as free as the least free among us.
However, the legal reasoning for the overturning of Prop 8 is “flawed and dishonest” and demonstrates the government establishing itself as superior to the people’s say on a societal construct that should never have been under the government’s purview to begin with. This presents the potential for greater harm as the same reasoning could be applied to different aspects of our lives. If the government can decide on the limits of how free people wish to associate, what can they not do? It sets a dangerous precedent, though I suppose we’ve already had over 200 years of steady government overreach.
Ultimately, how individuals wish to live their lives should not be subject to majority opinion.
Per Lew Rockwell:
Marriage… is mentioned nowhere in the constitution, and therefore is no business of the federal congress, the federal courts, nor any other arm of the DC leviathan. The feds, according to their own constitution, have only the powers they are specifically given. Some black-robed occupier in California may not overturn a popular vote against gay marriage, nor throw out a voters’ ban on welfare for illegal aliens, to take an earlier example. On the other hand, the Massachusetts federal judge who ruled that marriage is none of the federal government’s business, and therefore Massachusetts may enact it, despite the defense of marriage act, had a strong case. He is ignored, however, while the crazed California judge is heralded. …
Government took over marriage, a matter for the Church and subsequently other private bodies, in the 18th century, with the expected negative results. But having taken it over, it ought to be decentralized, not nationalized.
Hopefully, people will realize when conducting this debate that this is just another way the government has thrust its influence over our lives. Let’s leave marriages to our churches and temples (and rodeos, or whatever) and keep the government’s pudgy fingers out of our personal lives.
