Cafe Hayek - Latest Comments in Huh?

Re: Huh?

Brutus — Fri, 29 May 2009 05:41:14 -0000

Fighting gay marriage is fighting a losing battle over an issue that should basically be be left to the individual to sort out. Now if you want to fight the entitlements associated with marriage, by all means, go for it.

Re: Huh?

Superheater — Fri, 29 May 2009 05:40:01 -0000

If gay "marriage" is passed, we'll need to apologize to Utah for making them prohibit polygamy as a condition of admission to the union, no?

Re: Huh?

LowcountryJoe — Fri, 29 May 2009 05:29:11 -0000

This is going to seem insensitive but I'll write it anyways. If a legal marriage can be redefined to include unions between same sex couples, then really anything may be classified as a legal marriage in the future with the correct amount of lobbying and lawyering.

Why is this important? Well, because of the nature of survivor benefits that Social Security benefits have in place once a spouse passes away. It is one thing for a private contract to pay out in the event of qualifying events but it is quite another thing for public social safety nets to pay out when that system is alreay financially strained. I cannot even imagine the strange and taboo legal marriages that may form just to get access to the public Social Security money once some widowed Social Security collecting person finds out that they're terminally ill - why not marry all of your grandchilren and have them collect and share the entitlement that would be coming every month for ten years or more...at least until the children are ready to 'remarry'.

Think that's sick and twisted? Yeah, so do I, but you know someone with no decency will try it just to collect cash for many years.

Re: Huh?

Brutus — Fri, 29 May 2009 05:23:51 -0000

The only hope the Republicans have is for the Democrats to screw things up; this was the same position the Democrats found themselves in after the 2000 and 2002 elections. If that experience is in any way predictive, we are roughly six years away from a swing in the dominant party.

Re: Huh?

John — Fri, 29 May 2009 03:58:15 -0000

I wonder what would happen if Republicans started advocating for equal protection under the law for gay couples, in the form of an equivalent contract, while keeping the definition of marriage as a man and a woman.

The insistence by the gay community that those who oppose the redefinition of marriage are motivated by hate is a straw man, I just wish someone would hurry up and knock it down.

Re: Huh?

K Ackermann — Thu, 28 May 2009 22:47:56 -0000

B.T.W. I was just looking into Clarence Thomas a bit more, and discovered he has not even asked a question during oral arguments since 2006. If that's not the epitome of a conservative judge, then I don't know what is.

Re: Huh?

K Ackermann — Thu, 28 May 2009 22:38:13 -0000

@ Christopher Renner, you are correct about Warren. I was not trying to imply he single-handedly promoted civil rights, I was just pointing out the effect that an 'activist' judge can have w/regards to liberty. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that conservative judges tend to come down harder against liberty.

Yes, when a law is deemed unconstitutional, the law is struck, or it must be re-written. Congress cannot deem a law constitutional, but it can shape a law in some pretty egregious ways.

Dred Scott, IMO, was more than poor legal reasoning. To me, it speaks volumes about the importance of diversity on the court. Walk a mile in someone's shoes, and all that.

Look at what has already transpired during the oral arguments in the Savana Redding case. A bunch of old men are asking what the big deal is by strip searching a 13-year-old girl... and finding nothing, to boot.

They can't even seem to imagine having a daughter go through the experience.

Re: Huh?

Gil — Thu, 28 May 2009 22:31:07 -0000

"Actually, I have some gay friends who think it's not at all the same thing as a heterosexual marriage and should be treated and respected as its own entity." - Methinks.

They're probably playing the 'good guys' as they don't want to get married and make heteros feel warm an fuzzy the same way (from that article a few weeks ago) a man who can't cheat wife because no other woman would have him support monogamy and faithfulness.

Re: Huh?

Christopher_Renner — Thu, 28 May 2009 20:33:33 -0000

K Ackermann, you clearly haven't the slightest idea of how the Supreme Court works, or of the effects of the decisions you cite.

First off,

"any decision by the court can essentially overturned by congress just by crafting a new law."

No they can't do this for just ANY decision. Sometimes the SC strikes down particular provisions of a law, sometimes they declare laws void for vagueness, sometimes they issue an opinion with qualifications for the legislature to use in rewriting.

This is not true for most cases, and it's been established for more than a century that when the SCOTUS declares a law unconstitutional, the law is void(barring of course a constitutional amendment or the SCOTUS revisiting the decision.)

As far as Dred Scott and the various decisions of the Warren Court, the problem is not that the decisions had purportedly far-reaching social effects.

The problem with those decisions is the piss-poor legal reasoning used, and the fact that the courts were making new laws instead of reviewing the work of the elected legislatures.

Also, Warren did not

slammed home civil rights once and for all.

You've completely ignored Truman's executive order desegregating the armed forces, for example, and every one of the various Civil Rights Acts passed by Congress, not to mention the 24th Amendment to the Constitution. All of these were more essential, and less legally questionable, to the civil rights movement, than any court decision on the matter has ever been.

Re: Huh?

Methinks — Thu, 28 May 2009 20:03:04 -0000

Crusader, being anti gay marriage is not necessarily anti gay. Heck, I have gay friends who are anti gay marriage.

Actually, I have some gay friends who think it's not at all the same thing as a heterosexual marriage and should be treated and respected as its own entity. One thinks it's exactly like heterosexual marriage and should be treated and viewed by society and the law exactly the same as traditional marriage. And I know a few who are anti gay marriage gay people. Anecdotal for sure, but I found the range of opinions to be interesting.

Re: Huh?

Methinks — Thu, 28 May 2009 19:56:22 -0000

Sam, you're right - and the state does not mandate marriage to have children. But since heterosexual unions produce children, the state will take an interest in those unions.

Besides, there is the matter of family law and the contract of marriage which the courts uphold. The religious anti-gay marriage crowd confuses the legal issue by arguing from their almost irrelevant religious beliefs. In fact, family law is based on traditional societal ties and our understanding and experience with those relationships. It's true that our understanding of those relationships and our experiences changes over time family law changes as a result.

Re: Huh?

Methinks — Thu, 28 May 2009 19:36:34 -0000

Jeremy,

I didn't think you were attacking a teen mother, just misinterpreting what she said. I didn't know she was on an abstinence tour, but abstinence is certainly preferable at least to the very conservative in the Republican party. So, I agree with you there. And let's be honest here - no matter how cool, liberal and "with-it" parents may think they are, they really would all prefer for their teenagers to abstain if they had their "druthers".

I don't really understand the fascination with the Palins - particularly Bristol. From what little I know, she doesn't exactly strike me as a kid who makes particularly good choices or is particularly interesting.

Re: Huh?

Superheater — Thu, 28 May 2009 19:36:26 -0000

Its a stupid comment, and I have to wonder if its intentional.

Re: Huh?

K Ackermann — Thu, 28 May 2009 18:58:06 -0000

With activist judges being appointed...

A mindless, reflexive statement, as though spoken by a parrot.

They are all activist judges on the Supreme Court. The easy cases have precedent and stand, but many cases that make it to the Supreme Court have no precedent and require interpretation. It is why there are 9 judges, and not 1. Duh!

Lincoln said something to the effect that if our existence depended on the absolute and fixed decisions of the Supreme Court, then liberty is out of reach.

Was Taney an activist judge when he decided that the court had no authority to prohibit slavery, and that a slave, being property, could never become a citizen or petition the court? Doesn't that collide with the notion of liberty?

Warren was an 'activist' judge and slammed home civil rights once and for all.

You show me a judge who is not an 'activist', and I'll show you a useless lump wasting a valuable chair. Clarence Thomas is such a judge. I'm not sure the guy has written a single paper since being appointed.

My main reason for viewing the 'activist judge' meme as a slogan for fools is because any decision by the court can essentially overturned by congress just by crafting a new law. In fact, because congress is so useless now, the Supreme Court has had to specifically prod congress to craft new laws. The dissenting opinion in 5-4 splits sometimes calls on congress to enact specific laws to get around an injustice left to stand on a technicality. Lily Ledbetter is a recent example of that.

Re: Huh?

Jeremy P — Thu, 28 May 2009 18:35:20 -0000

You are right. Bad choice of words.

However, I do think that her abstinence tour is being viewed as representing the GOP and its views. Believe me, I thought Sarah Palin was ok, I just thought, "wow. It's a good thing Bristol Palin is not in charge of directing the perpetuation of the species." It was light-hearted humor, not a vicious attack on a teen mother.

Re: Huh?

Crusader — Thu, 28 May 2009 18:33:43 -0000

The Republicans further dig their graves by being anti-gay.

Re: Huh?

Sam Grove — Thu, 28 May 2009 18:12:24 -0000

The government will not get out of the business of marriage because the government has an interest in the minors resulting from marriage and one of the few legitimate tasks of government is to protect minors when the need arises.

Th government does not require people to be married to have children. That particular intervention is carried out via birth certification.

Even if a child is not certified and not a product of marriage, the government still maintains itself as the defacto protector of the child.

Re: Huh?

Methinks — Thu, 28 May 2009 18:07:30 -0000

Jeremy,

What does "owning up to it" have to do with anything? Did Bristol Palin deny she made that comment? She specifically refers to "girls" and says they are more likely to reject sex at such an - presumably at early age - if they could fully grasp the possible consequences. Does it not occur to you that she may be talking about the hardships of teenage pregnancy and the daunting prospect of parenthood at such an early age? I don't find any of that particularly stupid.

Do you really think adults view the child of a politician as a representative of the politician's political party? Children of celebrities and politicians are often thrust into the limelight and I don't think anyone seriously gives equal weight to Bristol Palin's comments and Joe Biden's.

Re: Huh?

Bill Nichols — Thu, 28 May 2009 18:05:13 -0000

It really amounts to a re-framing. Small business is "special" because it is a targeted constituency. After all, the Democrats seem to have locked up the "to big to fail" vote. Yes you can turn around the argument on traditional marriage. But their constituency will accept that cost, while balking at extension. Sensible argument has nothing to do with sensible politics. I suspect they know more about politics than I do.

Re: Huh?

The Dirty Mac — Thu, 28 May 2009 17:07:22 -0000

That quote is a good example of why I am a big L Libertarian.

Re: Huh?

Jeremy P — Thu, 28 May 2009 16:49:23 -0000

Oh, the irony,

Methinks:

I actually am Bristol Palin's age. I am a high school senior. I am 18. I AM A KID, and I think it is hilariously stupid! Sure I say stupid things, but I own up to them. She might not be a real representative of the party, but she and her mother will always be associated with the GOP in the public's eyes. You are right, it is stupid to make this association, but did as Bryan Caplan might tell you, Democracies are stupid make irrational assumptions. Do you not think that the same populace that elected Dear Leader will think of Bristol's idiotic quote as another example of Republican stupidity and extremism. I doubt there is not pressure from the party to go on an abstinence tour, and if there isn't she should take a lesson from her mom's campaign and skip the media tour altogether.

Re: Huh?

Mark — Thu, 28 May 2009 16:44:51 -0000

why does the government even acknowledge heterosexual marriages?

In my book, all marriages in the government's eyes should be termed civil unions.

Couples could then approach the spiritual authority of his/her choice for a marriage certificate.

I am against same sex marriage becasue I dont think it is right from an individualistic perspective for the government to redefine a term (being marriage) that has meant the same thing for thousands of years. I understand how this would be offensive to religious individuals.

At the same time, michael steele's "strategy" is offensive in itself. I am a young person and I vote republican because it is slightly better than the alternative. But this disconnect perfectly demonstrates why republicans continue to loose support among my generation.

Re: Huh?

Methinks — Thu, 28 May 2009 15:57:37 -0000

Okay, constant, I'll bite - why would it be a good thing?

Family law is based on our long experience with families. "Marriage" as defined by the state is simply a standardized contract based on this long experience. If you "privatize" marriage, you still end up with a standardized contract that the state will enforce. It doesn't seem that different to me.

Incidentally, you can eliminate virtually every complaint of gay couples by way of private contract. Except for acceptance by all, which I think is the real reason gay activists insist on expanding the ages old definition of marriage instead of seeking a contract of their own that would be better suited to the specific and different issues that arise in a homosexual family. You can't legislate your way to acceptance.

Re: Huh?

Kevin — Thu, 28 May 2009 15:51:18 -0000

I think the patronizing reference to small business is more offensive. The incremental cost is a gripe about the change of a regulatory regime, which is pathetic but not particularly offensive.

Re: Huh?

Doug Stevens — Thu, 28 May 2009 15:39:21 -0000

But this doesn't make Steele any stupider than all the commenters here, all of whom seem to have drunk the same koolaid as Steele.

Lighten up, Francis.

I think you missed the point. What people are commenting on is that Steele has already made up his mind and is now inventing ridiculous arguments in an attempt to justify his position.