Stupid is…as Stupid writes…..

There’s little doubt that the Supreme Court’s order today irresponsibly declining to stay the federal-district court order against Alabama’s marriage laws signals that at least five justices have already made up their mind to concoct a constitutional right to marry a person of the same sex. Who needs briefing or oral argument anyway, when you’re just making it up? And why give careful thought before redefining the central social institution of American society in a way that denies the fundamental connection between marriage and responsible procreation and childrearing? Gee, what could go wrong?

Ed Whelan, National Review Online


This is an OpEd, got it. But the verbal tantrums being thrown by people who don’t like the fact that gay people exist, is frankly…..embarrassing to me as an American.

“Making it up?” This from the camp that can’t even get their premise to pass the ‘rational basis’ test….the most lenient bar of legal scrutiny. Whelan appropriately notes that their does not exist a Constitutional right to marry someone of the same sex. Guess what genius….there isn’t such a right for someone to marry anybody, regardless of their sex. There also doesn’t exist a Constitutional right to bar someone marrying the same sex.

There does however, exist the concept that rights and privileges of society will not be withheld from a citizen, where it does not cause undue harm or restriction upon another citizen. In other words, until Whelan’s side of the argument can [not even prove] but illustrate where gay marriage harms any member of society….they’ve been legislating based on their emotional desires/fears. When those like Whelan levy the claim of ‘redefinition’…they cast it in an absurd façade that correlates gay marriage with a demise of hetero marriage and procreation.

Don’t like gay marriage? Go it. Nobody is forcing you to “accept it”, to use their own words. You are expected however, to respect a fellow citizen exercising the same rights and privileges that you are……if you style yourself as one who places a premium on individual liberty.


42 thoughts on “Stupid is…as Stupid writes…..

  1. No different from guns, in some ways. If you don't like gay marriage? Don't marry someone of the opposite sex. If you don't like guns? Don't own one. Both problems entirely solved.

    Those who irrationally think either are “icky” should sit down, shut up, and stop trying to run.. er… ruin others' lives. It's simply not their business.


  2. If dmarks wants to use his gun to “stand his ground” and shoot a scary black “violent felon” dead I think it isn't just his business. Also, anti-marraige equality people should marry someone of the same sex? Or not get married at all? Either way I'm going to have to strongly disagree with him on that bizarre demand.


  3. I agree, someone did submit a comment that was quite word salady. If that person had been me I'd have retracted or corrected instead of standing by it (twice).

    Anyway, dmarks does often refer to black people who haven't been convicted of crimes as “violent felons”. I did not, however say whether or not I think that is racist.


  4. JMJ, that's exactly the problem with how we treat marriage in this country. We, the citizen, as required to ask the State for permission to enter into a legal contract….and pay the requisite monetary fealty to the State of course.

    “Licensing” for all basic civil and Constitutional rights, should be abolished, if we are to pretend to be anything more than a façade of a free society.


  5. “Would you be opposed to gun licenses too?”

    I am. I oppose the very concept of licensing the exercise of a Constitutional right. I understand that my desire is unlikely to come to fruition, at least nationally…..but how can one logically promote the infringement of one Constitutional right, but not the others?


  6. In general, I don;t find THAT idea as unconstitutional. Because the Constitution allows for regulation, and licensing can be part of that.

    But in terms of modern day political reality, licensing is being pushed by a certain sector as a step toward confiscation. In which case, licensing as a means to eliminating a Constitutional right is indeed unconstitutional.


  7. Rights are reasonably regulated already, without tithing and permission from the State. We disallow convicted felons and minors to possess most firearms, and we restrict the locations [and times] when firearms may be employed [outside of defensive uses.

    A license is a TAX that the citizen must pay in order to EXERCISE a Constitutional [and many argue] civil right. We don't tax the exercise of the vote, which is arguably more damaging to the nation than any criminal use of firearms. we don't tax the right to speech [leaving aside the public airwaves argument for now].

    If the State were to issue a 'license' upon request and free of charge, then I could discuss the merits of such a 'compromise'. As it currently stands, I oppose it.


  8. Good points, really.

    A license is a form of tax, and a quite “regressive” one. I once had an argument with a leftist/progressive, and this person was in favor of high license fees, regardless of the disproportionate impact on those of low income.

    I favor eliminating license fees entirely, as the funding involved can come from the ample federal (or state, etc) treasury. Without screwing the poor.


  9. CI, I'm sorry but you're going off the libertarian deep-end here:

    “JMJ, that's exactly the problem with how we treat marriage in this country. We, the citizen, as required to ask the State for permission to enter into a legal contract….and pay the requisite monetary fealty to the State of course.”

    We are not required to do any such thing. If we so choose, we can enter into a contract, and without the state, that contract would have no force. You are advocating anarchic family anti-values here.

    I was just pointing out that when we engage in some of our rights, we sometimes are engaging in a contract, therefore taking some responsibility, along with the state and the others in the contract.

    It's a shame we do not look at guns like that.



  10. Like a true Statist that would never turn away an opportunity to allow the State to intervene in the actions of the citizen….you've missed the entire point.

    You are correct. Marriage IS a contract, between two consenting citizens. It is also a basic civl right. As such, it is not [inna free society] premised upon the permission and taxation of the State.

    That you would deem this appropriate for both civil and Constitutional rights, is quite telling.


  11. Not that he was necessarily pro gay-marriage, either (an older gentleman from a by-gone era), mind you, but I still liked “National Review” so much better when it was led by William F. Buckley and not by a bunch of neocon nut-jobs like Jonah Goldberg (and who knows, since Buckley ultimately altered his position on drugs…).


  12. Oh, but I'm seeing it quite through. A free society is one where in order to exercise a basic civil right, one does not require the permission and taxation of the State. Can you point out for me, where in the Constitution, the State has a “primary duty of contract enforcement”? Tell me why, that in many other cases, contract disputes can be arbitrated by third parties, when and where there is conflict…and what that would be inappropriate for a contract between two consenting adults?

    Aversion to blind obsequience to the State, is a serious responsibility that all free citizens should pursue. Sadly, we have willfully surrendered any sovereignty we once had, to the gods of convenience and entitlement.


  13. You do not have to go to the state to “get married” but if you want the legal benefits of “marriage” status from the state, then you go to the state. You don't have to do it, and lots of people live together and never get married. What the hell is the issue here?

    And what do you mean “what we once had?” Do you think there was some other arrangement in the past? Marriage has been a legal contract in Western history for millennia.



  14. You're trying to have it both ways, to fit the thin argument you've been trying to peddle. Do you consider marriage to be a basic civil right, or do you consider it to be a privilege?

    And the “what we once had” was not a reference restricted to marriage, though it is appropriate to note that all marriage was not always dependent on the sanction of the State or the church….it was a direct reference to how nearly every aspect of our lives is governed by the promotion and taxation of the State. Don't believe me? Try to sell cut flowers for a living or hold a yard sale in most jurisdictions…..without a license, permit or fee [tax].


  15. The struggle against the arrogance, caprice, and greed of authority is always necessary and ongoing, C.I.

    And ever present are those who believe that the default should be that the few in power should decide, instead of us deciding.


  16. CI, there are privileges that comes from engaging in your civil right to marry. The privilege and right are not mutually exclusive. That's why I can't sue you for alimony.

    As for your understanding of the history of the institution of marriage, I suggest you read up on your archaic and classical history.

    You conservatives and libertarians live under the illusion that somehow there is more government in our lives today then there was in the past, when in reality it is both not true and an extremely narrow take on the nature and scope of authoritative infusion in society. And your focus on the federal is particularly absurd, as it is state and local government that is far more personally intertwined in our lives today, and throughout much of world history.



  17. Jersey, you continue to dodge the question. Is marriage a basic civil right, or is it a privilege. Quit waffling like a liberal. I'm still waiting for you to tell us where the federal government has the “primary duty” to enforce contracts.

    “As for your understanding of the history of the institution of marriage, I suggest you read up on your archaic and classical history.”

    Actually, [and since you offered no substantive rebuttal] I recommend that it is you who should educate yourself on the history of marriage.

    “And your focus on the federal is particularly absurd…..”

    Are you daft by accident or on purpose? The very examples I illustrated in the last post, are from the local level. You do understand the written word, do you not?

    Tell me, why two consenting citizens should be required to seek permission from the State, and pay the requisite tax, simply to enter into a marriage contract?


  18. He hasn't been replaced, Jersey. At least with someone so well known, who is an undeniable leader on the “Right”.

    There are indeed great intellects such as Thomas Sowell, and sharp satirical minds as P.J.O'Rourke…. but they are voices in the wilderness compared to Rush Limbaugh.


  19. I am unaware of any such conversation taking place on dmarks' blog. As for Will's blog… I am aware of how much my comments scare him. So much so that he can't even look at them. Disagreement with some of what he writes is “harassment” in his mind… I guess.


  20. Hmm… I don't know. There is an accusation against JMJ of “dodging” a question (which has happened before)… Yet I see no evidence of this. Question asked and answered IMO.

    Anyway, people may need protections in case of divorce, and only the State can provide these protections. Sounds to me what CI is advocating for is a recepie for disaster. Without the State dictating how such unions (and their disoultion) are to be handled, husbands could screw over wives (and childern) they wished to be rid of. Although this might be a positive in some people's minds.


  21. I asked JMJ if marriage was a basic civil right, or a privilege. He has thus far declined to answer that question. And of course, your incorrect. Many legal contract between consenting adult citizens are entered into and arbitrated when needed, without the permission and taxation of the State. This includes determination of estates.

    Another assertion that JMJ made, and has declined to substantiate, is his claim that a “primary duty” of the State, was to enforce contracts.


  22. Was walking down the sidewalk today and a Black guy passed by. I didn't think much of it. I was not frightened.

    As putting up a public blog (thus inviting comments from the public) but then screening some commenters because they refute Libertarian nonsense contained on said blog… I say no in regards to “harassment”. Although you getting “creeped out” when your echo chamber is disrupted? I'm sticking with scared.


  23. CI: Such baseless “only the State” claims, which grant exclusive/unwarranted/undue powers to the rulers at the expense of the governed are the building blocks of fascism.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s