The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

What These Dudes Said

Posted on | August 6, 2010 | 21 Comments

by Smitty (h/t Big Government)

Wow, these dudes make sense:The notion that the government, especially the federal government, should involve itself in marriage may need to be reviewed. I should not be imposing on these gentlemen to support my hyper-conservative views on baptism, and I appreciate that they are not asking me to justify their private practices.

The meaning of the word ‘marriage’ is as invariant as ‘illegal’. The notion that some prefix ‘marriage’ in their effort to render a constant symbol somehow mutable is tiring, tiring, tiring. Also, a distraction from actual threats to liberty.

So, kudos to these fellows for taking what is likely to prove the all-around least-worst compromise to the whole situation: spending less time minding each others’ business.

Bookmark and Share

Comments

  • Paul B

    I always liked P.J. O’Rourke’s 2 rules for everything:
    1. Keep your hands to yourself
    2. Mind your own business
    These were for the people as well as the government.

  • Paul B

    I always liked P.J. O’Rourke’s 2 rules for everything:
    1. Keep your hands to yourself
    2. Mind your own business
    These were for the people as well as the government.

  • http://www.anti-republicanculture.com Howard Towt

    Maybe we are seeing the leading edge of some type of mutual uderstanding here. Is there a cultural bias against conservatives?

    It seems I’ve seen a blog about that somewhere…

  • http://www.anti-republicanculture.com Howard Towt

    Maybe we are seeing the leading edge of some type of mutual uderstanding here. Is there a cultural bias against conservatives?

    It seems I’ve seen a blog about that somewhere…

  • Joe

    Wow. That was well said.

    Here is some old dead dude giving his view of things:

    I have not yet adequately expressed the more than anxiety that I feel at the ever increasing scope given to the Fourteenth Amendment in cutting down what I believe to be the constitutional rights of the States. As the decisions now stand, I see hardly any limit but the sky to the invalidating of those rights if they happen to strike a majority of this Court as for any reason undesirable. I cannot believe that the Amendment was intended to give us carte blanche to embody our economic or moral beliefs in its prohibitions.

    Oliver Wendell Holmes, Baldwin v Missouri (dissenting).

    Pretty smart Yankee that Holmes was.

  • Joe

    Wow. That was well said.

    Here is some old dead dude giving his view of things:

    I have not yet adequately expressed the more than anxiety that I feel at the ever increasing scope given to the Fourteenth Amendment in cutting down what I believe to be the constitutional rights of the States. As the decisions now stand, I see hardly any limit but the sky to the invalidating of those rights if they happen to strike a majority of this Court as for any reason undesirable. I cannot believe that the Amendment was intended to give us carte blanche to embody our economic or moral beliefs in its prohibitions.

    Oliver Wendell Holmes, Baldwin v Missouri (dissenting).

    Pretty smart Yankee that Holmes was.

  • Joe

    Perhaps Andrew Sullivan should take notes on what being a gay conservative is all about?

  • Joe

    Perhaps Andrew Sullivan should take notes on what being a gay conservative is all about?

  • Pingback: What Smitty said! | The Daley Gator

  • http://getalonghome.com Cindy

    I’ve always wondered why conservatives don’t prefer that government stop deciding:

    *what marriage is
    *who is married
    *which relationships to encourage through tax policy and legal advantage

    Of course, most gays don’t want that kind of freedom, because then they’re left back in the same place–nobody is intervening to make the rest of us approve of them. That’s what they really want, I think: government mandated applause for their lifestyle.

    Hats off to gay folks who recognize that the rest of us have a right to disagree with them.

    I’m mostly libertarian, so my position has almost always been that there is no reason for constitutional amendments or laws on this. Government needs to get out of the marriage business, except to enforce marriage contracts that adults have entered into. Good luck actually getting them out of it, though…

  • http://getalonghome.com Cindy

    I’ve always wondered why conservatives don’t prefer that government stop deciding:

    *what marriage is
    *who is married
    *which relationships to encourage through tax policy and legal advantage

    Of course, most gays don’t want that kind of freedom, because then they’re left back in the same place–nobody is intervening to make the rest of us approve of them. That’s what they really want, I think: government mandated applause for their lifestyle.

    Hats off to gay folks who recognize that the rest of us have a right to disagree with them.

    I’m mostly libertarian, so my position has almost always been that there is no reason for constitutional amendments or laws on this. Government needs to get out of the marriage business, except to enforce marriage contracts that adults have entered into. Good luck actually getting them out of it, though…

  • reader

    Three cheers for getting the gubmint out of the marriage business entirely, and eliminating preferential treatment for people who happen to be able to get one of these certified marriage contracts that are now available to a select few. (And remember there are a lot of single people who might like to get married but are just unlucky or whatever. Why is the law discriminating against them in granting tax and other privileges?) Marriage should be left as a matter of private contract or private religious practice.

  • reader

    Three cheers for getting the gubmint out of the marriage business entirely, and eliminating preferential treatment for people who happen to be able to get one of these certified marriage contracts that are now available to a select few. (And remember there are a lot of single people who might like to get married but are just unlucky or whatever. Why is the law discriminating against them in granting tax and other privileges?) Marriage should be left as a matter of private contract or private religious practice.

  • Joe

    Ann Althouse said…
    “Althouse: I don’t think you’ll ever give this topic a fair shake because you’re too biased about the subject matter for personal reasons. If you could just put that aside for a moment–can you not see any disadvantages of overriding public will and ruling by judicial fiat?”

    You’re wrong. I would be happy to let this matter ferment in the culture and be dealt with over time, state by state. But I know the case law, and I don’t see how this equal protection right doesn’t follow. You have to stretch to keep this step from coming. Also, as a matter of prediction, I know enough about Anthony Kennedy to be willing to bet a lot of money on the outcome.

    8/6/10 8:06 PM

    Althouse thinks Kennedy is going to go for it, I hope she is wrong.

    Justice Kennedy, listen to the two finocchios (ask Scalia what it means) above.

  • Joe

    Ann Althouse said…
    “Althouse: I don’t think you’ll ever give this topic a fair shake because you’re too biased about the subject matter for personal reasons. If you could just put that aside for a moment–can you not see any disadvantages of overriding public will and ruling by judicial fiat?”

    You’re wrong. I would be happy to let this matter ferment in the culture and be dealt with over time, state by state. But I know the case law, and I don’t see how this equal protection right doesn’t follow. You have to stretch to keep this step from coming. Also, as a matter of prediction, I know enough about Anthony Kennedy to be willing to bet a lot of money on the outcome.

    8/6/10 8:06 PM

    Althouse thinks Kennedy is going to go for it, I hope she is wrong.

    Justice Kennedy, listen to the two finocchios (ask Scalia what it means) above.

  • Masturbatin’ Pete

    One thing that is never – and I do mean never – discussed when someone brings up the “get government out of marriage” argument is that doing so would abolish the spousal testimony privilege and the marital communications privilege.

    As the law stands now, you never have to reveal the contents of conversations you have with your spouse, and you can never be forced to testify against your spouse. But we only have these protections because the government is able to determine that you’re married. Get government out of marriage and your spouse can be compelled to testify against you, and your conversations with your spouse are subject to discovery and cross-examination.

    No thanks.

  • Masturbatin’ Pete

    One thing that is never – and I do mean never – discussed when someone brings up the “get government out of marriage” argument is that doing so would abolish the spousal testimony privilege and the marital communications privilege.

    As the law stands now, you never have to reveal the contents of conversations you have with your spouse, and you can never be forced to testify against your spouse. But we only have these protections because the government is able to determine that you’re married. Get government out of marriage and your spouse can be compelled to testify against you, and your conversations with your spouse are subject to discovery and cross-examination.

    No thanks.

  • Pingback: A solution to the gay marriage and the covenant marriage problem « Jim’s Blog

  • Pingback: Foppish Munch-head’s Jacked-up Ruling: Annoying : The Other McCain

  • http://maaadddog.wordpress.com/ John Doe

    Yawn. So they parrotted the libertarian party line. Wet behind the ears punks who know more in their brief lifetimes than the collective wisdom of hundreds of years of great Americans. Sure, let’s tamper with greatness so that all the perverts can feel “normal” about themselves.

    What’s the next “fairness” issue? Polygamy? Beastiality? Incest? I eagerly await how far libertarians will allow themselves to be pushed before they finally grow a pair and fight back against those who would pervert this great country. I won’t be holding my breath.

  • http://maaadddog.wordpress.com/ John Doe

    Yawn. So they parrotted the libertarian party line. Wet behind the ears punks who know more in their brief lifetimes than the collective wisdom of hundreds of years of great Americans. Sure, let’s tamper with greatness so that all the perverts can feel “normal” about themselves.

    What’s the next “fairness” issue? Polygamy? Beastiality? Incest? I eagerly await how far libertarians will allow themselves to be pushed before they finally grow a pair and fight back against those who would pervert this great country. I won’t be holding my breath.