I don't think we disagree here, except that I don't equate "libertarian-leaning republican" with libertarian.  Do any of those congress people describe themselves as libertarians in their campaign materials or on web sites?  Honest question, I don't know, maybe they do.  My hunch, which I guess was your initial point, was that "libertarian" is a great marketing hook for a target voter group, so these guys try to tap into it tangentially, even though they are running under a GOP flag.  I just think it's unfair to attribute all of their views (especially the crazy ones) to a political philosophy whose flag bearers have in fact been pretty outspokenly in favor of marriage equality.

 

EDIT: wow, check out this guy- a "Christian Libertarian:" http://www.kevincraig.us/

He "respects" the views of those opposed to a marriage amendment but "the rights of more human beings will be violated if "homosexual marriages" are imposed on America by "activist judges.""

http://www.kevincraig.us/marriage_amendment.htm

 

Um, OK dude.

 

^Never said they weren't

 

I'm not really an authority on libertarianism, my guess would be the vast majority would vote "no." Might be a good question to post on the Ron Paul forum.

 

But doesn't Ron Paul himself support a state's "right" to ban same-sex marriage?

 

In effect, yes,  he'd let states decide the issue.

^So should I still go a Ron Paul forum to find out the answer?

 

^^We agree.  And I in no way intended to offend the 'principles' of Libertarianism.... just like I don't oppose the notion of states rights in anyway.  I just find that both are incredibly susceptible to be used as masks for hate.

 

As for the politicians listed above.... yes, they all claim to be libertarians.

^I guess an interesting parallel is how people in "the civil rights community" feel about gay marriage.  The national organizations (the NAACP, anyway) have been outspoken proponents of marriage equality, but clearly many foot soldiers, like those in Cleveland, aren't exactly on board, at least in part because of the overlap with black churches.

Tell me about it.  I get no small measure of joy telling the black clergy members what hypocrites they are..... many of them who were alive when Loving v. Virginia was decided.  According to Cimperman, the DP registry in Cleveland may well have failed due to pressure from black church leaders if council had waited another day to put it up for a vote.  Further, many pro-LGBT rights advocates in California say that Prop 8 would have went their way if not for the massive swell of black voters to the polls in 2008 (and Latinos too I suppose, but at least they're catholic and have little choice lest they burn for all eternity).

^So should I still go a Ron Paul forum to find out the answer?

 

^^We agree.  And I in no way intended to offend the 'principles' of Libertarianism.... just like I don't oppose the notion of states rights in anyway.  I just find that both are incredibly susceptible to be used as masks for hate.

 

As for the politicians listed above.... yes, they all claim to be libertarians.

 

The Ron Paul forums are crawling with libertarians who  disagree with Ron on libertarian issues.  I was being serious, I'd post that question there to see what the response would be.

 

 

 

 

^^Prop 8 also failed because of the massive campaign by its Utah neighbors. Just another embarrassing footnote in US history.

There are two gay-interest articles on the Enquirer website. Both have comments disabled. That pisses me off. (Though I do wish they would get rid of comments on all articles) Are they too lazy to get rid of bad comments? Do they think gays are too sensitive to take the bullsh!t?

 

One is about the census showing more gay couples in Ohio, the other is about a local couple getting married in NY. Neither are about gay bashing or some other already-negative issue.

 

Maybe next they will close comments for all black- or Latino-related articles?

^So should I still go a Ron Paul forum to find out the answer?

 

^^We agree.  And I in no way intended to offend the 'principles' of Libertarianism.... just like I don't oppose the notion of states rights in anyway.  I just find that both are incredibly susceptible to be used as masks for hate.

 

As for the politicians listed above.... yes, they all claim to be libertarians.

 

The Ron Paul forums are crawling with libertarians who  disagree with Ron on libertarian issues.  I was being serious, I'd post that question there to see what the response would be.

 

(a) I don't cheat on UO.  Besides, we have plenty of Libertarians on here who should be able to provide insightful input.

 

(b) I am fairly certain I already know the mixed bag of responses I would get from a Ron Paul forum.

 

If my prediction is correct, and due to the fact that most Ron Paul libertarians are right wing leaning, they will find somehow, someway to preserve the ability to restrict marriage to one man and one woman.  Most will likely say it shouldn't be done through DOMA or any other Federal Regulation.  But a lot will agree with Paul that the issue should be left to the States.  The trouble I have with that and the reason I don't think it is consistent with Libertarian principles, is that the rules on amending state constitutions (such as Ohio) offend the very notion of a constituiton.  Populist thinking is expressed through legislation.  What the people want (though their elected representatives) the people get.  But a constitution is a different animal.  It is supposed to protect the minority from the whims of the majority.  No matter what >50% of the country believes should be the law, that belief must fall in line with constitutional principles.  Problem here in Ohio is that all we need is >50% of those who decide to vote in any given election to say what the those principles are.  In application, that may only translate to 25% of the electorate dictating which laws may or may not be enacted.  A constitution cannot be dictated by mob rule or it is of very little use or at least not useful for its intended purposes.

 

Further, to the extent that State DO grant marriage licenses, I personally believe that the Federal Constitution prohibits denying those licenses to gay and lesbian couples for the same reasons that the Federal Constitution prohibits states from deciding that they don't want to recognize interracial marriages. 

 

I personally believe that the rationale for Loving v. Virginia applies here.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

 

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

 

 

Now, obviously, sexual orientation is not yet considered by the Supreme Court to be a classification subject to the 14th Amendment.  That is a big hurdle that will need to be overcome, but I really think it is only a matter of time.  The unanimous decision striking down Texas' anti-sodomy law was certainly encouraging and showed an evolution of the court, even if it did explicitly stop short of extending the needed protections to sexual orientation. 

Ron Paul supports DOMA.

Further, to the extent that State DO grant marriage licenses, I personally believe that the Federal Constitution prohibits denying those licenses to gay and lesbian couples for the same reasons that the Federal Constitution prohibits states from deciding that they don't want to recognize interracial marriages. 

 

I agree, and this is also a very mainstream libertarian position among serious libertarian thinkers (SLTs), at least as expressed by the preeminent libertarian think tank.  Cato had a great podcasted event on the topic not long ago: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/progress-toward-marriage-equality/

 

I also agree though that it's not what you'll necessarily hear from "cafeteria libertarian" politicians, who are corrupted by, among other things, the need to attract votes from certain neanderthal voters.

Hts. I posted the poll on Ron Paul forums. I agree with you on the Loving case, at least I feel personally that the rationale applies. The Cato think tank videos appear to be enlightening.

 

 

Poll: How would a true libertarian vote on a Constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage?

 

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?305504-Poll-libertarians-and-same-sex-marriage

 

So far the vote is 14 "no" and 1 "yes" by a poster named 'traditional conservative' lol.

Interesting and thanks.  That is encouraging as far as their individual beliefs, but does not really address the constitutional question (my fault for not properly framing the question in the first place).  May I suggest changing the poll to this -

 

"According to true libertarian thinking, does a State Constitutional Amendment banning same sex marriage violate the Federal Constitution?"

 

That would distinguish the question from one of personal preference to a question of right and llberties.

 

Ron Paul supports DOMA.

 

Only because he thinks it maintains Texas' right to deny recognition of gay marriages performed in states that allow them.  It goes back to the 'don't impose your Boston values on us' line of thinking.

^I totally agree that it's important to separate out the federalism question from the fundamental liberty question, which is more or less how you started this strain of discussion in the first place, before I got all defensive about libertarianism.  Which is funny, because I'm not a libertarian.  I just enjoy some of Cato's on line programs and their often high level of policy discourse.

Ron Paul supports DOMA.

 

Only because he thinks it maintains Texas' right to deny recognition of gay marriages performed in states that allow them.  It goes back to the 'don't impose your Boston values on us' line of thinking.

 

That might be why, but it also inhibits Texas's ability to bestow full marriage rights on its same-sex couples, should Texas choose to do so. A pure libertarian would not endorse a law (DOMA) which does both of those things.

 

It also infringes upon churches' rights to perform SS legal weddings.

I don't think that is how Paul would interpret DOMA's scope and intent.  To him, it simply is a measure that forbids what he may call 'the nationalization of same sex marriages.'

Cincinnati Enquirer Politics Extra blog post about latest ballot initiative with quotes from creepy Phil Buress & a poll to boot.

http://cincinnati.com/blogs/politics/2012/03/01/new-ohio-vote-on-gay-marriage/

Small sample size.... but a 71% to 29% margin in a Cincy Enquirer poll is encouraging

 

We're not in 2004 anymore Toto!

 

Come mothers and fathers

Throughout the land

And don't criticize

What you can't understand

Your sons and your daughters

Are beyond your command

Your old road is

Rapidly agin'

Please get out of the new one

If you can't lend your hand

For the times they are a-changin'

Mass Wedding in Cleveland

 

By Michelle Garcia

 

More than 200 gay and lesbian couples participated in a mass wedding in Cleveland, Ohio on Saturday, making it possibly the "largest illegal mass wedding ever held," according to organizers....

 

 

http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2012/03/25/Mass_Wedding_in_Cleveland/

Ohio AG certifies petition for same-sex marriage amendment to state constitution (poll)

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine announced this afternoon that he had certified the petition for the proposed amendment to the Ohio Constitution that would repeal and replace the definition of marriage.

 

The Freedom to Marry advocacy group is trying to repeal and replace a 2004 amendment to the Ohio Constitution that says the state only recognizes a marriage between a man and a woman. The group's proposal seeks to allow two consenting adults to enter into marriage regardless of gender.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2012/04/ohio_attorney_general_certifie.html

 

 

I like the approach this group is taking.  Here is the language being proposed:

 

In the State of Ohio and its political subdivisions, marriage shall be a union of two consenting adults not nearer of kin than second cousins, and not having a husband or wife living, and no religious institution shall be required to perform or recognize a marriage.

 

It's good strategy because it does not mention the words gay or lesbian.  In all honesty, they can probably count on the votes a few people who would otherwise vote no but don't fully understand the intent.  It's also smart to include that last sentence, even though I think it is totally unnecessary given what I would consider a 1st Amendment prohibition against forcing any religious institution to perform a religious ceremony or 'recognize' anything about anyone.

 

Additoinally, some encouraging polling numbers being compiled in that link.

 

And while I'm glad that Forbes is on board due to the influence he has on the black community and clergy, I hope his advocacy does not spur any reactionary feelings from those who might support this measure but automatically put themselves at odds with people like Forbes.

Decent poll results so far! I dont understand how people can be so against it that they would go out and protest it.

 

Personally I believe that Churches shouldn't be forced to conduct the ceremonies though, so Im glad that is specifically stated.

I agree churches shouldn't be forced to marry people - how would that even work - but i would like to see those that don't incur a penalty like losing their nonprofit status. Seems like a fair trade.

I agree churches shouldn't be forced to marry people - how would that even work - but i would like to see those that don't incur a penalty like losing their nonprofit status. Seems like a fair trade.

 

Thats penalizing churches because of their religious beliefs. That goes a bit far in my opinion. But legalizing gay marriage is a must in my opinion. No point of taking people who dont believe in it though and make them even more opposed/pissed about it because now their church is penalized. And that would just create even more issues.

But the supreme(?) court penalized/threatened to penalize that one religious college - Bob something or another - if they continued to forbid interacial relationships,  and the school backed down. Seems like there's a precedent, at least on an ethical level (forget protected class issues for now).

 

I also don't really see first amendment issues here. No one is going to jail if they refuse to marry gays in my hypothetical.

 

 

Anyone else notice the "shape" of the poll results above?  Ironic?

Ironic because lesbian marriages involve so many fewer dicks than straight marriages?

But the supreme(?) court penalized/threatened to penalize that one religious college - Bob something or another - if they continued to forbid interacial relationships,  and the school backed down. Seems like there's a precedent, at least on an ethical level (forget protected class issues for now).

 

Do you mean Bob Jones Univ?  The IRS went after the school's tax exempt status because their policies violated federal law.  But the repeal of the policy was done by the school, albeit on after and most likely because of the sh!tstorm it found itself in when Bush chose the school as a location to give a speech during his campaign.

 

I agree churches shouldn't be forced to marry people - how would that even work

 

Holding a desert eagle .45 to the Priest's head during the ceremony should do the trick

 

 

This story came up this morning with a group somewhat random people I was standing around with.  Of course, there was the one guy who had to blurt out "being gay is a choice."  To which I replied (something along the lines of) "it might be a choice for you, but I am straight as an arrow and not able to do anything about that."  Walk off line :)....

This story came up this morning with a group somewhat random people I was standing around with.  Of course, there was the one guy who had to blurt out "being gay is a choice."  To which I replied (something along the lines of) "it might be a choice for you, but I am straight as an arrow and not able to do anything about that."  Walk off line :)....

 

The "choice" argument is an interesting one. I'm a gay man, and whether or not it was a decision on my part to be gay, I'd like the gay community to 're-own' the choice argument. That was a popular argument in homophile circles in the 60s - that being gay was a valid and valuable way to live one's life. Now, the implication is that "being gay is so awful, no one would **choose** it, and since it was biologically predetermined, you must accept me on those grounds". What if being gay, straight, bi, or whatever, was fine? What we didn't rely on eugenist-inspired arguments about biological determinism, and sought to accept sexuality on its own terms?

I wonder how this might affect the Presidential election?  Some have argued that the 2004 amendment here in Ohio played a significant role in getting Bush re-elected.  Further, if as election day approaches and poll numbers are indicating that this will pass comfortably, I wonder how Romney might approach the issue if asked about it.

a) I think there is a significant difference in that the 2004 measure was drafted by gay marriage opponents.  There was a nationwide push by Rove and his people to get as many of those measures on the ballot as possible.  But we have evolved on this issue since the 2004 election.  There has been a dramatic shift in public sentiment, in large part (IMO) due to many conservatives now identifying with the libertarian philosophy of 'what your stick up you a## is your own d#mn business.'

 

b) On Romney.....

 

They still need to collect a ton of signatures. I highly doubt it will be on the ballot this year.

They still need to collect a ton of signatures. I highly doubt it will be on the ballot this year.

 

Yeah I was confused by that at first, too.  Next year seems more likely for this.

It all depends on funding.  If the money is there, collecting the signatures shouldn't be a problem.  I wouldn't be too keen, and in fact think there should be a rule against, putting a constitutional amendment on an odd year election ballot.  Of course, I am not a fan of how easy it is to amend the Ohio Constitution in the first place.

It all depends on funding.  If the money is there, collecting the signatures shouldn't be a problem.  I wouldn't be too keen, and in fact think there should be a rule against, putting a constitutional amendment on an odd year election ballot.  Of course, I am not a fan of how easy it is to amend the Ohio Constitution in the first place.

 

Yeah, that's the other part of this discussion that I find a bit peculiar (even if completely legal).  In another 10 years we could have another ballot amendment vote on the issue once again declaring "marriage" between a man and a woman.

Yep.  Mob rule here in Ohio, for better or worse.

Anyone else notice the "shape" of the poll results above?  Ironic?

Not so much ironic as it is fitting. I thought I was first to catch that, but knew someone else just had to.

Poll shows strong support for medical marijuana, growing support for same-sex marriage in Ohio

 

By Jackie Borchardt, Northeast Ohio Media Group

on February 24, 2014 at 6:45 AM

 

Most younger voters also support same-sex marriage, with 71 percent in favor of legalizing the unions and 28 percent opposed, while 59 percent of voters over age 65 oppose it.

 

"Given that younger voters support same sex marriage almost 3-1, it would seem to be just a matter of time," Brown said.

 

Overall support for gay marriage hit 50 percent, with 44 percent opposed, a little greater than the last time Quinnipiac polled on the issue in April 2013.

 

Support is higher among Democrats (67 percent) than independents (53 percent) and Republicans (29 percent). Support is higher among women than men, with 55 percent of women in favor of same-sex marriage and 46 percent of men.

 

FreedomOhio, the group backing a constitutional amendment to overturn Ohio's 2004 same-sex marriage ban, commissioned a poll in December that showed support for the specific amendment was greater than on the issue.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2014/02/poll_shows_strong_support_for.html#comments#incart_most-comments

I remember having to read the 2004 constitutional amendment several times to make sure I was voting the way I wanted to vote on the issue.  It was poorly worded, most likely on purpose.  The proposed amendment is very tactfully drafted.  It pre-empts any false claims about forcing churches to perform marriages....... as if churches were ever required to perform marriages, but whatever.  And I love that this group snatched up the name "FreedomOhio".  It's stunning that some tea party group had not already done so.  This could cause confusion in a good way.  I actually would recommend altering the name to "FreedomOhio for Constitutional Liberty Patriots of Truth, Justice, and the American Way"

New House Bill Targeting Proceeds of Prostitution Could Disproportionately Affect LGBTQ+ Ohioans

 

As one anti-LGBTQ+ Ohio bill has a hearing this week and another made national headlines without even been assigned a committee, a third piece of legislation set to disproportionately harm LGBTQ+ people quietly passed the Ohio House of Representatives.

 

On March 30, House Bill 276 — dubbed the “prohibit receiving proceeds of prostitution,” bill — passed by a vote of 87 to 4, banning any individual from receiving or acquiring money or any other thing of value if  “they know that it was earned from sexual activity for hire.”

 

Because LGBTQ+ people are more than twice as likely to engage in sex work as members of the general population, experts say they’re doubly vulnerable to the bill’s unintended consequences. This could leave sex workers unable to buy things like groceries and diapers, while also criminalizing their sources of support, be they family assisting with childcare, landlord, convenience store owner, or even a healthcare provider.

 

The bill’s sponsors Reps. Jena Powell (R-Arcanum) and Jean Schmidt (R-Loveland) say that HB 276 was introduced to “make it easier for law enforcement and prosecutors to tie traffickers and pimps to illegal activity and return convictions for these heinous crimes.”

 

More below:

https://columbusunderground.com/new-house-bill-targeting-proceeds-of-prostitution-could-disproportionally-affect-lgbtq-ohioans-bf1/

 

It looks like the legislature is also on track to pass a bill banning trans kids from participating in sports.

 

A Rep indicated he called around to sports associations and they had found 11 such incidents in the last six years, with zero complaints.

 

Republicans...in search of a solution of a problem that doesn't exist simply because they hate trans people.

37 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

It looks like the legislature is also on track to pass a bill banning trans kids from participating in sports.

 

A Rep indicated he called around to sports associations and they had found 11 such incidents in the last six years, with zero complaints.

 

Republicans...in search of a solution of a problem that doesn't exist simply because they hate trans people.

Continually flabbergasted by the way the Ohio GOP conducts itself. I don’t understand what their ultimate aim is. Do they just want people to needlessly suffer? Do they want to strip every ounce of joy and comfort from existence? 
 

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/jd-vance-senate-pornography_n_628d3ba1e4b05cfc2692705b

23 hours ago, DarkandStormy said:

It looks like the legislature is also on track to pass a bill banning trans kids from participating in sports.

 

A Rep indicated he called around to sports associations and they had found 11 such incidents in the last six years, with zero complaints.

 

Republicans...in search of a solution of a problem that doesn't exist simply because they hate trans people.

So they are banning 2 kids per year from participating in their preferred sport. Great work team.

23 hours ago, DarkandStormy said:

Republicans...in search of a solution of a problem that doesn't exist simply because they hate trans people.

No, they don't hate trans people, they just have common sense, something that is sorely lacking in this country now.

 

Edited June 3, 20223 yr by LibertyBlvd

11 minutes ago, LibertyBlvd said:

No, they don't hate trans people, they just have common sense, something that is sorely lacking in this country now.

 

This statement is complete nonsense. Last year there was one (known) transgender child in the entire state participating in high school sports. The year before there were five. Transgender children participating in high school sports is a non-issue. This bill is entirely about bullying a very small group of children. Even worse, as is often the case when politicians try to “solve” non-issues through legislation, there are going to be obvious and horrific ramifications of this law. This bill allows for the inspection of a child’s external and internal genitalia if someone suspects that the child is transgender. This is a massive invasion of privacy that is arguably sexual assault OF A CHILD. (Larry Nassar would have LOVED this law.) And they say it’s in defense of women’s sport? Barf. How many girls will now refuse to participate because they don’t want to be subjected the humiliation of genital examinations? This bill is garbage, and is yet another example of the utter and complete embarrassment that the Ohio legislature has become.  
 

 

I honestly believe that measures like this are done to rile up the electorate in order to distract from more pressing issues like not drawing fair voting maps. In the last week we've learned that the GOP is AGAIN in contempt of court for not drawing a fair map, and "whoops" it's too late for the next election. They've also passed two extremely controversial bills that (I hope) have no chance of becoming law. These two bills I'm sure will distract everyone while the map issue takes a back seat.

 

2 hours ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

This statement is complete nonsense. Last year there was one (known) transgender child in the entire state participating in high school sports. The year before there were five. Transgender children participating in high school sports is a non-issue. This bill is entirely about bullying a very small group of children. Even worse, as is often the case when politicians try to “solve” non-issues through legislation, there are going to be obvious and horrific ramifications of this law. This bill allows for the inspection of a child’s external and internal genitalia if someone suspects that the child is transgender. This is a massive invasion of privacy that is arguably sexual assault OF A CHILD. (Larry Nassar would have LOVED this law.) And they say it’s in defense of women’s sport? Barf. How many girls will now refuse to participate because they don’t want to be subjected the humiliation of genital examinations? This bill is garbage, and is yet another example of the utter and complete embarrassment that the Ohio legislature has become.  
 

 

 

It is not a non-issue. Biological males should not be competing with biological females.  

Children shouldn’t be subjected to genital inspection to play sports. It’s important to note that OHSA already had a policy that ensured a transgender girl wouldn’t be able to compete until after transitioning. (D&S posted the relevant policy in the other thread discussing this, reposted below)
 

5 hours ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

OSHAA already addressed this - https://ohsaaweb.blob.core.windows.net/files/Eligibility/OtherEligibiltyDocs/TransgenderPolicy.pdf (warning - auto PDF link)

 

Relevant page, I think:

 

There is more burden on the trans kid / kid's parents to "demonstrate to the Executive Director's Office by way of sound medical evidence that the muscle mass developed...does not exceed the muscle mass that is typical of an adolescent."  But I think this is fair?  Plus a trans girl has to wait a year or demonstrate she doesn't have a physical advantage before playing a girl's sport.

 

4 hours ago, LibertyBlvd said:

No, they don't hate trans people, they just have common sense, something that is sorely lacking in this country now.

 

 

Then it's not common sense anymore, now is it?

Edited June 3, 20223 yr by GCrites80s

4 hours ago, LibertyBlvd said:

No, they don't hate trans people, they just have common sense, something that is sorely lacking in this country now.

 

 

Common sense is a matter of opinion. Compassion isn't. If the government is treating you like a criminal for self-determination, for trying to become who believe you are, then that is not compassion. It's cruelty. And yes, there's a whole bunch of that going around today in this hellscape country.