A gay man's story amind the chik-a-fil madness

[Hype]

How about we scale back government intrusion in our lives period?

Nah. More intrusion!!

Oh, you support the war machine, the drug laws, imminent domain etc? You cannot pick and choose which areas the government is overreaching. Too much power is too much power and will always be abused in ways segments of the population are hurt by through legislation that inhibits civil liberties.

The abuse continues even down to the state level.

The police have become a local army, primarily because of the war on drugs, and act with impunity.

Down with government. Power to the people.

Yet the hypocrites that yell that are the first to demand the government save us from ourselves.

Sorry, I was being obtuse... My point was actually that you've already framed the issue in a way that's absurd, as if the government doing anything at all progressive or social constitutes 'intrusion'. But that just begs the question (i.e., is illegitimate, and patently false).

My "more intrusion!!" comment was meant to be absurd... because there isn't anyone actually in favour of more 'intrusion'. The problem is that people who take your angle on government ITSELF think that governments doing anything other than the things you think government should be doing, is intrusive. But surely that's the very argument that you need to have?

Take government action, A, on issue x. Now ask the question: is A intrusive (and why)?

You know progressives are often going to disagree with you... so it's just bad form to frame it as if it's already settled.

[Juana]

If we left civil rights up to the states, MS, AL and GA would still have separate water fountains.

Based on what evidence can you state this unequivocably? Also, there is a reasonable constitutional debate to be had regarding whether those states should have that right.

However, I cannot imagine you honestly believe that the voters in those states would continue to approve of segregation.

Can you imagine the lack of support amongst businesses, tourists, etc.? By the nature of needing to maintain profitability they would be forced to progress.

Forced acceptance from the federal government does not supercede personal feelings, and can often create resentment thus further derailing the more personal mission of acceptance.

we need an amendment to the bill of rights, just as they did for black suffrage & women suffrage.

Um, those were voting rights amendments.

I think you're suggesting a simple constitutional amendment allowing gay marriage.

There is much debate whether the US Congess has the right to force such an amendment as dictated by their original enumerated powers. This should be an issue of state rights, which is where any civil rights movement begins regardless.

Why is marriage a state or federal issue to begin with? Why isn't the legal partnership of individuals determined by the individual and the contract they choose regarding what rights they allow their partner in to their financial and personal affairs?

It is precisely because of too much government that we face this issue. It's amazing to me how liberals demand "more more government" to correct an issue that government has created.

On that same note, aren't most progressives anti authoritarian? Don't they generally distrust the politicians and their war machine? Don't they intend to raise their fists and resist? Against what? It's a such a muddled idealogy. Damn the man! Unless that man is passing laws I agree with and giving me free things. Oh wait, but the man now has too much power and is taking things from me. Damn imminent domain! Damn the drug laws!

How about damn the man period? How about we scale back government intrusion in our lives period?

For your segregation comment, have you lived in any of those states? They would allow segregation if allowed to. The racism is crazy outside of the major cities in those states.

[Hokahey]

If we left civil rights up to the states, MS, AL and GA would still have separate water fountains.

Based on what evidence can you state this unequivocably? Also, there is a reasonable constitutional debate to be had regarding whether those states should have that right.

However, I cannot imagine you honestly believe that the voters in those states would continue to approve of segregation.

Can you imagine the lack of support amongst businesses, tourists, etc.? By the nature of needing to maintain profitability they would be forced to progress.

Forced acceptance from the federal government does not supercede personal feelings, and can often create resentment thus further derailing the more personal mission of acceptance.

we need an amendment to the bill of rights, just as they did for black suffrage & women suffrage.

Um, those were voting rights amendments.

I think you're suggesting a simple constitutional amendment allowing gay marriage.

There is much debate whether the US Congess has the right to force such an amendment as dictated by their original enumerated powers. This should be an issue of state rights, which is where any civil rights movement begins regardless.

Why is marriage a state or federal issue to begin with? Why isn't the legal partnership of individuals determined by the individual and the contract they choose regarding what rights they allow their partner in to their financial and personal affairs?

It is precisely because of too much government that we face this issue. It's amazing to me how liberals demand "more more government" to correct an issue that government has created.

On that same note, aren't most progressives anti authoritarian? Don't they generally distrust the politicians and their war machine? Don't they intend to raise their fists and resist? Against what? It's a such a muddled idealogy. Damn the man! Unless that man is passing laws I agree with and giving me free things. Oh wait, but the man now has too much power and is taking things from me. Damn imminent domain! Damn the drug laws!

How about damn the man period? How about we scale back government intrusion in our lives period?

For your segregation comment, have you lived in any of those states? They would allow segregation if allowed to. The racism is crazy outside of the major cities in those states.

My father was in the military. I've lived in every "area" of the United States. Yes there are more racists in the south than other areas, but I think it's a cartoonish caricature to suggest these states are so full of backwoods hillbillies that the majority would support segregation. I'd be curious to see a poll of those areas. A quick Google search returned nothing substantive.

Let's say you're right though. Those states would be an even bigger laughing stock than they are. Businesses would not locate there. Tourists would not visit. There would be mass protests and public outrage. They would cease to be functional in any meaningful manner. They'd become so broke they'd have no choice but to adjust. Let's see how well Chick Fil A does long term. It's my understanding that despite the one big day of support their profits are down since this issue began. How well do you think they'd do long term if they loudly voiced an opposition to gay marriage instead of backing out of the debate as they've done?

[Larry B.]

You're all scary.

[mockbee]

Are you an anarchist Hoka? That is a serious question because the way you are framing everything in the last couple pages you are completely against government......outside of maybe the military....if that?

And before you get in to the cycle we always do here, what makes the states so fantastic? The US competes against Mexico just like California competes against Texas.....blah blah blah..... What I don't understand is where we all disagree?????? There are so many generalities flying around we all talk past each other........

[Artemis]

Here's how same-sex marriage is in Canada:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_m ... _in_Canada

On July 20, 2005, Canada became the fourth country in the world and the first country in the Americas to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide with the enactment of the Civil Marriage Act which provided a gender-neutral marriage definition. Court decisions, starting in 2003, each already legalized same-sex marriage in eight out of ten provinces and one of three territories, whose residents comprised about 90% of Canada's population. Before passage of the Act, more than 3,000 same-sex couples had already married in those areas.[1] Most legal benefits commonly associated with marriage had been extended to cohabiting same-sex couples since 1999.

The Civil Marriage Act was introduced by Prime Minister Paul Martin's Liberal government in the Canadian House of Commons on February 1, 2005 as Bill C-38. It was passed by the House of Commons on June 28, 2005, by the Senate on July 19, 2005, and it received Royal Assent the following day. On December 7, 2006, the House of Commons effectively reaffirmed the legislation by a vote of 175 to 123, defeating a Conservative government motion to examine the matter again. This was the third vote supporting same-sex marriage taken by three Parliaments under three Prime Ministers in three different years.

The Civil Marriage Act (Full Title: "An Act respecting certain aspects of legal capacity for marriage for civil purposes")

This is the Act's official legislative summary:

This enactment extends the legal capacity for marriage for civil purposes to same-sex couples in order to reflect values of tolerance, respect and equality, consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It also makes consequential amendments to other Acts to ensure equal access for same-sex couples to the civil effects of marriage and divorce.[1]

The short title of the act (Civil Marriage Act) is defined in Section 1. Sections 2 through 4 form the substance of the Act, and were the key points of contention during its debate in the House of Commons and the Senate. Section 3.1 was added with an amendment during the committee stage, and was subsequently adopted by the House of Commons.

Marriage - certain aspects of capacity

2. Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others.
Religious officials

3. It is recognized that officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs.
Freedom of conscience and religion and expression of beliefs

3.1 For greater certainty, no person or organization shall be deprived of any benefit, or be subject to any obligation or sanction, under any law of the Parliament of Canada solely by reason of their exercise, in respect of marriage between persons of the same sex, of the freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the expression of their beliefs in respect of marriage as the union of a man and woman to the exclusion of all others based on that guaranteed freedom.

Marriage not void or voidable

4. For greater certainty, a marriage is not void or voidable by reason only that the spouses are of the same sex.
The remaining sections are "consequential amendments" that simply adjust the wording of existing acts to conform to this one.

[farrellgirl99]

You're all scary.

[Essence_Smith]

A few thoughts...imo prejudice is usually related to fear, people fearing what they don't understand, etc...I have been the lone black guy in a MILLION situations partially because I wasn't raised to fear people who were different from me in their ethnicity, color, thinking, etc...I admit at one point in my life I was slightly homophobic. I wouldn't disrespect anyone that appeared to be gay or anything, but my lack of experience with them made me a bit less outgoing socially when I came in contact with gay men...that being said I have a few male friends that are gay now and I feel like an idiot for not being more open minded when I was younger...discriminating against them is as bad as doing it to any other group of people...and the least race conscious people I've come across are gay people...generally they dont' give a fuck what color you are as long as you're cool and I find that to be pretty cool...

On the issue of the Chik Fil A thing...I think the CEO has a right to his opinion as much as people have a right to boycotting his company for disagreeing with his opinion...on gay marriage I think the government could care less if the issue didn't tie into money somehow...certain benefits being paid out to gay spouses, etc...in NY I think it only passed because people will now come here to get married and it will bring the state money in some way or another...maybe I'm oversimplifying, but I think it comes down to money...and yes...we are all scary...

[Hokahey]

Are you an anarchist Hoka?

I find myself leaning more towards that label than any other.

Along the lines of how government doesn't help:

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crim ... 0f31a.html

No Larry Rice and his prosletizing isn't the ideal leader of this movement, but at least the gentleman is willing to go to jail for the cause of allowing the homeless to have camps in St. Louis, so I support him.

Entitlement programs naively intended to help are ripe with abuse.

The police are overzealous militant types that kill and beat with impunity.

The military wreaks havoc on soveriegn nations and kills hundreds of thousands of civilians.

It's sick.

How anyone can be supportive of more government is mind boggling with how they flex their ever increasing muscle to keep the population in line and obeying their moral demands.

I fail to see how all but a very few government functions aren't handled better by private business.

Everyone whines about how they're all corrupt and then just keep voting for "them" hoping this time their guy will be different.

The system is broken. We're voting for puppets.

How can you support such a system?

[Hokahey]

in NY I think it only passed because people will now come here to get married and it will bring the state money in some way or another...maybe I'm oversimplifying, but I think it comes down to money...and yes...we are all scary...

This is exactly right. There is an economic benefit to be inclusive, and if cities, states, etc. want to compete they will fall in line or fall on their faces.

Imagine if a restaurant was allowed to legally discriminate against minorities. Who would eat there? A few racists? How many would boycott and agitate and protest and run them out of town? Yes they would be a stain on the landscape of society, but how long could they function outside of some backwoods location that most minorities would likely want to avoid anyway knowing it's in a racist local?

Money talks.

[mockbee]

Are you an anarchist Hoka?

I find myself leaning more towards that label than any other.

Well now I feel like we might be getting somewhere.

You might be the only Capitalist Anarchist out there....

[Hype]

Are you an anarchist Hoka?

I find myself leaning more towards that label than any other.

Well now I feel like we might be getting somewhere.

You might be the only Capitalist Anarchist out there....

It's very common. More common than anarcho-syndicalism, and they've got Chomsky!

[Pure Method]

Are you an anarchist Hoka?

I find myself leaning more towards that label than any other.

Well now I feel like we might be getting somewhere.

You might be the only Capitalist Anarchist out there....

It's very common. More common than anarcho-syndicalism, and they've got Chomsky!

don't you mean "we"?

[Hype]

Fuck no... I'm left of Stalin... ONE BIG UNION = ONE BIG GOVERNMENT.

(The "left of Stalin" is a joke, obviously... but the difference between me and most leftists/egalitarians is that I'm not a metaphysical 'liberal/libertarian'. I have a radically different view of what individuals and freedom are, and though I share things like a general desire for egalitarianism of opportunity and social progressivism, I desire these things for reasons which go beyond the Kantian libertarian idea of oneself as a member of the Kingdom of Ends.)

[mockbee]

Are you an anarchist Hoka?

I find myself leaning more towards that label than any other.

Well now I feel like we might be getting somewhere.

You might be the only Capitalist Anarchist out there....

It's very common. More common than anarcho-syndicalism, and they've got Chomsky!

Well, I suppose you could call those Ron Paul fanatics anarcho-capitalists, in lieu of Libertarian, but that terminology still seems quite the oxymoron. I can't imagine Capitalism ever striving or even functioning without government interventions.... It has never happened, right? And it would be a nightmare if it ever came to that....

[Hype]

Are you an anarchist Hoka?

I find myself leaning more towards that label than any other.

Well now I feel like we might be getting somewhere.

You might be the only Capitalist Anarchist out there....

It's very common. More common than anarcho-syndicalism, and they've got Chomsky!

Well, I suppose you could call those Ron Paul fanatics anarcho-capitalists, in lieu of Libertarian, but that terminology still seems quite the oxymoron. I can't imagine Capitalism ever striving or even functioning without government interventions.... It has never happened, right? And it would be a nightmare if it ever came to that....

They are indeed literally anarcho-capitalist insofar as they are anarchic with respect to federal governance. They're radically decentralist, which both theoretically and in practice is functionally equivalent to anarchism. The fact that individual libertarians may have differing degrees of support for government "intrusion" just shows that people aren't consistent. And it's a good thing too (at least, if you're mostly wrong...)

They've misread Adam Smith's metaphor of "the invisible hand of the market", resulting in a warped view of rationality and ideal market conditions (this is why Hoka thinks if you let businesses discriminate, people won't go there and they'll go out of business and all will be well in the world... It's not Hoka in particular that I want to pick on, because I'm fine with Hoka thinking through the issues himself, but this is ultimately a serious problem because when people with this view get into power it perpetuates social evil in part because of the second clause I mention:), and they've also championed Hayek's radical libertarian view of "justice". If you read Hayek carefully (I can give you the page number), he's just taking the view that ANY and ALL inequality, suffering, or death, that comes about as a result of unplanned collective action rather than individually intended acts is not a matter of injustice. Sane people who aren't under the sway of ideology should be appalled by this. He thinks because we can't blame a single person for some brutal states of affairs coming about, therefore in these cases it's not technically "unjust", and therefore the government doesn't have to (and in fact SHOULDN'T) do anything about it.

This is nothing but anarchy.

[mockbee]

Hayek carefully (I can give you the page number), he's just taking the view that ANY and ALL inequality, suffering, or death, that comes about as a result of unplanned collective action rather than individually intended acts is not a matter of injustice. Sane people who aren't under the sway of ideology should be appalled by this. He thinks because we can't blame a single person for some brutal states of affairs coming about, therefore in these cases it's not technically "unjust", and therefore the government doesn't have to (and in fact SHOULDN'T) do anything about it.

This is nothing but anarchy.

That is nothing but la-la land.


I'm surprised we even function as a society of individuals with all these ridiculous notions we all have, myself included......

[Hype]

There are some things Hayek said that have been cogent enough to change socialist (and liberal egalitarian) theory... for one, the feasibility of implementing any kind of egalitarian social welfare policy is now considered a much bigger issue (especially after the fall of the Soviet Union, and the "opening up" of Chinese communism, not to mention the introduction of a second monetary system in the only other remaining Communist state, Cuba). So libertarians who push for more "efficient" government spending (supposing that we already have spending and they aren't focused solely on stopping it altogether) are worth listening to, at least to just double-check that we're doing things in ways that aren't self-defeating.

"In as free a system of government as must exist when it is a question of truth, there must also be an opposition party, the left side, and this is the philosophy faculty's bench." -- Kant

But the issue of gay marriage rights is pretty simple... constitutional amendment. Problem solved.

[Romeo]

If we left civil rights up to the states, MS, AL and GA would still have separate water fountains.

Based on what evidence can you state this unequivocably? Also, there is a reasonable constitutional debate to be had regarding whether those states should have that right.

However, I cannot imagine you honestly believe that the voters in those states would continue to approve of segregation.

Can you imagine the lack of support amongst businesses, tourists, etc.? By the nature of needing to maintain profitability they would be forced to progress.

Forced acceptance from the federal government does not supercede personal feelings, and can often create resentment thus further derailing the more personal mission of acceptance.

we need an amendment to the bill of rights, just as they did for black suffrage & women suffrage.

Um, those were voting rights amendments.

I think you're suggesting a simple constitutional amendment allowing gay marriage.

There is much debate whether the US Congess has the right to force such an amendment as dictated by their original enumerated powers. This should be an issue of state rights, which is where any civil rights movement begins regardless.

Why is marriage a state or federal issue to begin with? Why isn't the legal partnership of individuals determined by the individual and the contract they choose regarding what rights they allow their partner in to their financial and personal affairs?

It is precisely because of too much government that we face this issue. It's amazing to me how liberals demand "more more government" to correct an issue that government has created.

On that same note, aren't most progressives anti authoritarian? Don't they generally distrust the politicians and their war machine? Don't they intend to raise their fists and resist? Against what? It's a such a muddled idealogy. Damn the man! Unless that man is passing laws I agree with and giving me free things. Oh wait, but the man now has too much power and is taking things from me. Damn imminent domain! Damn the drug laws!

How about damn the man period? How about we scale back government intrusion in our lives period?

For your segregation comment, have you lived in any of those states? They would allow segregation if allowed to. The racism is crazy outside of the major cities in those states.

My father was in the military. I've lived in every "area" of the United States. Yes there are more racists in the south than other areas, but I think it's a cartoonish caricature to suggest these states are so full of backwoods hillbillies that the majority would support segregation. I'd be curious to see a poll of those areas. A quick Google search returned nothing substantive.

Let's say you're right though. Those states would be an even bigger laughing stock than they are. Businesses would not locate there. Tourists would not visit. There would be mass protests and public outrage. They would cease to be functional in any meaningful manner. They'd become so broke they'd have no choice but to adjust. Let's see how well Chick Fil A does long term. It's my understanding that despite the one big day of support their profits are down since this issue began. How well do you think they'd do long term if they loudly voiced an opposition to gay marriage instead of backing out of the debate as they've done?

There are more fundamentalists churches in the South that North or West.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/114022/State ... igion.aspx The top 9 religious states are south of the Mason Dixon
These are the people who use their bible as an excuse & as permission to exclude.

Also you may have lived in many states, but have you lived there as a person of color? Or try being a Jew in the deep parts of Georgia.

[Hype]

I was once told by a teacher that in suburban central Florida (hardly "backwoods", like the panhandle is) there's still, to this day, a deep stigma about interracial FRIENDSHIP, so palpable that in some neighbourhoods white folk are looked down upon if they have their black friends over. Maybe that's not the most common view, but the fact that it exists in a population of more than, well, zero, (or even realistically: more than 1/100,000)... is enough to indict the culture.

Why isn't the legal partnership of individuals determined by the individual and the contract they choose regarding what rights they allow their partner in to their financial and personal affairs?

Because contracts require third-party arbitration. That's what having a SOCIETY is... not having to worry about defectors in an iterated prisoner's dilemma, because there's enough of a disincentive produced by government regulation to produce reliable contract adherence. What Hoka is suggesting is a magical fairyland in which people honour contracts, and trust others to honour contracts for no good reason.

[Hokahey]

What Hoka is suggesting is a magical fairyland in which people honour contracts, and trust others to honour contracts for no good reason.

Uh...contracts are legal documents. They have to be honored unless you want your ass sued.

Also you may have lived in many states, but have you lived there as a person of color? Or try being a Jew in the deep parts of Georgia.

The only fight I ever got in to in high school was in Florida where a skin head was screaming about Hitler in front of my Jewish girlfriend. The same school was closed for a week later that year because the skinheads trashed the school and spray painted swastikas everywhere.

Don't assume that because I don't share a desire for moar moar moar government to fix our problems that I don't have a deep understanding of the issues facing those that deal with the dredges of society pushing them down. You'll find no bigger advocate for them than I. I just don't believe in the same solutions as you. I don't believein further empowering an ever expanding government you all hated so much under Bush (as did I). Remember, that all powerful federal government that passed the patriot act and slaughtered hundreds of thousands of civillians? The same government that continues down these paths?

Too much government has made us complacent to the plight of the needy. We expect them to solve all of our problems, when 99% of the time they created them. It's madness.

[Hype]

What Hoka is suggesting is a magical fairyland in which people honour contracts, and trust others to honour contracts for no good reason.

Uh...contracts are legal documents. They have to be honored unless you want your ass sued.

There are several problems with this. First, it's obvious that contracts are *legal*, supposing we're already in a society that enforces contracts, though these are not necessarily documents. (Verbal contracts are also contracts. The "Social Contract" is a tacit construct used in legal and political theory, etc.) But my point was that the anti-government ideal would remove all oversight on the honouring of contracts. You realize that the judicial system is part of the government, right? (I know you do... But the question is important. You can't seriously just want to limit executive and legislative power, but not judicial? ) The process by which the judicial system remains functional NECESSARILY involves the legislative and executive branches of government. The implication of the view that government should be limited reduces "violate contract and you'll get sued" to the absurd. Without legislative oversight, there's nothing in place to prevent or otherwise control the corruption of judges, lawyers, etc.

The point isn't about what you're envisioning, because what you're envisioning is something in which all the things you want to remain in place remain in place while you jettison the rest... but there is no, and cannot ever be some, such system --- the thought that it's plausible is based on deep confusion about how things actually work.

The last problem is, as I've probably mentioned before... it's just flat-out crazy to have a society in which the only recourse citizens have is POST HOC (i.e., after the fact). This, too, ceases to be a functioning society, since even if the previous objections I raised weren't correct, the threat of lawsuits only works if the guilty party hasn't figured out a way to remove the threat, which corporations are notorious for doing ALREADY (they have more money than any individual, and therefore can hire better lawyers or pay off judges or do whatever they can get away with). This cowboy mentality that single individuals can take on the world with nothing but the legal system is the equivalent of that stupid argument against gun control that says that the best way to stop gun violence is to give more individuals guns because then someone will always shoot the bad guy before things get as bad as they got when no one shot the bad guy (until the police showed up or he [it's always a he] shot himself)...

[Hokahey]

What Hoka is suggesting is a magical fairyland in which people honour contracts, and trust others to honour contracts for no good reason.

Uh...contracts are legal documents. They have to be honored unless you want your ass sued.

There are several problems with this. First, it's obvious that contracts are *legal*, supposing we're already in a society that enforces contracts, though these are not necessarily documents. (Verbal contracts are also contracts. The "Social Contract" is a tacit construct used in legal and political theory, etc.) But my point was that the anti-government ideal would remove all oversight on the honouring of contracts. You realize that the judicial system is part of the government, right? (I know you do... But the question is important. You can't seriously just want to limit executive and legislative power, but not judicial? ) The process by which the judicial system remains functional NECESSARILY involves the legislative and executive branches of government. The implication of the view that government should be limited reduces "violate contract and you'll get sued" to the absurd. Without legislative oversight, there's nothing in place to prevent or otherwise control the corruption of judges, lawyers, etc.

The point isn't about what you're envisioning, because what you're envisioning is something in which all the things you want to remain in place remain in place while you jettison the rest... but there is no, and cannot ever be some, such system --- the thought that it's plausible is based on deep confusion about how things actually work.[/quote]

I have no idea what you're going on about here. You're arguing as if I've said we need to completely eliminate the government and then expect contracts to be legal.

The last problem is, as I've probably mentioned before... it's just flat-out crazy to have a society in which the only recourse citizens have is POST HOC (i.e., after the fact). This, too, ceases to be a functioning society, since even if the previous objections I raised weren't correct, the threat of lawsuits only works if the guilty party hasn't figured out a way to remove the threat, which corporations are notorious for doing ALREADY (they have more money than any individual, and therefore can hire better lawyers or pay off judges or do whatever they can get away with).

Gee whiz. It sure sounds like you have a lack of faith in our duly elected judges, as if elected officials in positions of power can be bought and sold.

Clearly the judicial system needs reform, but that's a somewhat separate line of discussion.

[Hype]

Hey, you're the one that said you're an anarchist.

[Hokahey]

Hey, you're the one that said you're an anarchist.

True.

Well, not exactly. I think I said I find myself leaning in that direction more and more.

Well whatever. I appreciate the debates though. Make me smurter.