Government Shouldn’t Tell You Who to Love, or Who to Marry

23 Jun

And that line was uttered by a Republican.  See how proponents for marriage equality appeal to fairness, equality, and love:




Here is an ad issued by the leading national lobbying organization against marriage equality. It speaks for itself with fear and falsity.


A vote in the State Senate is expected before the end of the week, although nothing is set in stone. The Senate will work out the massive reform bill being referred to as the “big ugly”, dealing with mandate relief, a property tax cap, and rent control issues before taking up (possibly) same sex marriage.  Shocking that raising the income threshold for rent control from $175k to $300k is holding up a bill to make a class of New Yorkers no longer be second-class citizens, but that’s why you never want to actually pay attention to any legislature, ever, anywhere.

28 Responses to “Government Shouldn’t Tell You Who to Love, or Who to Marry”

  1. Mike In WNY June 23, 2011 at 8:45 am #

    I agree with the premise you have put forth, but let’s expand on it a bit. Government shouldn’t tell you:
    – the minimum amount of money an employer must pay you
    – to wear a seat-belt
    – to purchase health insurance
    – what drugs you can and cannot take
    – to wear a motorcycle helmet
    – what kind of food you can and cannot purchase.

    Support freedom wholly, not selectively.

  2. Bbill June 23, 2011 at 8:59 am #

    By that logic, we should be free to put away fifteen beers, get behind the wheel, and floor it.

    Also too,

    On the other hand, so-called economic libertarians with their Republican and corporate masters have just been having a great time of things. Just the other day, the Supreme Court gave us the freedom from worrying about suing our employers if they wrong us. With the inevitable Medicare and Medicaid cuts because the Koch brothers don’t want to pay taxes, old and poor people will soon be free to die in the streets. Once we completely gut the EPA, you will be free to drink all the hydro-fracking residue you want! If we privatize social security, you will be free to have your savings wiped out when the unregulated Galtian super-geniuses rob you, me, and everyone else, and you are free from the ability to sue them. If the libertarians get their way and ACA is overturned, you will be once again free to get kicked out of your health insurance because you have a pre-existing condition and you will be free to try to find a plan on your own that costs twice what you make a year. If they have their way, tort reform will give you the freedom from ever worry about a civil court remedy. You’re free from job security, you’re free from a pension, you’re free from medical care, you’re free of clean water, and you’re free from good roads and solid infrastructure. Freedom, it’s on the rise everywhere!

  3. peteherr June 23, 2011 at 10:10 am #

    @BBill – But once we have all of those freedoms, the free market will magically create wealth for all of us so we will all have money to retire and illness will go away so we won’t need health insurance.

  4. kbecker June 23, 2011 at 10:24 am #

    Why does the NOM video look like the beginning of Big Love?

  5. BrianS June 23, 2011 at 10:53 am #

    The NOM vid actually made me laugh out loud. It’s so ambiguous you can’t even take it seriously. By the way, as far as why the government SHOULD be able to tell you certain things: Unfortunately, many people a re too selfish and stupid to have total unfettered freedom. They will drive too fast, risking OTHER people’s lives, they will underpay people who have no other work options, they will be reckless with their own health, yet expect OTHERS to pay for their healthcare….etc etc etc. Marriage Equality is a civil right. What two other people do together has no affect on OTHER people’s rights, whereas some of the other “freedoms” need to be controlled to a degree to account for the idiots who impact others because of their inconsideration.

  6. Chris Charvella June 23, 2011 at 11:16 am #

    @Kristen Oh, God, you’re right. Not the first two seasons, but the last two where everything went all to hell.

  7. Chris Charvella June 23, 2011 at 11:18 am #

    Also: NOM NOM NOM

  8. Mike In WNY June 23, 2011 at 11:20 am #

    Bbill, you show that it takes lies and exagerations to trash freedom (libertarianism). The Supreme Court unanimously ruled, that includes uber-liberal Ginsberg. that the class action suit against Wal-Mart was flawed and vague. Libertarians absolutely believe in holding people/corporations accountable for actions that harm others. Now, we have the corporations in bed with the Government Bureaucracy that is supposed to protect us. That clearly isn’t working. The same principle that should allow any people to marry should also allow people to determine what is in their best interest as long as the rights of others are not violated. (I had to tie my rant to the post, wouldn’t want to be off topic.)

  9. STEEL June 23, 2011 at 1:27 pm #

    What would you hold corporations accountable for if there are no regulations?

  10. Bbill June 23, 2011 at 2:37 pm #

    Those maligned, benevolent Koch brothers want us to enjoy the freedom to get cancer, as long as there’s something in it for them. Freedom!

  11. Eric Saldanha June 23, 2011 at 2:42 pm #

    @ Mike in WNY –

    “Support freedom wholly, not selectively”

    What’s your stance, again, on a woman’s reproductive rights?

  12. Brian Wood June 23, 2011 at 3:57 pm #

    I was born left-handed—different. Are christians going to suddenly decide that left-handers should be discriminated against again? When a christian uses religion to influence legislation, he may very well be using his freedom of speech, but he’s violating the establishment clause. Christians, always vicious, stupid, vile people, write their idiocies into OUR laws. By what right, I ask. ‘Cause there are lots of ’em. Might makes right, especially in christendom. I note the christers quote leviticus about gays, but not about ham or shrimp.

  13. STEEL June 23, 2011 at 10:57 pm #

    ham is evil

  14. Rob June 24, 2011 at 8:12 am #

    “The Supreme Court unanimously ruled, that includes uber-liberal Ginsberg. that the class action suit against Wal-Mart was flawed and vague.”

    No, it was a 5-4 decision. You can read it here. The liberal justices joined the corporatist wing only as to a somewhat technical question about the back pay claim.

  15. Mike June 24, 2011 at 8:14 am #

    @Bbill Injuring someone due to getting behind the wheel drunk has never been “OK”. It’s called manslaughter or assault. Why even allow someone to drink beer in their own home by your logic?

  16. Rob June 24, 2011 at 8:14 am #

    Also, what Chris said.

  17. Mike In WNY June 24, 2011 at 8:48 am #

    @Steel, the courts can hold corporations accountable. I fully support the right to sue for actual damages.

    @Eric, the term “reproductive rights” is emotional rhetoric. I believe that best solution is for abortion to remain a States Rights issue, not federal.

    @Rob, the Court was unanimous on the invalidity of the class in the Wal-Mart suit.

    In today’s decision in Wal-Mart v. Dukes, the Supreme Court unanimously found that the Ninth Circuit had jumped the gun in certifying what would have been one of the largest class actions in history, a job-bias action against the giant retailer on behalf of female employees. A five-justice majority led by Justice Scalia found that the plaintiffs had clearly not met the requirements needed to have the case certified for class treatment; four dissenters led by Justice Ginsburg would have sent the case back for more consideration.

    Ginsberg’s minority agreed the class was flawed, however that opinion differed from the majority because it recommended remand.

  18. Rob June 24, 2011 at 9:10 am #

    Show me where in Ginsburg’s opinion she agrees that the class is flawed. She said the question should be determined on remand. Not the same thing. Read the fucking opinion.

  19. STEEL June 24, 2011 at 10:58 am #


    You can’t have damages unless someone describes what constitutes damages. Without government everyone will have their own idea about what damages are. For instance I as a big corporation could claim that I am being financially damaged if I can’t cheaply dump my mercury into a stream that runs through my own property. Law suites work only because they are based on a framework of regulations and standards set by the people through their government. Not to even mention the fact that the modest farmer down the road may not have the means to sue the giant mercury dumper up stream. I wish you Libertarian Nirvahnaists would actually think through your theories before spewing them on everyone

  20. Hank June 24, 2011 at 11:14 am #

    Vote Expected by End of Week—-Well, it’s the End of the Week. So the Senators are asking themselves—-do we alienate the majority, (which government is supposed to be for–the MAJORITY) by cow-towing to an extremely small, whiny and ubernoisy minority, and a slightly smaller minority that support them? Can I get re-elected with only the votes of homosexuals and those that are foolish enough to support them? Good luck with that.
    BTW Eric—-what you call “Women’s reproductive rights”, is genocide of unborn children. It’s murder–which is still a crime in all 50 States—-so it’s not a State’s Rights issue either. If you can kill fully formed chidren in the womb, you shouldn’t lock someone up for blowing someone’s head off in the street. Make up your mind. Murder is legal, or it isn’t.

  21. Mike In WNY June 24, 2011 at 11:35 am #

    For Rob, since he doesn’t understand the decision.

    The Supreme Court reversed the lower court order in a unanimous opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia. “Here, proof of commonality necessarily overlaps with respondents’ merits contention that Wal-Mart engages in a pattern or practice of discrimination. The crux of a Title VII inquiry is ‘the reason for a particular employment decision,’ and respondents wish to sue for millions of employment decisions at once,” Scalia wrote. “Without some glue holding together the alleged reasons for those decisions, it will be impossible to say that examination of all the class members’ claims will produce a common answer to the crucial discrimination question.” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. “Whether the class the plaintiffs describe meets the specific requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) is not before the Court, and I would reserve that matter for consideration and decision on remand,” Ginsburg wrote.

  22. Mike In WNY June 24, 2011 at 11:48 am #

    Steel, damages would result from actual harm. That harm would then constitute a legal standard for future harm. Regulations are at the whim of bureaucracies that often have their own agenda, including the interests of the corporations they are supposed to “protect” us from.

  23. Rob June 24, 2011 at 11:53 am #

    I do understand the decision, and you don’t (or more likely, you’re lying through your teeth – again).

    The minority did NOT, as you clearly claimed, rule or state that the class was “false and vague”. Read. The. Opinion.

  24. peteherr June 24, 2011 at 5:10 pm #

    @MikeinWNY – No regulations = free for all. That isn’t good. Your theories are fine except like all theories they aren’t proven yet. In the case of the magical free market that takes care of itself, it doesn’t take into account human behavior. Egos and greed make people do bad things and there needs to be rules (regulations) to protect society and individuals against that crap. When money is the thing we use to keep score, bad people will do bad things to collect more of it.

  25. Mike In WNY June 24, 2011 at 5:23 pm #

    Pete, what has proven itself is that egos and greed make regulators do bad things.

  26. Mike In WNY June 24, 2011 at 5:31 pm #

    Rob, are you purposely trying to be obtuse? I quoted verbatim. All they do is report on Supreme Court Cases.

    From WIkipedia – “ is listed by the Supreme Court as an authentic, although unofficial online source to access the court’s information. was featured as “Website of the Week” by The Voice of America on 30 January 2006.”

    My words were “flawed and vague”, not “false and vague”. Once more for you, from the 9-0 decision – “Without some glue holding together the alleged reasons for those decisions, it will be impossible to say that examination of all the class members’ claims will produce a common answer to the crucial discrimination question.” In other words, certification of the class was “flawed and vague”.

  27. STEEL June 25, 2011 at 12:07 am #

    Mike – That makes absolutely no sense – what are actual damages? How do you enforce the court decision. Your reasoning is not that different than “whoes on first”

  28. Rob June 25, 2011 at 8:58 am #

    Hey Out-of-Work Paralegal in WNY: I’m a lawyer, and I’ve never heard of “” Try It was a 5-4 decision.

    And more importantly, whether you said “flawed and vague” or whatever, the minority DID NOT. The minority opinion consists of Ginsburg rejecting all of the majority’s objections to the appropriateness of the class. The minority DID NOT find the class flawed or vague AS YOU CLAIMED.

    I won’t waste any more time with you, because I know you never admit you’re wrong even when the truth is staring you in the face. Twit.

Contribute To The Conversation

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: