Race and Gender are not the same thing.

"Only an idiot can conclude that the race of a couple is relevant to whether we should legally encourage their relationship with "marriage" and in turn, only an idiot can claim that their gender is not."

The problem with this is that the comparison is an analogy. It is pretty much impossible to argue by analogy. As an analogy, it's a good one, as an argument - all I can really say is that "it's an analogy".

40 or 50 years ago, lots of people, maybe even the majority of people in the US thought that race and mixed race marriages were bad, and directly relevant to whether they should be encouraged with a legal recognition of their marriage (i.e. they are idiots?)

Today, we see a nearly identical issue with same sex couples. As I said, a good analogy.

Do you have a problem with the analogy? It seems nearly perfect to me. Any closer and you'd end up with, not an analogy, but the exact same point.

NOTE: This is separate from your opinion of whether it is ok to give incentives to gays to marry.

Do you not see the shallowness of this "analogy" argument? You are essentially arguing that because people thought something 40 to 50 years ago that we now know to be incorrect, we may also be incorrect now. So, too, we used to think democracy was good or human life has equal value. Maybe those are wrong. In fact, people in the 50's thought incestuous relationships were wrong (even if they don't have sex). Let's use the race "analogy" there as well.

The only way such an argument works is if you can establish some similarities. My point is that none can be made. The races are essentially and inherently the same, the genders are not. Thus making distinctions based on race for purposes of marriage is wrong yet making them based on gender is not necessarily wrong and may in fact be wise.

And no -- this is key to my point about whether to give incentives for gays to marry. My point is that we cannot withhold incentives from black people to get married because their race is irrelevant to marriage, whereas gender is quite relevant and thus can legitimately go into our decision.

Lemme see, each of us -- regardless of race, regardless of sex -- has an unalienable right to liberty. Each of us, thus, may do whatever we want with our property (including selves) . . . as long as we don't infringe on another's like right.

So with what legitimacy would any of us incentivize, discourage, legitimate or deligitimate, legalize or criminalize two consenting adults' freely-chosen relationship? What arrogance! What hubris!

This concept of liberty that Dr. Pete seems to think is the law of the land is not. It is likely taken, if not directly, from Stuart Mill's "On Liberty."

Regardless, if you think the rule of "consenting adults" is a good one, lobby your local Congressman and make it the law of the land.

I personally think that will lead to a radical individualism that is more akin to anarchy than liberty. We rely on "ordered" liberty, not unlimited liberty for our society's survival.

People look to the law, at least in part, to see what is moral and good. Thus, the time that we can no longer make laws that reflect what behavior we would like to encourage in exclusion of others, is the time that our society ceases, in a very significant way, to be a moral one.

the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, which reads, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, . . ."

Based on, and shortly following, came the Constitution, with Preamble reading, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The best of the books I've read on the subject is: (Professor Dr.) Randy E. Barnett, Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty.

Thus, I iterate, What arrogance! What hubris!

The Declaration of Independence is not our governing document, but more importantly, in no intellectually honest reality were those words meant to afford same-sex marriage equal encouragement by the government, through things like tax breaks. Your implication of anything otherwise is disingenuous at best or a contemptible lie at worst.

The Constitution's words that you cite say nothing of your "consenting adult" rule. And for good reason. Such a rule would be preposterous. Such a rule would invalidate all laws that seek to encourage certain behavior. Such a rule would render, for instance, the tax breaks we give to people seeking a master's degree "unconstitutional," as it is not encouraging people who choose to not get that degree. Who are they hurting when as as a consenting adult they make that decision?

Those of you who look at the constitution as an empty bottle in which you can place whatever idea of "liberty" you find fashionable spit on democracy and should be ashamed of yourself.

offer "encouragement" or discouragement vis-a-vis "same-sex marriage" or, for that matter, marriage period. There is no enumerated power for it to do so.

"Tax breaks" -- whether for students, married persons, farmers who don't grow, parents -- are ALL "unconstitutional". That's because, since we each have an unalienable right to liberty (and, thus, property) the federal government has no constitutional authority to take (by force as necessary) the liberty/property of one American to redistribute to another. That's called "slavery".

My reference to "consenting adults" was merely to eliminate the scenarios of, e.g., an adult with a young child or one controlling adult with a subjugated, enslaved or helpless adult. Some a priori government proscription there might be justified under the "necessary and proper" clause.

I don't believe, Smartway24, that I was being disingenuous at best or a [committing a]contemptible lie at worst.

At least this position is consistent. I find it lacking in persuasiveness, but it is at least consistent.

I find that the Federal Government was given this enumerated power, explicit in the power to "levy taxes."

Nevertheless, your initial comment put forward the proposition that no government may distinguish based on race or sex (I assume sexual orientation as well, otherwise your comment is completely irrelevant to this discussion). That is different than to say now that the Federal government may not encourage anything even if it does not distinguish.

While this is true for race due to the 14th Amendment, it is not true regarding sexual behavior. We as a society are fully within our rights to limit whatever behavior we like. You think this constitutes "slavery," then lobby through democratic channels to institute Stuart Mill's harm principle into legislation. But please don't say that is what our laws/governing documents or our founder's intent ever stood for or of course stands for now.

"We as a society are fully within our rights to limit whatever behavior we like. You think this constitutes "slavery," then lobby through democratic channels to institute . . . "

Rights? Limit whatever behavior WE like? Democratic channels?

Where in the heck do you get any of this? In what country are you purporting to live?

Your rights came via what? Whom? Democratic channels?

Somehow, the recent words of George Will seem appropriate. "For conservatives seeing is believing, while for liberals believing is seeing." Or those less-recent from Tom DeLay, "Demagoguery beats data."

Feigning ignorance, or worse, actually being so, is no excuse to not knowing about what I am speaking.

Rights can come from two places, and only two places: From God if you believe in Him and from the government if you live in one that gives you them.

In a democratic government those rights come from "democratic channels": Political debate and compromise through the democracy or its elected representatives.

You somehow think these democratic channels must answer to some abstract notion of "liberty" that Dr. Pete has decided is very very important. But in America -- the place in which I purport to live -- what Dr. Pete thinks is only as important to the extent you can get enough of your countrymen to agree with you.

We the people are governed by the rules we decide to be important, not the abstract notions you decide have some monumental import. The sooner you understand that, the more at peace you will be.

I would love to discuss these issues less provocatively or if you like, in private. You seem like a well-intentioned guy. If you are interested in some other medium of exchanging ideas, you can email me at smartway24@gmail.com. Or of course, we can continue here.

senseless p*#*ing contest.

"In a democratic government those rights come from "democratic channels"."

"Democratic government", Smartway24, is when two lions and a gazelle meet to decide on the dinner menu.

It's your blog and "I'm out!"

But it is the best we got.

"Democracy may not be perfect
But it is the best we got."???

The USA is not, and NEVER has been, a democracy. The Founders knew from studying history that no-nil-nada-zip-zilch democracy had ever survived more than a very-few decades. The pattern was then, and remains today, that a democracy turns to anarchy, then from anarchy to oligarchy.

The Founders with their wisdom and genius chose the rule of LAW and, therefore, a constitutional republic.

If in law school you took constitutional law, you should get your money back. I hesitate to say this, because it sounds like I'm attacking you, but I must. As someone with a doctoral degree in law, the shear ignorance you've demonstrated on your blog is amazing and overwhelming.

is not a "perfect" or "pure" democracy, it is in fact a Constitutional Republic, it is a still a "democracy," so to speak.

But if pedantics work for you, then please, don't let the facts get in the way.