In the news, July 14

  • Was the recent poll surge for same-sex marriage in Maryland just some kind of fluke? Well, it’s happening elsewhere, too, in states with different politics and demographics. “Mainers support legalizing same-sex marriage, 57 percent to 35 percent, according to a statewide poll commissioned by the Portland Press Herald.” Iowa Republicans ran against gay marriage for years, but now find public opinion shifting against them on the issue. Nonetheless, it’s worth remembering that anti-ssm forces have repeatedly won referenda in moderate states where poll numbers for a time looked good. How do they manage that? Jim Burroway at Box Turtle Bulletin says they change the subject.
  • I’m feeling lucky: “Google to governments: legalize gay marriage” [CNet] That’s part of a wider trend in which gay marriage is gaining corporate support. Minnesota, where, as in Maryland, the issue is on the ballot this fall, has led the way, with major corporations such as General Mills, St. Jude Medical and Thomson Reuters backing marriage for all. Time for Maryland business to start catching up, no?
  • Hans Bader of the Competitive Enterprise Institute opposes the Employment Non-Discrimination Act [ENDA], but supports gay marriage. He explains in this post why he sees no contradiction in that. Related: Jacob Sullum.
  • “The Best Flip-Flop He Could Make: Romney Should Support Gay Marriage” [Eli Lehrer] “Quietly, the Republican Party Is Embracing Gays” [McClatchy DC]
  • You can join our Facebook group here.


Filed under Uncategorized

2 responses to “In the news, July 14

  1. Hans Bader is correct. As irrational as one may think it is for an employer to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, eliminating that irrational behavior does not justify violating the employer’s right to freedom of association, freedom of conscience, and freedom of speech. When the employer is a government, no such discrimination is allowable, but individuals do have the freedom to discriminate in the private sector. If the employer is forced to hire people in violation of his rights, we are also assuming that someone has a right to a job created by someone else. This cannot be the case, unless one is willing to assert that the employer is the slave of the would-be employee.

  2. atx-advocate

    Question: why should gov’t be involved in marriage at all? What is the compelling interest? If there is a compelling reason for gov’t to be involved, what then about the other end of the spectrum, with the damage done with heavy-handed policies concerning divorce and child custody issues? As a libertarian, I have a lot of problems with these issues on both sides of the spectrum. So I think that it IS relevant to probe all sides here. Conservatives in the past have made it an issue that same-sex marriage poses a substantial threat to traditional marriage, which we all know is bunk. But by the same token, they and liberals have been supporting divorce policies which destroy parent-child bonds, which many scholars would argue are FAR more critical issues to be dealt with, marriage or no marriage. Can the same proponents of this group also fathom confronting the real issues concerning how gov’t is destroying families? What about a policy that would keep gov’t out of marriage AND divorce, absent a finding of harm?

Leave a Reply

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