To judge from Julian's website, he's quite the joker:
Sad that there are people this demented in our society. Plain evil.
In any event, she doesn't need to shed tears for long. The loss was a disappointment - but in the end, Rick Santorum is still her Dad and he still loves her - no election result can take that away from her.
Sanchez's pro gay hatred of Santorium has a long history:
http://juliansanchez.com/notes/archives/2006/06/the_princeton_principles.php
June 6, 2006
The Princeton Principles
As Rick Santorum takes the floor of the Senate to remind us that a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is really about showing contempt for the sodomites, a who's-who of conservative scholars (of whom, one can't help but note, only a few seem to be social scientists) try a more respectable tack via the Princeton Principles, a survey of what the signers regard as the most important lessons about marriage to be gleaned from the social sciences and political philosophy. They conclude with five public policy recommendations—the first of which (naturally) is that any attempt to expand marriage beyond the one-man-one-woman formula (or even to create marriage-like alternatives for same-sex couples) must be resisted.
The form of the essay is, at this point, depressingly familiar. Pages and pages of mostly unobjectionable, uncontroversial stuff about how marriage is good for kids (along with some much vaguer and more dubious stuff about the purported inextricability of civil and religious marriage), followed by a weird series of logical leaps to the conclusion that gay marriage will spell doom for the institution.
That argument comes in four parts. They begin with some concerend chin-stroking over the fate of children raised by gay parents. There's a lot of FUD about the need for more studies with larger samples and so on, yet somehow, somehow, the authors manage to get through an entire paragraph on the topic without mentioning that what social science evidence we do have points uniformly and strongly to the conclusion that kids raised by gay parents don't tend to fare worse than their straight-reared counterparts, and that all the major medical and child welfare organizations have endorsed childrearing by gay couples. Since they won't talk about the evidence we do have, they're forced to speculate about the complimentary talents men and women bring to the parenting task—yet (as I've noted before) remain strangely mute about the beloved conservative point that, despite this supposedly vital complementarity effect, kids raised by remarried couples (controlling for income) don't seem to do appreciably better than those raised by single parents. All of that notwithstanding, it's not entirely clear why any of this is relevant: Whether kids raised in gay households are worse off than others is presumably a question that should affect how we prioritize prospective adoptive couples, or make custody decisions. It's doesn't tell us much about whether, given that some kids are going to be raised in such households, it would be better if their parents were able to marry.
We move on to Maggie Gallagher's favorite point, that "Same-sex marriage would further undercut the idea that procreation is intrinsically connected to marriage...further weakening the societal norm that men should take responsibility for the children they beget." That one doesn't make any more sense to me now than it did last week, where I looked at some trends that at least suggest the causation doesn't work that way. It is good if people who are going to procreate get married. It is fine if people get married who aren't going to procrate. If there's some tension between those two ideas, it's too subtle for me.
The next might be my favorite: "same-sex marriage would likely corrode marital norms of sexual fidelity, since gay marriage advocates and gay couples tend to downplay the importance of sexual fidelity in their definition of marriage." (Actually, as seems to be standard operating procedure in these discussions, "gay couples" seems to mean "gay men.") Where the imperfect but substantial literature on gay childrearing is, apparently, insufficient to use as the basis of any conclusions—indeed, too thin to even be worth mentioning the results of—the authors are apparently prepared to make this assertion on the basis of one survey of the first couples to take advantage of civil unions in Vermont. And despite having offered a protracted argument for why the institution of marriage is so necessary as mechanism for cultivating norms of fidelity, the authors evince not even a sliver of curiosity about whether, if those norms seem weaker in groups that have heretofore been wholly excluded from that institution, those two facts might not be entirely unrelated.
Finally, the authors' "concerns are only reinforced" by the growing acceptance of same-sex marriage abroad. Not because it has resulted in anything bad (you can be sure they'd tell us if it had), but because it "has taken hold in societies or regions with low rates of marriage and/or fertility." This isn't even a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument: It's pre hoc ergo propter hoc. The idea, insofar as I can make it out, seems to be that if countries where marriage is viewed as less important have been among the first to let gay people in, then any country that lets gay people into marriage will come to view it as less important. Why we might expect this to be the case is, alas, not explained. I notice that both this argument and the "procreative link" one appear to rely on the presumption that "If A, then B" entails "If B, then A." I think we may have discovered the real fountainhead of opposition to gay marriage: It's not homophobia, it's the inability to distinguish between a conditional and a biconditional. Which is a little odd, really: You'd think they'd like a logical operator that only swings one way.
Posted by Julian Sanchez at June 6, 2006 2:40 PM
Comments
I think that you are actually catching sight of a deeper aspect of modern conservative philosophy when you note that they interpret "A->B" into "AB". There seems to be an increasing shift in certain quarters to speaking of A being "intrinsically connected" with B, or of B being "intimately, inextricable tied to" A.
This shows up as well with the increasing fondness among conservatives for virtue ethics, which convenienty explicitly denies that A->B differs from AB for morally relevant behaviours and values A and B. If a bad character can cause a bad behaviour, the bad behaviour will cause that bad character in return. Prove the behaviour and, whether pre- or post-hoc, you have proven the character, abracadabra. Call the character bad and, hocus-pocus, the behaviour is bad as well.
A cynical person might find in this talk of "intrinsic connections" and "virtues and character" a search for a way to bootstrap moral arguments in the absence of any empricial foundation or half-decent is-ought bridge. After all, it's a line of reasoning that lets you treat any circular argument as a solid footing to build from. Perhaps they are jealous of the leftist academy?
Posted by: Grant Gould at June 6, 2006 7:27 PM
"Pre hoc" sounds better, but I'm pretty sure the correct Latin would be "ante hoc."
Posted by: Glen at June 6, 2006 7:34 PM
Classic final sentence!
Posted by: Luka at June 8, 2006 4:52 PM
Your argument may be refuted with one sentence!
Marriage is the union of two [2] diverse components, entities or beings!
I know you are an expert on diversity, but have you any skill in word usage?
Posted by: Michael at September 20, 2006 2:51 PM
While it's always comforting when the group nof people who disagree with you seem to comprise mostly illiterates, it does make it rather difficult to carry on a debate, doesn't it?
Posted by: Julian Sanchez at October 2, 2006 1:18 PM
Post a comment
If you have a TypeKey identity, you can sign in to use it here.
Name:
Email Address:
URL:
Remember Me? YesNo
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)
Alina Stefanescu
Amy Phillips
Atrios
Barry Deutsch
Crescat Sententia
Douglas Rushkoff
Eve Tushnet
Ezra Klein
Fey Accompli
Gene Healy
Glen Whitman
Hit and Run
James Poulos
Jarah Euston
Jesse Walker
Jim Henley
Justin Logan
Kriston Capps
Lawrence Lessig
Matt Welch
Matthew Yglesias
Max Sawicky
Patrick Nielsen Hayden
P.J. Doland
Rachel Kramer Bussel
Radley Balko
Tim Lee
Spencer Ackerman
Virginia Postrel
Tom G. Palmer
Will Wilkinson
November 2006 (15)
October 2006 (60)
September 2006 (18)
August 2006 (24)
July 2006 (41)
June 2006 (27)
May 2006 (19)
April 2006 (6)
March 2006 (9)
February 2006 (3)
January 2006 (6)
December 2005 (10)
November 2005 (23)
October 2005 (16)
September 2005 (17)
August 2005 (27)
July 2005 (24)
June 2005 (18)
May 2005 (32)
April 2005 (22)
March 2005 (26)
February 2005 (23)
January 2005 (13)
December 2004 (13)
November 2004 (32)
October 2004 (22)
September 2004 (16)
August 2004 (15)
July 2004 (27)
June 2004 (8)
May 2004 (22)
April 2004 (27)
March 2004 (23)
February 2004 (22)
January 2004 (16)
December 2003 (19)
November 2003 (29)
October 2003 (27)
September 2003 (14)
August 2003 (35)
July 2003 (31)
June 2003 (15)
May 2003 (51)
April 2003 (63)
March 2003 (60)
February 2003 (40)
January 2003 (55)
December 2002 (36)
November 2002 (23)
October 2002 (29)
September 2002 (36)
August 2002 (30)
July 2002 (28)
June 2002 (18)
May 2002 (13)
April 2002 (17)
March 2002 (13)
February 2002 (1)
Detailed Archive
Some of the folks have brought out how some of us made fun of Chelsea Clinton when she was not much older than Sarah Santorum. Fair enough. I'll plead guilty. But nothing I said about her then is anywhere near as mean as what I say about her now that she's a full-grown woman:
Hillary Clinton is the Tori Spelling of politics. That is to say, she's homely, untalented, and she's where she is entirely because of who her dad is.
ping
That picture is pretty funny.
To judge from Julian's website, he's quite the joker:
Those types of libertarians have genital adjustment issues which occasionally pop into view in sadistic outbursts. No normal person spends that much time in adulthood indulging outbursts arising from masturbation anxiety, targeting religious moral figures as some imaginary "enemy." There is nothing this person was ever prevented from doing in "private" by Senator Santorum.
Anyone who could say this is evil. Eight y/o girls have made me melt since I was an eight y/o boy.
I used to subscribe to Reason, but I dropped it a few years ago when it slid into the confines of "leftist rag". The really took a bad turn when Bush was elected, and not just on economic issues (which are fair game IMHO). It was as if Howard Dean had a hand in writing articles for the magazine.
Below is a tribute to: To Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals, and Transgendered Individuals from the Libertarians.
http://chelm.freeyellow.com/gay_index.html
The libertarian movement has promoted equal rights for the GLBT community since its inception. What's taking everyone else so long? The Libertarian Party was the first major party to endorse rights for the GLBT community, including the right to marry individuals of choice regardless of gender. Libertarians maintain that every non-violent individual has the absolute right to the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. Basic human rights don't only extend to those who are in relationships with people of the opposite gender.
Libertarians believe that every human being is entitled to equality before the law and fair treatment as an individual responsible for his or her own actions. They oppose racism, sexism, and sexual-preference bigotry, whether perpetrated by private individuals or by governments. In accordance with libertarian principles, the Libertarian PArty maintains a staunch pro-privacy and pro-individual rights stance without excuse or exception. In fact, the LP has called for the repeal of laws against voluntary homosexual and heterosexual behavior since its very first platform in 1974. The current platform states, "We believe that adults have the right to private choice in consensual sexual activity. We oppose any government attempt to dictate, prohibit, control, or encourage any private lifestyle, living arrangement or contractual relationship. We support repeal of existing laws and policies which are intended to condemn, affirm, encourage, or deny sexual lifestyles or any set of attitudes about such lifestyles." Libertarians also condemn restraints on adult sexual entertainment, including broadcasting and the Internet.
Libertarians were at the forefront of the movement to repeal the sodomy laws that were present in sixteen states until 2003. Such laws were discriminatory and often left GLBT community members more likely to avoid HIV testing. Additionally, libertarians believe that privatizing marriage would solve the "benefits" question that still persists in the debate over gay marriage. Libertarians also believe that GLBT community members should be given the opportunity to serve their country in the military.
That being said, the key phrase with regards to libertarians and the GLBT community is equal rights. We recognize that there will always be bigotry and hatred in the world, just as there will always be fear and stupidity, but one cannot use laws to force understanding any more than one can use laws to force courage or intelligence. The only fair laws are those that never mention the words "black" or "white", "man" or "woman" or "gay" or "straight." When people use bigotry as an excuse to commit force or fraud, it's the act itself which is the crime and deserves punishment, not the motive behind the act.
If you are a GLBT community member who recognizes that the rights you deserve are equal to those outside of the GLBT community, you are an excellent candidate to join the libertarian movement.
Notable Historical GLBT Libertarians
* David Brudnoy, 1940-2004 (former talk radio host; former columnist)
* Roy Childs, Jr., 1949-1992 (author; editor; co-founder, the libertarian movement)
* Harry Hay, 1912-2002 (gay pioneer; Chairman, Southern California Gay Libertarian Front)
* Peter McWilliams, 1950-2000 (author; medical marijuana activist)
* David Morris, 1963-2002 (co-founder, Edge Magazine; former President, Gays & Lesbians for Individual Liberty)
Notable GLBT Libertarians
* Dr. Nigel Ashford (Senior Program Officer, Institute for Humane Studies)
* Dr. Niclas Berggren (economist; author)
* Sandra Bernhard (actress)
* John W. Berresford, J.D. (attorney; Professor of Law, George Mason University)
* B. Daniel Blatt, J.D. (attorney; screenplay writer)
* David Boaz (Executive Vice President, The Cato Institute)
* Steve Boone (former Chairman, Libertarian Party of Maryland)
* Tammy Bruce (author)
* Lisa Bullion (former Chairman, Libertarian Party of Florida)
* Dale Carpenter, J.D. (Professor of Law, University of Minnesota)
* Richard Cowan (founder, Young Americans for Freedom; former President, NORML)
* Chris Crain, J.D. (columnist; Managing Editor, Window Media, LLC)
* Dave Edmondson (former editor, The Quill)
* Hugh Emerson (Professor of Science, University of Missouri-Columbia)
* Arthur J. Finkelstein (Republican political consultant)
* Dr. Mark N. Hertzendorf (Bureau of Economics, Federal Trade Commission)
* Dr. John Hospers (former Professor of Philosophy; 1972 Libertarian Party Presidential candidate)
* James Kirchick (columnist, Yale Daily News)
* Doug Krick (founder, Pink Pistols)
* Michael W. Lynch (National Correspondent, Reason Magazine)
* Willy Star Marshall (Big Water, Utah Mayor)
* Dr. Deirdre McCloskey (Professor of Liberal Arts & Sciences, University of Illinois-Chicago)
* Dr. Peter McKnight, J.D. (author; attorney; former Professor)
* Stephen H. Miller (author; columnist)
* Timothy J. Moir (former Chairman, Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania)
* Rosalie Nichols (individualist feminist; objectivist; author; former Editor, Lesbian Voices)
* Sue O'Connell (Associate Publisher, Bay Windows; radio host, One in Ten)
* Bob Odden (Vice-Chairman, Libertarian Party of Minnesota)
* Walter Olson (author; columnist, Reason Magazine)
* Tom G. Palmer (Senior Fellow, Cato Institute)
* Lindsay Perigo (founder, Sense of Life Objectivists of New Zealand)
* Jim Peron (Executive Director, Institute for Liberal Values of New Zealand)
* Jim C. Perry (talk radio host, A-B Free Radio - Boston, MA)
* Dr. Mark E. Pietrzyk (former Professor of Political Science, DePaul University)
* Justin Raimondo (Senior Fellow, Center for Libertarian Studies; editor, AntiWar.com)
* Theresa "Darklady" Reed (writer; editor)
* Jonathan Rowe, J.D. (attorney; College Professor)
* Bob Roehr (author; journalist)
* Richard J. Rosendall (former President, Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance)
* Lloyd Russell (attorney; 1996 GA Libertarian Party Lt. Gubernatorial candidate)
* Stephen S. Sanders, J.D. (attorney)
* Eric Scheie, J.D. (attorney)
* Dr. Chris Matthew Sciabarra (author; Professor of Political Science, New York University)
* Serena Sharp (talk radio host, KUCI - Irvine, CA and KLSX - Irvine, CA)
* Richard E. Sincere, Jr. (President, Gays & Lesbians for Individual Liberty; first openly gay candidate for public office in Virginia)
* Andrew Sullivan (syndicated columnist)
* Rich Tafel (author; former Executive Director, Log Cabin Republicans)
* Tim Turner (founder, Oklahoma Diversity)
* Jennifer Vanasco (columnist, Chicago Free Press)
* Paul Varnell (columnist, Chicago Free Press)
* Norah Vincent (syndicated columnist)
* Rufus Wainwright (singer)
* Guido Westerwelle (Leader, German Free Democratic Party)
* Nick Wiltgen (meteorologist, The Weather Channel)
* Hastings Wyman (former political columnist, The Washington Blade)
* Steve Yuhas (columnist; talk show host, KOGO - San Diego, CA)
Related Books
- Ayn Rand, Homosexuality, and Human Liberation by Chris Matthew Sciabarra
- Beyond Queer: Challenging the Gay Left Orthodoxy by Bruce Bawer (ed.)
- The Death of Right and Wrong by Tammy Bruce
- Do Ask, Do Tell by Bill Boushka
- Healing Our World by Dr. Mary Ruwart
Related Articles
Can landlords "discriminate" against unwed couples? (October, 1999)
Dextrophobia by Julian Sanchez
Equal Rights, Not Gay Rights (1995)
Gay.Com: Harry Browne on the Issues (2000)
Gay Victimology and the Liberal Kulturkampf (May 19, 2001)
Gay libertarian activist McWilliams dies at hands of U.S. gov. (June, 2000)
Gay Rights on the Right (October, 1999)
Gays sticking to their guns (September 25, 2002)
Is it moral to be a homosexual?
Marriage Alternatives in a Free Society (May 14, 2002)
Political Correctness and the Closed Society (June, 1992)
Privatize Marriage: A solution to the Gay Marriage Debate (April, 1999)
Related Links
Do Ask, Do Tell
GayLiberty.org
Gays & Lesbians for Individual Liberty (GLIL)
Libertarians for Gay & Lesbian Concerns
Liberty Educational Network
National Network for LGBTA Student Leaders (LGLC)
Outright Libertarians
Rattigan Society for GLBT Objectivists
Libertarian ranks filled out with compassionless malcontents, who only admit to what is mechanistic, cold and dark in life?
"N-a-a-a-a-a....."
The obvious fact that this is an altered photo does not make his comments less despicable. But what is the motivation in faking this picture? Just to give people a chance to pick on a little girl? Whole thing very weird.
jsanchez@reason.com
let him know what you think
What a nice person. In his case abortion should be retroactive.
Isn't Baylor a Baptist college? What's up with this, for Pete's sake?
The author of this article is as bad as Sanchez. Reason magazine does not provide a forum for such vile postings. Libertarian theory and libertarians also do not hold to the things claimed by Beckwith. Beckwith is simply a liar. He's a liar, because there's no mistaking the url for sanchez's crap with reason's site. THere is also no mistaking the idea of liberty with lack of repect and hurtful condescending treatment and comment.
Reason #23,543 not be be a Libertarian.
Not-suprised-bump