Tom Varik on Gay Marriage and Spousal Privilege: Philosophy in Action Podcast

On Wednesday's Philosophy in Action Radio, I interviewed attorney Tom Varik about "Gay Marriage and Spousal Privilege." The podcast of that episode is now available for streaming or downloading. You'll find it on the episode's archive page, as well as below.

You can automatically download podcasts of Philosophy in Action Radio by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed:

• Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player
• Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player

Podcast: Tom Varik about "Gay Marriage and Spousal Privilege"

As the cause of gay marriage gains ever-more traction, many have wondered whether marriage really matters. Attorney Tom Varik argues that it does. In this interview, he discussed the legal status and importance of gay marriage, including the recent Supreme Court cases, as well as the history and limits of spousal privilege.

Tom G. Varik is an attorney in Cleveland, Ohio, where he currently works for the Social Security Administration. He attended the University of Akron School of Law, earning a JD in 2009. Before that, he studied motion picture production at Wright State University in Dayton, Ohio, where he produced several short films featured in various international underground film festivals, and earned a BFA in 2006.

Listen or Download:

• Duration: 1:03:30
• Download: Standard MP3 File (21.8 MB)

Topics:

• The nature of spousal privilege
• Testimonial privilege
• Communication privilege
• A few examples
• The history of spousal privilege: Funk v. US (290 U.S. 371) (1933), Hawkins v. US (358 U.S. 74) (1958), Wyatt v. US (362 U.S. 525) (1960), Wolfe v. US (291 U.S. 7) (1934), and Trammel v. US (445 U.S. 40) (1980)
• The proper rule and proper justification for spousal privilege
• A parent-child privilege?
• The relevance of spousal privilege to gay marriage
• Elements of marriage for which people cannot contract
• The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)
• The recent Supreme Court Case: Windsor
• The effects of the patchwork of state laws on gay marriage
• The Full Faith and Credit Clause
• The Proposition 8 Supreme Court Case
• The cultural acceptance of gays

Links:

• Same-Sex Marriages and the Federal Spousal Privileges by Tom G. Varik

Tags:

• Culture, GLBT, Law, Marriage, Politics, Rights

About Philosophy in Action Radio

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Read more...

Tom Varik on Gay Marriage and Spousal Privilege: Wednesday on Philosophy in Action Radio

On Wednesday's Philosophy in Action Radio, I'll interview attorney Tom Varik about "Gay Marriage and Spousal Privilege." This episode of internet radio airs at 6 pm PT / 7 MT / 8 CT / 9 ET on Wednesday, 7 August 2013, in our live studio. If you miss that live broadcast, you can always listen to the podcast later.

As the cause of gay marriage gains ever-more traction, many have wondered whether marriage really matters. Attorney Tom Varik argue that it does. He will discuss the legal status and importance of gay marriage, including the recent Supreme Court cases, as well as the history and limits of spousal privilege.

Tom G. Varik is an attorney in Cleveland, Ohio, where he currently works for the Social Security Administration. He attended the University of Akron School of Law, earning a JD in 2009. Before that, he studied motion picture production at Wright State University in Dayton, Ohio, where he produced several short films featured in various international underground film festivals, and earned a BFA in 2006.

To join the live broadcast and its chat, just point your browser to Philosophy in Action's Live Studio a few minutes before the show is scheduled to start. By listening live, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask us follow-up questions in the text chat.

If you miss the live broadcast, you'll find the podcast from the episode posted in the archive: Radio Archive: Tom Varik on Gay Marriage and Spousal Privilege. It will be posted on Thursday morning, if not sooner. You can automatically download that and other podcasts by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed:

• Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player
• Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player

I hope you join us on Wednesday evening!

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Read more...

Laws Against Marital Infidelity: Philosophy in Action Podcast

On Sunday's Philosophy in Action Radio, I answered a question on laws against marital infidelity. The question was:

Should marital infidelity be illegal? Many states, including Colorado, have laws against marital infidelity on the books. These laws are rarely if ever enforced. Politicians often attempt to repeal them, but those attempts are often unsuccessful. Many people think that the government ought to "take a moral stand" even if the law isn't enforced. Does that view have any merit? Should these laws be repealed? Why or why not?

My Answer, In Brief: Laws against adultery are wrong and unjust. They do not set a proper moral example, and they undermine respect for the rule of law.

Download or Listen to My Full Answer:

• Duration: 10:49
• Download: MP3 Segment

Tags: Adultery, Colorado, Conservatism, Crime, Divorce, Ethics, Law, Marriage, Politics, Rights

Links:

• 9News: Cheating on your spouse still illegal in Colorado
• Denver Post: Bid to repeal Colorado adultery law dies and Bill to repeal of Colorado adultery law signed

To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

A podcast of the full episode – where I answered questions on abortion rights and the violinist argument, Obama's cultural impact, laws against marital infidelity, managing demands for family time, and more – is available here: Episode of 2 June 2013.

You can automatically download podcasts of Philosophy in Action Radio by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed:

• Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player
• Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player

About Philosophy in Action Radio

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Read more...

Arranged Marriages: Philosophy in Action Podcast

On Sunday's Philosophy in Action Radio, I answered a question on arranged marriages that might be of interest. The question was:

Are arranged marriages legally and socially valid? A coworker of mine in his early 20s grew up in India. His parents have arranged his marriage to a young woman who also now lives in the US. He appreciates that his parents selected a wife for him: he doesn't want to spend the time or take the risk of finding a wife himself. Should such a marriage be considered legally valid? Is it just a marriage of convenience? Is the practice of arranged marriages immoral and/or impractical?

My Answer, In Brief: Arranged marriages are legally and socially valid marriages. However, the institution of arranged marriages is a deeply immoral one: the choice of a spouse is too important to leave to others, and if a person isn't competent or interested to decide for himself, then he shouldn't marry.

Download or Listen to My Full Answer:

• Duration: 15:50
• Download: MP3 Segment

Tags: Adult Children, Children, Ethics, Family, Independence, Independence, Marriage, Parenting, Relationships
To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

A podcast of the full episode – where I answered questions on individualism versus anti-social atomism, poor communication from the boss, visibility of disabled children, arranged marriages, and more – is available here: Episode of 19 May 2013.

You can automatically download podcasts of Philosophy in Action Radio by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed:

• Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player
• Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player

About Philosophy in Action Radio

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Read more...

Concern for the Rights of Rights-Violators: Philosophy in Action Podcast

On Sunday's Philosophy in Action Radio, I answered a question on concern for the rights of rights-violators. The question was:

Is it wrong to be indifferent to the rights-violations of people who advocate rights-violations? Some celebrities actively promote the violation of rights by lending their support to political groups. For example, former American Idol contestant Krista Branch has actively campaigned against gay marriage on behalf of Focus on the Family. However, in a recent interview, Branch complained that people were pirating her songs. I know that Branch's intellectual property rights should be respected, and I would never pirate her music. Yet I can't feel any sympathy for her, given that she advocates violating other people's rights. I'm of the opinion that people who advocate for the use of force against others should not be spared from the consequences of the kind of culture that creates. Is that wrong? Am I being malevolent? Should I defend her rights, even though she advocates violating my rights?

My Answer, In Brief: Even the rights of people who advocate rights-violations should be respected, but rational people should crusade for the principle and innocent people being harmed by rights-violations, not for those mixed cases.

Download or Listen to My Full Answer:

• Duration: 11:37
• Download: MP3 Segment

Tags: Activism, Celebrities, Judgment, Justice, Moral Wrongs, Politics, Rights
To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

A podcast of the full episode – where I answered questions on personality and sense of life, helping a self-destructive friend, concern for the rights of rights-violators, and more – is available here: Episode of 5 May 2013.

You can automatically download podcasts of Philosophy in Action Radio by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed:

• Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player
• Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player

About Philosophy in Action Radio

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Read more...

The Validity of Gay Marriage: Philosophy in Action Podcast

On Sunday's Philosophy in Action Radio, I answered a question on the validity of gay marriage. The question was:

Is "gay marriage" a valid form of marriage? Many people oppose gay marriage on the grounds that marriage is essentially religious, that procreation is central to marriage, or "traditional marriage" should be respected. Should gay unions be considered a valid form of marriage, legally or socially? Might civil unions be an acceptable alternative?

My Answer, In Brief: The various quasi-secular arguments against gay marriage fail, badly. Gay marriage is a matter of rights, and people ought to support it.

Download or Listen to My Full Answer:

• Duration: 21:25
• Download: MP3 Segment

Tags: Christianity, Culture, GLBT, Law, Marriage, Politics, Religion, Romance

Links:

• Philosophy in Action: State Involvement in Marriage and Gay "Conversion" Therapy
• NoodleFood: Some Arguments Against Gay Marriage
• Republican Liberty Caucus: The Rational Solution for Gay Marriage
• Polling Data on Support for Gay Marriage Versus Civil Unions

To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

A podcast of the full episode – where I answered questions on the validity of gay marriage, the is-ought gap, the aftermath of a friendship, mixing politics and romance, and more – is available here: Episode of 7 April 2013.

You can automatically download podcasts of Philosophy in Action Radio by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed:

• Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player
• Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player

About Philosophy in Action Radio

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Read more...

Changing Minds on Gay Marriage: Sunday on Philosophy in Action Radio

On Sunday's Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I will answer questions on replying to intrusive inquiries, changing minds on gay marriage, dealing with overzealous ideologues, buying from chinese companies, and more.

I thought that the question on changing minds on gay marriage might be of particular interest That question is:

How might social conservatives be convinced to support gay marriage? Rob Portman, a Republican Senator from Ohio, recently decided to openly support gay marriage after his son came out to him and his wife. What can be done to help other conservatives see gay marriage in a new light – as a matter of liberty and individual identity?

This episode of internet radio airs at 8 am PT / 9 MT / 10 CT / 11 ET on Sunday, 31 March 2013, in our live studio. If you miss that live broadcast, you can always listen to the podcast later.

To join the live broadcast and its chat, just point your browser to Philosophy in Action's Live Studio a few minutes before the show is scheduled to start. By listening live, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask us follow-up questions in the text chat.

If you miss the live broadcast, you'll find the podcast from the episode posted in the archive: Radio Archive: Q&A: Protecting Privacy, Gay Marriage, Chinese Goods, and More. It will be posted on Monday morning, if not sooner. You can automatically download that and other podcasts by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed:

• Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player
• Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player

I hope you join us on Sunday morning!

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Read more...

The Value of Marriage: Philosophy in Action Podcast

On Sunday's Philosophy in Action Radio, I answered a question on the value of marriage. The question was:

What is the value of marriage? How is it different from living with a romantic partner in a committed relationship? Is marriage only a legal matter? Or does it have some personal or social benefit?

My Answer, In Brief: The explicit, considered, and public commitment of a marriage offers major legal, business, social, and personal benefits over and above merely living together.

Download or Listen to My Full Answer:

• Duration: 17:47
• Download: MP3 Segment

Tags: Dating, Family, Law, Marriage, Relationships, Romance

Links:

• Philosophy in Action: Staying in a Marriage, Living Together Outside Marriage, State Involvement in Marriage, and more on marriage

To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

A podcast of the full episode – where I answered questions on the value of marriage, antibiotic resistance in a free society, concern for attractiveness to others, semi-automatic handguns versus revolvers, and more – is available here: Episode of 17 February 2013.

You can automatically download podcasts of Philosophy in Action Radio by subscribing to our Podcast RSS Feed:

• Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player
• Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player

About Philosophy in Action Radio

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Read more...

Veto Power over Abortion: Sunday on Philosophy in Action Radio

On the next episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, I'll answer a question on veto power over abortion. The question is:

Should a man be able to prevent his pregnant girlfriend from aborting his baby? Sometimes, a man will get his girlfriend pregnant accidentally, and they disagree about what should be done. If the man wants the woman to carry the pregnancy to term, whether to give up the baby for adoption or him take sole custody, while the woman wants to get an abortion, should he be able to prevent her? It's his baby, shouldn't he have some say?

Interested? I hope so!

This episode of internet radio airs on Sunday morning, 20 January 2013, at 8 PT / 9 MT / 10 CT / 11 ET. The full show will cover solutions to widespread racism, recommended works of Aristotle, veto power over abortion, staying in a marriage, and more. Be sure to check out the full slate of questions.

To join the live broadcast and its chat, just point your browser to Philosophy in Action's Live Studio a few minutes before the show is scheduled to start. By listening live, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask us follow-up questions in the text chat.

Again, if you miss the live broadcast, you'll find the audio podcast from the episode posted in the archive: Radio Archive: 20 January 2013.

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

I hope that you join us on Sunday morning, but if you can't attend live, be sure to listen to the podcast later!

Read more...

Romance Between an Atheist and a Believer: Philosophy in Action Podcast

On Sunday's Philosophy in Action Radio, I answered a question on romance between an atheist and a believer. The question was:

Can a romance between an atheist and a religious believer work? What are the major obstacles? Should the atheist attend church or church socials with his spouse? Should they have a religious wedding ceremony? Should they send their children to religious schools? Do the particular beliefs – or strength of beliefs – of the religious person matter?

My Answer, In Brief: Religion is a fundamental motivator of values, and so romance between an atheist and a religious believer is possible, but fraught with danger.

Download or Listen to My Full Answer:

• Duration: 23:20
• Download: MP3 Segment

Tags: Atheism, Character, Children, Compromise, Ethics, Honesty, Integrity, Marriage, Relationships, Religion, Romance Relevant Links:

• Philosophy in Action: Atheism

To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

A podcast of the full episode – where I answered questions on free will and natural law, romance between an atheist and a believer, bringing children into a statist world, and more – is available here: Episode of 13 January 2013.

About Philosophy in Action Radio

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Read more...

Gay Men Will Marry Your Girlfriends

From College Humor: Gay Men Will Marry Your Girlfriends:



In response, the straight men of America yell, "OH NOES!"

Read more...

A Religious Wedding for an Atheist Groom: Philosophy in Action Podcast

In the 30 September 2012 episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, I discussed a religious wedding for an atheist groom, and I thought it might be of interest. The question was:

Should an atheist refuse to have a religious wedding? I'm an atheist, but my fiancée is a not-terribly-devout Christian. My parents – and her parents too – are Christian. Everyone wants and expects us to have a religious wedding, but I don't want that. My future wife would be willing to have a secular wedding, but she prefers a religious one. Mostly, she doesn't want to argue with her parents over it. Should I insist on a secular wedding? Or should I just let this one go? What's the harm, either way?

My Answer, In Brief: For an atheist to agree to a religious wedding under pressure from family means risking his character, his marriage, and his family relations. Don't do it!

Download or Listen to My Full Answer:

• Duration: 15:01
• Download: MP3 Segment

Tags: Atheism, Communication, Compromise, Family, Honesty, Independence, In-Laws, Integrity, Marriage, Religion, Wedding A podcast of the full episode – where I answered questions on greed in the NFL dispute with referees, a religious wedding for an atheist groom, preventing information overload, food safety in a free society, and more – is available as a podcast here: Episode of 30 September 2012. Philosophy in Action Radio broadcasts every Sunday morning and Wednesday evening. For information on upcoming shows and more, visit the Episodes on Tap.

Read more...

Mayor of Boston Versus Individual Rights

I support gay marriage wholeheartedly, and I've long been appalled by Chick-Fil-A's support for theocracy. However, I'm just as appalled by the attempt by the Mayor of Boston to exclude Chick-Fil-A from Boston. It is a contemptible violation of rights -- including of the proper separation of church and state.

The letter from the mayor reads:

To Mr. Cathy:

In recent days you said Chick fil-A opposes same-sex marriage and said the generation that supports it as an "arrogant attitude."

Now -- incredibly -- your company says you are backing out of the same-sex marriage debate. I urge you to back out of your plans to locate in Boston.

You called supporters of gay marriage "prideful." Here in Boston, to borrow your own words, we are "guilty as charged." We are indeed full of pride for our support of same sex marriage and our work to expand freedom to all people. We are proud that our state and our city have led the way for the country on equal marriage rights.

I was angry to learn on the heels of your prejudiced statements about your search for a site to locate in Boston. There is no place for discrimination on Boston's Freedom Trail and no place for your company alongside it. When Massachusetts became the first state in the country to recognize equal marriage rights, I personally stood on City Hall Plaza to greet same sex couples here to be married. It would be an insult to them and to our city's long history of expanding freedom to have a Chick fil-A across the street from that spot.

Sincerely,
Thomas M. Menino

Such would be a fabulous letter from a private person, speaking his own personal opinions. From the mayor, however, that letter implies a threat of force, namely that of excluding Chick-Fil-A from Boston. That's terribly wrong.

At this point, I strongly recommend that people boycott Chick-Fil-A. I discussed that in the 12 February 2012 episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, in fact. Here's my 15-minute answer to the question, "Should people boycott Chick-Fil-A for its hostility to gays?"



You can also download the MP3 Segment.

Oh, and see this post from Eugene Volokh: No Building Permits for Opponent of Same-Sex Marriage. As Eugene explains, it's a First Amendment violation, plain and simple:

But denying a private business permits because of such speech by its owner is a blatant First Amendment violation. Even when it comes to government contracting — where the government is choosing how to spend government money — the government generally may not discriminate based on the contractor’s speech, see Board of County Commissioners v. Umbehr (1996). It is even clearer that the government may not make decisions about how people will be allowed to use their own property based on the speaker’s past speech.

And this is so even if there is no statutory right to a particular kind of building permit (and I don’t know what the rule is under Illinois law). Even if the government may deny permits to people based on various reasons, it may not deny permits to people based on their exercise of his First Amendment rights. It doesn’t matter if the applicant expresses speech that doesn’t share the government officials’ values, or even the values of the majority of local citizens. It doesn’t matter if the applicant’s speech is seen as “disrespect[ful]” of certain groups. The First Amendment generally protects people’s rights to express such views without worrying that the government will deny them business permits as a result. That’s basic First Amendment law — but Alderman Moreno, Mayor Menino, and, apparently, Mayor Emanuel (if his statement is quoted in context), seem to either not know or not care about the law.

Go read the whole thing.

Read more...

North Carolina's Despicable Amendment

David Deerson writes an excellent blog post on North Carolina's Despicable Amendment -- a.k.a. Amendment 1. The amendment -- up for a vote today (May 8th) -- would declare that “marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state.”

David writes:

The amendment isn’t only a strike against gay marriage but also civil unions, regardless of the gender composition of the partners. Depending on the courts interpretation of the language of the amendment, it could:

• invalidate domestic violence protections for all unmarried partners;


• undercut existing child custody and visitation rights that are designed to protect the best interests of children;


• prevent the state from giving committed couples rights to allow them to order their relationships, including threatening their


• ability to determine the disposition of their deceased partner’s remains;


• make medical decisions if their partner is incapacitated


• allow second-parent adoptions in order to ensure that both partners have a legal tie to, and financial responsibilities for, the


• children they are raising.


• invalidate trusts, wills, and end-of-life directives by one partner in favor of the other.

Apparently, the people who will be voting for this amendment don't even understand its legal implications. But based on recent polling numbers, it seems likely to pass by a wide margin. I'm hoping for an unexpected but stunning defeat.

Read more...

Videos: An Early Look at the Election and GOP Candidates

In last Sunday's Philosophy in Action Webcast, I took an early look at the 2012 election, then surveyed four GOP candidates -- Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, and Gary Johnson. I've posted all five questions as videos, and so here they are! (Obviously, I'm speaking for myself here, purely as a private citizen, and not for the Coalition for Secular Government.)

The first question was:

What's your view of the upcoming 2012 election? By what standards do you judge the presidential candidates?

My answer, in brief:

In a presidential candidate, I'm not looking for either John Galt or "Anyone But Obama." I'm looking for someone who will do more good than harm to the cause of liberty in America.

Here's the video of my full answer:

The second question was:

Should I support Mitt Romney for US President? What's the proper evaluation of his principles and record on the budget and the debt, health care, foreign policy, immigration, the drug war, abortion, and gay marriage? Does Romney deserve the vote of advocates of individual rights in the primary or the general election?

My answer, in brief:

Mitt Romney is a smooth talker, but his proposal reveal that he has no understanding of individual rights or the economic problems facing America. He's no better than Obama – and likely worse, because the opposition will vanish. I cannot recommend voting for him in the primary or the general election.

Here's the video of my full answer:

The third question was:

Should I support Newt Gingrinch for US President? What's the proper evaluation of his principles and record on the budget and the debt, health care, foreign policy, immigration, the drug war, abortion, and gay marriage? Does Gingrinch deserve the vote of advocates of individual rights in the primary or the general election?

My answer, in brief:

Newt Gingrich is explicitly theocratic, and a major threat to the separation of church and state. He advocates and practices "active governance," meaning right-wing social engineering, not liberty. Like Obama, he is enamored of bold transformative ideas, which could be okay or horrible for liberty. I cannot recommend voting for him in the primary or the general election.

Here's the video of my full answer:

The fourth question was:

Should I support Ron Paul for US President? What's the proper evaluation of his principles and record on the budget and the debt, health care, foreign policy, immigration, the drug war, abortion, and gay marriage? Does Paul deserve the vote of advocates of individual rights in the primary or the general election?

My answer, in brief:

Ron Paul is not even libertarian, but a neo-confederate conservative Christian, albeit with some grasp of basic economics. He's a rationalist, driven by ideology, and not open to facts. He would be very dangerous to elect as president, not just for actual policies, but as a supposed advocate of liberty. I cannot recommend voting for him in the primary or the general election.

Here's the video of my full answer:

The fifth question was:

Should I support Gary Johnson for US President? What's the proper evaluation of his principles and record on the budget and the debt, health care, foreign policy, immigration, the drug war, abortion, and gay marriage? Does Johnson deserve the vote of advocates of individual rights in the primary or the general election? Also, should supporters of Gary Johnson vote for him on a Libertarian Party ticket?

My answer, in brief:

Gary Johnson is not John Galt. However, he's fundamentally oriented toward facts, plus he has good basic principles about liberty. Alas, he was shut out from the race by the media and the establishment GOP. I recommend voting for him in the primary, as well as in the general election, if he runs as the Libertarian Party candidate. I still reject the Libertarian Party, but a protest vote can be delimited to endorse him and not the party.

Here's the video of my full answer:

If you enjoyed these video, please "like" them on YouTube and share them with friends in e-mail and social media! You can also throw a bit of extra love in our tip jar.

All posted webcast videos can be found in the Webcast Archives and on my YouTube channel.

Read more...

Zach Wahls Speaks in Defense of His Family

19 year old Zach Wahls, raised by a lesbian couple, speaks eloquently in favor of gay marriage:



Here's an update from Zach himself.

Read more...

Gay Marriage Versus Theocracy

Wow:



I love love love this ad. It shows, so clearly, that the basic bonds and life lived in this gay relationship are exactly the same as for any strong man-woman romance. All that differs is the gender, which isn't revealed until the very end. To deny marriage to these two men -- clearly in love, clearly committed to each other -- is nothing but unjust discrimination.

More, that unjust discrimination is rooted in religion, in the idea that God only sanctions marriage between a man and a woman. Government policy, however, should be based on rights, not religious dogma.

Gays have a right to unite their lives in marriage, if they so choose, just like everyone else. The recognition of that right across America -- as it surely will happen over the next decade or two -- will be a major victory for individual rights and a major defeat for theocratic government. I can't wait!

Read more...

Video: State Involvement in Marriage

In Sunday's Rationally Selfish Webcast, I discussed whether and how the state should be involved in marriage -- a crucial question for the debates about gay marriage. The question was:

Should the state be involved in marriage contracts? Many people say that gay marriage shouldn't be a political issue, because the state shouldn't be involved in defining marriage at all. Is that right? Why or why not?

My view, in brief:

We ought to separate politics and marriage, by treating marriage like any other contract. The state has a limited but crucial role to play in marriage to ensure that marriage contracts are objective, voluntary, and enforced. However, the state should not play social engineer by deciding who can get married or the terms of that marriage.

Here's the video of my answer:

If you enjoy the video, please "like" it on YouTube and share it with friends in e-mail and social media! You can also throw a bit of extra love in our tip jar.

All my webcast and other videos can be found on my YouTube channel.

Read more...

Sunday's Webcast: State Involvement in Marriage

In Sunday's live Rationally Selfish Webcast, I'll be answering a question on state involvement in marriage that's often central to the debates about gay marriage. The question is:

Should the state be involved in marriage contracts? Many people say that gay marriage shouldn't be a political issue, because the state shouldn't be involved in defining marriage at all. Is that right? Why or why not?

Go to www.RationallySelfish.com on Sunday at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET to watch me answer this question live and join in the text chat.

Here's the full announcement for this week's webcast:

For Sunday's live Rationally Selfish Webcast, I'll answer questions on state involvement in marriage, last names in marriage, marrying someone for a Green Card, being too much crazy in love, and more. Come join the discussion!

• What: Live Webcast on Practical Ethics
  
• Who: Diana Hsieh (Ph.D, Philosophy) and Greg Perkins of Objectivist Answers
  
• When: Sunday, 23 October 2011 at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET
  
• Where: www.RationallySelfish.com

Here are this week's questions:

• Question 1: State Involvement in Marriage: Should the state be involved in marriage contracts? Many people say that gay marriage shouldn't be a political issue, because the state shouldn't be involved in defining marriage at all. Is that right? Why or why not?


• Question 2: Last Names in Marriage: Should women adopt the last names of their husbands? In today's culture, some newly-married women adopt the family name of their husbands. Some keep their own last name. Some hyphenate their names together. Some use their maiden name for work, but their married name in their personal life. Some couples adopt a wholly new name for themselves. What do you think of these various options? Should the possibility of divorce affect a woman's decision? Should the husband have a say in the woman's decision? Should men be more willing to change their own last name to that of their new wife?


• Question 3: Marrying Someone for a Green Card: Is it moral to marry someone just to obtain a green card? Given the difficulties of immigrating to the United States, is it immoral to circumvent those bad laws by marrying someone solely to obtain a green card? Would it matter if the person were a good friend?


• Question 4: Being Too Much Crazy in Love: Is it irrational to be "crazy in love" with your boyfriend or girlfriend -- such as wanting to keep an old shirt and other discarded items? Does it matter whether the relationship is in an early or later stage?

After that, we'll do a round of totally impromptu "Rapid Fire Questions."

If you can't attend the live webcast, you can listen later to the audio-only podcasts. Visit NoodleCast to listen to past episodes or subscribe to the podcast feed. Also, you can submit your questions, as well as vote on your favorite questions from the ongoing queue.

I hope to see you on Sunday morning!

Read more...

Cartoon on Gay Marriage

More cartoons by Kevin Siers can be found here.

Read more...