It’s been reported that one Doug Manchester, who donated $125,000 to the cause of getting Prop 8 through because apparently he felt so strongly that gay marriage posed a threat to straight marriage…is now in the midst of a divorce action.
How could this possibly be? After all, Manchester helped get Prop 8 passed. Marriage should be safe in California and yet…here it is threatened again.
Perhaps Mr. Manchester should donate $125,000 to a new proposition that would outlaw divorce. Let’s see how well that works out.
Details can be found here:
PAD
• 
Ultra-conservative moralists have always been more the “Do as I say, not as I do” types. At least recently, they have.
$7,000 in electric bills? Does she live in a sports arena?
Providing team uniforms might explain the $20,000 per month in apparel.
No, she lives in a large house in California which is likely air conditioned 24/7. The AC alone can blow an electric bill through the roof.
.
And, y’know, kind of not-the-point of the commentary.
.
PAD
But He Digresses
I have a 32,000 square foot place in Austin Texas and on average in the summer; the bills run around $5000. I imagine that in CA the electric is much higher.
People are just ignorant and hypocritical.
32,000 sq ft? OK, same question to you, then: do you live in an arena?
Oh Karma…..you wonderfull bìŧçh.
I read that article and my brain keeps telling my eyes that word is “iconic,” which is kind of even funnier to me.
Gee, you’d think with all that money he could have bought a clue, a life, and a soul.
I’d be more shocked if there hadn’t been a few dozen other examples of ášš-hatted individuals who’d thought their wealth made them above society’s rules and laws. This guy’s just the latest version.
I hope there’s enough evidence to let a family court judge spank this turdblossom hard.
On t’other hand, maybe there’s enough evidence of malfeasance to put him in prison. Then the whole irony thing could come full circle.
I don’t see how this could have come as a surprise, it’s clearly listed in the Gay Agenda:
#61: Increase taffeta imports.
#62: Destroy straight marriage, Doug Manchester’s specifically.
#63: Hope for some recognition as human beings worthy of respect and an accepted social framework in which to thrive, love and raise families, settle for dental.
Obviously he should demand a refund.
So not only is he wanting to divorce, but he is trying to screw his wife out of finances.
Seems like a reasonable god loving guy………..or not.
I suppose it’s a little ironic, but not necessarily.
Hypotheticalize with me:
Joe thinks that the artery clogging burgers sold at the Heart Attack Cafe are delterious to the citizens of his fine state. The burgers destroys healthy diets near and far and cause serious health problems. He donates scads of money and the shuts down the Cafe. Then Joe, who doesn’t eat the burgers, has a heart attack.
That is not really all that ironic. It would only be ironic if they found out that Joe secretly ate Cafe burgers every day, directly causing the attack.
Back to the original story, it’s only ironic if Doug’s wife is divoricng him b/c he had a homosexual affair.
There are a couple elements missing from your hypothetical. Burgers actually *do* have an effect on health. Joe wasn’t making stuff up when he said that he said that. So whether he had a heart attack or not, he was still right about the burgers. Also, Joe didn’t *choose* to do something unhealthy. The heart attack is something that just happened to him. So again, no hypocrisy.
.
Here’s a more direct analogy. Joe campaigns against a local burger place because there’s a cancer causing chemical on the meat. He ignores the fact that it’s a minute amount and he ignores the fact that similar amounts are on every type of cooked meat because it is a natural result of cooking. He just campaigns against the place for giving people cancer anyway.
.
Then he sneaks behind the burger place and smokes a cigarette.
.
That’s irony because the cancer crusader is not just a nut who ignores facts, he’s also actively engaging in cancerous activities.
.
Plus, it’s a much closer analogy to the “Save our marriages” guy who cited his Catholic faith in defending his marriage, then went against Catholic teachings and got a divorce.
I like your example better.
Mine was jsut off the cuff ’cause I was feeling all semantical. And I dislike how often people misuse irony.
Yeah, people do tend to misuse “irony.” I just used that in the link because, well, that was the headline. Technically, it’s not actually an example of irony. Irony would have been Manchester’s wife at a rally actually saying, “With the passing of Prop 8, at least now my marriage is safe.” This actual sequence of events is an example of…I’m not sure if there’s an actual word for it. If there is, probably the French have it. They have a word for EVERYthing.
.
PAD
Just an hour ago, I was making a post elsewhere and used ironic. It didn’t feel right, so I looked up synonyms. That’s when I realized I have been misusing irony and related words for my entire adult life.
So it isn’t ten thousand spoons when all you need is a knife? Wow, are my cheeks red.
My favorite CORRECT use of the term was in MST3K many years ago — Mike’s first episode, covering “The Brain That Wouldn’t Die”. The mad scientist gets attacked by his own monster (naturally), who rips off one of the scientist’s arms. Said scientist then proceeds upstairs to the living room, where he goes into death throes that seem to last for about ten minutes of screen time. He finally collapses.
.
Cue Mike … “Ironically, he collapses into an ARMchair.”
.
The first time I showed that to one of my friends, we had to freeze the tape for several minutes while he recovered from the laughing fit he’d gone into…
>Bill Mulligan: Wrote
>So it isn’t ten thousand spoons when all you need is a >knife? Wow, are my cheeks red.
My so-called best friend used to say, “That’s not ironic, that’s a freakin’ nightmare”
“From even the greatest of horrors irony is seldom absent.” –H.P. Lovecraft
I’d love to see the numbers on how many “supporters of traditional marriage” are divorced. I know Newt Gingrich, one of the leaders of the Right, told his wife he was divorcing her while she was recovering from cancer removal surgery. Compassionate conservative indeed!
The anti-gay marriage movement isn’t about improving marriage for anyone. It’s about keeping the “others” out and maintaining the current status quo as much as possible. (Of course marriage has changed drastically over the years, but anti-gay marriage folks like to pretend it’s always been exactly the same as it is now.)
Check out “The Sanctity of Marriage Handbook: the ultimate guide to marriage between a man and a woman featuring those who cast the first stone” by Bryan Harris for a Who’s-Who of anti-gay marrige hypocrites.
My favorite is Bob Barr, who wrote the Defense of Marriage Act, who has been married three times.
A funny little book.
Obviously, his marriage couldn’t stand the strain of sharing a connubial state with George Takei.
Sheesh, do I have to explain EVERYTHING to you people?
J.
What do you mean by ‘you people’?
What do you mean, “What do you mean by ‘you people’?”
.
😉
This actually shows a key reason why gay marriages should be legal (and are where I live): as Manchester is finding out, it’s really difficult to find someone to spend the rest of your life with, into your twilight years. If two people who happen to be gay think they’ve found that sort of love, they deserve the chance to make it official. Maybe it’ll end in divorce like in this case, but if it goes the distance, that’s something wonderful.
It must be all that gay-marrying going on in Massachusetts. I mean, obviously.
Cue Gary Coleman singing…S-C-H-A-D-E-N-F-R-E-U-D-E!
To listen: http://supersexysushi.com/Schadenfreude.html
Well, I understand it, Peter. The guy’s a bigot. Bigots are hypocrites. A + B = C. Not much we didn’t know already.
>>Well, I understand it, Peter. The guy’s a bigot. >>Bigots are hypocrites. A + B = C. Not much we didn’t >>know already.
Luigi,
I don’t really think biggots are automatically hypocrites. It is not an if … then equation. When it comes to their prejudices, many if not most are remarkably consistent.
Their prejudices may be entirely consistent, but we’re commenting on their standards of behavior. They rail on about protecting the “sanctity of heterosexual marriage” whenever someone brings up civil marriage equality, but they feel free to crap all over their own marriages.
Well, not necessarily. I mean, the chances are good that they are if–for instance–they fancy themselves to be “good Christians.” You know..love thy neighbor. Christian charity. That sort of thing. But if they’re just filled with hatred and hate everyone and everything, then they’re not hypocrites. They’re also no one I’d want to be anywhere near…
.
PAD
Just wondering, where does everyone draw the line? Here at same sex, or perhaps at multiple spouses, or maybe other species or even appliances?
Here at same sex, or perhaps at multiple spouses, or maybe other species or even appliances?
.
I always love when this is brought up, because there’s nothing to support it whatsoever save to throw it out to try and muddy the waters.
.
Can your cat sign a legal document? How about your toaster? If the answer is no, then there’s nothing to discuss.
.
As for polygamy, I’ll admit I don’t have all the answers. But then, there isn’t much of a movement to allow polygamy save from those groups lead by the likes of Warren Jeffs, who are simply interested in turning under-age women into slaves.
I draw the line about 15 degrees from vertical on my left palm.
Steve, I don’t believe there is a line between most of those things. I don’t think anything done about gay rights will ever lead to people marrying appliances or animals. I’ve never seen anything that supports the idea that there’s some kind of slippery slope between these things.
.
I’ve seen it suggested before, but suggestion of the possibility is not evidence. In fact, making such an extremely implausible suggestion without any evidence to back it up basically makes the anti-gay marriage side look like they’ve run out of ideas.
Every time I’ve seen this discussed online, someone eventually brings up the “other species” bit – but I have yet to see even one of those people up in arms over Spock’s parentage. I mean, his parents weren’t even from the same planet!
Those of us actually involved in multiple marriages (who aren’t doing so because of some religious interpretation, anyway) aren’t pushing for legal recognition of our relationships. It’d be nice, but so long as one of the legally-married spouses is around, our rights as a family are still defended. It’s the monogamous couples who need legal assistance – the extended family isn’t always the best protector of rights, especially if the extended family disapproves of the relationship to begin with.
But what happens when, as will most likely happen in a good percentage of plural marriages, things don’t work out? The person who is not part of the legal marriage would be pretty much out in the cold, probably even more so than someone who was in a long term relationship without marriage. People have won “palimony” cases but I’d bet it would be very difficult to do so when pal was a married couple.
.
Any precedent on this?
The moral principles that defends gay relationships and marriages also defend polygamy (unless there’s fraud involved). But they do not defend relationship or marriage with animals or appliances as they could not be considered concenting adults. (also, let’s face it, neither cats nor most appliances have the commitment necessary for a long term relationship nowadays).
What?!!
.
Cats are definitely capable of long term relationships. Passive-aggressive, borderline negligent relationships, but that’s about as much as I’ve ever gotten from a woman.
.
http://instantrimshot.com/
I think we’ve lost track of the main thread here. The real question, therefore is if marrying a cat of the same sex is as acceptible as marrying one of the opposite sex.
I draw the line at marrying a highly saturated shade of the color blue.
Steve, if you find it difficult to draw a distinction between sexual intercourse between consenting adults of the same gender versus, say, sex with a cat, or with a dishwasher… get some help. Now.
I would write that off as a petty strawman argument, but… what appliance could enter into a legal contract? A sentient one. If machines have become self aware, stopping them from enslaving us should probably take a higher priority then sorting out their marriage rights.
OTOH, allowing them equal marriage rights may prevent them from enslaving us. It was just those sorts of oppression that led to the war in Orion (obscure Dr Who reference.)
Theno
Eh…
.
Call me when it’s not old news. I’ve been laughing for the better part of the last decade plus about the fact that some of the biggest and loudest advocates for the “sanctity” of marriage have had multiple divorces and/or are working on the next Mrs. Future Ex-Advocate while doing the chat show rounds discussing that sanctity, value and strengths of “traditional” marriage and how gay marriage would undermine and threaten all of that.
.
So this makes this bozo just one hypocrite in a long line of hypocrites.
So this makes this bozo just one hypocrite in a long line of hypocrites.
“There is no present or future, only the past, happening over and over again, now.”
.
Eugene O’Neill, “A Moon for the Misbegotten”
Oh, I so badly want to call up Jerry and say, “It’s not old news.”
.
Wait, I really do know Jerry’s phone number. What’s stopping me?
.
Please excuse me. I have to go make a phone call.
While I’m at it, I’ll also ask him if his refrigerator is running, and whether he has Prince Albert in a Can. That last one fools Bill Mulligan every time.
That’s a dirty lie, you dirty liar! In fact you only ONCE used the Prince Albert in a can. The other times it was Dinty Moore in a can, Betty Crocker in a box, Peter Pan in a jar and Captain Morgan in a bottle. Ha ha, pretty funny, it’ll be even funnier when someone one day asks me if I have Bill Myers in a shallow grave down in my basement and I answer yeah and they say, well good.
I have Myers in a bottle.
.
Tastes kinda so-so, but it makes a base to cook with.
… but it makes a good base to cook with.
Say it ain’t so Pete!
You mean that strong Christian morals don’t automatically make your marriage safer?
What kind of world do we live in!!
Yes, let’s all have traditional marriage, in which I’m property transferred from my father to my husband. The two tribes will form an alliance over the new marriage that will allow for new trade opportunities. That sounds exciting.
n which I’m property transferred from my father to my husband.
…when you’re 12 and he’s 50, and already has 6 other wives, and he can divorce you if you don’t get pregnant within the year, but you’re not allowed to leave him of your own volition no matter how much he beats you. That’s how we’ve been doing it for the last 5000 years, and we won’t allow for any variations, dammit.
I’d bet my last $20 that this guy is in denial of his own homosexuality. Why would he spend so much money on preventing gay people from marrying?
.”Because dammit, the church wouldn’t let me marry who I wanted and now I’m stuck in a dead-end marriage and I’ll be dámņëd if I let those other gay people experience the joy that I’ve always wanted”.
.I mean, $125,000 is a lot of money- it must be a pretty dámņ personal cause to him if he’s willing to spend that much, regardless of how rich he is.
“apparently he felt so strongly that gay marriage posed a threat to straight marriage.”
No where in the linked story does it say this. The story said he was against gay marriage because of his faith. Many churches, including the majority of mostly black churches in California are against gay marriage.
Why is it that people immediately feel the need to point out that a lot of black people voted against it?
That’s pure scapegoat BS.
Probably they feel a need to point that out because “the Right”(TM) is typically blamed for gay marriage bans, but the highest percentage of support for Proposition 8 came from the most reliable voting block for “the Left”(TM). It’s only “scapegoat BS” if that group is blamed for causing it. They didn’t-it was a broad spectrum movement- but they did support it. It’s always helpful to remember that all movements are coalitions, and just because someone is on “the Right” in some or even most circumstances doesn’t mean he won’t take “the Left” stance in other circumstances. (Says the fiscal hawk conservative who supports gay marriage.)
Plus it’s at least interesting to point out that, notwithstanding the common argument that gay rights is the new civil rights movement, the participants in the old civil rights movement don’t seem to think so. I don’t know if it proves anything, but it’s interesting.
My person opinion? I think “some people” point this out b/c, on the whole, there is a perception that “black people” tend to be democrats and therefore tend to be liberal. Again, their *perception* is that if they are black (and therefore liberal democrats) agree w/ the ban, it is worth mentioning.
Rightly or wrongly, i think that is the thought process.
Granted that there are extremes on both ends! Even with this, one should not say that just because someone is opposed to gay marriage does not mean that they are bigoted towards those who are homosexuals. For one who says that is being just as bigoted or more rightly put, more prejudice towards those have an opposing view. Just as I would not say that all who believe in gay marriage are all active homosexuals, so you should not make the counter claim.
It is always kind of odd, that it appears that often times people can fall into the same trap and fault as those whom they oppose so easily.
Not everyone who supports equal rights is necessarily someone who would benefit from them, but I think that people who actively try to prevent equal rights can safely be called out on their prejudice.
“Just as I would not say that all who believe in gay marriage are all active homosexuals, so you should not make the counter claim.”
.
Strawman argument. The two things are completely different.
.
Someone can easily support another person’s rights without being exactly like that person. However, someone can’t actively work to deprive people of rights and then say they have nothing against those people.
.
Not everyone who is against gay marriage is a monster, but they are doing something wrong. They’re saying that a certain group of people inherently deserve fewer rights. That is bigoted. It’s not burning people at the stake, but it’s still bad.
Even with this, one should not say that just because someone is opposed to gay marriage does not mean that they are bigoted towards those who are homosexuals.
.
You mean like the white segregationists who didn’t hate blacks… as long as blacks stayed out of white people’s neighborhoods, schools, and workplaces? Sorry, but when you arbitrarily condemn someone to second-class status because they belong to a particluar group, that’s bigotry.
.
Rather than judging what someone does behind closed doors with a consenting adult with neither partner getting hurt, how about judging people based on whether they are productive members of society? If someone works hard, contributes more to society than they take from it, and doesn’t hurt people unnecessarily, that’s all you need to know about them.
Well, what about people who sincerely believe that societal recognition of marriage should be used to encourage relationships that can lead to begetting children, and/or that heterosexual couples are the ideal case for child raising? I don’t agree with that viewpoint, but it’s one that can (and I think is) held by people who don’t actively dislike homosexuals– i.e. by people who are, by definition, not bigots. And in a country with a 50% divorce rate, and with an ever-increasing number of children being born out of wedlock and raised by single parents, it is not a ridiculous opinion to believe that the last half century’s experiment with liberalizing marriage laws has backfired, and to believe that we shouldn’t further divorce (pun intended) child raising from marriage. Most of the literature out there suggests that gay couples raise children as well as straight couples, but producing children is a bit more difficult for them. Again, I don’t agree with this theory, but it isn’t inherently bigoted to believe it.
Susan Estrich wrote a column recently about the health care bill. She identified two big problems. One was that passing a health care reform act was looking increasingly difficult. But the one that she thought was more disturbing was how shrill and nasty the rhetoric in political disputes has become in this country. I agree with her– that’s a much bigger problem than this one issue. How exactly is it helpful to vilify your opponents– this guy in particular, or in general the gay marriage opponents at whom you’re slinging terms like “bigot?” Other than reinforcing your moral superiority, what is the point? Does it achieve anything other than cause the people you’re arguing against to dig in their heels? Name calling is not exactly the best way to try to convince people to reconsider their positions.
“Well, what about people who sincerely believe that societal recognition of marriage should be used to encourage relationships that can lead to begetting children, and/or that heterosexual couples are the ideal case for child raising?”
.
I doubt their sincerity. I’ve seen just as much pushback against gay couples adopting children. This country, this world actually, does not have a problem with producing children. We have a problem with overproducing children. Saying that two people shouldn’t be able to get married because they can’t produce a child is fighting a problem we don’t actually have.
.
As for heterosexual couples being “ideal” for raising children, that is so logically bent that it hurts my head. If people really cared about the “ideal” for raising children, then there are a *lot* of people out there who shouldn’t be raising children. Convicted murders still have a right to have kids, but two men with stable incomes and no criminal records aren’t “ideal” enough? Again, I doubt the sincerity of people who believe that.
Well, what about people who sincerely believe that societal recognition of marriage should be used to encourage relationships that can lead to begetting children, and/or that heterosexual couples are the ideal case for child raising?
.
I’d ask them if they condone marriage for heterosexual couples who have no intention of reproducing. If so, I’d ask them to explain the contradiction. They’d be unable to do so because there is no explanation; it’s a smokescreen for bigotry.
.
There were segregationists who sincerely believed that allowing people of different races to live together would undermine the fabric of society. That view deserves no more respect than the view that opposes the right of homosexuals to marry. Sincerity and bigotry are not mutually exclusive.
.
Should Martin Luther King Jr. have pulled his punches? Used softer language to have avoided causing white bigots to dig in their heels? Obviously not. I see no reason to soften my language either. For too long, we’ve allowed people to rationalize their bigotry towards homosexuals. It’s long past time we call people out on the carpet for this sort of bigotry.
You know, I can’t believe this sailed past me: “David the Bold” declares that it isn’t inherently bigoted to view a class of people as undeserving of equal rights — based on a world-view that is illogical and by his own admission ill-supported by factual evidence. If that isn’t bigotry, then nothing is.
My grandfather married my step-grandmother when they were both in their 50s. They couldn’t have children together, they both knew it, and nobody tried to stop them from getting married. The alarm at separating childrearing from marriage is incoherent.
David, I actually agree that it probably does little good to try to shame people on this issue and may even be counterproductive. Among a number of demographic groups there is more shame involved with being called gay than being called homophobic. So there’s that. Plus, while I find myself losing patience with people on this issue I have to remind myself that just a few years ago this was not even on the radar. Seriously. Look it up. Even most gays weren’t pushing for gay marriage and in fact some of the people who were got a good bit of flack from certain parts of the gay community. It wasn’t until 2001 that any modern nation recognized it. The point being this–I feel that i have to be careful in painting opponents of gay marriage rights as hateful bigots over an issue that I had no concern about myself, just a few years earlier.
.
Racism was wrong 100 years ago and was recognized as such 100 years ago. Sure, a majority may have not understood that but there were those who saw it clearly. many, in fact. Even when gay rights began to take hold in the 1970s I don’t recall seeing any push for them to have the right to legal marriage. In fact, when opponents of the Equal Rights Amendment tried to argue that it would lead to gay marriage the response from advocates was NOT how that would be a good thing, that gays should have that right. It was that the ERA opponents were trying to “scare” people with scenarios that were ridiculous. Even among the left it seems, the very idea of gay marriage was ridiculous.
.
Well, times have changed and I think everyone should get on board. I can understand those that say that it’s not the same as the ban of interracial marriage, that marriage was always defined as the union of a man and a woman, that no valid dictionary included “of the same race”, that any law that went beyond that definition was not based on what marriage really was, etc. And as I’ve said, unless one who was an adult for the last 30 years or so has a record of arguing and writing letters and otherwise agitating for the rights of gays to marry, I think one is on thin ice for portraying as nazi-like haters anyone who has not come around to an idea that is really a pretty new one for the national scene.
.
All that said, it IS on the national scene now and in these modern times we should not have to have endless debates about something that is almost surely going to happen, especially when the benefits greatly outweigh any possible likely drwbacks. It will make gay people happy. It will give them all the benefits that straight people have gotten from marriage, which must be considerable since we keep doing it even in the face of many failures. I understand that for many the issue is moving too fast but I would appeal to their better natures and urge them to take a chance. Be on the side that brings joy to people and harms nobody.
.
But let’s not those of us already on that side dislocate our shoulders from patting ourselves on the back too much.
All I did was use the word “bigot” accurately in this context. I’m surprised at your reaction. Not deterred, mind you. But surprised.
Bill, Actually it wasn’t a reaction to what you said at 7:54–I was still typing my post and didn’t read yours until I hit enter. Should have made that clear.
Just as I should make clear that we are very much on the same side here though I may be more inclined to deal gently with those not enlightened. And I do believe that this is the best way to win them over. There are genuine hateful bigots and I think it best to point them out and compare and contrast our own nature with theirs and let the undecided decide who they’d rather be in the boat with.
(of course, were I the one being denied the opportunity to marry my loved one I might be less inclined to gently shepherd the general public into the light).
“(of course, were I the one being denied the opportunity to marry my loved one I might be less inclined to gently shepherd the general public into the light).”
.
So your wife still won’t let you try to woo that lady wrestler?
.
Ðámņ shame.
Yeah, that worked out real well for Kurt Angle.
Okay, I have to chime in here. Divorces are horrific, terrible experiences. I have not experienced one myself but I have seen others go through the process. Beyond his politics, I cannot find anything saying Manchester is a horrific person (I know for some not supporting gay marraige makes you evil and I understand that thinking). Let’s say he is, I still wish he weren’t going through this.
.
What is wrong with society now that we have people gleefully dancing at the suffering of others? I’m aware of the obvious response – Manchester caused others to suffer by denying gay marraige. Again, I do not know that Manchester was motivated by sadism. He was either (depending on your view of the world) motivated by a misunderstanding of homosexuality or a desire to act upon a religious or social belief. Maybe it’s both? I don’t know.
.
Let’s say he is a vicious, racist, corrupt millionaire who uses his money not to cure diseases or help the poor but instead to keep down those he believes to be inferior. Okay. I still wish his marraige was not falling apart. What good is there in this beyond the ability to point a finger and go “Ha ha! Dramatic irony!”
.
People, in general, have become comfortable with sadism. This goes for those on the left, on the right, for gay marraige, against gay marraige. It doesn’t matter who you are or what you believe in – we are now capable of wishing harm on others. I was speaking with a friend of mine a few months ago about a woman who sabotaged his career. He told me he was praying (he and I are both very religious) for harm to come to her. That stuck with me. I didn’t say anything because I didn’t want to risk lecturing someone on their beliefs (another thing peole seem ready to do now). As a Catholic, I’ve been brought up to never wish harm on another – no matter how bad they may be or how much you might disagree with them. Is denying gay marraige wishing harm on someone? I’ve heard points for both sides. It’s certainly denying a degree of freedom to someone. For Catholics you get into the issue of encouraging illicit behaviour.
.
Back to my main point. John Edwards is supposedly coming out to admit that he is the father of a child born out of an affair. Supposedly he might have attempted to get someone to take the fall – I don’t care. I feel sorry for the man. I feel sorry for the woman who thought she was in love. I feel most sorry for the child whose short life is now defined by a political scandal covered on Fox News and MSNBC. I feel sorry for Sarah Palin as well. Clearly incapable of handling the pressure of being a governor, her life is best described as a disaster. Trig is a political prop to most when in truth he’s a REAL BOY who will suffer for all of his life due to a medical condition. Perhaps this all started with Bill Clinton. I felt sorry for Clinton, whose actual “crime” was lying about a question someone had no business asking him. At the same time, I felt most sorry for Clinton’s children. Nobody ever spoke about them. I can’t even find out about Manchester’s family.
.
So enough snarky comments and sarcastic blog posts. You don’t like the guy. Fine. Maybe he’s an Adolf Hitler who never got the chance to lead a Reich. How about instead of dancing over the grave of his marraige you hope that everything works out for him (it tends to when you have that much money). And if you don’t agree with his beliefs, hope that the experience leads him to realize the folly of his ways. Either way, enough of this sadistic, jeuvenile nonsense.
Oh, settle down. No one here — not PAD, not anyone — has called Manchester “vicious,” “racist,” or a “sadist;” nor has anyone here compared Manchester with Hitler. Those are all willful distortions on your part. Besides, if Manchester is as delicate a flower as you seem to believe, perhaps he shouldn’t have become a public advocate for one side in a very contentious debate.
.
All we’re doing is discussing what Manchester’s divorce illustrates — that the real threat to marriage in the country, if there is one, doesn’t come from homosexuals. That’s not “sadistic, jeuvenile (sic) nonsense,” it’s a worthwhile observation in the context of an important national discussion.
.
By the way, who had the “8/15 at 9:35 p.m.” square in the Godwin’s Law pool for this thread? Whoever you are, you’ve won.
Forgive me for not running that post through a spell check. As per settling down, I believe you’ve already asked someone to “get help” for what they believe in. Let’s all learn to respect the opinions of others. I did not accuse anyone of comparing Manchester to Hitler. I was using the comparison myself to articulate a hypothetical situation.
.
I bow to the internet Gods for invoking Godwin’s Law (I’m not sure I did, but hey, I just learned about it five seconds ago). I wonder if there’s a law that states that as a discussion of gay marriage rights goes on, one individual will repeatedly call others bigots for debating the other side. Or if there’s a law that states that, in lieu of citing Hitler, one will cite the Civil Rights movement and state there is little to no difference.
They weren’t called bigots for debating the other side. They were called bigots for trying to keep certain people from having the same rights as others. Since the definition of bigot is “person who is intolerant of people of a different creed or belief”, that doesn’t seem inaccurate.
.
Is it incendiary? Probably. It probably doesn’t really help the conversation because calling people names makes them defensive, whether the names are literally true or not. On the other hand, people who are hurting others need to know that just because they think they’re nice people doesn’t mean they are. So I’m not sure what the right way to handle the situation is.
.
However, if your argument is that things are getting blown out of proportion, you’d be better of not blowing things up yourself. Yes, your words did imply that people were treating someone like Hitler, whether you intended them to read that way or not. You did compare this conversation with sadism, and ‘sadism’ is every bit as much of a loaded word as ‘bigot’. If you want to lower the temperature of the conversation, this isn’t the best way to do it.
Jeff said:
.
“I feel sorry for Sarah Palin as well.”
.
Two sentences later:
.
“Trig is a political prop to most when in truth he’s a REAL BOY who will suffer for all of his life due to a medical condition.”
.
These are contradictory statements. The person who has used Trig as a political prop the most is Sarah Palin. Yeah, there were internet rumors, but the one politician who has used Trig Palin as a prop is Sarah Palin. So feeling sorry for her is pretty messed up.
.
Anyone who is willing to lie about someone trying to kill her child in order to score political points isn’t worth feeling sorry for.
Can I feel sorry for both? I agree, Palin did drag Trig around and use him as a prop. It was a disgusting action on her part. Still, I feel sorry for her.
Per your remark about name calling: I fully apologize if I’ve offended anyone. My goal was to explain that people shouldn’t revel in this man’s divorce. The Hitler comment was meant to be an extreme to articulate a point – not an accusation aimed at any poster.
.
I stand by my orignal point. We have, as a society, become comfortable watching peoples lives fall apart. In that regard, I’m not really talking about you posters. I tried to extend the argument by pointing out the issues with Palin and Edwards. I was also tempted to bring up Michael Jackson. What amazed me about that situation is that the very same people who covered his (very obvious) mental issues with a kind of gleeful bile and vitriol turned right around and talked about how they loved the man.
As per settling down, I believe you’ve already asked someone to “get help” for what they believe in. Let’s all learn to respect the opinions of others.
.
No, I suggested that Steve needed help if he couldn’t distinguish between gay marriage and an appliance fetish. His remark was rather flippant, and I responded in kind.
.
Second, I’m not going to respect all opinions. Political differences and aesthetic tastes, sure, I’ll respect opinions different from mine. But when someone’s opinion amounts to declaring that a certain group of people deserves second-class status, no, I don’t respect that.
Jeff, I guess you didn’t get the memo. People labelled bigot, racist and homophobe are one of the few mainorities it is still OK to dump on.
–
(Also paedophiles. And the French.)
–
If we’re analysing irony, someone should really take a look at how eager supporters of individual freedoms and lifestyles are to line up and call names on someone who acted to support his own beliefs with his own money…
–
Cheers
a person who uses his money to promote state and national politics cannot claim the protection of individual freedoms and lifestyles. He is not involving himself in his own private affair but in public affairs, and is therefore open to criticism, even harsh criticism.
…someone should really take a look at how eager supporters of individual freedoms and lifestyles are to line up and call names on someone who acted to support his own beliefs with his own money…
.
No, Manchester spent a lot of his own money to force other people live their lives in line with his religious beliefs. He fell short of his own standards, though, by filing for a divorce from his wife — which is also against his religous beliefs. That’s not exactly someone who has the courage of his convictions.
Criticism, and even harsh criticism. does not include calling someone a “turdblossom”
–
If he’d donated to the flat earth society, or to a campaign to introduce a 20 mile an hour speed limit on roads, no one in here would give a crap. He acted in a way that offends a lot of people in here, so he’s fair game…
–
He had an idiotic belief that homosexual marriage was a threat to heterosexual marriage, he did something about that, his own marriage went tits up for unrelated reasons. Ironic as Hëll, sure. Courage of his convictions has nothing to do with it.
–
You don’t like the guy because of his beliefs and his actions, here’s your chance to dogpile on him.
–
I enjoy a nice dish of schadenfreude as much as the next man, but when you start lacing it with smug moral superiority I’ll pass, thanks.
–
Cheers
If he’d donated to the flat earth society, or to a campaign to introduce a 20 mile an hour speed limit on roads, no one in here would give a crap.
.
Well, no, probably not. That’s because no one is particularly hurt by the beliefs of the flat earth society, and trying to lower the speed limit is arguably an endeavor to help people stay safe (although 20 seems a bit absurd.).
.
But his activities with Prop 8 hurt people.
.
He acted in a way that offends a lot of people in here, so he’s fair game…
.
This isn’t about “offending” people. This is about going to extremes in order to deprive people of rights that they had previously enjoyed in California. It’s not like he called them names. Why are you minimizing what he did while maximizing the reactions to his obvious hypocrisy of firmly embracing Catholic teachings when, and only when, they suit his fancy?
.
PAD
“If he’d donated to the flat earth society, or to a campaign to introduce a 20 mile an hour speed limit on roads, no one in here would give a crap. He acted in a way that offends a lot of people in here, so he’s fair game…”
Thye first is a private opinion, the second is a question of policy, they are not the same.
Manchester’s divorce is relevent since the issue in question is marriage. Had he slipped on a bana that would be schadenfreude.
“Criticism, and even harsh criticism. does not include calling someone a “turdblossom””
I’m yet to see any political discussion that does not become heated and emotional resulting sometime in namecalling. Complaining about hat is like complaining about the weather.
“Why are you minimizing what he did while maximizing the reactions to his obvious hypocrisy of firmly embracing Catholic teachings when, and only when, they suit his fancy?”
smug moral superiority?
“Why are you minimizing what he did while maximizing the reactions to his obvious hypocrisy of firmly embracing Catholic teachings when, and only when, they suit his fancy?”
–
I suppose because the reactions are unaddressed while his actions – hurtful and hypocritical as they are – have been dragged out and stoned by most of the people in here.
–
Incidentally, does failure to adhere completely to all the tenets of ones faith now automatically constitute hypocrisy, or is it still just human failure?
–
Whatever, I’m not particularly defending him, other than in a vague half-hearted “hate the sin and not the sinner” kind of way, but I find myself having less and less appetite that anyone who disagrees with Liberal beliefs is fair game for whatever people feel like throwing at them.
–
Maybe I just wish those on a moral high ground would stop using that as a platform from which to drop rocks on others and find a more constructive use for their energies.
–
Or maybe I’m just feeling masochistic and thought I’d treat myself to the flak that comes from questioning the comfortable group concensus.
–
Cheers
“Incidentally, does failure to adhere completely to all the tenets of ones faith now automatically constitute hypocrisy, or is it still just human failure?”
.
When someone demands that others be held to the tenants of his faith, then yes, failure to adhere to his own faith is hypocritical.
.
By the way, it’s not that he didn’t adhere to *all* the tenants of his faith. I doubt this conversation would be the same if he’d broken a tenant that had nothing to do with marriage.
“or to a campaign to introduce a 20 mile an hour speed limit on roads, no one in here would give a crap.”
.
Depends. If he donated to a campaign to restrict the speed limit and then it was discovered that he frequently gets busted doing 25 or 30 above the posted speed limit he might well be discussed as a hypocrite or worse by many. But, yeah, no one would care about it otherwise since it has nothing to do with gay marriage.
@ Jason M. Bryant – You know, your response to my making an observation about how some people are acting appears to be to again emphasise how bad he is and how much he deserves it… Which kind of illustrates what I was commenting on.
–
How good or bad the other guy is shouldn’t justify how good or bad we are.
–
BTW, ‘tenets’, not ‘tenants’. Well, unless he’s evicting his wife as well as divorcing her.
–
Cheers
@Peter J. Poole
.
I described exactly what he did. If you interpret that as an effort to “emphasise how bad he is and how much he deserves it”, then that’s your own interpretation.
.
Did he not try to enforce others living up to his religious standards on marriage? Did he not then decide not to live to his religious standards on marriage? Expecting others to do something and then not doing it himself is the definition of hypocrisy. So yeah, he deserves to be called a hypocrite.
.
I don’t think he deserves to have his life fall apart, but he certainly deserves to have people point out that his actions didn’t match his rhetoric. We all deserve to be called out on that when we make that mistake.
Incidentally, does failure to adhere completely to all the tenets of ones faith now automatically constitute hypocrisy, or is it still just human failure?
.
If that’s all he did — fail to adhere to his faith — then no, it’s not necessarily hypocrisy. But he tried to impose his faith on *other people*, to their detriment, while failing to live up to that faith himself when it conflicted with his personal desires. That’s hypocrisy.
If we’re analysing irony, someone should really take a look at how eager supporters of individual freedoms and lifestyles are to line up and call names on someone who acted to support his own beliefs with his own money…
.
Freedom of speech doesn’t guarantee freedom of criticism. Criticizing someone doesn’t deprive them of any rights.
.
On the other hand, Prop 8 and similar laws do deprive people of their rights.
.
Also, it’s a bit absurd for you and David to cry “name-calling” every time someone uses a word like “hypocrisy” or “bigotry” when those descriptions apply. They may be emotionally charged words, but that doesn’t mean they’re never accurate.
“emphasise how bad he is and how much he deserves it”
It has nothing to do with deserving. The point of the whole discussion is not that he got something he deserved or didn’t deserve. The point is that he did two things, fight against gay marriage and get divorced. One was justified by the catholic faith, the other is contrary to it.
What he deserves or not deserves is between him and god. What he doesn’t deserve is to be taken seriously on his political position considering his recent actions.
It is inconvenient when you want to be the nonconformist who goes against the herd but you’re not really against the herd.
So the guy thinks one thing, acts on it and subsequently finds himself thinking differently and acting differently?
–
Technically, unless he did both at the same time you can’t even make the hypocrisy charge stick.
–
Bill I don’t mind the guy being called bigot or hypocrite if that’s what he is. I do have a vague problem with other things he’s getting called, but even that is just symptomatic of the main thing I was commenting on – that people who are not bigots or antigay are just as happy to sling epithets and abuse at those they do consider fit into those categories as people actually in those categories are to do that to others. Hence, ironic behaviour at least. Or possibly even hypocrisy?
–
Cheers
Technically, unless he did both at the same time you can’t even make the hypocrisy charge stick.
.
He did. The two actions weren’t separated by years. He was pumping money into the Prop 8 campaign in July of 2008, worked on its behalf through to its passing in November of 2008, and told his wife he wanted out of the marriage in October of 2008. The only reason it’s just hitting the news now is because he tried to pressure her into doing it fast, in order to avoid (a) having to give her a lot of money and (b) publicity, I would guess. After months of his stonewalling her, papers were filed that took it public.
.
So by your own criteria, he’s a hypocrite, and all commentary to that effect is justified.
.
Got anything else?
.
PAD
So he can rightly be called a hypocrite, which I’ve already said is fine.
–
“Got anything else?”
–
PAD, I’m not presenting evidence or trying to win any hugely significant point here, just offering an observation which people can ignore, refute or otherwise treat in whatever way suits them. So far, the main response seems to be to keep on commenting on this one guy’s actions.
–
Since you’re taking an interest though, can I ask you why you chose to post regarding this item in the first place?
–
Cheers
Peter J Poole posted:
.
“Since you’re taking an interest though, can I ask you why you chose to post regarding this item in the first place?”
.
In the interest of fairness, Peter J Poole, I must ask you why you chose to respond regarding this item in the first place?
.
I am making the point that PAD chose to post this because he can. And that you respond because you can. He found interest in it, as, apparently, you did.
.
Searching for a deeper meaning is an exercise in self flagellation.
PAD, I’m not presenting evidence or trying to win any hugely significant point here,
.
Which is fortunate because if you were trying to do any of that, you wouldn’t be succeeding since every point you make–including, most recently, the one about what constitutes hypocrisy–tends to be refuted.
.
just offering an observation which people can ignore, refute or otherwise treat in whatever way suits them.
.
And what suits them is to demolish the points. As opposed to…what? Nodding their heads and saying, “Gee, Peter Poole, thank you for making these various statements that don’t hold up to any sort of scrutiny. In the interest of fair play, we won’t point out the deficiencies in the logic.”
.
So far, the main response seems to be to keep on commenting on this one guy’s actions.
.
Well, no. The main response seems to be talking in broad strokes about hypocrisy, gays, people who hate gays, civil rights, etc.
.
Since you’re taking an interest though, can I ask you why you chose to post regarding this item in the first place?
.
Because I attended George Takei’s wedding, and it was a beautiful thing to watch. And the earth didn’t open up and swallow the wedding party. It is insulting to me, as a thinking American, to have people shouting that that ceremony was somehow a danger to the American way of life. It angers me that not only were the Prop 8 people trying to make sure that no other gay couple can share in that happiness, but they were hoping that Prop 8 would mange to undo the results of that ceremony. Bigots should not have the right to block the rights of non-bigots. And the entire business reeks of hypocrisy, because I’ve said repeatedly in the past that divorce undos far more marriage than gay marriage ever can, and that if Prop 8’ers really had the courage of their convictions, they’d try to ban divorce. But they won’t, because they’re hypocrites. I’ve been contending that it isn’t about trying to “save straight marriage”; it’s about that they don’t like gays, period. So when this story came along and proved my point, I wrote about it.
.
That’s why.
.
PAD
Which is fortunate because if you were trying to do any of that, you wouldn’t be succeeding since every point you make–including, most recently, the one about what constitutes hypocrisy–tends to be refuted.
.
Run that one by me again… What have I actually said about hypocrisy except that it requires professing to believe one thing whilst acting differently at the same time? Well, that and that if someone is a hypocrite it’s OK to call them one?
–
Whilst I suppose it’s vaguely flattering that you’d classify that as “my criteria”, I just thought it was part of the text book definition of hypocrisy. And if I was trying to do something, which I’m not, then every point I’m not trying to make (plural) has just been refurted by one (singular) interpretation of something which I haven’t said anyway?
–
Are we even using the same language for this conversation? I don’t mind debating, or even arguing, but I would prefer to do it based on reality rather than wild misinterpretations.
–
just offering an observation which people can ignore, refute or otherwise treat in whatever way suits them.
.
And what suits them is to demolish the points. As opposed to…what? Nodding their heads and saying, “Gee, Peter Poole, thank you for making these various statements that don’t hold up to any sort of scrutiny. In the interest of fair play, we won’t point out the deficiencies in the logic.”
.
Why on Earth should they say that or why should I expect them to? My comment stands, as previously stated: that people who are not bigots or antigay are just as happy to sling epithets and abuse at those they do consider fit into those categories as people actually in those categories are to do that to others.
–
Which doesn’t actually contain any points to be demolished, even if anyone had bothered to actually address it…
–
If you’re determined to see that as confrontational, or offensive, or uncomfortable to the sensibilities of your audience, that’s your prerogative, though I suppose there is some implied criticism in there if that’s enough to ruffle your feathers.
–
As for logic, you already seem to have given up on that as per my earlier remarks in this post. Either that or you’re so determined to write both sides of this conversation that my own actual comments are superfluous.
–
Thank you for taking the time to reply, even though we seem to have been talking at somewhat crossed purposes.
–
Cheers
Alan Coil said:
.
Searching for a deeper meaning is an exercise in self flagellation.
–
Sorry Alan, almost overlooked you in the white hot fever of something or other there…
–
My uncle once taught me something – “Listen to what people say, but look at what they do. Then to really understand them, figure out why they do it”
–
I don’t need to self-flagellate anyway. Sticking my head in here and disagreeing with PAD every few months gets me enough to keep the skin supple.
–
Cheers
“Sticking my head in here and disagreeing with PAD every few months gets me enough to keep the skin supple.”
.
Just be careful that this doesn’t become the only reason you come here. There lies madness.
Run that one by me again… What have I actually said about hypocrisy except that it requires professing to believe one thing whilst acting differently at the same time?
.
I’m rapidly reaching the conclusion that you’re being deliberately obtuse. I pointed out that Manchester precisely fit the definition of hypocrisy that you yourself agree constitutes it. That WAS the point.
Well, that and that if someone is a hypocrite it’s OK to call them one?
.
Well…yes. It is.
.
PAD
Well if you want to start the thread with “Gee, I Don’t Understand This At All” you can hardly bìŧçh too much about “being deliberately obtuse” as a capital offense. 🙂
–
Your insistance that the point is about definitions of hypocrisy is also obtuse, and whether it’s deliberate or not becomes academic thereafter, particularly since you just agreed that we’re agreeing on that point anyway.
–
What seems to have pressed your hot button is the impression that I’m somehow defending this guy, or minimalising his hurtful and hypocritical actions, when I’ve actually agreed that they are both of those things several times already.
–
What I was attempting to comment on was a larger issue of how a number of people behave in a number of instances, which does reduce the guy to just one more example.
–
The mistake I seem to have made was to keep getting dragged back into mentioning him again and again, or indeed at all.
–
(BTW, digressing more than a little, the interface to this site really, really, sucks when it comes to following a lengthy thread. Not to mention the pain in the arsedness of still having blank line suppression in place)
–
You know what? first thing I said in this thread: “Jeff, I guess you didn’t get the memo. People labelled bigot, racist and homophobe are one of the few minorities it is still OK to dump on.”
–
Your own take: “Bigots should not have the right to block the rights of non-bigots.”
–
PAD, you’re a great writer, an intelligent, articulate and well-informed person, but I don’t think you have any monopoly or wisdom into the human condition that lets you decide what rights other human beings get without some kind of due process being involved.
–
We could dance around on this one for a few more rounds, but it probably ends with me losing my temper, telling you you’re full of šhìŧ and flouncing off in a huff, so lets at least avoid some of those cliches.
–
I appreciate your passion to defend what you believe in, and I share many of your beliefs, but I do think your willingness to judge and condemn is putting you – and a lot of others – on the same path as those you’re judging and condemning – it’s the one that ends with a mob of self-righteous villagers screaming “Burn her, she’s a witch”.
–
So, I’m outta here. Feel free to add whatever epilogue you wish to this. Let my own devastating parting shot be that despite a number of clever and very funny posts I still think Russet Moon’s a bloody stupid idea…
–
Cheers
Let my own devastating parting shot be that despite a number of clever and very funny posts I still think Russet Moon’s a bloody stupid idea…
.
Alan Coil: For future reference, *that’s* what a troll looks like.
Peter J. Poole, I think the dispute is quite simple.
Since the beginning you have claimed that
PAD and others are being mean to, dumping on, dogpiling on, piling on, lynching, gloating, condemning etc. Mr. Manchester by calling him a hypocrite.
Since the beginning we have claimed that since he’s a hypocrite, and his hypocrisy is relevant to the greater discussion on gay rights, than it is neither wrong nor mean-spirited to call him a hypocrite.
The fact that the view that he is a hypocrite is a majority view in this specific blog while Mr Manchester’s view has few supporters does not make either view less valid. Nor does it make him a victim of any form of meanness.
The reason this discussion got stuck is because you have been bending over backwards to cast the people on this blog who called Mr. Manchester a hypocrite as a lynch mob of some sort while casting him and yourself as innocent victims of said mob, all the while constantly ignoring the simple explanation that Mr. Manchester is being called on his political hypocrisy (as political figures often are).
What’s happening here is just a bunch of people of shared political opinions who are commenting on a clearly political action of a political figure who is not even affected by this in any way. There is no lynch mob, no meanness, no victim, no innocent person being dogpiled for no fault of his own.
It’s no different than a group of people sitting in a living room calling Tony Blair an idiot for going to Iraq. Hardly extraordinary.
Well if you want to start the thread with “Gee, I Don’t Understand This At All” you can hardly bìŧçh too much about “being deliberately obtuse” as a capital offense.
.
I think I can bìŧçh about people being deliberately obtuse in pretending that obvious sarcasm on my part was a genuine example of me not understanding something.
.
Feel free to flounce away if that’s what suits you, because it has become abundantly clear that, to you, it’s less about what you have to say than hearing yourself say it.
.
PAD
I stand by my orignal point. We have, as a society, become comfortable watching peoples lives fall apart.
.
That is a flat statement and, I believe, patently untrue. I think we as a society tend to rally around people who are in need. Any number of times–including as recently as the Chicago Comicon raising money for Ostrander–if someone’s life is in a spiral and others can pitch in, they do so.
.
If we’re going to discuss society, then I think of far more relevance is society’s considerable intolerance for hypocrisy. Here you’ve got a guy who must, must, absolutely MUST stop gay marriage because his Catholicism dictates it. And then he dumps his wife of five decades. How exactly does the Catholic church feel about divorce, I wonder? Ah, I remember: They disapprove. It is this extremely malleable attitude toward the dictates of Church and Bible–this self-serving mindset that allows people to cherry pick one philosophy that deprives one group of happiness while at the same time ignoring another philosophy that impedes their own desires–that stinks to high heaven.
.
It’s not like Manchester was walking along, minding his own business, and he got hit by a car and people are going, “Yea! That guy who helped make Prop 8 a reality is now crippled!” Hëll, it’s not even as if it was his wife’s idea and he’s being made to suffer. This is a guy who stopped others from being able to wed while waving his crucifix and declaring how sacred marriage is…and then demonstrates that he doesn’t believe his own marriage is sacred at all by dumping his wife.
.
THAT is the hypocrisy that I was underscoring and that is what people are reacting to.
.
PAD
We were actually talking about divorce in a class I take at my local Catholic church. The church disapproves of marraige in the sense that they wish they didn’t happen and weren’t needed. Regarding gay marraige, it’s actually an interesting stance. They do not support gay marraige because they do not support homosexual actions (gay people are not, however, evil people). In truth, the church does not actually recognize any state marraiges. If you get married by the church and the priest sings a form legalzing your union, then you’re married. If the state divorces you but you don’t seek out an annulment by the church (which will usually provide one due to a stance that those in the church must support the goverment’s rulings and laws) and attempt to get remarried inside a church, you can’t. The church only cares about holy unions, not state ones.
.
At our meeting, we all kind of came to the agreement that the state shouldn’t provide any marraige certificates. Instead, they should just issue civil unions (and give those to whoever they choose).
At our meeting, we all kind of came to the agreement that the state shouldn’t provide any marraige certificates. Instead, they should just issue civil unions (and give those to whoever they choose).
.
I’ve been wondering about that myself, but can’t help coming to the conclusion that the same sorts of people who supported Prop 8 would oppose this just as vigorously. After all, “civil union” is just a different name for the same thing: marriage. Ultimately, I think the only way gay marriage will be accepted society at large is if enough of them are allowed that people get used to the concept, and can see that the world isn’t going to be consumed by hellfire as a result.
At our meeting, we all kind of came to the agreement that the state shouldn’t provide any marraige certificates. Instead, they should just issue civil unions (and give those to whoever they choose)
.
Well, how about taking the other view? After all, opposition to gay marriage is typically rooted in religious dogma. Yet as near as I can tell, unequal distribution of fundamental rights is flatly unconstitutional. This is a clear case of church vs. state and that shouldn’t be happening. So it’s simple: Take church out of the marriage equation entirely. After all, the investing of powers given to the church flow from the state. So perhaps the middle man should be eliminated. Perhaps it is the church that should get out of the marriage business entirely. After all, the church has strong views on death, but it’s not in the business of creating a last will and testament. Furthermore, one of the scare tactics used to ram through Prop 8 was to convince the credulous that churches would be forced to perform gay marriage.
.
Since churches have demonstrated their willingness to conspire to deprive honest, law abiding citizens of their right to pursue happiness, screw it. Let’s just do away with church marriages and leave it entirely a state matter.
.
PAD
At our meeting, we all kind of came to the agreement that the state shouldn’t provide any marraige certificates.
.
And many others such as myself, believe that religion has hijacked marriage to its own end – in human history, Christianity’s involvement in marriage is rather recent – and should butt the hëll out of the issue.
.
Why should I have to call my marriage something else because religion wants to continue to maintain false dominion over the word? Why don’t the religions call it civil unions, and leave the term marriage to government?
Yet as near as I can tell, unequal distribution of fundamental rights is flatly unconstitutional.
.
It’s not a deprivation of human rights. Every citizen in America is allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex, even gay citizens. Gay people want more rights, not equal rights.
.
Since churches have demonstrated their willingness to conspire to deprive honest, law abiding citizens of their right to pursue happiness, screw it. Let’s just do away with church marriages and leave it entirely a state matter.
.
You do not not need to be married to be happy. This statement reminds me of an ad I saw online trying to keep Prop 8 from being passed. A line of celebrities and other people gave reason why they wanted it to fail, and Neil Patrick Harris said, “Because I’m in love, and I want it to mean something.”
.
I couldn’t help but think to myself, “I hope his boyfriend doesn’t find out that Neil Patrick Harris thinks their relationship currently means nothing.”
Every citizen in America is allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex, even gay citizens.
.
Yes, and every heterosexual male in this country has the legal right to have sex with another man (except in those places where sodomy is outlawed). Yet I tend to doubt most heterosexual men would care to exercise this right.
.
Gay people want more rights, not equal rights.
.
I must confess, I’m scratching my head here. Please, help me to understand — how would giving gays the right to marry afford them more rights than heterosexual couples?
.
You do not not need to be married to be happy.
.
Some people would beg to differ. For one thing, denying gays the right to marry assigns them to a second-class status. It means the government is saying that their relationships are not equal to heterosexual relationships. Also, marriage provides certain legal protections and privileges; again, denying those protections to gays assigns them to a second-class status.
.
Is there a particular reason you believe gays are deserving of that second-class status? If so, what is it?
It’s not a deprivation of human rights. Every citizen in America is allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex, even gay citizens. Gay people want more rights, not equal rights.
Oh, yes, of course, everyone in America has the absolute legal right to enter into a loveless, shame-infested, dishonest marriage. Heterosexuals, however, also have the right to enter into a marriage based on genuine love and commitment, and they do not need to think about what it’s like to be unable to marry the individual they love. To say that civil marriage is a “special” right when the married partners are of the same gender shows no respect for the validity of those partners’ love for each other.
You do not not need to be married to be happy.
But it DOES help to be married for matters of health insurance, retirement benefits, property inheritance, medical decisions, child custody…
Again: most people in this country do not need to think about what it is like to be in a committed relationship and be unable, by law, to get married. It’s easy enough to say that civil marriage rights aren’t necessary when you’ve never lived in a society where you don’t have them.
It seems that everybody in America today is being accused of wanting more rights that the oppressed white people.
.
Let’s all have a pity party for the oppressed white people.
1. What I’m saying is that everyone has the right to get married, provided the person they are marrying is of the opposite gender. Gay people ASK for equal rights, but they already have them. No one is allowed to marry someone of the same gender, and gay people want this right. Therefore, they want more rights, not equal rights.
.
2. I do not believe gay people deserve second-class citizenship. In fact, I haven’t established my position on the issue. You seem to have inferred than I am against gay marriage, but the points I made are clerical and technical; someone on either side of the fence could make the same observations. As far as I am concerned, it is an issue of state’s rights. Proposition 8, allowing people to VOTE on whether they wanted gay marriage in their state or not, was the absolute best way to handle the issue in my opinion.
While as a formal, literal matter gays do have an equal right to marry someone of an opposite sex, the usual rejoinder to that is to quote Anatole France: “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.” Having a right to something in which you have no Earthly interest is of little value.
To Alyson:
.
First off, I don’t think it’s a good idea to let emotion dictate our laws and legal system. That’s also why I’m against hate-crime legislation. To me, it borders on thoughtcrime.
.
I believe cohabiting people should be able to get the rights normally afforded only to married couples, provided the restrictions come with them, such as not being able to own property solely in one’s own name.
.
To Alan (if you were responding to me)
.
What does race have to do with sexual orientation?
Mr. Blake
.
‘State’s Rights’ is code for, bluntly, “Give us State’s Rights, and we’ll put them people back in the cotton fields.”
.
This is why, in the end, Federal laws will outweigh State laws. It may take some doing to get to that point, but that is where it ends. That’s why we have a Federally mandated drinking age of 21, and why seat belts have to be worn.
No one is allowed to marry someone of the same gender, and gay people want this right. Therefore, they want more rights, not equal rights.
.
I’m going to go find a brink wall to smash my brains against now.
It’s not a deprivation of human rights. Every citizen in America is allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex, even gay citizens. Gay people want more rights, not equal rights.
.
I’m quite sure you’re dead wrong. I’m quite sure that marriage laws in most states do not, in fact, specify two genders in their marriage laws. The reason I’m sure of this is that a number of states have gone out of their way to hold referendums in recent that specifically exclude same sex couples.
.
That is, quite simply, abominable. Do you understand that? In those states–I suspect in most states–there was not a specific law that deprived couples of the same sex from marrying until the people and/or legislature got together and made sure that such a law was instituted.
.
How are you–how is anyone–not filled with outrage that an entire class of Americans who DID have a right to something has had that right systematically taken AWAY from them? Gays are NOT looking for MORE rights. That is, quite simply, a lie. They are looking for the SAME rights, including in some cases a restoration of those rights that had been denied them.
.
Your argument can easily be rolled back sixty years and you could declare that any white person has the right to marry any other white person and any black has the right to marry any black person, but interracial couples want more rights, not equal rights. And I tell you, sixty years from now, the attitude you’re expressing today is going to seem as antiquated and absurd as the sentiment above–so valid in the 1940s and 50s–seems today.
.
PAD
.
First off, I don’t think it’s a good idea to let emotion dictate our laws and legal system.
Because opposition to civil marriage equality is totally based on rational, impartial logic. Right.
I believe cohabiting people should be able to get the rights normally afforded only to married couples, provided the restrictions come with them, such as not being able to own property solely in one’s own name.
If cohabiting couples have all the same rights as married couples, then they ARE married. If they don’t have to sign any legal documents to show their relationship, then the state has no way to afford them the rights of married couples.
As far as I am concerned, it is an issue of state’s rights. Proposition 8, allowing people to VOTE on whether they wanted gay marriage in their state or not, was the absolute best way to handle the issue in my opinion.
Have you ever thought about what it would be like if the state could put your marriage up for a simple majority vote? Given that you’re still claiming that gays have an equal right to heterosexual marriage, it seems that you haven’t considered what it’s like.
Bill Myers wrote:
I’ve been wondering about that myself, but can’t help coming to the conclusion that the same sorts of people who supported Prop 8 would oppose [civil unions] just as vigorously.
.
For the record, here in the great state of Washington, about a year or so ago, the legislature passed a “domestic registration partnership” law. Any couple who were sharing living quarters and living expenses could register as domestic partners, which afforded them most (not quite all, but most) of the legal protections associated with marriage, while not being in fact marriage.
.
Various groups, mostly backed by fundamentalist “Christian” churches, lost no time in beginning to gather petitions for Referendum 71, designed to eliminate even this concession to the concept of marital freedom. It’s expected to be on the ballot this fall, assuming no fraud with the signatures is detected…
Off-topic slightly, what is the situation with Ostrander?
He’s suffering from eye problems, and a fundraiser was held to help with his medical bills. Pretty much the entire American comic book industry contributed to the cause, in an amazing show of solidarity.
Sometimes I’m so proud of this community.
Except for John Byrne, who made a friggin joke at Ostrander’s expense when Gail Simone posted a thread about his condition on Byrne’s boards.
Well, no. John got snippy with Gail because she said, “John, I hope you don’t mind my posting this” and then posted it, and it was Byrne’s contention that it was the equivalent of saying, “Do you mind if I smoke?” and then lighting up regardless. His issue was with the way Gail presented it, not with the the cause itself.
.
Gail’s mistake was asking for permission to do something and then going ahead and doing it without waiting for confirmation. John’s mistake was likening a worthy cause to smoking a cigarette and generally behaving like a jerk about it, rather than either (a) responding initially, “Well, I’m not sure why you asked permission when you went and did it anyway, but don’t worry about it because it’s a worthy cause. Just next time if you’re going to ask, wait for me to say okay”, or (b) saying nothing at all rather than make an issue out of it. Just because your pride has been pricked doesn’t mean you have to act like a proud prìçk.
.
PAD
Except that “John, I hope you don’t mind my posting this” isn’t asking permission. It’s saying I’m going to do this, and – BTW – I hope you’re OK with it.
–
Cheers
John Byrne was just being John Byrne…a richardhead.
“Just because your pride has been pricked doesn’t mean you have to act like a proud prìçk.”
Is that a PAD original? I’m going to use that, and I like to give proper attribution. 🙂
Is it incendiary? Probably. It probably doesn’t really help the conversation because calling people names makes them defensive, whether the names are literally true or not.
.
When I was younger, I was very prejudiced towards homosexuals. Then I went to college and met some out-of-the-closet homosexuals (the ones I knew in high school didn’t “out” themselves until much later). I began to recognize on some level that prejudice against gays was wrong, but didn’t have the courage to act on it. I stood silently by as I witnessed acts of intimidation born of bigotry and outright hatred.
.
Over the years I’ve gotten to know some homosexuals personally and professionally, and some of them have had a profoundly positive impact on my life. I figure the least I can do — the VERY least — is to break my silence and stand up for their rights.
.
The word “bigot” is incendiary? How about words like “fairy,” or “queer,” or “homo,” or “fággøŧ,” all of which are used in casual conversation today?
.
I believe bigotry thrives in the shadows, when we couch it as simply being “someone’s opinion.” Could I be nicer about it? Perhaps. But then again, I think many homosexuals would tell you that some heterosexuals could be “nicer about it” by not calling gays cruel names, denying gays equal rights, and in some cases committing violence against gays.
Well, as long as you’re being no more intolerant of people than they are being of other people, and don’t demean them any more than they demean other people, that’s probably okay… Wait, no, I don’t think it is.
.
Two things: (1) You know, I can’t believe this sailed past me: “David the Bold” declares that it isn’t inherently bigoted to view a class of people as undeserving of equal rights — based on a world-view that is illogical and by his own admission ill-supported by factual evidence. If that isn’t bigotry, then nothing is. Let’s see here, according to dictionary.com bigotry means stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own. So, no, poor logic does not constitute bigotry. Considering that a thread in this discussion is that the newspaper, Alanis Morissette, and large portions of English-speaking society tend to misuse a word (irony), I find this amusing. Particularly considering that the only stubborn and complete intolerance visible in this discussion is the doctrine that everyone who opposes gay marriage for any stated reason is, perforce, bigoted. Some poor logic is probably bigoted. Taking the leap from “some people who believe X are bigots” to “everyone who believes X is a bigot” springs to mind.
.
(2) I still don’t think that lowering yourself to your opponent’s level is a good way to win a debate over a major social issue… particularly when you’re representing a viewpoint that is the distinct minority in this country. I think gay marriage will ultimately prevail in America, because America is traditionally very good about advancing freedom. It takes a while sometimes (see: Civil Rights Movement, the), but we get there. It’ll go faster if the movement engages the nation and tries to convince their opponents that yes, gay marriage is an equality issue, and yes, equality is a very American virtue. People eventually will come around. (I did, and I’m a Republican. The libertarian wing of the party does still exist, you know.) It’ll take longer to get there if gay rights advocates engage in arrogant, self-righteous tactics that (a) shove the institution down people’s throats and (b) lead to pushbacks like Proposition 8. (Right now you’re getting a pushback from someone who supports gay marriage: me.) I’m just saying.
It’ll take longer to get there if gay rights advocates engage in arrogant, self-righteous tactics that (a) shove the institution down people’s throats…
.
While I admit my tone was intemperate, I was not attempting to shove anything down anyone’s throat. Not once did I advocate forcing people into gay marriage. I simply support it for those who want it.
Because my mind works in perverse ways, I have to ask: Is forcibly forcing something down someone’s throat the same thing as oral rape?
Imposing an institution on a polity that has affirmatively rejected it is something of a shove. Alan can think of it as metaphorical forced sodomy if that makes him feel better. Although it’s forcing an ethical doctrine down someone’s throat, so maybe it’s moral rape instead of oral rape. (Ewwwww. Wicked pun.)
.
The other thing that I think people miss in this discussion is that we wouldn’t be having any discussion whatsoever of gay rights if tolerance for diverging viewpoints and lifestyles hadn’t become such a cornerstone of modern American political culture. That is a wonderful development. The price of it though is that in turn you have to tolerate (not endorse, not approve, not even forgive) those whom you, in turn, find as revolting as the true bigots find gays. I think Bill does have to “agree to disagree” with people whose views he finds reprehensible, because he in turn expects people to tolerate his opinions. If we take the approach that we tolerate everyone except those whose views are just too reprehensible, how exactly have we progressed as a society? We’re just as intolerant, but better focused on what’s truly right? Is that really a trade up? How do we know that we’re more enlightened now? I’m not a huge Holmes fan, but in Abrams he had it right: “time has upset many fighting faiths,” and there’s no reason to think we’re immune to evolving standards. There is no reason to think that anyone alive is exactly right on any one issue, let alone all of moral philosophy. So let’s discuss things, try to muddle our way forward, and show a little respect.
David,
One of the hardest things about being an American – something too many people, on both ends of the political spectrum, often forget – is that freedom of speech goes both ways. Your freedom to speak your mind requires you to support others whose views you can’t stand, views you would give your life to oppose. That’s why the ACLU has backed Nazi’s right to march, Rush Limbaugh’s right to privacy, and the people’s right to know what our government is doing.
I think Bill does have to “agree to disagree” with people whose views he finds reprehensible, because he in turn expects people to tolerate his opinions.
.
True tolerance entails supporting someone’s rights in regards to the issue at hand. I am perfectly tolerant of someone’s right to be a bigot. The bigot, on the other hand, is in return intolerant of the rights of gays by attempting to institutionalize said bigotry in the form of such things as Prop 8. Tolerance, if it is to be genuine, has to be two ways. Otherwise it’s just one person punching another in the face and the guy being punched is being told to take it without complaint in the interests of tolerance.
.
PAd
Bill, it seems to me that what people here are trying to say is that if your objective is to change people’s minds then the word bigot, though mostly accurate, is probably not useful. This does not mean that you have to go soft on this issue, but there’s both a tactical and a moral reason to prefer strong but not antagonistic language, unless your objective is not to convince but to attack (which is legitimate at times).
If you look at the civil rights movement you see that MLK focused on language of rights, empathy, common values with white Americans, hope, in order to influence Americans. He knew that he would have little effect on the more extreme bigots, but he was more interested in the people who might harbor prejudices, but who could still be reached by his message because of shared values. On the other hand, when the civil rights movement shifted to a more antagonistic, radical, nationalistic tone, it lost much of its influence.
On the other hand, Malcolm X used very extreme language. That language appealed more to certain blacks than MLK’s language, and possibly helped galvanize them and get them to become more active in the civil rights movement. This is important too. Malcolm X was also a great speaker, so he could influence white minds even though his language was incendiary. However, in the long run the incendiary style probably had more negative effect.
Moreover, although the word bigot might be accurate, it is also very blunt since it does not distinguish between somebody who is truly hate filled and somebody who has still some qualms about gays.
Micha, you make some good points.
.
It’s possible my own hard-nosed attitude is as much about my guilty conscience as it is about the issues at hand. When I was much younger I was prejudiced towards homosexuals, and it wasn’t until I met some openly gay people that I realized how foolish I was.
.
Nevertheless, I think it’s worth making the point that one needn’t wear a white hood and burn crosses in people’s front yards in order to be a bigot. If you believe someone else is undeserving of equal protection under the law because that person is in some way different from you, you are on some level a bigot.
.
I realize that there are those who would say, “Hold on, what about people who object upon religious or moral grounds? You have to respect their beliefs.” Well, no. Not really. Religion, morality, and even science (albeit really, really bad science) have all been used in the past to justify racism. A lot of people opposed interracial marriage on religious, moral, and or sociological grounds. Most of us today realize that the battle between segregationists and integrationists was more than merely a difference of opinion. Yet there are some who believe I must simply “agree to disagree” when the same kind of thinking is applied to homosexuals. I simply can’t accept that.
.
Yes, I realize that many who oppose gay marriage aren’t rabidly anti-gay. Then again, many people who harbor racist attitudes aren’t rabid about it, either. I know people to this day who will tell me they have nothing against black people, only to then follow it up with the word “but.” Usually they end up expressing a sentiment which amounts to “not in my neighborhood.” To me, there’s not much difference between that, and those who don’t hate homosexuals… *but* don’t want to see them able to legally wed.
.
Was it fair to draw an analogy between, say, what PJ said and the attitudes held by the most ardent segregationists of decades past? Probably not without acknowledging that I have no reason to believe that PJ is any way as hateful or malicious. Nevertheless, I think the difference here is one of degree rather than kind. While my tone may have left something to be desired, my point is sound: the rationalizations used to justify opposition to gay marriage are just that… rationalizations. Behind those rationalizations is some level of bigotry.
.
But the bottom line, Micha, is that you are correct: Martin Luther King Jr. was an unapologetic fighter against discrimination, but he did so by appealing to people’s better natures rather than deepening the divisions between us. If I’m going to invoke his name, I probably ought to also follow his example. After all, we’ve seen what intransigence has done for the health care debate in this country, and it is in no way positive.
If we take the approach that we tolerate everyone except those whose views are just too reprehensible, how exactly have we progressed as a society?
.
I don’t believe we should strip people of their free speech rights simply because I disagree with them. If someone has the right to advocate discrimination, do I not also have the right to say it is wrong to do so? Or is that in your view “intolerant?”
.
If I “agree to disagree,” that means we shake hands and walk away. I don’t intend to do that with respect to gay marriage. I intend to do everything I legally can to help change the laws of this country so that opponents of gay marriage don’t get their way. The one thing I wouldn’t advocate — and would in fact fight against — is stripping opponents of gay marriage or anyone else of their right to free speech. If you believe otherwise about me, you have misjudged me.
Maybe I was inferring more than you actually said there. (I don’t think I was, but since my entire participation on this thread has been bemoaning that people tend to talk past each other, I don’t want to do it by accident by creating a straw man in my head.) I still think there’s a problem though– if instead of engaging your opponents’ opinions, you disregard them, if instead of explaining your standpoint you reduce those who disagree to single words (e.g. “bigot”), you delegitimize their presence in the marketplace of ideas. They have as much business there as you do. Their viewpoints are entitled to exactly as much respect as yours. Micha wrote, “In any case, I don’t think being intolerant toward gays and being intolernt against people who are prejudiced toward gays are equal. But in general I don’t recommend intolerance.” Why isn’t intolerance toward gays and intolerance toward bigots morally equivalent? Either we’re going to have a free and open society where everyone is welcome to express his views, or we’re not. It’s much the same reason that free speech cases tend to involve speakers whom most people find repugnant. Popular speakers (or at least speakers popular with the dominant political or ideological regime) don’t need free speech guarantees. If we only tolerate those of whom we approve, it’s McCarthyism all over again, except instead of blacklisting Communists we’re blacklisting bigots. At most that is a slight improvement. And that’s true whether we’re talking about actually stripping them of free speech rights, which I don’t think I accused you of, or shunning them and denying their legitimacy, which I think you’re explicitly doing. I wasn’t thinking “agree to disagree” in the sense of walking away from the argument; much to the contrary, I think what the gay rights movement needs to do is stay in the discussion, but actually have a discussion, with people who are entitled to be treated as fellow citizens with their own opinions, not written off as ignorant thugs. Really I’ve been arguing against the tone you were using in some of your earlier posts; substantively I’ve agreed with a fair amount of what you’ve said, particularly about the intemperate tone damaging the health care debate.
I think what the gay rights movement needs to do is stay in the discussion, but actually have a discussion, with people who are entitled to be treated as fellow citizens with their own opinions, not written off as ignorant thugs.
.
It’s difficult to have a discussion with a person or a group of people who strongly feels that you don’t have the right to exist, as pretty much anyone in Israel can tell you.
.
Discussion functions best when common ground is found as, at the very least, a basis for that discussion. A foundation, if you will. Having a discussion without that foundation is like building a house on quicksand. And it is problematic for gays to have a discussion about the legalities or fine points of gay marriage when the opposition’s POV boils down to: (a) you are an abomination because the Bible says so, and (b) you do not have the same rights I do.
.
How do you find common ground with people who “are entitled to be treated as fellow citizens” when those individuals do not believe that gays are entitled to be treated as fellow citizens?
.
PAD
“Nevertheless, I think it’s worth making the point that one needn’t wear a white hood and burn crosses in people’s front yards in order to be a bigot. If you believe someone else is undeserving of equal protection under the law because that person is in some way different from you, you are on some level a bigot.”
I used exactly the same argument in a different discussion about discrimination. We agree that the opposition to gay marriage is motivated by a prejudice, and that an analogy to the restriction of interracial marriage is a valid analogy.
“think the difference here is one of degree rather than kind.”
We also agree about that. But I believe the difference of degree is a very important one.
Ultimately it is not in our interest to lump together all the degrees of prejudice and separate them from the pure, since let’s face it, most people have or had certain low level prejudices. Our interest is to offer the option for people to become gradually less and less prejudiced (including ourselves).
“It’s possible my own hard-nosed attitude is as much about my guilty conscience as it is about the issues at hand. When I was much younger I was prejudiced towards homosexuals,”
So was I. So were many people. It’s human nature. Homosexuality is a weird phenomenon. But that’s all the more reason to be more charitable to good people who might hold certain prejudices.
——————
“I don’t believe we should strip people of their free speech rights simply because I disagree with them. If someone has the right to advocate discrimination, do I not also have the right to say it is wrong to do so? Or is that in your view “intolerant?”
Exactly. I think part the problem here is the use of the word tolerance.
“Micha wrote, “In any case, I don’t think being intolerant toward gays and being intolernt against people who are prejudiced toward gays are equal. But in general I don’t recommend intolerance.” Why isn’t intolerance toward gays and intolerance toward bigots morally equivalent?”
The statements:
The KKK are scum.
and
Nìggërš are scum.
are equal from the point of view of freedom of speech. Neither are great examples of rhetoric skills. But they are not morally equivalent, I think, and I wouldn’t consider the person making the first statement to be equal in his intolerance to the one making the second. However, a person who exhibited a certain level of tolerance to the people making both statements could be considered admirable if by tolerance we mean to say that he tolerates the man, not his opinions.
“It’s difficult to have a discussion with a person or a group of people who strongly feels that you don’t have the right to exist, as pretty much anyone in Israel can tell you.”
It is. But from a tactical point of view it is better to appear as the person willing to have a discussion even if the other side does not, unless there is another reason not to do so (sometimes there is).
David, you have repeatedly asked for civility while calling me names like “whiny” and “intolerant.” I’ve tried to moderate my tone and engage you in a civil discussion, and you’ve taken that as license to sucker-punch me repeatedly. Are you really interested in a civil discussion? Because if so, I’d be happy to have one. But if you’re merely here to stir up the pot, I have better things to do.
Why isn’t intolerance toward gays and intolerance toward bigots morally equivalent?
.
Because there’s a difference between despising people for what they are (and therefore cannot change) and despising them for what they believe (which they could change but choose not to.)
.
PAD
David, you have repeatedly asked for civility while calling me names like “whiny” and “intolerant.” I’ve tried to moderate my tone and engage you in a civil discussion, and you’ve taken that as license to sucker-punch me repeatedly.
.
Actually, I don’t think I did. In fact, I explicitly said in my last post that I was bothered by your tone in your earlier posts. As you said, you have moderated that. I don’t think anything you’ve said in this thread in the last couple days has been whiny, and I haven’t called it such. I’m sorry if you interpreted what I was saying that way. But you are far from the only person to employ that mode of argument, and that form of argument is a fair target, whether you’re using it right now or not.
.
I did, and do, think that reducing your opponent to “bigot” is a ridiculous form of argument. It lets you sidestep the discussion entirely, because if someone is a hopeless bigot, by definition you cannot reason with him, so why bother trying? I recognize that it is frustrating. As PAD asks, “How do you find common ground with people who ‘are entitled to be treated as fellow citizens’ when those individuals do not believe that gays are entitled to be treated as fellow citizens?” The short answer is that you don’t. But nobody thinks that Rev. Phelps is going to be at the hypothetical negotiating table. The mistake is taking the easy way out and writing off everyone who believes that gay marriage shouldn’t be legalized as a Phelps-type character. No national poll has ever found a majority of the American people to support gay marriage, yet do you really think the American people at large is, as PAD describes, a “group of people who strongly feels that you [i.e. homosexuals] don’t have the right to exist?” Or for that matter, the Democratic Party, which, as I understand their platform, officially favors civil unions but not marriage? It is wrong, both factually and ethically, to equate all opponents of gay marriage with Phelps. And I still think it’s wrong to be as disrespectful of Phelps as he is of other people. Instead of arguing this point, I should have just quoted Hamlet: Treat every man after his desert, and who shall scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity- the less they deserve the more merit is in your bounty.
.
PAD: Because there’s a difference between despising people for what they are (and therefore cannot change) and despising them for what they believe (which they could change but choose not to.)
.
Frankly I’m not sure that beliefs are voluntary. I don’t know how one would go about arguing Mel Gibson into not being a hardline Catholic. But even setting that aside, I’m not asking you or anyone not to despise genuine bigots. Micha is right, the KKK are scum. But they’re scum with rights to participate in political discussions, same as everyone else. The system has to be result-independent; you don’t have to listen to them, but you do have to let everyone have access to the forum without being shouted down. Remember a few years ago when an Hispanic student group stormed a stage at Columbia while one of the “Minuteman” organization was speaking? Almost everyone sided with the Minuteman on that one, as well they should. Even jerks are entitled to speak their piece, at which point they will probably reveal themselves to be jerks.
>>Peter David says:
>>August 17, 2009 at 7:49 am
>>Why isn’t intolerance toward gays and intolerance >>toward bigots morally equivalent?
>>.
>>Because there’s a difference between despising people >>for what they are (and therefore cannot change) and >>despising them for what they believe (which they >>could change but choose not to.)
>>.
>>PAD
There are many who would argue that homosexuality is, in fact, a choice. Thus, in their minds, they are despising them for what they belief, not for who they “are.”
Oddly enough, the ones most prone to this belief seem to be the ones who are most vocally against gay marriage.
There are many who would argue that homosexuality is, in fact, a choice. Thus, in their minds, they are despising them for what they belief, not for who they “are.”
.
I’ve no doubt. And they are wrong.
.
Nor do I give a dámņ whether they despise them or not. I do, however, care when they decide to run roughshod over people’s rights because they despise them. I care when they try to overwrite their own beliefs on others
.
PAD
“the KKK are scum. But they’re scum with rights to participate in political discussions, same as everyone else.”
Has anybody here suggested denying them that right?
“There are many who would argue that homosexuality is, in fact, a choice. Thus, in their minds, they are despising them for what they belief, not for who they “are.””
The truth is that it doesn’t matter. Whether homosexuality is a choice (like religion) or not (like race), neither are grounds for discrimination.
However, it should be pretty obvious that homosexuality is not a choice for the simple reason that heterosexuality isn’t.
The opponents of gays try to claim that gays are actually doing something that is harmful to society in a way that justifies restricting their rights. But this argument is false on two counts. One, it’s not true and is just an excuse for a prejudice stemming from the fact that homosexuality seems strange to heterosexuals. Two, the same people who want to restrict the rights of gays would never suggest curtailing individual civil rights to deal with acts that do have a negative effect on family values such as divorce or infidelity.
“stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own.”
That’s a terrible definition. Is any person, even the most narrow-minded intolerant of ANY opinion that differs from one’s own? Should people be tolerant of any creed? And how do you define stubborn and complete?
The Merriam Webster definition on the other hand seems too narrow:
“Bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance”
In any case, I don’t think being intolerant toward gays and being intolernt against people who are prejudiced toward gays are equal. But in general I don’t recommend intolerance.
“lead to pushbacks like Proposition 8”
It is somewhat problematic to blame people fighting for their rights for causing a pushback. Is there a way to fight for one’s rights without causing a pushback? Or should people not fight for their right, but waitt for the american people to get there on their own?
I presume there is no correct answer. Sometimes you try to avoid a pushback, sometimes you live with its inevitability, and at other times you try to create it in order to acheive your objective.
I know people who aren’t particularly vocal about unfair discrimination against minorities, but are quick to take umbrage at any criticism of the majority. It’s as though in their minds anyone who would question the status quo has the sole burden of proof.
There are good ways to fight for your rights and there are bad ways. I tend to think that legislative lobbying is a good way and litigation is a bad way. Like it or not (and generally I like it), the core aspect of living in a democratic republic like the US is that the people, collectively, get to determine what sort of society we have. Every single person has the right to challenge that consensus and try to change it. But ultimately the majority rules. Successful strategies (see again: Civil Rights Movement, the) address the majority through persuasion, rather than trying to finesse the system by persuading the courts to impose their desired settlement, whether the majority likes it or not. Brown v Board of Education got part of the work done, but the real heavy lifting in civil rights was done (and continues to be done to this day) through the Civil Rights Act of 1964, passed through Congress and signed by the President like any other piece of reform legislation. Brown needed to come through the courts to overturn an earlier mistake of the courts (Plessy v Ferguson), and in any event was itself a perfectly reasonable interpretation of a (mostly) democratically passed antidiscrimination Amendment to the Constitution. The Civil Rights Movement didn’t prevail in a courtroom; it won hearts and minds through televised images of police dogs and firehoses being trained on peaceful demonstrators. It won by appealing to the better angels of Americans’ nature.
.
On the other hand, you have the gay marriage approach, which is to litigate an issue that they know they have no chance to win legislatively outside of New England. Instead of having a social discussion about what equal rights mean in modern America, it seeks to have courts declare, “this is what equal rights mean, end of discussion.” Are you really surprised that there’s a negative reaction to that? You don’t have to be Scalia to think that gay marriage is an interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection aspect that not one single person who voted on it saw coming, and that therefore maybe this issue should be handled by the political branches. The Proposition 8 fight was particularly disturbing; not only did you have a court overturning a plebiscite, but then the court was asked to overturn a plebiscite reinstating the first referendum. At some point it’s fair to ask the California Supreme Court what part of “no” it doesn’t understand. The gay rights movement shouldn’t give up. But it should realize that even when the majority is making a stupid decision, that mistake is theirs to make. The solution is to persuade the majority that they’re wrong. Taking power away from the people is not the solution. Calling everyone who opposes the one true faith a “bigot” or a “homophobe” is not the solution; even if you think it’s true, all you’re going to do is convince a supermajority of Americans that you’re self-righteous, intolerant, and whiny, because you’re implicitly calling most Americans nasty names. That’s where the pushback comes from. It isn’t “taking umbrage at any criticism of the majority;” it’s asking for a modicum of respect from those who wish to change the system. “We’re right and everyone who disagrees is evil/racist/bigoted/homophobic/etc” isn’t an argument, it’s a soundbite. It lowers the level of political discourse, which is too low already.
There are good ways to fight for your rights and there are bad ways. I tend to think that legislative lobbying is a good way and litigation is a bad way. Like it or not (and generally I like it), the core aspect of living in a democratic republic like the US is that the people, collectively, get to determine what sort of society we have. Every single person has the right to challenge that consensus and try to change it. But ultimately the majority rules. Successful strategies (see again: Civil Rights Movement, the) address the majority through persuasion, rather than trying to finesse the system by persuading the courts to impose their desired settlement, whether the majority likes it or not. Brown v Board of Education got part of the work done, but the real heavy lifting in civil rights was done (and continues to be done to this day) through the Civil Rights Act of 1964, passed through Congress and signed by the President like any other piece of reform legislation. Brown needed to come through the courts to overturn an earlier mistake of the courts (Plessy v Ferguson), and in any event was itself a perfectly reasonable interpretation of a (mostly) democratically passed antidiscrimination Amendment to the Constitution. The Civil Rights Movement didn’t prevail in a courtroom; it won hearts and minds through televised images of police dogs and firehoses being trained on peaceful demonstrators. It won by appealing to the better angels of Americans’ nature.
.
On the other hand, you have the gay marriage approach, which is to litigate an issue that they know they have no chance to win legislatively outside of New England. Instead of having a social discussion about what equal rights mean in modern America, it seeks to have courts declare, “this is what equal rights mean, end of discussion.” Are you really surprised that there’s a negative reaction to that? You don’t have to be Scalia to think that gay marriage is an interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection aspect that not one single person who voted on it saw coming, and that therefore maybe this issue should be handled by the political branches. The Proposition 8 fight was particularly disturbing; not only did you have a court overturning a plebiscite, but then the court was asked to overturn a plebiscite reinstating the first referendum. At some point it’s fair to ask the California Supreme Court what part of “no” it doesn’t understand. The gay rights movement shouldn’t give up. But it should realize that even when the majority is making a stupid decision, that mistake is theirs to make. The solution is to persuade the majority that they’re wrong. Taking power away from the people is not the solution. Calling everyone who opposes the one true faith a “bigot” or a “homophobe” is not the solution; even if you think it’s true, all you’re going to do is convince a supermajority of Americans that you’re self-righteous, intolerant, and whiny, because you’re implicitly calling most Americans nasty names. That’s where the pushback comes from. It isn’t “taking umbrage at any criticism of the majority;” it’s asking for a modicum of respect from those who wish to change the system. “We’re right and everyone who disagrees is evil/racist/bigoted/homophobic/etc” isn’t an argument, it’s a soundbite. It lowers the level of political discourse, which is too low already.
.
Apologies if there’s a double post, but the first one didn’t seem to go through so I sent it again.
In theory individual rights belong to people not as a result of the good will of the majority but by virtue of being human or a citizen at least. Another approach is that rights belong to people by virtue of the constitution, but still such rights presumably belong to people regardless of whether they are a majority or a minority or have the good will of the majority. If this is the case, and the issue is not one of policy but of human/constitutional rights, then presumably the court is the place you would go if your rights were infringed, no?
Of course, the constitution and the courts depend on the people both according to theory and practice. So going to court if the people are hostile might not be enough even if you assume you’re being denied unalienable rights. But you might still do it as a matter of principle, to lay claim to your rights rather than behave as if they are something that depends on the whims of the majority.
The civil rights movement employed both a the method of persuasion (speeches, essays etc.), the courts, and very confrontational methods whose very purpose was to cause a pushback (civil disobedience). The success of the civil rights movement was achieved by using all these methods, not just one of them. In his essays MLK responded to people who suggested the courts should not be used, as well as to people who suggested a more gradual approach (gradualism). This is part of his legacy together with his appeal to the better nature of people and his inclusiveness.
Moreover, going to court has (and had) other purposes beyond trying to change policy through the courts. First, like I said, you go to court in order to lay claim to the rights you think you deserve. Secondly, if you win, you get a recognition of your rights from an important institution. That’s valuable even if their is a pushback. Thirdly, going to court is like civil disobedience or a big demonstration, it pushes an issue into the center of public discussion very effectively and also helps galvanize the supporters. These are no small things. They are very hard to accomplish, and they may very well be worth whatever pushback you might get. This is especially true if to begin with your position is weak and unrecognized and/or if your opponent is using similar techniques to motivate his side.
I don’t follow the struggle of gays in the US, but it seems to me they wouldn’t have gotten very far if they used just mild methods like petitions and demonstrations. It would have been very easy for the public to ignore that as some crazy quirk of a small strange group. Civil disobedience would not have been effective or relevant, so going to courts seems like the most effective way to push the issue and magnify the voice of your group.
The idea that proponents of gay marriage are stridently trying to force their will on the majority is bass-ackwards. It is opponents of gay marriage who are trying to legislate second-class citizenship for homosexuals. Let’s at least be honest about that.
And that’s the truth.
Fourteen years ago I married a woman of a different “race” (and I put “race” in quotes because, despite what the Farrakhans and Dukes of this world say, we’re all human – I don’t do rishathra, thankyouverymuch!) At the time I was born my marriage would have been illegal in many states. We couldn’t go visit her family in Texas without the risk of arrest, not to mention our kids. Add in that some members of my family are homosexual, and I tend to take these things seriously.
As for homosexuality being choice vs. genes – can you imagine any other choice that denies a citizen a fundamental right? The only one I can think of is a felony conviction denying the right to vote in some states.
Now let’s replace the word “homosexual” with any other you like – “Jew” or “Catholic” or “Episcopalian” or “union member” or … you get the point.
As to whether opponents of marriage equality are bigots, I don’t care. It’s not their personality I disagree with, but their views on a specific issue. It’s political.
Here’s my idea of a real Defense of Marriage amendment: “Marriage shall be defined as a voluntary union of two consenting adults.” There you go – none of the straw men about bëšŧìálìŧÿ or pedophilia or all the other crap.
Having read this entire thread again I’ve come to the conclusion that I let David push my buttons and convince me I was doing something I was not: flying off the handle. I let him trick me into tying my own hands behind my back while he sucker punched me repeatedly. Apologies for the length of this post, but it’s time I stand up for myself here. While I’m at it, I’m going to address people other than David as well.
.
Here goes…
.
Peter J Poole: “So the guy thinks one thing, acts on it and subsequently finds himself thinking differently and acting differently?”
–
“Technically, unless he did both at the same time you can’t even make the hypocrisy charge stick.”
.
PAD already proved to you that, yes, Manchester met your definition. I’m going to make it a one-two punch: you’re wrong about the definition of hypocrisy.
.
According to the Microsoft Encarta North American Dictionary, hypocrisy is “the false claim to or pretense of having admirable principles, beliefs, or feelings.” Nowhere does it say anything about simultaneous actions. Now, if Manchester had renounced his support of Prop 8 because he himself wasn’t a perfect Catholic and *then* decided to get a divorce that would not be hypocritical. Getting a divorce two years after supporting Prop 8 without at least acknowledging a contradiction – that would fit the definition of hypocrisy.
.
Peter J Poole: “I do have a vague problem with other things he’s getting called, but even that is just symptomatic of the main thing I was commenting on – that people who are not bigots or antigay are just as happy to sling epithets and abuse at those they do consider fit into those categories as people actually in those categories are to do that to others. Hence, ironic behaviour at least. Or possibly even hypocrisy?”
.
Nope. It’s neither. Manchester is trying to deny people equal protection under the law because of what they are, we’re criticizing him because of choices he made. There’s no hypocrisy, because we’re not saying one thing and doing another. Now, if I were to go start a movement to prohibit women from holding elected office after criticizing Manchester for working to deny equal protection under the law for gays, *then* I’d be a hypocrite. But I’m not doing that, so I’m in the clear.
.
David: “Well, as long as you’re being no more intolerant of people than they are being of other people, and don’t demean them any more than they demean other people, that’s probably okay… Wait, no, I don’t think it is.”
.
Well, I’m doing better than being “no more intolerant” than they are. I contribute to free speech organizations to help guarantee that bigots can continue to say things I find offensive and immoral.
.
David: “So, no, poor logic does not constitute bigotry.”
.
If I had said that poor logic alone constitutes bigotry, you’d have a point. But I didn’t, and you don’t. I said believing that a class of people is undeserving of equal treatment under the law for no logical reason fits the definition of bigotry, which it does.
.
David: “Particularly considering that the only stubborn and complete intolerance visible in this discussion is the doctrine that everyone who opposes gay marriage for any stated reason is, perforce, bigoted.”
.
Let’s rewind the clock back to the Jim Crow era. Let’s say a white person in this era professes not to have anything against black people and is always courteous to any blacks he meets. He simply doesn’t believe black children should be allowed to attend school alongside his children, because even though he has nothing against black people he thinks the races just shouldn’t mix. I think we’d agree that that person would meet the definition of bigot. How is that any different than someone who believes gays shouldn’t marry?
.
David: “I still don’t think that lowering yourself to your opponent’s level is a good way to win a debate over a major social issue…”
.
Well, if I were to delcare that opponents of gay marriage were for some reason undeserving of equal protection under the law I’d indeed be guilty of lowering myself to their level. But I haven’t done that.
.
David: “Imposing an institution on a polity that has affirmatively rejected it is something of a shove.”
.
The “polity” has attempted to rewrite the law to deny gays the right to marry. They are the ones attempting to impose, not the other way around.
.
David: “The mistake is taking the easy way out and writing off everyone who believes that gay marriage shouldn’t be legalized as a Phelps-type character … It is wrong, both factually and ethically, to equate all opponents of gay marriage with Phelps.”
.
I never said everyone who opposes gay marriage is a “Phelps-type” character. I said that anyone who opposes gay marriage is bigoted. Again, bigotry isn’t limited to those in white hoods burning crosses on people’s front lawns. If you believe that not everyone deserves equal treatment under the law, you are a bigot. That may be an emotionally charged word, but that doesn’t mean it’s inaccurate
.
David: “But ultimately the majority rules. Successful strategies (see again: Civil Rights Movement, the) address the majority through persuasion, rather than trying to finesse the system by persuading the courts to impose their desired settlement, whether the majority likes it or not.”
.
The Civil Rights movement of the 1960s “persuaded” the general public not with gentle rhetoric, but instead by tugging at their conscience with horrific television footage of black men and women being hit with water cannons and attacked by police dogs. If desegregation had been left up to the voting public, we’d still have Jim Crow laws on the books today in at least some states.
.
Homosexuals don’t have the same “hook” for civil disobedience that the civil rights protestors of the ‘60s did. The police aren’t going to hit gay couples with water cannons if they declare themselves married in California; the government simply won’t recognize it, and that doesn’t make for good T.V. Therefore the court system is the logical place for their fight.
Personally I don’t think you’ve flown off the handle in this debate. At times I’ve disagreed with your rhetoric, because I think you’ve been dismissive of people with whom we both fundamentally disagree, for reasons that I address in the next paragraph. I think your comments, certainly for the last several days, have been measured and rational, although I disagree with many of them. I have apologized for implying otherwise, and reading back through the comments here I did ratchet up the snideness unnecessarily on Sunday. If I’m going to go after you for using incendiary rhetoric, I should ‘fess up when I do it, and I did. Given that I did so in the midst of making a pitch for reasoned debate, we might want to reopen the discussion of “irony.”
.
I somehow doubt that Manchester ever said that homosexuals did not deserve equal protection under the law. I doubt any prominent Proposition 8 supporters said that; even if they thought it, they’d have to be staggeringly dumb to say it publicly. (Which, again, is not going to stop the Phelps-type person, but I agree with you that not all bigots are walking caricatures.) Instead, the anti-gay-marriage argument is that equal protection doesn’t require redefining marriage to include two members of the same sex. My entire objection is that some gay marriage supporters, who shall remain nameless, prefer to write off that position as naked bigotry rather than affirmatively making the argument that yes, a meaningful concept of equal protection does require new forms of marriage. I tend to think that slinging out terms like “bigoted,” which you target at “anyone who opposes gay marriage,” is unhelpful even if it’s true. It is a substitute for argument rather than an argument. It implies that anyone who takes the position opposite to yours is undeserving of a full response. (And by dismissing Manchester the same way you ignore Phelps, I feel you are equating them.) That’s why I keep dragging out “free speech” rhetoric, even in the absence of actual censorship. If you never engage your opponent, you never even open yourself up to the possibility that ye might be mistaken. How do you know you’re right about a moral argument, ever? Communists knew they were right. Segregationists knew they were right. Oppression by intellectual consensus is almost as disturbing as oppression by actual censorship. Gadflies are important, and even jerks deserve to be taken seriously, rather than dismissed outright. That’s a practical argument as well as an ideological one; coherently stating your position can only strengthen it. And who do you think the people on the fence are going to believe, the faction that’s making (poorly-) reasoned arguments, or the one that’s calling the other names?
.
That is my entire thesis. I apologize again if I went a bit overboard on sarcasm at times, as I feel I did. Painting one’s opponent’s argument as somewhat ridiculous is an often useful trial strategy. It’s inappropriate on what should be a reasonable debate in a blog.
.
The Civil Rights movement of the 1960s “persuaded” the general public not with gentle rhetoric, but instead by tugging at their conscience with horrific television footage of black men and women being hit with water cannons and attacked by police dogs.
.
I believe I actually pointed that out two days ago. Regarding your subsequent argument, there are ways other than being beaten with a hose to arouse empathy in the general public. Americans are not immune to gentle persuasion. I don’t recall women’s rights being advanced by police dogs and hoses. Personally, I flipped to the pro-choice side of the abortion discussion after reading an essay in my philosophy of law class. I think litigation actually hurt that issue; Roe killed off a women’s political movement and left in its place a frothing conservative antiabortion movement. (That argument comes from an essay by then-Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg, incidentally.)
It is a substitute for argument rather than an argument. It implies that anyone who takes the position opposite to yours is undeserving of a full response.
.
Which would be a fair cop if all I did was shout “bigot!” at everyone here who has argued against gay marriage. But I’ve gone a bit further than that. I’ve explained why I believe the “defense of marriage” argument fails (opponents of gay marriage don’t oppose childless heterosexual marriages), and drawn an analogy to the “not in my neighorhood” syndrome.
.
That’s all I’ll have to say for a few days. I’m moving and will be without Internet access for 48 hours. If you’d like to flame me, now’s the time.
.
That’s a joke, in case it wasn’t obvious. 😉
I somehow doubt that Manchester ever said that homosexuals did not deserve equal protection under the law.
.
As the old sayings go, money talks and actions speak louder than words. When you’re contributing six figure sums to a movement designed to deprive gays of equal protection under the law by actually changing the law so that it no longer applies, then that’s exactly what you’re saying. The KKK doesn’t need to hold a press conference to “say” that they’re bigots; a burning cross sends the message. Manchester performed the financial equivalent of a burning cross.
.
PAD
PAD wrote: That is, quite simply, abominable. Do you understand that? In those states–I suspect in most states–there was not a specific law that deprived couples of the same sex from marrying until the people and/or legislature got together and made sure that such a law was instituted. How are you–how is anyone–not filled with outrage that an entire class of Americans who DID have a right to something has had that right systematically taken AWAY from them?
.
Yeeeeeees… except, well, that isn’t actually what happened. You’re probably right that most states didn’t have a statute defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman until the series of laws defining it as such were passed, or those would have been redundant. That doesn’t mean that the word “marriage” didn’t have a clearly understood legal meaning up until the time gay marriage advocates challenged the customary practices. Not every word in a legal document, be it a statute or contract, is defined– either because of sloppy draftsmanship or because it never occurred to anyone that there would be a dispute over its meaning. Imagine if you have a rental agreement that you’re allowed to have dogs in a certain apartment building; odds are nobody is going to bother writing into the apartment contracts that “‘dog’ means a member of canis lupus familiaris” until someone tries to explain that his pet coyote is a form of dog. Common law–the body of cases decided by appellate courts– fills in gaps routinely. There is a famous case in that vein– famous because it’s routinely inflicted on first-year law students– determining how to tell whether the word “chicken” in a contract means a broiler or a fryer. You will look in vain for a Federal law on how to interpret “chicken” in international sales contracts, but since that case the Southern District of New York has had guidelines on how to do so (common sense prevailed– “chicken” was not ruled to be a technical term). As with chickens, “marriage” at common law meant exactly what the ordinary user of English understood it to mean, a couple consisting of a husband and a wife (usually to the detriment of the wife’s rights, particularly in the older cases). And since every state but Louisiana is a common law jurisdiction, the Blackstone-era definition of marriage is the default rule nationwide. The advantage of codifying the term under the state constitutions or statutes is that the codification trumps common law, preventing a future court from altering the existing rules (unless the future court rules the statute unconstitutional, which is why a number of states preferred constitutional amendments over statutes). As I mentioned before, I’m in favor of making that alteration to allow gay marriage, but I find it bewildering that you’re reacting as though codifying the generally understood definition of marriage is the change.
.
That’s even true with Proposition 8. Proposition 8, when proposed, changed nothing. At the time it was being qualified for the ballot, In re Marriage Cases hadn’t been decided yet. Proposition 8 was intended to reset the definition of marriage in the event (which happened while Proposition 8 was pending) that the California Supreme Court invalidated the existing law. Presumably that’s one reason that Proposition 8 only trumped the part of Marriage Cases dealing with the name marriage– its drafters couldn’t anticipate how the court would modify California equal protection law, and either couldn’t or didn’t frame the measure to head off the court’s ruling. In any event, at the time Proposition 8 was circulated, the governing law on gay marriage in California was the same as it was when the California Supreme Court invalidated His Holiness the Mayor of San Francisco’s attempt to issue marriage licenses to gay couples: it was forbidden. The law struck down in Marriage Cases was itself a codification of California common law; about five minutes of Googling took that definition back to 1890, at which point I quit looking.
.
I still find it objectionable. But “an entire class of people” didn’t have a right systematically taken away from them, because they didn’t have it to begin with. It’s the converse of Hume’s Law: you cannot infer an “is” from an “ought.”
Our Constitution requires that all people be treated equally.
.
Denying gay people the right to marry is NOT treating them as equals.
.
Thus, Proposition 8, which you seem to support, is therefore unconstitutional. Your position also seems to put you in opposition to our constitution.
1) Being in opposition to the Constitution would put me in the same category as antislavery advocates in the 19th century and death penalty opponents today.
2) Did you miss the sentence where I said I supported gay marriage? It’s in about 3 of my other posts in this thread so far, too.
3) Troll? Pot. Kettle. Black.
And also, also, you have moved to constantly finding insignificant itty-bitty points on which to argue. You’ve moved into troll-like behavior.
Here’s another insignificant, itty-bitty point: The Supreme Court once rejected that very argument, that the US Constitution’s equal protection clause requires gay marriage. At the very least I’m a well-read troll.
Here’s another insignificant, itty-bitty point: The Supreme Court once rejected that very argument, that the US Constitution’s equal protection clause requires gay marriage. At the very least I’m a well-read troll.
.
In Dred Scott v. Sandford, the SCOTUS ruled that slaves had no claim to freedom. It may well have been the legally correct decision at the time, but… thank goodness times change.
Alan, a troll is someone who simply wants to cause trouble. David is self-righteous and arrogant, but he does contribute substance to the discussion. I don’t think he’s even close to being a troll.
I don’t think I’m self-righteous. I’ll admit to occasionally veering into arrogance though. What makes it worse is that the arrogance occasionally expresses itself in excessive snideness, which I suspect is where the tinges of self-righteousness come from. It’s a flaw I’m less successful in controlling than I’d like. I apologize for the occasions when I fail, and I thank you for your words.
.
And I agree: thank God times change.
Yeeeeeees… except, well, that isn’t actually what happened. You’re probably right that most states didn’t have a statute defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman until the series of laws defining it as such were passed, or those would have been redundant. That doesn’t mean that the word “marriage” didn’t have a clearly understood legal meaning up until the time gay marriage advocates challenged the customary practices.
.
That denies the indisputable fact that the nature of marriage has been subject to constant change for centuries, including as recently as sixty years ago when mixed marriages were specifically illegal in many states because it was “clearly understood” that different races should not mix.
.
Gay marriage advocates “challenged” nothing. The laws/statutes on the books did not deny gays the right to marry, and thus they reasonably argued that they were as entitled to the full weight and power of the law as any other group. According to the Constitution, they are absolutely correct. And in defiance of that Constitution, the citizenry of various states are going out of their way to deprive them of those rights to which they had previously been entitled. It’s really no more complicated than that, and discussion of attempts to define chickens are irrelevant except to say this: I know a chicken when I see it.
.
PAD
I think we have a trees forest kind of situation here. So here’s a very long and boring recap:
There’s a sub-group/subculture of people called gays.
Gays have been fighting to be recognized as a legitimate and worthy group whose relationships are legitimate and worthy and who deserve to be treated equally both by the law and by society (not the same thing).
There’s a social/legal/(sometimes)religious/partially economic institution called marriage.
As part of their struggle gays claimed that since their relationships are equal to heterosexual relationships they are equally entitled to call such relationships — when reaching a certain level of commitment — marriage and equally have all the legal/social aspects of the institution of marriage.
In the past the idea that gay relationships are equal to heterosexual would have been considered absurd — a strange claim by a strange marginal group.
Even today many people still feel that gay relationships are not equal to heterosexual relationships and that therefore they should not be able to form a legal/social bond of marriage.
Gays and their supporters replied that their is no good reason to deny them the right to have their relationships treated as equal to heterosexual relationships. The only reason to do so is because of prejudice toward gay relationships or, more bluntly, because of bigotry.
Opponents of the gay movement attempted in some cases to ensure that gay relationships will not be treated by the law as equal as heterosexual by introducing laws or amendments that will restrict marriage only to heterosexuals.
Since gays were claiming an unalienable right rather than a handout or privilege, they went to the institution whose job it is to protect the legal rights of citizens — Batman, and the courts. Since courts reflect society but are not an exact reflection, and since there is large group of people who support gay marriage and a large group that doesn’t, appeal to the courts sometimes worked and sometimes didn’t.
At times that gays did get the support of the court, their opponents used other legal methods to prevent homosexual relationships being treated as equal to heterosexual, namely prop. 8.
Since attitudes toward gays and toward gay marriage are split in the US, and since up until very recently the idea of gay relationships being equal was considered absurd, and since gays are a small, dispersed, sometimes hidden segment of society, the objective of the gay rights movement was to force the issue of gay marriage into the center of public discussion (just as other movements have done in the past). Going to court was one of several methods used to achieve that. It was used in the past by the civil rights movement alongside other methods (some of which were also used by gays — using public figures, running for office, demonstrations, iconography, rioting). You can compare the success of the gay rights movement to push their issue to other movements. It seems to me it is doing well. The negative reaction from their opponents is inevitable whether they went to court or not. By going to court they force a confrontation and public discussion instead of being ignored, which is a big problem for movements.
Since they have successfully pushed this issue into the limelight, it is no surprise that the public discussion becomes heated, including name calling. There’s nothing unique about that. Political discussions are often heated. Calling their opponents bigots (or homophobes) might be blunt and even counter productive but is not avoiding the discussion, since that’s exactly the point gay rights advocates are trying to make — that the only motivation for opposition to gay marriage is prejudice.
Pointing out that the same Catholic principles that were used to justify opposition to gay marriage were disregarded when Manchester’s own interest, namely divorce, was on the line hardly constitutes name calling or gloating or being mean. It shows that he is insincere, and is actually motivated by prejudice toward gay relationship rather than Catholicism.
——
–>”I don’t recall women’s rights being advanced by police dogs and hoses.”
It was during the era of the suffragettes. Confrontation, provocation and controversy are often used by movements, sometimes it has positive and sometimes it has negative results. Sometimes both.
–>”Personally, I flipped to the pro-choice side of the abortion discussion after reading an essay in my philosophy of law class.”
Good for you. Essays are one tool, but used alone it would not have been a very effective tool regardless of your personal experience. This is true of other tools as well, including litigation.
–>”I think litigation actually hurt that issue; Roe killed off a women’s political movement and left in its place a frothing conservative antiabortion movement. (That argument comes from an essay by then-Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg, incidentally.)”
There are several issues here:
1) Did Roe help give American women access to abortion?
Yes.
2) Did Roe help or harm women’s rights?
I know there was a backlash against feminism in general. But I don’t know if Roe was the cause I don’t know if this backlash caused any actual decline in women’s rights or was just a cultural phenomena.
3) Did Roe cause the rise of an anti-abortion movement?
You’re assuming a lot. You’re assuming that if there was no Roe than the social change would have occurred nevertheless calmly and that people who are against abortion would have not been able to block that change and would have reacted more placidly to it than they did react to Roe. You also do not know that nor do you know how long it would have taken for change to occur on this issue or on the issue of gay marriage. As a person who is not affected by either you can promise that change will come slowly but surely out of the goodness of American hearts in the most gentle methods. But you are not the one that has to wait nor are you the one who is trying to create the change.
4) Did Roe harm the women’s movement?
I don’t know. But there is one thing that I think is true. If a movement relies too much on the courts while neglecting other methods than it looses the ability to engage both its own constituency and the public it’s trying to affect. It does not mean that going to courts is necessarily wrong, but since movements are often lead by lawyers and academics it sometimes happens that the movements become too caught up with law and complex intelectual theories that they loose popular influence.
You’re assuming a lot. You’re assuming that if there was no Roe than the social change would have occurred nevertheless calmly and that people who are against abortion would have not been able to block that change and would have reacted more placidly to it than they did react to Roe. You also do not know that nor do you know how long it would have taken for change to occur on this issue or on the issue of gay marriage. As a person who is not affected by either you can promise that change will come slowly but surely out of the goodness of American hearts in the most gentle methods. But you are not the one that has to wait nor are you the one who is trying to create the change.
.
(1) With regard to the assumption I’m making: yes, you correctly summarize my theory. You’re correct, I don’t know that to be true, nor do I know how long that change would have taken. I do think that’s true. I do that for two reasons. One is that the most consistently viable tactic used by the pro-life movement has been to attack “activist judges.” With regard to Roe, that’s a ridiculously easy target because the opinion itself is so craptacular that I’ve seen pro-choice legal commentators stop just short of apologizing for it. But the underlying argument seems to be that the result is inherently unfair because 9 unelected judges essentially imposed a solution on a contentious social issue. That argument goes away if the solution comes through the political branches. It’s a lot harder to complain about “activist legislatures,” certainly at the state level. At the national level there’s always a reasonable argument to be made that a government of enumerated powers has gotten its tentacles into to many pies. (In these metaphors, governments are always monsters with tentacles instead of fingers. 😛 ) State governments are supposed to be governments of general jurisdiction. It is much easier for, say, NY State to pass an abortion law governing abortions within the borders of New York. And there’s really no doubt that the states that are friendly to abortion rights would be so voluntarily in the absence of SCOTUS opinions. The states that fight like hëll to limit abortion now would probably be closer to an outright ban in my counterfactual, so abortion rights in those states would be worse off. In your language, people who are against abortion would have been able to block the change in, say, Alabama, but not in New York or California. It’s purely a value judgment, and your mileage may vary, but I think that’s less bad than having a legal regime of questionable legitimacy, where the people’s ability to craft their laws is curtailed by court-ordered policy judgments. The second thing that I’d argue is that history suggests that, once a policy choice is made, the nation does tend to come to accept it. Think about the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Repealing it would be unthinkable, and that became unthinkable very quickly after its passing. Compare that to the Roe backlash, still going strong decades after the opinion. I have to think that people are more willing to accept defeat if that defeat came about legitimately.
.
(2) Your second point that I quoted– that I’m not the one who has to wait– proves too much. You’re right, I don’t have to wait to marry a loved one because my state hasn’t legalized the relationship (yet). That doesn’t mean I don’t have an opinion on what the result of a political fight should be, or how it should be obtained. I have absolutely no problem expressing my policy preferences on political issues, even when those issues are unlikely to affect me directly. Men are entitled to weigh in on the abortion debate. White Yankees were entitled to be Freedom Riders. Straight people are entitled to offer opinions on gay marriage. Ultimately, everything does affect me, even if indirectly, because these issues affect the nation I live in, and I have a right to be heard on how that nation should be run. I say this as a pro-choice, pro-gay-marriage straight male. “We” won a victory on abortion rights that is difficult to justify, and “we” are getting clobbered fair and square on gay marriage. I have every faith that “we” will ultimately prevail on gay marriage, but we need to do it the right way, or we may end up with a victory that does nothing but ensure that for decades afterward there will be a loud, bitter, angry opposition with a legitimate gripe.
Ultimately, everything does affect me, even if indirectly, because these issues affect the nation I live in, and I have a right to be heard on how that nation should be run.
.
“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.”
.
This passage from the Declaration of Independence has rightly come to represent the moral standard by which we should govern our nation. It’s why the first ten amendments of the U.S. Constitution codify certain civil rights that are not subject to a popular vote and cannot be legislated away.
.
You may believe that the equal protection clause of the Constitution does not apply to gay marriage. I can’t for all the world see why it wouldn’t. Marriage extends certain rights and privileges not available otherwise, and denying that to homosexuals denies them equal treatment under the law.
.
…“we” are getting clobbered fair and square on gay marriage. I have every faith that “we” will ultimately prevail on gay marriage, but we need to do it the right way, or we may end up with a victory that does nothing but ensure that for decades afterward there will be a loud, bitter, angry opposition with a legitimate gripe.
.
“We” are not getting “clobbered fair and square on gay marriage.” The arguments against gay marriage have been demolished time and again. Prejudice and unfair discrimination are behind measures like Prop 8, and such attitudes are by definition anything but “fair and square.”
.
As for worrying about a “loud, bitter, angry opposition,” there’s no way to avoid it. Following the victories won as the result of the civil rights movement of the ’60s, we had decades of loud, bitter, angry opposition. People are always pìššëd øff whenever there is radical social change because like Wayne and Garth, most of us fear change. No matter how the fight for gay rights is won — through the legislatures, the courts, or a wrestling match — a lot of people won’t accept it. In a few decades, their attitudes will be rightly relegated to the same junkbin where we keep attitudes like those that were behind laws against mixed-race marriages.
Good article from Steve Chapman at http://reason.com/news/show/135539.html
.
Basically he writes this:6 states have legalized gay marriage and the other 44 do not appear to be doing so any time soon. A perfect opportunity to see the effects. So, opponents of gay marriage, what quantitative result can we expect to see in
Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire compared to the other 44 states, as a direct result of their legalization of the institution? Just give a nice simple easy to check stat. A 12% increase in divoce rates, a doubling of illegitimate births, Sandworm sightings up 72%, whatever.
.
So far the opponents have been very reluctant to make predictions. Interesting.
First answwer to second point:
I’m not saying that you have no right for an opinion on either the subject of gay rights or abortion. I would never say that, since I’m a male heterosexual who is not exactly American (althoughh legally I do have the right to vote for president), because that’s not my own view, and because I had this argument used on me. However, I do believe that you should be more humble before you demand from a group of people, be they blacks, gays or weomen, to live under certain unjust laws just because you don’t want their struggle to offend your sensibilities.
Moreover, it is easy for you to look at the civil rights movement and say it was the good fight, but can you honestly say this would have been your attitude had you lived in that time. This was a fight that was done by using the willfull violation of the law (civil disobedience), the willfull confrontation with lawenforcers and civilians, it did involve appeal to the courts and to the federal government. If today we can look at it as a success both for changing the law and society itself, we have to admit that it didn’t happen easily or gently, or because Americans are all nice people, but by a very fortunate combination of all these methods and others. The reason you can’t reppeal the civil rights act is not because it is based on the legislature rather than the courts– laws can be changed too–But because the change that occured in American society thanks to the methods I mentioned (as well as other grander historical processes) was too strong for the push back.
As for Roe vs. Wade. The counterfactual you describe would have resulted in millions of American women living in certain states not having the option of abortion in their own states. We can imagine and hope that maybe 20-30 more years of Americans living like that would have resulted in a changing of opinions in those states too, or maybe not. But those 30 years would have been much harsher on them than either you or me, that’s assuming it would not have gone on longer.
Meanwhile, while you might think that the people who oppose abortion have a legitimate claim, and they have certainly fought hard, they have failed to outlaw abortion despite the backlash and 20 years of Republican rule in the White House. That’s more than 35 years of American women having access to abortion. Moreover, have opinions during that time have more against abortion or for it? Is it now more or less accepted socially? If so, that would show that like the Civil Rights Movement what we have is social change following after the actions of the courts, not instead.
This passage from the Declaration of Independence has rightly come to represent the moral standard by which we should govern our nation.
.
Absolutely right.
.
It’s why the first ten amendments of the U.S. Constitution codify certain civil rights that are not subject to a popular vote and cannot be legislated away.
.
Absolutely wrong. The first ten amendments of the Constitution were adopted by majority vote– the amendments to the Constitution were proposed by Congress, sent to the several states for ratification, and voted on through the ordinary political process. Individual applications aren’t subject to vote, unless a jury does something squirrelly, but a court can’t enforce a right that hasn’t been created by law. In theory, they all can be revoked the same way they were passed, although in practice the Republic would collapse before that became a realistic possibility.
.
You may believe that the equal protection clause of the Constitution does not apply to gay marriage. I can’t for all the world see why it wouldn’t.
.
Well, I’ve said about 107 times on this blog now that I think equity does argue for extending marriage to homosexual couples. As for the argument why the equal protection clause doesn’t apply, it’s often some form of originalism: the theory that the best interpretive guide of an unclear provision is the intent of the legislators who drafted or voted on the provision. I’m generally not a huge fan of the theory, largely because I don’t think that a group can have a single guiding intent, but it isn’t a fringe argument. The smartassed answer would be that the EPC doesn’t apply because the Supreme Court said it didn’t, but it wouldn’t be the first time SCOTUS got the 14th Amendment wrong. (Plessy v. Ferguson and the Slaughterhouse Cases come to mind.)
.
The specific legal hurdle for EPC challenges is that the Supreme Court assigned homosexuality to the lower rank of what are called “protected classes,” which is how the Federal courts categorize which classifications get which level of scrutiny. Race-based discrimination is subject to “strict” (the highest level of) scrutiny, sex-based classification is subject to “intermediate scrutiny,” and most other classifications, including sexual orientation, is subject to “rational basis review,” meaning that if the discrimination has a rational purpose, it is permissible. Using marriage to encourage procreation is reasonably likely to pass that level. It’s a little over/underinclusive, meaning that gay couples with kids can’t get married while infertile straight couples can, but in rational basis review, the plan doesn’t have to be precisely tailored in the way it would for, say, race-based firefighter promotions. California’s Supreme Court doesn’t use that sort of hierarchy, and ruled that sexual orientation discrimination is subject to the highest level of scrutiny, so close doesn’t count.
Absolutely wrong. The first ten amendments of the Constitution were adopted by majority vote– the amendments to the Constitution were proposed by Congress, sent to the several states for ratification, and voted on through the ordinary political process.
.
Actually, that’s not the *ordinary* political process. Ordinarily, a state legislature passes a law and it’s the law of the land within that state’s borders. Or the Congress passes a law and everyone within the U.S. is bound by it. To amend the U.S. Constitution, either Congress must propose an amendment by passing a bill by a two-thirds majority in both houses and then send it to the state legislatures for ratification; or two thirds of the states must call for a Constitutional convention to propose an amendment which then must be ratified by the state legislatures (the latter route has actually never been taken). Which was my point: you have to go to *extraordinary* lengths to change the Constitution, so much so that most amendments die on the vine (thank goodness). The founding fathers wanted to ensure that we couldn’t change the Constitution willy-nilly.
.
In any event, you seem far more enamored of the details about our system of governance and missing the point of the system. The Bill of Rights was heavily influenced by, among other things, John Locke’s concept of natural law. According to Locke, in our “natural state” we are possessed of certain rights which are not contingent upon the laws or policies of any government. The Bill of Rights was written to ensure that we would be protected from the tyrannies of both the majority and the minority, so that we could not easily be stripped of our unalienable rights. In other words, if the law doesn’t recognize our unalienable rights then it’s the law that’s in error and not the other way around.
.
To echo what Micha said: you seem far more concerned about the sensibilities of the majority than you do about extending equal rights under the law to all. Yes, I know you feel you’ve said “700 times” that you support gay marriage, but it will still ring hollow even if you say it a 701st time. Why? Because you’ve spent more verbiage expressing righteous indignation about how the tone of some liberals — like me — offends your sensibilities than you have about any convictions regarding gay rights.
.
By assigning sexual orientation to a lower level of protected status, the SCOTUS has assigned gays to second-class status. It’s the same kind of premise that underpineed the ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford — that some of us are less human than others.
Ultimately, what the SCOTUS is doing is allowing people to vote on other people’s humanity. One of the things I’d’ve hoped we’d have learned over the centuries is that the majority isn’t always right, and that Democracy isn’t *always* about majority rule. Mostly it is — but *not* always.
Actually I’m going to agree with much of what you just said. I believe that there are many rights that we deserve by virtue of being human, and if the law does not reflect that, the law needs to be changed. Conversely, after watching California amend its constitution willy-nilly, I think we can all be grateful that the national Constitution is rather harder to monkey around with.
.
As to whether my claims about being in favor of gay marriage ring true to you or not, I’ve nothing left to say to that. I know what I think and why I think it. I’ve explained my position in great detail. If you choose not to believe me… *shrug* For what it’s worth though, I stopped talking about your tone days ago. In all honesty, my tone was pissy longer than yours was, for which I apologized. I may have spent more verbiage talking about the value of a reasonable tone than about the underlying morality, but isn’t that to be expected? Of course I talked more about the thing we were debating than the thing we agree about. “I agree with you” only takes 4 words to say. Saying what I think needs to be reconsidered, and explaining why I think that, is a more involved discussion.
.
I don’t much care if people– even the majority, despite what you seem to think– end up with their sensibilities offended. What I do care about is the legal and political process. If the system doesn’t work we have nothing, and I’m not willing to compromise the system to accelerate our progress toward a good, even essential, goal. My concern about how the law corrects its errors is not overwhelmed by the need to make any one correction. The whole tone argument was about preserving the political debate, which cannot exist if the contest devolves into name calling and a shouting match, as the current health care reform debacle attests. My preference for it being a political debate rather than a court-imposed settlement is because that is how I feel the system should work.
.
The rule of law is about more than getting to the right answer. It is about getting to the right answer in the right way. I emphatically believe that people have natural rights, but natural right is not the basis for a legal decision in the courts. It is a moral, rather than a legal argument. You’re right that government protects minorities from the majority as often as it empowers the majority, but that system was itself adopted by the majority. American courts can only interpret laws or constitutional provisions that are democratically adopted. The Bill of Rights was adopted by the majority. (And by ordinary political process, I mean that it was enacted by vote in the means provided for by the Constitution– which it was.) Courts can enforce those rights, the courts can interpret them to resolve gaps or ambiguities, but they ought not rewrite them to repair inequities. Judicial review is a wonderful tool, but one that can be abused. As difficult as the Federal Constitution is to amend, a judicial opinion can effectively end a political debate. That power should be used sparingly.
David, I don’t disbelieve you when you say you’re in favor of gay marriage, so perhaps saying your convictions “ring hollow” was too strong a phrase. I apologize.
.
I agree with you that we cannot simply cast aside the political process when it suits us; to do so could just as easily jeopardize our civil rights. I also agree with you that judicial review should be used sparingly and that judges should find meaning in the law rather than imposing meaning on the law.
.
Still, I believe the equal protection clause can and should apply to gay marriage. I believe the reasoning used by the SCOTUS to determine otherwise in effect declares that homosexuals are second-class citizens. I believe judicial action with respect to gay marriage would fall within “sparing use.”
.
In a broader sense, I think we have to remember that creating social change is a messy business. Those who are against gay marriage are unwilling to be dragged out of their comfort zones. Political debate is certainly an important ingredient for effecting a societal change, but it’s often not enough. People who believe homosexual behavior is an offense against God (which encompasses a lot more people than just the Rev. Phelps) are unlikely to be swayed by a rational argument, just as many racists dug in their heels against integration decades ago. Protests, civil disobedience, legislation, court battles, and more are all part of the process of steering society on a new course.
You know, if we’re not careful we’re going to end up with a purely civil and reasonable discussion. From there it’s dogs and cats living together peacefully, and it’ll just be terrible.
.
I think I got that joke from Farscape.
.
I agree that people who believe homosexuality is innately sinful will rarely be convinced otherwise. They’ll just have to be outvoted.
.
SCOTUS’s opinion in Romer didn’t make homosexuals second class citizens. They’re still entitled to all of the rights of citizens, including equal protection law. If a gay citizen is denied a benefit based on his sex or race, he has the same rights as a straight citizen. It just means that classification along that one axis, sexual orientation, isn’t subject to the same level of scrutiny as racial classifications. It is still reviewed, and bear in mind that Romer was a step in the right direction, from sexual orientation discrimination being completely unregulated.
.
My whole problem with the courts involving themselves in marriage itself is because it’s such a fundamental social institution. Contrary to what PAD said the other day, marriage did have a clearly understood definition, and two people of the same sex living together wasn’t it. I strongly believe that redefining that institution is a policy decision, not a straightforward application of equal protection law, and should be handled by the political branches rather than the courts.
One other thing I think should be pointed out (and it’s nice that we seem to arriving at a nice thought out discourse here), while I think most people who call anti-gay marriage supporters are thinking of folks like Fred Phelps and Pat Buchanan, they are also talking about President Obama, who, for all his good points, is less progressive on this issue than Ðìçk freaking Cheney.
.
casting the bigot net so widely that it catches both Buchanan and Obama doesn’t leave you with much to work with.
.
(Ironically, I think Obama’s recent slip in the popularity polls may make it more likely that he will do the right thing here, sooner rather than later.)
OK, a few more thoughts before I go move all of my earthly possessions into a new house, and these are specifically for those who still oppose gay marriage:
.
Some of you think homosexuality is an offense against God. As I’ve said, if you don’t want the government interfering in your religious beliefs it’s best not to impose your faith on others. Once you open the door to government interference in religion, everyone’s religious freedom is threatened including your own.
.
As for the argument that gay marriage will devalue straight marriage, do you really believe that straight people will be less likely to marry just because gay people can? Or less likely to honor their vows because of gay marriage? One has nothing to do with the other.
.
Finally, if you’re offended by the word “bigot” because you have nothing against gays… *but* you don’t believe they have the right to marry, think about this: many people believed they had nothing against blacks *but* didn’t want them in their neighborhood, or marrying whites, or whatever. There’s always a form of prejudice or unfair bias hiding within that word “but.” If you oppose gay marriage, you’re implicitly judging that gay relationships are on some level not the equal of straight relationships and that inequality should be codified in the law. You can’t have it both ways. Either you believe homosexuals deserve equal rights or you don’t.
.
Finally, and most important, think about every other societal change that has run into opposition: the abolition of slavery, women’s suffrage, the repeal of Jim Crow laws, etc. In every case, the opposition always declares that this or that change in the social fabric will cause the nation to go to hëll in a handbasket and it never does. If history is any guide, it’s highly unlikely that allowing gay marriage will be the one time that the “sky is falling” crowd will be right. Under these circumstances wouldn’t you rather place your bet on embracing legal equality for all people?
You make a lot of valid points, Bill. They’re the sort of points that opponents of gay marriage usually avoid by dropping back ten yards and declaring that the Bible says gays are evil, and therefore everything else is moot.
.
PAD
People who quote the Bible on homosexuality seem to stop their reading in Leviticus. There are a few other books they should consider …
Bill Myers wrote:
As for the argument that gay marriage will
devalue straight marriage, do you really
believe that straight people will be less
likely to marry just because gay people can?
Or less likely to honor their vows because of
gay marriage? One has nothing to do with the
other.
I may have to change my nickname to captain bad-analogy, but..
I tend to liken this to the whole Coolio/Weird Al situation a few years ago. Coolio had a song that wad deeply personal for him (Gangsters Paradise) For him, it was special and unique and was meant to stand for something. Weird Al comes along a makes a parody (Amish Paradise).
Coolio thinks “Gangter” is the REAL song, “Amish” is the perversion.
Al doesn’t see it as a perversion. He doesn’t mean any harm by it. He wants to enjoy the music in a way that suits him, his personality, and his tastes.
Coolio may very well think that the mere presence of the Weird Al version detracts from the power and importance of his own. Who knows, to a limited extent, he may be right? Now, whenever Gangsters Paradise” is plays, people are reminded of the “amish” version.
Both versions have their fans. Both enjoyed for different reasons.
I sort of lost where I was going with this, and I ams ure someone will be glad to point out where my analofy fails, but I guess what I am trying to say is that I can sort of understand why someone who feels deeply about something (whether it be what defines marriage, , or which version of a song is better) can feel that a variation on the “original” can devalue it.
As I recall reading, Weird Al gets permission before he parodies a song. He had Coolio’s permission. Therefore, Coolio has nothing to complain about. To say that he thinks his version is the definitive version, and not Weird Al’s is simply saying water is wet.
There was actually some sort of mixup about that, Alan — if memory serves, Al thought Coolio’s people had given permission and Coolio thought otherwise. So there was some sort of glitch there — but you’re right overall that he gets permission, even though from what I know of the law he doesn’t have to.
From what I’ve read, Coolio’s people DID give permission, but Coolio didn’t know about it until the release. That’s why Al now goes right to the performer for permissions first.
With regards to those who claim that by speaking out firmly against those who are intolerant – by the simple act of CALLING them intolerant – we are, ourselves, being intolerant of their views, I quote Karl Popper in his work, “The Open Society and its Enemies”:
“Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterances of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary, even by force; for it may turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers from listening to rational argument, because it is ‘deceptive’, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.”
Those who oppose gay marriage, whatever their reasoning, are intolerant. They are actively seeking to deny an entire grouping of their fellow humans the right afforded to all other groupings. This is intolerant and it is bigoted – no matter their proclaimed ‘reasoning’ – and I am not afraid to call them on it, nor am I afraid to tell them they where they can stick their intolerance and bigotry.
To paraphrase Oliver Wendell Holmes, the right of others to be offended by my marriage to another man ends where my right to be married to someone I love begins.
So go, PAD, keep pointing out the hypocrisy and bigotry of those who oppose what should be common sense: the very human, very AMERICAN, right to marry the person you love, regardless of gender.
Aren’t you sort of fighting a straw man here? I don’t recall anyone actually objecting to people “speaking out firmly” on the issue of intolerance. I do recall making the argument that if your only mode of speaking out is to label another person a bigot, without actually discussing the issue, you’re really not engaging in “speaking” at all.
.
The rest of your argument frankly scares me. You say “the right of others to be offended… ends”– so we’re telling people how to think now, are we? You literally just said that someone doesn’t have the right to hold a particular opinion. Not just denying the right to act on that opinion, but the right to hold it. Please, please tell me you let your rhetoric get away from you.
.
As for Mr Popper’s argument that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside of the law, fortunately that theory is, itself, outside the law. Ordinarily I’m not a huge fan of Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr, but on free speech he usually had it right. “Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition. To allow opposition by speech seems to indicate that you think the speech impotent, as when a man says that he has squared the circle, or that you do not care whole heartedly for the result, or that you doubt either your power or your premises. But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas-that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment. Every year if not every day we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy based upon imperfect knowledge. While that experiment is part of our system I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country.” Abrams v United States, 250 US 616, 630 (1919) (Holmes, dissenting).
.
The issue isn’t that we’re convinced that Rev. Phelps has anything useful to contribute to the discussion. He probably isn’t particularly interested in discussing anything to begin with. The issue is that you, or I, or PAD, or the Human Rights Campaign, have no more right to shut up Phelps than he does to shut up any of us. It’s not about who’s right. Judgment of the Red Scare in the 1950s is negative not because the Communists were right– they weren’t– but because it’s the intolerance of intolerant people that was unAmerican. There’s no one in the past 50 years that was more intolerant than Communist nations, and the Communist Party of the US wanted to bring that level of nightmare to our shores. They were still entitled to make the argument, to run for office, because that’s how our nation works. Shouting “bigot” at someone is no different from shouting “Commie”– it’s a poor substitute for argument.
.
You should absolutely point out the “hypocrisy and bigotry” of your opponents. But you should do that by explaining why they’re wrong, by competing in the marketplace of ideas, and most specifically by putting forward your “product” in that marketplace of ideas known as an election.
I thought this was interesting, considering the discussion held in this thread:
.
http://www.gamepolitics.com/2009/08/25/gamers-propose-shadow-complex-boycott-over-orson-scott-card039s-invovlement
.
I must also admit, I would like to see an answer to the question posed in the post-SDCC thread (where Shadow Complex was mentioned) at the end of the thread, as it never saw a response. I’ll just copy & paste that posting again here:
.
Jeff Spry says:
July 30, 2009 at 10:40 pm
.
Peter, did you have any reservations about adapting the work of Orson Scott Card on Shadow Complex? I ask because you’re one of the most outspoken creators on an issue of which he seems to be firmly on the opposite side. Also, my liberal guilt may keep me from playing the game and it looks really cool.
Peter, did you have any reservations about adapting the work of Orson Scott Card on Shadow Complex? I ask because you’re one of the most outspoken creators on an issue of which he seems to be firmly on the opposite side. Also, my liberal guilt may keep me from playing the game and it looks really cool.
.
No, no reservations. The ideas that were adapted for “Shadow Complex” involved extremist political áššhølëš trying to bring down the government and the good guys stopping them from doing so. I don’t really have a problem with that.
.
Nor does the game have anything to do with gays, gay marriage, gay equality, gay abandon, nose gays, etc. All it’s about is a game. I have no more reason to avoid contact with “Shadow Complex” because Card hates gays than I do to refuse to visit Cooperstown because Ty Cobb was a racist.
.
PAD