Am I paranoid over the possibility of increasing incidents of anti-Semitic violence?
No.
Am I concerned?
Sure.
The watchword of the Holocaust is “Never again.” Look what happened in Germany: Violence against minorities. People deprived of liberty without due process. The existence of organized anti-Semitic hate groups. Citizens who had committed no crime, rounded up and stuck into relocation camps.
Except…gee…over the last sixty years, those have all happened here as well. And now our commander in chief is suggesting changing the Constitution to formalize a bigotry against gays…a people who, y’know, were just adored by Hitler (who was, by the way, a very religious individual.)
So don’t tell me I’m overreacting, and don’t tell me that such things could never happen here, because such things *have* happened here. The only question is, will they happen again and to what degree.
Now me, I don’t especially care to find out. Don’t get me wrong: It’s not like I’m lying awake at night, listening for the sounds of rocks being thrown through my front windows while people scream “Dirty Jews!” (the incident which–when it happened to him–prompted my paternal grandfather to pack up his family and move the hëll out of pre-WWII Berlin while it was still possible to get out.) But there continues to be a nagging concern in the back of my mind, and frankly, considering a grand thousands-of-years tradition of people trying to kill Jews, I don’t think the concern is exactly misplaced.
PAD
• 
Tim Lynch wrote:
The one that said everyone in favor of gay marriage would be cheering if Bush had suggested an amendment allowing it.
Except I never said “Everyone” in favor of it would be cheering Bush. Go ahead, find the quote. I’ll wait.
EClark1849,
I’m glad someone else see that. It’s amazing how PAD described bigotry as not tolerating someone elses point of view, yet then everyone here refuses to tolerate the point of view of people who are against gay marriage, and calls them bigots. Doesn’t that make everone here a bigot for not tolerating the anti-gay marriage POV?
This is an invalid definition of bigot, and a poor way to win an arguement. Instead of addressing the points, we resort to the “if you feel this way you’re a bigot”. This is no better than what was happening from the right in the past years that if you disagreed with the war you were automatically “unpatriotic”. If you don’t like it on your side, don’t do it back to us.
Of course, the same people who are upset about judges undermining the will of the people and affecting the presidency, are demanding that judges now be allows to undermine the will of the people, and allow gay marriage, rather than letting the populations of each state decide…hmmm..more hypocrisy.
And for the record, hypocrisy does happen on both sides, but it doesn’t excuse it in either case (before someone makes that arguement). We’re not 3 years old. Two wrongs do not make a right.
Bigotry has nothing do do with whether you tolerate someone’s point of view. I didn’t see where PAD defined it that way (and I’m pretty sure he didn’t), but if he did, he’s wrong. Bigotry is about not respecting (groups of) people, not individual opinions.
Rob
Why are Jews disliked? What I mean is, what are the reasons anti-semites give, and what do you think are the reasons?
As for anti-semitism in Europe, what proportion is from native Europeans, and what proportion is from immigrant Muslims?
Rob,
Here’s the exact quote.
A bigot is a person who refuses to tolerate people whose opinions differ from his own.
Even you’re definition is wrong. I don’t respect murderer’s, but that doesn’t make me a bigot. A bigot is defined as follows:
One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
So one can be against gay marriage, but not be a bigot. It depends on the motives and the reasons for being against gay marriage.
I’m very accepting of alternative lifestyles. I’ve got both a gay uncle (in a committed relationship) and a gay aunt (also in a committed relationship). My wife is also bisexual (a choice that most gay groups attack). But I am not supportive of gay marriage for multiple personal reasons, and will vote and support politicians that will work against legalizing gay marriages. But this goes not, in no uncertain terms, make me a bigot.
I call it a “liberal” epithet because it was used in this forum and in the midst of a legitimate debate for one reason and one reason only. It was used to characterize individuals who believe a certain way in a particular light.
No, it was used to characterize an individual, George W. Bush, to describe the way I believe he perceives gays and the action he is endeavoring to take. Supporting the implementation of an amendment that formalizes a segment of American citizens as second class citizens is, I believe, a form of bigotry. A bigot is a person who refuses to tolerate people whose opinions differ from his own. Going out of his way to make them unhappy and make sure they don’t have the rights of other citizens, I believe, constitutes bigotry.
Bull crap. I can’t marry a man and a gay man can’t marry a man. That’s equal rights. The only difference is I don’t WANT to marry a man and the gay man doesn’t WANT to marry a woman. What right do I have that he doesn’t?
I believe your response–to try and slap an unwarranted label of “liberal epithet” to a fairly accurate definition of Bush’s actions–is a fast attempt to smear me (because, you know, liberal=evil) rather than acknowledge the bigoted actions of the President.
If you see yourself as evil, PAD, that’s your problem. I never implied such a thing. I didn’t imply, but STATED that I think you were trying to put a chill on an honest debate by using that epithet to characterize ANYONE who supports an amendment defining marriage as the union between one man and one woman in the Constitution as a bigot, and I stand by that. You may have called Bush’s name, but the implication that anyone who supports his actions is a bigot, isn’t very subtle. I don’t have to smear you, you’ve done a fairly good job of it yourself.
** Why are Jews disliked? What I mean is, what are the reasons anti-semites give, and what do you think are the reasons?
As for anti-semitism in Europe, what proportion is from native Europeans, and what proportion is from immigrant Muslims? **
Both good questions. Not sure anyone can answer them. Really, I think it just has to do with the old world customs and beliefs. These hatreds go back hundreds of years. Many people still live in their same villages and communities that their families have lived in for hundreds of years. I’ve got relatives in both Scottland and Germany who live in the same homes (!) that their families have lived in for over 100 years. I think this is what engenders a kind of xenophobic reaction, especially as you start to see your culture changing due to television, the internet, and emmigrants.
I think you see a bit less of this here, since there is less of a defined cultural identity in the US, so less resistance. Traditionally, though, in the US, when you had the emmigrants living in sections of new york (such as the irish, or the germans, or the polish) each group was extremely xenophobic and hostile to the other groups. So alot of this I think is mere human nature.
As for the second question, who knows? Probably a mixure of both.
Jerry posted:
I’m just curious how many people here have even read the proposed amendment, or is everyone here just going on soundbites. For the record, the amendment DOES NOT ban gay marriages.
The Federal Marriage Amendment is narrowly tailored to address negative developments in the courts. At the same time, the amendment does not depart from principles of federalism under which family law is, for the most part, a state matter. The traditional autonomy of state legislatures on family law matters is preserved by the text of the amendment.
So any state can still legalized gay marriages (I.E. Hawaii, Mass, Vermont). However, a federal judge can’t just make a ruling in Hawaii that affects the entire country. Since marriage is a states right issue, this amendment would reserve it as a power to the states.
The following is Rep Musgrave’s version (H.J.Res 56):
“SECTION 1. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.”
Now, careful reading of this shows specifically that NO state’s decision to permit same-sex marriages (or even civil unions as in Vermont) will be permitted under the terms of this proposed amendment as specified in the last sentence.
There’s nothing in it about a federal judge making a “local” decision applicable to the nation as a whole. That idea, by the way, does NOT happen anyways. If a federal circuit judge makes a decision, it applies ONLY to the residents of that particular Circuit Court’s jurisdiction. Only laws decided by the U S Supreme Court apply to the entire country. Other circuit courts can use the decision rendered in another circuit court as a basis for its decision, but, for example, if the 9th Circuit Court renders a decision, it applies only to the 9th Circuit Court’s jurisdiction; the 3rd Circuit Court can use that decision when judging a case before it, but the 9th’s decision will not otherwise apply to the 3rd’s jurisdiction unless the U S Supreme Court upholds the 9th’s decision.
As the H J Res 56 is worded, however, Vermont’s current civil unions (as well as SF’s same-sex marriages) would not only be not recognized by the Federal gov’t nor any other state which refuses to recognize them, but would, in fact, be nullified, even if Vermont were to formalize civil unions within its own state constitution.
It should be noted that already the various states which refuse to recognize Vermont’s civil unions are violating the U S Constitution’s “full faith and credit” clause–that’s the one which allows a hetero couple married in Alaska (or in Albania or the Azores) to be recognized as married in Alabama or Arizona without having to undergo a new marriage ceremony (one presumes, of course, that the marriage ceremony was valid where it was performed). It also allows a Californian to drive to New York without the need to possess a driver’s license for each state he plans to travel through. It should be noted, though, that possession of a out-of-state driver’s license won’t permit the bearer to violate certain state laws (tobacco laws, for instance, or even window-tinting laws; in Alabama, there’s a certain amount of tinting that’s permitted–an out-of-state vehicle is allowed to be in the state for only a certain length of time before the car’s owner can be fined for violating the window-tinting laws), but the possession of that license does permit the bearer to travel as freely as he would in his home state.
Oh cool, someone reasonable (contrapositive) I can argue with.
I am 30. I clearly remember when the Rwanda genocide occurred; I was in college studying ethnic nationalism, coincidentally enough. Note that I said Hitlerian evil was “rare,” not unique. Note that I also endorsed Mitch’s description of people as “hate-filled slime.” I’m a prosecutor and I have a child rape case coming up in three weeks. I see evil every day on a “small” scale (geez, there was only one victim, right?). Large scale atrocities do and will happen, froom Mongols laying waste to cities and building pyramids out of their victims’ skulls, to Stalin killing even more people than Hitler, to a bloodbath in Africa a decade ago.
That doesn’t mean it’s going to happen here. The United States is neither Nazi Germany,as PAD intimated, nor Weimar Germany as you suggest. Daniel Goldhagen wrote a book entitled Hitler’s Willing Executioners detailing how Germany was deeply antisemitic for decades before the Holocaust. The USA isn’t. Hitler didn’t create antisemitism in Germany; he rode it into power. It’s a far stretch to equate fringe group hatred like you see in America to the massive broad and deep racism of antebellum Germany. Germany also didn’t have the centuries-old history of civil liberties and democracy that we have. I agree that laws are tools that can be used, and abused (q.v. Jim Crow), but to the extent possible our nation has been an ongoing experiment in preventing such abuse. I have to believe we have learned something over the last 217 years. James Madison wrote, “Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks-no form of government can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea, if there be sufficient virtue and intelligence in the community, it will be exercised in the selection of these men. So that we do not depend on their virtue, or put confidence in our rulers, but in the people who are to choose them.” We elected the Congress, and yes even President Bush (repeal the elctoral college if you like, but it was valid), and we can unelect them in November if necessary. Don’t blame the Federal government for pandering to us, the voters. We are what is driving this, and we as a nation are not Nazis. It’s not going to happen here. (Had things gone differently in this country, it might have happened here. Harry Turtledove is writing a series about that. But that’s fiction, not history.)
The other problem with your argument is that you have insufficient data to back up your conclusion. You can forecast any slope on a graph with just a few data points. For one thing, the only U.S. citizen currently being detained is Yaser Hamdi, whose case is working its way up through the Supreme Court even now. It’s hard to allege a system that is still working is broken down. We survived a suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War with no ill effects, and people were imprisoned for speaking ill of the government during the Civil War, again with no long-term ill effects. Bush is less of a fascist than Lincoln. And I have no idea where you’re getting the claim that the President asserts the right to execute any citizen he chooses without counsel or trial.
Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups
Actually, you are misreading this. This line specifically relates to judges (this was explained to me). It means a judge can’t take the current constitution, or the state constitutions as justification to legalizing gay marriages. It however, does not limit states from legalizing them. It addresses concerns that the 4 judges in Mass are interpreting the US constitution as it is now, to legalize gay marriages. This ammendment would say “hey, there is no right to marriage (gay or straight) in the constitution”. Oklahoma limits how you get married, the time it takes, and what blood tests must be done. But Vegas doesn’t. Currently, someone could sue Oklahoma, and say that the 5 day period for filing for a license, or the blood test, violates their rights to get married when and how they want. This ammendment just clarifies that marriage is not a “right”.
Now states, on the other hand, can still legalize it if they want to.
There’s nothing in it about a federal judge making a “local” decision applicable to the nation as a whole.
This statement I made in regards to the “full faith and credit clause”. 4 Judges, in Mass, by legalizing gay marriage (bypassing state legislature), have in effect legalized gay marriage for the entire country, since all marriages in Mass must be recognized by all other states. This causes numerous financial and legal problems. Any state that violates the full faith and credit clause can be sued, both by the couple, and by the federal goverment, and the other state.
Jerry
More Bush is Hitler bullcrap? Sheesh. Bush is like Hitler, huh?
Only in that they’re both deeply religious. People keep holding up Bush’s deep faith and commitment to the Bible as some sort of automatic proof of innate goodness. All I’m saying is that such piety isn’t always enough. Great piety tempered with great tolerance is far preferable. You know…like Jesus had.
PAD
I agree with your argument except for the comment about Bush being bigoted. No society has ever sanctioned gay marriage – EVER! So Bush is bigoted for trying to maintain the status quo throughout the history of the human race? You’ve lost me here. Perhaps I’m missing the point.
The point is that no society has ever strived so mightily to be as open, free and accepting as ours…in theory.
The point is that this society has made as many advancements as it has because it refuses to accept the status quo. That is what–to use the cliche–what makes America great.
To try and revise the Constitution, or to ignore the Constitution, so that *any* group of people are specifically targeted for exclusion from a right that other Americans enjoy…whether it’s Japanese Americans deprived of their freedom, Arabs deprived of due process, or gay Americans deprived of the right to pursue happiness in their own way…
It makes America less great.
It’s beneath us.
That’s what I’m saying.
PAD
I stand (sort of) corrected. PAD’s definition, while I still don’t entirely agree with it, is directed at people, not their opinions, as you previously stated.
But whatever your personal reasons for supporting the amendment, the law is discriminatory.
Rob
Beyond that, I think PAD is overreacting to a lot of things in his message.
I am reacting with cautious concern.
I’m not saying Mel Gibson is evil. I’m not saying boycott the film. I’m not saying it’s anti-Semitic. I’m not saying Jews should make sure the womenfolk are secured and circle the wagons because we’re all completely screwed. I’m not saying there are forces in Washington firing up gas ovens.
I’m saying I’m cautiously concerned, and explaining the personal family history as to why.
The only way this can remotely be viewed as overreacting is if you believe my only response should be a blissful, “Oh, who cares, it’s nothing to worry about, it means nothing.”
Which, by startling coincidence, is what my grandfather’s neighbors said when he put up his store for sale and moved out of Berlin. The neighbors who later, y’know, were executed.
So I tend to think that cautious concern isn’t out of line. Do you?
PAD
A bigot is a person who refuses to tolerate people whose opinions differ from his own.
I don’t tolerate Pedofiles…guess that makes me a bigot? So when did you start tolerating pedofiles, or are you a bigot as well?
No, I’m a supporter of laws that say you shouldn’t have sex with children.
I’m not entirely sure how many times people are going to grab examples where there are victims involved (usually children, because that’s always the most alarming), fuse them with situations where there are no victims, and try to act as if one equates with the other.
I’m quoting the dictionary definition of “bigotry,” and you’re handing me child abuse. Sometimes I think if people couldn’t take an example to illogically ludicrous extremes, there’d be no discussions on the internet at all.
PAD
In comment to SER’s post about the unpleasantness that gays faced under Hitler, is SER aware that most gay men found in the camps were kept there by the Allies for months after the other prisoners were liberated? The Nazis didn’t simply send gays to the camps solely for violating Paragraph 175; Nazi judges also used trumped-up criminal charges (mostly for property crimes, not capital offenses–the Nazis found burglary and embezzlement charges much easier to prosecute than murder) in conjunction with Paragraph 175. It was simply easier to get a guilty verdict (even in Nazi courts) for the property crimes, since evidence could be planted and witnesses could be more easily bribed than it was for proving a man was a homosexual (normally, you had to have two, or more, men engaged in the act; simply propositioning someone could be a matter of “misunderstanding”). For some gay men who tried to protect their “family honor”, accepting a burglary charge was better than being branded a “pervert”. The end result, though, was that suspected “perverts” (anyone thought to violate Paragraph 175) was sent to a concentration camp.
After the Allies liberated the camps, they, of course, checked the records of all the (surviving) detainees. Since most Jews were there as victims of religious bias, and Communists and Socialists (among others) were victims of political bias–very few of these victims were listed as being in the camp for any other reason–the Allies had little reason to continue holding these people who’d suffered “enough”. But, for the gay men–many of whom were there also for various “crimes against society”–there was no quick release back to the general population. Many were even transferred to regular jails where they were forced to continue serving their “sentences”.
It wasn’t until 1969 that the (West) German government formally overturned Paragraph 175, and from 1945 until 1969, thousands of gay men continued to be arrested under that Nazi-era law, one of the only laws instituted by the Nazis that remained on the books and fully enforceable.
As for the notion of “hate crime legislation”, there is no such Federal law banning such activity against gay men and lesbians, and only about half the states have such laws on their books.
As for discrimination against gays not holding up in courts, tell that to gay men and lesbians in Florida who have been told they’re perfectly acceptable as foster parents, but they’re NOT allowed to adopt those children, and a recent Federal Circuit Court panel upheld Florida’s right to discriminate saying that the proper venue for change is within the state’s legislature which has turned aside any attempts to change the law. The mantra in Tallahassee seems to be that “gay is okay for foster care, but only straights should be able to adopt” (and the law does allow for single straights to adopt, though the state openly prefers hetero married couples).
The point is, if you honestly believe homosexuality is an immoral and incorrect lifestyle choice, believing so does not make you a bigot.
How about if you honestly believe that–based on genetics and racial development–blacks are genetically and racially inferior to whites. Does that make you a bigot?
Or if you honestly believe that Jews are money-hungry Christ killers. Does that make you a bigot?
Or if you honestly believe that all Catholic priests are actually closet pedophiles. Does that make you a bigot?
Really. I’m curious. Where do you draw the line?
PAD
PAD,
Good question PAD,..where do you draw the line?
Because, rather than argue facts, those that disagree with you are just bigots!
You “claimed” to be using the dictionary definition of bigotry, but you’re not (at least not in any dictionary I can find). FOr it to bigotry, there must be a preference for people like yourself, and a feeling of superiority over others not like yourself.
So believing that blacks are inferior to whites would be bigotry. Not agreeing with a lifestyle choice is not bigotry.
Believing that catholic priests are all pedophiles does not make you a bigot. It makes you incorrect, but not a bigot.
Hmm…as a writer, you should know this. Throwing the word around incorrectly devalues it. An also makes those people using it look a bit silly.
I could use your definition and treatment of the word bigot to make you out to be one 100 times over, but it would be an incorrect use of the word (much as you used it).
But hey, rather than debate this issue on facts, let’s just call the president names. I thought a writer would also have more imagination than that.
Disapointed Jerry
If this was a comic book instead of a movie, I wonder what the CBLDF would have to say to people who said that the book should not be published or sold due to these concerns?
We’d say they were wrong. That people have the right to sell it and a right to buy it without being harassed by legal authorities.
Which is exactly how I feel about “Passion of Christ” as well. Expessing concerns about how people may react to a particular work is not remotely the same as saying people should be prevented from seeing it or prosecuted for displaying it.
And if you can find a single post in which you believe I’ve indicated I feel any other way about it, please point it out to me so I can clarify it.
PAD
And if you can find a single post in which you believe I’ve indicated I feel any other way about it, please point it out to me so I can clarify it.
Whoever said this, was probably directing it less at you and more at the other people who have been attacking Mel for making this movie, and others for seeing it. You’ve actually been very fair in your treatment and assessment of this movie, and decently consistant.
Jerry
Now, instead of just defending my position on whether gay marriage should be allowed or not, I also have to contend with being judge on whether or not I’m a bigot. And that is completely unfair as well as wrong.
And yet I have to contend regularly with people claiming I’m anti-Christian (despite my being married to a Catholic.) And I deal with it. SO now you get to deal with this. That’s not unfair; it’s simply one person’s opinion versus another person’s opinion.
PAD
And yet more about gay marriage. EClark raises the “children” argument again:
I believe that the number one purpose of marriage the upbringing of children procreated within that marriage. And while I recognize that not every marriage produces a child, you have to at least meet the starting qualification to even try, that being one male and one female.
Except that if you already know you cannot have children (the woman is post-menopausal, one or both partners is sterile through injury or illness, etc.), then the “starting qualification to even try” is absent from the get-go.
I will keep asking this until I get a straight answer: why are those couples okay for a marriage and same-sex couples not? (Let’s even say it’s a same-sex couple who plans on adopting a child or having one via surrogates a la Melissa Etheridge and her partner.)
Go ahead. I’ll wait.
TWL
I say EClark’s made a generalization, namely…
The one that said everyone in favor of gay marriage would be cheering if Bush had suggested an amendment allowing it.
He responds:
Except I never said “Everyone” in favor of it would be cheering Bush. Go ahead, find the quote. I’ll wait.
Okay. Found the quote. It’s this:
As for the Constituional Amendment issue, supporters of gay marriage would be dancing in the streets if Bush had proposed an amendment to legalize gay marriage, and opponents would be against one.
Now, I agree that you did not say “everyone” explicitly.
However, the only reason you’d make the statement above is if you were referring to an overwhelming majority of both groups — if three supporters were dancing in the streets and five opposed were protesting, that would hardly be worthy of comment.
So no, you never said it’s unanimous — but you certainly implied it would be a huge share of those taking sides here in this forum. I still maintain that’s a substantial overgeneralization.
TWL
I’m glad someone else see that. It’s amazing how PAD described bigotry as not tolerating someone elses point of view, yet then everyone here refuses to tolerate the point of view of people who are against gay marriage, and calls them bigots. Doesn’t that make everone here a bigot for not tolerating the anti-gay marriage POV?
This is an invalid definition of bigot, and a poor way to win an arguement. Instead of addressing the points, we resort to the “if you feel this way you’re a bigot”.
Only if you’re willing to completely disregard the word “tolerate.”
For instance:
I despise Neo-Nazis. Despise them. Disagree with every fiber of my being over their hate–filled spew.
Am I bigoted against them?
No.
Because I tolerate them. I would not advocate, for instance, a change to the Constitution forbidding them to speak.
That would be intolerant.
George Bush thinks gays getting married is icky? Okay. He thinks it’s icky. That’s his opinion. Gays have an opposite opinion. Fine. That’s what makes the world go around. Well…that and centrifugal force.
He wants to take steps to make sure that gays are prevented from being married?
That’s intolerance.
It’s un-Christian. It’s un-American. And it’s bigotry.
PAD
To the poster who stated that no society accepts or condones gay marriage, might I offer as exhibit A the Kingdom of the Netherlands? That was the first nation/society to permit same-sex marriage. The Kingdom of Belgium also permits same-sex marriage, and (for now, at least) our northern neighbor, Canada, also permits same-sex marriage. Several other countries, mostly in Europe, allow civil unions (most of these are marriage in all but name; there are certain privileges that hetero couples enjoy, but most same-sex couples are essentially married–perhaps not to the State or a state-supported church, but to the couples and their families they are).
As for EClark’s comment about Christianity being based on Christ’s teachings and not his death, check one of the most basic statements of most Christian churches–the Apostles’ Creed.
I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.
And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into hëll; the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. AMEN.
The Creed notes the death and resurrection, yet pays little note to the teachings, of Christ.
Also, it should be noted that one of the most sacred of Christian rituals is Holy Communion–again, a recognition of Christ’s death, and not His teachings.
Christ’s teachings are in the Bible and are usually the focus of most sermons, but especially during the Lenten season, these sermons nearly always focus attention on the Crucifixion and Resurrection.
Without Christ’s death and resurrection, Christianity would be little more than a subsect of Judaism (and it should be noted that it was considered as such for at least the first century or so after Christ’s death when the books of the modern New Testament started being compiled formally; it was definitely treated as an entirely separate faith by the time of Constantine I (the Great) who made it the formal religion of the Roman Empire.
If Christ’s death weren’t a focal point of the faith, the Cross (and especially, the Crucifix) would have little real import to the faithful. Early Christians tended to use a wider variety of symbols (images of doves or fish, sometimes the Greek letter “chi”–X) to indicate their allegiance, but the Cross became rather more prominent thanks to Constantine, who claimed a vision of a cross in combination with the message “in hoc signo, vinces“.
You may have called Bush’s name, but the implication that anyone who supports his actions is a bigot, isn’t very subtle.
I’d say that anyone who supports his actions is supporting a bigoted action. An action lacking in tolerance and charity.
Now if that upsets you, you can do one of three things: You can contend it’s not a bigoted action, in which case it’s one opinion against another, although mine is rooted in the dictionary. Or you can just cry foul. Or you can look inward and wonder whether maybe, just maybe, you should rethink your position.
I don’t expect a lot of people to embrace the third, if that’s of any help. I’m figuring most will embrace the second.
PAD
He wants to take steps to make sure that gays are prevented from being married?
Actually, no, he has made it clear that he just wants to make sure that the states have the right to decide this for themselves, and that the will of the people is followed. He has also made it clear he has no problem with states that have chosen to legalize gay marriage, or civil unions, and this ammendment woulnd not effect those laws in place in those states.
Now you can argue that maybe the will of the people shouldn’t be followed in this case, but at least get Bush’s intent right. This may just be a case of you taking your information from talking heads, and not the source, or it may just be a case of you being very anti-Bush. Not sure.
Jerry
Jerry questions PAD’s definition of bigotry:
Believing that catholic priests are all pedophiles does not make you a bigot. It makes you incorrect, but not a bigot.
I agree that PAD’s definition is substantially too broad for my tastes — being unable to accept differing opinions can make someone a stubborn prìçk, but not necessarily a bigot per se.
I think it’s a question of what opinions you’re unwilling to see contradicted — and I think all or most opinions characterizing an entire group as “All X are Y” is bigotry. (That would be true whether Y is positive or negative, by the way.)
“All Jews are money-grubbing and scheming.”
“All gays are promiscuous and unable to commit.”
“All conservatives are only interested in money.”
“All people against gay-marriage are drooling Bible-thumpers.”
Those sorts of things.
I think saying “all Catholic priests are pedophiles” absolutely qualifies as a bigoted statement.
I completely agree that using the term “bigot” indiscriminately can devalue it, but I don’t think this particular example would be such a devaluation.
TWL
“A bigot is a person who refuses to tolerate people whose opinions differ from his own.”
“Even you’re definition is wrong. I don’t respect murderer’s, but that doesn’t make me a bigot. A bigot is defined as follows:”
“One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.”
Okay, obviously I lack your keen eye for semantics, but I’m not seeing a huge difference between the two.
Can we at least agree that “you’re” is a contraction of “you are” and shouldn’t be used in lieu of the possessive “your,” and there’s no apostrophe in a simple plural?
PAD
Someone upthread, on Bush:
He wants to take steps to make sure that gays are prevented from being married?
Jerry, responding:
Actually, no, he has made it clear that he just wants to make sure that the states have the right to decide this for themselves, and that the will of the people is followed. He has also made it clear he has no problem with states that have chosen to legalize gay marriage, or civil unions, and this ammendment woulnd not effect those laws in place in those states.
Um … what?
Bush’s exact quote in the press conference was:
“The amendment should fully protect marriage while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage,”
You’re right that he’s saying here he’s fine with civil unions.
You are absolutely 100% wrong about gay marriage. His proposed amendment gives an explicit definition of marriage that excludes the same-sex option, and he says here he wants to “fully protect marriage” while giving gays options other than marriage.
How exactly is that leaving the marriage question up to the states?
TWL
Tim,
My only concern is, Bush hasn’t characterized a group all in one way. He just doesn’t support gay marriage. Neither Does Kerry, or Edwards. Are they bigots as well?
And the act of supporting the ammendment doesn’t suddenly transform someone into a bigot. They either were or were not.
The fact of the matter is, PAD is jumping on the bandwaggon, using the bigot term to describe Bush. It’s no different than when republican’s are reffered to as “Nazi”. It’s a popular leftist thing to do.
Wow…PAD is sure showing me…
Way to rise above the occassion there…
I’m gonna go sit in the corner…he smoked me so bad there….
My only concern is, Bush hasn’t characterized a group all in one way. He just doesn’t support gay marriage. Neither Does Kerry, or Edwards. Are they bigots as well?
Did I say they were?
I was responding to someone else’s inaccurate definition. Nothing more.
TWL
First of all, I believe that what you believe does not make you a bigot. How you act upon what you believe does. Believing Blacks are inferior to Whites does not make you a bigot. Burning a cross on a black families lawn does. Believing that homosexuality is a immoral lifestylye does not make you a bigot. Denying them what many people feel are basic human rights does.
Secondly, not all pedophiles molest children. Pedolphilia is a condition, some would say disease, that makes people sexually attracted to underage children. This does not mean that they molest them or even have child pornography on their computer. I believe that child pornography and molestation of any kind is wrong and should be stopped. But condemning a whole group of people for the way some act is wrong and is what most of you people are complaining about other people doing.
And thirdly, I am jewish. I have read the bible. Not extensively but I think I have a pretty good idea of what it says. I believe, and please tell me if I am wrong, that although it is true that the Romans were responsible for actually crucifying Jesus, the Jews were responsible for saying Jesus should be crucified after Pilate “washed his hands” of the whole thing.
Sorry, Jerry, but you received a flawed “explanation”. The proposed amendment is quite explicit in what it says, and that is that NEITHER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION NOR ANY STATE CONSTITUTION CAN BE AMENDED TO PERMIT EITHER SAME-SEX MARRIAGE OR ANY SITUATION WHICH WOULD PERMIT ANY UNMARRIED COUPLES TO RECEIVE THE “LEGAL INCIDENTS” OF MARRIAGE. That’s very self-explanatory.
Of course, right-wing kooks like Phyllis Schlafly actually convinced Americans that an Equal Rights Amendment would MANDATE unisex bathrooms in public facilities, despite the fact that no rational person would get that from the actual wording. She also was under the false assumption that women would no longer be able to receive alimony in a divorce proceeding (of course, she failed to comprehend that divorce judges provide alimony to the partner who either has no outside income or whose outside income is much less than the other partner–normally, men earned more than women, but there were, even in the early 1970s, some women who were required to pay alimony to their ex-husbands simply because the woman’s net worth and income far exceeded the man’s).
So, I can understand how you could misunderstand the wording, but the fact remains that the Resolution’s chief sponsor opposes even civil unions and would not be adverse to nullifying any state’s decision to allow same-sex couples to be treated as the same as opposite-sex couples under the law.
For the record, even the 18th Amendment did NOT forbid anyone drinking alcoholic beverages–it merely outlawed the manufacture, distribution and sale of alcoholic beverages. Anyone who owned a wine cellar or kept a private home bar was fully entitled to drink from his private stock and even serve his guests in his home (provided he didn’t charge for those drinks), BUT once his stock ran out, he would be unable to replenish it, legally.
Hmm…as a writer, you should know this. Throwing the word around incorrectly devalues it.
True. But apparently using it accurately alarms people because they don’t want to think about the implications.
“Bigotry: The attitude, state of mind, or behavior characteristic of a bigot; intolerance.”
“Bigot: A person of strong convictions or prejudice, especially in matters of religion, race, or politics, who is intolerant of those who differ with him.”
American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language
Intolerance, folks.
Would I want to marry a man? No. Would I want to have sex with a man? No. Why? Not my thing.
I don’t pretend to be something I’m not. I’m a typical guy. I watch a TV show where two guys kiss, I kinda think, “Ewww.” I watch a TV show where two women kiss, I kinda think, “Heh. Cool.” Like I said: Typical guy.
But do I think same sexes should be stopped from getting married?
No.
Why?
Tolerance.
Your mileage may vary.
PAD
Joseph,
I disagree with your interpretation. Putting it in all caps doesn’t make it true. The amendment reads as follows:
Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.
What it is saying, is that the constitution of the US, and the states, shall not be interpeted by a court of law to require that martial status be a right of unmarried couples and groups.
This is an interpretation provided by the authors.
But here, they’re probably wrong.
Jerry
One other thing, Jerry, the full faith and credit clause, as I mentioned, is already being violated by states which have passed their own “Defense of Marriage” laws. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is the only state in which marriage has been ordered by judges (it was NOT a federal judge or judges that issued the decision, but Commonwealth/State judges). As long as any state’s laws prohibit recognition of any same-sex civil union, that state does not have to abide by a marriage license issued in Massachusetts (despite my fervent belief that is a Constitutional violation–that aspect, however, has NOT been tested in any court to the best of my knowledge).
I would point out that a heterosexual couple who follows the laws in Mongolia for marriage can be married and return to the USA (and their home state) and have that marriage fully recognized by both the federal and state government. A same-sex couple which goes to the Netherlands (even if they manage to conform to ALL Dutch laws–meaning one partner must be a Dutch citizen) and returns to the US will not have that marriage recognized by either the Federal government or their own state government (Massachusetts, for the moment, would be the sole exception; Vermont might, but that would depend on the exact wording of Vermont civil laws regarding same-sex couples’ marrying abroad).
I could use your definition and treatment of the word bigot to make you out to be one 100 times over, but it would be an incorrect use of the word (much as you used it).
If by “your definition” you’re willing to use the American Heritage definition I posted, then by all means, dude, bring it on. The unexamined life is one not worth living.
I mean it. I’m serious. Using the posted definition, prove me a bigot 100 times over. Heck, even fifty times over will do. If nothing else, it should be entertaining considering I’m also constantly accused of being a knee-jerk liberal.
Keep in mind, of course, that simply citing instances where I strongly disagree with people who hold differing opinions doesn’t fit the definition. By dint of the fact that I’ve bent over backwards to allow differeing opinions to be posted here, I think that more than fulfills any reasonable definition of tolerance.
PAD
Joseph ,
And I’m sure that’s what the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the full faith and credit clause….(just joking really. no constitutional discussion is complete without references to the founding fathers)…:P
It does bring up a pretty picture though. I can see it now. Franklin leaning over to Adams (just think jonny boy, we can get married – you know you want some of this!).
Jerry
Jerry wrote:
This statement I made in regards to the “full faith and credit clause”. 4 Judges, in Mass, by legalizing gay marriage (bypassing state legislature), have in effect legalized gay marriage for the entire country, since all marriages in Mass must be recognized by all other states. This causes numerous financial and legal problems. Any state that violates the full faith and credit clause can be sued, both by the couple, and by the federal goverment, and the other state.
Thank you for explaining that so clearly. I don’t think most people get that. My biggest problem with the current gay marriage debate is that so many people who are for gay marriage are willing to create that right via judicial activism, which always causes more problems than it fixes. It’s also the lazy way to effect legal change — marriage is a state’s right per the Constitution, and therefore any change should be effected via each state legislature. Plus, the judicial decisions are generalized past the gay issue; they also will result in states that don’t recognize common-law marriage having to do so, etc. Just creates a big mess.
And, that said, let me add that I’m not surprised the Mass. decision turned out that way. Having read the decision, I found that the state’s “best” argument was that gay people can’t procreate. I have to agree with Tim Lynch in his comments to EClark that the procreation argument is about the dámņëd stupidest reason for preserving heterosexual marriage that I’ve ever heard (I’m paraphrasing, obviously).
Of course, maybe that’s ’cause I’m infertile. Does that mean my 11-year marriage should be dissolved, since it turns out that I didn’t “meet the criteria?” True, I got married before I knew that, but only because my doctors when I was a teenager were either incompetent or unconcerned and pooh-poohed my problems. So I guess I should surrender my marriage license and let my husband go participate in a “real” marriage? Whatever.
My feeling is, if you have the guts to just admit that you think homosexual marriage is immoral, especially since you’ll likely be called a bigot for standing up for your beliefs, I can respect that. But don’t try to create logic where there is none.
PAD –
WAIT A SECOND
If by “your definition” you’re willing to use the American Heritage definition I posted, then by all means, dude, bring it on. The unexamined life is one not worth living.
You finally post the american heritage version WHICH IS THE VERSION I HAVE BEEN USING, NOT YOU, and clame it was your definition! I cry fowl.
One was not tolerating people opinions, and the other (the official) was not tolerating people.
There is a difference. I’m just amazed you’re not seeing it. But I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on that. But, by you’re definition, I would say that calling people who have different opinion than you name is a form of bigotry (I don’t agree, but it does fit your early definition).
Jerry
Jerry, while I agree with you almost entirely, I have to disagree with you somewhat. Assuming (which I say because I haven’t checked it myself) that the amendment reads:
Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.
then, it does prevent gay marriage. The constitutional parts are fine, and as you said above, only work to prevent judicial activism on the issue. However, the part that concerns me is the “nor state or federal law” bit. It seems to me that if you can’t construe a state law to mean that, then any state law that actually says that must be invalid. See what I mean?
On the other hand, if they’d just change that part to “or federal law, and drop the state law part, I’d be all for the amendment as written, because it would leave the decision up to each state in question, by removing any potential federal legal question.
*In-bloody-deed Bill, and where do you base that snippet on? The title of this thread is ‘Paranoid Jews?’ and whatever religious or ethnic affiliation you are you fit the first part of the line aptly. Having lived 10 years (ages 10 to 19) in the U.K. and travelled continental Europe I have yet to see that ‘sizeable percentage’ and thouroughly resent your comment. The US might be a place which defines itself on its right to freedoms (with ‘of worship’ as one of the highest) but don’t you dare spout uninformed rubbish about how the same is not true in other parts of the world as well.
“sizeable” is whatever one defines it as, so I’m on safe ground here. For what it’s worth, I don’t consider it anything near a majority.
Recent polls in Grmany and, I belive, France, indiated a significant (around 15-25%) number of people belived that Israel was involved in 9/11. jew hating, pure and simple.
There’s so much more but my computer is broken and I’m limited in my ability to google this weekend. If this is still a hot topic next week I’ll be glad to share more facts and figures on sinagogues (sp?) burned and stuff like that.
Sorry Bill, but the Passion is being propelled into the public consciousness by the right wing, not the left. You will not find nazis voting or supporting leftwing democrats or liberals. The leftwing was, alongside Jews, a target of Nazi fascim, as well as in Italy whose title for it was ‘corporatism’, which is what we have here in the U.S under Bush/Cheney.
So please don’t tell the jewish community they need to be afraid of liberals and left wingers, cause you’d be 100% wrong.
MYOB**
Well MYOB, (if that’s your REAL name, I live near a few campuses. Never seen any Nazis or Republicans walking around with anti-semitic signs. Seen a few so-called socialists do it though. So maybe, just maybe, I’m only 98% wrong? 72%? 31%? I’ll need to get out more and get a bigger sample.
Walk arond with a pro-Israel t-shirt for a while and have a friend walk around with an anti-israel t-shirt. Get together after a few hours and compare áššëš to see which one got his kicked the most. I volunteer to be the control, I’ll wear a shirt that says AUSTIN 3:16 just to eliminate the possibility that it’s KICK THE ÃSS OF ANYONE WEARING A T-SHIRT DAY in Chapel Hill or something.
Jerry wrote:
I disagree with your interpretation. Putting it in all caps doesn’t make it true. The amendment reads as follows:
Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.
What it is saying, is that the constitution of the US, and the states, shall not be interpeted by a court of law to require that martial status be a right of unmarried couples and groups.
This is an interpretation provided by the authors.
But here, they’re probably wrong.
Jerry, you’re flat out wrong here. It says that no federal or state constitution or law can be interpreted as granting the legal incidents of marriage. Not just the US constitution; it’s clear as day right there. You’re technically right in that state legislatures could pass all the laws they want allowing gay marriage (as, technically, they can pass laws instituting slavery now) they just couldn’t be enforced.
This law bans any gay civil unions or marriages from being passed in any state. Any other interpretation of it is inaccurate. This is very, very clear.
I agree that PAD’s definition is substantially too broad for my tastes — being unable to accept differing opinions can make someone a stubborn prìçk, but not necessarily a bigot per se.
If it’s of any consolation, Tim, that definition is substantially too broad for my tastes as well. Thank God it’s not mine. Which isn’t to say I’m not a stubborn prìçk: I am. There’s lots of differing opinions I’m unable to accept. I will keep shouting against them for as long as the air in my lungs holds out.
But I tolerate them. “Tolerate: To allow without prohibiting.” American Heritage Dictionary.
“I think gay marriage is icky. But hey…whatever.”
“I think gay marriage is icky, and I think every legal recouse should be investigated to make sure it doesn’t continue.”
One fits my definition of bigotry. One doesn’t.
Hope that clarifies it.
PAD
Jeeze, reading all the spelling errors on my last post made me wonder in someone slipped me a roofie. Please God, give me my computer back. This laptop thing is like typing on a calculator with a viewing sceen the size of a postage stamp. Shoot me now.
My only concern is, Bush hasn’t characterized a group all in one way. He just doesn’t support gay marriage. Neither Does Kerry, or Edwards. Are they bigots as well?
If they advocate changing the Constitution to try and prevent it, hëll yeah.
Personally–my guess–either Kerry or Edwards or both really do support gay marriage. My guess is that it’s a non-issue to them. But they won’t come out and say so because the majority of this country doesn’t support it. Which doesn’t make them bigots; just gutless.
PAD
EClark posted:
I can’t marry a man and a gay man can’t marry a man. That’s equal rights. The only difference is I don’t WANT to marry a man and the gay man doesn’t WANT to marry a woman. What right do I have that he doesn’t?
The right to marry the person he loves? Unless you’re not telling us something, the gay man WANTS to marry another man, while you don’t. There’s a very important distinction there.
Now, you might not want to be involved in an interracial or interfaith marriage, and that, of course, is your “right” (freedom of assembly, and all that; no one’s forcing you to date someone you don’t wish), but if that’s your personal feeling, that doesn’t give you the right to bar another hetero couple from choosing such a marriage. Why then should your decision not to date and marry another man be of any consideration as to a gay man’s decision to date and marry another man? The gay man certainly isn’t going to stick his nose into your choice of woman that you would date and marry (unless, of course, it’s his sister and he would prefer she not date a bigot; but even then, it would ultimately be her choice and yours, not his).
You know, when Robertson lost out in his bid to be the Republican presidential candidate in 2000, I heaved a huge sigh of relief. Robert Heinlein had been a fair predictor of broad social trends before – I had feared Robertson would be our Nehemiah Scudder.
Maybe I felt that relief too soon…
(Okay, for the under-read present, find Heinlein’s story, “If This Goes On-“, most easily available as the first half of the paperback, “Revolt In 2100”.)