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
• 
I disagree with your interpretation. Putting it in all caps doesn’t make it true.
YES IT DOES!!!!!
(Actually, I don’t even remember what his interpretation was, but I couldn’t pass that up. Sorry. As you were.)
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.
I know I sure didn’t. Cool.
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.
I keep hearing this phrase and have little comprehension what it means. If the Mass court said, “Our constitution doesn’t allow us to ban gay marriages,” which is what I understand was the case, how is that activism?
Saying, “Our constitution doesn’t allow us to ban gay marriages, but screw it, we’re doing it anyway,” now THAT would be activism.
PAD
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.
You’re shouting for birds?
One was not tolerating people opinions, and the other (the official) was not tolerating people. There is a difference.
I suppose, but not a huge one. The key is intolerance, not what you’re being intolerant of.
I’ve been perfectly consistent. If you believe two men getting married is icky, okay. Fine. Whatever. If you believe two men should be stopped *because* you find it icky, that’s intolerance. By any definition.
PAD
In re: the “ick factor”:
I’ve got an analogy I use that I find often helps.
I find (male) gáÿ šëx icky. As Peter said earlier, typical guy thing.
Then again, I also find braised calf’s head icky.
I find Kenny G’s “music” icky.
I find the Teletubbies icky.
My reaction to that is simply to not have gáÿ šëx, eat braised calf’s head, listen to Kenny G, or watch the Teletubbies. And really, I think that’s all anyone else who feels the same should do.
I think banning gay marriage akin to banning Kenny G concerts – sure, most of America would likely be in favor of it, but so what?
More on the definition of bigotry.
Me:
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.
PAD:
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.
Hmm.
I see the distinction you’re trying to make here, and I agree that using “tolerate” rather than “accept” is definitely better … but I still can’t quite swallow that.
Take, for example, the premise “the Earth goes around the Sun rather than the reverse.” I’m firmly of the belief that this is established fact — and I’m frankly of the opinion that anyone who doesn’t agree with that statement is a fool of the highest order.
I think one could advance a plausible argument that I am intolerant of the Flat Earth Society, given that — but I have difficulty with a definition that it means I’m a bigot. In this case, I think it means the evidence isn’t there.
I think the place where our definitions differ is what I said above: the “differing opinions” one’s unwilling to tolerate have to be about groups of people. Bigotry seems such a people-specific term that I really can’t expand it to not tolerating dissenting opinions on any random topic.
So yes — it clarifies it. I think I’ve still got to disagree. (On this particular issue, though, I think our definitions are converging pretty well.)
TWL
I once participated in a debate on the topic of gay marriages (well the actual topic was ‘This House Believes Social Security is a Fundamantal Human Right’ but the 1st Prop speakers squirreled it into ‘If you don’t agree with gay marriage then you are a meanie’ Go figure, guess they just didn’t want to debate on the health and social services…) and my team had to oppose. Do you know what the only line we could take was?
“You’re bloody right we diagree with gay marriage! We disagree with all marriage! Don’t arrange it so the homosexual people are subject to its wicked ways too!”
🙂
It was the only way we could think to go. And we won.
3 and 3
PAD wrote:
I keep hearing this phrase and have little comprehension what it means. If the Mass court said, “Our constitution doesn’t allow us to ban gay marriages,” which is what I understand was the case, how is that activism?
Saying, “Our constitution doesn’t allow us to ban gay marriages, but screw it, we’re doing it anyway,” now THAT would be activism.
“Judicial activism” just generally means that a judge is using his position to create new law, or change law that he disagrees with, rather than requiring the state legislature to change the law to the desired effect. It would apply in both instances you described.
Most state marriage statutes do not ban gay marriage as such; instead, they define marriage by the standards set out by each state legislature, standards which already vary by state to some extent. By saying that the Mass. Constitution does not allow the state to ban gay marriage, the courts have re-defined marriage, which is the job of the legislature. Also, in doing so, they have left the statute open to further re-definition by any other group which asserts its constitutional rights (this is where the polygamist argument, where ordinarily asinine, begins to have some weight to it).
This is why I think judicial activism is so dangerous; in effect, you end up decimating the current law rather than changing it, which breaks down the entire checks-and-balances system. It’s not just a problem with the marriage issue — it’s a problem any time a judge tries to circumvent a standing law just because he does not like the way it affects particular people.
The best (and most extreme) example I can think of is Judge Roy Moore in Alabama, who went as far as to violate his own oath of office over a big rock.
But what the justices in Massachusetts are saying is that the state law is in violation of the state constitution. That’s their part of the “entire checks-and-balances system”.
Now, if the Massachusetts legislature could craft a version of the law that didn’t violate their own constitution, or if they amended their constitution to make such discrimination legal, the jusges would have no choice but to go along. Failure to do so would make them “activist” judges, by the proposed definitio of the term.
Similarly, San Francisco’s Mayor Newsom holds that Proposition 22, which, last election, defined marriage as “one man and one woman”, is in violation of certain clauses in California’s constitution. He’s on a little shakier ground, not being a judge and all, but there is some small degree of precedent, if I’m not mistaken.
Moore was in violation of the US Constitution, and worse, ignored a court order to remove the rock, thus placing himself in contempt of the very court system he was supposed to represent.
I just want to add a point about something which I think is very relevant about this asinine perception about “judicial activism”. Back in 1967, the U S Supreme Court, in the Loving vs Virginia case (text can be found at http://www.ameasite.org/loving.asp) ruled that Virginia’s antimiscegenation laws violated the equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th Amendment. That, to me, would be a case of “judicial activism” (the original trial court and the Virginia Supreme Court both ruled that the law was valid). There had been no legislative action in Virginia designed to overturn the existant law which was used to prosecute Mr & Mrs Loving (who had been married in DC in accordance with the District’s policies–he was white, she was black, just for the record).
The final summary of the Supreme Court’s decision notes
“These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.”
So for anyone who claims that marriage is not a civil right, the U S Supreme Court already made the determination in 1967 that, in fact, it is.
Now, why all this is so pertinent is this: Just a couple of years ago, the State of Alabama finally placed an amendment to the State’s Constitution which would formally overturn the State’s anti-miscegenation law (even though there had been no enforcement of the law since the Loving case–despite the silliness in Wedowee over an interracial couple’s attending the high school prom and the school principal’s intent to cancel the prom over the matter). To no one’s surprise, the amendment passed, but what did surprise people was that more than 25% of the voters opposed the amendment–whether these people were opposed to interracial marriages or just opposed the State’s amendment process is hard to determine, but it’s rather unpleasant to imagine the state has that many bigots (one almost hopes the majority of the opponents really opposed the process, but I don’t recall the other amendments on the ballot having that much opposition).
Take, for example, the premise “the Earth goes around the Sun rather than the reverse.” I’m firmly of the belief that this is established fact — and I’m frankly of the opinion that anyone who doesn’t agree with that statement is a fool of the highest order. I think one could advance a plausible argument that I am intolerant of the Flat Earth Society, given that — but I have difficulty with a definition that it means I’m a bigot. In this case, I think it means the evidence isn’t there.
Well, I can only adhere to my definition, and by my definition, I wouldn’t try to paint you as a bigot because you’re not *being* a bigot. Not unless you’re advocating legislation to shut the flat earthers up.
PAD
From where I’m sitting, this whole “gay marriage” thing started when someone in San Fransico illegally married gay people. It is my understanding that this was against the law. Then it started to snowball. So, the law was broken, then it was broken a lot. Then it started to spread to other states. This was when Bush stepped in. It looked to me like he was pushed into action. In other words, he wasn’t waiting for the opportunity to jump on gays.
Posted by Rich (way further up the list):
The Nazis also invaded other countries and occupied them for their own good of course.
They controlled the media and censored those that did not agree with them. (Notice the sudden increase in censorship since the superbowl.)
Where? What censorship? Are you talking about the Grammys, and the Oscars tomorrow, being broadcast with a 5 second delay? That’s not censorship. The purpose is to prevent certain offensive words or actions from hitting the public airwaves. You do realize that most radio stations use a 5-7 second delay when taking any calls from the public, don’t you? And this was goin on LONG before this year’s Superbowl incident. And the delay at the Oscars is for that alone. If Tim Robbins or Sean Penn (or any other person in front of the microphones) want to go on a rant like Michael Moore did last year, there are no time constraints. The only thing that might get cut off is a word or two if they fit the FCC’s definiton of obsecnity.
Well I have two possible solutions that should please everybody.
One. Make it a states issue. This is Ðìçk Cheneys idea, he says that people will come to different decisions so to make it Federal seems incredibly stupid.
two. Have it be up to the churches or synagouges or whatnot, and get rid of all taxes and everything else that the government has become involved in. Have the government have nothing to do with marriage.
So there are two solutions. They sound a lot better than having to kill or lobotomize anyone who is anti-gay, which you guys seem to want.
And I’m not anti-gay, I’m anti-dramaqueen.
Jerry: Imagine I (I supose I’m a person you don’t sympathize for right now) get into your house with a gunshot and claim for your bedroom to be my property. Next day I take your living room and refuse to go back. Wouldn’t you fought back to recover your pertinences? Then you’d be a Palestinian.
I’m not happy with any people dying (at last that’s what I want to think) but I can understand what’s going on there (and in other places, go and see captain Marvel v4 #13). I prefer victims than oppressors. Remember the terrorism form the state or Sabra and Shatila.
Is there any qualitative moral difference between a man who kills 100 persons and other who kills 1000. I can’t see it. It’s a matter of time.
I’m hurt by you saying I’m going to say Holocaust never happened. That’s pointless and not an argument against me. Go and read again my last post and you’ll see I’m saying “Holocaust was an horrible thing” and later I’m talking about that Jewish as heroes like Jesus.
Of course I love Maus, I got it signed by Art Spiegelman. I imagine you’ll love Persepolis too. If you haven’t read it go and take a look, you’ll enjoy it.
I’m sorry because I can’t speak my mind as I’d like to. I’m Spanish, and my English… is the one of a man who never lived in England nor USA (Although I’ve visited both).
Yours,
Micko
I love how the anti-equality crowd always bring up the “I, as heterosexual, can’t marry another of my gender, so those homosexuals aren’t being treated any differently, because they can’t marry someone of the same gender, either.”
“They want special rights to be able to marry the same gender.”
“Yup, we’re not treating anybody any differently. I’m not allowed to marry anybody of a different race, and neither are you. So everybody’s treated equally.”
One cannot claim this is not the exact argument, replacing “different race” with “same gender”.
To do so is utterly ridiculous.
Of course, the anti-equality crowd will always attempt to come back with “Yes, but the couples in question are of opposite gender”.
Sexual discriminiation, rather simply. A woman can marry a man, it’s discriminatory that a man can’t. A man can marry a woman, it’s discriminatory that a woman can’t.
One would realize that, when multiple state supreme courts find that there are NO VALID SECULAR REASONS for denying same-sex marriage under the equality of law, their arguments are simply garbage, pure and simple.
It’s either the “ick”, or religious bigotry.
And if you are going to bring religion into the mix, there are quite a number of CHRISTIAN churches out there (along with non-christian churches) that accept, and celebrate gay marriages.
So their “freedom of religion” is being trampled on, by trying to exclude them.
The “tradition” argument does not hold – it was rather “traditional” to own slaves, it was “traditional” that women and blacks could not vote – if you’re going to hold up something because of “tradition”…
And finally, as for “working to change the laws”, and “when the majority feels like accepting it” – when have civil rights ever been up to waiting for “the majority” to be comfortable with it?
If this country would have had to wait for things of that nature, the Civil Rights movement never would have occurred.
And for those who claim that “the people must vote on it” – please name one of your rights that you will be willing to put up for a popular vote. – say the right to marry your spouse.
And if I can get 50.01 percent of the people to say you can’t be married any more, that you will give up all the “legal incidents thereof” immediately, without fighting it.
“I’ve got my copy of the Principia Discordia — the only religious tome published by Steve Jackson Games — and I’m a’headin’ for a hot dog. Now that I’ve confused everyone…”
Not me. I’m mentioned
in the Principia Discordia. 🙂
On a more serious note, I hope the fake Bendis-hacker is outed soon.
Oh, and I’m fairly sure there have been cultures in history that have allowed and encouraged gay marriage. Not that this is anything but tangentially related to Peter’s paranoia post.
From where I’m sitting, this whole “gay marriage” thing started when someone in San Fransico illegally married gay people.
You must be sitting in a hole in the ground.
This has been an issue for years and years, and is only now finally snowballing into a front and center issue.
The mayor of SF handing out marriage licenses to gays is more likely due to the Mass. Courts ruling on the issue.
I wonder how many more mayors and such will step forward in the coming months to do the same.
I also find it funny how, now that Bush has opened his big mouth on the issue, some in Congress aren’t as keen to try and tackle the issue immediately.
And just to annoy the Bushies further, I post the following for consideration:
“President Bush on Friday replaced two members of a panel that advises him on issues such as cloning and stem cell research, drawing criticism that he is stacking the bioethics group with ideologically friendly members.”
Makes one wonder, doesn’t it?
PAD,
Ahh, this explains a lot of our disagreement. You quoted the definition for tolerate as follows:
“Tolerate: To allow without prohibiting.”
While the complete American Heritage definition which you pulled it from reads:
To allow without prohibiting or opposing.
To me, if you place oppose in your original definition of bigot, it would read :
A bigot is a person who opposes people whose opinions differ from his own.
That was the definition I took exception to. Since you only took the prohibit stance of the definition, I could see (by stretching it) how you could use that definition.
And finally, as for “working to change the laws”, and “when the majority feels like accepting it” – when have civil rights ever been up to waiting for “the majority” to be comfortable with it?
Unfortunetly, all of them. That’s just how the world works. It’s not right, not fair, but it’s fact. Until the majority of people feel something is acceptable or unnacceptable (such as slavery or racism), it rarely ever gets changed.
That being said, many people would not agree that same sex marriages is a civil rights issue. (I’m not looking to fight this out. Just stating a fact).
Jerry
I have no problem with gáÿ šëx. I have a problem with redefining marriage to make it simply about love and partnership between adults rather than about stabilizing the family bond (mother, father, kids). I think it’s unfortunate when children are intentionally raised without mothers and fathers.
Now, we can debate the merits of my position for days but I don’t see a legal justification to ban gay marriage. I think this is not the best step for the culture, but a free society has to remain free to choose its own path. Our social lives should not have government interference.
Wait, I’m confused.
Since it was brought up, does hating Kenny G make me a bigot?
Somebody tell me what to think!
I remember I was about 7 or 8 and I got to thinking.
My parents – Italian.
Rome in Italy.
Romans killed Jesus.
One of my relatives might have killed Jesus.
Bawled my eyes out.
I was kid. Give a brother a break.
Similarly, San Francisco’s Mayor Newsom holds that Proposition 22, which, last election, defined marriage as “one man and one woman”, is in violation of certain clauses in California’s constitution. He’s on a little shakier ground, not being a judge and all, but there is some small degree of precedent, if I’m not mistaken.
You are mistaken. City mayors are not permitted to unilaterally abrogate state laws. Having started a kulturkampf (note the ironic reference to Hitler) he’s now doing what he should have done to begin with, by filing a lawsuit to have the issue determined by the courts, which is how the constitutionality of statutes has been determined for more than 200 years. Had he done this he would have been on perfectly firm ground. Violating state law because you disagree with it is the sort of thing we impeach people for. Civil disobedience is all fine and good if you’re a civilian. You break the law, you make your point, you go to jail, and you hope public opinion changes the law. If you’re an elected official choosing which parts of your oath you’re willing to enforce, you should be fired.
And by the way, I am a card-carrying Republican and I was completely in favor of former Chief Justice Moore being thrown out on his ášš. Blatant violation of a Federal court order was even more egregious than what the Mayor of SF is doing.
The lack of response to the first post-Bill Mulligans- paralels the world outside.
Make a big deal out of a Christian movie, and ignore the REAL and HORRIBLE anti-semitism that is happening in Europe and the middle east NOW!
Why?
Christians have no Fatwa.
Extrapolating this argument backward to what (I hope) you will recognize as its absurd conclusion, are you suggesting the government should never have recognized African-Americans’ civil rights, because now gays want them too? Becuase something got THIS ball rolling, and the ball before that, and the ball before that. Maybe it was giving women the right to vote?
Having read your spiel rather quickly I’m not certain what you’re talking about.
At all.
Here’s something… this sentence only makes sense in a Bizarro language that I can’t speak nor understand:
“Extrapolating this argument backward to what (I hope) you will recognize as its absurd conclusion”
I can’t extrapolate something backward to a conclusion. You can go back to a beginning or forward to an ending, but not the forward to a beginning or back to an ending. You can do one but not the other.
Now… read this very carefully and don’t try and extrapolate anything. I’m describing what I am starting to believe is now a valid door opening to a slippery slope. I never genuinely believed in or endorsed slippery slope arguments before.
Legalizing or endorsing gay marriage would be creating a new prescendent. Where once stood something that was fairly rock-solid (despite the increasing occurence of divirce) as an institution there would stand a new prescendent: marriage as a fluid institution.
By transforming marriage from a solidly-defined institution to a one of fluid nature, one allows nearly anybody to demand a shift of the boundaries defining what marriage is and what marriage isn’t, at any given time to fit any given group’s new demands on what it should be. The problem being is that these boundaries can only be expanded and not detracted according to the prescendent.
Do we need another clarification?
CJA
From The Telegraph: Jailed Palestinian terrorist justifies targeting Israeli children.
Although Khalil wanted to blow up soldiers in her planned attack in Tel Aviv she said it was legitimate to kill Jewish children because one day they would serve in the Israeli army.
Do you think she watched the movie?
Sorry for confusing you with the “extrapolating backward” thing — I agree it wasn’t worded well.
My point is that your “slippery slope doesn’t begin here. It begins with the recognition of civil rights for ALL groups — blacks, women, whoever. To use the slippery slope argument is to argue against prior advances in civil rights, since they led to the position we’re at now. We’re ON the slippery slope. And it’s a good place to be, because it means we’re making progress.
Therefore, each case must be argued on its OWN merits, not the merits of what it could possibly lead to.
(Apologies for any typos on this post — I’m on a friend’s computer, typing quickly, and it’s one of those dámņ ergonomic keyboards I can’t get the hang of…)
Rob
I keep hearing the phrase “One man, one woman.” being applied to marriage. I assume that when many of the people talk about gay marriage they are referring to “one man, one man.” or “one woman, one woman.” But since one of the main arguments of the pro gay marriage people is that they just want to be able to marry someone they love, which i agree with, then i am curious as to how many pro gay marriage people would be against getting rid of the anti-bigamy laws. To me it seems the same thing. I have no doubt that there are many people out there in plural relationships with people they love and they should be allowed the same legal rights as people who are married to just one person, whether gay or straight. Now there may be no pro gay marriage people who are against plural marriages, but i tend to think there probably are. And i just dont see how you can say that the state should not be allowed to tell you whether your marriage is legal or not, but only because you love just one person that way.
(me)
And finally, as for “working to change the laws”, and “when the majority feels like accepting it” – when have civil rights ever been up to waiting for “the majority” to be comfortable with it?
(Jerry)
Unfortunetly, all of them. That’s just how the world works. It’s not right, not fair, but it’s fact. Until the majority of people feel something is acceptable or unnacceptable (such as slavery or racism), it rarely ever gets changed.
That being said, many people would not agree that same sex marriages is a civil rights issue. (I’m not looking to fight this out. Just stating a fact).
Sorry to disappoint you, Jerry – but you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Over 90% of the people in the State of Virginia opposed inter-racial marriage – and 15 other states had anti-miscegenation laws on the books.
And SCOTUS (the courts, not the “majority when they were comfortable with it”) struck down those bigoted laws.
As for it not being a “civil rights” issue:
From the SCOTUS opinion
Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888).
So, most definitely is this a “civil rights” issue.
The fight for equality has rarely waited around for “the majority” to find it acceptable or not.
That’s why the courts have time and time again stricken from the books discriminatory laws, and given people redress against those who would attempt to maintain them.
Just like the Lawrence vs. Texas decision that abolished those ridiculous “anti-sodomy” laws.
Oh, and I’m a heterosexual male, btw. But I know bigotry when I see it, and the Shrub’s “protection of marriage” is bigotry, pure and simple.
Hmm,….Khendon….your opinion is pure and unbiased. I mean, anyone who refers to the president as “the shrub” is sure to give him the benefit of the doubt. And as for calling it bigotry. I can call šhìŧ a flower all I want, but it doesn’t make it so.
And like I said, I’m not interested in debate the marriage as a civil rights issue. Like I said, people don’t agree it is. Did I say me? I don’t think so. Try reading comprehension.
And second, at the time the inter-racial marriage laws were overturned, I believe a majority of the people in the US opposed them. You can always pick one state (and I’m not even sure of your numbers – got anything to back them up)!
The fight for equality has rarely waited around for “the majority” to find it acceptable or not.
I still contend that it has. That’s why things change. That’s why it took 100 plus years of us being a country for slavery to end. That’s why it took so long for women to get the vote, and segregation to end. When such an overwhelming majority support that action.
In fact, if the overwhelming majority in this country was against inter-racial marriage, then when it was deamed legal there would have been an armed revolt.
There has never, that I can point out, been any major social change that the overwhelming majority was against. You’ve got to change the minds of the people before you can change the laws.
Remember, politicians vote to get reelected, and politicians appoint judges (at the federal level). That’s why the stance of the Supreme Court has changed over the years. The appointed judges have reflected the political stances of the politicians who appoint them.
Jerry
“Oh, and I’m fairly sure there have been cultures in history that have allowed and encouraged gay marriage”
Really? None of the internet references linked to this comment reference any culture where same-sex marriage was an accepted norm.
Regardless, my earlier comment was focused on use of the word “bigot” with respect to Bush and this issue. I think PAD’s reply pretty much answered my question.
Regards,
Dennis
While the complete American Heritage definition which you pulled it from reads:
To allow without prohibiting or opposing.
To me, if you place oppose in your original definition of bigot, it would read:
A bigot is a person who opposes people whose opinions differ from his own.
That was the definition I took exception to. Since you only took the prohibit stance of the definition, I could see (by stretching it) how you could use that definition.
Yeah, I left out “oppose” on purpose when quoting the AH because, to me, the definition context clearly meant that “oppose” meant taking an action to try and go against someone (such as, say, urging a constitutional amendment.) But I could see how someone else might simply take “oppose” to mean “disagree,” which wasn’t what I intended at all. Which meant we’d have yet *another* discussion about definitions of yet *another* word, and I just didn’t want to get into it.
If that’s cutting corners, so be it. I wanted to use the dictionary to clarify what I meant, not muddy it further.
PAD
Jerry,
Never any social change that the overwhelming majority of people were against? Have you heard of Prohibition?
As I found on another thread, people, it is useless to talk sense to Jerry. He has his own opinion and will not change it for any argument, no matter how well thought out. The best thing to do is ignore him if you disagree with him. He refuses to see any side but his own.
Jesus’ murderers were, en masse, all of those present who did not believe that the son of a lowly carpenter from Nazareth and his wife could be the promised Savior from King David’s heritage they had been waiting so long for.
Irregardless of whether those non-believers could be ‘officially’ considered Jewish, Roman, Roman Jewish, or whatever term you wish to use; the non-believers just could not or would not allow themselves to believe that their God would keep His promise when, where, and how He did.
They were expecting somebody more ‘royal’ to arrive in a more grandeur manner, and just could not accept that someone from such humble beginnings could be the one.
Food for thought people!
In regards to using the full faith and credit clause to say that 4 judges in Massachusetts have legalized gay marriage has failed to remember the Federal Defence of Marriage Act, which basically eliminates the full faith and credit clause from having any bearing on marriage, since states now have the right to ignore any same-sex marriage performed in another state.
>May I suggest to you as gently as >possible, Dave, that an abuse of >power can happen even with legal >precedent?
Well, no one’s talking about the subject anymore, but hëll, I’ll bite.
You’re absolutely correct. I was heading in that direction in my post when I said the real issue was whether or not the Bush Administration was correctly classifying the detainees, but thank you for picking up that loose thread.
I brought up the legalese because there was some talk of the detaining being something that the Bush Administration cooked up after 9/11 as part of the Patriot Act. It goes back further than that. This isn’t Bush being Hitler II and capitalizing on the mood of a nation by passing all kinds of anti-Muslim laws. This is Bush using a weapon in his arsenal to try and solve a problem. I certainly hope that Bush is right and the enemy combatants are truly enemy combatants. Even if they aren’t, I’d chalk it up to overzealousness, which is definitely worthy of scorn and reprimand (assuming the judicial review of it wasn’t fatally flawed), but hardly a reenactment of the atrocities of Hitler and terrible mistakes of FDR.
But yes, your point is well taken. Bush has to be vigilant about not abusing his power in a time of war.
-Dave O’Connell
(from Karen)
As I found on another thread, people, it is useless to talk sense to Jerry. He has his own opinion and will not change it for any argument, no matter how well thought out. The best thing to do is ignore him if you disagree with him. He refuses to see any side but his own.
Yes, it’s becoming quite obvious.
Show him the words that clearly define the issue “fundamental civil right” and he’ll try ducking the issue.
And he seems to feel that civil rights come about when society is ready for them, rather than the fact that quite a number of them have been necessarily put through by the courts.
(Remember Brown vs. Board of Education, Jerry? Such an “overwhelming majority” were ready for that to happen. And Gov. Wallace was merely waiting at the schoolhouse with open arms to welcome those students.)
Nope, the courts are there to protect minorities from “the tyranny of the majority”.
Civil rights are NOT up for a popular vote – no matter what the current “regime” of this country would want to believe.
Never any social change that the overwhelming majority of people were against? Have you heard of Prohibition?
Which was how successfull? You sort of made my point. When a change is made before a large majority is ready, it rarely is successfull.
Remember, I’m not saying this is a good thing. Merely a fact. It’s a shame it took manking thousands of years to realize slavery was bad. It’s a shame it took the US hundreds of years to realise that all races are equal. But that doesn’t change the fact that it did. And these changes didn’t happen because of some almight courts, but because society and people changed. True change only comes from society.
Oh, and Karen, way to move on the issues. Really. Make your point by attacking me. Out of grade school yet? (see, I can sink to your level as well).
Khendon,
Are we having reading comprehension? NEVER did I use the majority rule as a reason for outlawing gay marriages. NEVER. Don’t put words in my mouth. I can make other arguements against same-sex marriages, and this won’t be one of them.
I clearly said UNFORTUNETLY change comes when a majority of society comes to welcome the change. Notice I said UNFORTUNETLY. And yes, the majority of the people in the US were ready for the Brown Vs. Board of Ed decision. Yes, there were idiots, such as Gov. Wallace, and even in the region, the majority may have been against it. But the country as a whole was ready for the change, and that’s why it went through.
If that’s not the case, and it’s not a matter of society changing, then explain to me why it didn’t happen earlier? What was different about the time period vs 50 years earlier, or 30, or 80?
Or maybe you’d rather just continue to attack me personally, and dodge the point?
Jerry
Like I said, I now see where the difference lies. I took the definition of tolerance to be never opposing any viewpoints. So your statement was reading to me that a bigot was someone who opposed a viewpoint. Evidently a couple of others thought that was a little broad as well.
Through further discussion, it’s now clear that’s not your intent. That’s the value of discussion!
I still disagree with your label of bigot, but now it’s a matter of opinion, rather than definition.
And the only agreement I’ll ask, is if others promise not to equate being anti same-sex marriage with racism, and being a KKK member, then I won’t equate homosexuality with pedophila 🙂
Jerry
Sorry, I meant that last comment to be TO: PAD, and was not thinking clearly when I put that in the name spot.
Jerry
Sorry, but when I hear you say stuff like this I think you come off as way too over reactionary (and not only with this subject). Also, I like how you manage to put our president’s name in the same sentence with Hitlers as if they’re one and the same. Nice.
Re: the definition of “bigot”
I can’t say my definition of “bigot” would have the words “conviction” (a neutral term)
or “intolerant” (good or bad depending on what is being tolerated—it is bad to tolerate bad things and it is good to tolerate things that are good, or at least not bad). It would probably have the term “extreme prejudice” somewhere in there and include something about the “unwillingness to use reason as a basis for judging people and the issues pertaining to them” or “replacing reason with negative emotion as a way of judging people and the issues pertaining to them”. Something like that.
So, a person whose anti-gay marriage statements are like, say, the National Review Online‘s Stanley Kurtz would not, in my opinion, fall into the category of a bigot. He’s using reason, and his argument is worth perusing, but it just isn’t persuasive enough.
(That article, by the way, can be found at http://nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200402020917.asp .)
Judging from PAD’s remarks, I wonder if he might consider even Kurtz to be a bigot simply because of his opposition to gay-marriage. If so, I’d have to disagree. I think the word “bigot” should be reserved for those loathsome types who jettison all reason and traffic in violence and extreme verbal denigration. I don’t even think President Bush falls into that category. I think he sincerely believes that he is protecting marriage and if gay marriage has to be prevented for happening, well, nothing personal, but that’s what has to be done. I diagree with him, I think he’s misguided on the subject, but a bigot? I wouldn’t go that far.
-Dave O’Connell
Dave,
I wish I could be as elequently spoken as you on this subject. You have stated my feelings on this very well.
Jerry
PAD said:
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.
Sounds to me that the people who refuse to tolerate the people who do not support gay marriage are bigots themselves as well.
I think the word “bigot” should be reserved for those loathsome types who jettison all reason and traffic in violence and extreme verbal denigration.
And here I thought that was the definition of “troll”…
PAD
Heh (couldn’t help myself)
Sounds to me that the people who refuse to tolerate the people who do not support gay marriage are bigots themselves as well.
I tolerate them. Do you see me deleting their posts?
PAD
All this talk about toleration makes me think of the “Toleration Paradox”:
If the intolerant are tolerated, they may eventually prevail and make an end to toleration. But if they aren’t tolerated, one has already made an end to toleration.
I just love paradoxes!
~Brad