Chick-Fil-A PR Head Dies of Heart Attack, Fringe Left Rejoices
I don’t know if the rage junkies helped cause this, but they sure seem happy about it. Just check Twitter or the L.A. Times web site and you’ll see stuff like this:
God has just started to punish this company for their hateful ways.
I could go on and on and on, but for once I’m just going to have you imagine the extent of it. We’ve been down this road many times before, and it’s always the same.
I’m a supporter of gay marriage and gay rights, but this kind of thing really makes me angry. I’m not going to stop supporting gay rights just because some other supporters are hateful, disgusting people. But I did experience a flash of anger where I thought about it. When I read this kind of thing, I had a feeling pass across me that I don’t want to be associated with these people in any way. Let them fight their battles on their own, if this is how they’re going to act, went the thought.
The thought came, and then passed as quickly as it had come. I thought of the good people I know who are gay, and who (I know) do not support such ugly sentiments. Why should those good people lose my support because of the nasties?
But that’s me.
I guarantee you that this kind of thing is going to lose other people.
Guarantee it.
So, to all you advocates of gay rights who don’t engage in this kind of ugly rhetoric, I say to you: you have a job to do. You need to talk to the people who leave comments like that, and make them stop.
It is not helping your cause. Not one bit.
Ding.
Patterico (ce4cef) — 7/28/2012 @ 5:17 pmThe world is full of ugly minds. But the hypocrisy of those who claim to be opposed to “hate” but who are so clearly filled to the brim with hate …
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/28/2012 @ 5:18 pmI wonder if these sh*theels had printed maps to the late fellow’s house, much as they’d done to supporters of Prop 8?
Colonel Haiku (9a2d67) — 7/28/2012 @ 5:19 pmgoing after their families, trying to get people fired… their tactics only serve to disgust the sane folks among us.
Colonel Haiku (9a2d67) — 7/28/2012 @ 5:23 pmThese people are horrid. Narrow minded little bigots screaming their hatred for their fellow man from every rooftop.
Professor Jacobson notes Palin’s visit to Chick Fil A to show her support. Note the comments section. I believe the vileness is part of the natural make-up of the modern lefty. (Also, note how many commenters are female).
Dana (292dcf) — 7/28/2012 @ 5:36 pmHow many of these haters are hetro (or virgin), just jumping on the tribal band wagen?
Phillep Harding (1b8b26) — 7/28/2012 @ 5:37 pmPhilip Harding,
Would it matter? Hate is hate is hate.
Dana (292dcf) — 7/28/2012 @ 5:39 pmWhy do we all have to believe the same now?
When did this happen?
I’m Christian, so I believe Jews, Muslims, etc have got it very wrong… and they think the same of me (although Jewish people are way more tolerant of Christians than Muslims are of either Christians or Jews) but Muskims, Christians… whatever are free to believe whatever they want. But voicing christian views is seen as “intolerant”.
I’m a big proponent of monogamous relationships. It requires personal responsibility and loyalty.
So whether it is a gay couple or a heterosexual couple, I want that relationship to thrive.
But if I drift off into saying that my religious beliefs bend me towards thinking that heterosexual marriage is what God created opposite sexes for and so…. I love you guys and gals who want to marry each other, but I think the traditional family model (acknowledging all its flaws) is superior to any alternative… and so can we work this “marriage” thing out?
No.
I’m a hater. A homophobe. Banned. Shunned.
Is it illegal to be a social conservative now?
I want gay and lesbian couples to be happily joined until death do us part, but we are told that they won’t be happy and will all feel marginalized until the traditional view of marriage is disassembled (an assertion I doubt)… but hey we disagree and if they win a vote, fine. Will of the people…
But I still get to say I disagree, right? Without repercussion from Mayors. Councilpersons, etc right?
Sadly no
If the law of the land is that gays marry some as heterosexuals, then so be it… I demur, but hey Rahm…. fuck you for demonizing someone who disagrees…
SteveG (831214) — 7/28/2012 @ 5:50 pmPatterico–Sarah Hoyt sees many of the same things you do. Here she goes all stream of consciousness and in the process makes a whole lot of sense. I think she’s right about almost all of it.
http://accordingtohoyt.com/2012/07/26/how-not-to-make-friends-and-influence-people/
elissa (ee87eb) — 7/28/2012 @ 5:50 pmEvents are surging in their favor, so they don’t feel like they have to be civil anymore. Not that some of them ever were…
The Sanity Inspector (93bc4f) — 7/28/2012 @ 6:56 pmI’m sorry to hear of Mr. Perry’s death.
I find the rhetoric you mentioned particularly puzzling, too, because Mr. Perry was a *spokesperson*; his job was to express the opinions of others. Even if you think it’s reasonable to hate the people for whom he was speaking, it’s *absurd* to hate him for the viewpoints he expresses on the behalf of others.
*sigh*
aphrael (24797a) — 7/28/2012 @ 7:13 pmHere is what I don’t get. If a person dies, they can never “see the error of their ways” and come around to your own way of seeing things. We *know* that the Left loves it when Rightists turn Left.
So celebrating death should be a sadness.
I felt the same way about people celebrating Ted Kennedy’s death, by the way.
Now, terrorists? I could care less about them. That old article from the Onion is my guide to that.
Simon Jester (52ca2e) — 7/28/2012 @ 7:18 pmMark Steyn is up with a new piece on “the tolerance enforcers”. What a writer he is to put those two words together–and it’s a perfect description.
elissa (ee87eb) — 7/28/2012 @ 7:35 pmSome people are going to be lucky if they manage to come back as a piece of pond scum excrement. I’ve tried talking to them, they just don’t get it. Any of it.
htom (412a17) — 7/28/2012 @ 7:35 pmBy those people I meant the hate-filled of every flavor, not Mr. Perry.
htom (412a17) — 7/28/2012 @ 7:38 pmI feel the same way. Fck gay marriage advocates. These selfsame aholes never cared that Obama was supposedly against gay marriage until 2 months ago. Now all of a sudden if you oppose it its ok to wish that you die?
Fck em. I hate gay marriage advocates. Gay people should have to move to Iran for a month or two until they get some fcking perspective.
Mr. Pink (25b629) — 7/28/2012 @ 7:47 pmTO: SIMON JESTER
ted kennedy, that lovable old drunk?
who got thrown out of harvard TWICE for academic cheating? [only old joe’s intervention and threats got him reinstated the 1st time.]
ted, who left a young woman to die in a black, terrifying watery grave in his big black oldsmobile at chappaquidick?
ted, who cut off all funding for the arvn in 1975 causing them to lose the war in vietnam resulting in the slaughter of 10,000+ former allies by the current commie government?
that ted kennedy?
ROBERT RUDZKI (131c80) — 7/28/2012 @ 7:51 pmMr. Pink and Mr. Rudzki:
Your comments are not the way we roll around here, so please go away.
Thanks.
Ag80 (b2c81f) — 7/28/2012 @ 7:54 pmConcern trolls trying to create a narrative, of course.
Simon Jester (52ca2e) — 7/28/2012 @ 7:58 pmMr. Pink and Mr. Rudzki:
Your comments are not the way we roll around here, so please go away.
Thanks.
Comment by Ag80 — 7/28/2012 @ 7:54 pm
Oh I know and agree with you. It is why i stopped coming here or commenting. Reading articles on how Obama is a “good man” and seeing comment sections full of people trying to rationaly argue against insanity really don’t bring out the best in me. How I see you “roll” around here is act all civil with people that actively wish you to die. In my world I call that being a p@ssy.
Mr. Pink (25b629) — 7/28/2012 @ 8:03 pmWell, I think you are a troll, or a partisan hack, so we are even. Why waste a single electron? Maybe Goldstein will play.
Simon Jester (52ca2e) — 7/28/2012 @ 8:11 pm“Fringe Left rejoices”???? Sorry, but too many instances where the left rejoices these things, and in high numbers, to make it just the “fringe”. If my “fringe” you mean your averahe leftie, I agree. Doubt me? Visit a college campus on of these days.
And I do have to laugh at the comment by one of those lefties: “God has just started to punish this company for their hateful ways.” Would this be the same God of Sodom and Gomorrah fame?
john b (e241f9) — 7/28/2012 @ 8:13 pmMr. Pink, most of us never believed Obama was opposed to gay marriage and thought that he was deliberately pretending to be conflicted out of political cowardice.
> Gay people should have to move to Iran for a month or two until they get some fcking perspective.
That seems like an overreaction. Not to mention collective punishment. Punishing all members of a group for the failings of some is *rarely* a good solution.
aphrael (24797a) — 7/28/2012 @ 8:13 pmI actually lost a friend yesterday over this issue. She had posted on Facebook how Perry’s death was proof that God hates homophobia.
So I engaged her.
I told her that back in 2001, I was angered and appalled that Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson were saying that the 9/11 attacks were God’s retribution against New York and/or the United States over its embrace of homosexuality. I thought it was markedly un-Christian for someone to use a tragedy to score political points. I also think that God doesn’t arbitrarily smite people, and that punishment for any sins is in the afterlife.
Then I told her that I didn’t see any moral difference between what Fallwell and Robertson had said and what she had said.
She unfriended me and then sent me a nasty email telling me to never talk to her again.
Chuck Bartowski (99415f) — 7/28/2012 @ 8:20 pmShe unfriended me and then sent me a nasty email telling me to never talk to her again.
Comment by Chuck Bartowski — 7/28/2012 @ 8:20 pm
I have had like 2 of those conversations so far. And every fcking one of them voted for Obama who had that same position. It just reinforces my belief that the left as a whole views lying as a legitimate political tactic, and so being civil with them is a waste of effort.
Mr. Pink (25b629) — 7/28/2012 @ 8:24 pmI’m sorry you lost a friend, Chuck. Is she related to Roseanne Barr? That sounds like something stupid Roseanne would say or tweet. I am finding that more and more topics are now almost too incendiary to discuss calmly and rationally with people I’ve known and respected for 20 years or more. Something bad is happening to the character of our country.
elissa (ee87eb) — 7/28/2012 @ 8:30 pm> It just reinforces my belief that the left as a whole views lying as a legitimate political tactic
This is a difficult problem. I don’t consider lying to be a legitimate political tactic. On the other hand, experience has shown me that almost every politician lies on a regular basis. So … what is to be done?
aphrael (24797a) — 7/28/2012 @ 8:37 pm> posted on Facebook how Perry’s death was proof that God hates homophobia.
blech.
aphrael (24797a) — 7/28/2012 @ 8:38 pmPeople who post messages of rejoice that Donald Perry has died are really no different than Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church.
Just the flip side of the same coin…
CalFed (b845c9) — 7/28/2012 @ 9:02 pmWell it does show that the ‘civility’ meme, that they employ is overdone,
narciso (ee31f1) — 7/28/2012 @ 9:04 pmSomeday the muslims will be in control and all the homos will be stoned.
In the meantime cities like chicago and boston support the muslims. Eventually, it will catch up with the libs.
Jim (748bc6) — 7/28/2012 @ 9:17 pm5. Mr. Feets did not rise, must be on his vacation in Minnesotastan.
He’s getting a non-representative taste. The rain returned mid-state just 10 days ago not enough time for the skeeters to grow to adult stage.
I hope to debrief.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 7/28/2012 @ 9:23 pm30. I’m hoping the Jooos have one nuke aimed at Mecca. Once the Ka’aba is vaporized the supersition would go extinct.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 7/28/2012 @ 9:34 pm_________________________________________________
She had posted on Facebook how Perry’s death was proof that God hates homophobia.
I’d ask her if the high rate of HIV, AIDS and other STDs among gays indicates what? That God therefore really, really hates homosexuals, certainly the ones that are male?
I know that public sentiment is moving increasingly towards not just a tolerance but even an embrace of GLBT. Meanwhile, I find myself moving in the other direction. That’s because my original assumption that gays have absolutely no emotional or certainly physical ability to initiate and maintain relationships with women isn’t necessarily correct.
I used to buy into the idea of “if I had a choice, why would I choose to be gay!?” IOW, in reality, there appears to be a lot more “B” in the “GLBT” than activists want the public to be aware of. Therefore, it’s tougher for me to sympathize with people mainly if it’s because they want to be indulged by the society around them in making poor choices in life.
Mark (7b2cc7) — 7/28/2012 @ 9:55 pm________________________________________________
And every fcking one of them voted for Obama who had that same position.
Among the left, the ultimate type of race, ethnicity or sexuality, if you will, that they actually represent is liberalism or leftism. When high percentages of the GLBT crowd are of the left, it’s hard to know where their ideology ends and sexuality begins. That’s another reason why I have less sympathy for gays. Or, in turn, why I’d give them more consideration if they were instead 60/40 liberal and conservative, or 50/50 left/centrist/right, or, most absolutely, 80 percent rightwing instead of leftwing.
Mark (7b2cc7) — 7/28/2012 @ 10:03 pmTO: SIMON JESTER
TO: AG80
so who died and left you in control of comments on patterico’s website?
name 1 thing i said about ted kennedy that is not true.
perhaps you should get together and compose a posting guide on patterico’s site so no one offends kennedy-loving liberals…
ar least i use my real name when i post… ;-]
ROBERT RUDZKI (131c80) — 7/28/2012 @ 10:08 pmI think there are significant differences between a gay couple and a straight couple, and therefore it makes sense to use different words, such as “civil union” for the former and “marriage” for the latter. It’s as if some women were insisting that everyone call them men, or some gay insisting that everyone call the straight. It’s absurd.
Andrew (669dea) — 7/28/2012 @ 10:45 pmMy personnel experience with the “tollerant” left has been one of hate towards conservative will the conservatives I know just disagree with th left. I’ve never personnally heard a conservative ask for the death of a liberal, but hav heard a number of liberals advocat the death of conservatives. I heard that a lot when I worked for Bank of America where a conservative world view was not tolerated, but liberals advocating the death of what the consider “idiot” conservatives was tolerated.
Just look at what the left has said about Tony Snow, Michelle Malkin, and Sarah Palin.
Tanny O'Haley (12193c) — 7/28/2012 @ 10:59 pmChick Fil-A is the American Taliban.
Because we all know the actual Taliban is hip-deep in fast food.
While Mormons will topple a stone wall on gays.
Now I’m going to toss something that formerly would have seemed like right wing crazy talk. ‘Cept Rahm whosits and mumbles Mennino have expressed precisely the same thing in almost exactly the same words.
You can have gay rights or the bill of rights. Choose. Emmanuel and Mennino think they’ve got the bettere end of the deal.
Steve57 (2430ba) — 7/28/2012 @ 10:59 pmSorry for the misspellings. Sometimes I get frustrated with my iPad.
Tanny O'Haley (12193c) — 7/28/2012 @ 11:01 pmI seriously gay marriage advocates are missing the point. Acting like your opponents are diabolical monsters is not going to attract support, nor is a narrow focus on achieving the exact same type of marriage as heterosexual couples have, then setting it up as a national right is going to run into serious opposition.
Why not go for half a loaf? Advocate for legal recognition of domestic partnerships and campaign in liberal states. But no, they have to bulldoze their agenda everywhere and damn anyone who dares to stand against them.
OmegaPaladin (f2d931) — 7/28/2012 @ 11:27 pmGay rights? I thought people had the right to be gay in America today? Oh, they want special rights. Yeah that I don’t support.
MSL (f060a0) — 7/28/2012 @ 11:55 pmthis household voted for Prop 8 a few years back, because it seemed like the right thing to do,
the aftermath of that electoral defeat and the virulent hate displayed has ensured that, should another bill like that come up on the ballot, we will be voting against it.
if you can’t behave as civilized and rational actors in a polite society, i see no need to support you in anything, since your beliefs and values are obviously antithetical to such a civilization.
redc1c4 (403dff) — 7/29/2012 @ 1:31 amI’m with red and some of the other commenters. To me, gay marriage was a non-issue. Have at it. Except that we have a process for these thing and the tantrums that ensued when they faced defeat soured me. Hell, they weren’t tantrums there was outright hatred. Directed at Mormons, for example, cos they feared a backlash from blacks who were just as vehemently opposed.
Gazzer (db0ab1) — 7/29/2012 @ 1:42 amThink Carrie Prejean and the disgusting response from Perez Hilton and Griffin and Handler and all those supposedly tolerant types. I am done with them.
I guess it makes you feel better to label people who disagree with you as evil. It is childish but understandable.
tye (ba133c) — 7/29/2012 @ 5:03 amIt just reinforces my belief that the left as a whole views lying as a legitimate political tactic
This is a difficult problem. I don’t consider lying to be a legitimate political tactic. On the other hand, experience has shown me that almost every politician lies on a regular basis. So … what is to be done?
Comment by aphrael — 7/28/2012 @ 8:37 pm
Call me when pro choice groups support a Republican presidential candidate who says he is pro choice but somehow gives them a wink wink and “evolves” on the issue while in office. The left wing groups actively admit that their politicians lie to gain office and are ok with it. This is not just run of the mill political lying. This is endorsed, and advocated, lying. Hell just look at the healthcare bill, how many lies were told to pass that piece of shit? You can keep your insurance, it would reduce the deficit, it would reduce your premium, it was not a tax, it was not a mandate ect ect. The average left wing person, not politician mind you, person agrees that it was ok to lie to you in order to advance their political beliefs. These are people you know, not people on TV or politicians.
Mr. Pink (25b629) — 7/29/2012 @ 6:38 amI’ve had more exposure to angry lefties than I’d like.
Here’s what I’ve learned. They tax their soul with some rage, justified with an insincere and paranoid assumption about the people they are angry with. For example, the people who are just making their living in the food industry while being honest about their Christian views. In order for the raging lefty to justify (to themselves) their anger, they have to constantly double down on ‘they are my enemy’ thoughts.
Before long, everything is blown so far out of proportion that we have fried chicken joints being barred from towns because of the religious views of the people who work there. We have giddy joy at their illness and death. The lefties who are this hateful have permanent anger wrinkles on their scowling faces and a list of ‘worst person in the world’ candidates that is so full of peace loving and innocent people that no one remembers half of them at this point.
Because these lefties realize, in their hearts, that their rage is not really justified, they put a lot of effort into forcing the illusion it is.
That’s why we have this Orwellian logic that they have to hate these people because their profession of faith is ‘intolerant’.
Dustin (73fead) — 7/29/2012 @ 6:39 amI simply couldn’t leave your site prior to suggesting that I actually enjoyed the usual info a person provide in your guests? Is going to be back continuously in order to check up on new posts
pancreatic cancer symptoms in men (ef5fb9) — 7/29/2012 @ 6:56 amThe History of Gay Rights Slogans in America
1950: We just want to be left alone!
Pious Agnostic (ee2c24) — 7/29/2012 @ 7:03 am1960: We just want equal rights before the law!
1970: We just want you to tolerate our lifestyle.
1980: We just want you to take our health crisis seriously.
1990: We’re here, we’re queer, get used to it!
2000: Gays in the military? We’re already *in* the military!
2010: Gay marriage is a fundamental human right!
2020: If you have not personally engaged in (and enjoyed!) a homosexual relationship, you are a H8Ter!
redc1c4,
> if you can’t behave as civilized and rational actors in a polite society
collective punishment again. i’ve demonstrated that i as an individual can behave as a civilized and rational actor in a polite society, but voting against gay marriage in California, were I still a Californian, would hurt me every bit as much as it would hurt those you are mad at.
aphrael (24797a) — 7/29/2012 @ 7:43 amYou, of course, are correct. The idea that individuals who suddenly die have suffered instant divine judgment is a non-Christian teaching. Jesus himself said in Luke 13 that sin is sin, and that the unrepentant will suffer the same retribution as the worst sinners. He said this in response to the notion that eighteen people who died horribly when a tower collapsed in the city of Siloam must have been more egregious sinners than all the sinners in Jerusalem.
There are always reasons liberals give to exempt themselves from hypocrisy, even if they don’t make sense; the important thing is to make sure the populace is properly poisoned before they have a chance to think deeply about such issues. Whoever your former friend is, she probably didn’t have all the talking points that the radicals use to excuse themselves from the criticism they’d be leveling at their opponents if the roles were reversed. If so, she might have responded with one; without one, she might have felt exposed (rightly so), and she lashed out.
Her petulant breaking with you brings to mind “Fake Friends,” a song recorded by Joan Jett & The Blackhearts: “You got nothing to lose, you don’t lose when you lose fake friends.”
L.N. Smithee (ce1f71) — 7/29/2012 @ 7:47 amaphrael is a great example of a patriotic homosexual who embraces being reasonable to those with different opinions even about things aphrael cares greatly about.
It’s a shame the gay marriage issue isn’t dominated by that attitude (on both sides). But what do you expect? The loud overwhelms the reasonable, which is the entire point of being loud.
Dustin (73fead) — 7/29/2012 @ 7:47 am> Advocate for legal recognition of domestic partnerships and campaign in liberal states.
This has happened in some states. California, for example, passed legal recognition of domestic partnerships, and attempts to qualify a referendum, or an initiative to repeal them, have failed repeatedly.
Although I’ll note for Mark’s benefit that when California did this, every single Republican legislator in the legislature voted against it, including some fairly liberal Republicans like Bruce McPherson. So: how can you expect gay people to support the California Republican party?
Gay rights activists have also advocated for legal recognition of domestic partnerships in some states, through the legislative process. This happened in New York, where to be fair I’ll note that it would have been impossible had the Republican leadership of the Senate (who were opposed) not agreed to let the vote proceed, and had a handful of Republicans not crossed party lines to vote in favor of it. And it happened in Maryland and Washington, where opponents qualified referenda, and where the people will be asked to vote on the issue in November.
I’m not sending money to these campaigns, because I’m not a citizen of those states, and I strongly feel that the citizens of a state ought to be able to decide issues like this without money from outside of the state distorting the effectiveness of the campaigns. (My main objection to the Mormon church’s involvement in this in California in 2008 was this: it was a bunch of out-of-state money trying to influence a state ballot initiative, which irritates me in any context). But I hope they pass.
In all of these cases, gay rights activists are following the “proper channels”.
aphrael (24797a) — 7/29/2012 @ 8:04 am_________________________________________________
2020: If you have not personally engaged in (and enjoyed!) a homosexual relationship, you are a H8Ter!
Another matter that has affected my POV about this issue more recently was when I finally scrutinized the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. I admit to not being the most Bible-literate person, and so “Sodom” has long been more of a vague or abstract concept to me.
When I discovered that the writings about Sodom and one of its residents, the character named Lot, entailed the males of Sodom threatening to rape 2 male guests of Lot (ie, visitors to Sodom who were angels disguised as humans) — and knowing that the Bible relates to human nature as observed eons ago — I was stunned. IOW, the story was so lurid and extreme, and vulgar, that I thought it could easily have come from the mind of a modern-day pornographer, in particular a gay one.
BTW, the character of Lot apparently was so desperate to protect his visitors, that he offered his two young daughters to the would-be rapists in place of his guests, as sort of sacrificial lambs. Again, more grotesque than a very extreme porno movie—but a reflection of how depraved human nature can become.
Mark (7b2cc7) — 7/29/2012 @ 8:08 amAphrael, do you see any recognition or outreach within the gay community (and I basically hate the term “community” as in black community, gay community for the reason you mention–people are individuals) that tries to alert to, and assess the damage such vitriol may be causing to the commitment of millions of heterosexuals who have stood for the dignity and acceptance of their gay friends and relatives most every step of the way?
Another question: Do you think that some of the worst of the ugliness and hate is coming from political non-gays and media who mistakenly think such outrage “helps” the cause by stirring the pot, but instead is likely hindering it? If so, does it worry you that the agenda of assuring equal rights for gay citizens may be being co-opted by others for other reasons? As always, I’d be interested in your thoughts. Obviously, you speak here as an individual, and not for the universe of GLBT people. Thanks.
elissa (1eff2e) — 7/29/2012 @ 8:09 amGazzer, I was a citizen of California in 2008.
The day after that election was one of the worst days of my life, emotionally; it’s the only time in my life that I can remember being despondant about democracy. The people of my state had just voted to say that my marriage was illegitimate. (No, I wasn’t legally married. No, it doesn’t matter. The people had still said that they thought that my marriage shouldn’t be recognized and wasn’t legitimate). A majority of the voters in my state had just declared that my marriage *could never be* legitimate in their eyes. I have rarely felt as angry about something political, because it was impossible not to take it personally, not to feel as though the majority of the people of my home state had declared my marriage to be of less value than theirs and, by extension, my happiness to be of less value than theirs. As an adult, I don’t think I’ve ever experienced such a profound sense of rejection.
Was this a rational response? No. It was a deep, visceral, emotional response.
Now, I didn’t go protest, or demand boycotts, or hurl invective at the people who I felt had just expressed this negative judgment of me. I place too high a premium on politeness to do that. Instead, I took advantage of a serendipitously timed vacation that my mother in law was paying for, and disappeared for a week, during which I read no news, talked to nobody on line, and had the opportunity to heal, and to remember that it’s meaningless: only my husband and I decide if we’re married, the state has no power to declare my marriage illegitimate. My friends and family certainly have the power to choose to recognize it or not, and that recognition matters; but they all recognize it notwithstanding the state’s refusal to do so.
But … I place a very, very high value on civility, and on not making assumptions about people’s motives or intentions, and on listening to what they say. And I’m very aware of the danger that a strong emotional reaction will interfere with my ability to hold to those values, so I’ve put in a lot of work to prevent myself from going off in an emotional rage when the temptation arises. So I was very well placed to not react angrily and nastily to the passage of proposition 8. But I can totally understand why those who did, did.
aphrael (24797a) — 7/29/2012 @ 8:13 am> alert to, and assess the damage such vitriol may be causing to the commitment of millions of heterosexuals who have stood for the dignity and acceptance of their gay friends and relatives most every step of the way?
Unfortunately, no. In another thread recently we were talking about gay pride parades, and there’s *certainly* an ongoing, constant debate about whether gay pride parades hurt us rather than help us. But vitriolic expressions of anger, less so.
I think part of that is that people don’t understand the internet. Hear me out, I know that sounds crazy, but … a vitriolic expression of anger to a bunch of friends in a pub isn’t going to go any further, and isn’t going to have an effect on anyone outside of the group, and the group is all friends, and understand that sometimes you’re angry and need to blow off steam. (Plus, humans are generally more forgiving of friends than strangers).
People treat twitter and facebook and google plus as being like that. They shouldn’t. (Well, google plus *can* be like that if you use it right. And so can facebook, although it’s much, much harder. But people don’t). And people are really not aware of the fact that every time someone tweets something like the tweet above, it hurts the cause of gay rights by being picked up by people who weren’t friends understanding the need to blow off steam, but strangers looking at the words and being (rightly) disgusted by them.
> Do you think that some of the worst of the ugliness and hate is coming from political non-gays and media who mistakenly think such outrage “helps” the cause by stirring the pot, but instead is likely hindering it?
Yes and no.
I’m sure some of the worst of the ugliness and hate comes from allies, although I don’t think all of it does. But … I don’t think the people in question are thinking in terms of helping or hindering. I think they so firmly believe in the rightness of our side that they’re *reacting*, and expressing that reaction, rather than thinking.
> the agenda of assuring equal rights for gay citizens may be being co-opted by others for other reasons?
such is politics, right? *every* agenda gets co-opted by others for other reasons, and part of the political game is deciding when to play along with that co-option because it helps you get what you want.
aphrael (24797a) — 7/29/2012 @ 8:20 am> embraces being reasonable to those with different opinions even about things aphrael cares greatly about.
Dustin, thank you.
I should note that there are times when this is really, really difficult. Which makes me more respectful of those on the other side who are obviously doing the same thing, while at the same time making me somewhat more tolerant of those on the other side who don’t — because I understand the work involved and understand that it’s a standard that *I* can’t meet all of the time, so how can I expect anyone else to?
aphrael (24797a) — 7/29/2012 @ 8:21 amElissa, I think it is all about putting people into neat little boxes, described on bumper stickers. Think of it as “twitterizing” politics and oversimplifying things and people. Plus add a huge dollop of narcissism from which our entire society suffers.
So…since we are good people, folks who disagree with us must be bad. And since we are good people, it is okay to attack bad people, personally.
The truth is in the middle, as always. Angry as aphrael was over Prop 8, I do not see him attacking other people personally in the vile ways we see today.
When I was a boy, first voting, there was a proposition in California that asked that all teachers “swear” an oath that they didn’t “approve” of a homosexual lifestyle. This was horrific to me to read, not because I was gay, but because it attempted to legislate thought. What did I care about gender preference, so long as it was kept out of the classroom?
It was my first libertarian moment…especially given our vice principal at my high school was having a heterosexual affair with a female student.
But getting to your point, *I* believe that the vitriolic and vile approach (on any side) destroys any moral high ground, and is in fact counterproductive to the goal.
Yet…it does increase polarization and bloc voting. Which I fear is the very point.
Simon Jester (87af20) — 7/29/2012 @ 8:25 amSo I was very well placed to not react angrily and nastily to the passage of proposition 8. But I can totally understand why those who did, did.
Comment by aphrael — 7/29/2012 @ 8:13 am
Well then you can understand why I can tell you and your gay marriage buddies to go fck themselves then. But fake civility champions like yourself only “understand” the rage of your side, and stand by aghast at rage from the other so you probably wont. 10 bucks says you voted for Obama, and endorsed his ass lying about being against gay marriage as referenced by one of your comments here. Sorry maybe I take things too literally, but when someone endorses lying as a political tactic, I can easily imagine them lying to my face. So I think you are lying to me when you say you want everyone to be all civil and get along even if they disagree.
Mr. Pink (25b629) — 7/29/2012 @ 8:33 amTrue, when someone is ‘hung in effigy’ or their church is burned down, for an opinion, we are supposed to understand,
narciso (ee31f1) — 7/29/2012 @ 8:34 am“So I think you are lying to me when you say you want everyone to be all civil and get along even if they disagree.”
– Mr. Pink
Well… there you go. Enjoy your bubble.
Leviticus (102f62) — 7/29/2012 @ 8:45 am> But fake civility champions like yourself only “understand” the rage of your side, and stand by aghast at rage from the other so you probably wont
I think I’ve demonstrated through my behavior here that i’m not a fake civility champion.
> then you can understand why I can tell you and your gay marriage buddies to go fck themselves then
actually, I can’t, but the difference is this: the rage I felt was visceral and emotional, based on the notion that I’d just been told by the majority of the voters in my state that my relationship was of less value than theirs. i don’t understand what your rage is about. i don’t *think* your rage is based on the notion that my relationship is of the same value as yours – maybe it is, but I have no evidence for such a presumption, and since I think that’s a bad thing to assume about someone, I won’t do so without evidence. I don’t think the notion that other people were angry and behaving like children is, by itself, enough to give rise to the kind of rage that you’re expressing. So: there’s something underlying your rage that I don’t understand.
> but when someone endorses lying as a political tactic, I can easily imagine them lying to my face
sure. that’s a reasonable reaction.
but: i strongly believed both Obama and McCain to have been lying about certain things. If *both major party candidates are lying to me*, then I can either hold my nose and vote for one of them, or I can seek out some purist third party candidate who won’t win, and let the rest of the electorate decide which of the two liars they prefer. Or I can throw up my hands and note vote.
At the end of the day, I think this is something most people understand, and this is a big part of why politicians have *generally* such a low reputation. Nobody trusts them, because almost all of them have shown themselves to be liars to one degree or another.
By way of example: are you going to vote for Mitt Romney in November? do you believe Mitt Romney is entirely honest? (I think you’d have to be willfully blind to believe that).
> So I think you are lying to me when you say you want everyone to be all civil and get along even if they disagree.
I’ve been commenting intermittently on this blog for *9 years*. In that time, I’ve civilly disagreed with people many times. I’m not sure what I can do to persuade you that i’m telling the truth, if you’ll ignore nine years of demonstrated behavior.
aphrael (24797a) — 7/29/2012 @ 8:47 am> church is burned down
I think perhaps you’r reading something into what I said that goes beyond what I said.
I said I can understand the rage.
That doesn’t mean that I understand the particular form the rage expressed. I think there’s a big difference between, say, organizing a boycott, and burning down a church. One of them remains within the lines of civilized political debate, one doesn’t.
Surely it’s possible to understand the anger without approving of the way the anger is expressed.
aphrael (24797a) — 7/29/2012 @ 8:48 am_________________________________________________
When I was a boy, first voting, there was a proposition in California that asked that all teachers “swear” an oath that they didn’t “approve” of a homosexual lifestyle.
I bet that concept makes far more people on the right shudder and cringe compared with the number of folks on the left who deal with the notion that, for example, the Boy Scouts of America should be required — should be forced — to accept gays as troop leaders.
Mark (7b2cc7) — 7/29/2012 @ 8:49 am> But getting to your point, *I* believe that the vitriolic and vile approach (on any side) destroys any moral high ground, and is in fact counterproductive to the goal.
I agree.
I understand why many are tempted into this error, but that doesn’t make it any less an error, or – on some level – any less a betrayal of the community to engage in it.
aphrael (24797a) — 7/29/2012 @ 8:50 amOur own president, called anyone who does not have enlightened opinions, like the ones he discovered
narciso (ee31f1) — 7/29/2012 @ 8:51 amtwo months ago, ‘bitter clingers’ and they must
be ‘nudged’ into the right attitude, like ALEC and
Melaleuca founder Vandersloot,
Thought-provoking, Chuck Bartowski and L.N. Smithee. These are the online comments I come here to read and learn from.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 7/29/2012 @ 9:21 amaphrael:
Maybe some religious believers feel their Bible-based concerns are being treated with similar disrespect, i.e., that their religious beliefs are worthless compared to the state’s secular interests. How is this different from feeling like your secular gay marriage concerns were treated as worthless by religious believers?
Maybe American society should ignore this religious issue because of the need to treat people equally. But you especially should be able to understand and empathize with the emotion, since it’s the same emotion you felt.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 7/29/2012 @ 9:37 amWow, I got special mention from DRJ. I feel all warm and fuzzy inside now 🙂
Chuck Bartowski (99415f) — 7/29/2012 @ 9:43 am@ L.N.Smithee,
I think it only fair to point out the converse as well: Having, in a previous life spent 20+ in a mainstream evangelical church, I can assure you that yes, sin across the board is still sin, yet I have known umpteen pastors who find it much more convenient to point the finger of judgement at the gays and/or HIV/AIDS sufferers as being the sinner in need as they completely ignore their own rotund sin of gluttony exploding over the tops of their waistbands, their egregious sin of pride as they arrogantly judge those they believe worse than themselves, and (to me), worse yet – easily usurp Christ’s position as Judge. These are men of the cloth, shepherds of flocks who you will never see nor hear publicly confess and acknowledge their own glaring sins. They personify why we are given instruction regarding the <a href="http://bible.cc/matthew/7-5.htm" target="_blank"log in the eye.
You’re absolutely right, there are reasons those who claim to be Christians give to exempt themselves from hypocrisy, even if they don’t make sense. And unfortunately, there is a big swath of believers who don’t fully comprehend the breadth and depth of a sinner – primarily themselves. But when you are taught from the pulpit that you are indeed exempt from the “big” sins, what does a little arrogance, pride, gluttony, and essentially, hatred toward your fellow man, matter?
Dana (292dcf) — 7/29/2012 @ 9:51 amactually, I can’t, but the difference is this: the rage I felt was visceral and emotional, based on the notion that I’d just been told by the majority of the voters in my state that my relationship was of less value than theirs.
But liberals – of all people – should recognize that gay marriage IS of a lesser value to society as a whole. Our civilization and society depends on the next generation and the one after that, etc. and sanctioned relationships that produce and nurture the next generation are the most valuable.
That is why heterosexual marriage has been at the foundation of every successful society. We’re doing it… for the children.
Colonel Haiku (6a2396) — 7/29/2012 @ 9:52 amugh, link failure at 70,
You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
Dana (292dcf) — 7/29/2012 @ 9:57 amThis topic reminds me of the Seinfeld episode in which Kramer gets beaten for refusing to where an AIDS ribbon.
AZ Bob (1c9631) — 7/29/2012 @ 10:03 amWear an AIDS ribbon.
AZ Bob (1c9631) — 7/29/2012 @ 10:03 amOr maybe were an AIDS ribbon.
AZ Bob (1c9631) — 7/29/2012 @ 10:04 amThis is a bizarre formulation. If I vote “against” something that never existed I am “hurting” someone?
How is this even possible?
Somebody comes up with a fantasy that isn’t remotely legal now. I vote against legalizing the fantasy. Now I’m being hurtful.
I almost wish I could say, for your sake aphrael, that I’m sorry I’m not voting for gay marriage. But I can’t. Again, for your sake. Gay marriage is a contradiction in terms. I refuse to vote for logical impossibilities. When the term “marriage” is divorced from the concept of procreation it ceases to be marriage at all. (And Puhleeze bring up the false argument that not all marriages produce children as if that somehow invalidates the argument that all legitimate procreation should take place within marriage and that marriages that at least respect the form do not invalidate but in fact reinforce the concept. As if I haven’t heard that before and am not ready for it.)
I have no doubt, aphrael, that you sincerely do not believe that you would be doing any harm by “fundamentally transforming” the definition of marriage to include same sex couples. I submit that is beside the point. To cut to the chase, the only reason gay marriage has become a “Chicago value” to borrow Rahm Emmanuel’s characterization is because the Bill of Rights never was. We already knew they hated the 2nd Amendment in Chicago. I’m fairly certain I’ve heard Emmanuel speak disparagingly of the 10th. Now we know the Mayor of Chicago hates the rights that the 1st is supposed to protect.
We also know the “fundamental transformer-in-chief” does as well.
The only reason gay marriage has been picked up as a banner issue of the left is because they see it as a useful tool to separate people from their rights. Freedom of religion? Freedom of speech? Freedom of association? Those are not “Chicago values.” Practice them, and if Rahm Emmanuel had his way (and Mennino, and nearly all other libs) you would never get a business license. Or even hired; all the Commandant of the Marine Corps did was stand up for the existing policy and according to the editorials that made him unfit to serve (Which also explains why no surveys showed allowing gays in the military was unpopular with the troops; just how stupid do you think they are?).
“Gay marriage” exists as an issue only because people like Emmanuel siezed upon it to advance “Chicago values.” Which you can read up on if you can find an old copy of the Soviet constitution. If it weren’t usefull to them for that purpose, “gay marriage” would be a dead letter. But because it can be used as a bludgeon to threaten people like the owners of Chick-Fil-A, it is very much alive.
I regret if you find any of the above hurtful, aphrael. But it’s the truth. Gay marriage serves no useful social purpose. But it is in the service of a very illegitimate, harmful political purpose. Consequently, it deserves no support but resistance.
Steve57 (d382ec) — 7/29/2012 @ 10:12 amaphrael,
I agree with Sarah Hoyt (and apparently elissa), whe I say that while I support gay marriage wholeheartedly, I view all Marriage Lite schemes as a direct attack on matrimony.
A true social conservative should be more focused on preserving marriage as an institution that on fighting its expansion. The danger with domestic partnership laws is that they provide many of the legal benefits of marriage, but lack the commitment and long-term protections that marriage brings. Marriage is more than just a set of economic benefits and rights, plus sex, but it is also a legal and spiritual exclusive contract with well-litigated consequences for breach. I don’t want to weaken of break that. Not even by calling it something else.
I think that the best thing to do to weaken the opposition would be to pass a state Constitutional amendment that says “Churches are the sole judges of their own membership. The state shall pass no law compelling any church to accept any persons as members, nor to provide spiritual services to non-members.” The reason that many people get their backs up is that the state has a habit of inserting con-discrimination laws into places they don’t belong and it doesn’t take Karnak the Magnificent to see what would happen before too long. Defuse that and we’re done.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 7/29/2012 @ 10:22 am> Maybe some religious believers feel their Bible-based concerns are being treated with similar disrespect
DRJ, absolutely. But I would note that I was responding to a specific individual whose rhetoric on the subject did not suggest that this was his motivation. I certainly agree that this is a legitimate emotional response for those who are motivated by religion and who believe that their religious beliefs are being disrespected.
aphrael (24797a) — 7/29/2012 @ 10:29 amColonel Haiku,
> That is why heterosexual marriage has been at the foundation of every successful society. We’re doing it… for the children
Respectfully, the overwhelming majority of my personal friends who have gotten married (in a traditional, opposite-sex marriage) did *not* do it for the children. A fair number of them intend to never have children. Some of them will, but the reason they got married was to affirm a commitment to one another – for *romantic* reasons rather than the pragmatic its-good-for-the-children reasons you lay out here.
aphrael (24797a) — 7/29/2012 @ 10:31 amI’m against philanderers. I disagree with those who philander, I think it is wrong, even though I understand that doing it fulfills their desires.
Does this mean that I hate philanderers?
Only adolescents would think so.
Amphipolis (e01538) — 7/29/2012 @ 10:32 amColonel was writing about society’s reasons for valuing traditional marriage, not any particular individual’s reasons. You missed the point there.
Chuck Bartowski (99415f) — 7/29/2012 @ 10:36 am> When the term “marriage” is divorced from the concept of procreation it ceases to be marriage at all.
A large number of people who are married in opposite-sex relationships but *intend* to never have children disagree with you, as do their friends and family.
As do a growing number of people who are married in same-sex relationships, and their friends and family.
That said, I think you’re right on one issue: a fair amount of this debate is about whether marriage is about the children that a marriage might produce, or whether it’s about the commitment between the people entering into the relationship. Many, many straight people disagree with you that it’s about the children; and I find the notion that it’s about the children to be entirely inconsistent with the behavior of my friends who have gotten married. Or, for that matter, my *family members* who have gotten married. But I also accept that for many of you on the other side, you honestly believe that.
> Now I’m being hurtful.
You’re not *intending* to be hurtful, so I wouldn’t describe you as being hurtful. I would, however, say that it is possible for people to be hurt without anyone intending to be hurtful.
> Gay marriage serves no useful social purpose
Of course it does. It serves the purpose of helping protect and support long-term committed relationships between gay people, which has the result of making the lives of gay people more stable and, by extension (because stable lives tend to be more succesful lives), helping gay people contribute to society.
aphrael (24797a) — 7/29/2012 @ 10:36 amKevin M – I can completely respect the position of a social conservative who supports gay marriage but views marriage lite schemes as fundamentally problematic.
I would note that I don’t think that explains the voting behavior of the Republicans in the California state legislature, who unanimously opposed both domestic partnerships *and* gay marriage, but I would also note that I can’t possibly hold their behavior against you. 🙂
> state Constitutional amendment that says “Churches are the sole judges of their own membership. The state shall pass no law compelling any church to accept any persons as members, nor to provide spiritual services to non-members.”
I believe such an amendment is unnecessary because the first amendment should already guarantee this. That said, I would vote for such an initiative were it to be put forward in any jurisdiction in which I am eligible to vote.
aphrael (24797a) — 7/29/2012 @ 10:39 amgay marriage is cool!
tasty sammiches are cool!
happyfeet (928ad9) — 7/29/2012 @ 10:44 am> Does this mean that I hate philanderers?
no, of course not. in fact, if you look at what i’ve said, i’ve been very careful to avoid using the word *hate*. A lot of people who are very ardently opposed to same sex relationships are opposed to them out of *love*. I think their love is misguided, and I know that their love is hurtful to many people, but that doesn’t change the fact that they aren’t motivated by hate, and it would be churlish to accuse them of hate.
And yet at the same time … I talk *regularly* to people who are completely disowned by their families when they come out. Whose parents cut off all contact and even, in some cases, kick them out of the house. Often these acts are accompannied by vile, hateful rhetoric about how the person being cut off from the family is a disgusting, foul pervert who deserves to get AIDS and die.
*Those* people are not motivated by love, and their rhetoric, directed *at their own children*, is every bit as bad as the rhetoric Patterico condemns at the start of this post.
Is everyone opposed to same sex marriage cut from the same cloth? Of course not. But those people exist.
So, one last thought for the day before I go off and play board games with friends and ignore the internet, as I do every Sunday afternoon: does the behavior of these parents offend you as much as the rhetoric Patterico that is the subject of this post? Does it make you feel like you don’t want to be associated with them? Why or why not?
aphrael (24797a) — 7/29/2012 @ 10:45 am“but: i strongly believed both Obama and McCain to have been lying about certain things. If *both major party candidates are lying to me*, then I can either hold my nose and vote for one of them, or I can seek out some purist third party candidate who won’t win, and let the rest of the electorate decide which of the two liars they prefer. Or I can throw up my hands and note vote.”
That’s bullshit. The gay groups and yourself all “knew” he was lying to fool idiot rednecks in flyover country. You and yours endorsed that as a legitimate tactic for him to win the election. For you to argue that you “held your nose” when you voted for this piece of shit when you knew he agreed with you is ridiculous. It’s another lie.
Mr Pinks (52f6e4) — 7/29/2012 @ 10:49 am> offend you as much as the rhetoric Patterico that is the subject of this post?
ugh. egregious typing fail.
I started with “the rhetoric Patterico cites, that is the subject of this post”, and somehow mistyped it. My apologies; the result was something which appeared to be either confrontationally directed at our host or appeared to put words in his mouth, neither of which were intended.
So, I rephrase:
I talk *regularly* to people who are completely disowned by their families when they come out. Whose parents cut off all contact and even, in some cases, kick them out of the house. Often these acts are accompannied by vile, hateful rhetoric about how the person being cut off from the family is a disgusting, foul pervert who deserves to get AIDS and die.
*Those* people are not motivated by love, and their rhetoric, directed *at their own children*, is every bit as bad as the rhetoric Patterico condemns at the start of this post.
Is everyone opposed to same sex marriage cut from the same cloth? Of course not. But those people exist.
So, one last thought for the day before I go off and play board games with friends and ignore the internet, as I do every Sunday afternoon: does the behavior of these parents offend you as much as the rhetoric Patterico cited, that is the subject of this post? Does it make you feel like you don’t want to be associated with them? Why or why not?
aphrael (24797a) — 7/29/2012 @ 10:54 amWonderful issues altogether, you simply received a new reader. What might you recommend about your publish that you just made a few days in the past? Any positive?
flooring in Singapore (a1dc75) — 7/29/2012 @ 10:56 amThe real problem here for gay rights is that if you tell people: “Gay Marriage or the 1st amendment; Choose one!” they are going to largely opt for the first amendment. Even if the two things were largely equivalent, the 1st amendment affects everyone, gay marriage mostly only affects gays.
Might as well be saying “Sex, or Monster Trucks; Choose!”
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 7/29/2012 @ 11:02 amI talk *regularly* to people who are completely disowned by their families when they come out. Whose parents cut off all contact and even, in some cases, kick them out of the house. Often these acts are accompannied by vile, hateful rhetoric about how the person being cut off from the family is a disgusting, foul pervert who deserves to get AIDS and die.”
How can anyone believe you? I certainly dont imagine you spend all day talking to people dealing with parents that disown them while wishing they die of aids. If you are willing to endorse Obama lying to th country about his views on gay marriage then why wouldn’t you lie about that too?
Mr Pinks (52f6e4) — 7/29/2012 @ 11:06 amChuck,
I’m sorry you lost a friend over this. You made a good analogy and I hope your former friend thinks about it, instead of trying to dispose of the thought by disposing of your friendship.
If it helps a little, your online friends are still here, including me.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 7/29/2012 @ 11:10 amaphrael,
That makes sense. I didn’t realize the context of your comment and thanks for clarifying that for me.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 7/29/2012 @ 11:12 amMight as well be saying “Sex, or Monster Trucks; Choose!”
Sex
JD (318f81) — 7/29/2012 @ 11:15 amAlso, aphrael, parents say and do bad things to their children now and then. Some are worse than others, of course, and hopefully most live to regret it. I’m not excusing what your gay friends’ parents did or said but straight people’s parents have issues, too.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 7/29/2012 @ 11:16 amYet the fact remains that fertility is something that is inherently central to almost all diverse-sex relationships. It’s something that must be constantly addressed, life decisions must be made. Family is not a peripheral issue for almost every diverse couple. It is a direct result of intimacy. One could say it is the product of intimacy. Generations are engendered.
The two types of relationships are inherently and abidingly different. Fertility is simply the most obvious sign of this.
Amphipolis (e01538) — 7/29/2012 @ 11:16 am____________________________________________
which has the result of making the lives of gay people more stable
Given male sexuality in general (either straight, bi or gay—meaning inherently polygamous behavior), and the large number of gays who also are (and this is very important) politically very liberal or emotionally very leftwing (ie, non-conforming, anti-tradition, and proud of it!), I’m skeptical of your assumptions.
Mark (7b2cc7) — 7/29/2012 @ 11:19 amOnce upon a time I was walking through the mid-west and I came across a gay marriage. It shied away as I approached and as I drew closer I could see it was all alone and shivering. “Why are you so scared little gay marriage I won’t hurt you.”
“Cause of everybody hates me,” sniffed the poor little feller.
“Well I sure don’t hate you.”
“Really?”
“You bet I don’t,” I said super-reassuringly. “Hey you wanna go get a tasty chicken sammich?”
“Um. Ok. That sounds nice.”
And so we went and got tasty chicken sammiches and yes it was very nice and we had this guy take our picture and facebooked it. We still text sometimes.
happyfeet (a12946) — 7/29/2012 @ 11:27 am“*Those* people are not motivated by love, and their rhetoric, directed *at their own children*, is every bit as bad as the rhetoric Patterico condemns at the start of this post.”
Does this mean that you approve of Cheney, who accepted his daughter’s partner lovingly ?
I doubt it but you are playing board games.
Mike K (4c76c8) — 7/29/2012 @ 11:33 amKevin M–I am glad to see that you used the link to the Sarah Hoyt article. It’s long and rambling to be sure, but along the way it makes some very important points that I think a lot of good and well meaning people are missing. In many of our communities it is the absence of respect for a marriage commitment, and the lack of stabilizing influence of marriage for families that has caused such hardship and poverty. I’d like to see the role of marriage commitment encouraged and valued as a social construct everywhere– for families of all stripes..
elissa (1eff2e) — 7/29/2012 @ 11:34 amBtw if anyone thinks this is simply about “being equal” they need to have their head examined. These gay groups are not pro gay groups they are left wing-groups. Next it will be them voting for Obama as he smiles and say “I personally believe in gay marriage but leave it to te people to decide”, and then after the election refuses to defend federal marriage laws. Then it will be prosecuting churches tax exempt status if they don’t perform gay marriages. Then it will be enforcing gay quotas like they do racial. And meanwhile democrat politicians will lie and wink happy in th knowledge that people like alphereal know they are lying until after the next election.
Mr Pinks (52f6e4) — 7/29/2012 @ 11:48 amA statement FWIW having skimmed through the comments:
A topic like this turns into so many things, especially when commentators that are not regulars chime in with stuff I’m often not sure is a real sentiment or “disinformation propaganda” of some sort in the wars of public perception.
And then important things get lost, for those who want to understand with clarity.
The other day I think on another thread JD said something to the effect that he thought being against SSM did not make one anti-homosexual. And I commented that I thought there were people who disagreed with that.
First, is that all correct as people remember it?
Second, if so, from some of aphrael’s statements I think he is inclined to think that if one is against SSM, on is essentially anti-gay.
If I am not correct in that either, please speak up to challenge either my perception or the reality.
As I have written before, I think there sometimes are beliefs which are simply mutually exclusive and for the most part the US govt has tried to stay out of those areas. But ultimately, if what one states they believe on fri., sat., sun., or mon. (even) really means anything pertinent at all, one would think those beliefs have to come into conflict, otherwise one is saying that nothing matters or it is all the same anyway, which appears to me to just be another way of saying nothing really matters.
Of course, having a fundamental and irresolvable conflict does not need to result in hostility, but it does become a challenge in making public policy.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/29/2012 @ 11:50 amI recently saw somewhere the claim that across the US population more people think it is just fine and dandy to either live together before marriage or live together and never get married (combined) than the remnant that believe getting married should occur before “living together”. I think that no matter what one thinks of marriage as an institution, the intellectually honest would have to agree that this is a pretty significant cultural change in a short period of time.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/29/2012 @ 11:56 amThe other day I think on another thread JD said something to the effect that he thought being against SSM did not make one anti-homosexual.
That is the gist of what I was driving at, yes. Not wanting to change the very definition of a centuries old institution does not make a person anti-gay.
JD (318f81) — 7/29/2012 @ 11:59 amRespectfully, the overwhelming majority of my personal friends who have gotten married (in a traditional, opposite-sex marriage) did *not* do it for the children. A fair number of them intend to never have children. Some of them will, but the reason they got married was to affirm a commitment to one another – for *romantic* reasons rather than the pragmatic its-good-for-the-children reasons you lay out here.
Comment by aphrael
Is it not in the best interests of our civil society to promote – elevate, if you will – that which continues the line? We are talking about the natural order of things. Romance and affirming commitments are beautiful in and of themselves, but taking a step back and looking at the issue objectively, is it not clear that heterosexual love and marriage are a cornerstone of healthy, milleniums old tradition?
I believe they are.
Colonel Haiku (6a2396) — 7/29/2012 @ 12:03 pmover the centuries, there was a whole lot of begattin’ goin’ on…
Colonel Haiku (6a2396) — 7/29/2012 @ 12:05 pmThanks JD for confirming my recollection. I wonder how common others feel/think that way, and how often people think that to be against SSM is to be anti-gay, and one is anti-gay unless one is pro SSM.
I guess I will drop this topic if told to, but I think it is a very important point in understanding how the American public feels about homosexuality and SSM. As long as some equate being anti-SSM as being the same as “gay bashers”, it seems everybody publicly is pro SSM, but when it goes to the ballot box SSM is almost always soundly defeated.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/29/2012 @ 12:25 pm@ Aphrael,
I think this is a broad judgment of parents. Most parents love their children with an unending and unconditional love – however – when said child (young adult) comes out, it can certainly be a shock to the system. In some cases, it can be entirely antithetical to their foundational belief system. This can certainly tip over a parent’s life. However, because of that unyielding love for their child, the parents I know confronted with this revelation generally come around. It may take some time, and it make take a lot of introspection and reconsideration of just how big their love for their kid is, but they do come full circle.
As a parent, we are just as fallible as our offspring who may turn their back on our belief system and embrace something entirely different. This is the hard part of parenting putting very real boots-on-the-ground love in action. This is the hard part of being that parent’s child – realizing your parent is just a fallible human being struggling through life like everyone else.
IOW, don’t be quick to judge parents struggling through the revelation. It’s not an easy task for some. But typically, love wins out…in time.
Dana (292dcf) — 7/29/2012 @ 12:26 pmThank you, Patrick, on behalf of myself and the sisters I love.
creeper (f1f686) — 7/29/2012 @ 12:27 pm@ MD,
I’m don’t support SSM, and I could care less if you are gay. Frankly, I don’t care about anyone’s sexual preferences. Don’t shove it in my face and use it as your cause, don’t try to manipulate me with your chosen self-identification, and don’t judge me for the very thing you falsely accuse me of: judging you as a person because I don’t support SSM, thus assuming I don’t like gays. That makes you a liar and hypocrite.
With that, don’t blather to me about how bad and sinful the gays are when you wear your sin of pride and arrogance like a mantle, believing that because you are straight you are surely closer to God and surely more His child. You ugly sinner, I will shun you because your sin goes unaccounted and you mock the sacrificial love of Christ. The same one who bore your sins as He hung from a Cross.
Letting people judge others by the content of their character seems to be a tough order on all sides.
Dana (292dcf) — 7/29/2012 @ 12:35 pm“I’m not going to stop supporting gay rights just because some other supporters are hateful, disgusting people.”
I did.
If the fight for “equal rights” requires depriving others of theirs, or supporting a group who is going to suppress religious liberty and free speech, then I’m not going to support them.
The left loves to use your argument: Democrats support gay rights so you should support gay rights. Even if you disagree with some of our positions, support the Democrats if you’re in favor of gay rights.
That doesn’t work for me. I oppose Democrat positions for a number of reasons. If that means I need to give up my support for gay rights (by voting Republican), then so be it.
I’ve also found that most people who oppose gay marriage aren’t bigots. They just see the incremental steps that the left wants to take to shut down free speech and religions.
egd (920467) — 7/29/2012 @ 12:41 pmAphrael, this is pure fiction. Gay marriage exists in other places, and there is not one iota of evidence that unstable gay relationships become more stable once a society destroys the concept of marriage in order to apply the label to these relationships. In scandinavian countries the evidence is clear; gay marriages are very unstable even if you call them marriages.
I realize that. But then, many straight people have done a great deal of harm to the institution of marriage. And if many straight people no longer comprehend why marriage existed in the first place, am I bound to pretend that I don’t as well?
People pay lip service to the stabilizing effect marriage plays in society. If you gut it of it’s purpose it doesn’t play that role. So yes I realize many straight people have trivialized marriage to the point where you can actually have a debate with people that have convinced themselves that marriage is about the whims and desires of the supposed adults who have entered into it. When in fact marriage can only play a stabilizing role in society when people grow up and realize it’s not about that at all.
It may interest you to know that feminists openly advocate for gay marriage precisely because they want to destroy it. They view marriage as patriarchal and oppressive. In their opinion, gay marriage is the ultimate stake in the heart of something they want to kill deader then dead. Gay marriage means that marriage has been emptied of all meaning. It has become so unimportant, gays can be included in the definition. They have a point. Now in scandinavia, where gay marriage has become accepted, far more children are born outside of wedlock than in it. Gay marriage means marriage has become an irrelevancy.
Steve57 (d382ec) — 7/29/2012 @ 12:47 pm_______________________________________________
Chick-Fil-A PR Head Dies of Heart Attack, Fringe Left Rejoices
FWIW, the executive in question appears to racially have an “African-American” or black/white background, probably very similar to that of the guy now in the White House. So to use the playbook of leftists, that therefore makes their sentiments towards him not just extremely vindictive and ruthless, but racist too!
Mark (7b2cc7) — 7/29/2012 @ 12:50 pmLooking to and dependent upon the government for support, stability and the ability to have a successful life?
Dana (292dcf) — 7/29/2012 @ 12:54 pmI’m don’t support SSM, and I could care less if you are gay. Frankly, I don’t care about anyone’s sexual preferences. Don’t shove it in my face and use it as your cause, don’t try to manipulate me with your chosen self-identification, and don’t judge me for the very thing you falsely accuse me of: judging you as a person because I don’t support SSM, thus assuming I don’t like gays. That makes you a liar and hypocrite.
With that, don’t blather to me about how bad and sinful the gays are when you wear your sin of pride and arrogance like a mantle, believing that because you are straight you are surely closer to God and surely more His child. You ugly sinner, I will shun you because your sin goes unaccounted and you mock the sacrificial love of Christ. The same one who bore your sins as He hung from a Cross.
Letting people judge others by the content of their character seems to be a tough order on all sides.
Flagrantly copying and pasting that from Dana. So awesome it should be read twice.
JD (318f81) — 7/29/2012 @ 12:55 pm“Is it not in the best interests of our civil society to promote – elevate, if you will – that which continues the line? We are talking about the natural order of things. Romance and affirming commitments are beautiful in and of themselves, but taking a step back and looking at the issue objectively, is it not clear that heterosexual love and marriage are a cornerstone of healthy, milleniums old tradition?
– Colonel Haiku
The two aren’t mutually exclusive. Heterosexual people aren’t going to stop having kids just because homosexual people can get married. People talk like allowing gay marriage has some negative effect on straight marriage, and I just don’t see that. How does allowing gay marriage cheapen or weaken straight marriage?
Leviticus (102f62) — 7/29/2012 @ 12:57 pm______________________________________________
It has become so unimportant, gays can be included in the definition.
The human nature behind that phenomenon is evident when school teachers start handing out an A or B grade to all students, even the ones who’d otherwise be earning Cs, Ds or Fs. Or what’s known as grade inflation. Or, similarly, when schools decide to stop awarding trophies to winners in team sports, or even making a distinction between the winner and loser in athletic competition, because — in the mind of left-leaning educators — that hurts the self-esteem of the kids on the losing side.
Another variation of the dumbing down of society is the way the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal no longer seems quite so shocking or lurid. Or I should say that I personally now find myself rather desensitized to such a scandal, compared with my reaction to that type of news back in the late 1990s.
Mark (7b2cc7) — 7/29/2012 @ 1:04 pmI am glad to see that you used the link to the Sarah Hoyt article.
Actually I read it a couple days ago off of Glenn’s link.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 7/29/2012 @ 1:11 pmWhen/if same sex marriage is made legal, the free exercise of religion – guaranteed by the First Amendment – will be under fire. No pastor/reverend/bishop/rabbi should be coerced to marry a same sex couple, no church should be forced to host said weddings, no business should be forced to be put under contract to support those/participate in same sex weddings weddings.
If advocates for same sex marriage were honest about the issue, they would acknowledge that any rights or “privileges” bestowed on a traditional, i.e., heterosexual couple can be given to a same sex couple by way of a civil union. But that is really not what this is all about.
Colonel Haiku (6a2396) — 7/29/2012 @ 1:14 pmThere is a direct correlation between out-of-wedlock births and support for gay marriage. Society reaches a certain tipping point around when approx. 40% of births are outside of marriage. At that point, marriage no longer has a normative effect on society. At that point, people develop a sort of amnesia, forget what marriage was ever about, and therefore can’t think of a reason to oppose a gay version of it. Due to their amnesia, they conclude that because they can’t think up a reason to oppose gay marriage, there are no reasons to oppose gay marriage. Except bigotry.
I’ve saved everyone the trouble of wading through Judge Vaughn Walker’s prop 8 decision. The last two sentences of it distill the essence of his uninformed screed.
Earlier, a much wiser judge than Walker had occasion to opine on the role marriage plays in a society. He observed that marriage is how society reproduces itself. This was a truly profound observation. Note he didn’t say it’s how the human race reproduces. But society.
We are observing that it’s possible for people to have children outside of marriage. But while the population doesn’t decline as a result, society does.
Steve57 (d382ec) — 7/29/2012 @ 1:16 pmIn many of our communities it is the absence of respect for a marriage commitment, and the lack of stabilizing influence of marriage for families that has caused such hardship and poverty. I’d like to see the role of marriage commitment encouraged and valued as a social construct everywhere– for families of all stripes..
BTW, I made a number of similar points myself a few years back when I was blogging at Interocitor (offline). Particularly the part about stability.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 7/29/2012 @ 1:17 pmSo now NYU (noted bastion of tolerance and inclusion) is demanding the Chik Fil A be booted off the campus.
Well overwhelm me with reeking irony. Whatever. These are simply not the brightest bulbs.
Dana (292dcf) — 7/29/2012 @ 1:26 pmtolerance is not enough … YOU WILL APPROVE
quasimodo (47ad5b) — 7/29/2012 @ 1:28 pmI have no problem with celebrating the death of a wicked person. “When the wicked are lost, there is song.” Proverbs 11:10.
But there is no universe in which it is reasonable to consider Mr Perry wicked. Or Mr Cathy, for that matter. He didn’t say anything negative about gay people, or even about gay marriage; he just said that he supports the Xian view of the family. Is every Xian now evil?! After all, 0bama still claims to be a Xian.
Milhouse (15b6fd) — 7/29/2012 @ 1:47 pmWhat happens in places like England or Scandinavia is that secularists take over the churches. No one needs to force a Lutheran pastor in Sweden to consecrate a same sex marriage. Anyone who would be opposed to it has been forced out or marginalized.
The people running the show in these official state churches worship the state. They have nice tame churches like in Soviet Russia or communist China. Churches that reinforce state authority.
Churches that, like marriage itself, are empty.
In that sense these churchmen that in a desperate bid to be “relevant” to what they argue is an evolving society illustrate that you can’t just willy-nilly redefine things and expect those things to perform the same function simply because you kept the name. When you throw away the substance, marriage like religion loses whatever moral force it once had.
I’ve gotten into it with some of these progressive Christians, and found that a hyphenated Christian is no Christian at all. They largely reject the whole point of religion. There mission isn’t to redeem souls but to destroy the evidence. For instance, they’ll argue that St. Paul in his letters to the Corinthians didn’t condemn homosexuality as a sin. They’ll argue that what he was condemning was Greek pederasty.
Which is fine. As long as you don’t realize that Paul spoke Greek fluently. That he was writing originally in Greek. And that there were Greek words he could have used if that was his intention. But he didn’t, because it wasn’t. It’s quite clear in the original Greek that he was in fact condemning homosexuality.
They would much rather prefer you don’t realize that. If you do, you can’t be allowed to be a pastor in their church. Or get a business license in Chicago.
Steve57 (d382ec) — 7/29/2012 @ 1:48 pmInteresting article yesterday on how folks love to call you a homophobe if you oppose SSM. Just because you oppose it does not mean you have a morbid fear of gay people. But that’s how they like to frame it. That kind of dishonesty is what puts a lot of folks off. Me included.
Gazzer (fdf157) — 7/29/2012 @ 2:02 pmhttp://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/the_dumbest_word_in_the_english_language.html
Neither one ever said any such thing.
Neither one was a politician, and nothing they said was remotely political. Is it not precisely the duty of religious leaders to use tragedies to make religious points?
Arbitrarily?! Who suggested any such thing?
Really? That’s an extraordinary view to take. Certainly not a mainstream Xian view. The Bible gives many examples of Divine reward and punishment in this world.
You are saying that God does not run the world, and that He does not shield those who please Him from harm. “If God does not build a house, its builders have worked in vain; if God does not guard a city, its guard is vigilant in vain.” (Psalm 127:1) Or, if you prefer, “It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor.” (George Washington’s Thanksgiving proclamation, 1789)
Falwell and Robertson made a very reasonable point. One may agree or disagree with it, but it’s dishonest to condemn it, let alone to denounce it as unXian. If Providence protects the USA, as most American religious people seem to believe, then it stands to reason that if we sin He may remove that protection. To insist that He will keep it up no matter what we do raises the question of why He’s doing it in the first place.
Milhouse (15b6fd) — 7/29/2012 @ 2:09 pmYou’ve got that exactly backwards. He said that those people did suffer Divine judgment, and therefore other sinners, who are at least as bad as them, should take note lest they suffer the same fate. If the tree doesn’t produce any fruit, its Owner will cut it down, and if He hasn’t done so yet it’s only because He’s hoping for better results next year.
Milhouse (15b6fd) — 7/29/2012 @ 2:15 pmHow was this an attempt to legislate thought? It was clearly about setting policy in the hiring of teachers. People who could not honestly take this oath were not to be subject to any penalty; they would be free to find other employers, or other fields of endeavour. I don’t understand the objection to setting a state policy on some matter of opinion, and ensuring that the public schools, as arms of the state, educate the next generation in accordance with that policy, by hiring teachers who agree with it. The idea that a teacher who disagrees with that policy can be relied on to teach it anyway is ludicrous.
Mind you, I would not have voted for this measure, because I don’t agree with the proposed policy. I don’t think the state should have a position on the “homosexual lifestyle” (to use the phrase you quoted), any more than it should have a position on what languages people should speak (though it should promote fluency in English, and conduct its own business in that language) or what music they should listen to. But it’s legitimate for others to disagree, and to try to make their preferred opinion public policy by submitting it to the voters.
I would support a similar proposal that made communism and racism contrary to public policy, and ensured that communists or racists were not teaching in public schools.
Milhouse (15b6fd) — 7/29/2012 @ 2:47 pmIt’s called the “Bradley Effect“.
Tanny O'Haley (12193c) — 7/29/2012 @ 3:02 pmHow about people who are not churches? Are you OK with the state compelling them to become accomplices in what they consider to be a crime against God and/or nature?
Milhouse (15b6fd) — 7/29/2012 @ 3:06 pmThis is the postModern Leftist call for intolerance in the name of tolerance.
Yeah, makes about as much sense as anything else they stand for.
=================================
OK, since Patrick has indicated he supports Gay Rights, I’m going to take the trouble to post up most of a comment I put up at PopeHat a few months ago (in response to some pro-Gay threads in re: the North Carolina SSM ballots), which post was censored, and led to me removing the site from my common visit list.
I won’t tolerate intellectual dishonesty. You’re welcome to trash my opinions by fisking them to death, but silencing reasonable and politely written dissent isn’t acceptable to me.
The problem I have with so-called “gay rights” is that it’s usually painted as a “who is getting hurt?” scenario. If that were true, then I’d support it too — and keep in mind, I’m not all that adamantly against them even so.
But the fact is, under the current legal system, what is happening is that there are two sets of rights **clashing** — and one group or the other is going to be left wanting. The best situation usually attainable here is one that neither side gets what they want and/but both are equally unhappy with the results.
Text of censored comment follows:
=================================
There are two main problems with the liberal promotion of the G&L lifestyle, and one of them has as an inevitable result the production of kneejerk laws like this.
1) Sorry, there’s a distinction between “tolerance” and “open encouragement”. One can certainly, easily, make an argument that the former social structures that treated gays as criminal, evil, sick, or mentally incapable were wrong. In essence, that tolerance is a better path. It sickens me when you think of a obvious genius like Alan Turing being hounded to death for his sexual preference.
That this former attitude was wrong does not necessarily mean that the other extreme — total acceptance and even open encouragement — is societally correct, either. There’s a middle ground. It’s kind of hard to find people on the political Left who actually grasp this essential context, it’s like they insist that things are either white or black, true or false. For all their claims of “nuance”, from what I’ve seen, it’s far more a matter of nuance in rationalizations than in final outlook. I’ve rarely seen a self-proclaimed member of “The Left” who doesn’t have a strong proclivity to reduce things to On/Off.
In obvious fact, there is an entire spectrum of acceptance between the older criminal/diseased view of G&L and the total acceptance being foist on society by gays and lesbians and their useful idiots of the Left. And yes, if you can’t, or won’t, ack that there might be some kind of appropriate middle ground, then you aren’t thinking at all and are the textbook definition of “Useful Idiot”. That’s not saying you have to agree with that middle ground. You just have to ack that it exists and that the correct answer for society MIGHT lie within it.
2) Secondly relevant is that this issue, in most ways, isn’t ONLY about the rights of Gays & Lesbians. It’s also about the rights of individuals who interact with them, both as individuals and as groups. Yet individuals like Ken and Patrick [Note: The main bloggers @ Popehat] almost always frame the matter as though no possible rational opposition or disagreement could ever exist.
Absent this law, explain to me, please, exactly what prohibits any couple interested in having an SSM performed from demanding that a church allow them to have the marriage on their property, regardless of that specific church’s policy on the matter?
Don’t claim the church is a private group, there are not only historical cases which make that moot — mostly involving civil rights suits — but plenty of more recent examples that could easily be extended into that realm.
Someone’s right is going to be trampled on when two rights come into opposition.
The question isn’t “will they be?”, it’s “whose get trampled?”
I am willing to bet that Patrick’s friends, Elizabeth and Gale, would never be that churlish. But there’s a vast difference between claiming “most wouldn’t” and “none would”.
Here’s a modern instance of much the same thing as I’m talking about:
“Oooohhh, ooooohhh, that B&B owner — she’s being predjudiced!! We can easily ignore her intolerance, and force her to behave ‘properly‘”
No, this IS NOT a rehash of the BLACK thing. That WAS a mindless intolerance. This is about one’s religious views.
Like it or not, the Bible is sufficiently clear about homosexuality being unacceptable behavior. Claiming you have the right to harm someone based on it is questionable. Claiming you have the right to not allow someone to Be Together on your own private property just because you lease it out to others is another thing entirely. The woman sounded at least reasonably polite about it, from the article’s description. She politely declined. These women are the ones in the wrong here. The B&B owner’s rights — religious rights — the right to follow her religion as she professes — are being trampled here. Perhaps this DOES need to be discussed and allowed for. The real question really comes down to who is being harmed, how much, and why? It’s not like these women could not have found lodging elsewhere — at a private business that had no such religious compunctions. No, they want to ram their “rights” down this woman’s throat.
Guess what?
That kind of lawsuit is not happening anytime soon in North Carolina.
And THAT is a part of why this kind of backlash is occurring. Because people of a strong religious persuasion are feeling quite beset by laws forcing them to ignore what is one of their core religious beliefs.
Like it or not, there IS another side to this issue. If G&Ls acked this, they might actually find some middle ground that both sides are equally unhappy with.
But if they keep pushing this without recognizing the rights of those they’re stepping on, there’s going to be a stronger backlash in far more places outside of liberal havens like NY, WI, and Cali. It could stupidly reverse all the gains they’ve made in the last 50 years. And most of that would be an undisputed shame.
——————–
IGotBupkis, Legally Defined Cyberbully in All 57 States (8e2a3d) — 7/29/2012 @ 3:10 pmThat’s pretty much an unaltered copy of what I posted. Anyone cares to explain to me what caused that to deserve censorship in any kind of intellectually honest forum, I’m open to the explanation.
And that itself is a problem. They’re free-riding on an institution whose purpose is the raising of children. That’s OK, so long as they fit the criteria that are dictated by that purpose; on the contrary, the more people who take advantage of the institution, the stronger it is, even if their motives are different. But their marriages are, in a philosophical sense, “second class”. The problem arises when there are so many such marriages that people’s view of the institution changes, and with that change comes calls to change the criteria.
Milhouse (15b6fd) — 7/29/2012 @ 3:11 pmThat is at least a somewhat useful purpose for society, which is why I support civil unions, or some other form of contract that would let same-sex couples live in security and dignity. But while marriage often serves this function for mixed-sex couples, that’s not its purpose.
Milhouse (15b6fd) — 7/29/2012 @ 3:18 pmDo I need to say that that’s sick?
Milhouse (15b6fd) — 7/29/2012 @ 3:21 pmWhere, may I ask? And are you looking for somewhere else to do so? Because I do that approximately every other Sunday, at the Cosi on Park and 31st; come on down one day if you like, and check it out.
Milhouse (15b6fd) — 7/29/2012 @ 3:23 pmYou’ve never offered to play boardgames with me, Milhouse.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/29/2012 @ 3:29 pm“Regularly” doesn’t mean “every day”. And yes, there are unfortunately many such people. Didn’t Alan Keyes do that to his daughter? (Not the wishing her dead part, perhaps, but the kicking out of home part.)
Milhouse (15b6fd) — 7/29/2012 @ 3:31 pmMark at #95, how does any of that make your point? On the contrary, what it shows is that male couples can at least potentially be more stable than mixed-sex ones, because they’re less likely to break up when one or both partners stray, as men are wont to do.
Milhouse (15b6fd) — 7/29/2012 @ 3:36 pmI’m quite sure that aphrael does approve of Cheney’s consistent position on this issue. Or did you mean that he should therefore approve of Cheney generally? I don’t see why it should lead to that conclusion. I mean, I think everyone should approve of Cheney; I wish he were president. But if I had aphrael’s political views I wouldn’t approve of Cheney in general, just on this subject.
Milhouse (15b6fd) — 7/29/2012 @ 3:46 pmDoes that include the Log Cabin Republicans, the Pink Pistols, Gay Patriot, etc.?
Milhouse (15b6fd) — 7/29/2012 @ 3:48 pmExcept of course that the purpose mentioned is an unverified, unverifiable assertion. Indeed, the evidence points to the opposite conclusion. That calling gay relationships marriage does not lead to more stable relationships, but that redefining marriage to include gay relationships erodes the ability of marriage to serve any useful societal purpose at all.
As I mentioned earlier, feminists have long advocated gay marriage because they view marriage and parenthood as inherently oppressive to women. Their goal in advocating gay marriage is to separate the concepts of procreation from marital sex, and to separate the idea of marriage from parenthood.
They view gay marriage as a way to do that. For homosexuals sex and procreation were never the same thing. Historically, heterosexuals have viewed them as if not identical then largely synonymous. Feminists like Kari Moxness in Norway have published editorials openly welcoming gay marriage advocates as useful allies in the feminist campaign against marriage. They see gay marriage as an issue that, when legalized, puts societies stamp of approval on the social changes that spurred scandinavia’s skyrocketing out-of-wedlock birth rate.
Having children as a single mom and living off of the huge social safety net is, in the feminist view, liberating women from marriage and an unequal relationship with a man they must depend upon.
In the feminist view, gays because they by definition have childless relationships are key to divorcing the concept of children and marriage.
You don’t need to go to Norway to find this theme in feminist thought. It’s been quite common since the ’80s. This is why NOW has advocated gay marriage since the mid-90s.
If these people have to pretend to be in favor of conferring some theoretical benefit upon gay couples in their war against marriage, they are perfectly willing to enlist an argument they know to be untrue to get their way.
Prof. Jacobson has a post on the subject of Chick-Fil-A over at Legal Insurrection.
Most important legacy of Obama’s gay marriage switch was freeing Dems to play the “bigot card”
Essentially, gay marriage advocates realize that they’ve pretty much exhausted their ability to persuade. Every argument they’ve tried has proven to be insufficient. So now they’re resorting to naked attempts at intimidation.
And that ultimately these attempts at demonization are doomed to failure. I’ll take it a step further and point out not only will the “bigot card” and the name-calling fail, but it will prove counterproductive as people wake up to what has been the ultimate objective all along.
Steve57 (d382ec) — 7/29/2012 @ 3:57 pmThat didn’t really happen. His death was probably an accident. And he wasn’t hounded; on the contrary, his privileged position was such that the system went out of its way to try to ignore his breaking the law, but he forced it to take notice. Just why he did so is a mystery, but it wasn’t out of political activism. See Abusing Alan Turing.
Milhouse (15b6fd) — 7/29/2012 @ 4:00 pmAre you in NYC? Or going to Worldcon?
Milhouse (15b6fd) — 7/29/2012 @ 4:02 pmThank you for the good writeup. It in fact was a amusement account it. Glance complicated to far introduced agreeable from you! However, how could we keep up a correspondence?
sports training services ,Motorsports Trainin (2b740d) — 7/29/2012 @ 4:34 pm#53
Sounds like CYA… nothing like putting horny 200lbs 18 yr old guys in with a 110lbs 15 yr old… hey… bend over and enjoy yourself
SteveG (831214) — 7/29/2012 @ 4:45 pmCleanup on aisles 87 and 143.
Milhouse (15b6fd) — 7/29/2012 @ 4:50 pm#55
aphrael
I disagree with you… but I empathize with how you feel.
SteveG (831214) — 7/29/2012 @ 4:58 pmI have no idea how to make this one “whole” for everyone.
Someone is going to have to take a hit that will leave a scar… I think it is the gay and lesbian communities because because gay rights are; historically speaking, late to the party… but if the majority of voters say nope, I am OK with that.
I pray that you and your partner find peace, rest, comfort, and joy with each other for the rest of your lives regardless of the legal mumbo jumbo.
Remember you love each other and no one can take that from you.
In the end I will capitulate because I know too many gay men who absolutely love each other to extend the quarrel…
________________________________________________
Mark at #95, how does any of that make your point? On the contrary, what it shows is that male couples can at least potentially be more stable than mixed-sex ones
Milhouse, the only thing that I admit to being surprised by is that apparently same-sex marriages among women may be more volatile (ie, prone to splitting up) than among same-sex male couples.
I’d have one major question for researchers like the ones who did the paper I linked to. And that’s whether the political — not just sexual — orientation of a high percentage of GLBTers (meaning most of them being of the left) has some bearing on their socio-cultural stability in general. Or their being more likely to scoff at and take “normative pressure” less seriously.
Mark (7b2cc7) — 7/29/2012 @ 5:10 pmThat’s probably an accurate way to phrase this, as it captures the essence of the fact that gay marriage advocates are the aggressors here.
This is not something gay marriage advocates tolerate very well when that’s pointed out. They immediately play the victim.
But I can’t imagine ever capitulating as I see that as a reward for bad behavior. Gay marriage fails whenever it’s put to the vote. There really isn’t an argument for it. And the only reason it’s legal in 8 states is because activist judges have seized upon historically dishonest theories to advance what is clearly their partisan agenda.
Just like they deny being the aggressors in a culture war to redefine society to their liking, gay marriage advocates like Judge Walker deny the fact that they’re redefining marriage while they’re engaged in the act of redefining it. Walker makes the risible, and quite transparently self-serving and false argument, that marriage has always included gay marriage. It’s just that people’s religious bigotry has blinded them to that fact. Which is insane, in addition to dishonest.
Besides, it is in fact a loser of a political issue. Not just here but in the UK as well. There is no groundswell of popular support for it.
How Mr Cameron’s obsession with gay marriage is killing the Tory party
Apparently Cameron has presided over a 60% decline in party membership since he took over leadership, not entirely due to his support for gay marriage. Cameron has betrayed a lot of conservative causes; take your pick. But a great deal of this decline is do to his insulting stand on gay marriage.
What’s interesting is that the author of that article I linked to in the Daily Telegraph is gay. And an opponent of gay marriage.
So I see no reason to “capitulate.” I don’t see any reason to. In fact, I see many encouraging signs that my principled opposition to same sex marriage as a non sequitur is winning the day. It is in fact an opposition that I share with many gay people. And I see the tantrums that these mayors are throwing over Chick-fil-A not towing the liberal line is a sign of desperation as they realize they’re on the losing side of the argument.
You don’t need an “office of ideological compliance” as part of your permitting process to advance a popular cause.
Steve57 (d382ec) — 7/29/2012 @ 5:48 pmThank you, DRJ, I appreciate it.
For what it’s worth, this former friend wasn’t much of a friend, anyway. And since I’ve moved to Austin, I doubt that I would have seen her or her husband again had this rift not occurred.
Even funnier, she professes to be a devout Catholic.
Chuck Bartowski (99415f) — 7/29/2012 @ 6:06 pmNow, the Catholic Church definitely needs an “office of ideological compliance.” And they need that office to vet their religious types. And their press releases.
Perhaps if priests and nuns adopted some Catholic positions, and then told the flock what those were, the laity such as your former friend might as well.
Steve57 (d382ec) — 7/29/2012 @ 6:11 pmChurches that, like marriage itself, are empty.
I’ve heard from family and friends about these beautiful, empty church buildings, Steve57.
Colonel Haiku (6a2396) — 7/29/2012 @ 6:59 pmNot true. In NY it was duly passed by the legislature.
Milhouse (15b6fd) — 7/29/2012 @ 9:12 pmExactly. Remember when Sir Elton John got flak for singing at Rush Limbaugh’s wedding, because of Limbaugh’s opposition to same-sex marriage? The critics looked silly when they found out that John agrees with Limbaugh!
Milhouse (15b6fd) — 7/29/2012 @ 9:17 pmThanks for every other informative blog. Where else may I am getting that kind of info written in such an ideal manner? I’ve a challenge that I’m simply now running on, and I have been at the look out for such info.
landed property singapore (4fc225) — 7/30/2012 @ 6:58 amI bought 3 Chick-Fil-A sandwiches Saturday because Iowa City is 100 miles away from me.
TAKE THAT LEFT WING HATERS!!!
PCD (1d8b6d) — 7/30/2012 @ 7:20 amKevin M, at 88: the thing is, there is no conflict between recognizing gay marriage at the state level, and the first amendment. Whether the state recognizes gay marriage or not, the first amendment protects the right of any church to only extend its religious sacraments to those whom it considers deserving of them.
Now, it’s an interesting question whether anti discrimination ordinances which cover sexual orientation require churches to hire gay employees or rent their halls to gay couples (if they already rent their halls to non-gay persons who are using them for ceremonies which are not sacramental in nature — a church which allows the celebration of marriages which are not recognized by the church, but are nonetheless celebrated in the church’s hall, is in a different position than one which reserves the use of the hall to marriages which are recognized by the church). The general consensus is that such anti-discrimination laws *do* apply except in the context of employees who are in certain kinds of position where they are exercising sacerdotal authority.
But that’s anti discrimination law, not marriage … and anti discrimination laws are far more widely accepted than same sex marriage is.
aphrael (24797a) — 7/30/2012 @ 7:20 amDRJ, at 93: parents do bad things to their childrn now and then, sure. But this particular one is really, incredibly bad. And … it’s very, very rare from what I can tell for parents who have engaged in the kind of behavior I referenced in 85/86 to change their mind. Usually it’s a permanent break in the family.
aphrael (24797a) — 7/30/2012 @ 7:21 amMike K, at 97, one of the reasons I mentioned that I was playing board games was so that when I stopped responding people wouldn’t think I had wandered off. 🙂
> Does this mean that you approve of Cheney
There are a lot of things on which I disagree with Cheney, and in particular there are a lot of things that he did as vice President where I disapprove of how he handled the job and the policy positions he took.
But *on this issue*, yes, absolutely I approve of him. Based on what I can tell, the way he treated his daughter and his daughter’s wife partner exemplify the very best reaction that a gay child could expect her parents to have. I would hold him up as an example, an object lesson in how I would like socially conservative parents to behave when their children come out to them.
aphrael (24797a) — 7/30/2012 @ 7:24 amMr. Pinks, at 99, I can only speak for myself, of course, but I think it’s about being equal.
I want the state of which I am a citizen, to which I pay taxes, which has proclaimed as a founding principle that it believes people should be treated equally before the law, to treat my long-term exclusive monogamous committed relationship with the same regard it treats my brother’s long-term exclusive monogamous committed relationship.
I have no interest in forcing a church, of which I am not a member, to perform gay marriages; a church has the fundamental right to marry whom it chooses, because a church marriage is a *religious act* and the church rightly determines who it extends its religious sacraments to. A state marriage, on the other hand, is a secular act, and the state should not discriminate against me in favor of my brother.
I also have no interest in ‘gay quotas’; I think the notion is silly. I would prefer that employment decisions across the board be made on the basis of merit, and if anything I would argue that characteristics which are not relevant to the job, sexuality among them, should simply not be used to make hiring or firing decisions.
aphrael (24797a) — 7/30/2012 @ 7:29 amI would hold him up as an example, an object lesson in how I would like socially conservative parents to behave when their children come out to them.
You could leave out socially conservative, as any parent would be well served to act in such a manner.
JD (dfa70c) — 7/30/2012 @ 7:30 amMd in Philly, at 100:
> Second, if so, from some of aphrael’s statements I think he is inclined to think that if one is against SSM, on is essentially anti-gay.
I’m not sure how you reconcile that with my commen at 85/86:
“no, of course not. in fact, if you look at what i’ve said, i’ve been very careful to avoid using the word *hate*. A lot of people who are very ardently opposed to same sex relationships are opposed to them out of *love*. I think their love is misguided, and I know that their love is hurtful to many people, but that doesn’t change the fact that they aren’t motivated by hate, and it would be churlish to accuse them of hate.”
I *do* think that people who are opposed to same sex marriage believe that my marriage to my husband is of lesser value to society than any marriage between a man and a woman is. That belief does not require someone to be anti-gay, per se.
> Of course, having a fundamental and irresolvable conflict does not need to result in hostility, but it does become a challenge in making public policy.
Right. Which is why we’ve been having this argument for 20 years now and will likely continue having it for 20 more.
aphrael (24797a) — 7/30/2012 @ 7:32 amHaiku, i’d say that it’s clear that love and marriage are a cornerstone of healthy, milleniums old tradition, and that allowing homosexual couples to participate in it *strengthens* it rather than weakens it.
aphrael (24797a) — 7/30/2012 @ 7:33 amDana, at 106: I agree that as a parent, you’re just as fallable as your offspring and that this is a difficult thing for children to come to terms with. No question about it.
> the parents I know confronted with this revelation generally come around
a lot do, yes.
usually, though, the ones who do don’t have as viscerally negative a reaction as the one I described in 85/86. And a lot of parents who *do* have that reaction, never come around. It’s not uncommon for gay men to have had no contact whatsoever with their parents for fifteen, twenty years, because their parents never came around, or took so long (many, many years) that their son gave up on hoping that they *could* come around.
aphrael (24797a) — 7/30/2012 @ 7:37 amSteve57,
> It may interest you to know that feminists openly advocate for gay marriage precisely because they want to destroy it. They view marriage as patriarchal and oppressive.
This view of marriage was a hallmark of a certain kind of feminism a generation ago. It is very, very rare for anyone to hold it today.
aphrael (24797a) — 7/30/2012 @ 7:40 amAphrael – marcotte ?!
JD (dfa70c) — 7/30/2012 @ 7:45 amDana, at 112:
I was describing what the *societal interest* in state recognized marriages is.
I was *not* describing what a *gay couple’s* interest in state recognized marriages is.
In some ways i’m a bad spokesperson for the second question. I’m a married gay man who, despite being married during the six months it was legal in California, didn’t get legally married and who, despite living in New York, hasn’t gotten legally married. In part that’s because my husband is a libertarian state-should-have-no-business-being-involved-in-marriage-at-all type, and in part it’s because, as I said in #55:
only my husband and I decide if we’re married, the state has no power to declare my marriage illegitimate. My friends and family certainly have the power to choose to recognize it or not, and that recognition matters; but they all recognize it notwithstanding the state’s refusal to do so.
so no, I do not look to, and am not dependant on, the government for support, stability, and the ability to have a successful life.
But … it’s been statistically proven time and again that marriage makes people more economically successful, because it encourages the pooling of resources and joint decision making on spending. long term commitment makes people’s lives more emotionally stable. the *state* has an interest in encouraging such outcomes.
These statements don’t contradict one another. 🙂
aphrael (24797a) — 7/30/2012 @ 7:47 am> No pastor/reverend/bishop/rabbi should be coerced to marry a same sex couple
agreed
> no church should be forced to host said weddings,
agreed
>no business should be forced to be put under contract to support those/participate in same sex weddings weddings.
here’s where i disagree: if a state has a general anti-discrimination law which prohibits businesses engaged in public accomodation from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, which many states do, those laws apply to tuxedo rental places every bit as much as they apply to restaurants.
now, you can argue that businesses should be free to refuse to do business with gay people for any reason whatsoever, but at the point you make that argument, it’s no longer about gay marriage. 🙂
aphrael (24797a) — 7/30/2012 @ 7:50 amSteve57, at 123: note also that in England and Scandinavia, the state and the church have been intertwined for centuries. The development of democracy in a place where the state and the church are intertwined cannot help but dumb down the teaching of the church; when the *state church* has to account for democratic governance, rigor of doctrine will inevitably fall.
This is a good reason to be glad that we have no established churches in the United States. 🙂
aphrael (24797a) — 7/30/2012 @ 7:51 amIGotBupkis, at 130:
the lawsuit at your link has nothing to do with gay marriage.
> The lawsuit claims the business violated Hawaii’s public accommodation law prohibiting any inn or other establishment that provides lodging from discriminating based on sexual orientation, race, sex, gender identity or expression, religion, ancestry or disability.
Hawaii passed a law prohibiting this behavior. They did so in 2006. Under that law, the couple has a right to sue.
I’m pretty sure you disagree with that law. But … 21 states have passed such laws, and it’s hardlya new thing; the earliest of them dates to 1989. The New Jersey law which was at issue in the boy scouts case was passed in 1992.
> The real question really comes down to who is being harmed, how much, and why? It’s not like these women could not have found lodging elsewhere — at a private business that had no such religious compunctions.
On some level it seems to me that what you’re saying is that the woman running a B&B should be exempt from the application of HI’s law while Marriott shouldn’t be. But, as a matter of law, how do you differentiate between the two?
aphrael (24797a) — 7/30/2012 @ 7:58 am“In Mayor Menino’s Boston, if you take the same view of marriage as President Obama did from 2009 to 2012, he’ll run your homophobic ass out of town. But, if you want to toss those godless sodomites off the John Hancock Tower, he’ll officiate at your ribbon-cutting ceremony.”
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/30/2012 @ 7:58 amMilhouse, at 134: with a group I met through the reddit nyc board game meetup group; we play at someone’s flat in Brooklyn.
I’m not looking for a new gaming group *on Sunday* because i’ve been playing with these guys weekly for months, which means I know them all, and there’s a great comfort when you’re in a strange city and work mostly from home in having a social circle that you see regularly. But I could certainly be interested in gaming on a different night. 🙂
aphrael (24797a) — 7/30/2012 @ 7:59 am> I pray that you and your partner find peace, rest, comfort, and joy with each other for the rest of your lives regardless of the legal mumbo jumbo.
thank you! 🙂
> Remember you love each other and no one can take that from you.
oh, absolutely. 🙂
> In the end I will capitulate because I know too many gay men who absolutely love each other to extend the quarrel
i’ve long been of the opinion that the best thing any gay person can do for the cause of gay rights is to be open about who they are and to conduct their lives as normal people. polls have shown time and time again that people who personally know openly gay people tend to be more supportive of same sex marriage and of employment non discrimination laws than people who don’t. that’s not an accident.
aphrael (24797a) — 7/30/2012 @ 8:03 amMilhouse, at 152:
> Not true. In NY it was duly passed by the legislature.
And in particular, it was passed by the legislature *on its own initiative* (well, honestly, probably on the Governor’s initiative) rather than because a court had ordered it to do something.
aphrael (24797a) — 7/30/2012 @ 8:04 amJD, at 160, true, but the fact that he’s a social conservative makes me more impressed with it. 🙂
aphrael (24797a) — 7/30/2012 @ 8:04 amDennis Prager makes a good logical point. He says same sex marriage has to rest on the idea that there’s no difference between men and women which is absurd. Seems hard to deny that that’s the implied premise of gay marriage. Having two daddy’s or two mommies is no different than a mommy and a daddy. Of course marriage doesn’t automatically involve children but that’s an irrelevant point.
My foremost objection to gay marriage is that it is against God’s will.
Gerald A (b00ac1) — 7/30/2012 @ 8:24 amAphrael at 161:
Thank you for responding to my thoughts and questions at #100.
I was basing my comments on what you said at #55:
The people of my state had just voted to say that my marriage was illegitimate. (No, I wasn’t legally married. No, it doesn’t matter. The people had still said that they thought that my marriage shouldn’t be recognized and wasn’t legitimate). A majority of the voters in my state had just declared that my marriage *could never be* legitimate in their eyes. I have rarely felt as angry about something political, because it was impossible not to take it personally, not to feel as though the majority of the people of my home state had declared my marriage to be of less value than theirs and, by extension, my happiness to be of less value than theirs. As an adult, I don’t think I’ve ever experienced such a profound sense of rejection
I took that to mean that you thought if a person was not supportive of same sex marriage they were anti-gay, in that you took it as a deep personal offense.
What I’m hearing you say in clarification is that you believe some can be against SSM (not civil unions) but not against gays, but that you still find that attitude to be hurtful. That is a distinction I can understand, if I am understanding you correctly.
I think we are in agreement as to what churches should be free to do “within their own camp”, I think it does get more difficult when discussing how people of various belief interact with the larger society. For example, the owners of a bed and breakfast may have a rule against any alcoholic beverages due to their religious convictions. I think that would be immune to a discrimination suit. I think they should also be able to have policies to deny a heterosexual couple who are not married or a same sex couple whether married or not if they feel renting their facility would be endorsing the behavior. I don’t necessarily think it is or that such should be the policy, but I can see how it would be a violation of the person’s conscience if a government authority said they needed to if they wanted a business license.
To some degree, this is a common problem I think if/when we believe all human interaction can be clarified by a legal code.
I have known of religious organizations that officially would not recognize gay activity as being “OK”, and would fight being told they “had to” employee people in the gay lifestyle that nonetheless do employ people of differing views on an individual basis.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/30/2012 @ 8:42 am#169 may have come up while I was typing (I type slow)
yes, I would disagree with the law in HI. I think it is potentially forcing someone to violate their religious principles, which should be protected under the 1st Amendment.
One could say, “well, they can stop their business if they don’t like the regulations”. that’s true, but I don’t think that is what the 1st Amendment was really supposed to do.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/30/2012 @ 8:48 am_____________________________________________
Remember when Sir Elton John got flak for singing at Rush Limbaugh’s wedding, because of Limbaugh’s opposition to same-sex marriage? The critics looked silly when they found out that John agrees with Limbaugh!
That example reminds me of how much it’s the pure politics or ideology — the pure leftism — behind the “GLBT” activism that irritates me far more than anything else. Of course, Elton John hardly is politically of the right because of one issue, but if he were truly centrist to conservative in general, and if the GLBT populace were less overwhelmingly of the left, I’d find the point of “what you do behind closed doors is nobody’s business but your own” even more ridiculously obvious, even more of a flat-out given.
That’s why it would be interesting if researchers analyzed how liberal instincts and homosexuality go hand-in-hand, how the two correlate to each other. After all, researchers have attempted to find a link between homosexuality and other innate traits in the human, including left-handedness or other proclivities (eg, male gays being into Broadway show tunes, female gays being into sports).
Mark (7b2cc7) — 7/30/2012 @ 8:52 amMD in Philly – on the other hand, when a native american church tried to claim an exemption from the law banning peyote use *so that they could use it in their religious ceremonies*, they were told that the first amendment does *not* grant religious groups exemptions from laws of general applicability, just because the tenets of the religion conflict with those laws.
why should anti-discrimination laws be different from laws banning peyote in this regard?
aphrael (24797a) — 7/30/2012 @ 9:02 amIt is very rare for them to openly admit it today. They have to argue that, no, really, gay marriage strengthens institution of marriage! Even though they know that’s not true.
Steve57 (d382ec) — 7/30/2012 @ 9:20 amSomebody essentially lend a hand to make critically articles I would state. That is the very first time I frequented your website page and thus far? I amazed with the research you made to make this particular publish extraordinary. Wonderful job!
singapore protection systems (c37cd9) — 7/30/2012 @ 9:39 amWhat anti-discrimination law(s) are same sex marriage opponents claiming shouldn’t be enforced?
Gerald A (b00ac1) — 7/30/2012 @ 10:13 amHi Gerald, respectfully, I don’t think you’re following the conversation.
IGotBupkis pointed, in 130, to a legal dispute stemming from a B&B’s failure to comply with a Hawaii law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, by those providing public accomodations (like hotel rentals). He did not discuss the existence of the anti-discrimination law.
I noted, in 169, that Hawaii passed a general anti-discrimination law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, in the provision of public accomodations, and speculated that he would disagree with the law.
MD in Philly noted, in 177, that he would disagree with the anti-discrimination law I referred to.
I asked, in 179, why he thinks that anti-discrimination laws of this sort are prohibited by the first amendment (or conflict with them), given the Supreme Court’s holding that the first amendment doesn’t grant religious groups exemption from laws of general applicability.
You asked, in 182, in *direct response to my question in 179*, which laws same-sex marriage opponents were claiming should not be enforced.
—-
Obviously, MD in Philly does not speak for all same sex marriage opponents. But clearly, *he himself* has said that he opposes the Hawaii law under discussion in the thread above. He’s not saying that it shouldn’t be enforced given that it is a law, but then again neither have I said that he has said so. He’s saying he opposes it on the grounds that it ptoentially forces someone to violate their religious beliefs, and i’m asking him how he squares that with a general legal rule.
Your question makes no sense given the context, unless you’re unaware of the context. But if you’re unaware of the context, it means you’re really not following the conversation. 🙂
aphrael (24797a) — 7/30/2012 @ 11:45 amI can’t speak for the Doc, aphrael, but in my opinion your peyote example wasn’t exactly on point. It is one thing to prevent someone from using a substance. It is another to force someone to participate in an activity that is in direct contradiction to the dictates of their conscience.
It reminds me a bit too much of how the Romans would force people to participate in pagan religious ceremonies in worship of the Emperor, in order to identify and persecute the Christians.
Steve57 (d382ec) — 7/30/2012 @ 11:58 amTo elaborate, if they re-instituted prohibition tomorrow it would be difficult to celebrate a traditional Catholic mass if there was no religious exemption for sacramental wine.
But no one is, at that point, forcing the Catholics to say or take any affirmative action that violates their faith.
Steve57 (d382ec) — 7/30/2012 @ 12:01 pmSteve57, then you’re just wrong about the state of first amendment law as interpreted by the Supreme Court.
I quote from the majority opinion in Employment Dept. of Oregon v. Smith, which was written by Justice Scalia:
—START QUOTE—
We have never held that an individual’s religious beliefs [p879] excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition. As described succinctly by Justice Frankfurter in Minersville School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586, 594-595 (1940):
Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities.
(Footnote omitted.) We first had occasion to assert that principle in Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879), where we rejected the claim that criminal laws against polygamy could not be constitutionally applied to those whose religion commanded the practice. “Laws,” we said,
are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. . . . Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.
Id. at 166-167.
Subsequent decisions have consistently held that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a
valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes).
—END QUOTE—
The decision goes on to say:
–QUOTE—
Our most recent decision involving a neutral, generally applicable regulatory law that compelled activity forbidden by an individual’s religion was United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. at 258-261. There, an Amish employer, on behalf of himself and his employees, sought exemption from collection and payment of Social Security taxes on the ground that the Amish faith prohibited participation in governmental support programs. We rejected the claim that an exemption was constitutionally required. There would be no way, we observed, to distinguish the Amish believer’s objection to Social Security taxes from the religious objections that others might have to the collection or use of other taxes.
If, for example, a religious adherent believes war is a sin, and if a certain percentage of the federal budget can be identified as devoted to war-related activities, such individuals would have a similarly valid claim to be exempt from paying that percentage of the income tax. The tax system could not function if denominations were allowed to challenge the tax system because tax payments were spent in a manner that violates their religious belief.
Id. at 260. Cf. Hernandez v. Commissioner, 490 U.S. 680 (1989) (rejecting free exercise challenge to payment of income taxes alleged to make religious activities more difficult). [p881]
—END QUOTE—
Except in the *extremely limited* set of circumstances where someone can claim both that their free exercise *and some other constitutionally protected right* are simultaneously being infringed, there is no exemption from anti-discrimination law on the basis of securely held religious beliefs. A law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is “a valid and neutral law of general applicability”, and the members of a religion are *not* constitutionally entitled to an exemption “on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes).”
——
It is true, of course, that Congress has provided such an exemption from *federal* laws of general applicability, via the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. But that law does *not* apply to states or local governments; the Supreme Court held that an attempt to do so was an invalid exercise of federal power, in a 6-3 decision in which Kennedy, Rehnquist, Stevens, Scalia, Thomas, and Ginsburg agreed that the law was unconstitutional as applied to the states, while Souter, Breyer, and O’Connor dissented.
aphrael (24797a) — 7/30/2012 @ 12:17 pmI think this issue was touched on in another thread when JD talked about something called “strict scrutiny”, which I don’t understand in much detail as it being a relatively nuanced SCOTUS constitutional interpretation thing I guess, which at times appears to be more of making it up as they go along. I guess a government that can tell you you can’t grow wheat on your own land to eat can also tell you that you can’t use peyote no matter whose land it is grown on.
As far as religious belief conflicting with “general legal rule” this is where I can only say what I think or wonder, as I do not have the legal understanding to make any worthwhile comments based on the law. I guess freedom of religion cannot be taken to be carte blanche, or even human sacrifice would be demanded not just peyote (although some would argue that human sacrifice has been demanded and granted, as long as the religion is secularism).
But as Steve57 suggests I don’t think it would be hard to see where a general rule of law could not be religious persecution. In fact, in the case as discussed, the B+B owners have a choice of violating their conscience, violating the law in protest and risk/deal with prosecution, or quitting the business, which would be arguable bowing to persecution.
Right of conscience in medicine is another example. It may be legal to sell a medication that will potentially cause what some would argue is an early abortion. Is a pharmacist required by law to dispense the prescription or be fired or have his/her license taken?
To the degree the culture retains concepts from the Judeo-Christian tradition, one would not expect the legislature to make general law that runs counter to cultural norms. As the culture drifts from its history, then it would seem such conflict becomes increasingly inevitable, except to the degree the original Constitution constricts/limits deviation unless explicit amendment.
Societal rejection and persecution of Christian religious beliefs has been the overall norm throughout the centuries and the world, even at times when the government claimed authority based on one particular religious/”christian” authority. It is certainly possible that this will become more the norm in the US as well. I just would like to do my little part to help people understand what they are choosing when they do it.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/30/2012 @ 12:27 pmOh, in that case we’ve probably met. I was the guy in the yarmulke who brought Thurn & Taxis.
Milhouse (4c63ea) — 7/30/2012 @ 12:31 pmOf course there is the ultimate issue of which law a human being chooses to obey. One discussion is how the legal system pertains to a matter, the other discussion is whether one chooses to obey a civil law if they think it is in conflict with their religious obligation. I assume at one time in nazi germany and occupied countries that there were “general laws” regarding hiding vs. identifying Jews. Some would disobey those laws. Of course I am not equating anything we are talking about with US law as directly comparable to laws in nazi Germany, i’m just using extreme examples to make the general point clear.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/30/2012 @ 12:34 pmFor a historical US example, pre-civil war it was customary in some states to make education of slaves and children of slaves illegal. Some people broke this law, often in the context of religious instruction, thinking it was important for all to be able to read (especially the Bible) no matter race. I guess that would have been a general law, no matter how ill conceived, in conflict with what some saw as their religious duty.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/30/2012 @ 12:43 pmBut it is. I don’t think discrimination should be illegal at all, but let’s leave that aside because it’s irrelevant here. Suppose we agreed that discrimination against gay people because they’re gay should, in general, be illegal. Requiring people to rent tuxedos or take photos or print invitations for same sex weddings goes far beyond that: it forces people to become direct accomplices in something that they regard as a crime.
It’s just like forcing a nurse to assist in what she sees as murdering a child. Even the Nazis didn’t force their soldiers to participate in shooting Jews; the records show that there were “conscientious objectors” and they were not punished.
The same applies here: if someone regards a same-sex marriage as inherently wrong, then it’s wrong to force her to facilitate it, even if one believes that it’s OK to force people to do business with people they don’t like.
Milhouse (4c63ea) — 7/30/2012 @ 12:43 pmBy whether the owner has religious beliefs that preclude her, him, or it from accepting the business. That level of examination is standard in Free Exercise cases; courts routinely inquire into what religious beliefs a petitioner sincerely holds. Corporations may also have religious principles written into their articles of incorporation; there’s a case in Colorado right now where a corporation has been granted a temporary injunction on the basis of its religious principles (under RFRA rather than the Free Exercise clause).
Milhouse (4c63ea) — 7/30/2012 @ 12:48 pmMD, so lets move it out of the realm of case law into the realm of theory. I think that the *problem* is visible in that context, even if you disagree with the solution.
Imagine that a branch of the church of secular humanism (there is such a church) concluded that God had commanded that people drive on the left side of the road. They sue, saying, hey, our freedom to exercise our religion requires that you let us drive on the left side of the road! God commanded us to do so. You’re interfering with our following our religious beliefs.
(Yeah, this is a ridiculous example. Philosophical and legal hypotheticals often are).
The state can respond in a couple of ways.
(a) it can say, go away, a rule of general applicability can be enforced even against those whose religious beliefs disagree with the law. this is the current rule in the US.
(b) it can say, you’re right. we have to let you exercise your religion by driving on the left side of the road. But … this is a problem, partly because as a result the roads quickly become unsafe, but more generally because this doctrine, if accepted everywhere, renders the state without any power to regulate anything; *any* group claiming to have a deeply held religious belief can make itself exempt from any rule. Over time, it’s virtually certain that this will happen to every rule of note.
(c) it can say, go away, you’re not a real religion. you’re a fake religion organized just get around the law. but … this is very, very dangerous, because it involves the state arrogating to itself the power to determine which religions are deserving of protection and which aren’t. under that system, there’s nothing to keep the state from deciding that, say, scientology isn’t a real religion, and then holding that scientology isn’t entitled to first amendment protection. this is a very, very dangerous route.
(d) it can say, go away, you don’t *really* believe that, you’re just pretending to. this is even worse: it involves the state in determining what religious beliefs are, or are not, deeply held.
none of these are good solutions. i hated it in 1992 when _Smith_ was decided, but i’ve come to the conclusion that (a) is the least bad of the lot.
aphrael (24797a) — 7/30/2012 @ 12:49 pmMilhouse, at 88, I don’t recall meeting someone in a yarmulke who brought thurn and taxis. i showed up around 4 on sunday, hid in the back bedroom playing battlestar galactica until around midnight, then played another game of galactica out in the living room.
perhaps we should move this offline? my gmail address is the same as my username here. 🙂
aphrael (24797a) — 7/30/2012 @ 12:51 pmSorry, logic fail. One can acknowledge the difference, but hold that it’s irrelevant to the question. Partners in marriage are usually different in many respects, and the same in many others. Requiring that they be of different sexes can logically be compared to requiring that they be of different races, or speak different languages, or like different kinds of music, none of which are usually considered to be necessary for a marriage.
Milhouse (4c63ea) — 7/30/2012 @ 12:53 pmUh no there’s no logical connection between raising children and being of different races etc.
Gerald A (b00ac1) — 7/30/2012 @ 1:00 pmComment by aphrael — 7/30/2012 @ 11:45 am
Now I understand what you’re talking about.
A possibly significant difference between a peyote law and the anti-discrimination statute is that the first is a ban on an activity. The discrimination statute is requiring someone to do something. It’s sort of similar to the issue about requiring people to buy insurance even though the Commerce Clause doesn’t come into play in the case of Hawaii’s law.
Gerald A (b00ac1) — 7/30/2012 @ 1:10 pmAphrael, I won’t argue with you about the state of the law beyond noting that the state of the law never remains static. A US federal judge recently struck down a Washington state law requiring pharmacists to stock emergency abortifacients. When the goal of a law, and an agency like the state pharmaceutical licensing body, is to target and suppress religious objections then that isn’t a legitimate goal of goverment. A law can’t target one’s business professional license in order to violate your 1st Amendment rights regardless of the general rule.
The wisdom of these latest moves are going to prove bad policy. They may well fall into the same general category as the Washington law. I’m including the HHS mandate in with some of these state moves on gay marriage (a federal judge just imposed a temporary injunction against the federal government and providing relief to the owners of a HVAC company in Colorado from providing drugs and services that violate the owners Catholic beliefs; the judge ruled the owners would suffer “irreparable harm”).
Targeting religious belief isn’t the same thing as improving anyone’s access to a good or service. For instance, Catholic Charities has been forced out of the adoption business in places like Illinois because they won’t place a child with a gay couple. In the past, if a gay couple tried to adopt through the Catholic agency, they’d politely tell them they couldn’t serve them as that violated their beliefs but direct them to several agencies that would serve them.
Just like with the Washington law in which the state had no evidence that the fact that druggists wouldn’t stock the abortifacients due to conscience but would provide similar referrals to those who did had any negative effect on patient access (because that’s a standard industry practice for all drugs as no pharmacy stocks everything), the state had no evidence that any gay couple who wanted to adopt a child and was qualified had never been denied the opportunity simply because Catholic Charities referred them to some other agency.
Illinois simply refused to renew Catholic Charities’ contract because of their religious beliefs. They changed the state policy to target them. Just like Illinois would love to refuse a business license to the owners of Chick-fil-A because of their religious beliefs and consequent political activity.
The government at all levels is overstepping a line that shouldn’t be crossed. They are literally demanding that business owners choose between their livelihood and their religious convictions. That’s what the mayors of Chicago and Boston demanded of the owners of Chick-fil-A. That’s what the state of Washington demanded of pharmacists. That’s what the DoJ demanded of the Newland family in Colorado.
This isn’t going to go over well, regardless of the current state of the law. It seems to me gay marriage advocates are doing themselves no favors here. Which is fine with me, as I don’t support the issue.
Steve57 (d382ec) — 7/30/2012 @ 1:16 pm“It is very rare for them to openly admit it today. They have to argue that, no, really, gay marriage strengthens institution of marriage! Even though they know that’s not true.”
– Steve57
Who are you going to believe, aphrael: Steve57, or your lying eyes?
Leviticus (e923df) — 7/30/2012 @ 1:19 pm“…Even the Nazis didn’t force their soldiers to participate in shooting Jews; the records show that there were “conscientious objectors” and they were not punished…
Only if you consider being transferred to the Eastern Front as not being punishment.
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 7/30/2012 @ 1:30 pmLeviticus, maybe I just know some very anachronistic feminists.
But then, as far as I can tell leftism in its entirety is an anachronism. We have a President who wants to relive the 1930s and the New Deal through legislation.
The ideas are always old. They convince themselves that the problem is with their “messaging.” Obama’s biggest mistake as President?
He didn’t “tell a story;” that’s where he screwed up.
1.5% GDP growth and 8.2% unemployment is only miserable because we didn’t get a really good story.
Steve57 (d382ec) — 7/30/2012 @ 1:40 pmPlease don’t tempt me.
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 7/30/2012 @ 1:41 pm1.5% GDP growth and 8.2% unemployment is
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 7/30/2012 @ 1:43 pmonly miserable because we didn’t geta reallygoodscary story.Errorstein let his inner fascist out for a moment. How cute.
JD (dfa70c) — 7/30/2012 @ 1:51 pmMr. Ehrenstein,
So you actually admit you would be “tempted” to consider outlawing opposition to Obama’s policies.
Oops. Once you realize that’s the totalitarian tactic of Mao’s China, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, Stalin’s Soviet Union, Castro’s Cuba, and Sharia everywhere, you can just claim you were talking about “roads and bridges” and that we were taking you out of context…and then you can rant about how it should be against the law to take you out of context, and how we should all be in jail for doing such a thing.
You lefties are so amusing—the script is so predictable. You want to put everyone in jail…except for terrorists, and actual criminals !
Elephant Stone (65d289) — 7/30/2012 @ 2:10 pmEhrenstein’s bile is always on display. Along with the barely-closeted fascist aspects of his personality.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/30/2012 @ 2:31 pmTrue, Mr. Pachyderm Stones.
And I’d like to introduce you to the author of the script.
George Lakoff and his partner in crime Elisabeth Wehling. Lakoff is a partisan progressive political activist. He’s also a professor at UC Berkeley, which I know is redundant. And he wrote The Little Blue Book: The Essential Guide to Thinking and Talking Democratic, published just in time to guide the leftists to victory in 2012.
Not. It’s as lame as the title aping Chairman Mao would lead you to believe.
But what’s critical to this discussion is that it also apes the feminist caricature of the patriarchal, oppressive family they’ve been peddling for decades. Lakoff, who is not a professor of psychology, psychoanalyzes why conservatives are so “screwed up” they don’t just blindly accept left wing agitprop and concludes it’s because of their dysfunctional family life. Where they are raised and disciplined by a strict authoritarian father and never learn “empathy.” And the mother’s role in the eevil patriarchy is to uphold the authority of the father, because if she does not “she may have to be disciplined as well.”
Conservatives then, in Lakoff’s view, proceed to foil the loving, morally superior vision of the progressive left by trying to recreate that cocoon of security and authoritarianism in the wider world. Through their wily superior “messaging.” Progressive ideas are always morally superior. But progressive messaging sucks. Lakoff’s here to fix that. And people from Barack Obama on down to Van Jones (who blurbs the book) are just stupid enough to believe that. Hence they don’t shut up about “messaging” or “telling a story.”
What’s relevant about this book to the subject at hand was that it was published in 2012, not a generation ago. Yet it paints the same picture that feminists have been painting since the 1980s. That marriage and parenting is oppressive to women. The view aphrael and Leviticus would have us believe almost no one holds anymore.
The fact is that the feminist view of marriage has never changed. It’s become standard left wing dogma. But Lakoff, in his “Essential Guide to Thinking and Talking Democratic” does not recommend that progressives talk to the neanderthals honestly. He recommends lying through the use of euphemisms. Not just about issues related to marriage and family, but in all things.
In other words, he confirms what I said earlier is true. Leftists, guided by the feminist sisterhood, do hold exactly the views I described earlier. And they think it’s a bad idea to advertise that fact too widely.
To paraphrase the old saying about real estate, the three most important factors in advancing the progressive left’s vision is messaging, messaging, messaging! Never critically examining the vision, which does remain the same for generations.
Steve57 (d382ec) — 7/30/2012 @ 2:34 pmOne thing you must say about Fascists, they always dressed well –
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 7/30/2012 @ 3:07 pmtake note of Mr. Obama’s impeccable trouser-crease.
Bakery Flooded By Angry Messages After Refusing Wedding Cake To Gay Couple…
http://denver.cbslocal.com/2012/07/28/lakewood-cake-shop-refuses-wedding-cake-to-gay-couple/
“When/if same sex marriage is made legal, the free exercise of religion – guaranteed by the First Amendment – will be under fire. No pastor/reverend/bishop/rabbi should be coerced to marry a same sex couple, no church should be forced to host said weddings, no business should be forced to be put under contract to support those/participate in same sex weddings weddings.
If advocates for same sex marriage were honest about the issue, they would acknowledge that any rights or “privileges” bestowed on a traditional, i.e., heterosexual couple can be given to a same sex couple by way of a civil union. But that is really not what this is all about.”
Comment by Colonel Haiku — 7/29/2012
Colonel Haiku (d7c537) — 7/30/2012 @ 3:08 pm> Yet it paints the same picture that feminists have been painting since the 1980s. That marriage and parenting is oppressive to women. The view aphrael and Leviticus would have us believe almost no one holds anymore.
Whether or not marriage is oppressive to women, honestly, seems to me to be a debate which was settled in my parents’ generation. No, it isn’t.
The self-described feminists I know would all say that marriage is a great thing when it’s voluntarily entered into by two equals … and would frankly look on viewpoints of the sort that you’re describing as being antiquated, shadows of yesterday’s debate lingering in the minds of those who continue to relive yesterday’s fights.
aphrael (24797a) — 7/30/2012 @ 3:10 pmaphrael, with all due respect I’m definitely talking about today’s fights. I’m discussing a book released just this year that reflects a current and widely held view that informs the politics of those advancing a cause that has yet to be achieved.
Steve57 (d382ec) — 7/30/2012 @ 3:16 pmI apparently pasted the wrong address in the earlier link.
Here’s a link to The Little Blue Book on Amazon, and a fairly devastating review. Which appears to be accurate as Lakoff’s treatise rates only 3 stars from customers on Amazon.
Steve57 (d382ec) — 7/30/2012 @ 3:23 pmaphrael #157,
It’s hard when families don’t get along, especially for the children. But hurtful words aren’t the worst things parents do to their children. Unfortunately, we see examples of the worst everyday.
In addition, families break up over lots of things and some of them never reconcile. I know this resonates with you but I don’t see how you can say that this particular hurt is so much worse than others.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 7/30/2012 @ 3:27 pmRe the wedding cake–What happened when the Muslim checkout clerks in (I think )Minnesota refused to ring up pork products that were in customers’ carts at a large chain grocry store? In what ways is that different or similar to the religious freedom/business issues being bandied about here?
elissa (d81401) — 7/30/2012 @ 3:28 pmDRJ, at 213:
if you look back at when I originally brought this up, my question was whether the behavior of a parent telling their son that they hoped he got aids and died, while kicking him out of the house, was more, less, or equally as despicable as making the kind of comments to total strangers that instigated that post. It was not a comparison to other parent/child fights.
But I would also note that this happens frequently enough that the fear of this outcome is one of the deep, abiding facts of life for most closeted teenage and twentysomething gay men. “I can’t come out until I’m financially independent of my parents” is a very common (and, unfortunately, wise) refrain among young gay adults in certain parts of the country. As a result, this kind of parent/child interaction has a much larger impact on the gay community *as a whole* than normal parent/child fights.
aphrael (24797a) — 7/30/2012 @ 3:38 pmSteve, I haven’t read Lakoff’s book, and am not planning to; I thought “What’s the matter with Kansas?” was way overrated and, from what I can tell, it was enough to give me a handle on Lakoff’s core argument (that accepting someone else’s linguistic framing of a problem sets you up to lose the argument before it even happens).
That said, I rad the review, and I don’t see anything in the review which says “that marriage and parenting is oppressive to women”.
What I do see is a claim that conservative families are organized around authority and enforcement of rules, while liberal families are organized around cooperation.
That’s a pretty silly claim in and of itself; while I think there are differences between conservative families and liberal families, that caricature misses the fact that *all* rely on both authority and cooperation.
But … this silly argument is a far cry from “marriage oppresses women!”.
Granted, as I said, I haven’t read the book. But from what I can tell from the review, you’re extrapolating beyond what’s there.
aphrael (24797a) — 7/30/2012 @ 3:46 pmAfter accomodation by IOC for her religious practice Saudi woman will be allowed to compete in Olympics in hijab.
elissa (d81401) — 7/30/2012 @ 3:48 pmJust popping in to remind that emergency contraception is not abortifacient. There was never direct evidence that it interfered with implantation, and there is direct evidence that the medication works (only) by interfering with conception.
If it were abortifacient the window of action would be larger and it would be more effective.
I wish conservatives would pay attention to the science. Many are Catholic and oppose it as a crummy form of birth control. And it is crummy for the lady in many respects. Howeer, it does not have any abortifacient action.
SarahW (b0e533) — 7/30/2012 @ 3:56 pmSarahW, your protest is duly noted, as it has been noted before.
I paid attention to science while getting my BS with honors in biochem and in med school.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/30/2012 @ 4:09 pmSarahW: that comment appears to be more than a little bit off topic for *all* of the topics through which this thread has wandered.
aphrael (24797a) — 7/30/2012 @ 4:17 pmReally? How do you interpret this quote from Lakoff’s book?
Lakoff does not come out and say in so many words, “marriage is oppressive to women.” He is describing a relationship that is inherently oppressive (for both the mother and the children) and unequal in no uncertain terms. How am I extrapolating?
And in any case, how does the notion the self-described feminists you know think marriage is a wonderful thing square with the fact that it remains a theme in feminist thought that marriage is inherently unequal because women are economically dependent upon men. Even the statistics that you refer to demonstrate that even if the authors of the studies don’t spell that out; the best anti-poverty for women is to marry before having children. And that feminists still insist that there can be no true gender equality unless women are economically independent of men. And that these views color their view of marriage.
Which is why European feminists openly view single-motherhood with a system that transfers wealth to women in the form of large government welfare benefits as much more preferable than marriage.
Steve57 (d382ec) — 7/30/2012 @ 4:18 pmComment by aphrael — 7/30/2012 @ 12:49 pm
The example you give (of driving on the Left side of the road) shows the difficulty in theory, but at the same time I am sure you acknowledge that the issue of what side of the road to drive on does seem to be a arbitrary societal choice of convention rather than one of inherent importance.
How the decision gets made when the issue is of moral import is more of an issue.
You say that the issue concerning a business making decisions based on their religious convictions needs to be subject to anti-descrimination law, but that is saying that religious conviction has no standing in “real world” behavior. Religious conviction limited only to a discrete place and time is not a core conviction, but membership to a social club.
JD, can you toss in what you referred to before elsewhere?
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/30/2012 @ 4:28 pm“Elephant Ston” can’t you take a joke?
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 7/30/2012 @ 4:36 pmJust make sure you don’t choke on all that chicken!
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 7/30/2012 @ 4:36 pmaphrael, I just thought I’d quote an article that appeared in the UK Guardian earlier this year that shows that it remains a central theme in many schools in feminist thought that to be a feminist means to be anti-marriage.
Tory feminists: the true blue sisterhood
It is still simply not possible in the view of many feminist sociologists and authors to be a feminist and pro-marriage. This is by no means a dead letter or a minority viewpoint.
Steve57 (d382ec) — 7/30/2012 @ 4:46 pmFor SarahW.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 7/30/2012 @ 4:51 pm… a business making decisions based on their religious convictions needs to be subject to anti-descrimination law, but that is saying that religious conviction has no standing in “real world” behavior. Religious conviction limited only to a discrete place and time is not a core conviction, but membership to a social club.
….
Comment by MD in Philly — 7/30/2012 @ 4:28 pm
Nothing not involving government discrimination “needs” be subject to anti-discrimination laws. Private anti-discrimination laws are legislative acts based 1) states’ plenary police power, 2) federal 13th Amendment, 3) the Commerce Clause. No legislative act, no restriction.
If a colorable defense is made that the law infringes religious freedom under the First Amendment, the law undergoes strict scrutiny. If it is found that it does infringe religious freedom, it will not stand unless it is very narrowly written to protect a very important governmental interest and it is the least restrictive means possible.
(In my courtroom, the Colorado wedding cake would be a close call on the infringement question, BTW.)
nk (875f57) — 7/30/2012 @ 6:46 pmVery interesting discussion here. Overall, quite civil and calm.
Points made so far include:
1. Being against gay marriage does not necessarily correlate to being against gays.
2. Government interest in “marriage” is still a hotly contested issue.
3. Freedom of religion and gay marriage have been cast as diametrically opposed ideals.
4. Intolerance and vitriol do not help get you what you want.
5. People’s actions or statements can be hurtful even if that was not the intention.
Other valid points have slipped my mind after reading the whole thread.
Personally, I am for Civil Unions as the state recognized contract between any two or soon to be more people. The state has no business being involved in marriage what so ever. All rights and benefits conferred by the state or federal government would come through the status of being linked via Civil Union.
People who want a religious ceremony can get that from what ever religion will agree to do so.
Any privately held company should not be required to provide services to anyone that the owner does not want to serve. Period. Corporations whose stocks are traded publically would be held to the anti-discrimination laws.
I have been berated as a “h8ter” and worse for the ideas I just listed. Personally, I could care less what ANY two or more people do in private. I do not want to see extravagant public displays of affection from two men, two women OR a man and a woman. Don’t make it my business by forcing me to see it. Get a room.
From my perspective, I think that gays have a few very vocal extremists to blame for a large percentage of the backlash against gay marriage and gay rights in general.
Let’s take California, for example. California has voted down gay marriage numerous times. Each time, the margin of victory for the anti-gay marriage crowd was dwindling. Then Gavin Newsom (sp?) decided that SF was going to ignore state law and start issuing marriage certificates to gay couples. Was it any surprise that there was a backlash?
Then the CA Supreme Court decided that it was unconstitutional to not recognize same sex relationships as marriage and set a date that same sex couples could apply for marriage licenses. The court was fully aware that Prop. 8 had already been qualified for the ballot but refused to stay their ruling until after the election. By refusing to wait for the people to vote, they stirred up a lot of people who are opposed to a few unelected people riding roughshod over the will of the majority.
This was not the only issue that ginned up more support for Prop. 8. The extreme vitriol and violence of some anti-Prop. 8 people really turned a lot of people off.
Example 1
Example 2
After the election, Prop. 8 went to court where the CA Supreme Court upheld it. Then on to federal court where it was ruled on by a gay judge who should have recused himself since the law he was ruling on directly affected him and his long term partner. Whether or not they ever decide to get married in CA, this law directly affects his ability to if he chooses. Not to mention the complete disreguard of the failure of the plaintiffs to prove their case.
If anything, these people with their actions, statements and intolerance have taken a state that was steadily moving towards gay marriage by popular vote and created a hard core of people adamantly opposed to it.
It is interesting that the legislature has passed gay marriage in three states and the courts have implemented it via judicial fiat in others, but no state has ever allowed it by popular vote with each of the more recent votes having a wider and wider margin.
So, thank the extremists for creating opposition where it wasn’t before and place a goodly portion of the blame where it really belongs.
Jay H Curtis (804124) — 7/30/2012 @ 8:00 pmnk, thanks for the comment. so what about the hawaiian bed+breakfast?
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/30/2012 @ 8:06 pmSame thing, MD. Do I sincere believe that I sin if I rent these two ladies a room and sell them some ham and eggs? You may question the sincerity of my belief, not its reasonableness.
If you so find, then the government must convince you that the fabric of society will be shredded if the anti-discrimination law is not upheld in this case.
nk (875f57) — 7/30/2012 @ 8:26 pmAs always, thanks for the opinion, nk.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/30/2012 @ 8:54 pmYou’re welcome, MD. Although, I fear, that religion and assembly have been tough-fought battlegrounds, lately.
nk (875f57) — 7/30/2012 @ 9:01 pmGrouch Marx’s view, MD. If it’s not safe for where you work, quit. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBCCS3guxOY
nk (875f57) — 7/30/2012 @ 10:36 pmWhat are you talking about? Anyone in that position was already on the Eastern Front. They didn’t have Einsatzgruppen on the Western Front.
Milhouse (15b6fd) — 7/30/2012 @ 11:18 pmThat is another good point; while I don’t think I know anyone to whom this actually happened, I do know people who were afraid of it happening, or at least were worried that it might happen, and were pleasantly surprised when it didn’t. Which implies that it’s not as common as it’s made out to be, but it also implies that it’s common enough for this fear to have arisen in the first place. And I’m still under the impression that this is how Alan Keyes treated his daughter; maybe someone will correct me.
Milhouse (15b6fd) — 7/30/2012 @ 11:26 pmYes, they did have Einsantzgruppen on the Western Front. And everywhere German authority went. Easy enough to find.
nk (875f57) — 7/30/2012 @ 11:37 pmExcept that more atrocities were committed by the Wehrmacht assisted by the Einsatzgruppen, than by the Waffen-SS. That’s easy enough to find too.
nk (875f57) — 7/30/2012 @ 11:42 pmNo German is innocent.
nk (875f57) — 7/30/2012 @ 11:43 pmAccording to Wikipedia (yes, I know) “unlike their operations in Poland, Einsatzgruppen operations in Western Europe in 1940 were within the original mandate of securing government offices and papers”. In other words they didn’t go around shooting people as they did on the Eastern Front. No source is cited for this claim, but I know of no reason to doubt it.
Milhouse (15b6fd) — 7/30/2012 @ 11:50 pmAnd yes, there were plenty of innocent Germans. Including German soldiers.
Milhouse (15b6fd) — 7/30/2012 @ 11:50 pmThe Pope, for instance.
Milhouse (15b6fd) — 7/30/2012 @ 11:50 pmYou didn’t read far enough.
nk (875f57) — 7/30/2012 @ 11:55 pmMeaning what? Where in that article is there anything supporting your claim?
Milhouse (15b6fd) — 7/31/2012 @ 12:02 amIt’s 2:00 a.m., where I am, and Nazis I’ll not chase nor defend.
nk (875f57) — 7/31/2012 @ 12:04 amAs I see it so far
1. Dan Cathy has a perfect right to oppose same sex marriage.
2. He has a perfect right too funnel the profits of his company “Chik-fil-a” into ogranizations that oppose same sex marriage and the LGBT community.
3. As long as “Chick-fil-a” doesn’t violate the precious few laws protecting LGBT owrkers or consumers (which are scattered across the coutnry and by no menas are in place nationwide) it has perfect right to do business.
4. LGBT consumers aware of Dan Cathy’s beleif’s and Chik-fil-a’s support of LGBT opponents have a perfect right to shun these restaurants and encourage others to do so as well.
5. The story of the Chick-fil-a PR person dying of a heart attack came out of nowhere in the midst of all this. I don’t know him, and I would be very suprised if anyone who posts on this blog does either. To mymind any LGBT person taking pleasure in this man’s passing is downright weird.
I think that covers it.
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 7/31/2012 @ 6:38 amSteve57, at 223:
I interpret it as obnoxious liberal chest-beating about how *our* way of doing marriage is better than *their* way of doing marriage.
It’s not a rejection of marriage per se, it’s a rejection of his straw man conception of how conservative marriages work.
It’s still offensive, and it’s still strong evidence that he doesn’t talk to any actual conservatives about their private lives, but it’s not a rejection of marriage.
> And that feminists still insist that there can be no true gender equality unless women are economically independent of men.
There’s something to that: any time you agree to make yourself *financially dependant* on someone else, there’s a risk that dependancy is going to be abused, and you have closed off a bunch of options for yourself in a way which has a potential to hurt you later, if your trust turns out to have been misplaced. I don’t think that’s particularly controversial.
> marriage is inherently unequal because women are economically dependent upon men.
this is a bizarre statement because it’s simply not the case that marriage requires women to be economically dependant on men. I have friends where the man is economically dependant on the woman. Most of my married friends, both spouses work. So … such a claim is, once again, not a claim about *marriage per se*, but a claim about *how marriages should work*. it’s not a rejection of marriage; it’s a debate about how marriages should be structured to enable both spouses to achieve their highest aspirations.
aphrael (5d993c) — 7/31/2012 @ 7:36 amMD, ah, but what i’m saying is that, unless you invite the state in to determine what is or isn’t of actual moral import, *any law* can be destroyed by the claims of competing people that they should be exempt because of their moral beliefs.
aphrael (5d993c) — 7/31/2012 @ 7:38 amSteve57, at 227:
I think the key word there is “veterans of the women’s movement”.
There’s a vast gulf between feminism as it’s practiced and conceptualized by people in their 20s and 30s, and feminism as it’s praciced and conceptualized by “veterans of he womens’ movement.”
The article you linked tried to describe it as a right- vs left- thing, but that’s really a mischaracterization.
—QUOTE—-
Louise Mensch, who is divorced and remarried, says that, for couples who can stay together, “marriage or an equivalent situation is an ideal way to bring children up”. But asked what she means by “equivalent”, she cites civil partnerships and “even a truly committed non-married partnership: I know one couple that have remained unmarried for 20 years… It doesn’t have to be traditional marriage.”
Anyway, it’s not marriage she thinks is problematic for feminists but economic inequality, and the way earning power affects relationships: “I think most people on the left are not opposed to marriage and happy relationships. They’re opposed to what they perceive as the historical imbalance of power in relationships, in which the man does whatever he wants and the woman is economically dependent and tied to the man, which I think is another reason for looking at how women earn more money.”
—QUOTE—
that’s not a conservative viewpoint, even though the article tries to cast it that way. *however*, it is a viewpoint that is broadly consistent with the feminism I know.
aphrael (5d993c) — 7/31/2012 @ 7:43 amUseful information. Fortunate me I discovered your website unintentionally, and I’m surprised why this twist of fate did not came about earlier! I bookmarked it.
what to say to get him back fast (2379c2) — 8/3/2012 @ 10:07 amNormally I do not read post on blogs, but I wish to say that this write-up very pressured me to check out and do it! Your writing taste has been amazed me. Thank you, quite great article.
ceh (ad198e) — 8/3/2012 @ 10:59 amHi, Neat post. There is an issue along with your site in web explorer, might check this? IE nonetheless is the market chief and a good section of other folks will miss your wonderful writing due to this problem.
online casino usa (825260) — 8/6/2012 @ 7:11 amHey There. I found your weblog the use of msn. That is a very neatly written article. I will make sure to bookmark it and come back to learn more of your helpful info. Thanks for the post. I will definitely return.
โครงการหลวง (f1844e) — 8/6/2012 @ 10:37 pmI have read a few good stuff here. Certainly worth bookmarking for revisiting. I wonder how a lot attempt you place to create one of these fantastic informative web site.
how to market your business (1210f0) — 8/9/2012 @ 8:13 amExcellent publish, very informative. I’m wondering why the other specialists of this sector don’t understand this. You should continue your writing. I am confident, you’ve a great readers’ base already!|What’s Happening i am new to this, I stumbled upon this I have found It absolutely helpful and it has aided me out loads. I’m hoping to contribute & aid different users like its aided me. Great job.
cheshire granite (9174ae) — 8/12/2012 @ 12:14 am