New York Senate Rejects Gay Marriage
[Guest post by DRJ]
The New York Senate refused to legalize gay marriage by a 38-24 vote:
“In a major blow to the gay rights movement, the state Senate on Wednesday overwhelmingly killed a bill to legalize same-sex marriage.
After two hours of emotional and often deeply personal debate, the Senate voted down the measure 38-24, effectively killing its chances before next year’s elections.”
I guess this makes New York state #32 to reject gay marriage.
— DRJ
Not a big deal, since there are very few gays in NYC.
gp (72be5d) — 12/3/2009 @ 12:10 pmI’m shocked to find New York agreeing with Obama on gay marriage. Shocked!
Vivian Louise (eeeb3a) — 12/3/2009 @ 12:24 pmIf the god-damned fools in charge of the gay movement had had the basic mother-wit to ask for something like “civil unions,” I bet they’d have it almost everywhere. Instead, they howl and howl and howl for “marriage equality,” and make stupid comparisons to black civil rights—and end up losing, again and again. I’m going to be interested to see what happens here in Iowa after the next elections; I was startled when our Supreme Court legalized gay marriage, and I won’t be surprised when politicians who’re pledged to amend our constitution to specifically outlaw it get elected.
technomad (677f63) — 12/3/2009 @ 12:34 pmDoes this mean the gay community will quit persecuting the Mormons? 🙂
TC (0b9ca4) — 12/3/2009 @ 1:09 pmTC,
Yes, I think they’re now planning to go after Catholic bishops now.
john (0d4ddf) — 12/3/2009 @ 2:03 pmCatholics are a significant force in New York.
I wonder why proponents of same-sex “marriage” would be willing to attack the Roman Catholic Church for its views on the subject, but opponents of a federal or state public option for health care have not yet attacked the Roman Catholic Church for its views on that subject.
Michael Ejercito (6a1582) — 12/3/2009 @ 2:45 pm@ #3: From my view, you can call it “chopped liver” as long as my partner and I (if I had one) could do things like make medical decisions for one another, inherit without courts and hostile family members having precedent, and that sort of thing.
I am one of those who does not care if it is called marriage.
the friendly grizzly (af1c45) — 12/3/2009 @ 4:11 pmFriendly Grizzly, I thought I didn’t care. And then Proposition 8 passed, and I realized that I did care … because it felt like, Proposition 8 was about the voters telling me that my relationship is inferior to theirs.
Don’t get me wrong: domestic partnerships/civil unions/chopped liver arrangements are vastly superior to nothing at all, and I think the gay rights movement would be much better off pushing for them (and getting the constitutions changed in the states, like Texas, which prohibit them) … but the name turns out to be far more important to me than I thought it would be.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 12/3/2009 @ 4:14 pmThe state budget will be down to coffee money, if that, in a month and they’re spendinng time on this?
Richard Aubrey (8dfdde) — 12/3/2009 @ 5:52 pmThe vicious, naked cruelty of Maggie Gallagher and her acolytes is once again on display, as these evil people gloat over the fact that they have succeeded, yet again, in further entrenching homophobic discrimination with respect to this issue and with respect to their ongoing efforts to deny to gay Americans rights so basic that most heterosexuals don’t give them a second thought. These people must be condemned for what they are – the quintessence of evil, masquerading (with their pious rectitude and mealy-mouthed platitudes) as forces for good. Yet again, I see (as a naturalized US citizen) the shocking gap that exists, and that has always existed, in American society – the gap between what is said and what is done. This gap has yawned wide on other occasions in US history, and I draw some measure of comfort from the fact that those who stand on the wrong side of this gap have always lost in the long run, despite short-run setbacks for the forces of good. Those who promoted slavery were ultimately defeated. Those who promoted racial segregation were ultimately defeated (just as those who promoted apartheid in the country of my birth and upbringing were ultimately defeated). And those who stand on the wrong side of this gap with respect to the issue of gay marriage will, in the end, be defeated.
Gallagher and her fellow fanatics need to be reminded of the fact that the provisions of our Constitution strictly prohibit the state from meddling in ecclesiastical matters, and strictly prohibit the church from meddling in affairs of state. When lawmakers forget this – when lawmakers permit their personal religious biases to interfere with the discharge of their duties and the oath that they took – an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, as well as the respective state constitutions – they prostitute themselves and violate that oath. What is the point of having a written Constitution if those who are tasked with developing law and public policy in conformance with the strictures imposed on legislative bodies by that Constitution display such callous disregard for the provisions of that Constitution?
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment mandates that any two groups of persons who are “similarly situated” with respect to the legitimate purposes of the law may not be treated differently by that law, with resultant adverse impact to members of one of the groups concerned. The right to marry has been deemed by the US Supreme Court to be a “fundamental” right (Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978)), on a par with other such rights as the right to free speech. The Court has also made it absolutely clear that it views discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation as both immoral and unconstitutional (see Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), in which the Court struck down a voter-approved amendment to the Colorado state constitution that would have rescinded all laws, at all levels of state government, that protected gay persons from discrimination at the hands of heterosexual persons (while leaving intact the operation of these laws insofar as they protected heterosexual persons from discrimination at the hands of gay persons), and which would have had the “ultimate effect” of permanently prohibiting the enactment of any measures, at all levels of state government, that would have protected gay persons from such discrimination in the future). Not long ago, the Court struck down all state statutes that prohibited gay persons from having sex, even in the privacy of their own homes (Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)) (such laws existed in some 14 states at the time that the Court handed down this ruling). In so doing, the Court explicitly and bluntly overturned an earlier ruling, handed down just 17 years previously, in which that same Court had upheld such statutes in an opinion that was laced with ugly homophobic invective, and that was widely condemned by constitutional scholars as being one of the contemporary Court’s most embarrassing and humiliating failures (Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986)). In Lawrence, the Court was big enough to apologize to gay Americans, and to acknowledge the gross injustice that it had perpetrated against gay Americans in Bowers (“[Bowers’] continuance as precedent demeans the lives of homosexual persons… The rationale of Bowers does not withstand careful analysis… Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today. It ought not to remain binding precedent. Bowers v. Hardwick should be and now is overruled.”) The Court also struck down so-called “miscegenation” statutes that prohibited white persons from marrying non-white persons many years ago (Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)). The right to marry the person with whom one is in love and with whom one wishes to spend the rest of one’ life is a right so fundamental that it is arguably more important to most people than the right to vote (assuming that the reader of this comment is straight, which would you prefer to lose – your right to vote in the next election, or your marriage?).
Two lawyers who could not be more ideologically incompatible have joined their considerable individual resources and talents to mount a direct attack against California’s “Proposition 8”, which amended the California state constitution to prohibit gay marriage, shortly after the California Supreme Court handed down a decision holding that the prohibition of gay marriage violated both the due process and the equal protection provisions of the California state constitution (in re Marriage Cases, 43 Cal.4th 757 (2008)). During the “window period” between the handing down of this decision and the passage of Proposition 8, more than 18,000 gay couples married (these marriages have been left undisturbed). Former US Solicitor General Ted Olsen and trial attorney David Boies (who opposed each other in the case of Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), which effectively decided the outcome of the Presidential elections of 2000) have filed suit in federal district court, seeking to overturn Proposition 8 on US constitutional grounds. The US district court will not try this case until well into next year. The losing side will appeal the outcome to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which could take six months or more to hand down a decision. The losing side on that decision will petition the US Supreme Court for certiorari (which will almost certainly be granted should the Ninth Circuit find in favour of the plaintiffs (i.e., should the Ninth Circuit overturn Proposition 8 and restore the right to marry to gay couples in California)). Boies wrote an article that appeared in “The Wall Street Journal” explaining the reason that this unlikely pair decided to join forces and attack Proposition 8. To excerpt from this article: “Gays and lesbians are our brothers and sisters, our teachers and doctors, our friends and neighbors, our parents and children. It is time, indeed past time, that we accord them the basic human right to marry the person they love. It is time, indeed past time, that our Constitution fulfill its promise of equal protection and due process for all citizens by now eliminating the last remnant of centuries of misguided state discrimination against gays and lesbians…The argument in favor of Proposition 8 ultimately comes down to no more than the tautological assertion that a marriage is between a man and a woman. But a slogan is not a substitute for constitutional analysis. Law is about justice, not bumper stickers.”
A more eloquent statement of the principles involved would be difficult to imagine.
Regardless of the defeat we suffered in New York, we will not give up. Our community has one characteristic in our favour – we never give up. We never stop fighting. As soon as we suffer a defeat in one jurisdiction, we enjoy a victory in another (while we lost the right to marry in Maine last month, we also gained all of the rights, privileges, and benefits of marriage (but not the name) in the State of Washington). A bill to allow gay marriage in Washington, D.C. passed its first reading by a wide majority (11 – 2) a few days ago. We are already campaigning to undo Proposition 8 at the ballot box – a measure intended to repeal Proposition 8 will appear in November 2010. Should we lose in 2012, we will try again in 2012. Days from now, we will push for gay marriage in New Jersey.
Ad hominem is seldom justified or appropriate as a debating technique – it debases the party making the accusations and it ducks the issue under debate. However, when the personal behaviour of those who expound a particular ideal is grossly at variance with that ideal, and when those who expound that ideal point fingers of accusation at others, then it is both appropriate and justified to examine the behaviour of those in question. The religious bigotry of Gallagher and her fellow gay-bashers is particularly disgusting in the face of fresh revelations about the behaviour of the Catholic Church, which has a long and sordid history of passing pedophile priests from parish to parish, instead of turning them in and instead of informing the police. Days ago, news broke that the police in Ireland were actually complicit with the Catholic Church in hushing up these incidents. In one case, the police referred the activities of a priest who had sodomized literally dozens of choirboys to the Archbishop, instead of filing charges and bringing the matter to the attention of the state attorney. The church has had to pay out literally hundreds of millions of dollars to the victims of such serial child rapists, many of whom have forcibly sodomized one crop of choirboys after another.
The records of those who voted in favour of the federal “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA) back in 1996 are similarly particularly disgusting. Newt Gingrich (thrice married) served his second wife with divorce papers immediately following a major surgery as she lay dying of ovarian cancer in the hospital (in voting for the DOMA, Gingrich also voted to deny his own gay sister the right to marry). Bob Barr (thrice married) – a fierce opponent of abortion – funded his second wife’s abortion; this marriage collapsed after he was photographed licking whipped cream from the breasts of a stripper at a fundraiser. Sonny Bono (thrice married) destroyed his relationship with his lesbian daughter after voting for the DOMA – and then skiid into a tree while high on painkillers. On and on the list went – like actors in the finest French farce. Which of these marriages were each of these lawmakers trying to “defend” by voting for this measure? All three marriages in all three cases?
Gallagher and her saintly friends should contemplate a harsh reality. Prejudice and bigotry are no substitute for love and personal understanding. Study after study has shown – absolutely definitively – that those Americans who claim to know one or more gay men or women personally are much, much less likely to harbour homophobic views than are those Americans who claim not to know any gay men or women personally. Gay people have a corresponding duty, both to themselves and to their community – it is inexcusable for a gay adult to remain closeted, particularly when those around that person engage in blatantly homophobic speech or conduct. It is far more difficult to insult somebody to their face than it is to do so behind their back.
I do not pretend that coming out is always without personal risk. In 2006, I lost a high-paying job when my manager learned, by performing a Google search against my name, that I am gay. I was livid at the time – but now, I am glad that I did not spend long at that firm, contributing my considerable skills and experience to that firm’s bottom line. I have no desire to work alongside, or under, homophobic bastards.
In the last analysis, Gallagher and her followers are moral cripples.
PHILIP CHANDLER
Philip Chandler (10a95b) — 12/4/2009 @ 9:06 amBaker v. Nelson
“Loving does indicate that not all state restrictions upon the right to marry are beyond reach of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex.”
Philip, explain why the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled the way that it did.
Michael Ejercito (6a1582) — 12/4/2009 @ 9:12 amI see your only skill is name-calling, Chandler. On the occasions you attempt a substantive comment, you make many factual errors.
You write: “Gallagher and her fellow fanatics need to be reminded of the fact that the provisions of our Constitution strictly prohibit the state from meddling in ecclesiastical matters, and strictly prohibit the church from meddling in affairs of state.”
That is simply false. There is no Constitutional prohibition on the church as you describe.
Tolerance of gay people in the US is among the highest in the world so your little rant about your disappointment as a naturalized citizen shows your petulance but nothing more.
Ranting about pedophilia in the Catholic church, and repeating old slanders on Newt Gingrich do nothing but show your own bile and hatreds.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/4/2009 @ 9:14 amAnyone that disagrees with Phillip is a disgusting homophobe. See, Phillip, I was able to say the same thing as you, in about 4000 fewer words. HOMOPHOBES !!! Phillip – I do not hink that Barack Obama would like you calling him a homophobe.
JD (4c5397) — 12/4/2009 @ 9:24 amChandler must wonder why almost every human in the history of humanity is a homophobe.
Michael Ejercito (6a1582) — 12/4/2009 @ 9:28 amSPQR — A slander is not a slander if it is true. You should know enough about the law to realize that truth is an absolute defence to an accusation of slander. My comments about the manner in which the Catholic Church has deliberately and intentionally shielded its pedophile priests from secular prosecution are, similarly, factually correct. They are therefore not slanderous. As for Gingrich and the others who voted for the DOMA — every statement I made is factually correct, and therefore cannot be called slander.
As for the First Amendment — the operative Clauses to which I refer are as follows: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” This has been interpreted by the US Supreme Court to mean precisely what I stated (see Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)). The state may not meddle in ecclesiastical matters, and the church may not meddle in affairs of state.
SPQR then writs: “Tolerance of gay people in the US is among the highest in the world…”
Really? So gay persons can marry in the USA, as they can in Canada? So openly gay persons may serve in the armed forces of the nation on the same terms as heterosexuals? So federal law prohibits sexual orientation discrimination in employment, housing, and access to places of public accommmodation?
Yes, the US is more tolerant of gay persons than is Iraq. But please don’t spew utter rubbish about tolerance of gay persons being “..among the highest in the world.” This statement is demonstrably false. Furthermore, gay Americans do not seek, and should not settle for, tolerance. We are entitled to acceptance — and despite setbacks such as the vote in New York, we are making progress in this regard.
You appear to have entirely missed the point I made — which is that there is a gap in America; a gap between what is said and what is done. Those on the wrong side of this gap have always lost in the long run. Conservatives were wrong about slavery. Conservatives were wrong about racial segregation. Conservatives were wrong in not granting equal rights to women. And history condemns them for their lack of vision.
You may call my observations “bile” if that makes you feel better. However, marriage is important to me, and I will do whatever I have to do in order to secure the same right to marry as that which you so blithely take for granted.
PHILIP CHANDLER
Philip Chandler (10a95b) — 12/4/2009 @ 9:36 amNo, Phillip, your comments were not factually correct. One country does not make the US not “among the highest in the world” in tolerance of gays.
Claiming that “Conservatives” were for slavery is a lie. The kind of slander we see in your comments. The modern Conservative movement never supported slavery and has nothing to do with any advocacy of slavery or segregation.
As for progress, Phillip, the gay marriage movement has failed to win a single initiative vote to date. The bile-filled, hate-filled irrational rants produced by its advocates like you have been a big part of the reason why you’ve been unable to convince people in the more tolerant states like California and Maine. You will make no progress until your movement is purged of people like you.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/4/2009 @ 9:43 amHomophobes and racists – because Phillip sez so.
You have to give him credit for being so open about his motives and desires, he wants to force acceptance on everyone.
Barack Obama is a homophobe in Phillip’s world, and everything is the fault of conservatives.
Phillip is a real-life example of the parodies I often do, except this real-life version is beyond parody.
JD (4c5397) — 12/4/2009 @ 9:49 amNote that there was opposition to slavery in America even before 1776.
By contrast, there was no movement for same-sex “marriage”, because such a thing would have been viewed as providing support for sodomy, an abhorrent and detestable act.
Nobody is entitled to acceptance. Everyone has the right to reject other people. To write otherwise is to write that I have a duty to accept David Duke or Abu Musab al Zarqawi.
I have no objection to same-sex couples receiving equal rights in a separate institution.
I object to equating martial relations with abominable sodomy.
Michael Ejercito (6a1582) — 12/4/2009 @ 9:50 amSPQR writes: “One country does not make the US not “among the highest in the world” in tolerance of gays…”
One country? OK, then — How about Australia? How about the UK (where Civil Partnerships are the full legal equivalent of marriages, for all purposes)? How about New Zealand? How about Spain (where gay marriage is legal)? How about South Africa (where gay marriage is legal)? How about Norway (where gay marriage is legal)? How about Sweden? How about Denmark? I could go on and on, but the list would tire me…
SPQR writes: “The bile-filled, hate-filled irrational rants produced by its advocates like you have been a big part of the reason why you’ve been unable to convince people in the more tolerant states like California and Maine. You will make no progress until your movement is purged of people like you…”
Wow! I never realized that I had the power to derail an entire social movement!
The Mormons pumped more than $19 million into the fight to enact Proposition 8. This is not a slander — this is a fact. The Catholic Church in Maine contributed more than $550,000.00 to the effort to overturn the Maine gay marriage statute. Again, this is not a slander — it is a fact.
You appear to know precious little about the manner in which these initiatives were funded, or about who poured money into the efforts to defeat marriage equality in these jurisdictions…
PHILIP CHANDLER
Philip Chandler (10a95b) — 12/4/2009 @ 9:51 amPhilip, actually you can’t go on and on. That’s my point. A handful of countries with gay marriage, all of which was adopted in that last couple of years and in many cases over popular opposition, does not rebut my point. You don’t do well with this logic thing do you?
And so what if Mormons and Catholic churches opposed gay marriage and backed their opinions with donations to political campaigns. That’s democracy and freedom of speech.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/4/2009 @ 9:57 amAnd Philip, what the hell does “You appear to know precious little about the manner in which these initiatives were funded…” mean? I made no comments about the funding of the initiatives.
Are you arguing with the voices in your head?
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/4/2009 @ 9:59 amMichael Ejercito writes: “By contrast, there was no movement for same-sex “marriage”, because such a thing would have been viewed as providing support for sodomy, an abhorrent and detestable act… I object to equating martial relations with abominable sodomy.”
This is absolutely typical of homophobes — they reduce the complexities of gay relationships to the sum of a number of sex acts. Why is it that homophobes direct almost all of their hatred towards gay men? I do not minimize the pain that lesbians have suffered at the hands of homophobic heterosexual men, but I note that manner in which these homophobes almost always single out gay men and gay male sex in their attacks. Instead of contemplating the love, dedication, and commitment that characterizes so many gay relationships (just as is the case in so many heterosexual relationships), homophobic bigots think of only one issue, to the preclusion of all others — specifically, what gay men do in bed.
A 1996 study conducted by psychologists at the University of Georgia provided the first hard evidence that homophobic men are frequently repressed closet cases. In this study, the psychologists hooked heterosexual male subjects up to a device called a plethysmograph — this is a device that detects erections. When homophobic men were shown graphic gay male pornography, they became sexuall aroused — almost to a man. When gay-friendly heterosexual men were hooked up to this device and shown the same material, on the other hand, they did not become aroused.
This study has been written up and cited extensively. It appears that homophobic men are all too frequently struggling with their own gay sexual impulses…
PHILIP CHANDLER
[note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]
Philip Chandler (10a95b) — 12/4/2009 @ 10:02 amPhilip apparantly is upset that some elements within the Catholic Church implemnted the gay rights agenda.
I have an aquaintance who regularly rants about the Catholic Church’s allowing homosexuals to be Preists and working around choir boys and then segue straight into condemning the Boy Scouts for not allowing homosexuals to be Scoutmasters.
Have Blue (854a6e) — 12/4/2009 @ 10:05 amYou and Barcky are just homophobes, SPQR. You could not be expected to understand Phillip’s brilliance.
JD (4c5397) — 12/4/2009 @ 10:05 amJD, his brilliance does seem to be going right over my head …
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/4/2009 @ 10:06 amSPQR writes: “And so what if Mormons and Catholic churches opposed gay marriage and backed their opinions with donations to political campaigns. That’s democracy and freedom of speech….”
When a church engages in the crafting of law and public policy, that church loses its tax-exempt status. When the church attempts to meddle in the legislative process, it loses its right to the exemptions that it would otherwise enjoy under the tax code. That is the point I am trying to make.
You have completely ignored the fact that the First Amendment prohibits the state from meddling in ecclesiastical matters, and prohibits the church from meddling in affairs of state…
PHILIP CHANDLER
Philip Chandler (10a95b) — 12/4/2009 @ 10:09 amMichael Ejercito writes: “By contrast, there was no movement for same-sex “marriage”, because such a thing would have been viewed as providing support for sodomy, an abhorrent and detestable act… I object to equating martial relations with abominable sodomy.”
This is absolutely typical of homophobes — they reduce the complexities of gay relationships to the sum of a number of sex acts. Why is it that homophobes direct almost all of their hatred towards gay men? I do not minimize the pain that lesbians have suffered at the hands of homophobic heterosexual men, but I note that manner in which these homophobes almost always single out gay men and gay male sex in their attacks. Instead of contemplating the love, dedication, and commitment that characterizes so many gay relationships (just as is the case in so many heterosexual relationships), homophobic bigots think of only one issue, to the preclusion of all others — specifically, what gay men do in bed.
A 1996 study conducted by psychologists at the University of Georgia provided the first hard evidence that homophobic men are frequently repressed closet cases. In this study, the psychologists hooked heterosexual male subjects up to a device called a plethysmograph — this is a device that detects erections. When homophobic men were shown graphic gay male pornography, they became sexuall aroused — almost to a man. When gay-friendly heterosexual men were hooked up to this device and shown the same material, on the other hand, they did not become aroused.
This study has been written up and cited extensively. It appears that homophobic men are all too frequently struggling with their own gay sexual impulses…
PHILIP CHANDLER
[note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]
Philip Chandler (10a95b) — 12/4/2009 @ 10:11 amBecause its not a fact, Philip, its a lie. The First Amendment does not prohibit churches from “meddling”. Repeating your lie does not make it true.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/4/2009 @ 10:12 amAnd how did I ignore your claim? I pointed out its falsity above. Do you not read ?
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/4/2009 @ 10:12 amMichael Ejercito writes: “By contrast, there was no movement for same-sex “marriage”, because such a thing would have been viewed as providing support for sodomy, an abhorrent and detestable act… I object to equating martial relations with abominable sodomy.”
This is absolutely typical of homophobes — they reduce the complexities of gay relationships to the sum of a number of sex acts. Why is it that homophobes direct almost all of their hatred towards gay men? I do not minimize the pain that lesbians have suffered at the hands of homophobic heterosexual men, but I note that manner in which these homophobes almost always single out gay men and gay male sex in their attacks. Instead of contemplating the love, dedication, and commitment that characterizes so many gay relationships (just as is the case in so many heterosexual relationships), homophobic bigots think of only one issue, to the preclusion of all others — specifically, what gay men do in bed.
A 1996 study conducted by psychologists at the University of Georgia provided the first hard evidence that homophobic men are frequently repressed closet cases. In this study, the psychologists hooked heterosexual male subjects up to a device called a plethysmograph — this is a device that detects sexual arousal. When homophobic men were shown graphic gay male pornography, they became sexually aroused — almost to a man. When gay-friendly heterosexual men were hooked up to this device and shown the same material, on the other hand, they did not become aroused.
This study has been written up and cited extensively. It appears that homophobic men are all too frequently struggling with their own gay sexual impulses…
PHILIP CHANDLER
[note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]
Philip Chandler (10a95b) — 12/4/2009 @ 10:12 amPhillip is objectively a bigot.
JD (ba5ac9) — 12/4/2009 @ 10:13 amJD, he’s also completely ignorant of the Constitution and the details of the restrictions on tax exempt organizations.
No surprise.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/4/2009 @ 10:15 amGee Phillip, didn’t you get the e-Sodomy website you wanted. And didn’t your ilk get to bully a photographer into paying a penalty for not filming a lesbian wedding(after all, why would a Christian refuse to film a little girl-on-girl action).
People's Front of Judea (44bf37) — 12/4/2009 @ 10:21 amGiving homosexuals(is it okay to use this term anymore) the right to marry is an invitation for lawsuits against any church refusing to wed a gay couple and/or school that fails to implement a sexual tolerance agenda. Otherwise, I couldn’t care less if you want to marry a goat.
I blame the Mormons. And the JOOOOOS.
JD (ba5ac9) — 12/4/2009 @ 10:31 amThat study has the same credibility as the Leuchter report claiming that the gas chambers in Auschwitz were not used for executions.
Michael Ejercito (6a1582) — 12/4/2009 @ 11:48 amComment by Philip Chandler — 12/4/2009 @ 10:12 am
This study has been written up and cited extensively…
..by gay men who get aroused by reading about straight men getting aroused by gay men…
Matador (176445) — 12/4/2009 @ 11:55 amMichael Ejercito writes: “That study has the same credibility as the Leuchter report claiming that the gas chambers in Auschwitz were not used for executions.”
Given the fact that nobody has falsified the results of this study in a subsequent study, this study (the Lohr study) stands as the most current and most definitive research pertaining to this issue.
Your crude attempt to hijack the Holocaust in your response is particularly tasteless and ugly. But by now, little that you write has the power to shock me.
PHILIP CHANDLER
Philip Chandler (10a95b) — 12/4/2009 @ 5:43 pmHOMOPHOBES !!!
JD (e58a23) — 12/4/2009 @ 5:51 pmWell, Silly Philly, seems to me that if the Creator meant for ya to get poop on yer pecker, he’d a put yer bung where your belly button is.
Just sayin…
Matador (176445) — 12/4/2009 @ 5:58 pmPeople’s Front writes: “33.Gee Phillip, didn’t you get the e-Sodomy website you wanted. And didn’t your ilk get to bully a photographer into paying a penalty for not filming a lesbian wedding(after all, why would a Christian refuse to film a little girl-on-girl action)…”
I take it that you are referring to the e-Harmony web site. Yes, e-Harmony modified their web site to include gay couples too, thereby comporting with the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD), which has been in existence for almost two decades now. Personally, I would not have filed suit against e-Harmony, and personally, I think that the gay man who did so was misguided in doing so – but this matter was resolved to the satisfaction of all parties.
It is well established that, upon entering the market and serving the general public, an individual loses rights that he or she enjoys in a personal context.
A racist white person has every right, under the First Amendment’s guarantees of freedom of expressive association and freedom of intimate association, to refuse to invite a non-white person into his or her home, or to refuse to invite a non-white person to a private party. That racist has every right, under these guarantees, to refuse to associate with non-white persons, or to mix with such persons on private property. However, under both federal and state law, that racist cannot selectively do business with only other white people; if that racist owns a restaurant (for example), then he or she must serve persons of all races, regardless of the personal animus that this person may hold towards non-white persons. This is one of the prices we pay, in a free society, to ensure that everybody has access to the market. Laws prohibiting discrimination (including sexual orientation discrimination) have been challenged in court, and have been found to be constitutional (the vehicle that the courts have employed to uphold the constitutionality of such measures has been the Commerce Clause). Those who claim that gay persons seek “special rights” or “special protections” would do well to read Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy’s opinion in Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), in which Kennedy notes that “We find nothing special in the protections Amendment 2 withholds. These are protections taken for granted by most people either because they already have them or do not need them; these are protections against exclusion from an almost limitless number of transactions and endeavors that constitute ordinary civic life in a free society.”
The US Supreme Court has held that a person does not have the right to break a law on personal religious grounds if that law is an otherwise constitutional law of general application that was not written in an effort to target or interfere with the practice of any particular religion, but which nevertheless has the incidental effect of interfering with a particular religious practice. Under this analysis, the Court rejected the claim of two Indian men who were denied Unemployment Insurance benefits because they had been fired from their jobs for ingesting peyote (a controlled substance) as part of a religious ritual (see Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith 494 U.S. 872 (1990)). The Justice who wrote this opinion? — this was non other than that darling of the hard right, Justice Antonin Scalia.
As for the Christian photographers in New Mexico who refused to photograph a gay couple’s commitment ceremony – I have absolutely zero sympathy for them. This is not because I am gay. It is because these photographers broke a law of general application which was not intended to interfere with religious practice, but which had the incidental effect of interfering with this particular aspect of the photographers’ religious practice. The photographers broke a law that was enacted pursuant to the legitimate workings of the democratic process.
We cannot pick and choose which laws to break and which laws to follow on personal religious grounds. A movement called “Christian Reconstructionism”, headed up by the late Rousas John Rushdoony, calls for the death penalty to be applied to (inter alia) all gay persons, adulterers, non-Christians, blasphemers, and children who rebel against their parents. The members of this movement would not be entitled to invoke a religious defence if tried for murdering a gay man by stoning him to death, because laws against murder are constitutional, are not intended to interfere with religious expression, but in this case would have the incidental effect of interfering with this particular aspect of the religious conduct of these people.
“Giving homosexuals(is it okay to use this term anymore) the right to marry is an invitation for lawsuits against any church refusing to wed a gay couple and/or school that fails to implement a sexual tolerance agenda. Otherwise, I couldn’t care less if you want to marry a goat.”
This is absolute rubbish, and you know it. A church may marry, or refuse to marry, anybody it so desires. The Catholic Church does not marry persons who have been divorced. Some churches still refuse to marry mixed-race couples. As I have stated on several occasions, the provisions of the First Amendment prohibit the state from meddling with ecclesiastical matters, and prohibit the church from meddling in affairs of state (see Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)). (The provisions of the First Amendment are made binding on the states through incorporation under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (see e.g., Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937); Gitlow v. People of New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1923)). No church can ever be forced to marry a gay couple if that church disapproves of such weddings, or disapproves of gay conduct. Gay marriage has been legal in Massachusetts since 2003 – for more than six years now – and no cases of the type you describe have been filed or argued in that state, because of these provisions. In short – your assertion is utterly devoid of merit.
As for schools being forced to teach about gay marriage, consider the following. Divorce is a fact of life. Do schools have courses that teach about divorce? Mixed-race marriages are a fact of life. Do schools have courses that teach about mixed-race marriages? But let us suppose that a school has a sex education course that teaches about family structures: in a state where gay marriage is legal, the school would be doing its students a disservice were it to fail to teach that gay marriage is legal in that state. The function of a school is to educate young people and to teach them about the world in which they live.
As for schools implementing sexual tolerance agendas – many schools already do this. What is the harm in teaching tolerance of human diversity (particularly if public policy in that state recognizes the legal validity of gay marriage)?
Guys – get a clue here, and brush up on basic constitutional law before making such utter fools of yourself in public….
PHILIP CHANDLER
Philip Chandler (10a95b) — 12/4/2009 @ 6:31 pmThe Lohr study is just propoganda.
It is no more credible than the Leuchter report.
Secret Squirrel (6a1582) — 12/4/2009 @ 6:44 pmSecret Squirrel writes: “The Lohr study is just propoganda…It is no more credible than the Leuchter report.”
Until and unless somebody conducts a similar study and fails to obtain the same result, this study stands.
Get a clue about the scientific method!
PHILIP CHANDLER
Philip Chandler (10a95b) — 12/4/2009 @ 6:46 pmPhilip, you keep writing “As I have stated on several occasions, the provisions of the First Amendment prohibit the state from meddling with ecclesiastical matters, and prohibit the church from meddling in affairs of state”
And the latter claim is utterly false. Your repetition of it without any basis is of a piece of your misrepresentation of other constitutional issues like your misrepresentation of Evans v. Romer.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/4/2009 @ 6:53 pmThe same “scientific method” that got us the global warming hoax?
You lost me when you started calling everyone a homophobe that does not agree with you, and when you inadvertantly were honest and stated that forced acceptance is your goal.
JD (7320ea) — 12/4/2009 @ 6:54 pmHe should have lost you JD when he started making up stuff.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/4/2009 @ 6:56 pmSo George Washington was gay?
Secret Squirrel (6a1582) — 12/4/2009 @ 6:59 pmI am getting aroused by Philip’s comments, I don’t know about anybody else.
daleyrocks (718861) — 12/4/2009 @ 7:04 pmI was trying to be nice, SPQR. This mendoucheous twatwaffle is so far beyond parody that it is amusing.
JD (7320ea) — 12/4/2009 @ 7:05 pmI am going to denounce all of you homophobes, or closet homosexuals.
JD (7320ea) — 12/4/2009 @ 7:11 pmSPQR writes “And the latter claim is utterly false. Your repetition of it without any basis is of a piece of your misrepresentation of other constitutional issues like your misrepresentation of Evans v. Romer…”
Again, SPQR – the US Supreme Court, in handing down Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947), made it absolutely clear that the church may not meddle in affairs of state, and that the state may not meddle in ecclesiastical matters. This has been the state of the law in the US for a very long time. I also refer you to Madison’s famous “Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments”, wherein this issue was discussed, passionately and exhaustively. Your refusal to acknowledge this – your refusal to acknowledge the existence of what Jefferson himself referred to as the “wall of separation between church and state” – does not change the hard, cold facts. You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to your facts.
Also, the case to which you allude above is Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) (not Evans v. Romer, unless you are referring to this case as discussed earlier (twice) by the Colorado Supreme Court before the case reached the US Supreme Court, or unless you are referring to this case as discussed (twice) by the state District Court for the City and County of Denver, the Hon. H. Jeffrey Bayless presiding – in which case, please provide the reader with the relevant case citations, because this case went up and down the state court system for a very long time before it reached the US Supreme Court several years after “Amendment 2” was enacted by the voters of the State of Colorado). I am baffled by your assertion that I have misrepresented the US Supreme Court’s holdings in Romer v. Evans, supra, in which the Court struck down “Amendment 2” on equal protection grounds, apparently accepting much of the logic contained in the amicus brief filed by constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe, who argued that Amendment 2 constituted a per se violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Romer Court struck down Amendment 2, employing much of the language associated with traditional rational basis review; however, numerous commentators have argued that the Court actually applied a much more searching standard of review than mere rational basis review. Some scholars believe that the Court employed “rational basis with bite” and cite cases such as United States Dept. of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528 (1973) and City of Cleburne, Texas v. Cleburne Living Ctr., Inc., 473 U.S. 432 (1985) (both of which were cited by the Court in Romer). Other scholars believe that the Court applied a more searching standard of review, such as quasi-strict scrutiny or strict scrutiny.
If you believe that I have misrepresented Romer, please be good enough to explain why and how you believe I have done so.
PHILIP CHANDLER
Philip Chandler (10a95b) — 12/4/2009 @ 7:34 pmPhillip – Why are you bothering since we are all hatey angry racist homophobes, and conservatives have been wrong wrong wrong throughout the years.
JD (a50cac) — 12/4/2009 @ 7:42 pmPhilip, you are basically lying. Everson v. Board of Education at no times holds that the church may not “meddle in affairs of state”. Utter falsehood and obviously intentional on your part. The case is about state funding of parochial education and is an establishment clause case and you are misrepresenting dicta. You have revealed yourself to be either completely incompetent or dishonest. I’m too bored to decide which.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/4/2009 @ 7:46 pmJD writes: “Phillip – Why are you bothering since we are all hatey angry racist homophobes, and conservatives have been wrong wrong wrong throughout the years.”
Please spell my name correctly.
I am “bothering” because when somebody accuses me of misrepresenting the US Supreme Court’s opinions in cases such as Romer and Everson, I am unwilling to allow such accusations to stand unanswered.
PHILIP CHANDLER
Philip Chandler (10a95b) — 12/4/2009 @ 7:51 pmJD – I have a walk-in closet. How about you?
daleyrocks (718861) — 12/4/2009 @ 7:52 pmPhilip, you have not answered anything, you’ve just acted as though repetition of your misrepresentations made them true.
It does not.
Which makes your little line about clues and basic constitutional law pretty hilarious.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/4/2009 @ 7:53 pmPhilip – We are all racist homophobes, and conservatives are to be blamed for all transgressions throughout history. Your arguments would be recepted a bit better were you not making sh*t up and mis-stating rulings. Just a hint …
JD (a50cac) — 12/4/2009 @ 7:55 pmIf I was a bit more bored, JD, I think I’d go find where Philip is cut and pasting this crap he does not understand.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/4/2009 @ 8:05 pmSPQR writes: “Philip, you are basically lying. Everson v. Board of Education at no times holds that the church may not “meddle in affairs of state”. Utter falsehood and obviously intentional on your part. The case is about state funding of parochial education and is an establishment clause case and you are misrepresenting dicta. You have revealed yourself to be either completely incompetent or dishonest. I’m too bored to decide which…”
In no way have I misrepresented the Court’s analysis in Everson. I am well ware of the fact pattern in that case. I am also aware of the fact that the majority made it absolutely clear that not one iota of public funding may be used to implement a religious agenda in public education. Subsequent cases have amplified the Court’s analysis in this regard, the most salient being Lemon v. Kurtzman, 411 U.S. 192 (1973), Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992), and Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) (this list is by no means exhaustive; were I to attempt to catalog every case bearing on this issue handed down by the US Supreme Court, or every controlling decision bearing on this issue handed down by the US Courts of Appeals and left undisturbed by the US Supreme Court, I would be up all night).
This issue is not one that has been discussed only by the judiciary. I refer you to papers written by both the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists (again, I would be up all night were I to try to catalog all of these papers).
The basic mandate of the First Amendment (made binding on the states through incorporation under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment) is absolutely clear; the church may not impose its doctrines in the crafting of law and public policy, and the state may not meddle in the church’s internal business. This is not to say that religion may not have an influence on legislative decision-making – obviously, many of our US Representatives and US Senators are religious persons with deeply-held personal convictions. It is to say, however, that these men and women may not inscribe religious dogma into the laws of the land. The US Supreme Court noted this in handing down Lawrence; the following passage from the majority decision written by Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy illustrates this issue clearly: “It must be acknowledged, of course, that the Court in Bowers was making the broader point that for centuries there have been powerful voices to condemn homosexual conduct as immoral. The condemnation has been shaped by religious beliefs, conceptions of right and acceptable behavior, and respect for the traditional family. For many persons, these are not trivial concerns, but profound and deep convictions accepted as ethical and moral principles to which they aspire, and which thus determine the course of their lives. These considerations do not answer the question before us, however. The issue is whether the majority may use the power of the State to enforce these views on the whole society through operation of the criminal law. “Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code.” Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 850 (1992).” [emphasis added]
I am neither incompetent nor dishonest. I have presented you with the legal holdings and the analysis to back up every claim that I have made. If you have difficulty accepting this, that is your problem. I refuse to accept responsibility for your own emotional reactions.
PHILIP CHANDLER
Philip Chandler (10a95b) — 12/4/2009 @ 8:09 pmPhilip believes that all men are homosexual. The ones who deny this are still in the closet or lying to themselves. The ones who deny it the strongest are really the ones most turned on by other men. So, when Philip talks about homophobes, criticizing men who oppose homosexuality and gay marriage, he is really gay-bashing and should condemn himself as a homophobe. Get it?
Now, extend his demonstrated skills of logic to the law and it’s easy to understand his explanations of the Supreme Court and religion.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 12/4/2009 @ 8:10 pmPhilip Chandler:
We first have to agree it’s the school’s job to teach tolerance, but let’s assume it is. How is it teaching tolerance to tell students their parents are prejudiced, discriminatory and intolerant if they voted for Proposition 8?
DRJ (dee47d) — 12/4/2009 @ 8:11 pmMore falsehoods from you, Philip. Your claim was: “Gallagher and her fellow fanatics need to be reminded of the fact that the provisions of our Constitution strictly prohibit the state from meddling in ecclesiastical matters, and strictly prohibit the church from meddling in affairs of state.“
The latter claim is simply false. Your only attempt to prove it was to cite to a case with no such holding. Now you’ve added a chain of additional irrelevant cases on establishment clause case law – none of which back up your false claim. But evidently irrelevancies ( my emotional responses? ) are all you have.
That you make snark about others understanding of constitutional law and yet make such ludicrous, even laughable, claims would be hilarious were you not such a long-winded incompetent.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/4/2009 @ 8:19 pmHe has been disingenuous from his first comment, Stashiu. I just find the bluster amusing. I especially like the part about thy shall not meddle. IANAL, but I have seen nothing that states that the Church is denied a voice in the process. Somehow he has conflated not teaching religion in school with there being a commandment that religion be denied a voice in the public square. It is an odd and unique perspective on the 1st Amendment.
JD (a50cac) — 12/4/2009 @ 8:19 pmUnfortunately, I wouldn’t call it “unique”, but if Philip is truly an attorney, SPQR has it right… incompetent covers it nicely.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 12/4/2009 @ 8:28 pmAs a long-time concerned conservative Christian racist homophobe and a fan of gladiator movies and Judy Garland, I am becoming increasing aroused over Philip’s erroneous interpretations of the law and various accustions at the readers and commenters on this thread. The tingles are spreading up my leg.
Is that wrong?
daleyrocks (718861) — 12/4/2009 @ 8:28 pmStashiu3 writes: “Philip believes that all men are homosexual. The ones who deny this are still in the closet or lying to themselves. The ones who deny it the strongest are really the ones most turned on by other men. So, when Philip talks about homophobes, criticizing men who oppose homosexuality and gay marriage, he is really gay-bashing and should condemn himself as a homophobe. Get it?”
I adduced the results of a study conducted in 1996 by noted researchers at the University of Georgia. These researchers took a sampling of college freshmen and divided this sampling up into two groups. All of the men in the sample self-identified as heterosexual, and all of these men insisted that they had never had gay sex of any kind; they also stated that they had never fantasized about having gay sex. The researchers then administered a widely-used and well-known test (the “Index of Homophobia”) to divide these men into two groups – one group consisted of men who were identified by this test as being homophobic, whereas the other group consisted of men who were identified by this test as being non-homophobic.
Men from each group were then hooked up to a penile plethysmograph, which measures blood flow and hence sexual arousal. Each man watched hardcore heterosexual pornography, hardcore lesbian pornography, and graphic gay male pornography. The researchers included lesbian pornography because they correctly reasoned that this form of pornography is the most reliable index of heterosexuality; it is well known to producers and purveyors of heterosexual pornography that heterosexual men become highly aroused when watching two or more women having lesbian sex.
The orders in which the men watched these three forms of pornography were varied so as to discount any possible “recency effect” skewing the findings. The gay male pornography featured both oral and anal sex in a multitude of positions. Each man watched this (varied) sequence of pornographic material alone, in a soundproof room, without windows (so as to ensure that the men enjoyed complete privacy at all times). The researchers included blinding, so that they did not know in advance whether a particular subject was homophobic or non-homophobic.
In other words, this was an extremely well-planned, carefully constructed study in which the researchers covered all of their bases.
The results were striking. Almost to a man, those men in the homophobic group became sexually aroused when watching the gay male pornography, whereas those men in the non-homophobic group did not become aroused when watching this pornography. This was in marked contrast to the self-assessments that the men gave upon completion of the sequence – both the homophobic men and the non-homophobic men rated themselves as not being at all aroused by the gay male pornography. Almost to a man, only those men in the homophobic group became sexually aroused while watching graphic gay male pornography.
These results speak for themselves.
In the absence of a better, competing theory, it is safe to conclude that those men who were homophobic actually had homosexual tendencies, as measured by the penile plethysmograph.
Plethysmographs do not lie. However, this study showed, clearly, that homophobic men can and do lie.
PHILIP CHANDLER
Philip Chandler (10a95b) — 12/4/2009 @ 8:34 pmDaleyrocks –
UGA Class of ’96?
Matador (176445) — 12/4/2009 @ 8:39 pmJD, Philip’s false claim about the 1st Amendment is not “odd”, it is of a piece of his hatred-filled rants. He wants to claim that churches are forbidden to participate in our public life. A discrimination as invidious as the one he accuses others of.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/4/2009 @ 8:39 pmPhilip,
you should read more about plethysmographs.
Michael Ejercito (6a1582) — 12/4/2009 @ 8:40 pmStashiu3 writes: “Unfortunately, I wouldn’t call it “unique”, but if Philip is truly an attorney, SPQR has it right…”
I NEVER STATED THAT I WAS AN ATTORNEY!
And you write that I am presumptuous?
I am not an attorney, nor have I ever claimed to be an attorney.
Kindly get your facts straight before making such assertions about another person who contributes to this discussion.
The above notwithstanding – you reveal shocking ignorance with respect to case law bearing upon the issue of the relationship between church and the state.
PHILIP CHANDLER
Philip Chandler (10a95b) — 12/4/2009 @ 8:40 pmAll those needless words when you could just scream homophobe at everyone. Brevity is a virtue.
JD (015cd2) — 12/4/2009 @ 8:41 pmPlethysmographs do not lie. However, this study showed, clearly, that homophobic men can and do lie.
PHILIP CHANDLER
Comment by Philip Chandler — 12/4/2009 @ 8:34 pm
There’s nothing more trustworthy than a study conducted by gays with an agenda.
nk (df76d4) — 12/4/2009 @ 8:42 pmActually, there might be some truth in that study. One view of homosexuality is that it is extroverted masturbation.
nk (df76d4) — 12/4/2009 @ 8:44 pmIndeed.
Philip apparently forgot that plethysmography has not yet passed the Frye test.
I wonder if he has heard of the Frye test.
Michael Ejercito (6a1582) — 12/4/2009 @ 8:45 pmMichael Ejercit writes: “you should read more about plethysmographs…”
Again, you fail — utterly — to address the substance of this study, or its conclusions.
I repeat — the homophobic men became sexually aroused while watching the gay male pornography (the plethysmograph showed that they developed erections while watching this particular form of pornography).
I can well understand your frustration and resentment at not being able to refute the conclusion reached by these researchers — but this does not change merely because you now try to find methodological flaws in a study that has been widely acclaimed for its rigor and planning.
PHILIP CHANDLER
Philip Chandler (10a95b) — 12/4/2009 @ 8:45 pmPhilip, not as shocking as your misrepresentations. Your attempts to portray yourself as more knowledgeable of constitutional law have failed here. You should probably cease copying screeds from whereever you got that nonsense. Its just wrong and you look silly.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/4/2009 @ 8:46 pmPhilip,
I did say “if”. But okay, you’re not an attorney and I withdraw any description of your rhetoric as incompetent. You’re merely stupid. Thank you for clearing that up.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 12/4/2009 @ 8:47 pmYou know what kind of thing I find odd about these kinds of plethysmograph studies?
The kind of guy who wants to be hooked up to one.
That is a sort of selective factor to these studies, methinks.
And I don’t mean to cast aspersions about people who think a device is flawless when it provides data that person would like to see, but…
http://www.skepdic.com/penilep.html
Gosh, I wonder if anyone has looked into the background of those UGA professors? Maybe they have an “axe” to “grind”?
Eric Blair (c8876d) — 12/4/2009 @ 8:48 pmCould someone explain how they determined people were “homophobic” for purposes of this study? Given the way that term is used by Philip, it means anyone that does not agree with Philip.
JD (015cd2) — 12/4/2009 @ 8:50 pmnk writes: “There’s nothing more trustworthy than a study conducted by gays with an agenda.”
Um, no — the researchers are not gay. They are heterosexual. And this study has not been refuted — which should be easy to do if you really believe that the results are false, or fraudulent.
Then Michael Ejercito writes: “Philip apparently forgot that plethysmography has not yet passed the Frye test…I wonder if he has heard of the Frye test.”
We are not in court. If we were in court, then your comments about the Frye test would be relevant, and you could complain about this test not having passed the Frye test. As we are not in court, this is clearly a sorry attempt to divert attention from the results of this study!
I note that not one of you has tried to explain the results of this study, despite having been given numerous opportunities and invitations to do so…
PHILIP CHANDLER
Philip Chandler (10a95b) — 12/4/2009 @ 8:53 pm78.Could someone explain how they determined people were “homophobic” for purposes of this study?
They took out a tube of Vaseline and said, “Would you drop your pants and bend over?”
nk (df76d4) — 12/4/2009 @ 8:55 pmPlethysmographs are still disputed.
That study is based upon a testing method that is still disputed by the scientific community.
Michael Ejercito (6a1582) — 12/4/2009 @ 8:56 pmLook, Philip, we don’t need your stupid studies. We can just talk to prisoners in our prisons. Some animals will stick their dicks in anything.
nk (df76d4) — 12/4/2009 @ 8:58 pmSo now Philipe wants to talk about a test rather than his fanciful views of the 1st Amendment and the role of religion in society.
The tests prove that you are all homophobes, which makes you closet homosexuals, which makes Philip’s criticism of you homophobic.
JD (015cd2) — 12/4/2009 @ 9:01 pmJD writes: “Could someone explain how they determined people were “homophobic” for purposes of this study? Given the way that term is used by Philip, it means anyone that does not agree with Philip…”
I am getting weary of having to repeat myself. Go back and read my message! By doing so, you will find out about the manner in which the “Index of Homophobia” was used (and perform a Google search to find out more about this test, which has been written up extensively by professionals in the field of psychological assessment such as Anne Anastasi and her colleagues)…
As for selection bias — perform a Google search on the name “Bethany Lohr” and other terms to derive the data pertaining to this study, and you will learn how this issue was handled.
Christ, you call me incompetent!
Again, I note that not one of you has attempted to explain the results of this study. Instead, you resort to ad hominem — as though calling me “stupid” and “incompetent” detracts from the findings of this study. It does not, and cannot. You should know that…
PHILIP CHANDLER
Philip Chandler (10a95b) — 12/4/2009 @ 9:01 pmShorter Philip: The science is settled!
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 12/4/2009 @ 9:02 pmI’m typing this while sitting in my closet right now.
Icy Texan (02087c) — 12/4/2009 @ 9:06 pmUm. You really didn’t read my link, did you? No reason to get so agitated.
It seems to me that you are awfully happy about a percentage of a group of 34 guys fitting your suspicions.
The weird device of which you speak is not an undisputed authority. Actually, no device is authority, since scientists like to interpret the data a machine provides.
But you want that study to be true, so that is all that is important.
Go have a beer and calm down.
Eric Blair (c8876d) — 12/4/2009 @ 9:06 pmStashiu3, IT, that wasn’t for you. That was for our excitable new friend.
Eric Blair (c8876d) — 12/4/2009 @ 9:07 pmI asked a question, Philipe. Since you introduced this idea as a means of proving homophobes are closet homosexuals, it is yours to explain. I ain’t gonna go run around looking for links, given your track record for less than accurate accounting of findings.
I am still curious why you think Barack Obama is a homophobe.
JD (015cd2) — 12/4/2009 @ 9:09 pmMichael Ejercito writes: “81.Plethysmographs are still disputed… That study is based upon a testing method that is still disputed by the scientific community.”
For the purposes of the Frye test in court, yes, results obtained using penile plethysmographs have not yet been admitted. (Aside — under what foreseeable circumstances would any courtroom proceedings make reference to the usage of penile plethysmographs? Clearly, this is yet another red herring — a crude attempt to divert attention from the results of this study). But we are not in court. We are discussing sexual arousal in the context of reactions to gay male pornography. I repeat — the homophobic men became sexually aroused when viewing this form of pornography.
The usage of penile plethysmographs to detect sexual arousal in men is well documented in the scientific literature.
Yet again — not one of you has attempted to explain the results of this study!
PHILIP CHANDLER
Philip Chandler (10a95b) — 12/4/2009 @ 9:09 pmTHE SCIENCE IS SETTLED HOMOPHOBES !!!
JD (015cd2) — 12/4/2009 @ 9:13 pmI cannot believe I am having this discussion. But your bold face italics make it sound like you are angry.
If you had bothered to read and think about the link I provided, a valid criticism of the device is the difference between arousal and desire. It was certainly possible to arouse POWs with electric cattle prods, for example.
Like I said, you are emotionally invested in the outcome of this study. It fits your preconceived notions. You want it to be true.
And that is not science. That’s politics.
Eric Blair (c8876d) — 12/4/2009 @ 9:14 pmTonight, my wife and I both agree that marriage is a bad idea and we strongly advise everyone, straight or gay, not to do it.
nk (df76d4) — 12/4/2009 @ 9:16 pmIt is clear to me that any further discussion relative to the issues raised on this thread is a waste of time and effort. I have made numerous points, and have clarified them in response to numerous requests that I do so. I have cited case law on point. I have furnished you with the details of the Lohr study. Yet all that you can do is quibble about the Frye test and engage in yet additional ad hominem.
The entertainment value of this discussion is no longer worth the trouble, particularly now that I have verbally thrashed the pants off you…
Thank you for your participation, and thank you for unveiling your true motives and your gross analytical incompetence.
PHILIP CHANDLER
Philip Chandler (10a95b) — 12/4/2009 @ 9:16 pmWhy do I keep hearing “Wham!” music in the background?
Eric Blair (c8876d) — 12/4/2009 @ 9:17 pmIT IS SETTLED. PHILIPE WON !!!
JD (855966) — 12/4/2009 @ 9:29 pmYes, Philips we are thavages.
nk (df76d4) — 12/4/2009 @ 9:31 pmEric – Philip is convinced that hard science conclusions can be drawn in soft science disciplines from a machine whose reliability and interpration are in dispute within the scientific community, plus as you pointed at at the link in 77, arousal must be the same as desire, even though the Lohr study itself offered an alternate explanation.
The junk science is settled. We are all gay and the eath is burning up!!!!11!!eleventy!!
daleyrocks (718861) — 12/4/2009 @ 9:31 pmPHILIP CHANDLER SAID:
I repeat — the homophobic men became sexually aroused while watching the gay male pornography (the plethysmograph showed that they developed erections while watching this particular form of pornography).
Maybe they shouldn’t watch it. Unless, you know, they like it. There’s nothing wrong with that
Ag80 (3d1543) — 12/4/2009 @ 9:31 pmI’m going to have to either give mister happy a sharp rap with a spoon or go get the Jergens.
daleyrocks (718861) — 12/4/2009 @ 9:33 pmRe: #88 – It’s all good, Eric. In fact, I’m having a beer to calm myself down right now. All of this talk about homophobes has set off my plethysmograph.
Icy Texan (02087c) — 12/4/2009 @ 9:35 pmPhilip,
I’ll thank you to leave your hands off my pants sir. Enjoy your weekend.
For what it’s worth, your positions were unworthy of reasoned discourse as you misrepresented both the science and the law. All I had left was ridicule and ad hominem. Perhaps you’ll find suckers elsewhere and I say… good luck.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 12/4/2009 @ 9:38 pmWell, too many puns. So, since Philip is saying “I work here is done,” the only appropriate reply is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUjIA3Rt7gk
Eric Blair (c8876d) — 12/4/2009 @ 9:46 pmPhilip Chandler:
The meaning of the results is the subject of debate, including by the author of the study who felt it could be due to two different causes. First, the one you ascribe to it — that the homophobes were latent homosexuals. But there is a second plausible explanation:
DRJ (dee47d) — 12/4/2009 @ 9:49 pmIt’s nice that you are trying, DRJ. But Teh Narrative is in play. This fellow has to buy into the conclusions. Even though the sample size is small, the questionnaire is laughable, the groups are self selecting to be hooked up to quite an odd machine, and the conclusions fit a PC mindset.
Eric Blair (c8876d) — 12/4/2009 @ 9:59 pmI have to say I scrolled past all of Fiwwip’s walls-o-text. But I did catch Fiwwip’s herculean effort to channel Moron in one of his walls-o-copy/paste. And I did read comments left by other people.
I, for one, would never have been part of the study group because I would refuse to view the material. I really cannot decide which is worse: snuff films or man-on-man pornography. Quite frankly, there are more than two who hold my position out there, so the whole study is invalid. It is impossible to determine in a scientific manner what Fiwwip tries to claim because the vast majority of those who should be studied will absolutely refuse on morality (and barf-reflex) grounds.
I have to say DRJ brought up a good point, though, in her quotings. I see part of the possibility being a “fight or flight” adrenaline rush and not a Freudian desire. There are too many ways to read the junk science for the junk political position to gain any weight.
And Fiwwip’s torturing of the First Amendment? Abhorrent and aberrant. I would say “nice try, Fiwwip” but I would be less than truthful.
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 12/4/2009 @ 10:27 pmClearly, according to Philip, POW’s are oriented towards sex involving electric cattle prods.
Michael Ejercito (6a1582) — 12/5/2009 @ 6:05 amPhilip, declare victory – falsely – and run. Great plan.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/6/2009 @ 8:54 amI’m one of the many (although definitely a minority) straights who thinks that adoption of SSM is good social policy. But with something approaching three dozen failures and no successes at the ballot box to persuade enough voters, it’s become clear to me that demonizing the folks who oppose it is an utter failure, and I don’t see any reason that will change.
Philip’s a case in point. Assume, for the sake of argument, that many straight me are aroused by gay male porn, and that all voters can be persuaded of that. How would that translate to votes at the ballot box, even indirectly?
You don’t change people’s minds by persuading them that they’re evil; you do it by persuading them that they’re wrong, or by raising fears that militate in favor of your policy. The SSM has, to a large extent, gone with a third option: you oppose SSM because you’re a bunch of evil bigots. That isn’t going to change things.
What may change things — and to some extent already has — is the visible presence of non-threatening same-sex couples in society. It gets difficult to see how making Al and Bob or Carly and Debbie next door pay the marriage tax or save money by not having to go through huge hoops to cross-adopt their kids does anything useful.
And if you look at the progress in both social policy and law toward acceptance of non-het sexuality, it’s clear that it is working, just slowly.
So: chill, Philip. In the long run, you win, but in the short and medium run, trying to metaphorically beat up on those folks who disagree with you just pushes the victories further back.
Joel Rosenberg (677e59) — 12/6/2009 @ 9:17 amJoel, Philip is not interested in convincing anyone. He’s only interested in demonizing his opponents to fulfill his self-justification for hatred.
The tactic is to cast all opponents as evil and bigoted so that the judiciary will overturn the idea of democracy on this issue. Its a anti-democratic strategy.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/6/2009 @ 9:21 amSPQR, I think that’s an overstatement. It’s not that pro-SSM people are calling anti-SSM people bigots as part of some grand strategy: the people I know who call opponents of SSM bigots honestly believe it to be true. They’ve run through the arguments against SSM and found none of them persuasive, and it’s not just that they aren’t persuaded, they think nobody who was rational could be persuaded by them … so there must be something irrational behind opposition to SSM.
This is not to say that the people holding that belief are correct; but, in my experience, they hold it sincerely, not as a political tactic.
aphrael (9e8ccd) — 12/6/2009 @ 9:32 amI really cannot decide which is worse: snuff films or man-on-man pornography
I wouldn’t think there would be a debate; it’s hard for me to imagine anything being comparable to snuff films.
aphrael (9e8ccd) — 12/6/2009 @ 9:34 amAnd, as I was trying to argue, it’s demonstrably a failure, except, I guess, for Philip and folks like him (note: I’m describing what I see as a small subset of pro-SSM gays) to vent a little.
That said, I disagree — I think he is desperately trying to persuade people; but it’s not working, and it’s not going to work, done his way.
It reminds me of the whole Palin/birther thing, actually. By tolerating/pandering-to the ranters, the moderate voices of SSM advocates (and there are many) marginalize themselves.
Joel Rosenberg (677e59) — 12/6/2009 @ 9:35 amaphrael, I believe that it is both, especially in Philip’s case, the belief that I characterized in the first sentence of my 9:21AM comment and a tactic. But I appreciate your comment as always.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/6/2009 @ 9:36 amaphrael: yup. Wish I’d said it as well.
Joel Rosenberg (677e59) — 12/6/2009 @ 9:36 amI still think the laws need to be changed so that bisexual people can be married to a guy and girl at the same time. Don’t call it polygamy. Call it a two-for-one deal.
Mark (411533) — 12/6/2009 @ 9:37 amTwo words… Scat Films.
Frankly, Not not entirely sure that such an affair would qualify as heterosexual…
Insert Tim Robbins joke here.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 12/6/2009 @ 10:27 am