May 17, 2004
Wedding Day In Massachusetts
Gay couples are getting married today in Massachusetts.
Massachusetts is the first state to allow gay couples to legally marry in the United States.
Protesters are out in force. Some led by the horrible Fred Phelps but they are a small minority. Not all protesters are the nasty bigots many would have you believe.
"Ray McNulty, a spokesman for the Massachusetts Family Institute, one of the leading organizers of opposition to same-sex marriage, criticized some of the protesters who gathered near city halls where gay couples were seeking marriage licenses, saying there was no need for hateful speech."
"What's going on down there is legal, and as far as I'm concerned, give those people their happiness for the day," McNulty said.
I hope that people remember that. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs and their opinions. It may be different than yours but it doesn't make them EVIL. I'm sick and tired of people feeling smug and superior in their bigotry of those "religious bigots".
You may be angry at "Christians" for being anti-gay or whatever. That is your right. But your bigotry towards someone's belief is not excused by the perceived bigotry of somebody else. You do not hold the moral high ground with your hate.
Remember that.
**Update**
Troll warning issued. Deletion or alteration of trolling posts shall now commence.
Act like a serious adult and debate the issue or risk my wrath.
Well said HRH. I find it amazing that these people forget that the very freedomt hat allows them to express themselves religiously and marry whom they wish, is what allows someone to speak against religion and should allow them to marry whom they wish.
I am a reformed Christian, but I don't think that people understand that if we outlaw SSM, who says that one day, Opposite Sex Marriage couldn't also be outlawed? I am not completely settled on the issue, but can't understand protesting and picketers thinking that that would actually change someone's mind....
Posted by: Rae at May 17, 2004 11:25 AMThere are two ways to approach a topic you disagree with. One is to refute the topic logically, the other is to demonize or otherwise discredit the one making claims.
Liberals toss around the term "Religious Right" as though they were saying "Hitler's SS." They never quite define WHAT the religious right is, since it isn't a real group they're referencing, but an unseen, invisible monster they want to attack. (for instance, who is in the religious right, as they define it? Pat Robertson followers? Anyone pro-life? Any Christian? It's unclear, and it doesn't need to be clear if you're only using the term as a tool to gain sympathy for your side against the unseen evil forces)
Of course, the right does the same trick, only with different labels. It seems that if you can treat people as less-than-human, or as issues only, or as unseen evil forces, then you don't have to really honestly deal with their thoughts and ideas.
I am a Christian pastor in favor of gay marriage. That makes most of the surface-thinkers stagger a bit, because when I say I'm a Christian, they want to throw me in one labelled group, but when I say I'm in favor of gay marriage, they want to throw me in another.
I am religious, I am on the Right, but I am anything but what most folks classify by the demonizing term "Religious Right." I've found that the term is used most often as a shortcut to being able to restate one's own opinions AND gain the high moral ground by lumping any opposition in a box marked "evil" or "insidious" or "closed-minded".
Labels in any form eliminate the need for orderly, thought-out debate by subconciously (and conciously) dehumanizing the opposition.
Posted by: Big Dan at May 17, 2004 12:26 PMRe-reading Arne's comments, I've found a few more "religious right" type labels. Note how Arne classifies the group together, then is able to pretend they're all a big, evil, bigotted homogenous group. I would prefer to deal with issues, or the issues of specific people, than to box folks together in a group with a made-up label and dismiss them all out of hand.
I love Jesus. I have strong views about my faith. Therefore, I seem to be in Arne's classification of folks that want to "shove" religion "down other people's throats."
Interestingly, by just saying that, Arne practices the same thing he condemns. Jesus freaks are intolerant, the claim goes. Therefore, we can dismiss them, in essence being intolerant of those who are intolerant, condeming ourselves of the same crime in the process.
This is why honest confrontation of ideas is always preferable to personal attacks or claims. Refute my ideas when they are wrong, but don't call me names or lump me in boxes when you don't know if I belong or not.
Posted by: Big Dan at May 17, 2004 12:32 PMOne of the tenets of Christianity, that seems to be lost on it anti-theists like Arne (which are very diferent from atheists, like myself), is the tenet, "Render Unto Caesar that which is Caesars."
Christianity, in that tenent, made secular government possible--what we value today and are attempting to spread throughout the world.
There is a place in society for religion, and religious people, but they are different from government. Most Christians understand that--it is very much a part of their religion. Most religious people of other persuasions in America, understand that, too.
In this single comment thread we have an anti-theist who is pro gay marriage, a Christian paster who is also pro gay marriage, and an atheist (me) who is about as against it as anyone could be. Rosemary is a Catholic and she's pro on the issue.
To categorize everyone on the issue based on religious beliefs is insanity and a form of bigotry. I don't base my opinion on the subject on Christianity. I am not in any way bigoted against gays or lesbians.
I think the only intolerance I've seen on this thread comes from Arne, who has a bug about Christianity. Certainly there are groups who label themselves as Christians (the Fred Phelps gang Rosemary mentioned), but they do not represent more than a dozen or so people. There are larger groups, like the Pat Robertson crowd, but they, too, are a minority of Christians.
Christianity doesn't have anything to do with it. Maybe it's time for Arne to show a little tolerance for people of faith and their "civil rights" to believe in a God of their choosing.
Posted by: Mrs. du Toit at May 17, 2004 01:04 PMOH! Yay! Me and Gordon can get married for real now! I cannot WAIT to be his wife! Or was he going to be the wife?
Posted by: Nunya at May 17, 2004 01:05 PMWow, Arne. You say "stop trying to shove your religion down my throat"... and yet YOU'RE the one calling Dan's faith a "fallacy" and providing links to try and prove him wrong.
You're an evangelical atheist, kiddo. The Fallwell of the unbelievers. You must be so proud to ape the very thing you condemn.
Posted by: Cam at May 17, 2004 01:08 PMArne,
If you are too stupid to comprehend my words than for everone's sake - shup-up!
Your whole comment proves you are a stupid fucking moron and I waste my time with you.
Posted by: Rosemary the Queen of All Evil at May 17, 2004 02:00 PMYou didnt just figure that out, did you Rosemary?
Posted by: John Irving at May 17, 2004 03:20 PMArne,
Thank you for providing that link. I realize now that my life has been a lie. Thank God, er, I guess not God now.. thank, um, Arne! Thank Arne for internet links that can finally disprove the existance of God!
/sarcasm
Nevertheless, I do thank you for proving my point on the whole intolerance thing. Debate hint #1: Never start arguments with conclusions. For instance "Your views are wrong" (which is essentially what you said) demonstrates the very intolerance you railed against.
And since you brought it up, yes, I do often vote for candidates who disagree with me on certain issues. Especially in the lesser-of-two-evils Bush/Kerry choice we have now, it is not only likely that we'll have to vote for someone who disagrees with us somewhere down the line, but it is also highly IMPROBABLE to find someone who believes straight down the line that everything their candidate does is just perfect.
If you don't mind, however, I'll pass on the homework. I just got out of my fifth year of divinity school training and I'd like the summer off.
Peace.
Posted by: Big Dan at May 17, 2004 03:51 PMJohn,
No. I'm just done being nice.
Posted by: Rosemary the Queen of All Evil at May 17, 2004 04:16 PMNow HERE'S something scary: when the Queen of all Evil stops being nice.
Yowtch.
Posted by: Big Dan at May 17, 2004 05:18 PMNo shit Dan!
It's gonna get ugly FAST!
Posted by: Rosemary the Queen of All Evil at May 17, 2004 05:28 PMArne,
Bullshit.
You stated, clearly, that it was a Christian fundamentalist opinion that was the driving force behind anti-gay marriage. Are you now denying or modifying that stance?
Then, Big Dan and I made the point that he was a Christian (and a pastor even) who was pro gay marriage. I am an atheist and am against it.
Your argument centered on religion being driven down your throats, yet we have proven religion is not the central source of opinion on the subject.
You haven't argued with facts and reason. You've argued in a manner consistent with a toddler having a tantrum. When your theories are refuted you change the subject, alter your premise, or shout nasty names at people, all the while accusing your opponents of being intolerant or calling people names.
Is this just another RW Foamer tactic to avoid the issues at hand?
He hasn't foamed. He doesn't appear to even spit when he talks. You say you've provided facts, yet they have nothing to do with the subject. You've provided evidence that there is no God. What does that have to do with the fact that a Christian pastor is pro gay marriage?
There's no tooth fairy, does that make gay marriage wrong or good? I can't decide.
If he's for it, and a Christian, why do you want to try to reason him out of his beliefs in God, when we have clearly shown that there is no connection between having a belief in God and where you stand on the gay marriage issue? I could like a few unrelated facts to, what about the mating of the Groundhog, that might make the conversation interesting. If linkage is the only requirement, it would be as useful as your soures. It would be facts, but having nothing to do with the subject.
And, by the way, you don't use reason to argue beliefs--they're based on faith, not reason. Faith has nothing to do with reason or logic...that's why it's called faith. Isn't it cool we have different words to mean different things? You can use logic and reason to argue a fact or a hypothesis based on facts, but there are no facts regarding a belief in God to debate.
Try again, but this time, try to stay on topic and in context.
Wanker.
Posted by: Mrs. du Toit at May 17, 2004 07:21 PMArne,
I am going to ignore that you keep proving my point by leading with personal attacks.
I will, however, comment on the theodicy problem, which you raised quite appropriately. The problem of suffering, as stated here in the Epicurian writing and in dozens of other forms, is always a rousing one.
The problem is that it tends to focus on God as all-power. That is to say, if God does exist and has all power, why is there suffering?
I can't give you God's phone number, but I can tell you that my view of God is more than power, but love. God is love, that is to say. This is my opinion.
Love requires self-limiting, or else it's not love. A creation that can't CHOOSE to love can't really love. So God must limit Godself for love to exist.
I believe in a God that cries beside me when I suffer, a God that understands that suffering can be redemptive, a God that could choose to be a cosmic dictator but would rather be a divine lover.
As the equally old saying to your rather rudimentary retelling of the problem of theodicy goes, you have to have evil to know what good is.
I am happy for you to disagree, that's your choice. It's interesting to me how you take my simple statement of opinion as some kind of attack on your athiesm. Not so. I state my opinion, you are welcome to yours.
Disagreement is NOT persecution.
Posted by: Big Dan at May 17, 2004 07:32 PMDan,
I appreciate the effort but I will not allow personal attacks.
You may continue to try and if Arne decides to start behaving - I'll leave the comments alone.
Posted by: Rosemary the Queen of All Evil at May 17, 2004 07:34 PMRosemary,
Mostly I am grateful for the arena in which to debate. I really don't care how the conversation goes one way or the other and I certainly don't think God needs my defense.
I do love having the chance to defend my beliefs and thereby clarify them in my own head. I hope you and I will be able to fight it out in the Iron Blog Arena one day just for this purpose: by combating someone on or above my level of skill, I learn to grow - win lose or draw.
The point of all this is that for being the Queen of All Evil, you're adorable.
Posted by: Big Dan at May 17, 2004 07:40 PM:-)
I certainly would love to debate you Dan!
Thanks for the compliment.
Posted by: Rosemary the Queen of All Evil at May 17, 2004 07:48 PMNot only are you a fucking hypocrit Rose, but you are a bitch. You sit there and slam arne for personal attacks, yet you allow for assholes like Gordon/Geoff to forge those 5th grade posts with arne's name.
Posted by: Nunya at May 17, 2004 07:53 PMYou know what? I stated clearly from the beginning what I would and wouldnt put up with and Arne broke the rule after a warning.
I don't care if Arne shits on you, Gordon or Geoff. But people that did nothing but post here and act like adults - I will not allow attacks on.
Myself included.
Fuck Off.
Posted by: Rosemary the Queen of All Evil at May 17, 2004 08:19 PMStill awaiting your email, Your Majesty. :)
I see you're doing housecleaning like I had to do earlier.
Props to Dan for sticking up for me.
Posted by: The Chairman at May 17, 2004 08:22 PMOut of curiosity - is there something in the words Gay Marriage that makes some people start squealing like school children?
Posted by: The Chairman at May 17, 2004 08:35 PMWell, Mr. Chairman, I'd have to say it's the Left/pro- groups as much as it is the Right/anti- groups here. Yes, we all know about the minority of Christians who say AIDS is God's way of saying "cut it out," but there's worse coming from the Left side. I say worse because the sentiment is widely shared, and expressed in popular forums by acknowledged leaders in the liberal/left.
The worse is, of course, the automatic deomonization of anyone who disagrees with the Left. Anyone who is against gay marriage is a homophobic Christian bigot. Anyone who is against affirmative action is a racist. Anyone who is against abortion is a mysogynistic neanderthal intent on keeping women barefoot and pregnant. Ad nauseum...
I repeat: the big difference between Right and Left right now in America is that many leaders of the left frequently resort to demonization and other bad habits because they know they're right. Anyone who disagrees with them is either stupid, or evil.
Yet they're the ones called liberal. Go figure.
Very true, CT. I agree that the Left is as bad (I never claimed it was otherwise, nor did I mention /who/ I felt was squealing). I also agree that blanket-casting all who are opposed to something as bigots is wrong. Just like I feel all who call anti-war protesters or critics of the WoT 'unpatriotic' or 'traitors' is equally wrong.
There is too much name calling from /both/ sides. Something I hope we can avoid at Iron Blog.
Posted by: The Chairman at May 17, 2004 09:15 PMMrs Du Toit
Thank you. Your posts were eloquent and made me glad that in some small measure I've gotten a tiny bit acquainted with you through the Esmays' blogs.
Posted by: jane m at May 17, 2004 10:02 PMGood grief. This is what counts as sticking up for my relationship? I almost prefer the Human Rights Campaign.
Posted by: Sean Kinsell at May 18, 2004 01:39 AMArne,
You're suggesting that all groups who oppose gay marriage on religious grounds, the hard Religious Right, are welcomed in the Republican Party (or their views are given an open hearing).
That's nonsense.
By that same logic, the NAMBLA (Man Boy Love Association) sickos are given open, unquestioned support in the Democrat Party? They're pro-gay and pro-love, right?
Of course there are outrageous extremists groups out there who oppose or support things for ridiculous reasons. Most people don't base their opinions on that or share those extremist groups' ideologies.
The Republican Party doesn't own the Religious Right. That's bullshit. There may be a number of groups, on the right of the Religious aisle, who wish to influence the Republican Party, but that hasn't happened (nor will it, if I have any say in the matter). This is all propaganda and I'm surprised someone like you would continue to assert that opinion. Demonizing the Right for the actions and deeds of a minority of nutcases is the ultimate straw man. I refuse to continue to have to defend myself against what groups, who have nothing to do with the party, say or do.
Marriage is a civil contract. I've been down this road before, and know where it leads, an impasse. But to summarize: To suggest that it is simply a "mind your own business issue" is the ultimate in ridiculous. It is exactly the opposite of "mind your own business." It is, "here is my business, now subsidize me." I would love it if we could get to the mind your own business stage on the issue--it isn't that, which is why I find it so appalling. It is state sanctioning and recognition of gay marriage that is occurring here--it is equal entitlements to benefits and privileges, previously only conferred upon straight couples-- that ALL of society is going to have to support with their tax dollars. All of society gets to have a say on who gets to stand in line for the benefits trough. It's called democracy.
Posted by: Mrs. du Toit at May 18, 2004 02:49 AMArne:
Ummm, hate to say it, Rosemary, but your "whole comment" here (such as it is) shows that you simply didn't understand my point.
I understood your point exactly. You chose, in your rabid hatred of all things different than you, to launch into a diatribe of why your bigotry is morally superior. You're wrong.
Okay, I'll address your "point".
Huh? Maybe we need a better definition of bigotry here. Pointing out that the CRW foamers are bigots may be considered by some to be impolite, but then again, if someone's uncle is a raving Nazi, I suppose you'd say "just ignore him and say 'yeak, OK' when he's ranting" at family gatherings to keep the peace, eh?
My point is that most Christians believe that homosexuality s sinful. Just like they believe lying is sinful. That does not make them evil.
My point is that your rabid hatred of Christians does not make you any better. Your rabid hatred makes you a bigot on the exact same level as Fred Phelps, actually.
Also, your Nazi comment is offensive. You don't know me or my family to make such a disgusting remark. FYI, my family barely survived the Nazi invasion you sick freak.
No thank you, Rosemary, when someone's a bigot, I'g going to point it out. They may not be tarred with the "loony Nazi-wannabe" appellation that Fred Phelps has earned, but no points off if they're "sincerely, politely, and Jaaayyyssuuss-lovingly" bigoted.
Fine, point it out but as I stated your bigotry is not morally superior. A bigot is a bigot. So point out all you like and I shall continue to remind you and everyone else that you, Arne, are hypocritical BIGOT.
They're the ones that want to shove their religion down other people's throats, with force if possible.
They certainly are not doing that. My religion is much different than theirs and I don't feel that is the case. They are doing what they can through the Democratic process. It is people like you that are trying to "force" your beliefs on everyone else through force and the courts. If you feel so strong that you are in the right - push for a vote, not cry and demand a edict from the SCOTUS.
Well, this whole thread went, literally overnight, to "fraught with possibilities" to "absurd."
I love the debating, I just like to know who it is I'm debating, that's all.
Nevertheless, I would like to ask a basic question. Why is it, when non-Christians state their opinion, it is just that, stating opinion and engaging in intellectual debate. However, when a Christian does the same thing, even when ASKED to state his/her beliefs, it is considered some kind of attack or attempt at conversion?
That aside, a quick scan of my responses will show that I don't especially care one way or the other if others agree with me, even less if they join my faith. That's not my business. I'm just debating an issue. Well, I will again when I know who's who.
Posted by: Big Dan at May 18, 2004 09:13 AMSpeaking of religion being shoved down people's throats, why are governments able to bless and license marriage in the first place?
It's a throwback to the church state, when the Puritans in New England set the laws through the church. When church and state separated, shouldn't marriage have gone with the church, since it was originally a religious rite?
I don't think marriage should be a religious institution only, but I sure wonder if it's the government's place to decide who can get married and how much they can charge to license it.
Posted by: Big Dan at May 18, 2004 09:17 AMYou assume thaty what I practise and recommend is bigotry. That's nonsense. Simply not true. IF you disagree, feel free to show how I manifest this "bigotry".
Name-calling. You refer to those that you hate as RW foamers.
What I said was that their efforts to use the vast power of the gummint and the law to deprive others of rights and benefits that they enjoy is wrong.
There are plenty of people that are against SSM that are not religious. Many will also say that Gays have the exact same rights as anyone else. The problem Arne, is that they want new rights to be created.
Nonsense. I'm trying to force adherence to the "supreme Law of the Land" (and to the similar state constitutions), and in those cases where this law is silent, I'll be happy to pursue the democratic process as well.
Bullshit.
Posted by: Rosemary the Queen of All Evil at May 18, 2004 03:01 PMWonder how Arne feels about Kerry not supporting gay rights, Rosemary? He is supporting the gay-marriage-ban amendment (or at least WAS, more than 24 hours have passed since then. . .), even while opposing amending the U.S constitution. Supporting such an amendment for even one state says he does not believe they have a right to be married, under the U.S. Constitution.
Posted by: John Irving at May 18, 2004 03:17 PMYeah, Kerry's position is an odd one. But like the daily lottery we need to tune in each day for any changes.
Posted by: Rosemary the Queen of All Evil at May 18, 2004 05:02 PMI look forward to seeing how he finally stands on this one.
Timing is everything in politics....
Posted by: Gordon the Magnificent at May 18, 2004 05:54 PMI'm still waiting for this thread to turn "gay." What is with you people?!? As founder, and surprisingly, only member of the straight-apathetic-agnostic-atheists*-who-love-Jesus-and-
support-SSM, I must state categorically, that although the Queen is wrong most of the time, she is right on THIS issue. If you disagree, you are wrong, and ultimately evil, and you probably don't smell nice, or exercise much, and have sweaty elbows even in the winter.
*an apathetic agnostic atheist is a person who doesn't know whether or not God doesn't exist and doesn't give a flying fuck either way.
Forgive me grammar Gods and Goddesses...if you exist.
Posted by: Tim the Soldier at May 18, 2004 07:44 PMThank you, Tim.
Threads appear to only turn gay on Dean's World.
Posted by: Rosemary the Queen of All Evil at May 18, 2004 08:42 PMI would try to gay the place up more, Tim, but this crowd's a little too emotionally available for my taste, know what I mean?
Posted by: Sean Kinsell at May 18, 2004 09:03 PMHAIL TO THE QUEEN OF ALL EVIL!!!! HAIL TO THE QUEEN OF ALL GOOD!!!! HAIL TO THE QUEEN OF ALL!!!!
Tim the Soldier:
Yes, Gods and Goddesses. HAIL TO ALL THE GODS AND THE GODDESSES!!!!
May 17, 2004: Wedding Day in Massachusetts -- a day to remember! And another June 26 is coming up soon!
Christians: Since there are thousands of Christian sects with the most vastly varying beliefs, since even Catholics disagree on many things, it is therefore impossible for me to make any to make any generalizations whatsoever about Christians. Big Dan, N-Jath the Slave (on John Kusch's blog), my friend Robin George Olsen, my aunt Jewel, are all Christians -- and they have nothing whatsoever in common with the likes of Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Lou Sheldon, or any of the rest of that ilk.
"The Left": Homosexuals are NOT all Leftists. A growing number of homosexual men and women are breaking with Leftism, and a growing number of Rightists are coming out as homosexuals.
The Independent Gay Forum
http://www.indegayforum.org/
"Lavender But Not Pink": a Conservative Lesbian, pro-marriage, pro-military, Republican -- lots of links here to other Lesbian and Gay sites and blogs of a Starboard orientation (Conservative, Libertarian, Objectivist)
http://lavenderbutnotpink.com/index.html
Ingrid E. Barnes: Black Lesbian Conservative
http://www.iebarnes.com/
The Pink Pistols: Gay men and Lesbian women defending the Second Amendment (the right of the people to keep and bear arms)
http://www.pinkpistols.org/index2.html
Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians
http://www.plagal.org/
Some meaningless terms in this debate: "bigot", "tolerant" vs. "intolerant", "homophobe", "homosexual agenda". "Religious Right", "hate"
"Bigot": used to mean somebody who burned religious dissenters at the stake, in America came to mean racist, now means anybody (such as me) who gets angry about anything.
"Intolerant": used to mean somebody who burned religious dissenters at the stake, now means anybody (such as me) who gets angry about anything, anybody (such as me) who holds certain values (such as homosexual marriage) as absolute. Yes, I'm intolerant.
"Tolerant": used to mean somebody who didn't burn opponents at the stake, now means somebody who never gets angry about anything, lets everything slide, a wishy-washy, namby-pamby attitude. That's not me.
"Homophobe": meaningless because it refers to three very different things: 1) a concrete visual-visceral aesthetic aversion to homosexuality of one's own sex, 2) an abstract universal moral condemnation of all homosexuality of either sex, 3) use of the government to enforce such a condemnation, e.g., through "sodomy" laws or a Federal Anti-Marriage Amendment.
#1 I can thoroughly appreciate. It is as inherent in most heterosexuals as homosexual attraction is in homosexuals. I oppose any attempt to eradicate such an aversion as I oppose any attempt to eradicate such an attraction. #2 I oppose but can respect as long as it isn't translated into #3. #3 I totally and violently oppose without the slightest mitigation or any degree of tolerance.
"Homosexual Agenda": Out to git you mama! Like Zionist Conspiracy. A Big Lie by those promoting a totalitarian agenda of their own.
"Religious Right" or "Christian Right": I refuse to grant this sanction to those promoting the anti-homosexual agenda. It is an insult to all Christians, to all other religions, and to those on the Right on any spectrum who oppose the anti-homosexual agenda.
"Hate": Hate is good. I am a hater. I love the good (such as homosexual marriage) and I hate the bad, i.e., all that which negates the bad.
Me: I am selfish, elitist, reactionary, dogmatic, intolerant, Extreme Right, a deviated prevert, a Lesbian-lover, a Commie-hater, a gun nut, a Western imperialist warmonger.
Posted by: Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping gun-loving selfish aesthete at May 18, 2004 09:12 PM...and somehow I still adore you. :-)
Posted by: Rosemary the Queen of All Evil at May 18, 2004 09:15 PMKerry's position is middle of the road?
Arne, Arne, Arne...surely you jest.
His position is a complete contradiction and diametrically opposed to yours.
I know because after he said it and John Edwards agreed I laughed my ass off. 'Course, that was 2 months ago so it could be different now.
Both of them are personally against SSM. Both of them think it should be left up to the States to decide. Both of them feel it is a basic human right and an equal protection under the law issue. Nice sound bite, huh?
Problem is...
If they believe this is a human right and an equal protection under the law issue then it is NOT a State's Right's issue.
IF SSM is an "equal protection under the law" issue; then it is the Federal government's responsibility, according to the 14th amendment, to ensure all people have it.
IF SSM isn't a basic human right or about equal protection under the law; then it is a State's Rights position.
Kerry and Edwards current position is that any State has the Right to deny what the 14th Amendment has accorded them. That doesn't follow.
Does it Arne?
Not unreasonable?
MY GOD - Kerry MUST NOT HAVE READ LOVING v VIRGINIA.
HURRY ARNE- get him a copy!
HAHHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Posted by: Rosemary the Queen of All Evil at May 18, 2004 09:49 PMCan Arne quote HIMSELF in a post? I have to disagree with you Rosemary (shock!) I don't thing that Kerry, Edwards, or the Clintons personally oppose SSM. I think they are simply saying what they feel needs to be said for the political life of the Democratic Party. I think they all privately support it, but are not willing to state that publically. This is completely reprehensible (too harsh?) to me. (The not being honest element.) Kerry will never get my vote until he comes clean (no pun intended) on this issue. Seems Kerry will give it in the ass, but he won't take it in the ass.
Posted by: Tim the Soldier at May 18, 2004 10:02 PMHi Rosemary. I read your post and I have to say I expected anomosity towards same sex marriage. Personally, I could care less if I ever became legally married my partner. Others however, are not fighting to be married. Most are just wanting to be free of hate. At least I am.
Your post was to the point and wasted no words, in fact, I am unclear how either side is arguing this post.
The bigotry comes from both sides. It matters not who started what. It all got lost in translation, didn't it?
Peace.
Posted by: donna at May 18, 2004 10:30 PMDonna,
Totally. I'm personally for SSM. Actually, more than for it I have been battling my congressional reps over it. I have been working on this issue for about a year.
I'm a late comer but I am here. That said, I hate the double standard bigotry. I hate bigotry altogether actually, but that is another story.
Tim,
Baby, honey I know it's not saying much but he and Edwards said it during the "debate" on Larry King and I heard it. Rev. Al took them to task about it. I remember bringing it up on DW. Search DW - "Al Sharpton" - I authored it sometime in March.
Posted by: Rosemary the Queen of All Evil at May 18, 2004 11:19 PMIt's not dishonest of Me, Arne.
I'm ignoring nothing. Many people are for Civil Unions that's why everyone, including you over at Iron Blog, is crying about "separate but equal".
BTW, NOWHERE in that debate did Kerry or Edwards mention Civil Unions. Also, in Kerry's state the judges dismissed the civil union idea as "not good enough". Either way - if it's a Constitutional issue - it should be seen to by the Fed Govt. and not individual States to decide.
Also, Arne if this is a 14th amendment issue - as Kerry seems to think. Kerry should be demanding legal Civil Unions EVERYWHERE, not allowing certain states to discriminate.
Also, since I was typing my earlier response before yours was seen, calling me dishonest is well dishonest of YOU.
I certainly didn't hear that Kerry had nuanced his SSM opinion - AGAIN. I didn't hear that he was now for civil unions.
Only if you studiously ignore the fact that the two states that have instituted civil unions or gay marriages happen to have done so on the basis of the state's own constitutions.
What about the other 48???? I know that my state doesn't. THis state is all set to ban SSM and civil unions.
When Loving was decided only 16 states had inter-racial marriage bans... So, Arne I know that you can't help but defend that schmuck Kerry but you should stop. Doing so is making you sound like a hypocrite.
Arne tried this same argument at my place too, but has left since his beat down.
Posted by: Geoffrey at May 19, 2004 12:21 PM"Only if you studiously ignore the fact that the two states that have instituted civil unions or gay marriages happen to have done so on the basis of the state's own constitutions."
How the hell does this fit into the equation?
Posted by: Gordon the Magnificent at May 19, 2004 01:08 PMIt doesn't.
Arne is grasping at straws to defend Kerry's conservative stance on SSM.
Posted by: Rosemary the Queen of All Evil at May 19, 2004 01:12 PMNOW I understand my Dark Queen.
Imagine that, a person can make a point under 15 words!
Posted by: Gordon the Magnificent at May 19, 2004 01:31 PMRosemary the Queen of All Evil wrote:
"Donna,
Totally. I'm personally for SSM. Actually, more than for it I have been battling my congressional reps over it. I have been working on this issue for about a year."
THANK YOU!!!! HAIL TO THE QUEEN OF ALL EVIL!!!! HAIL TO THE QUEEN OF ALL GOOD!!!! HAIL TO THE QUEEN OF ALL!!!!
Tim the Soldier wrote:
"I'm still waiting for this thread to turn "gay." What is with you people?!? As founder, and surprisingly, only member of the straight-apathetic-agnostic-atheists*-who-love-Jesus-and-
support-SSM, I must state categorically, that although the Queen is wrong most of the time, she is right on THIS issue. If you disagree, you are wrong, and ultimately evil, and you probably don't smell nice, or exercise much, and have sweaty elbows even in the winter."
I agree! (Although the Queen is right most of the time -- actually, all the time, except when she disagrees with me -- or even then, since even _I_ don't always agree with me!)
This is where I stand on this:
Homosexuality*, like heterosexuality*, is holy and eternal.
(*Actually, the spectrum I use more often and find more accurate or more salient for most purposes is androsexuality, or attraction to men, and gynosexuality, or attraction to women. But that's for another thread....)
Marriage is, or should be, holy and eternal, a total commitment between a man and a woman, a man and a man, a woman and a woman, to exclusive and eternal fidelity, a sacred bond of love. Yes, I am a Romanticist.
Therefore, what I would like to see is the following scenario:
No "civil unions", no "domestic partnerships", no "domestic partnership-related program activities", no "domestic partnership program-related activities", no "marriage lite", no nothing of that kind. You're married or you're not. Period. Plus a third choice (_more_ conservative)....
Everyone, heterosexual or homosexual, androsexual or gynosexual, sadist or masochist, would have the choice to be:
1) Not Married. Free as a bird. No strings attached. Teflon. Wide open swinging saloon door. Magnet on wood.
2) Married. Exactly as marriage is today. Lots of strings attached, exactly as it is today. Velcro. Locked door. Magnet on refrigerator.
3) Totally Married. No divorce, ever (except "Italian style" as they used to say). Total Commitment. You're chained to your spouse for life (and into the afterlife, depending on your theology). Super-Glue. Door welded shut. Super-powerful magnet on super-powerful magnet.
That's what I want to see. Also, revive those old "alienation of affection" laws against adultery. Because... I have a dream....
I have a dream. I dream of the day when the ultra-Conservative Negro Air Force General will say to the adulterous atheist seductress: "Keep your hands off MY DAUGHTER'S WIFE!"
I have a dream....
I'm an idealist. I'm also a realist. This whole issue of marriage _and_ divorce MUST be left to the states to decide. Each state must decide, whether through initiative or referendum, through its legislature, or through its courts interpreting the Constitution of _that state_, its own policy as to what marriages and/or divorces it will grant and/or recognize.
The reason why it HAS to be left to the states is because, if it isn't, if some over-idealistic _federal_ judge tries to rule that a state must grant or recognize a homosexual marriage, why, then the Enemy will use that unpopular decision to whip up a "backlash"* against the hated minority, homosexuals, and get that despicable Federal Anti-Marriage Amendment to ban homosexual marriage (and "civil unions", "domestic partnerships", private contracts, what have you) in _every_ state, territory, municipality, every nook and cranny of this country. And I have no doubt that the Enemy will use that amendment of theirs to abolish all rights of privacy and get and enforce a national law banning all homosexual or "deviant" sexual relationships or "thoughtcrimes" of whatever kind. Big Brother Is Watching YOU!
Paranoid? Yes, I am. Alarmist? Yes. The Enemy is the Enemy is the Enemy, and I deal with them as such.
*I said "whip up" a "backlash". Contrary to democratic theory, "backlashes", revolutions, etc., are not spontaneous uprisings of "The People" against an "oppressive" elite, but are deliberately planned, propagandized, organized, orchestrated, by another elite. Every revolution, for good or for bad (and most of them have been bad), was so orchestrated by a handful of intellectuals and professional agitators, including the American Revolution, the French Revolution, the Nazi Revolution, and all the Communist revolutions. In the early 20th century, Roberto Michels, a Swiss sociologist, arrived at this conclusion after a study of labor unions and Socialist parties in Europe: "The Iron Law of Oligarchy"
The anti-homosexual "backlash" is no accident. It is deliberately contrived. I dare call it conspiracy. I dare call it treason. I'm against it!
Arney Lengscum,
Your inability to tie your subject matter to your point doesn't make me muddleheaded, rather it reveals your weak communication skills.
Here's some free advice. Have a point when you post.
By the way, you spelled stupid wrong.
Posted by: Gordon the Magnificent at May 19, 2004 08:17 PMArne,
I offer no apology and I don't demand one either.
Now either you're completely stoopid to have missed that quite relevant point, or you're simply dishonest in continuing to ignore civil unions in pursuing your argument. You tell me, Rosemary ... Which is it? Hate to get too abusive here, but I think you're dropping from the ... ummmm, "higher" standards ... you set for yourself compared to what transpires at DogSnot, and I think you need to be called on the carpet for it. Perhaps you'll take more care next time. . . .
As I stated earlier, I was composing my comment before I saw what you posted. You say I "ignored" Kerry's stand on Civil Unions. I didn't do that intentionally. My cache hadn't refreshed until after I posted my response. Meaning - I did not see what you wrote in response to the Kerry "attack". I do not remember if Kerry specified the 14th amendment in that debate, so I cannot comment further.
I can't take any insult you dish, no problem. I insult regularly. The ONLY thing I won't tolerate is when you directly attack or insult a commenter that hasn't displayed any venom towards you first.
Posted by: Rosemary the Queen of All Evil at May 20, 2004 12:21 AMI didn't ignore it the second time. That was why I was making fun of your repeated use of Loving.
Many people are for Civil Unions - if Kerry is then that is great. Many people were for separate but equal pre- 60's when it came to Black people too.
Pro-SSM advocates believe that CU's are the same as separate but equal. So I don't think that anything I said about Kerry's wobbly position was slanderous. I certainly didn't suggest without proof that Kerry LIED.
I'll tell you what -- as soon as you issue an apology for everytime you called Bush a liar without proof that he spoke with full knowledge that what he was saying was false, I'll apologize to Kerry.
If anyone has been slandered, Arne it's Bush. The only existing proof is that Bush was WRONG. Being wrong is not the same as deliberate deception. You have NO PROOF that he deliberately deceived anyone.
So, you first.
If you want an apology for something I said to you - specify what I said to you that requires one.
I haven't cried over your repeated slander of conservatives by calling us Rethuglicans, even though as a Republican I find that term offensive.
Don't be a hypocrite.
Arney Lungscum,
You misspelled response and said.
Just thought you should know!
RQoaE:
I didn't ignore it the second time. That was why I was making fun of your repeated use of Loving.
Huh? I think you're getting confused. Where did I bring up Loving here in my "conversation" with you?
Many people are for Civil Unions - if Kerry is then that is great. Many people were for separate but equal pre- 60's when it came to Black people too.
My position is straight forward. I think that gay marriage should in fact be legal (or abolish "marriage" entirely as a civil concept, and go only with civil unions, letting the churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, etc. to decide for themselves what they think marriages should be). But that's not the issue here. The issue is Kerry's position, and whether it is 'middle-of-the-road' (as I claimed) and whether it is "contradict[ory]" (as you claimed: "... a complete contradiction and diametrically opposed to yours.").
This is your mistake, and one that I think you need to apologise for. You may disagree with Kerry that civil-unions are sufficient, and since I agree with you here, you may rest assured that that I think your position has merit. But that's hardly proof that Kerry's position is "a complete contradiction", not "middle-of-the-road", or "diametrically opposed to [mine]". In fact, it is not. Tell you what: See if you can figure out who has a position that is "diametrically opposed to [mine]". Hint: It's not Kerry. As I quoted in my WaPo cite, Kerry is in favour of civil rights for gays. I think you know well which party is quite opposed to that.
Pro-SSM advocates believe that CU's are the same as separate but equal. . . .
True (in general). That's one reason why these people think that SSM should be adopted, rather than civil unions. But as I pointed out, there's plenty of people that have argued that civil unions providing the full panoply of legal rights equivalent to marriage are in fact acceptable, even if there is the hidden (or not-so-hidden) stigma attached to refusal to call such unions "marriages". Some civil-union proponents in fact are of the honest opinion that pushing for the "marriage" appellation is nither necessary nor wise; they don't want any association of the loaded term "marriage"; others think honestly that marriages simply aren't the gummint's bidness.
As for me, and for a lot others, while civil unions are not the best solution, they are a far sight better than the alternative of no legal recognition and benefits at all, and may be the best interim step for the time we can hope for, for the time being. I'd note that Scandinavia has taken this gradualist course for the most part as well, and I'd note also that Brown v. Board of Education, while a milestone and a far-reaching step, was part of a continuum of change in the way laws on racial discrimination was evolving (nor did it immediately "solve" the problems it identified; there was the Brown II case afterwards that actually ordered the desegregation "with all deliberate speed"). For more on the background and history of Brown, may I recommend Richard Kluger's excellent book "Simple Justice"? (There's even an interesting footnote about the probable perjury of our current Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court in there).
In sum, while you may disagree with Kerry's position, that hardly makes it either "contradictory" or "diametrically opposed" to my position. Furthermore, there's lots of talk above about Kerry supposedly flip-flopping on this, and snarky little comments about "wait a minute, his position will change", when in fact there's no evidence you folks have presented here that his position has changed at all in any significant way. A further slander.
. . . So I don't think that anything I said about Kerry's wobbly position was slanderous. . . .
See above for both the "slander" and the "wobbly".
. . . I certainly didn't suggest without proof that Kerry LIED.
Nor did I say you did. I said you lied. Is that clear now?
I'll tell you what -- as soon as you issue an apology for everytime you called Bush a liar without proof that he spoke with full knowledge that what he was saying was false, I'll apologize to Kerry.
Ummmm, we have known examples of Dubya outright lying (well, as best as can be managed once you add the element of scienter into the definition of "lying"; it has yet to be shown that Dubya actually has the capacity for scienter). Why should I apologise for pointing that out? But you're getting off track here. I was complaing about your misrepresentations, not your claims of Kerry's.
If anyone has been slandered, Arne it's Bush. The only existing proof is that Bush was WRONG. Being wrong is not the same as deliberate deception. . . .
Oh, you do have a point. Dubya may in fact be a complete fuckwit (and to tell the truth, recent evidence does seem to point towards this possibility), and thus incapable of knowing that what he's saying is simply false. But if so, that's probably a more compellling reason to rule him incompetent to carry out the duties of the pResidency immediately, and let someone with a brain actually take over the job. When he states twice in front of shocked and discomfitted people that Saddam "wouldn't let the inspectors in" (he repeated this absurd statement again later).
. . . You have NO PROOF that he deliberately deceived anyone.
There's plenty of evidence that Dubya was hankering for Iraq almost from the time of his inauguration, that he'd planned to move on Iraq
a lot sooner than he claims, and that he had made the final decision a lot sooner than his claim about such. The story of the various people (Clarke, O'Neill, and even Woodward) as well as leaks and other anecdotes ("fuck him, we're taking him out") all support this conclusion. Thus, his claim that no decision had been made is simp[ly a lie.
We have sworn testimony by two witnesses in the Funeralgate case that directly contradicts Dubya's sworn deposition there. Dubya's given three mutually inconsistent explanations for his failure to follow the law and to file his SEC papers for his Harken stock sale.
Yes, there's a lot of things that Dubya's said that may just be false statements that Dubya thought were true, but which were based on bad information getting to him, but there's also plenty where Dubya is the only person who could be at fault for the mistakes (e.g., the statements about Saddam not letting inspectors in).
I'm not apologising for pointing any of this out. I think that Dubya's incompetence and basic dishonesty need to be pointed out again and again and again until you fols get it through your thick skulls that he's a disater for this country and the world.
So, you first.
See above.
If you want an apology for something I said to you - specify what I said to you that requires one.
So, Arne I know that you can't help but defend that schmuck Kerry but you should stop. Doing so is making you sound like a hypocrite.
Also, since I was typing my earlier response before yours was seen, calling me dishonest is well dishonest of YOU.
Both of these are addressed in my prior posts.
Then there's this (from earlier):
You know what? I stated clearly from the beginning what I would and wouldnt put up with and Arne broke the rule after a warning.
I don't care if Arne shits on you, Gordon or Geoff. But people that did nothing but post here and act like adults - I will not allow attacks on.
Myself included.
Fuck Off.
I haven't cried over your repeated slander of conservatives by calling us Rethuglicans, even though as a Republican I find that term offensive.
I use "Rethuglican" to indicate the foamer contingent (currently in ascendancy) in the Republican party. And I fully recognise that there are conservatives that aren't foamers, and even conservatives that aren't Republican (or that won't call themselves Republican any more). FWIW, Zell Miller has now earned the "Rethuglican" appellation. I don't think I have ever called you a "Rethuglican" nor a "RW foamer" ... but if you keep it up, you'll achieve that honourable status. It doesn't hurt for you to admit a mistake on Kerry's position on your part; you should acknowledge it and get on with life, using your new wisdom to good effect. If you choose to continue your defence of your initial wrong-headed charges, though, you're putting yourself into the same category as Dubya and his maladministration.
Don't be a hypocrite.
How am I being a hypocrite?
Cheers,
You've pointed out nothing that I feel I need to apologize for. Nada.
My site, my rules. Don't like it, don't visit.
I won't put up with your unprovoked attacks on commenters - unless it's Gordon or Nunya or Geoffrey - since those aren't unprovoked.
Your attacks against Bush make you a hypocrite.
Posted by: Rosemary the Queen of All Evil at May 21, 2004 07:29 PM