November 13, 2008

"Here is Barack Obama in his own words on the definition of marriage," said the robo-call to Californians.

They heard Obama say: "I believe marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God is in the mix."

So Obama was instrumental in getting Prop 8 passed. What do you think of that? Some Obama supporters say it wasn't fair to use Obama like that. After all, Obama also said Prop 8 was "divisive and discriminatory." But that's absurd. Obama had to know that his words would be used by opponents of same-sex marriage. He himself is an opponent of same-sex marriage... except to the extent that he isn't, and I certainly think in his heart he's not, but that in his head he knew he had to say he was to get elected.

I don't blame him for this dishonesty. I think it's like the dishonesty of professing a belief in God if you don't have it. You're not going to get elected without that dishonesty, so we can just forget about all the good people who don't lie about such things. They're not going to make it to the presidency. Not in the near future anyway. But you can't have it both ways. You're responsible for the position you avow, and the Prop 8 proponents did nothing wrong using his voice like that.

Another thing we have to face up to is that black Californians voted overwhelmingly for Prop 8. Some gay rights advocates think that black people should identify with gay people:
Many black voters didn't see it that way.

"I was born black. I can't change that," said Culver City resident Bilson Davis, 57, who voted for Proposition 8. "They weren't born gay; they chose it," he added, reflecting a commonly held belief that many researchers dispute.

Although many of the state's black political leaders spoke out against Proposition 8, an exit poll of California voters showed that black voters favored the measure by a ratio of more than 2 to 1. Not only was the black vote weighted heavily in favor of Proposition 8, but black turnout -- spurred by Barack Obama's historic campaign for president -- was unusually large, with African Americans making up roughly 10% of the state electorate.

The exit poll didn't ask voters why they voted the way they did. But Madison Shockley, pastor of Pilgrim United Church of Christ in Carlsbad and among the roughly one-third of blacks who opposed Proposition 8, said the vote was understandable. "Black folks go to church, probably more than the Caucasian population, and the churches they go to tend to be very traditional."

Los Angeles resident Christopher Hill, 50, said he was motivated by religion in supporting Proposition 8. Civil rights, he said, "are about getting a job, employment."

Gay marriage, he said, is not: "It's an abomination against God."...

[Pasadena resident Doris Tucker] Tucker, who is African American, said she voted for "all the good things," especially Obama and Proposition 8. "I don't think it's right," Tucker said of gay marriage. "They shouldn't let it go on."
It's harsh to have to read that. But there it is.

IN THE COMMENTS: Chip Ahoy said:
Marriage is a state of mind.

Couples look to the Church to sanctify their union and the Church is more than happy to presumably drag God into the arrangement. But that is patently false. A thing that God unites cannot be undone by humans.

The State's interest is purely as arbiter and protector of legal contracts.

I'm tired of having this discussion. Therefore, I'll stop. Do whatever you wish. I don't care.
I responded:
"I'm tired of having this discussion."

Well, let's try to focus on the issues raised in the post:

1. The use of Obama's voice: fair or unfair?

2. Things a politician must lie about, and the responsibility they must take for these lies.

3. Obama's dishonesty.

4. The overwhelming black support for Prop 8.

5. The unpersuasiveness of the argument that black people should identify with gay people.

6. (Implicit) Why are gay rights activists targeting Mormons when so much of the quarrel is with black people? Selective choice of targets as political cowardice.
Zachary Paul Sire said:
I love when Prof. Althouse gets all professorial on our ass.
Chip came back into the classroom:
OK. Very well.

1) The use of Obama's voice. Fair. He used his voice, and only his voice, to get what he wanted politically. Fair game to use those words and that voice to support one's point. Go on then, use them yourself. Use his YouTubes to make whatever point you want. He's the one who put them out there, precisely to be used. Yesterday we were treated to a video making a point around words the sitting president didn't say.

2) There is no class of things that politicians must lie about. The very idea is cynical and ridiculous. There's a lot of things Obama felt at the moment, depending on whom he was speaking to, that it was a good idea or advantageous to lie but there was never a true "must" about it. These things too are well documented and fully discussed. Some people dismiss them, others don't. I don't. That's why he's not my president. He's your president, he's the country's president. He's the world's choice for our president, and I'm alright with all of that, but he's not my president. Precisely because he's a fabulous dissimulator. <--- See what I did there? Used fabulous for an adjective,which itself implies extravagant tales.

3. Dishonesty. That's why I couldn't vote for the man. I'm bothered by that. And it goes beyond what the man says. It's what he fails to say. It's how he spins the facts. It's the whole ACORN thing, and the straight-up illegal contributions, the credit card verification disabling, it's Florida and Michigan in the primaries cutting Hillary off at the knees, it's agreeing to campaign financing then switching when he realized he could do much better leaving his opponent bound to the agreement. One candidate has class, the other one doesn't. But again, all this is well documented and thoroughly discussed. We've got a myth to get on with, there'll be no looking backward.

5. Black people should identify with gay people. If they're gay. If they're not gay why should they? The black struggle has nothing whatever to do with the so-called or imagined gay struggle for civil liberties. To compare the experiences is an insult.

6.... And why aren't they targeting Muslims then? Were there no Muslim contributors on those contributor lists? They chose soft targets. Plus they already have a bone to pick with Christians especially Mormons who are well know for their re-programing. With Mormons, they're escalating a dispute they already have.

Do I get an A? Please, please, please, gimme an A.

I better get an A, because if I don't, I'm sooooo dropping this course.
You get an A!

123 comments:

Quayle said...

We now return you to your regularly scheduled activity of bashing Mormons.

Meade said...

It IS harsh. Why is government involved in the marriage business in the first place? Doesn't that violate the Establishment Clause or something?

Palladian said...

"It IS harsh. Why is government involved in the marriage business in the first place? Doesn't that violate the Establishment Clause or something?"

Exactly! Why does the government presume to meddle in a religious/romantic institution at all? The government should not sanction any marriages at all.

Ann Althouse said...

Marriage isn't just a "religious/romantic" institution. It's an economic arrangement and a structure for producing, caring for, and teaching the next generation. Society has a huge stake in that.

Meade said...

In that case, let state licensed marriage be reserved only for parties involved in producing, caring for, and teaching the next generation.

...and for tenured university professors who wish to share their generous benefit packages with adorably less fortunate members of society.

Paul Snively said...

Althouse: It's an economic arrangement and a structure for producing, caring for, and teaching the next generation. Society has a huge stake in that.

Sounds like a civil union to me.

"Marriage" is an institution with many of the same goals, but with some others, as Senator Obama says, "in the mix." Specifically, the standing of the couple in relationship with their God, if any. That particular term and formulation predates any extant nation-state, and a perfectly understandable mistake was made in conflating the nation-state's interest in the durability of its citizenry with the citizenry's interest in promoting stability in child-bearing and -raising and having a relationship with their God, if any. Nevertheless, a mistake is what it was. We now face a wholly artificial conflict between ensuring that all citizens have equal standing under the law and ensuring that religious citizens are not faced with, e.g. legal action if they refuse to marry a homosexual couple because to do so would violate their beliefs. The artificial conflict disappears the moment the nation-state disavows any responsibility for defining what "marriage" is, and confines itself to defining civil unions, of which religious marriage would be one, but not the only, instance.

Lawgiver said...

Marriage isn't just a "religious/romantic" institution. It's an economic arrangement and a structure for producing, caring for, and teaching the next generation. Society has a huge stake in that.

True, but it's still primarily a religious institution and arbitrary to boot. Marry your cousin in one state, ok. Marry your cousin in another state , not ok. Marry at 16 with parent consent in one state, ok. Not ok in a different state. The people of California have spoken. Don't like it? Move to a different state.

KT said...

Althouse, this is at least the second time you've given Obama credit for believing in same-sex marriage "in his heart." So, let me get this straight. Whenever he says or does anything you disagree with, you say that he actually believes the right thing "in his heart," and yet don't seem to blame him for being disingenuous. Better to be dishonest than disagreeable? Funny that I never saw the same unconditional credit given to McCain. The age of cruel neutrality is long past.

Daryl said...

NOT the winning message:

"Having black skin is like having butt sex"

That is deeply offensive to any African-Americans who are even mildly homophobic.

Also, it takes away from their claim to the uniqueness of their victimhood in America--something most blacks guard stingily.

The winning message:

Instead of comparing gays to blacks, compare gays to straights. Show normal-looking white and Asian gay couples--no Hispanics or blacks.

Chip Ahoy said...

Wow. Amazing how you can discern what's in Obama's head and what's in his heart when what comes out of his mouth contradicts like this. I'm impressed.

Impressed as an observer watching someone else's president, other peoples' myth. Me and Joseph Campbell, RIP, we've got a common interest.

Tom said...

So your point here Ann, is that it's OK to lie about your beliefs, if you need to, to get elected?

Sorry, I dont' buy that thesis as any way to run a democracy.

And your point about marriage as an economic arrangement is the very argument for a domestic partnership law.

chickenlittle said...

Seems to me that whenever "God is in the mix," be Palin, prop 8, abortion, Ann cleans up on traffic.

Where would Ann be without God helping her blog?

Meade said...

"The people of California have spoken. Don't like it? Move to a different state."

TripTik hint: Avoid Salt Lake City.

Chip Ahoy said...

Marriage is a state of mind.

Couples look to the Church to sanctify their union and the Church is more than happy to presumably drag God into the arrangement. But that is patently false. A thing that God unites cannot be undone by humans.

The State's interest is purely as arbiter and protector of legal contracts.

I'm tired of having this discussion. Therefore, I'll stop. Do whatever you wish. I don't care.

Ann Althouse said...

If you think I'm being kind to Obama here, you're deluded.

Zachary Paul Sire said...

There was also a robocall from the No On 8 people quoting Obama as being AGAINST Prop 8, so both sides had their say and were left to interpret Obama's stance on their own.

In the end, any person, white or black, who honestly believed that Obama was truly in favor of Prop 8 was an idiot. But, most people are idiots.

Another thing to remember is that it was the "old" vote that pushed Prop 8 to succeed. Nate Silver broke all the numbers down recently and concluded:

"Prop 8's passage was more a generational matter than a racial one. If nobody over the age of 65 had voted, Prop 8 would have failed by a point or two."

It's a waste of time to be hung up on black people, just as it is to be freaking out in front of Mormon churches. This battle is heading where it belongs, to the courts. I can't wait till they overturn the "will" of the "people."

Methadras said...

Daryl said...

That is deeply offensive to any African-Americans who are even mildly homophobic.


Mildly homophobic? Is that like being a little bit pregnant? Listen, homophobia is an irrational fear of homosexuals or homosexuality. Please use the word properly. You should supplant the word homophobic or homophobia with either homodiscriminent or homotolerant. You can also and should use their opposites, homoindiscriminent or homointolerant. But to characterize people as homophobic or mildly homophobic is dumb.

Ann Althouse said...

"I'm tired of having this discussion."

Well, let's try to focus on the issues raised in the post:

1. The use of Obama's voice: fair or unfair?

2. Things a politician must lie about, and the responsibility they must take for these lies.

3. Obama's dishonesty.

4. The overwhelming black support for Prop 8.

5. The unpersuasiveness of the argument that black people should identify with gay people.

6. (Implicit) Why are gay rights activists targeting Mormons when so much of the quarrel is with black people? Selective choice of targets as political cowardice.

cardeblu said...

I believe the correct term would be "dissimulation"--used on both sides.

Zachary Paul Sire said...

I love when Prof. Althouse gets all professorial on our ass.

Methadras said...

Ann Althouse said...

Marriage isn't just a "religious/romantic" institution. It's an economic arrangement and a structure for producing, caring for, and teaching the next generation. Society has a huge stake in that.


Right and so does the state, with the preference to that institution to favor one man and one woman to rear that next generation as that primary preference above all others. The state already has defined terms for what types of unions are allowed or not allowed, specifically bigamy, polygamy, or polyandry. If they are already defining what relationships you can forge within the context of marriage, then they are already legislating behavior are they not? So it isn't only in societies interests to maintain marriage as being defined between one man and one woman. It's also the states in the states best interests because it promotes stability to the state.

With that being said, Prop. 8 as a definition of what marriage is, is very clear in it's meaning. No interpretation is necessary in the wording of the Amendment. It doesn't even mention homosexuals.

Simon said...

And yet the people getting themselves all hissy-fitted up over this are more interested in attacking and boycotting whitebread mormons. Interesting.

Ben said...

All the Obama sycophants notwithstanding, it is pretty clear that Ann is correct about Obama's true feelings on the matter. He says -- rather unconvincingly, I might add -- that he is against homogamy. But everything he actually does or says he will do (e.g., the kinds of judges he will pick) furthers the homogamy cause. He is clearly angling to do everything he can to bring legalization about so that he can then throw up his hands and say, "Well, I guess we have to follow the law. Sorry."

Meade said...

"I love when Prof. Althouse gets all professorial on our ass."

Not that there is anything wrong with that.

elliot said...

I don't know why people are surprised that African American Democrats were instrumental in passing a ban on gay marriage in California. The exact same thing happened here in Wisconsin.

Mark said...

Yah, but Ann, you voted for the creep.

Or just admit you voted against the other creep.

What Obama believes in his heart is what every con man believes.

If you didn't want either candidate to win, you could have chosen the protest candidate of your choice, or left the Presidential choice blank.

Hey, we're all Chicagoans now. Get used to the spinning shaft.

chickenlittle said...

Methadras wrote :Mildly homophobic? Is that like being a little bit pregnant?

That sounds cute Methadras but I think you're wrong. One can point to other usages of the suffix"_phobic" (particularly in the sciences) which allow for varying degrees of repulsion.

Methadras said...

Ann Althouse said...

"I'm tired of having this discussion."

Well, let's try to focus on the issues raised in the post:

1. The use of Obama's voice: fair or unfair?


He said it. It's in the public domain. It's fair game. If he believes it, then he isn't aligned with the radical leftist homosexual activist/lobby. If he said it and doesn't believe it, then he is liar who said it as a matter of political convenience. He still said it.

2. Things a politician must lie about, and the responsibility they must take for these lies.

Politicians shouldn't lie. But they do, so you need to hold them responsible for the lies they tell. Can you do that and keep a straight face?

3. Obama's dishonesty.

I don't think Mr. Barely is pathologically dishonest, but he is politically and ideologically dishonest.

4. The overwhelming black support for Prop 8.

Unsurprising in it's depiction since they more or less said months in advance that black churches and blacks in general would come out overwhelmingly in favor of prop. 8.

5. The unpersuasiveness of the argument that black people should identify with gay people.

Not only is it unpersuasive, but it is irrational. Blacks don't have a choice in their blackness. Homosexuals have a choice in their sexual proclivities. To equate the two morally or otherwise is offensive on it's face. Homosexuals want to co-opt the sentiments of the civil rights movement as an equative struggle with blacks. One is based on racial politics, the other is based on acceptance of a sexually deviant sub-culture trying to attain normalcy within the already normative heterosexual population via the act of ascending to the level of sameness using the vehicle of marriage as it goal.

That's why blacks don't identify with homosexuals. They can't since it's apples and oranges.

6. (Implicit) Why are gay rights activists targeting Mormons when so much of the quarrel is with black people? Selective choice of targets as political cowardice.

Not just political cowardice, but the insidious nature of political correctness and how politically incorrect it would be for one politically correct minority group based on sexual orientation to target another politically correct minority based on physical racial characteristics. Not to mention that any homosexual protesting or assaulting a black church would find themselves in a situation they won't be able to wrist flap or lisp their ways out of.

Stupe said...

4. Never going to change hearts and minds. Time to form new alliances with new people.

5. There were 5 Republicans on the California Supreme Court who overturned the CA Constitution last Spring. And, they weren't Black. Gov. Arnold isn't black either. You'd be surprised how many Republicans are social liberals and definitely not black !

6. The violence against Mormon Churches has now destroyed any goodwill on the California Supreme Court. Why should the Court help Gays now that they've attacked religious institutions and spread intolerance and hate ?

PJ said...

Marriage . . . [is] an economic arrangement and a structure for producing, caring for, and teaching the next generation. Society has a huge stake in that.

All true, but beside the point. Yes, marriage is in part an economic arrangement. The government should enforce marriage agreements just like it enforces other economic agreements, and it routinely enforces economic agreements between people it doesn't recognize as married. No need for any discrimination based on marital status. And the government can support children by supporting actual children, it doesn't have to use "married couple" as a token for "children."

There are two solutions to the marriage problem, and they're both good ones: we can either allow anyone to create a legal "marriage" who wants to, or we can stop discriminating on the basis of marital status.

Peter said...

The same reason that the lefty gays often fly the "Palastinian flag at antiwar rallies when Israel tolerates gays and "Palatinians" throw them off tall buildings.
It's all Look At Me! Meanwhile gays in California have been given cival unions. Those have all the rights of marriage. In other words folks compromised, but compromise isn't good enough.
As for Obama, I doubt he will stand by ten percent of all his promises.

Herschel said...

To an earlier question of whether this "violates an establishment clause [or something]," the answer is no. It doesn't. Laws are legislated morality, and all laws are based on some system of ethics. Each man /woman gets the right to vote, and the pro-prop 8 voters in Ca. have as much right to vote on what Marriage should look like as anyone else.

[Or something].

Palladian said...

"the other is based on acceptance of a sexually deviant sub-culture trying to attain normalcy within the already normative heterosexual population via the act of ascending to the level of sameness using the vehicle of marriage as it goal."

Methadras: Still a total asshole!

Ralph said...

Since nationally, >60% of black children are born out of wedlock, I don't think those 70% of black Californians were defending marriage as much as poking gays in the eye, or some other place down lower.

Methadras said...

chickenlittle said...

That sounds cute Methadras but I think you're wrong. One can point to other usages of the suffix"_phobic" (particularly in the sciences) which allow for varying degrees of repulsion.


You may think I'm wrong, but I'm not. Which particular sciences view a phobia as a varying degrees of repulsion when the definition is fairly clear: http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS280US280&q=define%3Aphobia&btnG=Search

You may hold to your opinion of what the definition may be, but nearly every single one of those clearly states the irrationality of what a phobia is and how it's defined. In this regard, your opinion is irrelevant.

PJ said...

It's not just a socially conservative church thing with black people. If it were, marriage and legitimacy rates among AAs would be way higher. It's a sex thing. I've had lots of conversations about this with people before any of us were old enough to lie. You can make a rough comparison to how women of any color view gay guys and how men do. Men have a more ferocious reaction because it's a sex thing. With women, it's conceptual. (And hardly anyone cares what lesbians do, ever notice that?)

And the old trick of getting someone to give you their rationalization for their prejudice and then attacking the rationalization won't work here.

Again, with more time, or maybe the courts, it won't matter, but I'm just so tired of hearing this "it's the black church" canard - like that's all churchgoers have to talk or think about. The church is a convenient justification.

exhelodrvr1 said...

When is it not OK to lie?

Methadras said...

Palladian said...

"the other is based on acceptance of a sexually deviant sub-culture trying to attain normalcy within the already normative heterosexual population via the act of ascending to the level of sameness using the vehicle of marriage as it goal."

Methadras: Still a total asshole!


Yeah, I know Palladian, the truth still hurts. I may be an asshole, but your are still a moron. Sucks to be you.

Buford Gooch said...

So, coming late to this conversation, what surprises me the most is how almost everyone seems to accept that it's OK for politicians to lie to get elected. Perhaps if we punished them for it, we would get less liars running our country.

PJ said...

6. (Implicit) Why are gay rights activists targeting Mormons when so much of the quarrel is with black people? Selective choice of targets as political cowardice.

Because the Mormons raised a lot of money and bought TV ads and such in an attempt to influence the votes of non-Mormons?

BTW, I note that there's more than one PJ among us.

Methadras said...

Palladian said...

Exactly! Why does the government presume to meddle in a religious/romantic institution at all? The government should not sanction any marriages at all.


Spoken like a little child who has delusions of wishful thinking and aspirations of fantasy. The government is already in the business of defining what types of unions you can have within the context of marriage. You can't be a polygamist, you can't be a bigamist, and you can't commit polyandry. Barring those definitions, in California the state wasn't unsympathetic to homosexuals in that they allow civil unions. Therefore the state has already formed a framework of what constitutes a legal or illegal marriage and Prop 8 defined it through the amendment process.

You may wish that the state shouldn't sanction any kind of union, but you know they can't to that because is isn't in the states best interests to do so. Wishes and desires should really be better left for children don't you think? At least they are more creative than your latest temper tantrums have been. I patiently await your next practiced gay smarmy retort. x's & o's

dualdiagnosis said...

Seems like a strong mandate against gay marriage to me, Obama won big and so did props in big states.

Chet said...

Hey PJ,

Blacks don't usually take orders from white Mormons.....no matter how much money the Mormons have.

mockmook said...

"I don't blame him for this dishonesty. I think it's like the dishonesty of professing a belief in God if you don't have it. You're not going to get elected without that dishonesty, so we can just forget about all the good people who don't lie about such things."

Hmm, I understand lying as a good when it protects against evil, but lying to get elected?

The candidate has to think they are too important to be kept from office, "How will the country survive if I don't rule it?"

Prof, you are advocating for dishonesty and arrogance.

Methadras said...

PJ said...

Because the Mormons raised a lot of money and bought TV ads and such in an attempt to influence the votes of non-Mormons?

BTW, I note that there's more than one PJ among us.


And the opponents to Prop 8 didn't? Who did the get their majority monies from?

Rose said...

he knew he had to say he was to get elected.

That's a real problem. he had to say he wouldn't raise taxes, even though he said he would, he had to pretend he wasn't for gun control, he had to pretend to be strong on defense - he had to pretend he wasn't friends with Ayres, had to pretend he never heard his preacher say all that stuff....he's had to pretend an awful lot. To be something he isn't.

Considering all we have heard for all these years is "Bush LIED!" because of a sentence in a speech about protecting our country - it's pretty bad to brush aside all these lies, all the ACORN lies, all of this as is it is ok because he had to do it JUST TO GET ELECTED.

That's the WORST reason, in my opinion.

chickenlittle said...

Methadras wrote: Which particular sciences view a phobia as a varying degrees of repulsion...

Physical chemistry for one. Proteins for example are hydrophobic to varying degress. There is a so-called range hydrophobicity. Don't make me argue this further in this context. It's off topic and I can find many more examples.

I don't think your point was central--you just wanted to take down Daryl.

Palladian said...

"Wishes and desires should really be better left for children don't you think?"

I bet you're really fun in bed!

"At least they are more creative than your latest temper tantrums have been."

Temper tantrums? Hehe. You've already lost, honey. You just don't know it yet.

"I patiently await your next practiced gay smarmy retort."

Wow! Even my retorts are gay! Amazingly pervasive, this gay thing isn't it?

Anyway, you're an asshole! Easy to say, no practice necessary!

PJ said...

Blacks don't usually take orders from white Mormons.....no matter how much money the Mormons have.

I agree; I didn't claim that Mormons actually influenced black voters (or any other voters); I merely claimed that they visibly tried to do so, and that that may explain the particular antipathy they have received.

Sofa King said...

Since nationally, >60% of black children are born out of wedlock, I don't think those 70% of black Californians were defending marriage as much as poking gays in the eye, or some other place down lower.

Or maybe they have a better grasp than most on just what dissolution of marriage as an institution looks like. That logic can cut either way.

Your_Mother said...

Homosexual = homo + sexual = sex with the same. Homophobic = homo + phobic = fear of same. I think homophobic means fear of the same or, perhaps, fear of those like you. (E.g., if a man is afraid of other men.) Maybe what you mean is homosexualphobic. Then gays would be homosexualphilic and supporters of traditional definition of marriage would be heterosexualphilic. Mormon bashers would be heterosexualphilicphobic whereas people who don't think Mormons should be bashed would be heterosexualphilicphobicphobic. And... (I wonder if those suffixes commute. I.e. is heterosexualphilicphobicphobic the same as heterosexualphobicphilicphobic?)

Orolo said...

"I certainly think in his heart he's not, but that in his head he knew he had to say he was to get elected."

Prof. Althouse,

I think here it is your heart speaking, not Obama's. The fact is, we have no idea, but there's as much evidence of one as the other.

Methadras said...

chickenlittle said...

Physical chemistry for one. Proteins for example are hydrophobic to varying degress.


True. But that doesn't related to the soft science and definitions of psychological or psychiatric definitions of the human mental condition. Which in this case, the word phobia as defined within that context is pretty clear.

There is a so-called range hydrophobicity. Don't make me argue this further in this context. It's off topic and I can find many more examples.

Yes, it is off topic, but then again it was the wrong context to begin with.

I don't think your point was central--you just wanted to take down Daryl.

My intention is not to take down anyone. My intention was to get him to think about the words he used as a characterization that is used commonly but woefully incorrectly.

Methadras said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Methadras said...

Palladian said...

"Wishes and desires should really be better left for children don't you think?"

I bet you're really fun in bed!

"At least they are more creative than your latest temper tantrums have been."

Temper tantrums? Hehe. You've already lost, honey. You just don't know it yet.

"I patiently await your next practiced gay smarmy retort."

Wow! Even my retorts are gay! Amazingly pervasive, this gay thing isn't it?


Hardly pervasive, but not even persuasive. You probably aren't that good at being gay. At least DTL beats you in the shrill department. You're just plainly bitter. Christ, ZPS has more gusto than you've been able to muster. Your pathetic flames are like a worn out pilot light.

Anyway, you're an asshole! Easy to say, no practice necessary!

Well, that was one big pile of disappointing failure. You are losing your touch already. I'm sure as you typed this you had at least one fist on your hip while you did a little neck jerk with two snaps around the world.

At this point laughing at you is all I can do. Calling you a pathetic joke would just hurt my monitors feelings.

Blue@9 said...

Why do people keep saying that marriage is just a religious institution? It's also a civil status, and two needn't step on each other's toes, ever. You can get married in church and never fill out a marriage license; conversely, you can get a marriage license and never get married religiously.

The silly thing about the gay marriage debate is how people keep conflating these two different relationships. Why should it matter to the government why the churches do what they do and what they consider traditional? We shouldn't care what churches think unless our actions actually harm churches or churchgoers.

But civil marriage? It doesn't do squat to affect religion or churches or churchgoers. One may as well argue that Jesus never needed a contractor's license so today's carpenter's shouldn't either. It's absurd.

I'm a conservative who supports gay marriage, but only because there's no reason government should distinguish between gays and straights. Civil marriage exists for myriad reasons, and those reasons apply to gays just as much as to everyone else.

Zachary Paul Sire said...

And yet the people getting themselves all hissy-fitted

That's at least the second time today that Simon has used the term "hissy fit" to describe gay people. Surely he isn't trying to emasculate gay men? Do you call all of your protests "hissy fits," or is just the gay ones? I'll show you a hissy fit.

Also,

I'm struck by the fact that Methadras is the most frequent and loquacious commenter whenever a post about gay issues arises on Althouse. He certainly has a big appetite for all things gay. Search for his name here, he only comments on gay posts, hundreds and hundreds of times.

So remember, if we're talking about gays, you can bet Methadras will be here...over and over and over and over and over again, in multiple paragraph comments, making the same deranged points, talking about "deviance," and "homosexuals", using the term with all the rigid distance and disdain he can muster. He even gave us a detailed definition of what homophobia is: "Listen, homophobia is an irrational fear of homosexuals or homosexuality."

Oh really?

What's that old line, I think it was Shakespeare...the lady doth protest too much?

How late at night do you want to stay up and talk about gay marriage with me, Methadras?

Are you looking for validation of your beliefs or just to start a fight? Because hey, newsflash, Prop 8 passed. You can go back to your heterosexual life. Do you have a wife or girlfriend? What must she think about you spending so much time here, chattin' up the gays?

Look, if this is what makes you happy, I hope gay marriage is the last thing you think about before you go to sleep, and the first thing you think about when you wake up. Whatever it takes to justify whatever it is that's going on, because, hello, clearly, something is going on.

Pleasant dreams.

Blue@9 said...

Oh, and regarding Althouse's entry, I think she's spot on. I seriously doubt that Obama is personally against gay marriage, but he has to say that to get elected. And she's right about the religion thing too. No honest atheist is going to get elected any time soon, so politicians have to keep attending church and going through the motions. You think Bill Clinton is really religious? Doubtful.

Maxine Weiss said...

Althouse says: "If you think I'm being kind to Obama here, you're deluded."

But, you are telling people to lie, correct?

Always the responsible Professor !

Chip Ahoy said...

Well, let's try to focus on the issues raised in the post:


OK. Very well.

1) The use of Obama's voice. Fair. He used his voice, and only his voice, to get what he wanted politically. Fair game to use those words and that voice to support one's point. Go on then, use them yourself. Use his YouTubes to make whatever point you want. He's the one who put them out there, precisely to be used. Yesterday we were treated to a video making a point around words the sitting president didn't say.

2) There is no class of things that politicians must lie about. The very idea is cynical and ridiculous. There's a lot of things Obama felt at the moment, depending on whom he was speaking to, that it was a good idea or advantageous to lie but there was never a true "must" about it. These things too are well documented and fully discussed. Some people dismiss them, others don't. I don't. That's why he's not my president. He's your president, he's the country's president. He's the world's choice for our president, and I'm alright with all of that, but he's not my president. Precisely because he's a fabulous dissimulator. <--- See what I did there? Used fabulous for an adjective,which itself implies extravagant tales.

3. Dishonesty. That's why I couldn't vote for the man. I'm bothered by that. And it goes beyond what the man says. It's what he fails to say. It's how he spins the facts. It's the whole ACORN thing, and the straight-up illegal contributions, the credit card verification disabling, it's Florida and Michigan in the primaries cutting Hillary off at the knees, it's agreeing to campaign financing then switching when he realized he could do much better leaving his opponent bound to the agreement. One candidate has class, the other one doesn't. But again, all this is well documented and thoroughly discussed. We've got a myth to get on with, there'll be no looking backward.

5. Black people should identify with gay people. If they're gay. If they're not gay why should they? The black struggle has nothing whatever to do with the so-called or imagined gay struggle for civil liberties. To compare the experiences is an insult.

6.) (implicit) And why aren't they targeting Muslims then? Were there no Muslim contributors on those contributor lists? They chose soft targets. Plus they already have a bone to pick with Christians especially Mormons who are well know for their re-programing. With Mormons, they're escalating a dispute they already have.

Do I get an A? Please, please, please, gimme an A.

I better get an A, because if I don't, I'm sooooo dropping this course.

Zachary Paul Sire said...

Here's our Methadras from a few days ago:

so has anyone here been shunned by their homosexual friends or family for voting yes on prop 8? just curious.

So curious about them gays! What are they up to? How are they behaving? Methadras needs to know!

BRB...I'm going to find some older quotes from him.

Crimso said...

"Physical chemistry for one. Proteins for example are hydrophobic to varying degress. There is a so-called range hydrophobicity."

While I generally (but not always) agree with your point of view, permit me to get a little pedantic over this issue. Hydrophobicity from a chemical standpoint (think: oil and water don't mix) has nothing to do with either repulsion or attraction. It is in a sense orthogonal to that axis. It is a lack of both attraction and repulsion, and it results from instead a more elusive and enigmatic concept: entropy. Entropy is a concept that seems more and more germane to our lives with every passing day...

blake said...

And the opponents to Prop 8 didn't? Who did the get their majority monies from?

The California Teachers Association.

You see, having mastered education, and raising Californian children to the highest level heretofore known in terms of SATs, standardized tests and appearances on "Are You Smarter Than A Fifth Grader", they decided to turn their laser-like focus on to social injustices.

Wait, what?

Oh, never mind.

Crimso said...

On further reflection, I'll add that hydrophobicity doesn't result from fear or hatred between water and hydrophobic molecules. Instead, the hydrophobics keep to themselves, thus allowing the water molecules to have a more free-spirited existence without worrying about what the hydrophobic molecules want (who in any case don't seem intent on forcing the water to do anything). A live-and-let-live scenario that we humans (with our sophistication) could never tolerate. It's almost libertarian (which also appears to be a scenario humans can't tolerate).

Zachary Paul Sire said...

More Methadras for you...this time from a post back in June!

Methadras said:

The level of deviant behavior in the homosexual community is at times surreal and not in line with normative public adult behavior. It is seen as perverse and immoral and is regarded with disdain. The homosexual community is too immature in it's stature to be given appropriate respect at the table with heterosexuals and that includes marriage.

Isn't he charming? Always thinking about fun stuff...our Methadras.

buster said...

There have always been gays, but there has never been a society that recognized same-sex marriage. To me that suggests that a degree of caution is called for in deciding whether to recognize it now.

I don't think the solution is to secularize marriage by making it a simple matter of private contract, or by having the state only recognize civil unions open to both gays and straights. As Althouse says, society has a paramount interest in regulating the institution responsible for raising children. The same factors that make people argue about whether gays should be allowed to marry will make them argue about whether gays should be allowed to enter into civil unions or marriage contracts.

Also, I don't think the problem would disappear if Proposition 8 had lost by a four-point margin instead of winning by four points. As is shown by the absence of societies regognizing same-sex marriage, there has always been, and probably always will be, a strong resistance to the idea by a significant portion of society, whether or not that portion constitutes a majority. Just as in the case of abortion rights, there won't be a stable solution until there is a broad consensus about what that solution should be. A constitutional right to gay marriage won't resolve the matter, any more than Roe v. Wade resolved the matter of abortion.

Chip Ahoy said...

Ad Antiquitatem ^^^irrelevant

Joan said...

Crismo: Entropy is a concept that seems more and more germane to our lives with every passing day...

Unfortunately, yes.

ZPS: I'll show you a hissy fit.
Let me know when you're ready with that hissy fit, Zach. I don't want to miss it.

chickenlittle said...

@Crimso: Where do alcohols fit- part water, part oil. Ever screw up a sauce Hollandaise, only to fix it with a douse of wine? But I guess that would be like a threesome? :)

michael farris said...

"but there has never been a society that recognized same-sex marriage"

But there are such societies now so that argument no longer technically exists (if ever, IIRC berdaches in some native american tribes could enter marriage with people of the same physical gender).

buster said...

Michael Farris said:

"IIRC berdaches in some native american tribes could enter marriage with people of the same physical gender."

I'm not an anthropologist, so for all I know you may be right. But that only shows that same-sex marriage is an extremely rare phenomenon. That rarity suggests that same-sex marriage doesn't seem to be a very good institution for raising children. That your examples (Native American tribes) are as different as can be from modern American society only reinforces the point.

Also, the fact that Canada and a few European countries have recently recognized same-sex marriage or (more often) civil unions hardly counts as evidence that same-sex marriage is a viable institution. It's too soon to tell.

Cheers

blake said...

I think Mr. Farris and Mr. Ahoy are missing the point: The point of "it's never(ish) been done" isn't "so we can't do it now!"

Appeal to tradition, in this case, is "it's never(ish) been done; maybe there's an important reason." Similar arguments can be made against women's suffrage.

Cause-and-effect is not necessarily clear.

blake said...

By the way, what's up with gay guys trying to get the straight guy's goat by accusing him of being latent homosexuals?

How does that work?

michael farris said...

"that Canada and a few European countries have recently recognized same-sex marriage ... hardly counts as evidence that same-sex marriage is a viable institution. It's too soon to tell."

True, but that wasn't my point. My point was that on a global scale the US is hardly on the forefront on this issue (it's well ahead of Uzbekistan but lagging behind most of Western Europe) and now "but there has never been a society that recognized same-sex marriage" is demonstrably false and shouldn't be used as an argument of anything.

The argument that "it is only very recently in human history that some societies have begun to recognize same-sex marriage" lacks the same oomph but it has the advantage of being, you know, accurate.

buster said...

Michael Farris said:

"My point was that on a global scale the US is hardly on the forefront on this issue (it's well ahead of Uzbekistan but lagging behind most of Western Europe)."

The question isn't whether the US is "on the forefront," but whether same-sex marriage is a viable institution in our society.

For all we know, Canada and "most of" [?] Western Europe are not on the forefront, but rather are barking up the wrong tree. The experience of virtually every society, past and present, is relevant but not conclusive evidence of the latter.

Revenant said...

It's harsh to have to read that. But there it is.

The people who are surprised by this must not know very many black folks. :)

michael farris said...

"The question isn't whether the US is "on the forefront," "

Partly it's not the question because there _is_ no question. Americans are not the world leaders in gay rights anymore, they're followers (just exactly who they are or should be following, Uzbekistan or Canada, is a matter of some debate).

"but whether same-sex marriage is a viable institution in our society."

I agree that that's the real question and I don't pretend to know the answer. And there's only one way to find out.

michael farris said...

"1. The use of Obama's voice: fair or unfair?"

Absolutely fair.

2. Things a politician must lie about, and the responsibility they must take for these lies.

If the US public demands that candidates lie (and they do) then they have no business being surprised when politicians lie.

3. Obama's dishonesty.

He's a Chicago politician. Anyone who expects him to not act like one is .... not wise.

4. The overwhelming black support for Prop 8.

The word 'cling' comes to mind...

5. The unpersuasiveness of the argument that black people should identify with gay people.

Well they are overlapping and not discrete groups.
The interesting thing now is how black leaders will react.

6. (Implicit) Why are gay rights activists targeting Mormons when so much of the quarrel is with black people? Selective choice of targets as political cowardice.

No. Blacks mostly voted against gay people with no more over politicking than usual.

On the other hand, the Mormon church is being _Really_ disingenuous. They chose to involve their national organization in what was basically a local political fight as a political organization (and not as a religious institution) and now they're upset that they're being challenged as a political and not religious institution?
That doesn't pass my sneer test, I'm surprised it passes yours.

buster said...

Michael Farris said:

"'but whether same-sex marriage is a viable institution in our society.'

I agree that that's the real question and I don't pretend to know the answer. And there's only one way to find out."

That's the reason why judges should leave the matter to the legislatures.

Cheers

michael farris said...

"That's the reason why judges should leave the matter to the legislatures"

Well in California the legislature tried to deal with it and was stonewalled by the republican governer who _wanted_ the judges to decide.

Simon said...

Zachary Paul Sire said...
"That's at least the second time today that Simon has used the term 'hissy fit' to describe gay people"

There and here, I used it to describe liberal who are having a hysterical overreaction to Prop. 8 despite having otherwise swept the board, regardless of their orientation.

Pogo said...

Obama remains a cipher. Both sides can effectively claim his words mean entirely opposite things.

Pragmatic, cunning, Machiavellian?
Or merely empty egocentrism, unprincipled, and easily manipulated?

Rocker 419 said...

As Republicans, we're told "The people have spoken, get over it." The right would do well to observe the gay supporters in California as a blueprint for what NOT to do to regain public support.

Mitch said...

FYI: Gay partnerships have a precedent in medieval Europe.

"For example, legal contracts from late medieval France referred to the term "affrèrement," roughly translated as brotherment. Similar contracts existed elsewhere in Mediterranean Europe, Tulchin said.

In the contract, the "brothers" pledged to live together sharing "un pain, un vin, et une bourse," (that's French for one bread, one wine and one purse). The "one purse" referred to the idea that all of the couple's goods became joint property. Like marriage contracts, the "brotherments" had to be sworn before a notary and witnesses, Tulchin explained."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id
/20464004/

I know it existed in other cultures as well but I don't have citations handy.

I'm sure the rise of the Holy Roman Empire put the kibosh on this pairing.

Obama has gone on record in support of a federal civil union equal to marriage without the label. To come out in favor of "gay marriage" would have decimated his evangelical and probably Catholic efforts, so he hedged his bets. Unfortunately it was used against him. While regrettable, I agree it was fair game.

He was VERY reluctant to get involved at all and we can see why.

laura said...

I'd agree with the some earlier comments, asking why government is involved in marriage in the first place. And I also understand the structural economic arrangement. And as a married Christian, myself, I, of course believe in the sanctity of the institution. The solution (and that's not the really the term I'm looking for) - and it seems quite simple, as it both respects the Bible and our government structures, is to allow churches to marry and allow governments to construct the civil union.

Darcy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Darcy said...

I love this. When Republicans are pinned down on what they stand for, their word is often questioned as well. But I hardly think it is common that their real intentions are questioned in such a positive light as this issue is with Obama. Curious, that.

Yes, politicians say things they really don't mean to get elected. But why does this fudging always seem to benefit only one side?

This is what happens when we don't expect the truth from the people we trust with our vote. I think the dishonesty rubs off on us.

laura said...

Yes, politicians say things they really don't mean to get elected. But why does this fudging always seem to benefit only one side?

The fudging is on both sides, as far as I can tell.

This is what happens when we don't expect the truth from the people we trust with our vote. I think the dishonesty rubs off on us.

True, but the fault is with us, not them.

knox said...

Wow. Amazing how you can discern what's in Obama's head and what's in his heart when what comes out of his mouth contradicts like this. I'm impressed.


Chip, I was thinking the same thing...

michael farris said...

"allow churches to marry and allow governments to construct the civil union"

What you're saying is that it's necessary to stop allowing religious officials to perform civil unions as they are now and move to the kind of system that used to be (still is?) common in Europe and Latin America with two separate ceremonies.
To be legally wedded there you _have_ to have a civil ceremony. Afterwards, couples that so desire and qualify can have a religious ceremony (which has no legal standing whatsoever).

At present in the US a couple that thinks it's getting a religious ceremony is getting a civil ceremony performed by a pastor/priest/rabbi. If the pastor/priest/rabbi doesn't do the government paper work you're not legally married no matter how pretty the ceremony.

Now that I think of it, divorce already operates in this way. A divorcing couple has to dissolve the marriage through the government and doesn't have to dissolve it through a church (though they can try to do that in some traditions) if they can.

mcg said...

Michael, that was indeed the way it worked in Argentina when I visited in the mid-90s---separate civil and religious ceremonies.

paul a'barge said...

Why are gay rights activists targeting Mormons when so much of the quarrel is with black people? Selective choice of targets as political cowardice.

In the deepest well of dishonesty, the very deepest end of the pool is occupied by Gay People for this very reason.

What trash these cowards are. Who would thieve a cross from an old woman's hands and stomp on it but would not confront Muslims who hold the same position? Who would target Mormons, an eclectic, non-mainstream American religion but not Black People, many of whom would have responded deliciously to the provocation of gays?

Gays want to know why they're getting treated like pariahs?

Well, ok here you go ... because they act just like pariahs act.

Joan said...

Currently in the US, it's a great convenience that ministers and priests are empowered by the state to perform legally recognized marriages. But that's where the big problem comes in with the legalization of same-sex marriage. If a priest is empowered to perform civil marriages, by law he must not discriminate, and he must perform marriages for anyone who is legally able to be married.

You can see the problem.

Disaggregrating the civil marriage from the religious marriage is going to be messy and expensive -- no one is going to be happy about having to go down to City Hall to get "legally" married and having their "church wedding", but as a country we'll get used to it. It is the norm in many other countries. The Greeks and Norwegians I used to work with took it very much in stride, and I'm sure we will learn to do the same.

Priests and ministers may not want to give up the power they have to perform civil marriages, but they will do so to retain their right to refuse to marry people who are not suitable for marriage according to their religious beliefs. This is the only way we can make progress on this issue.

aberman said...

People choose to slice up the voters to gain different insights. Here's an extremely important slice:

Married people with children under 18 voted for Proposition 8 by over 2 to 1.

This slice is important for all sorts of reasons. For one thing, they were directly targeted by the "Yes on 8" groups. Remember the ad with the young girl speaking to the horrified Mother about what she learned in class: "And when I grow up, I can marry a Princess!"

So, are people who are married with children under 18 homophobic? Are they ignorant? Do they simply know and care more about issues involved with raising children than the single or childless?

I see many SSM proponents dismissing the Mormons as freaks. I see SSM proponents dismissing blacks as ignorant (i.e., William Saletan who thinks that once they learn that homosexuality is genetically based, they'll be ok with it). How do you dismiss people who are working their butts off to create the next generation?

mcg said...

Perhaps instead of attacking mainstream Mormons, gays ought to reach out to the heretical FLDS sect that still practices polygamy!

mcg said...

Hmm. On the other hand, maybe their attacks on mainstream Mormons actually serve to endear them to the FLDS sect. The enemy of my enemy and all that.

Nah, I doubt it.

The Exalted said...

Q: Is it possible to (i) oppose an activity while simultaneously (ii) not favoring a constitutional amendment banning it, without being "dishonest?"

A: Yes, to all but maroons.

MayBee said...

So, are people who are married with children under 18 homophobic? Are they ignorant? Do they simply know and care more about issues involved with raising children than the single or childless?

That's just it. I want gay marriage and even *I* am sympathetic to the lack of desire on the part of some parents for having "The Prince and The Prince" read to their young children at school. The public schools aren't allowed to teach religion, and thus should be extra cautious about teaching morality that contradicts many mainstream religions.

Which is why it was so tone-deaf for No on 8 to advertise support of the California Teacher's Union.
And why it is so stupid for them to be attacking religions now.

Obama has been and is being an utter coward about Prop 8. He didn't fight against it. He hasn't issued a statement about the protests. I don't think the American people want politicians to lie, but we certainly have elected a man that has proven to dissemble. Perhaps *because* he is so good at dissembling.

That's part of his hope, I suppose. He may bring about gay marriage. He may pay my mortgage. I don't know!! He's the pretty present under the tree on Christmas eve, and the anticipation is thrilling.

mcg said...

From The Onion:
17% always vote yes to everything
5% proposition was a lot of reading
11% thought it would be last good opportunity to deny someone civil rights
2% unhappily married gay people too lazy to get a divorce
4% still trying to prove not gay after that one night with Sean
16% marriages are already gay enough
.001% love and respect their son Frederick, but didn't want to see him make a mistake by marrying that good-for-nothing Manuel

Dust Bunny Queen said...

That's just it. I want gay marriage and even *I* am sympathetic to the lack of desire on the part of some parents for having "The Prince and The Prince" read to their young children at school. The public schools aren't allowed to teach religion, and thus should be extra cautious about teaching morality that contradicts many mainstream religions.

Which is why it was so tone-deaf for No on 8 to advertise support of the California Teacher's Union.


That is it in a nutshell. The schools are already in the indoctrination business, pushing political candidates on elementary school children and making them cry if they don't choose the "right" political stance.

They are already teaching sex education and sexual practices to children against some parent's wishes.

They are already indoctrinating children that same sex relationships are just hunky dory against the wishes of some parents. The legalization of same sex marriage would give the schools even more clout to press the gay agenda on impressionable children.....against the parent's wishes.

Sure.... you can take your child out of public school and home school or send your child to private school......IF you can afford it or have the time to stay home and be a home school teacher. Unfortunately, the teachers unions have been successful in blocking a voucher system which would help parents be able to have the flexibility that is granted to the wealthy, like the Obamas.

Lance Burri said...

Do I get an A? Please, please, please, gimme an A.

I better get an A, because if I don't, I'm sooooo dropping this course.


And he got one!

Lesson to law students - beg, demand, and threaten to drop the class!

(Which is not to say that Chip didn't deserve one.)

chickenlittle said...

aberman wrote: How do you dismiss people who are working their butts off to create the next generation?

Well, you could do something really idiotic like hanging one in effigy from your rooftop.

John Stodder said...

This battle is heading where it belongs, to the courts. I can't wait till they overturn the "will" of the "people."

It would have to be the Supreme Court.

'Til then, I suspect gay marriage will be on the ballot in California every 2-4 years, no matter which side has the upper hand.

cardeblu said...

Joan: "If a priest is empowered to perform civil marriages, by law he must not discriminate, and he must perform marriages for anyone who is legally able to be married."

Actually, I think priests/ministers/pastors/rabbis/whathaveyou do have the right to discriminate in performing marriages in their respective houses of worship, even hetero unions. When we got married 26-1/2 years ago, we had to go through prenup counseling with my minister. I believe if he didn't think we were ready for whatever reason or were incompatible, he would have refused to perform the ceremony, which would have been within his right.

downtownlad said...

Of course Chip Ahoy gets an "A". Chip Ahoy has stated that he hates gay people and refuses to speak to them. FACT

1. The use of Obama's voice: fair or unfair?

Obama opposed proposition 8. So to use his words to pretend that he supported it is of course a lie. But Republicans lie. Shocker.

2. Things a politician must lie about, and the responsibility they must take for these lies.

Obama never lied. He was quite clear that he opposed Proposition 8.

3. Obama's dishonesty. What dishonesty? He personally believes that marriage is between one man and one woman, but he doesn't favor laws that take away the rights of gay people to marry one another. Good for him.

4. The overwhelming black support for Prop 8. And the overwhelming support of whites for Prop 8. And the overwhelming support of Hispanics for Prop 8. Only Jews voted against gay marriage.

5. The unpersuasiveness of the argument that black people should identify with gay people.

6. (Implicit) Why are gay rights activists targeting Mormons when so much of the quarrel is with black people? Selective choice of targets as political cowardice.

Because the Mormons financed 70% of the support for Prop 8. Why can't Ann understand that? Do women really have an IQ that is that small?

downtownlad said...

The Mormons ran ads that said gay people are pedophile and that's why gay marriage should be opposed.

Does Ann think gay people are pedophiles?

downtownlad said...

I have no reason to put myself in the presence of undelightful people. I don't allow it. Having made that decision, nearly all my gay friends have dismissed themselves and my social circle had diminished considerably, and I'm altogether better off because of it. I really cannot deal with the hateful vibes. - Chip Ahoy.

downtownlad said...

Here's an ad financed by the Mormons that was trying to sway the Chinese community to support Proposition 8.

It says that gays are pedophiles.

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=7597

Theo Boehm said...

I agree with the notion of separate civil and religious ceremonies, definitions and obligations when it comes to marriage. So many people want us to imitate Europe, so why not in this?

I was in France on business the other week. I was waiting for my ride across from the train station in a pleasant Paris suburb. Several well-dressed people came out of the station and were walking up the hill to the local town hall. One of the women in the group, seeing I was well-dressed and waiting, asked if I was part of the party? My miserable French reply immediately gave me away as obviously not part of the festivities. The woman apologized for bothering me in very good, British-accented English.

My ride called to tell me she would be a little late, so I went into the local café. While I was sitting there, nursing a café au lait and a croissant and looking out the window, some of the party I'd seen earlier emerged from the mairie, this time with a veiled bride and beaming groom en suite.

They all walked in cheery excitement to the rather ugly 1830's church up the street, into which they disappeared, and in which the Catholic Church no doubt placed its blessing on a mode of life that the very secular republic français had earlier registered and enrolled.

The café au lait was excellent, the wild currant preserves and prèsident butter on the croissant delicious, together with my having witnessed a classic scene of French bourgeois life, cast a glow over the day, and gave me hope that it will all work out somehow.

dualdiagnosis said...

downtownlad said- It says that gays are pedophiles.

No it doesn't.

MayBee said...

It says that gays are pedophiles.

No it doesn't.
It's making the slippery slope argument. It is a valid argument to make if we're talking about gay marriage as a 'right'.
It is a counter to No on 8's misguided tagline "Don't eliminate marriage for anyone".

I will say it again, No on 8 needs to listen to what people who voted for it are afraid of, and address those concerns. Instead, almost every thing they did or are now doing has reinforced people's fears.

Geoff Matthews said...

dualdiagnosis,

A rule of activism is to maximize the offense taken and given. Any sliver of disaproval is taken as the equivalence of assault, thus justifying any following actions.

So, any possible suggestion of equating homosexuality with pedophilia, however strained, is a full-out statement that homosexuality is equivalent to pedophilia.

Chet said...

If the State gets out of the marriage business altogether, then nobody's marriage will be recognized.

Every single married couple, straight or gay, will be a civil union.

The majority will have to be redefined for a minority.

Seems like it would be much easier to simply broaden the existing definition.

Methadras said...

Zachary Paul Sire said...

More Methadras for you...this time from a post back in June!

Methadras said:

The level of deviant behavior in the homosexual community is at times surreal and not in line with normative public adult behavior. It is seen as perverse and immoral and is regarded with disdain. The homosexual community is too immature in it's stature to be given appropriate respect at the table with heterosexuals and that includes marriage.

Isn't he charming? Always thinking about fun stuff...our Methadras.


And that description is even more accurate than I imagined. Considering the public display of homosexual hysteria lately, I'd say that your inability to counter it speaks volumes.

Chet said...

"Perhaps instead of attacking mainstream Mormons, gays ought to reach out to the heretical FLDS sect that still practices polygamy!"


That's why the non-profit tax status thing won't wash. The Mormon Church had a perfect right to protect the reforms that came about from the schism. Mormons had a much larger religious stake in this than anyone.

Aren't there hundreds of bigamist lawsuits in Utah, and Colorado winding their way through Federal court as we speak?

And, the Bigamists, as well as mainstream Mormons, can make a Freedom of Religion argument, that anti-Prop 8 doesn't have .

knox said...

6. (Implicit) Why are gay rights activists targeting Mormons when so much of the quarrel is with black people? Selective choice of targets as political cowardice.

Because the Mormons financed 70% of the support for Prop 8. Why can't Ann understand that? Do women really have an IQ that is that small?


dtl, your argument doesn't hold water. Even if you pretend that blacks somehow made their decision solely based on Mormon-funded propaganda, they are ultimately responsible for their decisions and votes, just like the rest of us. When gays target Mormons--and ignore blacks' culpability--they look either disingenuous or chickenshit. Or both.

Zoe Brain said...

Marriage is between a Man and a Woman.

Very well. Now define "Man" and "Woman".

Remember you'll have to take into account all sorts of rare, and some not-so-rare, biological differences from the usual situation.

For most people, it's simple, obvious, "common sense". 98.7% of the population in fact fit even the most stringent definitions.

Only about 1 in 1000 cause real perplexity, both in biological reality, and to the law.

For example... all children with either 5alpha-reductase-2 deficiency (5alpha-RD-2) or 17beta-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase-3 deficiency (17beta-HSD-3) look female at birth. But those with 46xy chromosomes masculinise rather than feminise at puberty.

There are people with 47xxy chromosomes, and others with mixtures of 45x, 46xy, 46xx, 47xxy etc. Somatic form is variable - some can be biological fathers, others can get pregnant.

My UK Birth certificate says "boy". My UK passport says "female". My medical records show a diagnosis by a fertility clinic as an undervirilised male in 1985, and as a severely androgenised woman in 2005 after rather better tests.

It could reasonably be stated that people like me are exceptional. A minority. But not a tiny minority, tens of thousands in California alone.

No matter which sex we're attracted to, any attempt at marriage for us will be challenged. Especially for those born in other jurisdictions, whose sex on both birth certificate and passport is marked "X" for "Indeterminate".

For some of us, which sex we are from a legal standpoint is just as vexed a question as one another minority faced up to the 1970s. The question for them was what Race they were, and whether they could marry at all.

So much for equal treatment, "human rights for all".

Two final points - for those who say homosexuality is a choice - when did you decide to ignore your attraction to the same sex, and choose to be straight?

And for those who think there's equal treatment for gays and straights - because both can marry the opposite sex - then would you be happy if the shoe was on the other foot - if the law was that anyone could marry, as long as they were the same sex? And if not, why not? Wouldn't that be equal treatment too?

Oh FWIW, I'm straight. Now you tell me what you think that means.

blake said...

Two final points - for those who say homosexuality is a choice - when did you decide to ignore your attraction to the same sex, and choose to be straight?

I think you miss the point. (I also think a lot of people go out of their way to make the point unclear.) Homosexuality as an orientation isn't really the issue. At most, it's a choice like alcoholism is a choice. Nobody chooses to be an alcoholic in any meaningful sense.

Acting on homosexuality is most certainly a choice and what is traditionally regarded as a sin (though, traditionally, not a very serious one in many cases). The Catholic catechism, for example, is quite clear on the topic. Whatever the reasons God had for making you attracted to the same sex, you're not supposed to act on those urges. (Catholicism is brutally consistent in this regard: No sexual activity that can't result in pregnancy is okay. No taking of life, whether in utero or on death row is okay.)

Look at the "I can't help it" angle from another way: Does one choose to be a pedophile or a serial killer? If those are found to be genetic in nature does it excuse people acting on those urges?

Let's pick a more common characteristic: inclined to promiscuity. Most people seem to have this in some measure. Religion says, "No. You may not." How is that "fair" to anyone?

Truth is, religion and society are concerned with fairness or individuality. They're concerned with survival.

The security provided by generations of certain ethical and moral structures, and sacrifices made, ironically seem to lead to us denigrating same. (And then, of course, because society is never as secure as it appears, it collapses.) I don't know that this is something can (or even should) be fought.

And for those who think there's equal treatment for gays and straights - because both can marry the opposite sex - then would you be happy if the shoe was on the other foot - if the law was that anyone could marry, as long as they were the same sex? And if not, why not? Wouldn't that be equal treatment too?

It has nothing to do with being happy. Again, the idea that marriage has something to do with happiness shows how degraded the concept has become.

Infatuation--the passive effect of being swept away by another person--became a replacement for love--the active process of creation that persists no matter how hard and unpleasant life becomes. As infatuation past, the marriages based on it needed to be disposable.

And here we are.

Real marriage is a challenging thing that returns benefit to society. What benefits society bestows back are not nearly equal to the challenge, and no, they're not ever fairly distributed, as anyone who ended up being raised by a pair of "spinster aunts" or "bachelor uncles" can tell you.

But life isn't fair. Never has been. Never will be. And what's more, same-sex marriages will not make it any fairer.

blake said...

And, if I were to guess, Zoe (and I have to), I'd say "straight" means you liked women when you were a man, and men now that you're a woman.

Zoe Brain said...

*Stunned Silence*

blake, you scored a bullseye. Even I had no idea that was going to happen. I'd always thought of myself as happily lesbian when my body looked male.

You guess well.

blake said...

Heh.

One of the great pioneers of computer gaming, Dan Bunten/Dani Berry had SRS figuring when it was over he would become a lesbian, and learned that he was "straight".

memomachine said...

Hmmmm.

@ Althouse

"except to the extent that he isn't, and I certainly think in his heart he's not, but that in his head he knew he had to say he was to get elected."

So you it's a -positive- that Obama doesn't mean what he says?

I'll have to remember that.

PatWictor said...

Prop 8 wasn't passed on its merits. The campaign to pass it was based entirely around manufacturing fear among the religious, especially the fear that churches and ministers would be forced to perform same-sex marriages against their will. Nonsense!

Churches are private organizations, and can discriminate--with the full blessing of law--as thoroughly and narrowly as they want. And that is as it should be.

My wife and I (we're a mixed-sex couple) both grew up Catholic, but the Catholic Church would not marry us, as she had previously been divorced. We found another church happy to do the job.

None of this would change had Prop 8 been defeated. The churches who refuse to perform same-sex marriage could keep doing that. And the Unitarians, Unity, and other progressive churches, whose religious freedom to perform same-sex marriages have been violated for years, would finally get to perform same-sex marriages.