June 30, 2013

"High-strung right-wingers who say, for example, that the country might as well embrace polygamy if it’s going to have same-sex marriage..."

"... are not doing themselves any favors. More seriously, this would be a good time for conservatives to take supporters of SSM at their word and insist on stronger cultural as well as legal affirmations of monogamy for everyone. Somehow, though, I suspect that rather than using this as an opportunity to build new coalitions against promiscuity or divorce, we’ll just see a redoubling of resentments."

Writes Daniel McCarthy at The American Conservative.

424 comments:

1 – 200 of 424   Newer›   Newest»
Oso Negro said...

Tampering with the social order always results in unintended consequences. I don't believe that mainstreaming homosexuality is the best choice for America, but realistically, it is game over. Now that we have put our sexual mores in play, I can't think of a single reason to deny polygamists their pursuits, would be delighted to bring prostitutes in from the shadows, and favor lowering the age of consent to puberty. Oh, and yes, let's still have smaller more affordable government.

Jay said...

his would be a good time for conservatives to take supporters of SSM at their word and insist on stronger cultural as well as legal affirmations of monogamy for everyone.

Well, there are very, very few supporters of SSM offering any "word" that marriage means more monogamy.

So I won't bother reading what this unknown conservative has to say on the matter.

PS: New research at San Francisco State University reveals just how common open relationships are among gay men and lesbians in the Bay Area. The Gay Couples Study has followed 556 male couples for three years — about 50 percent of those surveyed have sex outside their relationships, with the knowledge and approval of their partners.

EMD said...

You're nothing if not predictable, Madam.

(And I agree with the sentiment of the article.)

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

Althouse's concern trollery goes to 11.

Can we continue to enjoy a daily post on this topic for the foreseeable future? Please? It's fun for the whole family!

BaltoHvar said...

You can ignore it and dismiss it all you want, but the truth is polygamy is here now. Setting aside gay adoption or childless-by-decision gay couples, any left wishing to conceive and birth naturally MUST enter a polygamous relationship, even a contract with a third party. Sure, sprem-banks provide a measure of anonymity, as do surrogacy services. But in the end the rules of biology never change.

Gabriel Hanna said...

It's not a question of "might as well", it's a question of "will", and it won't be the country, it will be the courts.

Polygamists and adults in consensual incestuous relationships have their cases ready.

Many supporters of SSM (such as Revenant here) will admit when you ask them that they think polygamy ought to be legal.

You cannot defend laws against polygamy and incest using pure reason. For example, if the state cared about birth defects then unrelated couples would be required to get genetic counseling before marrying. They are not, therefore laws against incest are only motivated by animus.

Votes for women, civil rights for blacks--it was right and just that the Constitution be changed to require these things of the states. I believe this to be true of gay marriage as well and I have voted for it whenever it has been allowed by our judicial Solons to come before a vote.

Jurists of the 20th century did not have sharp enough eyes to squint at the 14th amendment and declare it secretly contained that women had the right to vote. If they had, now doubt they'd have seen SSM in there too, and required the states to allow it then.

rhhardin said...

The trouble with same sex marriage isn't perversity but that it isn't marriage.

Jay said...

a good time for conservatives to take supporters of SSM at their word

Considering supporters of SSM have lied at every step along the way, this assertion is preposterous.

I'd also note that 25 years ago "gay rights" people had no interest in marriage. None.

rhhardin said...

Polygamy is closer to marriage than same sex marriage, as far as the word is concerned.

It's just outlawed, not misnamed.

Shouting Thomas said...

Anal sex is a gross and sick act that is sinful in the eyes of God. SSM is now a stain on this country.

Well, I don't exactly agree with that.

Anal sex, especially with a dozen men in one night, does cause global VD epidemics that kill millions of people.

Note how carefully Althouse has avoided the subject of the AIDS epidemic. I don't blame her. It blows away her argument that straights have been persecuting and oppressing gays. It also undercuts her argument that there is no difference between male gay and straight sex.

The great persecution and oppression of gays didn't happen. Not in Althouse's life. She's made that up for the purposes of her argument. All I've been getting out of Althouse's argument is that gays' hurt feelings over jokes about what they do sexually have amounted to persecution and oppression.

After all, no decent person makes fun of what other people do sexually, do they? Right, Titus?

I have found Althouse, a normally incisive and clever thinker, completely incoherent on this gay kerfluffle. She seems genuinely indignant about something, but I haven't got a clue what that might be.

What is actually being proposed here, folks, is name changing. You know, like how people want to change the name of Squaw Mountain to something grey and nebulous, and how that's supposed to fix the offended's self-esteem?

Althouse is hoping that the name changes, like "gay marriage," will stop gay men from killing themselves with their sexual practices. Fat chance, prof! Same old BS. Same old delusions.

Mitchell the Bat said...

I agree completely with Daniel McCarthy because I don't want him to think I'm one of those resentful high-strung right-wingers.

Nichevo said...

That seems like a troll bait. That said, homosexuality certainly is a disorder, mental or otherwise, that should be cured instead of countenanced let alone celebrated; its victims treated with compassion, but not allowed this stance of absolute moral authoritah: not to be thrown off the sleigh but certainly not to be driving it; forced to choose, the former before the latter.

And people admiring, advocating, abetting it should be treated like promoters of typhoid or cancer or suicide.

Gabriel Hanna said...

@BaltoHvar:the truth is polygamy is here now.

Yes it is, Muslims in the United Kingdom are getting government benefits for multiple wives. If it's not happening here in Philadelphia and New York and Detroit, it soon will.

Here you can read NPR reporting that polygamy is all about expressing love and religious faith.

When a court rules polygamy is a right, expect the same people who told you it was ridiculous and fear-mongering to suggest it would happen, to openly celebrate it.

Nichevo said...

That's you, Althouse, in case it had escaped you.

Mitchell the Bat said...

When two dudes get married, who gives away the bride?

Glen Filthie said...

A few things A-house:

It's not only high strung right wingers opposed to gay marriage; it's pretty much universal among people with a sense of morals and ethics.

And

The high strung leftwingers voted against it in California, and some pasty faced judicial cretins over ruled them.

It is pretty much apparent to everyone that the Supremes are now just making shit up as they go, and if they can do that...why vote at all?

I think we seriously need to confront our judiciary. With ropes, pitchforks and scythes if necessary.

Jay said...

Imagine if after Roe v. Wade a conservative had said:

the Supreme Court has advanced abortion in a gradualist manner so this would be a good time for conservatives to take supporters of abortion at their word and insist on stronger cultural as well as legal restrictions on abortion for everyone. Somehow, though, I suspect that rather than using this as an opportunity to build new coalitions against abortion, promiscuity, and teen pregnancy we’ll just see a redoubling of resentments.

How would you respond to them without laughing?

Jay said...

This author laughable asserts: "this as an opportunity to build new coalitions against promiscuity "

Can anyone name anyone in the "I support SSM" crowd calling for a coalition against promiscuity?

Shouting Thomas said...

The question of whether gays were "persecuted" has to be viewed in light of the community's desire to be protected from the epidemics caused by gay male behavior.

Ancient communities experienced this same reality. They didn't create the proscriptions against open male gay behavior out of prejudice. They did so to protect the community against savage epidemics caused by the behavior of gay men.

Human history isn't linear and progressive. It's cyclical. The self-destructive behavior of gay men, resulting in epidemics that wipe out entire communities, is the repetitive cycle of human history.

No wonder, Althouse keeps avoiding this issue.

Freder Frederson said...

It's not only high strung right wingers opposed to gay marriage; it's pretty much universal among people with a sense of morals and ethics

Sorry, but you don't get to define morals and ethics. Apparently, you believe anyone who disagrees with you is morally and ethically deficient, which means you don't understand the meaning of either word.

bpm4532 said...

I disagree with McCarthy's position. If you insist on monogamy, then you must answer the question of what's special about 2?

If it's about love, equality and civil rights, then all sorts of committed relationships involving more than 2 must be approved by the state and afforded the same benefits. If it's not about love, equality, and civil rights, then the discussion of why just 2 must be answered. This leads it to the biological imperative of 1 man and 1 woman being necessary to create new life and perpetuate the species (and society).

Of course, technology marches on and in the near-term cloning technology may make the male obsolete with women being able to clone themselves or construct desirable DNA on a computer. Women for quite some time may possess the only remaining necessary item - a uterus.

However, if you believe in the singularity (the time when machines become intelligent beyond humans), then the concept of different sexes will then become completely obsolete. This will be the ultimate irony as the concept of female will be retired and those old hags put out to pasture as they gelded all the stallions.

Gabriel Hanna said...

People who say rulings for gay marriage won't lead to anything else are like the 7-minute Ab guy in "There's Something About Mary" who indignantly denied that there was any market for a 6-minute ab workout.

Marriage is not based on pure reason, it's based on tradition. If gay marriage was instituted through legislation and initiatives, there'd be no question of invalidating the basis of the laws of marriage, because as a people we would be changing the tradition through the democratic process.

Now, however, courts have said that tradition is not the basis. This is what makes the slope slippery. If marriage was defined by the people's votes, you couldn't argue that legal gay marriage implies legal polygamy, because the people choose to change the tradition, or don't, for their own individual reasons. But when a court says that the rules of marriage have to be examined for a rational basis, none of them, consanguinity, number, age, have a rational basis.

Polygamy is ancient and currently widespread. Incestuous marriages were long required of royalty--and where did Cain get his wife? Age of marriage has even in European cultures been much lower than today. Clearly marriage as an institution can and does embrace all these various forms.

The only reason it doesn't here is because we the people don't want it to. The courts don't care what we want.

Freder Frederson said...

They did so to protect the community against savage epidemics caused by the behavior of gay men.


You just like making shit up, don't you?

pm317 said...

I thought prop 8 in CA was killed by people who voted for Obama in huge numbers like 99%..

Shouting Thomas said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Freder Frederson said...

If marriage was defined by the people's votes, you couldn't argue that legal gay marriage implies legal polygamy, because the people choose to change the tradition, or don't, for their own individual reasons.

What on earth are you talking about? Of the states that allow gay marriage it is pretty much split between legislative or direct initiative approval and judicial decision.

To claim that gay marriage is only legal because of court decisions is simply lying about it. Not only that polls now show majority support for gay marriage. And I would be willing to bet that if Prop 8 were voted on again in California, it would be roundly defeated.

Shouting Thomas said...

Polygamy, by contrast, does not threaten the health of the community, in the way that gay male sexuality does.

Freder Frederson said...

No.

So you just lie because you can't help it?

There have been savage epidemics caused by mostly heterosexual behavior since the beginning of time. It was the late nineteenth century before anyone understood what caused sexually transmitted diseases.

Jay said...

Freder Frederson said...

Sorry, but you don't get to define morals and ethics. Apparently, you believe anyone who disagrees with you is morally and ethically deficient,


No, people who think immorally are morally deficient.

You really are stupid this morning.

Michael K said...

"
I have found Althouse, a normally incisive and clever thinker, completely incoherent on this gay kerfluffle. She seems genuinely indignant about something, but I haven't got a clue what that might be."

I agree with this completely. It must be the gay son. That explains it. Ditto for Dick Cheney although his child is a daughter and less at risk for AIDS. Also lesbian relationships tend to be less promiscuous.

I don't care about gay marriage but am a bit concerned about the rapid overturning of so many traditional rules of social behavior. We are already inundated with unanticipated consequences.

Gabriel Hanna said...

@Freder:To claim that gay marriage is only legal because of court decisions is simply lying about it.

Fortunately for my veracity I made no such claim. Learn to read.

elkh1 said...

As long as only one spouse can claim whatever a spouse is entitled to under the law, who cares if the person has more than one mates married or not.

Mistresses, girlfriends, boyfriends, ... are legal.

How do polygamous couples (triples, quadruples,... polyples?) settle their property claims in divorces? Divorce lawyers will have such a field day, they are already licking their chops.

Freder Frederson said...

Polygamy, by contrast, does not threaten the health of the community, in the way that gay male sexuality does.

You have heard of syphilis, gonorrhea, and HPV haven't you. Heck, apparently Michael Douglas' throat cancer was caused by heterosexual sex.

edutcher said...

Is this another "conservative" like Mark Zuckerberg or another Libertarian trying to pass himself off as a Conservative because his crowd gets no traction?

Fact is, the "polyamorists" have been right behind the homosexuals (no pun) from day one and no less than Antonin Scalia has seen that one coming.

As far as the line, "this would be a good time for conservatives to take supporters of SSM at their word and insist on stronger cultural as well as legal affirmations of monogamy for everyone", the lie has been put to it by Dan Savage.

Jay said...

Freder Frederson said...
So you just lie because you can't help it?


Yes, the proof of this allegedly lie is you shouting "that's a lie!"

Shouting Thomas said...

There have been savage epidemics caused by mostly heterosexual behavior since the beginning of time. It was the late nineteenth century before anyone understood what caused sexually transmitted diseases.

Read the Bible. The writers of the Bible were acutely aware of the health risks of anal sex.

Understanding the cause of sexually transmitted diseases is not necessary.

Likewise, hetero orgy groups have always deliberately excluded gay and bisexual men, and believe me they aren't doing this because they have degrees in microbiology.

They know that allowing gay and bisexual men into their groups is a potential death sentence for their members.

yashu said...

Mobys are mobys.

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

Fred--are you rejecting the notion that public health is the basis (or one of them at least) for traditional social rules regarding sexuality?

Jay said...

Heck, apparently Michael Douglas' throat cancer was caused by heterosexual sex.

You apparently enjoy making shit up.

Shouting Thomas said...

The impossible stupidity of this discussion is illustrated in depth by Freder's refusal to acknowledge that gay men started an epidemic that killed millions of people... during his lifetime.

A sort of savage idiot madness seems to have seized Freder and Althouse here.

Damned if I care. NY State has already endorsed gay marriage. I'll live with it.

Freder Frederson said...

Fortunately for my veracity I made no such claim. Learn to read.

Then what did you mean by this?


"The only reason it doesn't here is because we the people don't want it to. The courts don't care what we want."



Jay said...

"Michael Douglas did not say cunnilingus was the cause of his cancer. It was discussed that oral sex is a suspected cause of certain oral cancers as doctor's in the article point out but he did not say it was the specific cause of his personal cancer."


-----
Freeder is really stupid.

edutcher said...

Shouting Thomas said...

Polygamy, by contrast, does not threaten the health of the community, in the way that gay male sexuality does.

Only if there's no straying. In a truly polygamous relationship (polyandry or polygyny), somebody's going to get short-changed.

In a "polyamorous" relationship, apparently everyone can be seduced by the next good-looking ass to come along.

It would seem fidelity would have to be Draconically enforced for Shout's contention to work.

Chip Ahoy said...

They showed a picture of the Supreme Court building. LIES111!111! In real life, if you were to go there to see for yourself as hundreds have, you'd be disappointed because the friezes are covered with scaffolding. (<-- a word I spelled right first try.) And it seems they always are covered with scaffolding the whole place is monument to a glorious past. Now our monuments are outside Washington and to brutalist monumentality itself NSA Utah and to think it warehouses information about ourselves compressed onto increasingly shrinking chips.

RiverRat said...

Why does anyone really care if it doesn't damage you or your children. SSM, Polysex it doesn't really matter.

The "goverment" needs to get out of the "marriage" business entirely...yes that means unwinding a bunch of prior legislation and replacing it with tax and other advantages which accrue only to children under parent/guardian control.

If segments of society, given freedom of association, which to shun SSM and Polyamory. Go for it...let's just leave the governments out of the equations.

Michael K said...

"There have been savage epidemics caused by mostly heterosexual behavior since the beginning of time. It was the late nineteenth century before anyone understood what caused sexually transmitted diseases."

There was a very interesting study published in the New England Journal about 50 years ago. It was a contact trace of a syphilis case. The trace was done in New York City and about half the contacts were female to female. These were married women having lesbian sex. The result was totally unexpected and was my first exposure to that phenomenon. I can't recall how many male to make contacts there were but it was a much smaller number.

This was confidential contact tracing and not case tracing. There were many more contacts than cases. It was also before the "sexual revolution" of the sixties.

Freder Frederson said...

The impossible stupidity of this discussion is illustrated in depth by Freder's refusal to acknowledge that gay men started an epidemic that killed millions of people... during his lifetime.

Where did I say that (and the origins of AIDS are vague, although in western countries but not Africa where most of the death occurred, the spread was pretty much confined to the gay community)? Your contention is that gay sex was historically devastating to the community at large. Even if it were true (and heterosexually transmitted veneral diseases have killed vastly more people than AIDS has), the mechanism of transmission was not understood until the late nineteenth century.

Shouting Thomas said...

Bullshit, the origins of the AIDS epidemic are vague.

The AIDS epidemic was developed and sent out into the world by the bath houses in SF and NYC in the 60s and 70s.

Now, you're just a bald faced liar.

I was there, chump. I saw it all.

Gabriel Hanna said...

@Frederson:The only reason it doesn't here is because we the people don't want it to. The courts don't care what we want."

"It" refers to marriage without our current restrictions on number, age, and consanguinity. Learn to read.

Freder Frederson said...

"It" refers to marriage without our current restrictions on number, age, and consanguinity. Learn to read.

Sorry, I guess I missed where courts have approved those types of marriages.

Shouting Thomas said...

Oh, well, off to church and rehearsal.

The gay marriage kerfluffle is the dumbest shit I've observed in my lifetime.

God alone knows what Althouse is trying to accomplish here. She's just plain delusional and a bit hysterical on the subject.

Time to do something worthwhile and productive. There's something just damned crazy and self-destructive in this bullshit. The stupidity and wishful thinking of this name-changing hysteria cannot be answered in any sane fashion.

Nomennovum said...

Are any conservatives really saying that we "may as well" embrace polygamy now that we have SSM? I haven't heard this. McCarthy’s assertion smacks of a straw man argument. I think what many conservatives are arguing is that SSM puts us on the slippery slope to polygamy. That’s a different thing.

In any event, I think that if anything will save us from the anti-male divorce laws, it will be SSM. This is as hopeful as I can possible be about anything to do with marriage.

Mitchell the Bat said...

I saw a porno movie, many years ago, where there was this nympho chick who wouldn't have sex outside of marriage so she'd marry some guy, then bang him, then get divorced and then marry some other guy, and so on, and so on.

It was pretty awful, as I recall.

Gabriel Hanna said...

@Freder:Sorry, I guess I missed where courts have approved those types of marriages.

Yes, you clearly did not read what I wrote at all.

My point was, these marriages will soon be ruled legal for the same reasons gay marriages have been ruled legal. Learn to read.

Kelly said...

It's a matter of time before all religions are forced to marry gay couples. The Catholic church has already been forced to close down their adoption agencies here in the US because it was ruled they had to adopt to same sex couples.

If you think religions won't be forced to embrace homosexuals, more fool you.

Nomennovum said...

there was this nympho chick who wouldn't have sex outside of marriage so she'd marry some guy, then bang him, then get divorced and then marry some other guy, and so on, and so on.

This is called serial monogamy and it's exactly what we have now as a result of no-fault divorce laws. It allows hypergamous females to indulge their status seeking ways unfettered by any limitations but their age and beauty.

edutcher said...

Shouting Thomas said...

Bullshit, the origins of the AIDS epidemic are vague.

No, we know exactly how it came here.

in the 60s, when many African countries were getting their independence (big mistake, IMHO), a great many civil servants from Haiti went over to those countries that had formerly been french colonies and mixed with the local mademoiselles. AIDS had been a localized problem until the Haitians brought it back with them.

It began to spread to the wider world when American homosexuals found that, because Haiti is a crushingly poor country, they could fly down to Port-Au_Prince and buy a little boy (sorry) for next to nothing for the night.

Needless to say, this has been swept under the rug like so many other "privacy" issues surrounding AIDS.

Shout has detailed the next step in epidemiology.

The Crack Emcee said...

Shouting Thomas,

The AIDS epidemic was developed and sent out into the world by the bath houses in SF and NYC in the 60s and 70s.

Now, you're just a bald faced liar.

I was there, chump. I saw it all


Ditto. We told them to stop - out of love - and they called us "oppressors", made us scapegoats. Still do, as the court ruling showed.

Ann's kid could be Damien from The Omen and she'd still be screaming, "Give him what he wants!"

Now we're sick of all of them for what they put us through:

Men aren't the enemy - your own lack of common sense is.

You can both eat a dick - as a "family" - as far as I'm concerned.

Now line up those young girls - about 14 years old please - I need some new wives to train in the art of worship,...

TMR

X said...

so now it's time to pull the ladder up. Fen's Law indeed. what happened to equal protection Inga?

Freder Frederson said...

No, we know exactly how it came here.

So you admit that the original introduction to this hemisphere was the result of heterosexual sex. And as I pointed out most of the death from AIDS is in Africa, where the primary transmission is through heterosexual, not homosexual, contact.

Inga said...

I suspect it may grieve Althouse that her comments section is so filled with disgusting homophobes and haters.

Freder Frederson said...

It's a matter of time before all religions are forced to marry gay couples.

Right after they are forced to marry interracial couples (hint, 46 years after Loving v. Virginia, they aren't).

Nomennovum said...

This author laughable asserts: "this as an opportunity to build new coalitions against promiscuity "

Some conservatives can be so fucking dense in their Little Mary Sunshine roles. "Build new coalitions"! Ha! Sounds so damn liberal, so heart-on-a-sleeve. Yuck.

edutcher said...

Wow!

I forget who it was that wondered what happened to Crack and Shout (maybe he/she could bring back vbspurs, Bissage, and Sir Archy), but here they are!

Welcome back for as long as you're here, guys.

edutcher said...

Inga said...

I suspect it may grieve Althouse that her comments section is so filled with disgusting homophobes and haters.

I take it you mean you.

No, the disgusting people are the trolls and the ones who anoint themselves Ann's spokesbroads.

X said...

Inga has no principles, just positions.

SGT Ted said...

Gay activists aren't interested in monogamy.

They are interested in asserting rights and winning in court, so they have access to Federal and private employer partner benefits.

It really doesn't matter what gay or straight monogamists think about it at this point if what constitutes a sexual "right" is merely the desires of whatever a group of people asserts, based on whatever happiness they claim is being thwarted or denied by a majority and that opposition to that desire can be portrayed as "bigotry".

That is the logic template. And it fits anything that adults care to do with each other consensually.

Example: Anti-gay marriage argument #1 "Gay people can already marry someone of the opposite sex."

Pro-gay marriage response: "But I won't be happy and I don't like the opposite sex for marriage. Why are you a bigot when it comes to my personal relationships with consenting adults?"

Anti-polygamy marriage argument: "You can already marry one person, gay or straight."

Pro-polygamy marriage response: "But I won't be happy with only one spouse. I am bi-sexual too. Why are you a bigot when it comes to my personal relationships with consenting adults?"

How is this argument different from a personal liberty standpoint in a society where we are equal?

I bet there's other pro-gay marriage arguments that can be thus template and turned against monogamous marriage supporters.

edutcher said...

Freder Frederson said...

It's a matter of time before all religions are forced to marry gay couples.

Right after they are forced to marry interracial couples (hint, 46 years after Loving v. Virginia, they aren't).


Maybe they're not suing.

As for homosexuals, really?

Military chaplains are.

edutcher said...

X said...

Inga has no principles, just positions.

Let's keep it clean, guys.

Nomennovum said...

If we have a Godwin's Law on thread commentary, what do we call the equivalent when someone calls a commenter homophobic or a gay hater?

Jay said...

Ann's kid could be Damien from The Omen and she'd still be screaming, "Give him what he wants!"

That's funny.

Jay said...

Right after they are forced to marry interracial couples (hint, 46 years after Loving v. Virginia, they aren't).

I love the fact that you think this is analogous.

Again, you're really stupid this morning.

Leland said...

I didn't know that Obama was right wing. It was Obama that tweeted on the SCOTUS DOMA ruling, "#loveislove". If marriage is simply #loveislove, then why deny polygamy?

Those who believe in the religious sacrament of "marriage", believe the union has more about it than just love. Those supporting SSM believe the state can define marriage as anything it wants, so long as it doesn't discriminate. #loveislove is not discriminating, but limiting government marriage to monogamy based on love is discriminating.

X said...

Inga do you support polygamy on equal protection grounds?

elkh1 said...

Nomennovum said...
"no-fault divorce laws. It allows hypergamous females to indulge their status seeking ways unfettered by any limitations but their age and beauty."

Guys can indulge in banging whoever available unfettered by any limitations not even by their age, beauty, or wealth.

Nomennovum said...

Inga do you support polygamy on equal protection grounds?

You ask too much: (1) Forcing her to Google. (2) Making her understand. (3) Making her think. (4) Making her report back to you coherently.

An impossible task.

The Crack Emcee said...

"Disgusting homophobes and haters."

Can you imagine going to funerals for and with idiots who think this way? Never again. It got to be too much - especially when the gays would even be trying to have sex with me while the ceremony's still going on. Just disgusting. And something Inga will never know since no one wants to sleep with her.

I spoke at Marlon Riggs' funeral, and can still remember the surprise on the Inga's faces, because their simple minds couldn't comprehend there's another way to see things but the un-nuanced manner with which they "think". I was asked to sit with the Riggs family after my remarks. The gays were jealous of that, too.

Really, the only "haters" I see are those - like Ann and Inga - too silly to see beyond themselves.

Jay said...

Those who believe in the religious sacrament of "marriage", believe the union has more about it than just love.

The line of thinking that "How can you tell me who to love!!!????" has been one of the sillier of this whole SSM thing.

Leftists love to argue against straw men.

Lauderdale Vet said...

I was watching Defiance earlier this year on SyFy, and one of the supporting characters had two husbands. "And so it begins", I remember thinking to myself.

SGT Ted said...

Note how carefully Althouse has avoided the subject of the AIDS epidemic. I don't blame her. It blows away her argument that straights have been persecuting and oppressing gays. It also undercuts her argument that there is no difference between male gay and straight sex.

She also doesn't bring it up because she will then be a non-person to gay activists and excommunicated from the liberal chruch.

When I brought this subject up way earlier this year in another thread, Palladian lost his shit for pointing out that inconvenient fact and I was immediately a non-person to him.

Telling the truth about how the AIDS virus became an epidemic in the gay community is forbidden and you must always blame Ronald Reagan, according to Palladian and his ilk, which is why I wasn't so concerned when he decided to excommunicate the rest of us and leave here.

I could have cared less about who he takes to bed, but his disregard for the truth was telling as to his true character in that he prefers a polite fiction to the hard truth about the AIDS epidemic.

Gabriel Hanna said...

@Jay:I love the fact that you think this is analogous.

Worthwhile point out why it's not. Interracial marriage has existed as far back in history as marriage itself. Besides the Biblical cases, you have Dr Samuel Johnson's servant Frank, who inherited Johnson's property in Leeds in 1784 and married a local girl. Their descendants are there to this day.

Interracial marriage had to be criminalized, because it already existed. Loving vs Virginia did not redefine traditional marriage--it removed a restriction of recent origin and restored the traditional definition in those states which had distorted it.

Nomennovum said...

Guys can indulge in banging whoever available unfettered by any limitations not even by their age, beauty, or wealth.

But men aren't inclined to serial monogamy. They are inclined towards variety -- i.e., polygyny. This is different.

bagoh20 said...

Oh and, Oh and, Oh and, We were told how resistance to SSM was lording over a weak group, but that weak group is winning, so lets all gang up on a weaker group. Pull up that ladder right behind you, and do it quick before that weak group gets to the courts, because they can't lose there unless we can all gang up against them in a big love fest of bigotry now.

Jay said...

Gabriel Hanna +1 - and I'd add that there weren't a bunch of (black) pastors saying that interracial marriage were against the tenants of their church.

I enjoyed this article about how the gay marriage bill in Obama's home state died - " African American church groups have provided fierce opposition"

*SNICKER*

Now white liberals like freeder and inky can call those black pastors bigots.

Mark said...

If most people here are not trolling, it is a sad indictment of the type of people Ann's thoughts attract.

IMO she likes to think she carries on a smart and interesting series of posts here ... yet it certainly does not attract a group of reasoned deep thinkers.

Ratings and amazon money will hopefully fill the hole she wanted to fill intellectually.

Mark said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
edutcher said...

X said...

Inga do you support polygamy on equal protection grounds?

To the surprise of absolutely nobody, she's already said, "Yes".

X said...

i.e. Mark

elkh1 said...

Shouting Thomas said...
"hetero orgy groups ...know that allowing gay and bisexual men into their groups is a potential death sentence for their members."

Curious reasoning. Hetero orgy groups share and share alike, they don't allow gays because they are not gay and can't share the fun; they don't allow bisexual because they don't want to share their women. They most probably pay for their memberships, not too many people pay willingly for something that they don't enjoy.

Roger J. said...

Continuing posts on SSM--these are really getting boring. Like I mean really boring. Same old shit day in and day out.

Jay said...

Mark said...
If most people here are not trolling, it is a sad indictment of the type of people Ann's thoughts attract.

IMO she likes to think she carries on a smart and interesting series of posts here ... yet it certainly does not attract a group of reasoned deep thinkers.


I love the fact you think your silly bromides and Ad Hominem's demonstrate any level of intelligence.

Carry on.

edutcher said...

Nomennovum said...

Guys can indulge in banging whoever available unfettered by any limitations not even by their age, beauty, or wealth.

But men aren't inclined to serial monogamy. They are inclined towards variety -- i.e., polygyny. This is different


You never heard the old Sociology characterization of multiple divorces and remarriages as "serial polygamy"?

And, of course, it applies to polyandry as well as polygyny.

cubanbob said...

PS: New research at San Francisco State University reveals just how common open relationships are among gay men and lesbians in the Bay Area. The Gay Couples Study has followed 556 male couples for three years — about 50 percent of those surveyed have sex outside their relationships, with the knowledge and approval of their partners.

6/30/13, 8:41 AM

Wait until there is a large community property division in a nasty divorce.

Hammond X Gritzkofe said...

Is it high-strung conservatives saying this?

Or Libertarians?

Eustace Chilke said...

Same sex marriage isn't marriage? Time to take the next step. Legal, state sanctioned marriage isn't marriage.

Homos, get a clue. You're being allowed to marry because the power has decided that it doesn't matter to them any longer, if it ever did.

Sure, have your "marriage". But don't you dare try to get up off your knees and start questioning the authority of The State to say who is married and who isn't.

They've got us splintered and competing like preschool children each begging to be shown favor over the others. Free people would never stop puking at the thought.

elkh1 said...

Nomennovum said...
"But men aren't inclined to serial monogamy. They are inclined towards variety -- i.e., polygyny"

Polygamous men are Don Juans, polygamous women are sluts... a cultural hurdle that no feminazis can overcome.

Nomennovum said...

You never heard the old Sociology characterization of multiple divorces and remarriages as "serial polygamy"? - edutcher

No. Never.

The Crack Emcee said...

Sgt. Ted (last post),

I could have cared less about who he takes to bed, but his disregard for the truth was telling as to his true character in that he prefers a polite fiction to the hard truth,..."

They need the "bigotry" line to protect themselves from the realization of their actions and it's consequences - and who THEY are.

Or were you guys charmed by Ann's cackling "losers" song? (I wouldn't give her a dime for sex, much less Amazon,...)

I'm not against gay couples (I am against calling it marriage) but the lying and slander to get there - just like with pot legalization - is the issue. You'll never win me over like this.

I'm out - laterz.

Roger J. said...

Good to see you back albeit for a brief period of time, Crack--and ST as well.

Nomennovum said...

polygamous women are sluts

Yes, who then become two-timing wives who are serially monogamous when they "settle."

Dante said...

It's about as practical to get homosexual men to be monogamists as it is to convert them into heterosexuals. I would guess the later is easier.

Gahrie said...

I suspect it may grieve Althouse that her comments section is so filled with disgusting homophobes and haters.

Just out of curiousity, do you believe it is possible to oppose gay marriage without being a homophobe or a hater?

Do you think it is possible that some things are more important than somebody's hurt feelings?

I'd really be interested in both Althouse's and Inga's responses.

AJ Lynch said...

Crack! How the hell have you been? You have not missed much - as Roger J posted, it is 247 SSM SSM and SSM with a few posts about what ass cracker may mean.

Nomennovum said...

It's about as practical to get homosexual men to be monogamists as it is to convert them into heterosexuals. I would guess the later is easier.

That's what I assume. Ditto homosexual women.

Helloooo rewritten divorce laws!

SGT Ted said...

What the gay community refuses to this day is to acknowledge the fact about the US AIDS epidemic,is that it wasn't about being gay, but about the hyper promiscuous lifestyle that led to it.

“Gay men were being washed by tide after tide of increasingly serious infections. First it was syphilis and gonorrhea. Gay men made up about 80% of the 70,000 annual patient visits to [San Francisco’s] VD clinics. Easy treatment had imbued them with such a cavalier attitude toward venereal diseases that many gay men saved their waiting-line numbers, like little tokens of desirability, and the clinic was considered an easy place to pick up both a shot and a date.” -Randy Shilts

At a public meeting in the year preceding the first AIDS cases, Edmund White, co-author of The Joy of Gay Sex, proposed that “gay men should wear their sexually transmitted diseases like red badges of courage in a war against a sex-negative society.” Michael Callen, a gay youth present at the meeting, had already had 3,000 sexual partners and was shortly to come down with AIDS. When he heard White’s triumphant defiance of nature’s law, he remembers thinking: “Every time I get the clap [gonorrhea] I’m striking a blow for the sexual revolution.”

Callen, who later founded the organization People With AIDS, reflected on this revolutionary path:


“Unfortunately, as a function of a microbiological ... certainty, this level of sexual activity resulted in concurrent epidemics of syphilis, gonorrhea, hepatitis, amoebiasis, venereal warts and, we discovered too late, other pathogens. Unwittingly, and with the best of revolutionary intentions, a small subset of gay men managed to create disease settings equivalent to those of poor third-world nations in one of the richest nations on earth.”

The diseases were being transformed as well. As Shilts explains, the enteric diseases -- amoebiasis, Gay Bowel Syndrome, giardiasis and shigellosis -- were followed by an epidemic of hepatitis B, “a disease that had transformed itself, via the popularity of anal intercourse, from a blood-borne scourge into a venereal disease.”

cont in pt 2.

SGT Ted said...

pt 2

As these epidemics grew, public health officials did not intervene. The reason was the revolution itself. So successful was the campaign of the radical activists, that it made traditional public health practices politically impossible. When officials sought to close the sexual bathhouses which were the epidemic’s breeding grounds, gay political leaders accused them of trying to eradicate important “symbols of gay liberation.” As Don Francis, the Center for Disease Control official in charge of fighting the hepatitis B epidemic, told an interviewer: “We didn’t intervene because we felt that it would be interfering with an alternative lifestyle.”

Not only were measures to prevent the geographical spread of AIDS thwarted by radical politics, but measures to prevent its spread into other communities were obstructed as well. Thus when officials tried to institute screening procedures for the nation’s blood banks and asked the gay community not to make donations while the epidemic persisted, gay political leaders opposed the procedures as infringing on the “right” of homosexuals to give blood. The San Francisco Coordinating Committee of Gay and Lesbian Services, chaired by Pat Norman, a city official, issued a policy paper asserting that donor screening was “reminiscent of miscegenation blood laws that divided black blood from white,” and “similar in concept to the World War II rounding up of Japanese-Americans in the western half of the country to minimize the possibility of espionage.”

The result of these revolutionary attitudes was to spread AIDS among hemophiliacs and drug-using heterosexuals. Similar campaigns against testing and contact tracing -- standard procedures in campaigns against other sexually transmitted diseases -- insured the metasticism of AIDS, specifically into the black and Hispanic communities, where it came to account for more than 50% of the known cases.


http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=276

Time for folks like Freder to acknowledge the truth about AIDS in the USAs gay communities.

elkh1 said...

Mark said...
"If most people here are not trolling, it is a sad indictment of the type of people Ann's thoughts attract...it certainly does not attract a group of reasoned deep thinkers."

Mark the deep thinker, care to share your deep thoughts?

We shallow thinkers come here for the fun of bantering with other shallow thinkers. Some of us don't even think. We say whatever we want without hurting the feelings of anyone but the deep thinkers'. I confess I enjoy hurting the deep thinkers more than I enjoy bantering.

bagoh20 said...

Crack comes back - good to see you again - and states my position through this whole thing. It's the lying that I'm against. The courts and the legislators will do what they will do. I just want it to be honest.

cubanbob said...

Gabriel Hanna said...
@Jay:I love the fact that you think this is analogous.

Worthwhile point out why it's not. Interracial marriage has existed as far back in history as marriage itself. Besides the Biblical cases, you have Dr Samuel Johnson's servant Frank, who inherited Johnson's property in Leeds in 1784 and married a local girl. Their descendants are there to this day.

Interracial marriage had to be criminalized, because it already existed. Loving vs Virginia did not redefine traditional marriage--it removed a restriction of recent origin and restored the traditional definition in those states which had distorted it.

6/30/13, 9:58 AM

Excellent point and one that usually isn't seen however obvious it is.

AReasonableMan said...

SGT Ted said...
What the gay community refuses to this day is to acknowledge the fact about the US AIDS epidemic,is that it wasn't about being gay, but about the hyper promiscuous lifestyle that led to it.


Let's say everything you and others have written about the promiscuous lifestyle of gays is true. Wouldn't the conservative position be one that encourages gays to establish stable life-long bonds?

Jay said...

AReasonableMan said...

Let's say everything you and others have written about the promiscuous lifestyle of gays is true. Wouldn't the conservative position be one that encourages gays to establish stable life-long bonds?


Problem is: every study ever conducted on homosexual behavior has shown that gays are more promiscuous than heterosexuals. Said studies go back over 50 years.

Ann Althouse said...

What are you high-strung right wingers talking about this morning?

Shouldn't you be at church?

Or are you texting comments from church?

elkh1 said...

bagoh20 said...
"The courts and the legislators will do what they will do. I just want it to be honest."

Honest politicians? Dream the impossible dream.

Their foremost allegiance is to themselves, not to us little people. Our son-of-a-bitch is no better than their son-of-a-bitch. Vote the SOBs out. Of course, the new SOB will be as dishonest, e.g. Rubio.

cubanbob said...

Dante said...
It's about as practical to get homosexual men to be monogamists as it is to convert them into heterosexuals. I would guess the later is easier.

6/30/13, 10:21 AM

Well the way to curb SSM and potential plural marriages and the current mess with hetero marriages is to repeal no-fault divorce.

As for the equal protection clause and plural marriage the problem is that in order for it to occur for the most part one or more of the parties can't be equal. Suppose a guy married already to wife number one wants to get married to wife number he would need to get the approval from wife number one and from there before he can marry yet again he would need the current wives approval. Since other than in a few rare cases that isn't ever likely to happen one of the original spouses has to have superior rights over the other original spouse.

wholelottasplainin' said...

"No, the disgusting people are the trolls and the ones who anoint themselves Ann's spokesbroads."

**

I misread that last word as "spokesbeards".

AJ Lynch said...

ARM: we cant teach anything resembling The Ten Commandments in schools, yet you believe we could get approval for a program that targets gay men and tells them to be less promiscuous? That is what Sgt Ted just proved to you, the CW was to ignore any evidence that unprotected, promiscuous gay sex was the major impetus of the spread of AIDS. So the evidence an the cure was swept under the rug for years!

Achilles said...

Mark said...
If most people here are not trolling, it is a sad indictment of the type of people Ann's thoughts attract.

IMO she likes to think she carries on a smart and interesting series of posts here ... yet it certainly does not attract a group of reasoned deep thinkers.

Ratings and amazon money will hopefully fill the hole she wanted to fill intellectually.

6/30/13, 10:03 AM

Just because you are to stupid to understand it doesn't make it non-intellectual.

Other than Right-is-right! Who AA allows to moby here occasionally most of the posters are truly concerned and well informed about the topic.

SGT Ted said...


Let's say everything you and others have written about the promiscuous lifestyle of gays is true. Wouldn't the conservative position be one that encourages gays to establish stable life-long bonds?

What I wrote IS true from an epidemiological standpoint, regardless of sexuality. Why can't you just admit it?

That the gay activist community cannot shows the fundamental dishonesty that flows from their leftwing "gay victims vs. Hetero oppressors" construct.

It happened first in Africa and then Haiti in the promiscuous hetero communities there and then the same thing happened in the promiscuous gay community here.

That was my position and argument towards anti-gay marriage assertions; promote marriage or some type of committed partnership to bring them into the fold and reduce STD transmission by reducing the behavior that leads to it. That you could use monogamy arguments to promote gay marriage and personal responsibility and commitment.

Go ahead and try to bring up the truth to the gay activists. You will become an unperson immediately; a bigot homophobe. The last thing they want to be judged on is the sexual morals of monogamy, especially if it flows from Christianity.

AJ Lynch said...

Althouse says screw you by using the word "church". That is as rare as hen's teeth.

AJ Lynch said...

I bet her fingers burned a bit as she typed church.

edutcher said...

SGT Ted said...

What the gay community refuses to this day is to acknowledge the fact about the US AIDS epidemic,is that it wasn't about being gay, but about the hyper promiscuous lifestyle that led to it.

FWIW, I'll throw it out again.

From an old Soc text in my undergrad days, male homosexuals have a 10 times greater VD rate than male heterosexuals and female homosexuals have a 3 times greater VD rate than female heterosexuals.

Data is 1965 (yes, I know there have been a couple of cultural changes), NY Dept of Public Health.

Ann Althouse said...

What are you high-strung right wingers talking about this morning?

Shouldn't you be at church?

Or are you texting comments from church?


Church doesn't last all morning, but that's beside the question.

Why are you talking behind our backs?

Inga said...

How did lesbians spread AIDS, hmmm? Or did they? So let me get this straight, gays should be denied a right under the 5th Amendment because of AIDS?

And you don't like being called homophobes or haters? Too bad.

Nomennovum said...

Or are you texting comments from church?

Are you being a toxic little queen today, Ann?

Bender said...

this would be a good time for conservatives to take supporters of SSM at their word and insist on stronger cultural as well as legal affirmations of monogamy for everyone.

More seriously, this would be a good time for supporters of SSM to take themselves at their word and insist on stronger cultural as well as legal affirmations of monogamy for everyone, to start advocating for the enactment and enforcement of strict laws against adultery and fornication and cohabitation, and the repeal of easy divorce laws.

But as I said yesterday, when I said this same thing, the advocates for SSM won't do that because they are not really being truthful, even if they have managed to sucker in many others who are in good faith.

Rather, the SSM advocates come from the same crowd which for decades has been trashing marriage as "nothing but a piece of paper." This is all part of the overall strategy to obtain the main objective -- the destruction of all traditional institutions, most especially marriage and the family. It has nothing to do with gays being able to be with the ones they love, it has nothing to do with equality, it has nothing to do with protecting the precious feelings of oh-so-sensitive gays, it has everything to do with destroying marriage.

Leland said...

What are you high-strung right wingers talking about this morning?

Shouldn't you be at church?

Or are you texting comments from church?

C Stanley said...

I clicked on the link to see what the author meant by "buikd new coalitions against promiscuity and divorce."

Nothing, because as I suspected, it is empty advice, for the reasons already stated here by other commenters. There has been no indication whatsoever that anyone on the other side of this issue would reach across to work toward those goals. In fact any conservative groups that do promote those goals are openly mocked by the left.

SGT Ted said...

What are you high-strung right wingers talking about this morning?

Shouldn't you be at church?

Or are you texting comments from church?


Who are you to inflict your bourgeois western morality on me?

Jay said...

Ann Althouse said...
What are you high-strung right wingers talking about this morning?

Shouldn't you be at church?


^ That type of "intellectualism" represents the gay marriage argument quite well.

Nomennovum said...

Althouse says screw you by using the word "church."

She playing us for a bunch of Alec Baldwins.

Achilles said...

Ann Althouse said...
What are you high-strung right wingers talking about this morning?

Shouldn't you be at church?

Or are you texting comments from church?

6/30/13, 10:44 AM

Disgusting.

Jay said...

Inga said...
How did lesbians spread AIDS, hmmm? Or did they? So let me get this straight, gays should be denied a right under the 5th Amendment because of AIDS?


5th Amendement:

, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

You're hilarious.

Nomennovum said...

She's joking. Let's not get insulted.

Jay said...


Other than Right-is-right!


It is quite obvious that is garage mahal.

Bender said...

About polygamy itself, the logic of the illogical "same-sex marriage" argument dictates that if gays are entitled to equality, then so too are bi-sexuals.

Why should bi-sexuals be discriminated against in their love for both men and women? Why should they be forced by the government to choose one and then be denied the consortium of the other?

Achilles said...

Inga said...
How did lesbians spread AIDS, hmmm? Or did they? So let me get this straight, gays should be denied a right under the 5th Amendment because of AIDS?

And you don't like being called homophobes or haters? Too bad.

6/30/13, 10:52 AM

Are you just being deliberately stupid?

Gabriel Hanna said...

@Jay: Inga has a point--as usual she is unaware of it. The 5th Amendment could be used to justify gay marriage every bit as appropriately as the 14th.

Who knew, back in 1868, that they were legalizing gay marriage but not the right of women to vote? No one--some judges 140 years later decided that they had a license to interpret those words in that way.

Roger J. said...

Re AIDS--seems to me aids is a sexually transmitted disease and can be spread by either hetero or homosexual sexual activity. The CDC notes that MSM (in this case men who have sex with men, are most at risk). AIDS transmission can be mitigated by any number of strategies, the use of condoms being the most appropriate.

SGT Ted said...

No, Inga it was primarily gay men. That's what the science shows, anyways.

Its not bigoted to point out this truth: That a lot of gay men might be alive today had the gay male activist community not interfered with normal public health measures used to stop the spread of infectious venereal diseases by portraying those normal public health measures as "bigoted" and akin to racism in the South or race based Japanese internment during WW2.

Gabriel Hanna said...

Incidentally, I hope that Ann's snark in this thread is juts snark, and not an indication that she will follow in the footsteps of Charles Johnson.

Gabriel Hanna said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
bagoh20 said...

Shouldn't you be polishing your golden calf?

Achilles said...

This thread is really instructive. Though I agree on the same ends as the SSM crowd has been relying on BIGOT! For so long they can't form a coherent argument. Even Ann has devolved into a wretched mess with posts as stupid as Inga's.

But those of you on the right are still missing the point. You aren't going to win this way. The forces that want to grow government need to destroy individual virtue and by extension any underpinning of our society. Yes that means marriage as an institution.

The government is not your friend. As long as you allow it to define marriage and want it to, the progressives will use that power to destroy it. You need to wake up and realize the government will never be an ally of the church again.

AReasonableMan said...

SGT Ted said...
a lot of gay men might be alive today had the gay male activist community not interfered with normal public health measures used to stop the spread of infectious venereal diseases by portraying those normal public health measures as "bigoted" and akin to racism in the South or race based Japanese internment during WW2.


Let's say that the AIDs epidemic was entirely self-inflicted by promiscuous behavior of gay men. Wouldn't the conservative position be one that encourages gays to establish stable life-long bonds?

Bruce Hayden said...

The problem here is that the argument against polygamy is essentially that the argument in favor of it, after the precedent of gay marriage, is plain silly. Nothing more. Why isn't there a slippery slope there? Because, apparently, that would be silly, and, now because social conservatives fighting against gay marriage mention it.

But, the reality is that through history, while monogamy was the norm, polygamy was, and continues to be, widely accepted. It is mentioned repeatedly in the Bible, and one of the largest religions in the world still allows for four wives. (But, since the U.S. doesn't. President Obama is legally a bastard, since his mother was the second wife of Barack Obama the elder), Besides, the purpose of polygamous marriages, as with monogamous heterosexual marriages, has traditionally been child rearing. Much harder to make that argument with homosexual marriages since, at least so far, homosexual partners cannot, just themselves, procreate. Remind me again the reason for homosexual marriages? Oh yes, respect. Well, you have tradition, childrearing, and respect for lifestyle in favor of polygamous marriages.

Which is more normal, polygamy or homosexuality? I would suggest the former, as evidenced by the sexual dimorphism in humans - the difference in size between the two sexes indicating the level of polygamy in a species (while the relative size of the male testes indicating how many males a female mates with). The bigger the sexual dimorphism, the bigger the harems. Thus, gorillas have large sexual size differences, and small testes, while chimps have the opposite. We are between them in both respects.

As has been pointed out, the two sexes have different sexual strategies. For males, it is more (females), and for females, it it better males. More versus better. This is why polygamy works decently well in those societies that accept it. Males with more resources have more wives, those with fewer had fewer wives, and those without resources often have no wives. Now, admittedly, overlaid this very basic, hard wired, behavior, is a ore recent monogamous model, seemingly adopted at a time when we were living in small groups, and females needed the security of a male to raise their children for an extended period of time, and there weren't enough resources to allow for polygamy.

Another thing to keep in mind is that a lot of our anti-polygamy fervor likely comes from the rise of the LDS church throughout the 19th Century, and their clash with the descendants of Puritans. One might view this as more schismatic, since Joseph Smith (and family) was descended from, and trained in, this earlier religious tradition. And, yes, we have the same thing today with his spiritual descendants also battling over this same issue, but with the mainline LDS church now opposing polygamy. But, is the fight between the mainline Protestant churches of the 19th Century and the LDS church, and now between the LDS church and the FLDS, etc. offshoots of that church, substantial enough of a basis to justify continuing the ban on polygamy?

somefeller said...

Somehow, though, I suspect that rather than using this as an opportunity to build new coalitions against promiscuity or divorce, we’ll just see a redoubling of resentments.

Alas, McCarthy knows the social conservative base all to well. When your politics are based primarily on resentments, what else are you going to do? May as well double down.

Gabriel Hanna said...

@Roger J.: Not all sexual activity is equally likely to spread HIV. Anal sex is the most likely after intravenous drug use. Male to female vaginal sex is easy to spread, but female to male is very difficult. Cultural practices in parts of Africa make female to male transmission easier.

In the US we don't have the cultural practices that make it easier for women to spread HIV to men, so women are more or less a dead end for HIV. Which is why the highest prevalence is gay men and IV drug users. Female prostitutes of course are at high risk but it is unlikely they will spread it to male clients.

I do not endorse Shouting Thomas's views on gay marriage, since I am in favor of legalizing gay marriage--the epidemiology I don't think is relevant to that question. But the facts are what they are.

Jay said...

If you think Ann's comment is "snark" you haven't been paying attention.

Jay said...

AReasonableMan said...
Wouldn't the conservative position be one that encourages gays to establish stable life-long bonds?


Gays have no interest in this, so your suggestion is problematic.

Jay said...

somefeller said...
Alas, McCarthy knows the social conservative base all to well. When your politics are based primarily on resentments, what else are you going to do?


Hilarious projection.

Roger J. said...

Achilles--all well and good but the only way I see to change it is to elect representatives who will support these positions. Given the 2012 election, low information votes will control things--as long as the electorate gets their free shit, they will keep the douchnozzles in office. And I would submit that most of the low information voters do not know, nor care about SSM as long as they continue to get their free shit.

I harbor no hopes for a better America.

somefeller said...

Re: Althouse's comment at 10:44am:

As those crazy kids on the internets say, LOL. The way of the missionary is a difficult one, so it helps to have a sense of humor. Well played and don't stop now!

Roger J. said...

Gabriel Hanna--concur with your comments--which is why, of course, MSM is one of the primary vectors for aids. As you correctly note: there is sex and there is sex--different types of sex are much more risky than others.

Gabriel Hanna said...

@Roger J: Another reason for the high prevalence among gay men and IV users is the insular communities involved.

Gay men are mostly having sex with other gay men. IV users are almost entirely sharing needles with other IV users. Female prostitutes are rarely having sex with each other, and their male clients are rarely having sex with each other--they lack the opportunity. IV users and gay men spend a lot of time around other IV users and gay men.

Not only do they have an easier mode of transmission, but the circle of partners is much smaller--the two combine to make the HIV prevalence very high.

somefeller said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
d243e478-b01b-11e2-b6bf-000bcdcb5194 said...

Let's say everything you and others have written about the promiscuous lifestyle of gays is true. Wouldn't the conservative position be one that encourages gays to establish stable life-long bonds?

The conservative position is to recognize reality and to deal with it.

Gays are not monogamous as a whole. You're just going to have to deal with it, man. That doesn't mean all are, but it's just the tendency of males to like variety, so most are going to seek it, whether you try to stop them or not. That was the point of marriage, to curb the worst instincts of both sexes. It really was rather well thought out, but our modern culture is obsessed with only seeing the superficial qualities of any institution. We have forgotten philosophy in favor of sociology.

I am gay. I am one of the gays that never gets any media attention, because I'm not stupid, like most gays (and most people) are. Stupid gays let their desires run wild and don't think of consequences until it's too late, like most stupid people do, but since men are different than women, their stupidity takes a different form. Gays like myself understand the danger and downside of our addiction to variety and try to be responsible. Us reasonable gays are unheard of, neither side wants us.

That's where conservatives have messed up. Guys are generally more rational than women, and it's possible to reach out to the reasonable ones and lay out rational facts. We listen to facts. When I talk to other gays and oppose this stuff that seems really popular with gays, they listen to the logic and nearly always dispassionately weigh it. These people can be reached.

I am against gay marriage because I know marriage is about monogamy, children and family, and the divine nature of a perpetual bloodline. For gays to co-opt it sickens me, because it cheapens the spiritual quality of the institution when you force people to ask "Are you going to marry a boy or a girl?"

Yes, gays can adopt. But this is by far the exception, rather than the rule, while children in a straight marriage are the rule, not the exception.

I'm sick of society's rules being written for the exceptions, and not for the statistical majority. This is a surefire way to cause unintended consequences.

And yes, once gay marriage is legalized then under the eyes of the state it is 'equal' to straight marriage, and thus the definition of marriage will be changed and enforced by schools. This is the goal of the activist gay movement, which, let's be honest, is doing it because they hate religious people and want society to be rebuilt into a fashion that will fully accept them. They don't want to fear being publicly disliked and want to force people's beliefs to be silenced to accomplish it.

I am very ashamed of how gays are co-opted and portrayed by the left, because people are seeing the 'alphas', the people who get off on socializing and social control and speechifying. There are lot of people who just keep to themselves, have friends, rarely have any sexual contact at all, and just want to be left alone. These gays are invisible to society, and they tend to vote Democrat if they vote at all simply because that's the only side making a case for gays at all.

The gays you see in the media are the extroverts, the ones who get off on public spectacle (like big weddings). The drama queens, the addicts to attention. They've done more damage to how gays are viewed in general than anything I could imagine.

somefeller said...

And bagoh20's comment at 11:06am is the only snappy comeback to Ann's comment thus far. But maybe I like it because Dathan was a great Old Testament villain. Or was that just how he was played in the movie?

El Pollo Raylan said...

My latest impression of Althouse (#3 in a series)

Achilles said...

Roger J. said...
Achilles--all well and good but the only way I see to change it is to elect representatives who will support these positions. Given the 2012 election, low information votes will control things--as long as the electorate gets their free shit, they will keep the douchnozzles in office. And I would submit that most of the low information voters do not know, nor care about SSM as long as they continue to get their free shit.

I harbor no hopes for a better America.

6/30/13, 11:12 AM

My point exactly. If you allow an electoral majority to decide what the definition of marriage is the outcome will be bad for this country. Marriage will be better protected in our communities defined by our consensual associations better than by tyranny of the majority.

Gabriel Hanna said...

@d243e478-b01b-11e2-b6bf-000bcdcb5194 :

The surly curmudgeons who just want to live and let live without bossing others around are an absolute minority in every demographic group.

The whiners and the meddlers are always the majority.

Bunch of plains apes, what do you expect.

Inga said...

Due process and equal protection under the Fifth Amendment, read it and weep, sore losers.

C Stanley said...

Bagoh, LOL.

Actually Ann is doing just that. The golden calf of "Equality". The golden calf of "Tolerance." The golden calf of "Human sexuality." And of course, "Revenge" and "Intellectual superiority."

They've all been getting quite a spit shine these last few days.

Achilles said...

somefeller said...
Re: Althouse's comment at 10:44am:

As those crazy kids on the internets say, LOL. The way of the missionary is a difficult one, so it helps to have a sense of humor. Well played and don't stop now!

6/30/13, 11:13 AM

Ann's post was disgusting.

This one is sycophantic, pathetic, and reflects a type of hatred that grows out of ignorance and stupidity.

The Crack Emcee said...

AReasonableMan,

Let's say that the AIDs epidemic was entirely self-inflicted by promiscuous behavior of gay men. Wouldn't the conservative position be one that encourages gays to establish stable life-long bonds?

No - we're not liberals - controlling people (through, say, "nudging") ain't our thing. We deal with life as it is, just don't bullshit us. We cope better than anybody.

But women and gays are liars. Unlike straight men, they rely on manipulation and deception, supposedly because (just like straight men) there's always someone bigger. But in reality - since men have to deal with that, too - they're just scared, as they run around screaming how "strong" and "proud" they are, fooling no one. Note to Ann's kid:

In a world filled with danger, and one she was positive was filled with racists who want to kill me, my mother stopped fighting my battles when I was in Jr. High.

That's not how you get respect, big guy.

Once they learn the meaning of integrity, we might get somewhere, but not until. Unfortunately, most people don't learn that lesson without an ass-kicking, and women and gays have orchestrated things so if they ever receive one, someone else will be punished and they've learned nothing but how to be bigger assholes.

Watch Ann and Inga's posts to know where the back of the line is,...

Shouting Thomas said...

Oh, well, a little break after church and before rehearsal.

Althouse is positively hateful about this shit, isn't she?

The burr up her ass on this is really remarkable.

Hardly surprising. Blonde, white, blue eyed and middle class, she spent her youth in a ridiculous attempt to portray herself as oppressed because she's female.

It's just an awful habit that she can't cure herself of.

Her entire life, Althouse has been on this bitter vendetta against straight (and mostly white) men. Believe me, Althouse, on this level I return your hatred and venom in spades. You're a liar. A damned liar.

The vendetta has made Althouse a bit nuts.

somefeller said...

Oh, Achilles. Don't be such a heel!

AReasonableMan said...

Gabriel Hanna said...
The surly curmudgeons who just want to live and let live without bossing others around are an absolute minority in every demographic group.

Bunch of plains apes, what do you expect.


This point of view crosses all ideological lines.

jr565 said...

I'm not saying the country might as well embrace polygamy, I'm asking whether society should have a ban on it, based on the logic of gay marriage.
It's a different argument.

C Stanley said...

I suspect some are missing the point of the AIDS discussion.

Yes, since promiscuity is the root problem that led to the AIDS epidemic, a call for monogamy and encouragement of the same among gays would make sense.

But when those calls were made in the 80s, the response was "Shut up, bigots!"

Now, when the gay activists have decided that they want to have equal access to a societal institution promoting monogamy, when anyone with recall mentions that the gay community would not acquiesce to calls for monogamy even to save their own lives, the response is, "Shut up, bigots!"

But by all means, let's talk about forming new coalitions to fight promiscuity, because there's so much evidence that advicates of SSM would want to join those efforts.

Or not. But let's do it anyway in spite of the lack of good faith from the other side, just because we wouldn't want to look like whiny losers.

Michael said...

I lived in the Bay Area during the initial terror of AIDs. I had a friend who was an actuary in a major insurance company whose projections on the spread of AIDs were chiling, eliminating much of the entire population under the worst case scenario. In time it became clear that thise projections which were premised on the spread of the disease within the hetero population as well as the gay community were wrong. This was a disappointment to the gay community and to the Hollywood sympaticos who were proceeding on the idea that raising "awareness" as easier if the fear was in the heterosexual population . The truth was that it was quite hard to get AIDs without homosexual activity or the use of shared needles. The science was correct but bigoted.

Gabriel Hanna said...

@Inga: You clearly have not read the 5th Amendment, which contains nothing about "equal protection".

Better to be silent and thought a fool, etc. It's been quoted once for you, but here it is again:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Nothing about equal protection of the laws--unsurprising in the days of legal slavery and women denied full civil rights.

Achilles said...

Inga said...
Due process and equal protection under the Fifth Amendment, read it and weep, sore losers.

6/30/13, 11:23 AM

The problem is that neither due process nor equal protection have anything to do with same sex marriage. It is the same thing as finding abortion in the 4th amendment. The lines of reasoning are tenuous at best.

But the problem for the big government conservatives here is this is how progressives push their ideology. They rationalize stupidity like this and the Roe vs. Wade turd pops out. The latest fiasco is equal protection means gay marriage. This is what electoral majority looks like. You are subjecting yourselves to the lowest common denominator, i.e. Inga.

Achilles said...

somefeller said...
Oh, Achilles. Don't be such a heel!

6/30/13, 11:28 AM

You are about the tenth or eleventh person to think this was clever.

jr565 said...

Shouting Thomas wrote:
The great persecution and oppression of gays didn't happen. Not in Althouse's life. She's made that up for the purposes of her argument. All I've been getting out of Althouse's argument is that gays' hurt feelings over jokes about what they do sexually have amounted to persecution and oppression.


I was in the cab coming to work and saw on the screen that Lady Ga Ga was speaking out against gay violence at some gay pride event. And my thought was, what anti gay violence?
has there been some massive anti gay violence epidemic that I've not heard about? I remember Matt Shepard and then a smattering of cases here and there, but no massive outbreak of anti gay violence.
So then speaking out against anti gay violence is both cheap and easy and also misleadling. Most Christians, would not speak FOR anti gay violence, so it's pretty easy to speak out against it. (it would be like speaking out against violence against dogs who are shot in the face) But is it true?
I would certainly not say there is NO anti gay violence, but are anti gay bigots roaming the street gay bashing gays? In what world? I live in a town with a lot of gays, and know for a fact that if there were an incident involving gay bashing it would be on the news that night. And it almost never is. And furhter of the incidents that had gays bashed were they bashed beause they were gay, or were the bashed, and also happened to be gay. Not all bashing is a hate crime.

Saint Croix said...

homosexuality certainly is a disorder, mental or otherwise

I wouldn't use that term, it's prejudicial and in many cases it's wrong.

There's a lot we don't know about human sexuality. It's very mysterious. We don't know why people are gay. Liberals say it's genetic, which is, I suspect, bad science.

It's true that some people might have issues with their mother, or their father, and so they reject the sexual norm. So homosexuality might be rooted in psychiatry. Freud thought so. But that's not the only explanation.

Another possibility is that some of us have different chemistry in our bodies. While a genetic disposition to homosexuality makes no sense whatsoever (since there is no passing of genes to offspring), a genetic disposition to bisexuality is entirely possible. So we might see homosexuals as bisexuals who are being rigid and inflexible in regard to their heterosexual impulses.

Yet another possibility is that some people have had no success in relationships with the opposite sex, and so become gay out of pure loneliness.

And yet another possibility is that human beings are very rebellious and have free will, and we hate to be told what to do by anyone.

jr565 said...

Inga wrote:
Inga said...
Due process and equal protection under the Fifth Amendment, read it and weep, sore losers.

YOu didn't answer this yesterday, maybe you will today. Incestual couples prevented from marrying? Are they not entitled to due process and equal protection under the Fifth Amendent under your interpretation of due process under the 5th Amendment?
Hmmmm?

Saint Croix said...

And I'm sure speculating on other's people sexual impulses is in bad taste and intrusive. So I apologize for that. But the liberal paradigm of "shut up" has always annoyed me. I think it's far better to discuss things, even if we upset each other.

Illuninati said...

Inga said...
"How did lesbians spread AIDS, hmmm? Or did they? So let me get this straight, gays should be denied a right under the 5th Amendment because of AIDS?

And you don't like being called homophobes or haters? Too bad"

I'm not sure what the comment about the 5th amendment is all about.

I really don't mind if Inga calls me a homophobe, a hater or a racist. Once the left begins to tamper with the language, words from a leftist like Inga have no meaning. To deny you are one of those things is to pretend that they are anything other than emotional pornography with no intellectual content.

Inga said...

others might disagree with you on equal protection and due process under the Fifth Amendment, but whatever, you folks are hell bent on losing elections.

somefeller said...

Actually, now that I think about it, while Althouse's 10:44am comment was hilarious, based on some discussions that took place on this blog when this topic came up a couple of days ago, her comment may have been cyberbullying. There are obviously some very sensitive souls who are crushed, crushed by or angry, angry about Ann's repeated attempts to get them to see the light. Some even call her nutty and a concern troll.

I'm beginning to think - these are the cries of the victims. Will Ann not hear them? I hear them. I think it's time to say the victims are valued and validated. I do so now and hope others will join me.

Roughcoat said...

I'm a relative newcomer to this blog, sent here by Glen Renolds, i.e. by the links he has posted.

It strikes me that Ann Althouse is disdainful of religious people, relgion, and Christianity in particular. Has this always been the case?

At first when I started reading this blog a few months ago she seemed unpredictable in a good way, advocating for liberal and conservative views and policies based on their merits (as she saw them, which is just fine by me). But lately she's been writing what seem to me to be ugly and even hateful comments about right-wingers, church-goers, Christians, etc.

And she talks about having a thick skin ... in my experience people who say they have a thick-skin think they're pretty tough but they are never as tough or thick-skinned as they fancy themselves to be. To her, it seems, having a thick skin is all about talking, which is a big thing for academics. You can talk tough and push back and all, and that's what passes for tough in the academic world, I guess. But that's not being thick-skinned and tough in the world I grew up in. In fact, in my world, being quiet--not talking much, and not talking tough, but going about and doing and taking care of business without fanfare or a lot of words--was precisely what real tough guys didn't do.

bagoh20 said...

Now this is what I like to see - people playing respectfully, attacking Inga for her ideas rather than personal stuff. I'm getting all choked up........ I need a minute ................................................... It's just so beautiful.

Illuninati said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tom said...

The way DOMA was struck down, it may allow for polygamy. But what state is going to pass it? That seems to be the barrier. The DOMA decision doesn't say ssm is a right - it says states may grant the right and then the federal government has to accept it. Again, what state will grant the right to polygamous marriage? It ain't going to Utah.

Saint Croix said...

Also I really like hot lesbians. And I never get credit for that.

Illuninati said...

Althouse quoted:
" are not doing themselves any favors. More seriously, this would be a good time for conservatives to take supporters of SSM at their word and insist on stronger cultural as well as legal affirmations of monogamy for everyone"

Who holds beliefs in order to do themselves favors? Why should anyone embrace something silly like changing the meaning of the word marriage to mean something which it has never meant before?

Achilles said...

Saint Croix said...

"I was in the cab coming to work and saw on the screen that Lady Ga Ga was speaking out against gay violence at some gay pride event. And my thought was, what anti gay violence? "


Only in Muslim communities. But progressives and Muslims have a lot in common when it comes to thoughts on freedom and liberty. They have a common enemy though so these types of things are projected onto Christians so it is easier to hate and persecute them.

Hopefully Christians figure out the government is not their friend before we are a completely totalitarian state.

d243e478-b01b-11e2-b6bf-000bcdcb5194 said...

Also...where the defenders of traditional marriage really messed up is that they didn't raise this much of a fuss over No-Fault Divorce and other left-wing crap that has been destroying marriage for decades now.

So to see them get much madder over gay marriage lets the left use their old wedge technique, and essentially the reason they call the right bigots is "You didn't complain this much about all the other left wing corruption to marriage, so you must be a bigot for only making a stink about this one!"

And how do you argue against that, those of you against gay marriage? Can you? It's really hard to argue against it if you're not also arguing against feminist-led perversions of marriage incentive. Most churches these days seem to be rather feminist in their outlook, and even seem to be deifying the sacred single mother while usually telling men to 'man up'.

Stephen A. Meigs said...

For most practical purposes, there isn't much difference between a society as ours in which males are responsible for taking care of any child they produce more-or-less equally, regardless of whether he is married to the mother, and a polygamous society. Men in our society are basically married to any female they have children with, just as in societies that everybody recognizes as polygamous. Especially is this the case now when females or the state can very easily prove paternity definitively via genetic tests. Essentially, our society is already polygamous. Offhand, I'd say that probably the main thing that differentiates our society from a somewhat more repressive Talibanesque polygamous society is that women here can get divorced and remarried easier. The mere fact that a woman could start having sex with someone else if her mate has sex with someone else might discourage slightly in our society a male who is having sex with a youngish female from having sex with someone else, at least until she gets too old to have children.

Also, if by conservative one means what the male moneyed interests want, polygamy is more conservative than monogamy. The moneyed interests, to the extent they are male, tend to like to be able to buy as much meaningful, child-producing sex as they can, and polygamy serves those purposes well.

The whole notion that somehow polygamy is like men not being responsible for any children they produce, as in some ultra-leftist savage place, is bogus. Monogamy, by which I mean something like men being responsible for children by the first wife he has children with, period, should be thought of as between men not being responsible for any children they produce and men being responsible for children produced by many women. Real monogamy is an ideal medium, which if political labels are to be used should be thought of as between the left-wing case of of men fucking everybody they have sex with and the right-wing case of polygamy. The only kind of monogamy that one can have which doesn't tolerate men having some meaningful sex responsibility-free is something preposterously heinous that involves forced killings of those who have such sex or forced abortions of their issue; anything else is just polygamy masquerading as monogamy.

AReasonableMan said...

d243e478-b01b-11e2-b6bf-000bcdcb5194 said...
I am against gay marriage because I know marriage is about monogamy, children and family, and the divine nature of a perpetual bloodline. For gays to co-opt it sickens me, because it cheapens the spiritual quality of the institution


I agree this is also a legitimate conservative position, in the literal sense of resistance to change of fundamental social institutions. The problem is that gay marriage is also quite ancient. If you look through history there is no shortage of pair-bonded same sex couples. They may or may not have been some religious/state recognition of this arrangement but they existed nonetheless. If conservatives deal with reality as you say then this is a reality that must also be dealt with. I am sure you know gay couples that are just as petite bourgeoisie as any church-going heterosexual suburban couple.

Saint Croix said...

hey, Crack is back! Awesome. Good to see you.

Writ Small said...

Do conservatives want the court to legitimize polygamy and incest so they can retroactively say their predictions were right? Or would they prefer that the redefinition of marriage stop at the inclusion of gays?

If the latter better represents their views, what is the best strategy? Hint: it probably isn't going on about the inevitability of group marriages.

Saint Croix said...

What does Crack have to say about the crack Althouse made about the white cracker ass-crack?

d243e478-b01b-11e2-b6bf-000bcdcb5194 said...

Inga always makes it about losing elections when others are trying to argue cultural decay and logic.

She has no interest in truth. To Inga, it's about power and who's oppressing who.

Do you think populism is right by definition, Inga? Or do you only parrot it when it favors you?

If you were in Saudi Arabia, would you be proudly parading the fact that your side has no political power? Why the gloating about your political power while avoiding the rational discussion taking place here?

Illuninati said...

Inga said...
"others might disagree with you on equal protection and due process under the Fifth Amendment, but whatever, you folks are hell bent on losing elections."

If the price for standing for what is right is losing elections, let it be. Any conservative who compromises their principles to win is not worthy of winning.

I still don't follow your logic about the fifth amendment. I read it, but I don't find anything to support homosexual marriage by using the language in the traditional sense. Perhaps if we redefine the words, they will mean what we wish.

The Crack Emcee said...

Those of us who know gay history really know gay history:

For all the cheering over the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision that paved the way for same-sex marriage in California, it should be remembered that Judge Vaughn Walker would never have been on the federal bench to throw out Proposition 8 in the first place if San Francisco’s Democratic and gay establishment had gotten its way.

They'll attack anybody for anything.

A lobby of schizophrenic snowflakes blaming everybody else for their madness.

I'm sick of the lot of 'em,...

Tom said...

I had an Egyptian fencing coach in college. The man was very funny, had been a colonel in the Egyptian army, taught at West Point, and fenced in the Olympics. Anyway, his wife was American and her family asked him if he planned to have multiple wives, in the Arad tradition. He said his response was, "One American wife is worth many Arab wives. American wives offer their opinion on everything and see themselves as equal. There is no way I'd survive more than one American wife!"

C Stanley said...

If the latter better represents their views, what is the best strategy? Hint: it probably isn't going on about the inevitability of group marriages

I suspect some conservatives expect and want the schadenfreude of seeing polygamy cases brought up, and SSM proponents who oppose polygamy trying to justify their opposition.

But for many, and for me, there is some point in raising the issue in order to preemptively explain what principals might be used toretain bans of polygamy. presumably thise who have fought the battle for legalization of SSM have some insight on this.

Jay said...

Inga said...
others might disagree with you on equal protection and due process under the Fifth Amendment, but whatever, you folks are hell bent on losing elections.


Hysterical.

When Obama was running for President in 2008, his campaign was robo-calling blacks & "latinos" in California reminding them they he too was against gay marriage as they went to the polls to vote for Prop 8.

When your measure of an idea is whether or not an election is won, you're intellectually bankrupt.

jr565 said...

Glen Filthie wrote:
The high strung leftwingers voted against it in California, and some pasty faced judicial cretins over ruled them.

It is pretty much apparent to everyone that the Supremes are now just making shit up as they go, and if they can do that...why vote at all?

Suppose there was a state that started saying abortion should be illegal and passed laws to that effect. And suppose in resonse a state passed a proposition, called proposition 9, that said something to the effect of the state has to allow for abortions up through the second trimester. And passed their proposition. And the governor said, "Nah, I"m not going to enforce that". Then when the case made it to court decided not to defend the proposition in the court (which they already opposed in action). Would the supreme court say that only the government could bring suit and that the people had no standing?
It's a lesson for conservatives. If you want to get something passed, just start ignoring the law.And if sued simply don't defned the proposition that the people brought against you for your actions. They will have no standing in court.
Do this for abortion, and you can bypass the whole demcratic process. Would democrats like that?

Saint Croix said...

Saint Croix said...

"I was in the cab coming to work...


That wasn't me! I don't take cabs.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 424   Newer› Newest»