Althouse: "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..."

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.

422 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 422 Newer› Newest»

jr565 said...: Tom wrote:
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.

Why not Utah? Even if the majority is against it,a politician for it could ingore the will of the people and any propositions that the people might vote for and grant the marriages.
(Gavin Newsom springs to mind).; 6/30/13, 12:04 PM
Brian Brown said...: Inga said...
Due process and equal protection under the Fifth Amendment, read it and weep, sore losers.

Nobody is trying to criminalize gay sex.

You're not that bright, and not at all informed.

You have no clue what the 5th Amendment means.; 6/30/13, 12:04 PM
Brian Brown said...: Roughcoat said...

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

Yes.

And to top it off, she reverts to the intellect of a 14 year old whenever religion is discussed.; 6/30/13, 12:06 PM
Achilles said...: 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."

Is it necessary for your principles to have the government be the ultimate arbiter? Can each individuals free associations and the community within which you reside also do this?

"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. "

6/30/13, 11:56 AM

That is because there is no logic. But progressives don't use logic. They use feelings. Public education has brought us to the point where we are as a people incapable of logic and we get stupid decisions like this.

This I believe supports my position that electoral majority is no longer the best way to ensure freedom and liberty.; 6/30/13, 12:07 PM
jr565 said...: Writ Small wrote:
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?

It's not a question of what conservatives WANT; its a question of what the logic of gay marriage should allow. I'm hard pressed to find a reason why pro gay marriage advocates could even have a problem with legalized incestual marriages. And would love to here there logic on it. I asked Ritmo about it like twenty times and he ignored the question 20 times.; 6/30/13, 12:10 PM
bagoh20 said...: "Who holds beliefs in order to do themselves favors?"

Not enough people according to Ann and Inga. It's the new integrity. You take positions to win, and then use the power to force people to accept your hidden agenda. It's a left thing - you wouldn't understand.

Most transparent Admin ever.
It will reduce premiums.
You can keep your doctor.
Gitmo is a horror.
Government surveillance is unacceptable.
Marriage is only between one man and one woman.

I won!; 6/30/13, 12:11 PM
Unknown said...: Achilles: I pretty much agree with you but can't help but note that for the first 200 years of our nation's existence, the interests of the state and Church were aligned on a lot of social issues but now they are not. I think it's going to take some time for social conservatives and the churches to recognize this and find a new equilibrium. Also, there's the continual need to fight against public policy that is anti-religious, so it's not as though we can put are head in the sands with regard to the political process.; 6/30/13, 12:12 PM
Roughcoat said...: Whoa. I mispoke in my previous post. I said, wrongly, "in my world, being quiet ... was precisely what real tough guys didn't do."

Meant to say: "Being quiet was the hallmark of real tough guys. Talking a lot and pushing back with a lot of talk was precisely what real thick-skin ned tough guys didn't do."

Apologies.; 6/30/13, 12:14 PM
somefeller said...: This I believe supports my position that electoral majority is no longer the best way to ensure freedom and liberty.

Well, it does look like electoral majority is increasingly no longer the best way for social conservatives to ensure their freedom and liberty to oppress and abuse other people. The arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice, after all. But your side still has a few good years in you and will probably remain dominant for decades in the sorts of places few people want to move to. But yes, it's not looking good for the sort of freedom you are talking about.; 6/30/13, 12:15 PM
Anonymous said...: As IF YOU do Jay, hysterical. I think Ezra Waldman probably knows far more than you on the subject. No wonder Ann is laughing at you people.; 6/30/13, 12:15 PM
Unknown said...: It's a good thing we have some of the unchurched on our side because Bagoh is on fire today.; 6/30/13, 12:18 PM
Illuninati said...: Blogger Achilles said...

"Is it necessary for your principles to have the government be the ultimate arbiter? Can each individuals free associations and the community within which you reside also do this?"

Achilles you have hit on a fundamental difference between leftists and religious people who believe in one ethical God. For leftists there is no objective standard by which to measure morality. Therefore morality is determined by consensus. Losing elections for a leftist is objective evidence that you are morally deficient, unless their side loses. It doesn't matter how they achieve the consensus, if they have to bully, lie, cheat, or use judicial fiat, once the consensus is achieved they view it as the majority as the highest moral authority in existence. If they lose, they view it as the actions of evil conservative manipulators who have kept the good people from reaching the truth. Unfortunately, moral consensus arrived at by this process always ends up victimizing a substantial portion of the population who are left outside of the consensus.; 6/30/13, 12:21 PM
Illuninati said...: Inga said...
"No wonder Ann is laughing at you people."

I hope Ann is more respectful of her readers than that. Did she tell you she is laughing at us?; 6/30/13, 12:23 PM
jr565 said...: Inga wrote:
"I think Ezra Waldman probably knows far more than you on the subject. No wonder Ann is laughing at you people.:

You like to call people sore losers ,and you cite the 5th Amendment and say read it and weep but you don't like to answer questions about your interpretation of the 5th Amendment.I'll ask you again:

An Incestual couple is 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?
It's a simply question. Can the state deny an incestual couple from marrying? Yes or no?; 6/30/13, 12:28 PM
Anonymous said...: She's doing more than just laughing at you, how dense are people?; 6/30/13, 12:28 PM
kentuckyliz said...: Ann, I'm Catholic, so I can go to Mass on Saturday evening.

I love you and Meade. Can I move in and join your family? We can fight for polymarriage rights in the Cheesehead state!

I promise to accept jaltcoh just the way he is.

*blowing you a kiss and looking forward to being the middle link in the chain*; 6/30/13, 12:28 PM
Leland said...: If you think Ann's comment is "snark" you haven't been paying attention.

Actually, I think she is trying to see who gets riled by it, which is what trolls do. It's snark, but done to see who reacts and how they react. If you are a high strung right winger, you are likely to overreact to her comment, and that's telling. Further, it plays to her "texting at funeral" post.

Me, I think it's a poor test for her. The post popped up long before most churches in the US opened for 11am Sunday service. Her comment also came early. And unless she plans on closing comments at noon (whatever timezone), it is meaningless. Still, the reactionary right wingers will still react to it regardless of time.; 6/30/13, 12:28 PM
Achilles said...: Illuninati said...
Inga said...
"No wonder Ann is laughing at you people."

I hope Ann is more respectful of her readers than that. Did she tell you she is laughing at us?

6/30/13, 12:23 PM

Your hopes have sadly been dashed. Ann is acting just as petulantly as Inga. It is a disgusting display.; 6/30/13, 12:28 PM
somefeller said...: I hope Ann is more respectful of her readers than that. Did she tell you she is laughing at us?

Have you been reading her comments on tha topic of SSM in the past few days? They've been quite instructive and it certainly looks like she's laughing or rolling her eyes at a certain subset of her readership. Which in some cases may have straddled the line between humorous cruelty and cyberbullying, but that's another matter altogether.; 6/30/13, 12:29 PM
Achilles said...: Inga said...
She's doing more than just laughing at you, how dense are people?

6/30/13, 12:28 PM

It is hard to describe how low my regard for people like you is. It makes me sad for my country.; 6/30/13, 12:31 PM
jr565 said...: Inga wrote:
She's doing more than just laughing at you, how dense are people?

Again with the insults, but not answering the questions. You've established your argument "5th amendment and due process" so now defend your argument from the rubes.; 6/30/13, 12:32 PM
Saint Croix 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?

The sermon I heard this morning was all about the future, and how nice it's going to be, and how we should not worship the past and let go of it.

And I was thinking, "oh shit, gay marriage!"

And then I thought, "no, wait, illegal immigrants."

And then I thought, "if she starts cheering for choice I'm out of here"

And then I thought, "I have no idea what you are saying because you have sucked all the controversy out of your sermon so now I am getting homogenized milk."

Homogenized milk is not gay milk, by the way. I'm pretty sure.

Anyway, no idea what she was talking about.; 6/30/13, 12:35 PM
Anonymous said...: Achilles, people who do not think like you do not give a rats ass what you think of them, why should they? Are you dangerous, do you plan insurrection?

No? Then who cares.; 6/30/13, 12:36 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together 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.

Well, duh!; 6/30/13, 12:41 PM
jr565 said...: somefeller wrote:
Well, it does look like electoral majority is increasingly no longer the best way for social conservatives to ensure their freedom and liberty to oppress and abuse other people.
that oppress and abuse other people crack is simply you quoting your left wing talking points and describing disagreement to those points, oppression and abuse.
But, since you've made the argument, lets talk about Marriage and not just gay marriage.
Marriage is restricted in all kinds of ways. You can't marry more than one person at a time. YOu can't be in a marriage with more than one other person. You can't marry a blood relative. YOu can't marry a dog. You can't marry a little girl.
Are we oppressing and abusing all of those people with our evil restrictions? Again, the oprression charge comes from your perspective. We're bad because we oppress. But you,like Ritmo, and like Inga never actually describe those other restrictions and say whether they too are us rstricting and oppressing.

If you think all of those restrictions are oppressive that mean you stand for marrying dogs, marrying kids, polygamous marriage and/or harems and marrying your brother.

And you may have valid points. Maybe marrying your brother is perfectly natural and it's the religous freaks juding that behavior as immoral that are the bigots. But at least stand for your principle since you're going to call people bigots who stand for theirs. If you're going to call us oppressors, you owe it to us to tell us where you stand. Otherwise you are just a bully and a dick.; 6/30/13, 12:42 PM
Achilles said...: @illuminati

I am not disagreeing with you on whether or not SSM is a good idea or not. It is pretty clear that the strong moral foundation a monogamous relationship has is the best situation in which to raise children that are morally strong and can attain maturity and be strong adults. I personally believe some same sex couples can achieve this too as I know some.

But I also believe that the people pushing SSM are trying to destroy marriage and the nuclear family. They want people to be weak morally, uneducated, and dependent on the government. They have succeeded largely in destroying the father role for large majorities of the black population. What has been done to black people by progressives is reprehensible and they are trying to do that for the rest of the country through SSM.

But just as you have said, progressives are morally degenerate and will use any tactic available. Public schools are destroying the moral fabric of the country because they are dominated by progressives. The very institutions big government conservatives are trying to use to strengthen marriage are being co-opted by progressives and will never serve that purpose. Your only hope is to remove government from the role of defining marriage if you want to save it.; 6/30/13, 12:44 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: It makes me sad for my country.

The good news is that Prozac can help.; 6/30/13, 12:44 PM
Illuninati said...: Inga said...
"She's doing more than just laughing at you, how dense are people?"

I have been a follower of Althouse because I thought she was interested in serious conversation. If she really is playing the cynical game you claim, then just say the word and I'm out of here.; 6/30/13, 12:44 PM
Achilles said...: Inga said...
Achilles, people who do not think like you do not give a rats ass what you think of them, why should they? Are you dangerous, do you plan insurrection?

No? Then who cares.

6/30/13, 12:36

Awwww. :(

I just wanted to point out that you act in a reprehensible way, and that society in general would be better off without people like you.

I am just glad that most people I know would not describe me the same way. I actually contribute things beyond selling votes for free stuff for my woman parts.; 6/30/13, 12:50 PM
n.n said...: So, McCarthy does not support equal rights, protection, etc. in equal measure? Does he believe there are mitigating circumstances which justify his overt hypocrisy?; 6/30/13, 12:50 PM
jr565 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."
Why wouldn't conservatives supporting polygamy or the inevitablility of polygamy not be building a new coalition? And also an opportunity to build a colalition against promiscuity?; 6/30/13, 12:51 PM
somefeller said...: If you think all of those restrictions are oppressive that mean you stand for marrying dogs, marrying kids, polygamous marriage and/or harems and marrying your brother.

jr, some of us are capable of making distinctions and seeing the rather large difference between bestiality, pedophilia and gay marriage. But no, I'm not going to waste time discussing those fine points with a bigoted moron like you who is merely arguing in bad faith. And one more thing - as Ann has pointed out, at least from the standpoint of the SSM cases this past week and the apparent course of this issue, you are also a loser. Maybe you can work on those things and then you can come sit at the big table with more sophisticated types.; 6/30/13, 12:53 PM
Methadras said...: Oh look, it's the go along to get along argument. Let's see how that works out. Grabbing my popcorn.; 6/30/13, 12:53 PM
Anonymous said...: So Achilles, what should be done with us reprehensible people, the gulag? Hanging?

Freedom for me, but not for thee, hypocrite. And they call US fascists.; 6/30/13, 12:54 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: I have been a follower of Althouse because I thought she was interested in serious conversation. If she really is playing the cynical game you claim, then just say the word and I'm out of here.

I think some of Altie's views are honestly held. A lot of times she just wants to see how philosophically controversial or outrageous she can be, but this is certainly not one of them. And her commenters serve the purpose of enhancing the original point, rarely helping to shape or guide it. I think she's ok with entertaining dissents. But she's too narcissistic to take serious dissents seriously.; 6/30/13, 12:55 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: BTW, I meant "entertaining" as an adjective there, not as a verb.; 6/30/13, 12:56 PM
Gabriel Hanna said...: @somefeller: some of us are capable of making distinctions and seeing the rather large difference between bestiality, pedophilia and gay marriage.

Almost all of us are--but there are court rulings that say traditional morality is no basis for law, and these court rulings cannot tell the difference, and will be used as precedents.; 6/30/13, 12:57 PM
Achilles said...: Rhythm and Balls said...
It makes me sad for my country.

The good news is that Prozac can help.

6/30/13, 12:44 PM

This thread was over anyways.

Final message for the author:

When you have descended to the level of petulance and childishness normally held by somefeller, Ritmo, and Inga you should feel shame.

At least when I engage the supporters of traditional marriage they have cogent arguments and traceable logic. These other people do not argue in good faith and are merely trying to destroy what makes this country the best place in the world to live.; 6/30/13, 12:58 PM
Illuninati said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 6/30/13, 12:58 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Rhythm and Balls said...
I think some of Altie's views are honestly held. A lot of times she just wants to see how philosophically controversial or outrageous she can be, but this is certainly not one of them. And her commenters serve the purpose of enhancing the original point, rarely helping to shape or guide it. I think she's ok with entertaining dissents. But she's too narcissistic to take serious dissents seriously.

While we are on the topic of the Althouse psych, what is it with all the conspiracy theory posts. Are these legitimate expressions of her world view of just a means to drive clicks?; 6/30/13, 12:59 PM
Illuninati said...: Achilles said...

"But just as you have said, progressives are morally degenerate and will use any tactic available. Public schools are destroying the moral fabric of the country because they are dominated by progressives. The very institutions big government conservatives are trying to use to strengthen marriage are being co-opted by progressives and will never serve that purpose. Your only hope is to remove government from the role of defining marriage if you want to save it."

I agree. Since I'm not in position of power, I don't have any illusions about saving marriage or society. We can each do the best to better our own small corner of the world, but that is as far as it goes.

The position of the left is much worse than just moral degeneracy. Without God, there is no objective moral standard. Without an objective moral standard, the only standard that a leftist can use to measure morality is either the leading guru of his group, in this case Maxs, or some type of consensus. This is where the French version of the Enlightenment with its exaltation of reason without God has lead.

I'm reading an especially poignant book about the great terror which the Russian people were put through by Stalin and the Communist party. The show trials were based on lies extracted from the defendants with torture. Yet none of the defendants could condemn the proceedings as morally wrong because the Communist party was the tool used for their destruction. Since they had made the Communist party the arbitrator of morality, they had no objective standard to fall back on when the Communist party fabricated evidence to destroy them.; 6/30/13, 1:01 PM
Achilles said...: Inga said...
So Achilles, what should be done with us reprehensible people, the gulag? Hanging?

Freedom for me, but not for thee, hypocrite. And they call US fascists.

6/30/13, 12:54 PM

I don't advocate for doing anything to you. You are the fascist here that advocates for using the IRS to shut up your political opponents, not me.

I merely content to point out your moral vacuity, general obsolescence, and willingness to sell your vote to the first fascist that comes along as long as he takes money from other people and gives some small amount of it to you.; 6/30/13, 1:02 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Illuninati said...
Without God, there is no objective moral standard.

This should read 'no absolute moral standard', and even then it would only have meaning if we had a single world religion.; 6/30/13, 1:03 PM
Anonymous said...: Yes Ann, Achilles told you! Shame!

Because HE is the mighty Achilles! That's why.; 6/30/13, 1:03 PM
Michael K said...: "But I also believe that the people pushing SSM are trying to destroy marriage and the nuclear family. They want people to be weak morally, uneducated, and dependent on the government. They have succeeded largely in destroying the father role for large majorities of the black population. What has been done to black people by progressives is reprehensible and they are trying to do that for the rest of the country through SSM."

We are coming to a decision point in this matter. The next step may be law suits against churches that refuse to conduct these ceremonies for same sex couples. The next step would be to attack the tax exemption for churches that don;t cooperate.

In Canada, for example, pastors have been prosecuted for speaking against homosexuality.

When we see this, we will know what the agenda of people like Andrew Sullivan is.; 6/30/13, 1:04 PM
Brian Brown said...: I love the fact that SSM supporters are pretending to take the idea that there should be a "coalition against promiscuity" seriously.

That's how intellectually incoherent and pathetic these people are.; 6/30/13, 1:04 PM
Brian Brown said...: Inga said...
As IF YOU do Jay, hysterical. I think Ezra Waldman probably knows far more than you on the subject. No wonder Ann is laughing at you people.

It is beyond comical that you read the words "5th Amendment and due process" on a blog post and are pretending to understand what they mean.

You quite literally have no idea what that author is saying.

Oh, and I guess I won't be able to sleep tonight because a woman with a homosexual child who can't define an intellectual argument for gay marriage is "laughing" at me.; 6/30/13, 1:07 PM
Nomennovum said...: And her commenters serve the purpose of enhancing the original point, rarely helping to shape or guide it. I think she's ok with entertaining dissents. But she's too narcissistic to take serious dissents seriously.

I think Ritmo/R&B is spot on, although I would say, "Some commenters." She is poking her commenters with this post. Her joke about texting from church backs this up, but it is just a joke and should be taken that way.

In any event, SSM is a stupid issue for conservatives to fight over. It's stupid because it's not relevant in the way most people think. Think of it as a marker on the side of a long road, a marker we had to pass.; 6/30/13, 1:07 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Achilles:

In all honesty, your "sadness" is a result of refusing to think. You cannot fathom that your happiness might be something that others who are unlike you might also be entitled to pursue.

SSRIs work by stimulating the brain. If you could just open that blockage, think for a moment about how irrational (and fascist) it is, to say that the pursuit of marital happiness is a franchise that can only be open the biologically "appropriate" group, then you can deal with the fact that we take your resentments and shaming as seriously as we would any other three-year old throwing a tantrum.

At some point, society requires a certain modicum of reason to operate effectively. You are refusing to exercise that, and the resulting sadness you feel because of that refusal - to stimulate your own mind, and engage with the ideas held by the people of your own country - is your own fault.

So deal with it socially, by changing your behavior, your attitude and how you speak and think about all this. Or do it pharmaceutically. It really makes no difference to anyone but you how you do it.; 6/30/13, 1:09 PM
Achilles said...: AReasonableMan said...
Rhythm and Balls said...

While we are on the topic of the Althouse psych, what is it with all the conspiracy theory posts. Are these legitimate expressions of her world view of just a means to drive clicks?

6/30/13, 12:59 PM

With other issues it is the latter. She needs clicks. Nothing wrong with that.

With SSM it is different. She has to believe in SSM because of her feelings and her son. But she can't discuss the topic here with the traditional marriage group because they are more knowledgable and have a better grasp of logic than her on this issue. So like the rest of the lefty trolls she descends into petulance and BIGOT! calls.; 6/30/13, 1:09 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: These rulings will lead to at least one, perhaps positive, unintended consequence. That being more and more employers including govt agencies will get out of the business of offering benefits and pension rights to spouses.; 6/30/13, 1:10 PM
Unknown said...: SSRIs work by stimulating the brain

No, they don't. Not that the rest of the comment was salvageable even if you knew the correct pharmacological mode of action.; 6/30/13, 1:12 PM
Baron Zemo said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 6/30/13, 1:13 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: In Canada, for example, pastors have been prosecuted for speaking against homosexuality.

When we see this, we will know what the agenda of people like Andrew Sullivan is.

What? To replace the head of Candian government with an imperial monarch and aspire to that post?

Be rational.; 6/30/13, 1:14 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: I look forward to your enlightening treatise on the neurophysiological outcome of increased synaptic serotonin activity then, C Stanley.

But I doubt you'll provide it. So thanks for being a poseur!; 6/30/13, 1:17 PM
Illuninati said...: AReasonableMan said...
"Illuninati said...
Without God, there is no objective moral standard.

This should read 'no absolute moral standard', and even then it would only have meaning if we had a single world religion."

I don't have any quarrel with your substituting the term absolute moral standard for objective moral standard if you wish.

I believe I qualified my statement on an earlier post that the God I'm discussing is one based on ethical monotheism. Polytheism doesn't work because each of the God's has the opportunity to express his individuality in alternative moral schemes. People who believe in one good God have an objective moral standard to which they can appeal regardless of the consensus of the masses or of the ruling class.; 6/30/13, 1:19 PM
Kirby Olson said...: It was always just about garnering insurance for partners into sodomy. It will just double insurance costs to pay for it. But now many heterosexual couples are doing the same thing, as it seems to so many to be such a good idea.

Probably the only fair ruling is that any person with insurance can designate another adult to be in on their insurance. It could be a friend, a parent, a grandparent, or whatever. My grandmother lived with my uncle for fifty years. It was a non-sexual relationship, but they were just like a married couple in every other respect.

I don't see why you have to have sex with the other person to cover another person's butt. It should be any other person you the insurance holder designates for whatever reason. The other person could even be a person who pays you to cover them and has no other relationship to you.

then the gay community will start to scream, we wanted to be just like straight people, that was the whole reason we did this and so you move the parameters to make all alike. Well then we want we want we want -- well, what else is there? It's basically insurance.

It would be great if that now that gay men are designated as such their insurance would cost whatever it is actually going to cost the carriers. I assume that sexually active gay men are going to cost the insurance companies about ten times as much, but I don't have the actuarial proof to back that. Between HIV and the various Hepatitus and other diseases there is going to be a far higher cost per enrollee. Meanwhile, I assume the lesbians will cost less as all they do is give each other hugs after the first date (this is what I hear anecdotally).

Who knows. It will all adjust to reality. It has to. Reality is the final arbiter, not SCOTUS.; 6/30/13, 1:19 PM
Brian Brown said...: Nomennovum,

I think conservatives are fighting against SSM because:

1. The SSM supporters show utter contempt for their fellow citizens and refuse to engage in good faith.

2. It represents judicial activism at its worst

3. They SSM supporters have no regard for the law and in fact are perfectly fine with people such as the California AG or Governor not upholding their oath's of office by defending a duly passed initiative.

4. They see it as an attack on religious freedom - this is coming and suggestions to the contrary are preposterous.

There is a lot more going on there 2 men or women walking down an aisle.; 6/30/13, 1:19 PM
Kirby Olson said...: It was always just about garnering insurance for partners into sodomy. It will just double insurance costs to pay for it. But now many heterosexual couples are doing the same thing, as it seems to so many to be such a good idea.

Probably the only fair ruling is that any person with insurance can designate another adult to be in on their insurance. It could be a friend, a parent, a grandparent, or whatever. My grandmother lived with my uncle for fifty years. It was a non-sexual relationship, but they were just like a married couple in every other respect.

I don't see why you have to have sex with the other person to cover another person's butt. It should be any other person you the insurance holder designates for whatever reason. The other person could even be a person who pays you to cover them and has no other relationship to you.

then the gay community will start to scream, we wanted to be just like straight people, that was the whole reason we did this and so you move the parameters to make all alike. Well then we want we want we want -- well, what else is there? It's basically insurance.

It would be great if that now that gay men are designated as such their insurance would cost whatever it is actually going to cost the carriers. I assume that sexually active gay men are going to cost the insurance companies about ten times as much, but I don't have the actuarial proof to back that. Between HIV and the various Hepatitus and other diseases there is going to be a far higher cost per enrollee. Meanwhile, I assume the lesbians will cost less as all they do is give each other hugs after the first date (this is what I hear anecdotally).

Who knows. It will all adjust to reality. It has to. Reality is the final arbiter, not SCOTUS.; 6/30/13, 1:20 PM
jr565 said...: somefeller wrote:
jr, some of us are capable of making distinctions and seeing the rather large difference between bestiality, pedophilia and gay marriage. But no, I'm not going to waste time discussing those fine points with a bigoted moron like you who is merely arguing in bad faith.

I'm not saying there aren't distinctions, I'm just saying htere are restrictions to marriage on those things.And based on someone like Inga's interpretation of the 5th Amendment it would be really helpful to know what you think those distinctions are.

Again, also with the name calling. You say I'm arguing in bad faith, but I think that you, by refusing to answer the argument are arguing in bad faith. Note, I didn't call you a bigot (hint, that's arguing in bad faith)Also I notice you left incestual marriages off your list. Does that mean that you are separating incestual marriages from say marriages involving underage girls? Or did you leave it off through unintentional ommision.
I say your whole argument is the most broad Equal rights and justice and fairness, or you're a bigot type argument as if it's a universal argument. So I'm trying to find out from you how universal you really think it is.

Can you respond, without deflecting or calling people bigots. Maybe, with your response I'll call you a bigot. Maybe I'll agree with you. But it sure sounds like you're afraid to articulate your position. Probalby because you know it's indifensible.; 6/30/13, 1:20 PM
Achilles said...: Ritmo said:
Achilles:

"In all honesty, your "sadness" is a result of refusing to think. You cannot fathom that your happiness might be something that others who are unlike you might also be entitled to pursue."

Pure projection. If you actually read my posts you would know I am a libertarian. I don't believe in getting involved with others "happiness."

"SSRIs work by stimulating the brain. If you could just open that blockage, think for a moment about how irrational (and fascist) it is, to say that the pursuit of marital happiness is a franchise that can only be open the biologically "appropriate" group, then you can deal with the fact that we take your resentments and shaming as seriously as we would any other three-year old throwing a tantrum."

Can you do anything other than project and create straw men?

"At some point, society requires a certain modicum of reason to operate effectively. You are refusing to exercise that, and the resulting sadness you feel because of that refusal - to stimulate your own mind, and engage with the ideas held by the people of your own country - is your own fault."

This isn't even a good straw man. Your reason is the opposite of reason which is the point.

"So deal with it socially, by changing your behavior, your attitude and how you speak and think about all this. Or do it pharmaceutically. It really makes no difference to anyone but you how you do it."

6/30/13, 1:09 PM

I don't believe the government should be in the role of defining morality. But a free society is based on personal virtue. In order to allow someone to be free you must first be able to trust them to do the right thing.

The people pushing SSM are not concerned about freedom. They want to destroy marriage just like they did in the black community. This creates a permanent underclass the kind of which people like you want because the policies you push keep causing it.

I want the government out of the marriage business to save it. You want the government in the marriage business to destroy it.; 6/30/13, 1:23 PM
Methadras said...: RiverRat said...

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

Ah, the so what, who cares argument. It matters because of consistent behaviors that benefit a group of people promotes the idea virtually and realistically that those behaviors are good for them and beyond them. If you had a society where murder and killing at will was allowed, how long to you think that would last. How about a more nuanced society that through biology allows for its own sustainability and growth. Oh and by the way, if there are any aberrations to that norm, we will absorb it. or decide not to for the better sake of our society. So the so what, who care argument falls flat on its face when faced with the larger argument of what is good for a society. Because the so what, who cares argument leads to chaos.

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.

Good luck with that, since historically government has always been in the business of marriage. This dates back millenia. The reason why it does is because it has known that marriage is good for it and for the society it governs at large.

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.

Tell that to the voters of Prop. 8 in California that had their votes redacted into nonexistence by the perpetually butthurt.; 6/30/13, 1:23 PM
Methadras said...: The Crack Emcee said...

Saint Croix,

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

It's mind-boggling how stupid an instructor can be and still keep a job - but it's the U of Wis, so,...

Good to see you around crack. Been a while. Enjoy your stay.; 6/30/13, 1:24 PM
Baron Zemo said...: The attack on religion and traditional religious practices is coming and the Althouses, Ingas and somefellers will be right in the vanguard. Telling us that this is settled. That you should just give up and go along. That it is a good thing. That to say it is not what you believe is just being a bigot and stupid and ultimately illegal.

This debate opened with forcing Catholic charities to let gay couples adopt causing the Church to get out of the adoption business clearing the way for only unionized public employees or greedy unethical lawyers to handle adoptions.

Then they moved to health care and put in the law that religious institutions must provide birth control and abortion services to their employees.

Next they will demand that Churches and Temples convey the sacrament of marriage on same sex marriage or suffer severe penalties.

Winter is coming.; 6/30/13, 1:24 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: There is a lot more going on there 2 men or women walking down an aisle.

I wish I could know what that is. If only I could adjust my tinfoil hat more properly, then maybe the enough interfering signals will be blocked out to focus on the appropriate wavelength.

People of "faith" are not the only ones entitled to respect. The law is also open to "reason" and the people who embrace that, you might have heard.

Also "people of faith" is a self-congratulatory misnomer. Not all people of any or many particular "faith" or "faiths" are there to serve as rubber-stamps on the pronouncements they get from their earthly leaders. Most of them don't, actually.; 6/30/13, 1:25 PM
Brian Brown said...: Rhythm and Balls said...

I wish I could know what that is.

I helpfully numbered them 1-4.

Of course you would post something so idiotic as a response.; 6/30/13, 1:27 PM
Brian Brown said...: People of "faith" are not the only ones entitled to respect.

Nice straw man.

You represent the intellectual bankruptcy of the SSM movement well.; 6/30/13, 1:28 PM
Brian Brown said...: I don't take seriously anyone who says "the government should get out of the marriage business"

That isn't going to happen.; 6/30/13, 1:29 PM
Achilles said...: Inga said...
Yes Ann, Achilles told you! Shame!

Because HE is the mighty Achilles! That's why.

6/30/13, 1:03 PM

Feeling shame requires a certain level of understanding and cognitive ability. Ann is capable of it though she would have to engage is some self reflection first. The question of You being capable on the other hand well ... not so much.; 6/30/13, 1:31 PM
Unknown said...: I look forward to your enlightening treatise on the neurophysiological outcome of increased synaptic serotonin activity then, C Stanley.

But I doubt you'll provide it. So thanks for being a poseur!

The drugs themselves are inhibitory but even if you are attributing to the SSRI the effect of increased serotonin levels in the synaptic cleft, there's still the fact that some of the serotonergic receptor subtypes are inhibitory, not excitatory.

Not a poseur, but I will cop to being a nitpicker at times. :-); 6/30/13, 1:31 PM
sunsong said...: My view at this point:
They don’t call the GOP the stupid party for nothing. The GOP is a political party. It’s about politics. Politics favors gay equality. Period. The old will die. Period.

This is a time a great change… Chaos, turbulence, tumult and great change. The entire world is changing. Globalization has set it. There is a real middle class and a virtual middle class developing in a number of countries – (even as the middle class in America is declining.) That will bring more change and more chaos. Look at Turkey, Egypt, Brazil, even Syria.

A big change that is slowly taking place is the movement away from chauvinism and chauvinistic thinking. Chauvinism is the belief that men are better than women and leads on to the belief in a singular authority. Who is the ultimate better? Chauvinism denies the feminine and castrates the masculine.

As this happens there is an understandable reactionary movement to try and stop it and keep things the way they are – keep power where it is. These efforts will fail because the momentum of change is too strong. Tradition is valuable and wonderful – and so is rebellion against tradition. The trick is having the wisdom to see which to pick in any given situation and time.

Chauvinism distains gays. They are considered weak, like women. Equal rights for gays is a threat to chauvinism, just as equal rights for women is. You see the most horrific demonstrations of chauvinism in the Taliban, but we have it here, even on this blog, where people are told that emotion is not ok (women are emotional) but thinking is revered. I would assume that imagination is devalued here as well and will ( will power) admired and praised. My statement that thinking and feeling are equal will probably get a lot of derision.

So, back to the consistently and continually stupid GOP… What do the voters care about? Jobs and the economy. What are the far right and the elected GOP (both nationally and in states) concerning themselves with – gays and abortion. All the while Obama is blowing it. The IRS, the NSA, the Justice Department to name a few. The GOP ***COULD*** be really gaining ground. Instead they are more than likely to make themselves even more unattractive to the average voter. So much so that a lot of us would rather have a corrupt democrat than a reactionary; 6/30/13, 1:32 PM
Brian Brown said...: ell that to the voters of Prop. 8 in California that had their votes redacted into nonexistence by the perpetually butthurt.

Don't tell ritty the retard about this observation. She thinks you need a "tinfoil hat" to get there.; 6/30/13, 1:33 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: If you actually read my posts you would know I am a libertarian. I don't believe in getting involved with others "happiness."

Which is precisely what the previous regime did, in an interfering way.

Your reason is the opposite of reason which is the point.

This is a self-congratulatory assertion. Or perhaps an accusation. What it's definitely not is a logical conclusion of anything. But it was personal so I suppose it at least achieved that purpose.

I don't believe the government should be in the role of defining morality.

Yes you do. You just think it should be in the role of rubber-stamping what religious leaders have defined as morality. Or at least, you have less of a problem if they approve that definition than if they were to approve the democratic or jurisprudentially reasoned definitions.

But a free society is based on personal virtue. In order to allow someone to be free you must first be able to trust them to do the right thing.

Nice meaningless boilerplate. Hard to see what it has to do with anything, other than to distract from the libertarian's inability to understand how social currents and society itself works to reinforce or challenge perceptions of individual virtue. They assume a priori to know what is or is not a correct definition.

The people pushing SSM are not concerned about freedom. They want to destroy marriage just like they did in the black community. This creates a permanent underclass the kind of which people like you want because the policies you push keep causing it.

That's not what the conservatives who came up with it originally said.

I want the government out of the marriage business to save it.

Not gonna happen. And you cared as much about that before as you do now - i.e. nada. Or maybe you do care now, but not for the abstract reasons you say you do.

You want the government in the marriage business to destroy it.

Not worth taking seriously. I could say that you want the government out of the regulation business because you think traffic lights infringe on your definition of "freedom" and have made a better point.; 6/30/13, 1:35 PM
Brian Brown said...: What do the voters care about? Jobs and the economy.

Which totally explains Obama's re-election.

He's been gangbusters on that front!; 6/30/13, 1:37 PM
Michael K said...: "When we see this, we will know what the agenda of people like Andrew Sullivan is.

What? To replace the head of Candian government with an imperial monarch and aspire to that post?

Be rational. "

Do you have dyslexia ?; 6/30/13, 1:37 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: C Stanley said...
there's still the fact that some of the serotonergic receptor subtypes are inhibitory,

But they can inhibit inhibitory cells, resulting in a net increase in excitation.; 6/30/13, 1:37 PM
Nomennovum said...: 1. The SSM supporters show utter contempt for their fellow citizens and refuse to engage in good faith.

Yes, many do, and all of them that are in the political class do; however, that’s not saying much since (a) leftists hold all non-leftists in contempt and (b) the political class holds everyone in contempt. What’s different about SSM? As I said, SSM is a marker. We can all guess what it marks.

2. It represents judicial activism at its worst.

Not at its worst. Roe v. Wade is probably the nadir.

3. They SSM supporters have no regard for the law and in fact are perfectly fine with people such as the California AG or Governor not upholding their oath's of office by defending a duly passed initiative

The most vocal supporters are leftists. They rarely have much regard for the law, other than what they think it should be and as long as it suits their purposes. The others (LIVs, e.g) just don’t care that much and will go along with anything if it doesn’t directly affect them in a negative way.’

4. They see it as an attack on religious freedom - this is coming and suggestions to the contrary are preposterous.

The churches long ago gave up sole jurisdiction over marriage. That is unfortunate, but we all should know the dangers of getting into bed with the government. For example, in my business, whenever we partnered with the government, we regretted it.

Marriage is a zombie corpse and has been for a while. We are losing nothing by allowing SSM. SSM will likely lead to the rewriting of the matrimonial and child custody laws. It may reignite traditional marriage in ways that gays and the left don’t foresee (and not necessarily to the detriment of gays).

I foresee many unintended consequences, some of them good. And I am not an optimist at heart.; 6/30/13, 1:38 PM
Achilles said...: Jay said...
I don't take seriously anyone who says "the government should get out of the marriage business"

That isn't going to happen.

6/30/13, 1:29 PM

There was a shirt my friend gave me once. It had pictures of how people thought of libertarians.

Republicans thought of a picture of dope smokers.

Democrats had a picture of satan.

There was another picture of a guy with a tinfoil hat.

Libertarians had a picture of a conquering hero liberating the masses.

The last picture was what libertarians really are, and it was a picture of a girl screaming at a wall with a megaphone.

Our country is not nor will it ever be the same. My hope is to be able to afford freedom because most of you people seem to want government to be in control. The path this leads down is obvious.; 6/30/13, 1:40 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Mr. Stanley (Dr. Stanley?):

Molecular mechanisms are all well and good but you still avoided answering what physiological outcome, in terms of cellular action, neural activity, neural growth, what have you, results from inhibited re-uptake. Talk of differentiating subtypes without quantifying where and when an overall outcome is more excitatory than inhibitory is another way to dodge the question.

Yes, you're being a nit-picker. Glad you know it. As long as you're not a question dodger, though. ;-); 6/30/13, 1:42 PM
edutcher 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?

The words scissors, dildos, tongues, and fingers ring any bells?

(I know, there's a tagline)

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?

That's your line.

After all, it just kills you you're not part of the 1%.

This I believe supports my position that electoral majority is no longer the best way to ensure freedom and liberty.

Well, it does look like electoral majority is increasingly no longer the best way for social conservatives to ensure their freedom and liberty to oppress and abuse other people.

The abuse is on the Lefty side. Any group that has to reduce people to poverty to ensure their vote is into oppression, as well as abuse.

That's why your side needs vote fraud and intimidation so badly.

It's also why you need to import 35,000,000 peons in the next couple of years.

The arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice, after all.

That's what Choom and the rest of the Lefties are afraid of. That's why they need all the surveillance.

Anybody who makes any noise must be silenced now before the low info types wake up.

But your side still has a few good years in you and will probably remain dominant for decades in the sorts of places few people want to move to. But yes, it's not looking good for the sort of freedom you are talking about.

Sounds like what the Axis was saying right after Pearl Harbor or Nikita telling Nixon, "We will bury you".

You need to pick your boilerplate a lot more carefully.; 6/30/13, 1:44 PM
Anonymous said...: Ann has nothing to be ashamed of Achilles, a normal thinking, feeling person would recognize this. You however, are one of one many here who needs to do some self reflection.; 6/30/13, 1:46 PM
jr565 said...: Achilles wrote:
I don't believe the government should be in the role of defining morality. But a free society is based on personal virtue. In order to allow someone to be free you must first be able to trust them to do the right thing.

That doesn't make sense though. Because what is the right thing? Is it right for you and me? You're describing a right thing as a purely subjective thing. Then how do trust them to do the right thing as if it's an objective thing? Logically, they will do what they think is right and you will have a million different interpretations of waht that means. You can't then say that there is a right thing to do.

It's like Nietsche saying we need to get beyond good and evil and then you will do good things. But then you aren't really beyond good and evil are you? Or you are defining good to be whatever you want it to be. How do we objectively know that is good?; 6/30/13, 1:49 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: Why not Utah? Even if the majority is against it,a politician for it could ingore the will of the people and any propositions that the people might vote for and grant the marriages.(Gavin Newsom springs to mind).

Utah is weird in this respect. My understanding is that for the mainline Mormon Church, along with a lot of its members, it is a question of apostasy. Their prophet renounced polygamy (arguably to get statehood, but still...), and so schismatic offshoots like the FLDS renounced their prophet and found their own. But since the legitimacy of the Church is based on it having the true line of prophets, it is now a question of which church is legitimate. (Arguably, the Roman Catholic, and probably Orthodox churches have similar problems).

So, if it were ever on the ballot, it would likely fail, with most of the majority Mormons voting against it, despite many being descendants of polygamous marriages. Besides, it likely couldn't get on the ballot before their Constitution was amended first to allow the possibility of polygamy. (And of course ditto for the legislature). Seems that in order to counter the fears of the NE Republicans they were dealing with for statehood that they wouldn't just reverse their stand after being admitted to the union, a prohibition against polygamy was put in their constitution.; 6/30/13, 1:49 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Libertarians had a picture of a conquering hero liberating the masses.

Lol. The vaguest, most self-congratulatory and unrealistic image of the bunch.

The last picture was what libertarians really are, and it was a picture of a girl screaming at a wall with a megaphone.

Occam's razor stipulates that the other consideration is that they might just plain be wrong. On most things.

IMO, their problem, if you're open to even listening to it, is that they do not understand the difference between abstract reasoning and empiric reality.

They agree with the right on some things, with the left on others, and don't realize that their problem is that they make abstractions out of nearly everything while the two other extremes at least engage in perceptions of social reality from time to time. With usually opposite concerns or focuses perhaps. But at least with an appeal to reality.

When libertarians appeal to reality, their ideas resonate more. But they are usually more concerned with theory.; 6/30/13, 1:50 PM
Unknown said...: R&B- it's Dr or Mrs.

The point is that "excitatory" and "inhibitory" are gross oversimplifications and "excitatory" does not equate to the net positive effect on mood.; 6/30/13, 1:50 PM
somefeller said...: Aw, jr, did I hurt your feelings? Here's a pro-tip. Don't whine about name-calling when you call other people dicks. I actually don't mind that, as I am sort of a dick sometimes, but it does undermine your name-calling point. And don't draw assumptions from the fact that I or others don't respond to every. Single. Example. Of. Yours.

And no, I'm not going to get in a philosophical discussion with you on this. You haven't said anything to show that's worth my time. But feel free to declare victory on that point if it makes you feel good.

(By the way, Blogger ate this comment a couple of times. Hope if doesn't multi-post.); 6/30/13, 1:50 PM
cold pizza said...: People who divorce and remarry are already practicing serial polygamy or polyandry. Where's the big whoop? -CP; 6/30/13, 1:51 PM
somefeller said...: And I see edutcher is back, displaying that Inga and I take up a lot of rent-free space inside his head.

But you and your comments are valid and validated, edutcher, as this should be your safe place. Even if Ann won't make it so.; 6/30/13, 1:54 PM
jr565 said...: Ritmo wrote:
Yes you do. You just think it should be in the role of rubber-stamping what religious leaders have defined as morality. Or at least, you have less of a problem if they approve that definition than if they were to approve the democratic or jurisprudentially reasoned definitions.

And you think that it should be in the role of rubberstamping what secular leaders define as morality? What's the diff?; 6/30/13, 1:54 PM
edutcher said...: Inga said...

Ann has nothing to be ashamed of Achilles, a normal thinking, feeling person would recognize this. You however, are one of one many here who needs to do some self reflection.

I must have missed the memo where you and The Baghdad Bob of Althouse were appointed her personal spokesfools.

Perhaps I should ask her should I ever have to rebut her again.

somefeller said...

Aw, jr, did I hurt your feelings? Here's a pro-tip. Don't whine about name-calling when you call other people dicks. I actually don't mind that, as I am sort of a dick sometimes, but it does undermine your name-calling point. And don't draw assumptions from the fact that I or others don't respond to every. Single. Example. Of. Yours.

Only.

Because.

He.

Can't.

Back.

It.

Up.

(By the way, Blogger ate this comment a couple of times. Hope if doesn't multi-post.)

Maybe because you don't know what you're doing.; 6/30/13, 1:55 PM
Nomennovum said...: Where's the big whoop.

The big whoop is how it's so ridiculously easy to get a divorce. It means you're not really married to begin with.; 6/30/13, 1:56 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: And you think that it should be in the role of rubberstamping what secular leaders define as morality? What's the diff?

Reason, social legitimacy in a non-theocracy, jurisprudence, separation of powers and a whole host of other things that don't seem to matter much to you.; 6/30/13, 1:57 PM
jr565 said...: somefeller wrote:
Aw, jr, did I hurt your feelings? Here's a pro-tip. Don't whine about name-calling when you call other people dicks. I actually don't mind that, as I am sort of a dick sometimes, but it does undermine your name-calling point. And don't draw assumptions from the fact that I or others don't respond to every. Single. Example. Of. Yours.

And no, I'm not going to get in a philosophical discussion with you on this. You haven't said anything to show that's worth my time. But feel free to declare victory on that point if it makes you feel good.

This whole board has been you and Inga and Ritmo and Althoulse calling people names. ANd when I ask you what are very basic questions you refuse to answer them. WHy not get into a philosophic debate with me? Are you suggesting that your own philosophy is indifensible (because I sure think it is). Or have you not articulated it beyond the basic "equality good, intolerance bad" mindeset of most libs.
Why can libertarians express their philosophy on these boards without reservation, yet with you guys it's like pullling straws. You've articulated your position. You've called people bigots for not holding to your position. Defend your position, you coward.; 6/30/13, 1:57 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Illuninati said...
the God I'm discussing is one based on ethical monotheism. Polytheism doesn't work because each of the God's has the opportunity to express his individuality in alternative moral schemes. People who believe in one good God have an objective moral standard to which they can appeal

The problem here is that monoculture monotheism is inherently anti-democratic. There is a reason why democracy first arose in polytheistic cultures.

Once there is a plurality of monotheistic religions, as occurred after the reformation in the west, then monotheism becomes compatible with democracy. Democracy didn't stand a chance when there was a single Church.; 6/30/13, 2:01 PM
Unknown said...: The big whoop also is that exes aren't entitled to spousal benefits and the parental obligations and rights ( when there are children in the picture) are spelled out in the divorce decree.; 6/30/13, 2:03 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Why do you equate a polytheistic culture with a pluralistic culture?; 6/30/13, 2:03 PM
Anonymous said...: Hear hear Sunsong!; 6/30/13, 2:05 PM
jr565 said...: Two people who are brother and sister want to marry. Is it a violation of the 5th amendment to deny them their right to marry.
Yes or no. simple question.
I've asked Inga about 5 times now, and now I'll ask you Somefeller.

if I ask a libertarian he would probably say that we should get govt out of marriage so he would be ok with an incestual couple marrying.

Would you be ok with an incestual couple marrying? Would you call someone a bigot if they said there should be a restriction against such a marriage from being legalized.; 6/30/13, 2:05 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Rhythm and Balls said...
Why do you equate a polytheistic culture with a pluralistic culture?

I didn't necessarily. I agree with illuminati that there are no absolute moral standards in at least some polytheistic religions, making negotiation rather than appeal to authority necessary, which is more fertile ground for democracy.; 6/30/13, 2:09 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Would you be ok with an incestual couple marrying?

jr raises the interesting if underappreciated problem of legitimately recognized gay couples procreating children with too many recessive traits to survive and thrive.

Seriously man, what is wrong with you?; 6/30/13, 2:10 PM
jr565 said...: Achilles wrote;
I don't believe the government should be in the role of defining morality. But a free society is based on personal virtue. In order to allow someone to be free you must first be able to trust them to do the right thing.

Yet you think that govt can restrict marriage when it comes to gays?
Should it restrict marraige when it comes to incest? Isn't THAT a moral question addressed by law?; 6/30/13, 2:12 PM
Michael K said...: "So, back to the consistently and continually stupid GOP… What do the voters care about? Jobs and the economy. What are the far right and the elected GOP (both nationally and in states) concerning themselves with – gays and abortion."

The left keeps raising the gay and abortion themes to distract from the horrible job the Democrats are doing running the country. I am always amused at how people who support Obama, like three of my children, spend all their attention on these social issues. This is where his support comes from with educated people. Most of them are in comfortable careers, some making more money than others but they are not looking for jobs.

The folks who are in real trouble are the poor, classic low information voters, and the young educated who have trouble finding jobs. I have talked to some of them.

I spent almost an hour talking to a Verizon technical adviser who is applying to law school and can't find a better job than a call center with his Arizona State degree. I asked him if he was sure that law school was the answer for his problems. He didn't have any other options in mind.

I do agree that the GOP needs to focus on job and the economy but they have trouble getting any attention with the media a DNC subsidiary.

Remember the Whigs vanished because of the divisions over slavery. The Republican Party was formed out of the remnants of the Whigs. Something like that may happen with the Republicans. They don't seem to be getting traction with the present electorate.

Times change, though.; 6/30/13, 2:13 PM
jr565 said...: Ritmo wrote:
r raises the interesting if underappreciated problem of legitimately recognized gay couples procreating children with too many recessive traits to survive and thrive.

Seriously man, what is wrong with you?

gays can't have kids so the point is moot. It' wasn't about gay incestual couples it was about incestual couples in general. In fact, the fact that gay incest wont produce kids might be a reason for society not to ban incestual marriages. SO what say you?

And if you can't respond to my question with an actual answer, then go back to your "Yawn" answer since I have no interest in hearing another dodge.; 6/30/13, 2:15 PM
jr565 said...: Two people who are brother and sister want to marry. Is it a violation of the 5th amendment to deny them their right to marry.
Yes or no. simple question.
I've asked Inga about 5 times now, and now I'll ask you Somefeller.

I'm asking about Inga's view of the 5th amendment and whether a ban on incestual marriage would be a violation of it. IS that hard to answer? Three liberals who are most vociferous about calling people bigots and demand that we accept this premise can't even answer a simple question.; 6/30/13, 2:17 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: gays can't have kids so the point is moot.

Yes, your point is moot. That's entirely the point.

If you were a normal person I'd assume you'd have the sense to drop it now, but you seem especially fond of raising moot points.; 6/30/13, 2:18 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: The left keeps raising the gay and abortion themes to distract from the horrible job the Democrats are doing running the country.

Wait! I thought the Tea Party was doing a great job of blocking nearly all of Obama's legislation in the House. Why are we not proud of this very important contribution of theirs to the American economy?; 6/30/13, 2:20 PM
Anonymous said...: Somefeller, it appears that we are Edutcher's raison d' être.

But this is his safe place, we will make sure he isn't cyber bullied, not on our watch!

Ann Althouse does as she pleases though.; 6/30/13, 2:23 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: ed gets points for obsessing with certain people here.

Every time he does, a pony goes to heaven.

More earthly rewards aren't allowed by his current situation.; 6/30/13, 2:27 PM
Anonymous said...: Ritmo, now be nice to ed, this is his safe place. ;-); 6/30/13, 2:33 PM
edutcher said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 6/30/13, 2:33 PM
edutcher said...: The She Devil of the SS doesn't want to address my rebuttal of how female homosexuals might spread VD.

Time of a little changing of the subject.

And Ritmo jumps in to take the place of the Baghdad Bob of Althouse just like they were one and the same.; 6/30/13, 2:35 PM
edutcher said...: The Baghdad Bob of Althouse can't rebut my points, either.

They run to Althouse to take her side hoping she'll protect them.

No, children, this is not your safe place.

Run on home to Kos.; 6/30/13, 2:37 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: ed,

Did you get that pony?

You seem to be awfully personal lately, (as usual).

If you don't have anything to say about developments in the marriage issue, or on any original post, why not just find another outlet? How much good does it do to simply advertise whatever it is you're bringing here today?; 6/30/13, 2:47 PM
Deirdre Mundy said...: I think the same sex marriage cases illustrate how modern American society views marriage and family.

Most Americans see marriage as an institution based on companionship and personal gratification. It can be ended based on a feeling- "I just wasn't in love with him anymore." It may or may not produce children, and if it does, these children are useful leverage in the divorce proceedings. It usually occurs after a substantial 'test drive' of several years of living together.

When this is 'marriage,' and marriage is all about feelings and companionship, why deny it to gays? And once polygamists become more familiar in the "Joe at the office who has two wives and roots for the same teams I do" sense, the body politic will want to extend it to Joe as well. Wouldn's want Joe and his wives to feel bad. It's about what makes us happy.

Lawrence didn't start this. Griswold did. When contraception became the norm for most couples, sex no longer had to stay in marriage and marriage was no longer about raising children. The idea of making our own meaning and defining marriage however we feel it should be defined started back when the courts and churches through out the idea that marriage was about responsibility, and especially responsibility for your family.

Easy divorce and abortion sealed the deal.

Paul VI predicted this would happen, and everyone called him crazy, paranoid, and old-fashioned.

There will be no 'anti-promiscuity' movement. You know why? Because the young folk LIKE promiscuity. They were raised on it. It makes them feel good.

And feelings are all that matter, since there is no objective truth and all beliefs about the nature of the universe are equally valid and it's 'judgy' to try to reason with people.

We'll have polygamy, or we'll stop recognizing marriage at the state and federal level. Because people have lost the concept of marriage except in certain small corners of the culture.

We'll see how long momentum keeps society going. But without objective morals and truth, you can't have things like mortgages, or education, or nice parks. Things fall apart----; 6/30/13, 2:49 PM
Dante said...: While a genetic disposition to homosexuality makes no sense whatsoever (since there is no passing of genes to offspring)

My suspicion is that it there is almost certainly a genetic predisposition, since as you note, the homosexual generally does not pass on genes. Thus, some kind of protection would be built up to protect against homosexuality. Though I've read alleles that prevent reproduction can survive in the gene pool provided they are below a certain threshold.

The theory I've heard as to how it could work to help pass on the genes is as follows. In the book "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins, he posits altruistic between siblings. The way it works is that siblings share some percentage of genes, and so it is beneficial to provide some altruism to ensure the successful reproduction of ones own genes through ones sibling's children.

He did some research that was consonant with that theory.

The idea then goes that homosexual males produce more than they consume, and can thereby help out their siblings. I suspect there is a similar effect with the sister that doesn't have children.

In any event, there's the theory. It makes sense to me.

My suspicion is homosexual alleles provide a predisposition to becoming homosexual, but nothing more.; 6/30/13, 2:50 PM
edutcher said...: Rhythm and Balls said...

If you don't have anything to say about developments in the marriage issue, or on any original post, why not just find another outlet? How much good does it do to simply advertise whatever it is you're bringing here today?

I didn't realize your last name was Althouse.

More to the point, since we're talking oppressed people, real and imagined, I notice Paula Deen just had a 5 year book deal pulled over fans' protests.

I'm wondering, like George Zimmerman, have we gotten to the point of martyrdom yet?; 6/30/13, 2:51 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 6/30/13, 2:53 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Martyrdom? Deen and Zimmerman?

Enjoy your day, ed.; 6/30/13, 2:54 PM
Deirdre Mundy said...: ed- Funny, early today I was looking at my house and thinking "If it came to that, what could we use as a 'priest's hole?'; 6/30/13, 2:55 PM
Dante said...: Note, regarding AIDS, the way homosexual males are in large populations of other gay men, etc., is merely the nature of human beings in my view.

To get a sense of this, heterosexual males, heterosexual females, and lesbian females all have the same # of sexual partners.

Homosexual men can have hundreds or thousands of partners. See what's missing? The woman. They are the limiting factor.

So I don't blame homosexuals for doing what is natural. What makes me angry is not taking responsibility.

If you want to engage in risky behavior, don't blame it on Ronald Reagan. Don't blame it on whites. I'm not aware of smokers out their rallying for more lung cancer funding because they smoke, but you have gays demanding more HIV research, special subsidies, special protections, etc., because they couldn't put on a condom.

I find it rather disgusting.; 6/30/13, 2:55 PM
cold pizza said...: Does anyone teach "the law of unintended consequences" or do we have to keep repeating the same painful mistakes? Well, duh, yeah rhetorical question--we're going to make new mistakes.

The legal groundwork has shifted underfoot with the SC ruling. The legal framework is in a state of flux.

The permissive tribe, those that say "anything goes" are pleased, because it validates the "anything goes" motto, at least until whatever sacred cow they hold dear becomes so much hamburger to "anything goes."

Because the legal framework is in flux, and is no longer based on traditional norms but instead is now based on current cultural norms, who gets to determine where the endpoint (if there even is one) should lie?

Shouldn't the legal framework accept all forms of cohabitation? If the traditional definition is thrown out the window, who gets to decide the new definition?

Currently, there is only informal (unrecognized) cohabitation, and the formal cohabitation we call "marriage."

It is only a matter of time before any combination of cohabitation will be legal, in the strictest sense, with either formal or informal contracts.

I expect we'll see a whole lot of changes to property laws, privacy laws, child protection laws, tax code, housing codes.

Perhaps those currently in power should read up on how the laws of unintended consequences dealt with Jean-Paul Marat. -CP; 6/30/13, 2:57 PM
Anonymous said...: Just because McCarthy, Althouse and just about all other gay marriage supporters don't like the polygamy issue being brought up doesn't make it an invalid question.

They don't have any answers. So ... the time-tested, dishonest solution: smear those aksing.

It's good politics, especially in the Age of Obama. But for those concerned with reasoned debate as well as the unintended consequences of gay marriage, it's a contemptible approach.; 6/30/13, 3:00 PM
Baron Zemo said...: There will be many unintended consequences and ramifications.

None good.

But the forces behind SSM will keep pushing and punishing.

Winter is coming.; 6/30/13, 3:00 PM
Phil 314 said...: Ah Professor, you are so clever. Your daily posts on SSM have brought back Shouting Thomas and Crack Emcee.

Clearly that will lead to more traffic

(and maybe even more purchases from Amazon.)

Well played, madam.; 6/30/13, 3:02 PM
cold pizza said...: BTW, we don't have family trees anymore--it's all crabgrass: "This is my brother from mommy's third husband, this is my sister from daddy's second wife." -CP; 6/30/13, 3:04 PM
Deirdre Mundy said...: Now that gay marriage is legal, will parents have the right to pull their kids when it's being discussed in the Kindergarten class? Will they even be warned in advance?

I've heard from several teens that, if your school has a Gay Straight Alliance, you basically have to join. If you're not, you're smeared as a hater.

This has never been about 'equality' or 'acceptance.' It's about 'celebration.' And if you can't celebrate homosexuality because you believe, in the long run, it will bring its practitioners pain and emptiness, then you're evil.

It's the same old story... the hedonists get sick of the pale Galilean, and try to stamp him out. It never lasts forever, but I have a feeling the next couple decades are really going to stink.; 6/30/13, 3:05 PM
edutcher said...: creeley23 said...

Just because McCarthy, Althouse and just about all other gay marriage supporters don't like the polygamy issue being brought up doesn't make it an invalid question.

Of course not. It validates what Scalia and Santorum and a lot of other people said at the time and they know the rest of the yucky stuff that was predicted

Incest

Bestiality

Pederasty

is just around the corner. Maybe a little too soon for their comfort.

PS Ritmo, martyrs are what spark revolutions.

And I always enjoy my day.

Especially when I get to ruin yours.; 6/30/13, 3:08 PM
Anonymous said...: DOOOOOOOM!!!

Revolution is just around the corner y'all.; 6/30/13, 3:12 PM
Baron Zemo said...: One of the unforeseen consequences is the continuing exodus of traditional families to such things as home schooling and special charter private schools. A tipping point will be reached where the people who remain will destroy each other like crabs in a bucket. So they will turn to the government to outlaw these alternatives.

Because they will never leave you alone. Ever.; 6/30/13, 3:13 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: ...the pale Galilean...

Was he Nordic or just pale?; 6/30/13, 3:17 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: PS Ritmo, martyrs are what spark revolutions.

And I always enjoy my day.

Especially when I get to ruin yours.

Sounds like the circulation in your ass lost from sitting on the sofa all day has become another martyred casualty in the cause of Obama hatred.

Hatred as an antidote to dejectedness is just an embarrassment to you. Good luck with the revolution, though. May it succeed in its first order of business: A rotation of the sofa pillows.; 6/30/13, 3:23 PM
Baron Zemo said...: Actually he looked like Captain Pike.; 6/30/13, 3:23 PM
Deirdre Mundy said...: "Thou hast conquered, O pale Galilean; the world has grown grey from thy breath;
We have drunken of things Lethean, and fed on the fullness of death."

Swinburne.

Chesterton has a great riff on that one in the "Brave New Family" collection of essays--unfortunately, I don't have a copy at hand to quote it!; 6/30/13, 3:25 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Captain Pike's a good one. I had a feeling you were going with a Star Trek reference and actually transposed "Pike" with the new guy portraying Kirk, Chris Pine.

Either way, one could do worse. ;-) And a heck of a lot better than John C. Reilly's idealized depiction of a Jesus wearing a tuxedo t-shirt a la Talladega Nights. Heh.; 6/30/13, 3:28 PM
jr565 said...: Ritmo wrote:
Yes, your point is moot. That's entirely the point.

Except I never made that point to begin with so you're just wasting time arguing a point I never made.; 6/30/13, 3:31 PM
Baron Zemo said...: Google Jeffrey Hunter.; 6/30/13, 3:32 PM
jr565 said...: Your point is that my point, which I never made, is moot. How about the point I did make? Is that moot?

How about the question I asked you yesterday and again today? Stop responding to points I didn't make and and instead respond to points I do. Since you are going to respond.

Or as you will say next "Yawn".; 6/30/13, 3:33 PM
edutcher said...: Inga said...

DOOOOOOOM!!!

Revolution is just around the corner y'all.

You need to whistle louder.

you're closer to the cemetery than you and your little friends think.

PS Ritmo, you're the one who sits 8 or 10 hours at a crack (and we all know which one) drooling all over the keyboard.

And, if you take a look at the article above (I'm assuming you can read), you'll find the revolution is coming your way.

The whole world, not just the American people, are getting fed up with you and your Messiah.

Germany

Egypt

South Africa (that $100,000,000 safari's really been worth it, huh?); 6/30/13, 3:35 PM
jr565 said...: Somefeller and Inga and Ritmo could anser the simplest question, which would provide for us understanding of what they mean by 5th amendment violations when it comes to marriage. And yet they don't. They will though call people bigots. But they wont adress questions about their reading on equality or fairness as it pertains to marriage, or even 5th amendment violations as it pertains to marriage.
Note I said Marriage, not simply gay marriage.
And why is that? We can get revenant to say that govt can get out of the busines for marriage, we can get anti marriage bigots to say why they think the decision is wrong.
But these three yokels can't answer a basic question about their philosophy when it comes to a quesion about marriage.
they seem to think that gay marriage exists in a vacuum, even though it clearly doesn't and even though polygamists we linked to recognize how this case pertains to their circumstances. Why the blindspot from the libs? Is it because they are fundamentally dishonest and know it, and rather than offer an argument utter hyperbole and boiler blate talking points that they aren't even conscious enough about the implications to defend those principles?
Yeah.; 6/30/13, 3:38 PM
Roger J. said...: it will be interesting to see how the DOMA decision pans out over time. Seems to me Roe v Wade did not "fix" the problem of abortion. I rather suspect this decision will continue to be litigated for the foreseeable future. Time will tell.; 6/30/13, 3:43 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Google Jeffrey Hunter.

Ahh.. now I see what you mean. Got it.; 6/30/13, 3:45 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: So Egypt, Germany and South Africa are all united in revolting over Obama and the supposedly, near-Godlike powers over global events that ed expects him to have. Got it.

Chalkboard session's over.; 6/30/13, 3:47 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: I got so bored with jr's latest (3:38 PM) endless rant that I think I'll just run it through the dialectizer:

Somefelleh 'n Inga 'n Ritmo cudd anseh the, ERRRR, siplest kesshun, which wudd probide f' us undehstandigg of what dey mean by 5d amendmin biolashuns when it comes t' marriage. And yet dey don't. Dey will dough call peoble bigots. DOIHH!But dey wont adress kesshuns bou' deir readigg on ekality or fairness as it pehtains t' marriage, uh uh uh, or eben 5d amendmin biolashuns as it pehtains t' marriage.
Note I said Marriage, uh uh uh, not sip gay marriage.
And why dat, duh...uh...? Webuh can get rebenant t' say dat gobt can get out of de busines f' marriage, uh uh uh, webuh can get anti marriage bigots t' say errrr, why dey dink the, uhhh, decishun is wrong. Lee me lone!
But dese dree yokels can't answebuhr a basic kesshun bou' deir philosophy when it comes t' a keshun bou' marriage.
dey seem t' dink dat gay marriage exists in a bacuum, eben dough it clear doesn't 'n eben dough polygamists webuh linkid to recognize duh, how dis case pehtains t' deir circumstasss. Uhhhhhhh, why de blindspot from de libs, duh...uh...? Is it cuz dey are fundaminal dishonest 'n know it, uh, 'n radeh dan offeh an argumin utteh hypehbole 'n boileh blate talkigg poits dat dey aren't eben conscious enough bou' de iplicashuns t' defend dose princibles, duh...uh...?
Yeah.; 6/30/13, 3:49 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: As far as The Economist goes, they sure do what they can to come up with good copy, eh? A friend of mine from where they publish and I both like to trade stories on exactly how much of a cartoonish political caricature they like to make. It's like instead of calling themselves The Economist their name should have been The Cartoonishly Amateur Political Observer. Not to be left out of a strongly British publishing tradition, they really are the tabloid of record on global politics, aren't they?

Stephen Glass at least had the decency to keep his more entertaining stories confined to little anecdotes.; 6/30/13, 3:54 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: The Economist's credo should be:

If we can't accurately predict the next revolution* then we can at least draw a cartoonish illustration of it.

*And in their minds, there's always one right around the corner. Every week. Right on schedule.; 6/30/13, 3:58 PM
Michael K said...: "Wait! I thought the Tea Party was doing a great job of blocking nearly all of Obama's legislation in the House. Why are we not proud of this very important contribution of theirs to the American economy? "

Sorry to be slow to respond. I was doing more important things. A nap.

Obama has cleverly decided to avoid the inconvenience of Constitutional government by ruling by decree, otherwise known as "executive order."

The IRS was clever to note that the Tea Party wanted to reduce the scale of government so it had no reservations about harassing them.; 6/30/13, 3:58 PM
jr565 said...: Ritmo could spend all that time retyping my response into idiot speak, yet can't answer a simple question.
Why is that Ritmo? Cause you're a dishonest hack?; 6/30/13, 4:00 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: A conservative Republican official in the IRS was clever to note that the Tea Party wanted to reduce the scale of government so it had no reservations about harassing them.

FTFY, Michael.

Still don't see what it has to do with the economy, dude.; 6/30/13, 4:01 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Later.; 6/30/13, 4:01 PM
jr565 said...: I got so bored with jr's latest (3:38 PM) endless rant that I think I'll just run it through the dialectizer:

Somefelleh 'n Inga 'n Ritmo cudd anseh the, ERRRR, siplest kesshun, which wudd probide f' us undehstandigg of what dey mean by 5d amendmin biolashuns when it comes t' marriage. And yet dey don't. Dey will dough call peoble bigots. DOIHH!But dey wont adress kesshuns bou' deir readigg on ekality or fairness as it pehtains t' marriage, uh uh uh, or eben 5d amendmin biolashuns as it pehtains t' marriage.
Note I said Marriage, uh uh uh, not sip gay marriage.
And why dat, duh...uh...? Webuh can get rebenant t' say dat gobt can get out of de busines f' marriage, uh uh uh, webuh can get anti marriage bigots t' say errrr, why dey dink the, uhhh, decishun is wrong. Lee me lone!
But dese dree yokels can't answebuhr a basic kesshun bou' deir philosophy when it comes t' a keshun bou' marriage.
dey seem t' dink dat gay marriage exists in a bacuum, eben dough it clear doesn't 'n eben dough polygamists webuh linkid to recognize duh, how dis case pehtains t' deir circumstasss. Uhhhhhhh, why de blindspot from de libs, duh...uh...? Is it cuz dey are fundaminal dishonest 'n know it, uh, 'n radeh dan offeh an argumin utteh hypehbole 'n boileh blate talkigg poits dat dey aren't eben conscious enough bou' de iplicashuns t' defend dose princibles, duh...uh...?
Yeah.

Yawn.
Oh, and Ritmo is a retard.; 6/30/13, 4:03 PM
Deirdre Mundy said...: Hmm... here's a question for Althouse and Meade, should they choose to answer:

Why did you feel it was important to get married? Why couldn't you have just moved in together?

You exchanged vows in private, on a mountain top. Why did the government need to be involved at all? Why did vows need to be involved? What purpose do they serve for the two of you?; 6/30/13, 4:15 PM
Roger J. said...: Deidre--from my experience as 71 yo man going with a 62 year old lady for 5 years--here's what keeps us from getting married. Were either of us to suffer a debilitating medical event and need to have long term care, the government will come after her resources after mine are spent down. Prenups notwithstanding. Better to not marry from a financial standpoint.; 6/30/13, 4:22 PM
jr565 said...: Back to the article Althouse linked. The conservative argues for this decision on federal grounds. Don't we believe in federalism. Yet, is that what liberalism is arguing, or what Althouse is arguing when it comes to federalism? That its a states rights issue? That would suggest that in fact, despite all the protestations of fairness and equality and 5th amendment crap, that the states could decide to also not allow for gay marriage.
IS that what the libs are saying though? No, they won't end this fight till it becomes legal across all fifty states even if the states don't want it. Because of equality and all that cal.
So they're not arguing for federalism at all. Which again why asking where they stand on things like incestual marriage (which is also a question of rights when it comes to marriages) is so important.
Also, the author is not really big no federalism himself when it comes to polygamy. HIs arguments against it are that its currently not that popular and that there are a lot of negative things associated with it like child marriages and women being subjugated.
Isn't that though a lot like saying that gays are pedophiles? Must every polygamous marriage be the equivalent of the worst stereotype of polygamy we can think of. And at any rate, if you believe in federalism, as the author is saying we should, then why would that matter. If Utah tomorrow said we should legalize polyamy why wouldn't the author be down with it.; 6/30/13, 4:24 PM
Baron Zemo said...: Deirdre Mundy said...

Hmm... here's a question for Althouse and Meade, should they choose to answer:
Why did you feel it was important to get married?

Did they officially get married? As I recall they jumped the broom on a mountain in a ceremony officiated by Carlos Castaneda shaman/drug pusher with some borrowed dogs as witnesses. Is that official?; 6/30/13, 4:28 PM
Lem the artificially intelligent said...: "... are not doing themselves any favors."

I look at it as predicting a failure. Popular thought doesn't mean superior thought... at least to me... favor avoider that I is.; 6/30/13, 4:32 PM
Deirdre Mundy said...: Roger- Well, that seems sensible. It seems like a case where a religious ceremony WITHOUT a civil ceremony could fit the bill-- morally married, but not in the eyes of the government.

And if you're not religious, why marry at all?; 6/30/13, 4:37 PM
Anonymous said...: The problem is that gay marriage is also quite ancient.

Did they have perpetual families? Nope? Not a marriage. You keep defining marriage as "two people borking each other and being really into each other."

If conservatives deal with reality as you say then this is a reality that must also be dealt with.

We did. Civil unions dealt with the issues while preserving marriage. Guess who didn't like that?

I am sure you know gay couples that are just as petite bourgeoisie as any church-going heterosexual suburban couple.

You think our concern is how middle class they act? Yeah, what we care about us how normal they look superficially. Mmmmm hmm. Right.; 6/30/13, 4:39 PM
Roger J. said...: Diedre--not being religious, our relationship was good for both of us. I think age has something to do with it. At our ages we both had substantial assets we didn't want to co-mingle. We both had grown children and grandkids. We did not live together but kept our separate households and had "maintenance days" where we went back to our separate digs.

Worked for us--may not work for everyone.; 6/30/13, 4:42 PM
Kchiker said...: Educutcher said

"Incest

Bestiality

Pederasty

is just around the corner."

Republicans (that are interested in winning future elections) are begging you not to speak this way and yet you just can't help it. Ann has her theory about you. But for your absolute consistency, I'd probably have an altogether different theory.; 6/30/13, 4:42 PM
Illuninati said...: Blogger AReasonableMan said...
Illuninati said...
the God I'm discussing is one based on ethical monotheism. Polytheism doesn't work because each of the God's has the opportunity to express his individuality in alternative moral schemes. People who believe in one good God have an objective moral standard to which they can appeal

The problem here is that monoculture monotheism is inherently anti-democratic. There is a reason why democracy first arose in polytheistic cultures.

Once there is a plurality of monotheistic religions, as occurred after the reformation in the west, then monotheism becomes compatible with democracy. Democracy didn't stand a chance when there was a single Church."

Sorry for the delayed response. I've been out to eat.

Your proviso that the Protestant Reformation made our modern democratic society possible is well taken. Of course the Protestant Reformation itself was an outgrowth of ethical monotheism in which Christians were able to appeal to a higher standard of morality than that which was the consensus of the time. The Catholic church had served Europe well in the past but needed reformation badly.

I'm not sure if there was ever a democracy like ours in a polytheistic culture. Perhaps you can help me out. The Romans had their senate but it was only open to the gentry, slaves were of course not included. Athens had its own short term democracy which was limited to voting membership and was also fleeting.; 6/30/13, 4:50 PM
jr565 said...: Kchicher wrote:
Republicans (that are interested in winning future elections) are begging you not to speak this way and yet you just can't help it. Ann has her theory about you. But for your absolute consistency, I'd probably have an altogether different theory.

Republicans saying that are saying that because we are discussing marriage in all its permutations and redefining marriage. On what premise are you redefining marriage? If it's on the premise that gay marriage advocates are advocating, why wouldn't society redefine marriage in any other ways following the same premise.

Meaning, the premise being posed is wrong. We shouldn't argue that we must redefine marriage using that premise, because using that same premise we similarly couldn't restrict those other marriages you say we should never mention in context with gay marriage.

Gay marriage advocates want to have the quesion of gay marriage exist in a vaccum. Yet if we are talking about redefining marriage, we are talking about redefing marriage in total.

If it's about fairness and equal rights and love, then you have to look at marriage in total and apply that same standard to all marriage that we restrict. Would YOU say we can't restrict incest because the two people love each other and we are not applying equal protection to their marriage, and our only objection is that incest is icky?
Clearly we are denying them rights that gays in California now receive, yes? Clearly marriage is a fundamental right. Clearly marriage is all about love. So then, on what basis are you saying society should restrict incestual marriage?; 6/30/13, 4:51 PM
Baron Zemo said...: You mistake is thinking that all conservatives are Republicans.

Or that Republicans as whole represent the traditionalist viewpoints. They often do but they often just go along to get along.

That is what everyone is saying here to people with a traditional viewpoint. Shut up. Go along. You are a bigot. It's all over so stop it. Don't force your morality on me so I am going to force my morality on you first.

It is just another hill in the continuing battle. Traditional morality is losing. Badly.

Winter is coming.; 6/30/13, 5:05 PM
edutcher said...: jr565 said...

Incest

Bestiality

Pederasty

is just around the corner.

Republicans (that are interested in winning future elections) are begging you not to speak this way and yet you just can't help it.

Well, first of all, you're a liar.

What I said was, in answer to creeley's point that the same sex marriage crowd wants to keep the issue in a vacuum

Of course not. It validates what Scalia and Santorum and a lot of other people said at the time and they know the rest of the yucky stuff that was predicted

Incest

Bestiality

Pederasty

is just around the corner. Maybe a little too soon for their comfort. Just a little bit different point.

And those "Republicans" you invoke are Chuckie Schumer's, the ones who go along with him on AmnestyCare, the ones who've sold out their constituents time and again.

Ann has her theory about you.

She does?

Really?

I know I construe her posts in a way that seems to get under her skin, but I'll bet she's surprised she's suddenly acquired all these self-appointed spokespipples.

As for any "theory" she might have, as I said, she can drop me an email any time she wants and we can talk it over.

But for your absolute consistency, I'd probably have an altogether different theory.

I'm thrilled.

PS I note Ritmo tries to make light of people all over the world fed up with his Messiah's meddling.

Here's the Guardian article about NSA using Euro data, from (of all places) DU.

They've just about sawed the branch out from under them.

Wait till the economy implodes as ObamaTax and all of Choom's eco-regs go into effect.; 6/30/13, 5:13 PM
jr565 said...: Baron Zemo wrote:
Or that Republicans as whole represent the traditionalist viewpoints. They often do but they often just go along to get along.

That is what everyone is saying here to people with a traditional viewpoint. Shut up. Go along. You are a bigot. It's all over so stop it. Don't force your morality on me so I am going to force my morality on you first.

Except we are talking about marriage in total. What is traditional marriage? Or what is marriage? Marriage is a man and a woman. No underage marriages, no polygamy, no marriage to your brother etc.
if society can't force it's morality on us, then explain those other restrictions.
Which again is why discussions of regulating marriage is more than just gay marriage. How far should we extend that whole, you can't legislate morality thing when it comes to marriage?; 6/30/13, 5:16 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: I'm pretty sure that slaves couldn't vote in ancient Greece, either. Or in any classical or even more contemporary society. That's just how it went. They were property, end of story, and had no more a right to a vote than do your pets.

Even America still restricts the franchise from felons, which I'm not so sure is a good idea. What if your government wanted to imprison a tenth or more of the population (which some would argue, they're well on their way to doing). How could that be devoid of political/electoral impact?

In any event, Rome's regicide sparked its own democracy, but I'm not sure it wasn't heavily inspired by Athens prior to it, anyway. The common thread, I think, is a respect for rational thought, a tradition that Athens held in spades, as did post-enlightenment Europeans. India, on the other hand, did not - and so democracy did not come to that polytheistic society until the last few decades of globalization and American influence.

You could even bring it over here - to North America. A society that was probably still more pantheistic in its tribal, non-pastoral traditions than polytheistic. Would some say that the Iroquois Confederacy was democratic? They said it was another inspiration for the Constitution, which would have been a way of structuring government, regardless of what actual impact widespread "voting" would have had on chief selection or whatever.

I'm assuming in all this no need for differentiating between the "direct democracies" of Athens and New England town halls and the representative democracies that Republicans are so clear on using as a point of differentiation.

I think monotheism symbolized a consolidation of moral/spiritual authority that is for some reason still retained or even further evolved in Western civilization, and one independent of voting systems. But not in a way shown to be an unnecessary development in modern civilization. Far from it actually, I would guess.; 6/30/13, 5:18 PM
jr565 said...: Ritmo wrot:
"I'm pretty sure that slaves couldn't vote in ancient Greece, either. Or in any classical or even more contemporary society. That's just how it went. They were property, end of story, and had no more a right to a vote than do your pets.

Even America still restricts the franchise from felons, which I'm not so sure is a good idea. What if your government wanted to imprison a tenth or more of the population (which some would argue, they're well on their way to doing). How could that be devoid of political/electoral impact?

In any event, Rome's regicide sparked its own democracy, but I'm not sure it wasn't heavily inspired by Athens prior to it, anyway. The common thread, I think, is a respect for rational thought, a tradition that Athens held in spades, as did post-enlightenment Europeans. India, on the other hand, did not - and so democracy did not come to that polytheistic society until the last few decades of globalization and American influence.

You could even bring it over here - to North America. A society that was probably still more pantheistic in its tribal, non-pastoral traditions than polytheistic. Would some say that the Iroquois Confederacy was democratic? They said it was another inspiration for the Constitution, which would have been a way of structuring government, regardless of what actual impact widespread "voting" would have had on chief selection or whatever.

I'm assuming in all this no need for differentiating between the "direct democracies" of Athens and New England town halls and the representative democracies that Republicans are so clear on using as a point of differentiation.

I think monotheism symbolized a consolidation of moral/spiritual authority that is for some reason still retained or even further evolved in Western civilization, and one independent of voting systems. But not in a way shown to be an unnecessary development in modern civilization. Far from it actually, I would guess."

Yawn.; 6/30/13, 5:25 PM
Baron Zemo said...: Marriage is like a sandwich.

Traditionally a sandwich is a tasty filling between two slices of bread.
Not between two taco shells. Or two crackers. Or two lettuce leaves. That might be a good thing. But it is not a sandwich.

But it won't matter anyway because when the amnesty bill passes the Supreme Court will rule that traditional sandwiches are outlawed and we can only eat taco's.

Or at best burritos.; 6/30/13, 5:29 PM
jr565 said...: I got so bored with Ritmo's latest (5:18 PM) endless rant that I think I'll just run it through the dialectizer:

I'm pritty shur that slaves cuddnt vot in anshent Grees, ethur. Ore in any klasskul ore evn more kontmptp-uh-kontempore-uh, more modrn sosiettee. Thas jus howw it went. They wer propurhteee, and of storee, end had no morr right to a vot than do yore petz.

Evun Umerikuh stil reestrikts the franeyes frum felines, uh, feluns, uh kriminels witcheh Im not so sur is a good idear. Duhhh duhhh duhh durrr. Duhhh, Duhh,, uh, duhhh!!!; 6/30/13, 5:33 PM
Gahrie said...: Look, Althouse and the Leftys are right. They won.

I'm willing to bet they win in 2016, and maybe 2020, with Hillary.

However, by 2024 they will have pretty much destroyed our republic, our economy and our nation.

The question will then be: Can the Right put the pieces back together again, or do we have a revolution?; 6/30/13, 5:36 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: That's pretty good that your ability to copy-cat even carries through to use of the Dialectizer, jr.

Maybe someday you'll actually learn to develop some thoughts of your own. And then break them up into paragraphs.

Until then, it's good to know that the forefront of anti-rights sentiment in America is represented by someone who so resents knowledge and decent argumentation, to the core of his bones, that he refuses to engage on a single point.

Stupidity is not an argument, my friend. Neither is resentment. Neither is entitlement so extreme as to immediately hijack a nice sidebar discussion on the development of democracy in relation to monotheistic norms.

Your immaturity is showing.

Yawn.; 6/30/13, 5:42 PM
jr565 said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 6/30/13, 5:50 PM
jr565 said...: More Ritmo:
Thass pritee gudd that yur abilitee to copee-kat evun kareeza tthrue to use uf tha Diulektize, uh diahelktize, uh thing a ma gig.
Maebee sumday yul aktullee lern too develup sum thotss uv yur own. end then brekk them up into paragraffs.

Un til then, is gud to no that the four frunt uf antee rits sentument in uhmerikuh is reprezentedd by sumwun who so rezentz noludge end desent argumentashun to tha kore of hiz bonez, that he rrefuzus to engaje on a seengle poynt.
Uh, Duhh, derrr, duhhh, uh duhhhh!!! (Scratches head in daze) Duhhhh, duhhh durrr.
(Drools)
uh duhhh, durrr uh duhhhhh.; 6/30/13, 5:52 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: jr again copies me in a vain attempt to avoid proving that he has absolutely nothing to say.; 6/30/13, 5:54 PM
jr565 said...: Ritmo wrote:
Until then, it's good to know that the forefront of anti-rights sentiment in America is represented by someone who so resents knowledge and decent argumentation, to the core of his bones, that he refuses to engage on a single point.

And when I asked you a simple qeustion you refused to engage on a single point. Instead you gave me the yawn, followed by the dodge, followed by the Dialectizer.
So, YET AGAIN, it's pot meet kettle with you.; 6/30/13, 5:56 PM
jr565 said...: More Ritmo:
jr again copies me in a vain attempt to avoid proving that he has absolutely nothing to say.

Do you have anything to say? How about answer my earlier question to show that you have something to say?; 6/30/13, 5:57 PM
jr565 said...: I can be as dismissive of you as you can be of others Ritmo.; 6/30/13, 5:58 PM
jr565 said...: The same question I asked of you on a number of times, Ritmo. The same question I then asked of somefeller and Inga.

Yawn.; 6/30/13, 5:59 PM
Dave said...: "jr565 said... What is traditional marriage? Or what is marriage? Marriage is a man and a woman. No underage marriages, no polygamy, no marriage to your brother etc."

Have you ever looked at old census records? You'll find LOTS of what we would today call "underage" marriage. Not to mention Mary and Joseph and the tradition of "Droit du seigneur" which allowed the lord of the manner first crack at any bride married under his rule. And then the fact that women were legally subservient to their husbands - couldn't engage in contracts or vote. How about the fact that BOTH candidates for US President in 2012 had grandfathers who were polygamists?

In all the huffing and puffing and bitching here - none of you homophobic yahoos has discussed the actual reasons for this week's SCOTUS rulings on DOMA and Prop. 8 - clearly because none of you have taken time to actually learn what the hell you're talking about. Just ranting about AIDS and polygamy and every other bullshit, irrelevant subject you can imagine.

FYI, the court sent Prop.8 back based on the fact that the people defending it did not have standing with the court. Why didn't they have standing according to crazy liberals like Scalia and Roberts? Because they weren't "injured" by the ruling and they are not official representatives of the state. And once states permitted same-sex marriage DOMA was doomed. The federal government had never refused to recognize a marriage sanctioned by the state - case closed. And soon you'll have legally married same-sex couples on military bases in states which refuse to recognize those unions. And businesses, especially big businesses, don't want to get caught up in this battle - and will push for marriage equality.

p.s. All the "geniuses" on here obsessing about the fidelity of same-sex couples, don't know what you're talking about anymore than you know about the intimate lives of hetero couples. It's none of your damn business, but there are many folk who've spent decades together in loving relationships. And at times over those years disease or injury changes intimacy from pleasurable to painful - helping the person you love learn to walk again or fighting disease or financial setbacks or whatever - "in sickness or health 'till death us to part."

Not sure why I've wasted my time writing this as the majority here seem so proud of their ignorant, hateful attitudes - or - as a dear family member used to say, "They think they're 'hot snot,' but they're really just as green as goose shit." Have a nice day, goose shitters!; 6/30/13, 6:00 PM
Kchiker said...: Edutcher said

"Well, first of all, you're a liar."

So you didn't mention those things? Merely quoting Rick Santorum's predictions? Hahahahaha.

Please continue to speak on this (and all) topics. You make the best commercial against Republicans I've ever seen.; 6/30/13, 6:00 PM
jr565 said...: Dave wrote:
You'll find LOTS of what we would today call "underage" marriage. Not to mention Mary and Joseph and the tradition of "Droit du seigneur" which allowed the lord of the manner first crack at any bride married under his rule. And then the fact that women were legally subservient to their husbands - couldn't engage in contracts or vote. How about the fact that BOTH candidates for US President in 2012 had grandfathers who were polygamists?

None of that really has anything to do with the point addressed. Except maybe the bit about polygamy. They certainly couldn't be polygamists now. iS the state allowed to refuse to recognize their marriages (assuming htey were still alive today) or would a restriction on their marriages be a violation of the 5th amendment?; 6/30/13, 6:04 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Until you hand me a subpoena, jr, I'll only answer the questions you pose that I find intelligent, thoughtful and honestly decent enough to make me want to answer them.

Not before. And not the others.

Stop being a tyrant.; 6/30/13, 6:04 PM
jr565 said...: Dave wrote:
FYI, the court sent Prop.8 back based on the fact that the people defending it did not have standing with the court. Why didn't they have standing according to crazy liberals like Scalia and Roberts? Because they weren't "injured" by the ruling and they are not official representatives of the state. And once states permitted same-sex marriage DOMA was doomed. The federal government had never refused to recognize a marriage sanctioned by the state - case closed. And soon you'll have legally married same-sex couples on military bases in states which refuse to recognize those unions. And businesses, especially big businesses, don't want to get caught up in this battle - and will push for marriage equality.

Well there is an issue with how prop 8 was overturned. Because the proposition was voted on by the people. and the governor ignored it. Then when the case was brought to the courts, didn't defend it. And therefore the people who voted on it had no standing. Beause govt refused to follow the law.

Isn't that kind of govt by tyranny?
Lets look at this from the persective of another case that liberals hold dear, abortion.
Suppose a republican legislator passes a law banning abortion in a state. The people then pass a proposition that abortion should be legal like it always has been in the state. And the governor says "Nah, I'm not going to enforce that". Then the people take the case to court and the state decides not to defend the proposition that they already ingored). I guess then the people would have no standing.

Perhaps, thats how republicans should govern from now on. Would you be ok with that?; 6/30/13, 6:09 PM
jr565 said...: Until you hand me a subpoena, jr, I'll only answer the questions you pose that I find intelligent, thoughtful and honestly decent enough to make me want to answer them.

Not before. And not the others.

Stop being a tyrant.

Yawn.; 6/30/13, 6:10 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: jr fails yet again to impress anyone by indicating that civil dialogue bores him.; 6/30/13, 6:12 PM
jr565 said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 6/30/13, 6:12 PM
Roger J. said...: jr and ritmo--is it remotely possible you could take your disagreement off line? surely you can have your discussion email to email. I will say that you are certainly generating hits for the althouse blog through your own superhuman efforts. well done in that regard--I am sure meadhouse appreciates your efforts.; 6/30/13, 6:13 PM
jr565 said...: Retardo wrote:
"Stupidity is not an argument, my friend. Neither is resentment. Neither is entitlement so extreme as to immediately hijack a nice sidebar discussion on the development of democracy in relation to monotheistic norms."

Kind of like how you hijack nearly every conversation you enter?; 6/30/13, 6:14 PM
jr565 said...: Ritmo wrote:
"jr fails yet again to impress anyone by indicating that civil dialogue bores him."

You'll note that what you find a lack of civil dialogue on my part is me doing exactly what you did to me back to you.
Once again, pot meet kettle.

Yawn.; 6/30/13, 6:15 PM
jr565 said...: You're right Roger J. No reason to feed the troll. I will henceforth not respond to Ritmo further.; 6/30/13, 6:17 PM
Roger J. said...: well done jr; 6/30/13, 6:19 PM
sinz52 said...: "One American wife is worth many Arab wives. American wives offer their opinion on everything and see themselves as equal."

Wow, I gotta get me a mail-order Arab bride.; 6/30/13, 6:19 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: I will henceforth not respond to Ritmo further.

Point being, I never asked you to in the first place.

But whatever.; 6/30/13, 6:23 PM
harrogate said...: edutcher, are you okay?

Y'all, it really doesn't sound like he is ok.

edutcher, if you are out there: listen to what we're telling you. your thoughts and views really are valued here. really.; 6/30/13, 6:27 PM
Dante 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?

I've wondered why women who have sex with women have such a high rate of HIV infection (3 - 4 times that for women who do not have sex with women). I suspected it was IV drug use, but prompted by your note, I decided to look it up (here at the CDC.

There are some interesting notes.

And as I guessed, of 531 women who had sex only with women, 91% had other risk factors most typically intravenous drug use.

Of the 7381 women who reported to having sex with women, only 531 reported having sex only with women. That is inline with my view that there are no lesbian women, only bi-sexual women. Note also the CDC believes 60% of women who have sex with women do not report it. That may push up the 3 to 4X number even more (those were for LA).

I think the evidence for female to female transmission of HIV is pretty low. But, these people have other risky behavior that makes them hundreds of percent more likely to get HIV than a woman who exclusively has heterosexual sex.; 6/30/13, 6:42 PM
edutcher said...: Good research, Dante. In response to the She Devil of the SS who is clearly brain-dead, I mentioned vaginas, dildos, tongues, and fingers, which could also be vectors.

Kchiker said...

Well, first of all, you're a liar.

So you didn't mention those things? Merely quoting Rick Santorum's predictions? Hahahahaha.

And Scalia, among others. I see someone had to actually read it to you before you got that.

Please continue to speak on this (and all) topics. You make the best commercial against Republicans I've ever seen.

If that's the best you've got, I can see why you've stayed away so long.; 6/30/13, 7:05 PM
Dave said...: "jr565 said...Well there is an issue with how prop 8 was overturned. Because the proposition was voted on by the people. and the governor ignored it. Then when the case was brought to the courts, didn't defend it. And therefore the people who voted on it had no standing. Beause govt refused to follow the law."

As I said, you do not know the facts. When Prop. 8 passed it became the law. The initial lawsuit upheld Prop. 8, but also ruled that same-sex marriages performed between June, 2008 and election day were still valid.

While both Governors Schwarzenegger and Brown considered Prop. 8 illegal, it was the law from election day, 2008 until Friday. When the federal case was filed, the parties who defended Prop. 8 WERE allowed to do so in the initial trial. However, they could not provide any proof that they were the "injured party" since the Prop. 8 targeted same-sex couples.

Your irrelevant abortion argument makes no sense as once a proposition passes it becomes law and neither the executive or legislative branches of state government can do anything about it. Also, unlike the Prop. 8 should such a proposition be passed and then be blocked, a woman (or women) refused access to abortion could easily prove herself an injured party.; 6/30/13, 7:31 PM
Illuninati said...: Rhythm and Balls said:
"In any event, Rome's regicide sparked its own democracy, but I'm not sure it wasn't heavily inspired by Athens prior to it, anyway. The common thread, I think, is a respect for rational thought, a tradition that Athens held in spades, as did post-enlightenment Europeans. India, on the other hand, did not - and so democracy did not come to that polytheistic society until the last few decades of globalization and American influence."

Anyone interested in rational thought before the French version of the Enlightenment should study the philosophy of the Middle Ages. They were very rational. The leading thinker of the Enlightenment was Sir Isaac Newton who was a committed believer in ethical monotheism. The other Enlightenment in England included both committed Christians and skeptics. In the USA the Enlightenment was cast almost entirely in terms of ethical monotheism. The French rejected God and elevated ideology which they mistook for reason. Their activities lead inexorably to the French Revolution, regicide, and the reign of terror. That pattern has been repeated in ever more deadly cycles ever since.; 6/30/13, 7:37 PM
Kchiker said...: Yeah, the fact that you were quoting Santorum and Scalia means you weren't mentioning these things at all. Talking about all these things makes you look quite insane to the average voter.

To me it's mere whining. An excuse to play the victim card while criticizing others who are supposedly doing so. You imagine being called a bigot a hundred times before you even wake up in the morning. Well I'm not calling you a bigot. You'd enjoy it way too much.; 6/30/13, 7:47 PM
jr565 said...: Dave wrote:
While both Governors Schwarzenegger and Brown considered Prop. 8 illegal, it was the law from election day, 2008 until Friday. When the federal case was filed, the parties who defended Prop. 8 WERE allowed to do so in the initial trial. However, they could not provide any proof that they were the "injured party" since the Prop. 8 targeted same-sex couples.

Your irrelevant abortion argument makes no sense as once a proposition passes it becomes law and neither the executive or legislative branches of state government can do anything about it. Also, unlike the Prop. 8 should such a proposition be passed and then be blocked, a woman (or women) refused access to abortion could easily prove herself an injured party.

they can argue its unconstitutional and not enforce it which is what Brown did.; 6/30/13, 8:03 PM
jr565 said...: Here's what the anti prop 8 people said Jerry Brown did:
“We applaud the work of Governor Brown and Attorney General Harris for not only refusing to defend this unconstitutional and discriminatory law — actions which helped lead to today’s decision — but for announcing they will move swiftly to allow marriages to begin as soon as the stay by United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is lifted. “

Here's the point that the pro prop 8 people said in response:

“It’s a very very disappointing and discouraging that we would see politicians refuse to do their job — which is to defend the laws of the state. Our Constitution does not give our governor and attorney general the power to pick and choose what laws to enforce. And yet, that’s what these two have done. it’s utterly corrupt. And the Supreme Court has let them get away with it.

“They have absolutely blown a monster hole in the initiative process so that the governor and the attorney general can collude to invalidate and veto any measure they don’t like. It’s wrong. It’s plainly wrong. That’s very, very disappointing. It’s a bad day for democracy in California.

“It’s wrong and they’ve been rewarded for it.

What happens if a Republican attorney general comes in and there’s a challenge to CEQA – or pick your favorite law on the left. And he says, “No, I’m not going to defend it,” and it’s thrown out for lack of a defense. Is he a hero? I don’t think so. And I don’t think they would under those circumstances, either.

“That’s what we’re left with — a reward for politicians who’ve shown a dereliction of their duty.”

are you going to be ok, when republicans use these tactics to override lefty laws.; 6/30/13, 8:13 PM