While there is no shortage of anger about the result of yesterday's vote in the New York State Senate on gay marriage, there is ample praise for the civil and respectful floor debate. I would agree, except for one thing.
What debate?
A debate requires at least two sides, some exchange and (in a perfect world) maybe even a bit of ground-shifting. But what happened yesterday shows that our opponents have nothing but politics and prejudice on their side, and don't even feel the need to defend them anymore.
Only a single senator, Ruben Diaz, Sr., stood up to champion a No vote. Everyone else on his side was silent in the chamber. Diaz's oratorical contribution did not bother to include any explanation of what might be wrong with equality. The first six minutes of his speech were an appeal to Republicans. He is a Democrat, and wanted to stir up resentment among his colleagues on the other side who don't get much gay support (e.g., in Diaz's pretty naked words, money). He then launched into a lengthy recitation of the obvious fact that there are religions that oppose homosexuality, and offered a complete roll call of the 31 states that voted gay marriage down. Finally, Diaz urged his fellow popularly elected senators not to "do away with the people's will."
Amidst all of this, there was no argument against same-sex marriage (procreation, preserving the state's economic resources, supporting heterosexual families), and it is telling that Diaz felt no need to do so. As Senator Tom Libous (another No vote) said afterward, "I just don't think the majority care too much about [gay marriage] at this time. . . " If you can rely on the majority not caring much about the rights of a minority, why go out of your way to stir the pot?
Yes, Republicans should feel grieved that gays support democrats (who support them), and yes, there is a long and storied history of religious persecution of gay people, and yes, a majority of Americans still continue to oppose gay marriage. The question before the house was "Why?" Why is it good or fair, or sound public policy to favor heterosexuals over homosexual couples?
Compare that to the speeches - pretty much all of them - in support of equal marriage rights. While some of them did invoke political tropes, they all actually engaged the issue before them: should gay people be treated differently under the law than straight people? If not, why not? They came at the question in different ways, but all of them actually addressed the public policy issue. I loved the speeches of Diane Savino and Ruth Hassell-Thompson, myself, but there are a lot of fine, substantive speeches to choose from.
The silence in the senate reaffirms how the tide is shifting. It used to be us who had to remain in the shadows. Now, we and our supporters can take pride in publicly articulating our arguments, while the other side - whether it's in the New York Senate or the precincts of Washington state - seem a little bit embarrassed at their lack of real, civic, credible arguments, and just want to be left alone.
Because existing law already incorporates anti-gay discrimination, our opponents have the considerable force of inertia on their side. But just because you have a majority doesn't mean you have an argument.
***
And I have to add this (kind of) snarky note: Washington's comprehensive domestic partnership law goes into effect today.
43 Comments for “Silent Majority”
posted by Daniel on
I think one thing worth noting is that in all this talk of a majority of Americans opposing gay marriage, the fact that the people of New York State – that is, the people the senate of that state should be representing – actually support, by almost a 10% margin, gay marriage. These state senators should not be concerned about another 31 states, they shouldn’t be looking at the opinion of Americans in 50 states, they should be looking at 1 state and the voters of that state.
Sometimes, the people are a lot more progressive than their legislature, and NY seems to be one such case, here.
posted by Jimmy on
It makes no sense for a state to say it’s a good idea to allow LGBT couples to become parents through legal adoption, but it’s not a good idea for those same parents to be married. The goal of protecting and fortifying families is pretty much undermined by this legislative shortsightedness.
posted by Amicus on
What debate?
========
You’ve put your finger on it.
This is one reason why religion does not belong in the public square. There is no debate – there is just dogma (sometimes not even Jesuitically hidden, these days!), or The Word, or oddly prejudicial assertions, like “one man, one woman”.
To be sure, there are profound ways in which religion can be thought to undergird the ship of State.
But, it is just no good at compromise and conflict resolution, which is why we need “enlightenment”, not “religion”.
posted by BobN on
Yes, Republicans should feel grieved that gays support democrats
It strikes me that Republicans, gay ones at least, should feel pretty grieved, alright, but not about that.
posted by David Link on
BobN, there are no gay Republicans. It’s against the rules. No gay Catholics, either.
posted by joe on
“there are no gay republicans, it’s against the rules. No gay Catholics, either.”
Whose rules, David? I’m as queer as a three dollar bill, and just as Catholic as on the day I was baptized. Anyone who has a problem with that, either gay or Catholic, simply has one more problem to deal with in this valley of tears.
posted by Bobby on
“BobN, there are no gay Republicans. It’s against the rules.”
—Hello? I’m a gay republican. Where do you get off saying we don’t exist?
posted by David Link on
Bobby and joe, I was just kidding. I was hoping “No gay Catholics” would be the tip-off, if the very existence of this site didn’t get the point across about gays in the GOP.
This may be why I didn’t go into comedy as a profession.
posted by Jimmy on
Reactionism can cause one not to get a joke, David; I’ve concluded that it goes with the territory.
posted by Bobby on
Alright David, no problem then.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Republicans should feel grieved that gays support democrats (who support them)
Actually, that’s pretty much a steaming pile of bull.
What Republicans figured out a long time ago, Link, is that you can’t be gay and Republican. You get called a self-loathing Jewish Nazi, have death wishes called down on your family, and have your employers called by gay “activists”, paid and supported by the Obama Party, in an attempt to get you fired.
Meanwhile, they’re well aware of the fact that the Obama Party can do whatever it wants, including things that gays lambaste Republicans for doing, and gays like yourself will still obediently do whatever they say.
Playing down its support for gay marriage, the HRC mobilized its 650,000 members to staff phone banks, raise money, and participate in get-out-the-vote campaigns to elect candidates sympathetic to gay issues, even if they didn’t support gay marriage. The group was the single biggest donor to Democratic state Senate races in New Hampshire, helping the party take control of both chambers of the Legislature for the first time since 1874.
The group also helped congressional candidates from Arizona to Florida and Ohio, and party activists believe the organization can play an even larger role in the 2008 elections. The idea, leaders say, is to become a steady source of funds and grass-roots support for Democrats — more akin to a labor union than a single-issue activist group.
“They took it to the grass roots and had people in individual states helping, either by volunteering or sending personal contributions,” said Tina Stoll , a Democratic fund-raiser. Instead of throwing its money at defeating ballot initiatives banning gay marriage, the HRC focused on electing Democratic majorities — even if it meant helping candidates who weren’t fully in support of their agenda, she said.
In short, gays have demonstrated that they are not rational individuals, and in fact, are rather pervasive and immovable bigots and hypocrites when it comes to politics. Why bother arguing? Let the Obama Party pontificate and blabber about how worthless heterosexual marriage is; all it serves to do is demonstrate the contempt that Obama Party members have for marriage and monogamy to their constituents, a majority of whom already oppose gay marriage.
posted by Jorge on
there is ample praise for the civil and respectful floor debate.
Yeah, right! There were death threats against Diaz last year. I don’t think it helped. Also a naked bribery attempt to try to get one state Senator to support a Democratic Senate Majority leader. Listening to Diaz, he is clearly referring to the latter.
He is a Democrat, and wanted to stir up resentment among his colleagues on the other side who donât get much gay support (e.g., in Diazâs pretty naked words, money).
It was more than that, as I just said. Part of the movement was focused on having the Democratic Senators support a Democratic majority leader, period. Not just money, but political support, period. It’s the reverse side of the argument many of us make on needing to break away from blind loyalty to the Democratic party and against the Republican party. And I think it was effective of him to point out that at the end of the day, in order to win, our side NEEDS support from the Republicans.
I frankly don’t understand the tone of Sen. Diaz’s speech. He is the major community leader in the opposition and it looks like most of his power here is behind the scenes, but I get the sense he is speaking as if he expects to lose.
Which of course he will.
posted by joe on
David:
Sorry for missing your humor; I’m a little overly touchy on the subject at times.
posted by Psi on
I agree with North Dallas Thirty in saying that Republicans shouldn’t feel grieved that gay people, by and large, don’t support them – it’s pretty obvious to me why I wouldn’t support a political party who consistently stood to oppose my right to equality and whose values are at great odds with my own. Flipping that the other way, why, if I were Republican, and held certain political values, would I feel grieved that a group whose equality I generally opposed didn’t like what I had to say? Surely it’s a case of cause and effect: they do stuff I don’t like, therefore I don’t support them. If they felt grieved about it, the simple solution is to do different stuff; they don’t, indicating it doesn’t matter I don’t like them.
However, I have to point out to Dallas North Thirty that generally speaking, there’s a certain truth to “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”; a person needn’t necessarily outright support gay marriage if, were their political party elected, gay marriage was still on the cards. The risk of only defeating ballot initiatives is that other ballot initiatives may be made; electing a party that at least makes promises about such things as gay marriage works with a more long-term goal of changing political climates and therefore social ones, too, towards the issue. The more change that happens on a governmental level, the more people adjust their own perspectives.
However, were it that the Obama administration had compared gay marriage to incestuous marriage and underage unions BEFORE it was elected, and had Obama shown himself to be a speaker of good things and then fail to do as he’s said he would (I understand he may not have time, but if he has time to discourage senators from introducing bills that would cut funding for DADT measures, for instance, then he certainly does have time)…then he wouldn’t have been so successful in his bid for the White House. It’s deeply saddening that people are so unwilling to confront the issue: no, it’s not that he has to do things slowly so as to appease people – he got into power making the statements he did, so now he can’t hide behind a veil of, “but I’ll offend too many people”. People make excuses for him; they shouldn’t. The Obama party cannot do whatever it wants, and at some point (hopefully soon) people will stop saying he’s all he cracked himself up to be. He, unfortunately, is not.
They also shouldn’t make excuses for people who oppose equality and civil rights for all: the fact is, the New York senate has shown itself to be a bunch of frightened children, with many of those who’d previously been supportive of equality failing to hold true to their views, perhaps out of a kind of peer pressure from those around them and, apparently, the 31 other states Diaz listed. It strikes me as ridiculous that the “leaders” would rather stand back, and the people who supposedly follow them (the everyday population) are in favour of greater change than the people in power are willing to give. Is that leading? No, that’s dictatorship.
posted by Rich on
Don’t waste your time replying to anything North Dallas Thirty says. He’s a moronic tea-bagger who regularly shows up on gay sites with the sole purpose of annoying us. He has nothing worthwhile to offer to any conversation on equality, politics or history.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
They also shouldn’t make excuses for people who oppose equality and civil rights for all: the fact is, the New York senate has shown itself to be a bunch of frightened children, with many of those who’d previously been supportive of equality failing to hold true to their views, perhaps out of a kind of peer pressure from those around them and, apparently, the 31 other states Diaz listed.
The irony is, Psi, that you already did make excuses for those people.
However, I have to point out to Dallas North Thirty that generally speaking, there’s a certain truth to “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”; a person needn’t necessarily outright support gay marriage if, were their political party elected, gay marriage was still on the cards.
Since you made it clear that you would vote for and support Obama Party members regardless of what they did and regardless of their stance or actions relative to marriage — or put differently, as long as they weren’t Republicans — that’s what you got.
Meanwhile, this is an interesting insight into the minds of gay liberals and “progressives”:
The more change that happens on a governmental level, the more people adjust their own perspectives.
This is a classic statement of the benevolent dictatorship ideal that underlies “progressivism” — the idea that people are stupid and need government to tell them what to do.
Instead, what we have seen is that, when government tries to impose on people, i.e. the California Supreme Court decision, the people can and do change their government to their preference (Proposition 8).
posted by Jorge on
Don’t waste your time replying to anything North Dallas Thirty says. He’s a moronic tea-bagger who regularly shows up on gay sites with the sole purpose of annoying us. He has nothing worthwhile to offer to any conversation on equality, politics or history.
Speak for yourself, and lose the irrelevant money policy gunk while you’re at it. I think he sits on enough useful information to keep people honest.
posted by Androphilia on
I think it is beyond obvious that the era of Reagan – Goldwater Republicans supporting Equality, Justice, and Liberty under the Rule of Law is now a historical archive. The temperament of Republicans has succeeded in making their party otiose, obviate, and obstinate — such that even Andrew Sullivan has “quit the Conservative Movement.” Obstruction seems to be the Conservative mantra. The more reasonable voices of conservatism rarely achieve mass, with the bloviators like Limbaugh, Palin, and Beck dominating their “orthodoxy.” Edmund Burke would surely cringe.
Bona fide liberals, and many progressives, still recognize the vitality of the Founding of the world’s first liberal, pluralistic, democratic republic, in which Equality, Justice, and Liberty under the Rule of Law remains both a hallmark and a never-ceasing aspiration. But that requires a similar reach by homophiles and transgender. We have to extol these liberal virtues, avoiding “same-sex marriage” for “marriage equality.” We also have to reject the “piecemeal social engineering” that avoids the serious task of amending the 1964 Civil Rights Act to include “sexual orientation.” In other words, end the ENDA crap. Secure all — or none — of our civil rights already possessed by groups that have suffered bigotry.
We have to control our pocketbooks. Giving to failed efforts repeatedly beg for different approaches; donating for “piecemeal” legislation that pollutes the clarity, and writing checks for failed performance has to end. Democrats have failed. HRC has failed. EQCA has failed. They neither have the skills, the temperament, nor the record to achieve success, but find their personal coffers enriched despite failure.
posted by Joe Mustich on
Shame on NY, but kudos to CT where we just celebrated the one year anniversary of our marrige equality law.
Onward to equality,
Joe Mustich,
Justice of the Peace,
Washington, Conneticut, USA.
posted by Debrah on
TO “Androphilia”–
A serious question for you from someone who is certainly not prudish and who has always enjoyed good hard sex with the right person:
Do you really believe the internet fare you plug on your website does anything positive for your cause?
Most people would relegate that for the Larry Flynt-esque sites.
But over and over and over again, same-sex proponents in the gay community must always try to bring their f**king to the professional arena.
Then wonder why voters are so turned off.
You guys can lambaste and vilify people like “North Dallas Thirty” all you wish; however, you might be more successful with your goals if you’d understand that even sex-loving adults do not get off on seeing this sh!t everywhere as if you’re just on a Sunday drive or something.
posted by Debrah on
Clarification above:
Make that “same-sex marriage proponents”
posted by David Link on
David Link is a dumbass
posted by Fredrick.william on
It strikes me that Republicans, gay ones at least, should feel pretty grieved, alright, but not about that.I recommend this site for simple reason that its easily navgated and self explamatory very useful tips over all a user friendly site. Highly recommended…….
Fredrick.william
caravan hire
posted by DragonScorpion on
~âHe then launched into a lengthy recitation of the obvious fact that there are religions that oppose homosexuality, and offered a complete roll call of the 31 states that voted gay marriage down.â ~ David LinkÂ
Naturally, and though some who want to appear more âreasonedâ like to dress it up differently, relying on spin and distractions, the entire crux of their argument is based on theology. As they do time and time again they seek to legislate social morality, even that interfering in the personal lives of the citizenry, to conform to their theological world-view. Big government with a small ‘b’.
This is why it is so important that we as a society insist that though this is a nation whose government offers legal protections for people to practice their faith without persecution, it is also a secular government which doesn’t pick sides on theology and protects the populace from being subjected to religion via government institutions.
It is quite right to point out as some have done here that these representatives of the people of New York should be representing the people of New York (ALL of them, including the homosexuals, I should add), not the people of other states. It should be troubling to all of us, but particularly the people of New York that their representatives legislate based on the apparent popular sentiments of other states.
In short, the anti-gay movement are pushing legislation that denies equal protection of the laws and due process to homosexuals and same-sex couples. This becomes more blatant with every new constitutional ban they impose, every referendum they pass by popular vote â a genuine tyranny of the majority â which strips homosexuals and same-sex couples of established civil rights.
I think they know this and this is why when it comes to rationalizing, they hardly even try to offer an argument in favor of their agenda anymore. They know how it looks; they know how wrong it has been to support the same in the past, and it just doesn’t roll off their forked tongues like it used to.
I’m quite confident that the next generation will want nothing of this social injustice, but what about in the meantime?
Good article.
posted by DragonScorpion on
I just wanted to add in regards to some of the comments here. I always find it so amusing when Republicans try to argue that gays shouldn’t support Democrats because the Democrat’s support of our causes hasn’t been as adequate as it should be.
It’s amusing because the rationale is so patently absurd. As if a lack of effort among Democrats to represent our interests would be a compelling case to turn to the party which ACTIVELY seeks to undermine equality for homosexuals and has been rather successful in doing so…
Least of all I wouldn’t be convinced by some shill who refers to homosexuals collectively as ânot rational individualsâ and âimmovable bigots and hypocrites when it comes to politicsâ, and one, it should be pointed out, whose rhetoric appears to be rather staunchly opposed to same-sex marriage.
The Democrats need to do a hell of a lot more, and we need to push them on that, but the Republican party as a whole isn’t bringing us anything but persecution.
What achievements we have made over the past decade in particular wasn’t brought to us by Republicans, these aren’t the ones that write these pro-equality bills and manage to get them passed. Though I disagree with a lot of agendas that the Democratic party, particularly its more liberal members are pushing, I have to acknowledge that it has been the Democrats that have helped us get where we are today, which is hell of a lot better off than we were.
Until the Republican party gets off its fascination with social fascism, I won’t be voting for nor contributing to any of them except individual Republicans who are supportive of us. And off hand, I can only think of one, and she lost support due to a Conservative party candidate in New York’s 23rd.
In spite of this, Democrats should know that I, for one, won’t be voting for any Dems that aren’t supportive of equal protection for gays and lesbians, either. I have no qualms about voting 3rd party out of principle. I’ve done it before, I’ll do it again.
I’ve never been a single-issue voter, because I feel strongly about a lot of other issues as well, but things have changed here lately.
posted by DragonScorpion on
~âInstead, what we have seen is that, when government tries to impose on people, i.e. the California Supreme Court decision, the people can and do change their government to their preference (Proposition 8).â ~ North Dallas Thirty
Yeah, their “preference” to vote away people’s civil rights and keep marriage an exclusive right for themselves. Great argument for resurrecting popular sovereignty there… NOT!
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Yeah, their “preference” to vote away people’s civil rights and keep marriage an exclusive right for themselves.
Actually, I think we have a confusion here that can be neatly undone by a fine example.
During juror questioning Wednesday, the judge in the Jeffs’ case characterized polygamy as a form of civil disobedience, comparable to the civil rights movement in the South in the 1960s.
“The concern that we have is the fact that Mr. Jeffs is a leader of a group that has decided to engage in what might be termed civil disobedience ⦠can’t be a focus of concern to the jury,” he said, according to the Salt Lake Tribune. State District Judge James Shumate went on to compare the sect’s actions to blacks who “refused to sit in the back of the bus.”
Now, as we see here, the fact that people are not able to marry whomever and whatever they like does not constitute violation of a “civil right” — and, as we see from the fact that the individual on question was a) on trial, b) with representation, and c) before a jury of their peers shows quite nicely that being denied marriage to whomever and whatever you like does not abrogate your “civil rights”.
Furthermore, since we don’t see gay-sex marriage supporters arguing in Jeffs’s favor, it should be pretty obvious that they have no problem denying marriage to others, despite their insistence that doing so violates “civil rights” — which makes you wonder if they really consider it a “civil right” at all.
Add to that the fact that the gay community clearly supports and endorses FMA supporters, gives millions of dollars to administrations that state that “marriage is between a man and a woman” and file briefs comparing gay-sex marriage to incest and pedophilia, and has leaders of pro-gay-sex marriage groups mocking marriage as a “patriarchal institution”, and it becomes rather obvious that gays who get all upset about “evil Republicans” are complete and utter hypocrites.
I’ve never been a single-issue voter, because I feel strongly about a lot of other issues as well, but things have changed here lately.
Sure you have been. You see “Obama Party”, you vote for it. No thought, no rational decisionmaking, just a knee-jerk, “I’m gay, so I must do whatever the Obama Party says and always bash Republicans”.
You make pretty rationalizations. But as any psychology student will tell you, rationalizations are defense mechanisms, not logical arguments.
posted by DragonScorpion on
@North Dallas Thirty
Speaking of logical arguments, can you posit one against same-sex marriage? Or do you only have faulty rationalizations in the form of logical fallacies, i.e.: if Mr. Jeffs cannot use âcivil disobedienceâ as a legal justification for polygamous marriages to underage girls; then neither can same-sex marriage proponents use equal protection of the laws as a legal justification for same-sex couples.
The two aren’t comparable; they don’t equate. Are you really that intellectually dishonest or did you think others were too stupid to notice?
Mr. Jeffs was indicted on SEX CRIMES against children. Same-sex adult relations, same-sex unions or even marriages are not crimes at all. In fact, same-sex marriage IS legal in several states now.
In this case even the prosecutors made it clear that polygamy is NOT on trial here, so why would the jury be allowed to base their decision about his SEX CRIMES against children on the supposed âcivil disobedienceâ of performing or engaging in polygamous marriages?
Same-sex marriage proponents make no such argument of âcivil obedienceâ as a legal framework for claiming equal access to marriage. So again, no comparison.
By the way, in the state of California and Maine, yes, same-sex marriage was rendered legal, whether you agree with this or how this came about or not, this is a fact. So when this established ârightâ (see Loving vs. Virginia on this) was voted away, it effectively removed what was an established right of same-sex couples to have equal access to the civil contract of marriage, which only opposite-sex couples were afforded previously.
Far from this red herring you offer to the Jeffs case, the argument in regards to same-sex marriage is actually far more comparable to the arguments cited in the landmark anti-miscegenation case ubi supra.
~âhas leaders of pro-gay-sex marriage groups mocking marriage as a âpatriarchal institutionââ~ North Dallas Thirty
Though it may be an uncomfortable reality for you, historically, it has been a patriarchal institution. Fortunately, for most folks, it has evolved quite a bit over the centuries to be much less a form of servitude.
Continuing on with your lack of logic, you use one phrase taken out of context, from one person, from one article and twist this into a specious claim that same-sex marriage proponents have leaders who disparage marriage as a âpatriarchal institutionâ suggesting it is some sort of widely held position among same-sex marriage advocates.
Speaking to this dishonesty, perhaps next time you shouldn’t selectively ignore quotes which undermine your insinuation, like the following from the article you provided: âNone of our messaging was about differences in rights. That’s not what marriage is about … it’s about love, it’s about dignity, it’s about acceptance, it’s about respect,”â (Equality California Executive Director Geoff Kors)
~âit becomes rather obvious that gays who get all upset about “evil Republicans” are complete and utter hypocrites. â ~ North Dallas Thirty
Hypocritical about what? Not supporting Republicans? Why should we support your party which furthers your ideology and interests and undermines ours? You haven’t been all too clear on this yet, you just seem driven by an emotional, dare I say âknee jerkâ reaction motivated by resentment to the fact that most of us don’t support your party.
Are we hypocrites for largely voting for Democrats who in spite of not showing the level of support for same-sex marriage most of us would prefer, generally are very supportive of other pro-gay causes? Again, you’ll need to explain how this is hypocritical.
~âSure you have been. You see “Obama Party”, you vote for it. No thought, no rational decisionmaking, just a knee-jerk, “I’m gay, so I must do whatever the Obama Party says and always bash Republicans”.â~ North Dallas Thirty
Nice assumption, do you file those under âlogical argumentâ, âpretty rationalizationsâ or âdefense mechanismsâ?
As a matter of fact I voted for Harry Browne in 2000 knowing he didn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell, because I couldn’t stomach voting for Bush or Gore.
Don’t believe me? I don’t care. My words on various forums and blogs attests to my varied political ideology and my affiliation as an independent.
And while we’re on the subject of logical argumentation, why do you derisively refer to the Democratic party as the âObama Partyâ? Are you that motivated by disgust at Barack Obama or are you just that petty or is it both?
Following your âlogicâ what was the Democratic party in 2006? The âPelosi Partyâ? What was it in 2004, the âKerry Partyâ? The âGore Partyâ of 2000? âClinton Partyâ of 1992-96?
If that’s how we’re describing political parties now, then I damn sure wouldn’t want anything to do with your âBush Partyâ.
In all seriousness, who, really, do you think you are convincing here with your shilling? Do you really think you are convincing gays to start voting Republican more often, because they’ve done oh-so-much for us lately? And is your party really that desperate for votes you need such a small minority as us?
Do you think you’re convincing homosexuals to your apparent belief that same-sex couples are simply not deserving of marriage? Had any converts lately? Are you just stirring the pot? Trolling? Light on hobbies? Overly ambitious?
Tell you what, when the Republican party stops bashing on homosexuals, I’ll let up on Republicans. I think you’ll find that there are many homosexuals who would like to support the GOP more but cannot in good conscience do so as it lobbies and legislates so heavily against us.
Until that changes, better move it along, that dog won’t hunt.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
So when this established ârightâ (see Loving vs. Virginia on this) was voted away
Unfortunately, DragonScorpion, the very same Supreme Court, in its refusal to hear Baker v. Nelson for want of a Federal question, demonstrated that gay-sex marriage is not a right by any stretch of the imagination.
But of course, you would never be so hypocritical as to base your entire argument on one court decision and ignore one from the same court that makes it clear that Loving applies a) to heterosexual marriage and b) to miscegenation laws, nothing else.
But then again, hypocrisy is typical of the gay-sex marriage community, as we see in your repeated insistence that gay-sex marriage agitation is all about “rights”, followed by a quote from Geoff Kors about how it ISN’T about rights at all — or the case of you screaming that Republicans must be opposed if they oppose gay-sex marriage, but Obama Party members must be supported if they do the same thing.
This kaleidoscope of completely contrary positions makes it obvious that gay-sex marriage is little more than a smokescreen. Personally, I think it’s because the gay community doesn’t want to take responsibility for its behavior and needs something or someone else to blame.
posted by DragonScorpion on
@North Dallas Thirty
I’ll address each of your points in numerical order.
1) To your remarks regarding the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear Baker v. Nelson (same-sex marriage case) for want of a Federal question, you might be interested to know that a similar case is going to be brought before the U.S. Supreme Court by former Solicitor General Ted Olson & high-profile attorney David Boies.
Of course, to you, this lawyer long revered among conservatives would probably just be a âhypocriteâ to argue, in part, that Loving v. Virginia created a precedent barring the government from arbitrary discrimination which would prevent couples having fair & equal access to what the court referred to as a ârightâ to marriage. I’m sure he doesn’t know the law like you do, though.
To my understanding, some of their reasoning in why this issue could face a different decision by the court is that Lawrence v. Texas might suggest a level of recognition of sexual-orientation that had been overlooked in the past. In other words, it set a precedent.
2)Your notion that basing one’s argument on one court decision whilst ignoring a similar case from the same court would be hypocritical is a poor choice of words from you, as in no way is it hypocritical to argue a similar case using essentially the same argument which was declined previously by the same court. In fact, it is a widely exercised legitimate legal maneuver. Different circumstances, including new precedents set since the previous case can alter legal interpretations, as history has time and again shown.
I’ll provide an example of this which pertains to this very subject. Surely you are familiar with Bowers v. Hardwick? In this case from 1986 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled sodomy laws are not unconstitutional. As you are no doubt aware and greatly pained by, in Lawrence v. Texas (2003), the U.S. Supreme Court overruled the court’s previous decision…
Something to consider when you make your next argument about Baker v. Nelson being established law, or some such, which has supposedly permanently barred the court from ruling against government prohibitions on same-sex marriage.
posted by DragonScorpion on
3) âhypocrisy is typical of the gay-sex marriage community, as we see in your repeated insistence that gay-sex marriage agitation is all about “rights”, followed by a quote from Geoff Kors about how it ISN’T about rights at allâ ~ North Dallas Thirty
It is interesting how, according to you, I am a hypocrite for providing a quote taken directly from the article that you provided on December 11, 2009, 2:55am, which contradicted the mischaracterization you were attempting to create with the out-of-context quote that you provided.
I can understand why you might be upset that your own article worked against you here (illustrating that homosexuals are not a monolithic group with a universal perception & ideology), but in launching into your baseless accusation you’re simply revealing more of the pettiness which motivates your redundant posts here. What’s worse, you use (false) implications of hypocrisy from me as an indictment of all those in favor of same-sex marriage. That sort of guilt-by-association stunt is not a credible debate tactic. Not in the slightest.
As for the issue at hand, I believe Mr. Kors was correct that marriage is about love, dignity, respect, acceptance. It’s also about commitment, stability, recognition from society, one’s peers, the government.
However, when the issue is people coming to their government as equals, when it comes to same-sex couples and the homosexuals in these relationships being given fair and equal access to the same benefits and privileges freely afforded to opposite-sex couples, this is an issue of civil rights. Few, if any, in favor of same-sex marriage would argue otherwise. Even Mr. Kors, I’m sure, if you were to find his entire statement on the issue. If not, then he’s simply wrong. Nonetheless, his quote still proves that your characterization of us as a monolith, is bogus.
4) You allege hypocrisy from me in the âcase of [my] screaming that Republicans must be opposed if they oppose gay-sex marriage, but Obama Party members must be supported if they do the same thing.â
I don’t recall the screaming part, but that’s beside the point. This is yet another example of dishonesty from you. No where here have I suggested that Republicans and the GOP in general should not be supported by members of the homosexual community merely on the basis that the GOP opposes same-sex marriage.
You are deliberately reducing my argument to this single issue in order to fit it into the erroneous narrative that you keep trying (and failing) to create. In the process you are establishing yourself as little more than a liar.
I will discredit this bogus claim of yours as many times as needed until you stop selectively ignoring it:
The GOP, and/or many of its ranking members, have railed against issues that are of vital interest to most of us in the homosexual community, not limited to but including: same-sex marriage, same-sex civil unions, same-sex adoption, gays serving openly in the military, gays being protected from discrimination in employment, anti-gay hate crimes legislation, the overturning of anti-gay sodomy laws by the Supreme Court.
In addition to this, the GOP and/or many of its members have written and passed constitutional amendments in an effort to permanently deny same-sex couples any possibility of marriage.
Bill Clinton may have signed it out of political expediency, and I’ll never forgive him for this among other things, but it was in fact Republicans like Bob Barr who wrote the so-called Defense of Marriage Act which prevents same-sex couples from ever receiving most federal benefits and recognition with civil marriage, regardless whether they are domestic partners, civil union partners or, yes, even legally married. It is Republicans that still decry any attempts to dismantle DOMA. Your camp.
Lastly, it is your precious GOP and/or many of its members who have incessantly demonized homosexuals, including derisively using the âgay agendaâ (which is actually about civil rights and equality) as some sort of secret radical secular plot to destroy marriage, the country, religion, children, civilization, ad nauseam.
Ironically, you do the EXACT SAME THING HERE! And yet still, you have the audacity to seek our support and seem bewildered that you don’t get it… So in your frustration you drone on about some sort of hypocrisy among us, which still remains to be seen, whilst ignoring the fact that your beloved Republican party does not represent the interests of the homosexual community in the slightest and therefore we have no legitimate reason to support them.
You are clearly a blindly irrational person and probably the worst example of cognitive dissonance that I have ever witnessed in my life.
posted by DragonScorpion on
5) âThis kaleidoscope of completely contrary positions makes it obvious that gay-sex marriage is little more than a smokescreen. Personally, I think it’s because the gay community doesn’t want to take responsibility for its behavior and needs something or someone else to blame.â ~ North Dallas Thirty
Name one example of contrary positions; one example of hypocrisy. I’ve already discredited the others. And which behavior are you referring to that we are attempting to blame on someone else?
In summation. Those who support social and legal equality for homosexuals do so in the belief that they/we deserve the same basic rights, privileges, and dignity that heterosexuals and opposite-sex couples do and this is what we are agitating for in the courts, in the streets, on the blogs, and at the voting both. You cannot possibly get around this inconvenient reality, so instead you employ smoke and mirrors.
Your camp is mindlessly prejudiced against us, and try as you might, more of the heterosexual public is seeing right through it. I can understand your frustrations over all of this, but I have no sympathy for someone with such a bigoted contempt for others, least of all members of my own community and on no other grounds than who we are emotionally and physically drawn to.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Name one example of contrary positions; one example of hypocrisy.
With pleasure.
First, you blather on about being “demonized” when you fully support and endorse these statements coming from your Obama Party and its membership.
God don’t like men coming to men with lust in their hearts like you should go to a female. If you think that the kingdom of God is going to be filled up with that kind of degenerate crap, you’re out of your damn mind.
And then you blather on about people opposing gay-sex marriage when your major organizations and its leadership fully endorse and support politicians who support bans on gay-sex marriage.
And then you blather on about job protections when you fully endorse and support your Obama Party leadership openly discriminating against gays — and when you and your fellow leftist agitators try to get gay people who work for Republicans fired.
But of course, we understand; gay-sex liberal Obama Party supporters like yourself simply argue that those were done out of “political expediency”, and thus were all right. According to you, for example, it’s perfectly OK for Obama Party politicians to push, sign, and then advertise that they signed “antigay” laws, just as long as they do it for political reasons.
But again, this is not surprising. You fully support and endorse Obama Party members praising and promoting the fact that they signed and endorsed so-called “antigay” bills for “political expediency”, so let’s just make the point clear; you don’t really care about “gay rights”, only about using “gay rights” as a rationalization for why all gays should oppose Republicans and support the Obama Party.
posted by DragonScorpion on
I see you had no answer for any of my previous points. Neither here nor the other thread.
Naturally, because you have no legitimate arguments to make, and you know it, so you don’t even bother.
And here again you just drudged up the same stuff as usual. Your post here is nearly verbatim to what you posted at the other thread. Just like a broken record. That just makes it easier to respond to… cut and paste.
But go on and keep writing this hate-filled, homophobic garbage. Keep showing yourself for who you really are and what kind of mentality you represent. You alone do more to convince those in our community here who give a damn about winning legal recognition to not support your precious anti-gay Republican party than I probably ever could.
By the way, don’t think it goes unnoticed that you never say one word of praise to homosexuals in these rants of yours. Not one. You never offer one iota of support or encouragement. Not one. You never say anything positive about homosexuality. Nope, just criticism. Linking homosexuality to most of the immoral things in our society. Blame it all on ‘the gay’.
You never attempt reason. You never ask people what they think of this [despicable activity] or ask them what they think about that [gay organization’s] endorsement of [something controversial].
Nope, instead, your first post in these threads starts off indicting the entire homosexual population in every lewd, immoral and criminal act you can find. Which has been few, so far. And you wonder why most people here won’t follow your lead…
posted by DragonScorpion on
Sounds like something you’d say…
All these claims so far that you’ve been spouting off about hypocrisy I have managed to discredit. I challenged you to produce one example of hypocrisy and this is it? Six degrees of separation… You truly are desperate.
1)I have never endorsed these statements.
2)I would never endorse these statements.
3)I didn’t vote for Louis Farrakhan.
4)I couldn’t even begin to imagine voting for a bigoted scumbag like Louis Farrakhan.
5)Louis Farrakhan is not the President.
6)Louis Farrakhan does not work for the Obama Administration.
7)These statements were, apparently, made by Louis Farrakhan.
8)Louis Farrakhan does not represent the Democratic party.
So now I suppose we can hang you by every bigoted statement ever made by a member of the Republican party in the past 20 years… Oh, this should be fun!
Try again.
You have posted this at least a half dozen times, if not a dozen now in these 3 threads where you keep “blathering” on. You truly can’t find anything else? Then you have no argument.
Yes, lets following that bouncing ball. Some member of the Democratic party, whom I’ve never fucking voted for, gave Harold Ford Jr. $1000 and so for this, if I care anything about equality for homosexuals, I should start voting Republican. Otherwise, I’m a hypocrite. You really don’t grasp how incredibly idiotic that is, do you?
Let’s follow that logic, shall we? In 8 years, your precious anti-gay Republican party managed to propose and see passage of 31 constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage. Most of which was done solely to help Republicans win election. Political expediency. And we got the shaft. Do you care? Nope, you love your anti-gay Republicans so much, you don’t give a damn.
Ah, but then you don’t even care because, to you, we’re beneath marriage. Same-sex marriage, to all of us who support it, is just an attempt for homosexuals to destroy it, so sayeth you…
You don’t care. But I do.
In 8 years we saw efforts to eliminate Don’t ask; Don’t tell get shot down by the Republicans. Ah, but we can’t be trusted to serve alongside those clean, honorable heterosexual soldiers. We’ll just end up having lots of sex and the military won’t be able to punish those who do out of fear of âhomophobiaâ. So sayeth you. So you don’t care about that one either. Well I do.
The list goes on and on and on. Your party, the anti-gay party, is infested with anti-gay bigots who take advantage of every opportunity to demonize the âhomosexual agendaâ, and pass legislation that strips us of rights, dignity, and makes it that much harder for us to see genuine equality. Do you care? Nope. You’re so ate up with your buddies in the anti-gay Republican party that you spend hours a day here insulting every homosexual who doesn’t give your party the respect you think they deserve.
And you want us to vote GOP more often. Considering what they’ve done for us, I mean, what they’ve done TO US lately. I would have absolutely no reason to.
posted by DragonScorpion on
Whereas you support the party which has stood directly in the way of job protections for. Nice try, again, hypocrite. It’s so pitiful that you truly have no argument at all. Not only do you regurgitate the exact same links over and over and over ad nauseam, but they don’t even amount to anything…
So again, Howard Dean fired a gay guy, and because of this we should embrace your anti-gay party who has been raping us for the past several decades…
I’m still waiting for that hypocrisy thing… Those who are openly discriminating against homosexuals make up the bulk of YOUR party. The Democrats have certainly had their bigots and their phonies, and they still have plenty. But the Republicans have them beat hands down! And unlike the Republicans, we’ve actually been getting some things accomplished for us, for a change. But there is lots more to go. And Republicans, clearly, will be the ones standing in the way, with you cheering them on like a traitor.
Now, let’s see what the last one you have up your sleeve is.
Oh, look at that. It’s all the way back from 1996. Bill Clinton. Fortunately, he isn’t the President. Neither is his wife. And one of the reasons I wouldn’t support her in the campaign was because of him and his lack of standing with us. And I’ve pointed out already to you, but you dishonestly, and with deliberation keep ignoring this.
Every Democrat doesn’t have to support us, but I’ll vote for those who do. And there are lots of them in the Democratic party. Very, very few in your anti-gay party.
By the way, regardless Barack Obama’s stance on same-sex marriage. He supports most everything else we’re fighting for. I’ll take that, for now. Compare this to John McCain. He wasn’t going to do anything for us. So I have no regrets, none in the slightest. But what do you care, our rights don’t mean shit to you. You’re just obsessed with pushing your conservative ideological agenda.
Try again. You struck out four times.
Face it. Your party is predominately anti-homosexual. You have zero integrity for blindly supporting them as you do. We achieved one victory this year already, hate crimes legislation that had been sitting around for over a decade. Or was it two?
Your party gave us 31 bans on same-sex marriage, and tried to pass it at the federal level.
Like I said before, when your party backs off its fascist obsession with social conservatism, I’ll consider voting for more of them. In the meantime, I’ll only support those few candidates that stick their neck out for us. And these days… your party of bigots are forcing them all out. So don’t hold your breath.
Maybe you should lobby them more. I’m sure they’d value your opinion. ~LOL~
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
So now I suppose we can hang you by every bigoted statement ever made by a member of the Republican party in the past 20 years… Oh, this should be fun!
Actually, you already have.
So you refuse to be held accountable for Farrakhan’s statements, even though you scream and whine that every bigoted statement made by a member of the Republican Party is the fault of all Republicans.
That, generally, is why Republicans don’t waste effort on attracting typical gay community members like yourself. You simply aren’t rational or intelligent people. You yourself have stated that you are a single-issue voter, and take nothing else into consideration.
Furthermore, you’re even hypocritical about that.
Every Democrat doesn’t have to support us, but I’ll vote for those who do.
So you’ll support and endorse even Obama Party members who do exactly what you attack Republicans for doing. That makes it obvious that you’re not even a single-issue voter; you’re simply an Obama Party hack.
posted by DragonScorpion on
~”So you refuse to be held accountable for Farrakhan’s statements, even though you scream and whine that every bigoted statement made by a member of the Republican Party is the fault of all Republicans.” ~ North Dallas Thirty
~LOL~ You are so hopelessly hypocritical. You see, my statement here was facetious. I made it after you decided that I and everyone else who doesn’t tend to vote Republican is accountable for what Louis Farrakhan says… Sucks to be held to your own standards, doesn’t it?
You made that bed, hypocrite, now lie in it.
~”So you’ll support and endorse even Obama Party members who do exactly what you attack Republicans for doing. That makes it obvious that you’re not even a single-issue voter; you’re simply an Obama Party hack.” ~ North Dallas Thirty
As opposed to being a mindless, anti-gay Bush/Cheney/McCain/Palin party shill… You’ll never get around that inconvenient reality that the most damage that has been brought to our causes; and the part with the most outspoken critics of us is in YOUR party.
These days I vote gay first, and independent. Which due to your parties bigotry means most in your party will never get my vote. You, on the other hand, are just a mindless drone for the anti-gay thugs of this country. You vote for and support them no matter what they do to us.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
You see, my statement here was facetious.
More precisely, since you refuse to be held accountable to the same standards you impose on Republicans, you have to spin away. Got it.
You’ll never get around that inconvenient reality that the most damage that has been brought to our causes; and the part with the most outspoken critics of us is in YOUR party.
LOL…..unfortunately for that argument, what you’ve shown is that you don’t care about bans on gay marriage, criticism of gays, or workplace discrimination against gays when carried out by your Obama Party. Indeed, you support it as “political expediency”.
Which means very simply that it’s not the actions; it’s the party affiliation. That merely demonstrates that your hatred of Republicans is irrational, and is based on bigotry on your part.
posted by DragonScorpion on
There you go again with that projection thing of yours.
YOU are the one that holds the entire homosexual population guilty for the transgressions of some.
YOU are the one that holds all the gay equality movement accountable for the beliefs or political ideologies of some.
YOU are the one that holds every homosexual who votes for a Democrat a hypocrite for not turning instead to your precious Republican party.
YOU are the one that crucifies a entire party for the actions of one or two Democrats, or the comments of one or two radicals who can be traced by six degrees to the Democratic party.
YOU are the one who assumes everyone who doesn’t bow and scrape to the Republican party is just some mindless follower of what you derisively term as “the Obama party”.
YOU are the one that derisively refers to the Democratic party as the “Obama Party” and all who vote for any Democrat as “Obama party” loyalists.
And when YOU get the same sort of behavior mockingly thrown back in your face, as I have done to you, YOU play innocent of your own actions and attempt to accuse others of displaying the same dishonesty, hypocrisy, and mindless partisanship which you display with militant, unapologetic abandon.
YOUR dishonesty and immaturity has more than been established here. And you keep piling on more.
Try to get it through your thick, pig-headed, bigoted, partisan skull. Read slowly, if it helps:
I vote for candidates who support equality for homosexuals and same-sex couples; candidates who have shown or at least promised to achieve real results for us. Outside of some third parties from time to time, which unfortunately generally have non-electable candidates, most of these pro-homosexual candidates are Democrats.
That’s where that uncomfortable reality comes in again for you, YOUR Republican party that you worship with such unthinking allegiance has few such candidates in it. It had no such candidates in the 2008 presidential election. The Democratic party did â Barack Obama.
He doesn’t support same-sex marriage and neither did John McCain. So that was likely a zero sum gain, but Mr. Obama has stated his support for and promises about ending DOMA, Don’t ask, Don’t Tell; he supports Hate Crimes legislation (which passed thanks to Democrats) and employment protections for homosexuals. To many in the gay community â obviously you’d be an exception â these are important issues.
What does the majority of your party support? Oh, that’s right, most of them and the party platform itself opposes these things.
You can lie, you can ignore this, you can spin this, but the facts will remain.
YOU, on the other hand, don’t vote the interests of the homosexual community at all, in fact, you support the party, the candidates, and the ideologies that have and still do undermine us. And judging by the comments, most bloggers here seem to know this. They call you out on this. And you can’t stand it. Tough luck on that, but it’s just one of those “hard truths” you’re going to have to learn the hard way.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I vote for candidates who support equality for homosexuals and same-sex couples
Except you don’t.
He doesn’t support same-sex marriage and neither did John McCain.
And yet you voted for him.
To many in the gay community â obviously you’d be an exception â these are important issues.
Yup; I believe that employment should be based on merit, not minority status, just as it is with heterosexuals, and I’m perfectly fine with crimes against me receiving the same punishment as crimes against heterosexuals.
Which would make me, in the words of the Obama Party, an “Uncle Tom” and a “house slave”.
posted by DragonScorpion on
To my comment: âI vote for candidates who support equality for homosexuals and same-sex couplesâ
North Dallas Thirty claims: âExcept you don’t.â
Correction. I do vote for candidates who support equality for homosexuals and same-sex couples. In some cases neither viable candidate supports the most controversial issue â same-sex marriage â in which case I choose the candidate who is most supportive of equality for homosexuals & same-sex couples.
In the previous presidential election the viable candidate who was the most supportive of same-sex issues was Barack Obama. Not John McCain and his mavericky sidekick Sarah Palin.
You, on the other hand, select the candidate who is least favorable to homosexual equality issues, and support the party that is most likely to oppose recognizing basic rights and equality for homosexuals and same-sex couples.
To my comment: âHe doesn’t support same-sex marriage and neither did John McCain.â
North Dallas Thirty responds: âAnd yet you voted for him.â
Yes, liar(*), as I wrote to you just before your last post: â[Barack Obama] doesn’t support same-sex marriage and neither did John McCain. So that was likely a zero sum gain, but Mr. Obama has stated his support for and promises about ending DOMA, Don’t ask, Don’t Tell; he supports Hate Crimes legislation (which passed thanks to Democrats) and employment protections for homosexuals. To many in the gay community â obviously you’d be an exception â these are important issues.â
Nope. You support the current system of no legal prohibitions against denying employment and other public accommodations to homosexuals solely on the basis of their sexual orientation or the gender of their partner.
I, on the other hand, actually believe that employment should be based on merit and capability, not minority status, not quotas, AND that employment should not be denied to people because of race, gender, gender identity, religious and political affiliation, and sexual orientation.
I think such a comparison would be a bit of a disservice to Uncle Toms. But you do serve your homophobic masters well…
By the way, since you made the claim with no qualifiers, you should have to back it up. Prove that the âObama partyâ, which seems to be a euphemism for the Democratic party, has stated, in words, that you or people like you are an âUncle Tomâ or âhouse slaveâ. Do so or else you’ve just reconfirmed again that you are indeed a liar who deliberately misstates and misrepresents the views of others.
By the way, it has to be an official statement from the Democratic party or and actual leader of the party who was sanctioned to do so, it can’t just be some guy somewhere who once voted for Jimmy Carter who said it. And it has to explicitly reference you or a homosexual who espouses the same sort of ideologies as you. Good luck!
posted by DragonScorpion on
I nearly forgot:
* There is intellectual dishonesty, intellectual deception, and then there is repeatedly deliberately ignoring and/or distorting the clearly stated view of another. This is lying, and this is what North Dallas Thirty is engaging in, habitually.