There are any number of good reasons to read Jonathan Rauch's "Red Families, Blue Families, Gay Families and the Search for a New Normal," not the least of them being the lack of drama, insult or animus toward our opponents. Whatever can be said of Jon, he makes a reasoned, moderate and fully-examined case for equal marriage.
Maggie Gallagher knows Jon, has spent time debating him and talking with him, and is fully aware of his views, as well as his demeanor. Yet in listening to her public pronouncements now, you would never know she was aware of non-hateful, nonviolent, rational or empathetic homosexuals. Her current rhetoric focuses solely on lesbians and gay men who hold her and her supporters in contempt. To be fair, there are plenty of those.
But what is frustrating is how Maggie - and, in fact, nearly all
of the anti same-sex marriage crowd - fail to show us the respect
and humanity that Jon displays so generously.
Jon does not shy away from directly confronting the best arguments
against his own position. This piece, like most everything else
I've read of his, lays out a fair and clear articulation of the
opposition, and tries to understand it, the better to answer
it.
Here is the test of good faith in political debate: Each side should be able to convey the other side's position to the other side's satisfaction. Jon, I think, meets this standard. Some opponents of same-sex marriage are very concerned about homosexuality in general, and feel that same-sex marriage would normalize homosexuality. That, in their view, is a socially dangerous thing to do. Others, and Maggie is in this camp, are less concerned with the normalization of homosexuality than with what they view as the abnormalization of the conventionally defined family. While there is certainly some compression and simplification here - Jon is, after all, not making their argument, just hoping to describe it fairly - I think it is hard for same-sex marriage opponents to disagree with his summation, though they would certainly want to elaborate.
Compare that with the way Maggie approaches the political debate. The very heart of our argument is equality; the law treats heterosexuals differently than homosexuals, and, in the vast majority of states, virtually ignores the existence of same-sex couples as families. While I have heard Maggie refer respectfully to lesbians and gay men of her acquaintance, she does not try to engage our argument and respond to it; she simply avoids it. She doesn't care about what happens to same-sex couples under the law. Her entire focus is on the rights of heterosexuals, and their role in society.
That is consistent with her concern about heterosexual families, but her inability or unwillingness to engage our best arguments shows that she is not interested in having a debate; she is content to continue a monologue. But heterosexuals are not the only people in the country, and the failure to even try to understand the world from the point of view of homosexuals is very strong evidence of a blithe ill will, at best, and intent to discriminate against a minority at worst.
Compare Maggie with David Blankenhorn. He, too, knows Jon, and has spent time in debate over same-sex marriage. But he is not afraid to acknowledge that we do, in fact, have an argument that merits response. This has harmed his case (to the extent he wants to preserve exclusively opposite-sex marriage) because it necessarily concedes same-sex couples are, in fact, being treated unfairly. His testimony in the Prop. 8 trial was extremely damaging to our opponents only because it was candid and humane. Every trial lawyer knows these can be fatal qualities in a witness, however valuable they are in a human being.
Aside from Blankenhorn, there are virtually no opponents of same-sex marriage who seem willing to treat us with the courtesy and dignity that Jon regularly displays, to actually articulate our side and then explain why we are wrong. I won't claim that Jon is representative of the kind of argumentation I prefer, but there is far more of it in support of same-sex marriage than there is in opposition.
That asymmetry is the source of the annoyance and peevishness among our supporters that Maggie exploits so well. She continues to win the imaginary debate she is having with herself, but she does her cause no honor by ignoring the very real arguments that could prove her wrong. She'd have done well to learn something from Jon while she had the chance.
NOTE: In the Comments, Jorge correctly points out that I'd inadvertently included the wrong link to Maggie's current rhetoric. I've fixed it to link to the correct video of Maggie calling us out for being hateful because we disagree with her.
92 Comments for “Maggie’s Monologue”
posted by Timothy Kincaid on
“Others, and Maggie is in this camp, are less concerned with the normalization of homosexuality than with what they view as the abnormalization of the conventionally defined family.”
Certainly some of Maggie’s comments have at times focused on the abnormalization of the conventionally defined family, but I do not think it is accurate to place her “in this camp.”
Gallagher’s anti-gay activism predates the National Organization for Marriage and includes opposition to adoption and support for sodomy laws. Although she cloaks her rhetoric with words that are friendlier than some, at the heart of her efforts is her objection to any social acceptance of gay people on par with heterosexual people. Marriage is just the vehicle.
I think that the evidence of this is found in her latest mantra: “we are not bigots.” This is said at every opportunity. I believe this illustrates that Maggie is very much concerned that she is, indeed, a bigot and that her activism is bigoted in nature. Or, at least, she definitely sees that to unaffiliated observers it appears that way. She is obsessed with denying bigotry, almost as if she’s determined to convince herself.
She has also adopted the language of the pro-gay argument and applied it to herself. She’s become a victim and all of her recent language focuses solely on the victimhood of anti-gay activists.
Lately she’s taken to accusing gay people of “hate” and insisting that those who are trying to achieve equality are trying to silence her and take away her civil rights.
If Maggie ever based her activism on concerns about the conventional family, she’s long since personalized the debate and has become anti-gay first and pro-family is a long distant second.
posted by Jorge on
Maggie Gallagher knows Jon, has spent time debating him and talking with him, and is fully aware of his views, as well as his demeanor. Yet in listening to her public pronouncements now, you would never know she was aware of non-hateful, nonviolent, rational or empathetic homosexuals.
Well first of all, the link you have links to comments by someone else in NOM, not Gallagher, 1) that’s not very fair on your part and 2) having thrown that out, you haven’t presented any evidence of Gallagher’s public pronouncements. What I do know is that in her regular columns she does recognize both the rationality and passion of her homosexual opponents, Rauch and rank and file college kids alike. These are the statements she is making to her own readers.
http://townhall.com/columnists/MaggieGallagher/2010/01/27/putting_religion_on_trial
http://www.uexpress.com/maggiegallagher/index.html?uc_full_date=20090317
Also she wrote a column in response to the book Rauch cites, so it’s not like she’s ignorant. Now I’ve not read or seen any of their debates but I have to imagine Maggie Gallagher can at least hold a candle to Jonathan Rauch if she keeps appearing with him.
Which brings me to this: “The very heart of our argument is equality…”
I HATE that argument. I think citing “equality” reduces both gay and straight marriages to a lowest common denomenator. First we have to prove that gay marriages are and should be considered equal to straight marriages, not treat the equality as something the state should assume from the first. I think Gallagher is very proficient at identifying the central assumptions we make: first, that gay families exist, and second, there is no relevant difference between gay and straight marriage. She is also very proficient at rejecting both assumptions and arguing that accept them delegitimizes straight marriages. You need to understand that you’re both taking a hard line here.
posted by BobN on
She is also very proficient at rejecting both assumptions and arguing that accept them delegitimizes straight marriages.
She is? What proof does she provide?
posted by Hunter on
BobN:
She’s not interested in proof, because she can’t come up with any. As Timothy Kincaid pointed out above, she’s afraid of being labeled a bigot because although she doesn’t have a rational argument in her favor (she’s arguing from bias, pure and simple), not denying being a bigot is going to make her look bad. Nor am I aware of anything NOM has done to support married people. It’s purely an anti-gay organization and always has been.
posted by Jimmy on
For Maggie to say she is not bigoted is about as meaningful as my suggesting that she and I are svelte.
posted by Jorge on
Fa-sci-na-ting video.
First time I’ve seen a video of her speaking. All I can say is it’s a good thing she doesn’t have a lot of charm in person.
She is? What proof does she provide?
Don’t you mean to say she didn’t offer any proof in the columns I linked to?
Anyway, you misidentified my point, though I could have said it better. What I said is that she rejects the assumptions we make and argues against them. In other words, her accuracy at targeting pro-gay marriage arguments and beliefs in her rebuttals is high. If you’re not going to agree with that based on the columns I linked to, I’d be interested to know why as I think they speak for themselves. I don’t make any statement as to the quality of Gallagher’s arguments or rebuttals.
posted by BobN on
I can’t fathom why Jonathan Rauch legitimizes this “debater”. She doesn’t debate. She makes assertions. She ignores her opponent and uses the most transparent mechanisms to garner sympathy for the put upon religious and “the children”.
And she does it at a personal profit in the low six figures every year.
posted by Hymen on
“First we have to prove that gay marriages are and should be considered equal to straight marriages”
You can’t prove things that are inherently unprovable. How did women “prove” that they ought to have the right to vote? How did blacks “prove” that they shouldn’t be second-class citizens?
I’ve been with my spouse for eleven faithful (in every way) years and we have to “prove” our worth to people who can marry whenever they want, as many times as they want, to whomever they want (as long as they are of different private parts); who can divorce and remarry, who can be felons and marry, who can be adulterers and remarry, who can be vile, reprehensible scumbags and still have public sanction to spread their seed in the world.
What kind of attitude is this when the slaves willingly, even smilingly, make their masters arbiters of their fates? If the masters are to decide when the slaves get freedom, will it ever come?
posted by Debrah on
Jonathan is simply a nice guy and perhaps can get on with most anyone…….bowing to civility above all else.
And that serves him well.
I think he might be able to appeal to his opposition in ways that others cannot.
In some ways, John Corvino is similar; however, he seems unable to step outside his own personal space the way Rauch does.
That said, Rauch must have a very strong stomach in order to endure Maggie Gallagher.
Although not as obnoxious, she comes dangerously close to Rosie O’Donnell on the “ick” scale.
posted by Lymis on
I think it’s deeply inaccurate to say that Maggie Gallagher and NOM are simply unconcerned with gay people, and are focused on the rights of heterosexuals and their place in society.
That’s the line she’s trying to get people to buy, and that rhetoric she’s trying to float. But it isn’t true.
Because the entire focus of her efforts isn’t “the rights of heterosexuals” but on how the rights of heterosexuals can be seen (or made to seem) to be impacted by homosexuals.
There are plenty of family issues, marriage issues, and sexual issues that deeply impact heterosexuals and their marriages that have only a passing or tenuous connection to LGBT people – things like divorce, child custody, the quality of schools, family services and programs, and so on.
But she deals exclusively with issues where she sees an integral connection to LGBT issues, and never any that are unique to heterosexuals. The rights of heterosexuals that she focuses on are entirely about how heterosexuals interact with LGBT people – the right to discriminate in hiring, the right to have specific religious views inform and trump civil equality, and so on.
And more, demonstrably false issues, like the idea that churches would be forced to conduct civil marriages against their own doctrines, take a far more central place than actual issues that really do affect heterosexual marriage.
She’s certainly playing her show to a straight audience, but it’s not true to say her show is all about straights and she simply doesn’t address gay people at all.
posted by Jimmy on
Debrah-
I have a friend/classmate who used to work for Todd Oldham Designs in New York, back when Oldham was primarily a fashion designer. My friend, a liberal gay man, stated that of the celebrity-type people he rubbed shoulders with, Rosie was one of the most rotten, Queen Bitches he had ever met. He detested her, and still does.
posted by Debrah on
Jimmy–
O’Donnell seemed to have gotten more obnoxious as she became more successful.
Some gays thought her behavior during her brief stint on “The View” was a great thing.
I read one comment saying that she should have received “a medal”; however, people like Ellen do much more good by simply going about life and not trying to bulldoze through every issue.
Todd Oldham, with whom your friend was associated, has done lots of good toward the issue of animal cruelty—one of the most significant issues in the country.
posted by Throbert McGee on
What kind of attitude is this, when a 21st-century American — who is at a mild fiscal disadvantage in the absence of a certain type of legislation — likens himself to a slave
This self-immersion in the maudlin was hilariously endearing when Peter Billingsley did it, but coming from an adult — not so much.
posted by Jorge on
How did women “prove” that they ought to have the right to vote? How did blacks “prove” that they shouldn’t be second-class citizens?
They won, didn’t they? Do you think it was just because Americans came to an academic realization that they were legal equals, too? Hardly! It was just as much an emotional and moral realization in people’s hearts and minds that they were equal. Convincing people that treating equal people unequally is unjust to decent people.
So yeah, you gotta prove you’re in a real marriage compared to society’s degenerates. Fighting for equality is a rite of passage every two generations or so. Accept your fate.
posted by Jeremy on
Jorge: Minorities didn’t have to convince the whole population. They just had to convince the powerful (Judges, SCOTUS Justices, politicians, the elite in commerce). It was unlikely that say, Black people, were ever going to convince the majority of White Southerners that segregation was immoral and unconstitutional. But they really didn’t have to. They just had to prove their case to the Judiciary. White Southerners didn’t come around on segregation until well after the issue was resolved by the courts. If the courts had not stepped, who knows what the cultural attitudes of White Southerners would be today.
I can see a rough parallel to our situation. We won’t convince the majority of the population we are equal until the Judiciary mandates the 14th Amendment be enforced and we are treated equally. Once that happens, over time, gay equality will be seen as a given, much like integration of the races is now a given. It’s hard for people to see their counterparts as equals until the law treats them as such. Once it does, the culture will follow.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Jorge: Minorities didn’t have to convince the whole population. They just had to convince the powerful (Judges, SCOTUS Justices, politicians, the elite in commerce).
Mhm. How well did that work in California?
Oh, that’s right; the electorate exercised its check over the judiciary and amended the constitution.
Indeed, after the Massachusetts decision, an overwhelming majority of states amended their constitutions in response. Only Massachusetts did not, primarily because the liberal power structure in the state had done its best to emasculate the ability of the populace to amend its own constitution.
Gay-sex liberals persist in their fascist and bullying fantasies from childhood of forcing everyone else to like them by law. It hasn’t happened, and it will not happen.
posted by Sneezy on
Massachusetts didn’t amend its constitution because of the “liberal power structure”?
Is this guy for real? The Massachusetts constitution was written in large part by John Adams, who, last time I checked, was one of the most foundingest and framingest of the Founding Father Framers that yahoos like ND30 are always jerking off to.
Constitutions are best when they are hardest to amend. California’s initiative system has just about broken the state on the rack of “the people’s” conflicting statutory and constitional demands.
Does anyone really think that the California constitutional model is a good one?
And what is with this guy referring to everything as “gay-sex” this and “gay-sex” that? “Gay-sex marriage”, “Gay-sex” liberals? Is he a gay-non-sex conservative?
posted by Jeremy on
ND30: And the Federal Judiciary will exercise its Constitutional role to act as a check on the voters as citizen legislatures. They sought to use the coercive force of law to deprive a disfavored minority of a recognized, fundamental right. This violates the 14th Amendment and the 9th Amendment. These voters that voted for Prop 8 will lose. They do not have the special right (and that is what social conservatives want, special, undeserved “rights”) to determine the status of gay people of what rights gays can and can’t have. Our rights are inviolable, and stand independent of the will of any set of voters.
And I don’t care if a small, vocal minority of anti-gay bigots don’t like us. Their not liking us is not an issue at all. But they will treat us equally under law. The Constitution demands it. There is no “sexual orientation” exemption in the 14th Amendment.
When sexual orientation is recognized as a suspect class, I will look for you on these forums. I know you will protest, but we all know you will be secretly relieved. And then, you will take your new status under law and enjoy the rights you fought to deny your own people. If there is a hell, it was made for people like you.
posted by Deborah on
Someone showed up at one of her recent NOM rallies with a sign claiming that they had the “solution” to same sex marriage: 2 nooses.
I don’t care how much Maggie wants to talk about civility. If NOM allows the public display of “death to gays” types of signs by its patrons, then it is indirectly supporting that kind of a message. It’s appalling.
http://www.goddiscussion.com/29935/seen-at-nom-rally-the-solution-to-gay-marriage-two-nooses/
posted by Cape Cod Paul on
Maggie Gallagher once interviewed me after a local incident became fodder for Fox news, et al. She refused to quote me when I referred to myself as an “uppity faggot.” She sees fit to make a good living off the backs of the gay people she devotes herself to demonizing, but, out of some sense of false respect, won’t even quote the word “faggot” when used by one. Please. Maggie, you continue to sicken me.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Well, Paul, here’s a possibility for you to chew on:
Ms. Gallagher had heard the “opponents of gay marriage are a lot like the racist supporters of Jim Crow” comparison thousands and thousands of times before you came along, and no longer considers it fresh or quote-worthy.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The Massachusetts constitution was written in large part by John Adams, who, last time I checked, was one of the most foundingest and framingest of the Founding Father Framers that yahoos like ND30 are always jerking off to.
The Massachusetts Constitution has no less than 120 Articles of Amendment, several of which are explicitly designed to limit the peoples’ ability to vote on matters that concern them.
In short, it may have STARTED as written by John Adams, but it’s doubtful he would recognize it as the same thing today.
Not that we would expect you to know that. Gay and lesbian liberals rarely demonstrate intellect beyond the bare minimum needed to make a hiring quota. Perhaps that’s why they’re so in favor of laws designating them as a “suspect class” in need of special and preferential treatment.
Constitutions are best when they are hardest to amend. California’s initiative system has just about broken the state on the rack of “the people’s” conflicting statutory and constitional demands.
Clearly you don’t understand the California Constitution or the process.
A voter proposition can be either to create a statute or to amend the constitution. The number of signatures required to amend the constitution is significantly higher.
A voter proposition that is a statute, i.e. Proposition 22, is fully subject to the constitution in the same way that a law passed by the Legislature would be. The difference is that a voter proposition trumps the Legislature; it cannot be amended or changed by any act of the Legislature unless the statute specifically allows it.
A voter proposition that amends the constitution, i.e. Proposition 8, trumps both statutory and legislative.
The reason California has this system is very straightforward; it allows the people to override a corrupted Legislature, as took place in the early twentieth century in which the Legislature was dominated by the railroads to the detriment of the state. And in our information-dominated age, the voter initiative system encourages informed, active citizens to participate in the democratic process.
The only people who are upset about it are the fascist leftists who are mad because they can’t rule the state by fiat. And the gay and lesbian community, but I repeat myself.
Next:
ND30: And the Federal Judiciary will exercise its Constitutional role to act as a check on the voters as citizen legislatures. They sought to use the coercive force of law to deprive a disfavored minority of a recognized, fundamental right. This violates the 14th Amendment and the 9th Amendment.
I am forever amused by gay-sex liberals screaming that the Fourteenth Amendment prevents legislatures and voters from amending the Constitution.
But the reasoning becomes even more hilarious and infantile.
And I don’t care if a small, vocal minority of anti-gay bigots don’t like us. Their not liking us is not an issue at all. But they will treat us equally under law. The Constitution demands it. There is no “sexual orientation” exemption in the 14th Amendment.
There’s also no exemption for age, species, blood relationship, or number of people.
So now we can change your rant for use by other groups:
And I don’t care if a small, vocal minority of anti-pedophile bigots don’t like us. Their not liking us is not an issue at all. But they will treat us equally under law.
And I don’t care if a small, vocal minority of anti-bestiality bigots don’t like us. Their not liking us is not an issue at all. But they will treat us equally under law.
And I don’t care if a small, vocal minority of anti-polygamist bigots don’t like us. Their not liking us is not an issue at all. But they will treat us equally under law.
And I don’t care if a small, vocal minority of anti-incest bigots don’t like us. Their not liking us is not an issue at all. But they will treat us equally under law.
And it remains perfectly legitimate under the argument that you placed forward. Furthermore, since you have insisted that marriage is in all cases a fundamental right, AND stated that it is wrong to, quote, “use the coercive force of law to deprive a disfavored minority of a recognized, fundamental right”, laws prohibiting ANY type of marriage are by their very definition unconstitutional.
The correct answer is that marriage is NOT a constitutionally-guaranteed “right”, but is instead a privilege granted at the discretion of government at the voters’ behest to relationships which they wish to encourage and promote. But that has a major failing in the eyes of gay-sex liberals, because they simply are incapable of making an intelligent or meaningful case for why the public should recognize their relationships.
posted by Throbert McGee on
IF the guy was standing a few feet from the podium and the NOM people made no effort to have the police escort him out of the immediate vicinity, that would indeed be appalling.
But if he was at the periphery of the event location (as defined in the rally permit that NOM had obtained from the city), there wasn’t really much that Gallagher’s people could do to further exclude him, since he has his own free-speech rights on the public thoroughfare.
In other words, if the guy was standing on the opposite side of the street, it’s not reasonable to accuse NOM of “indirectly supporting” him, because their Freedom of Association right to control the content of their own event doesn’t extend all the way to where he’s standing.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And I thought this particular cry deserved an answer.
When sexual orientation is recognized as a suspect class, I will look for you on these forums. I know you will protest, but we all know you will be secretly relieved. And then, you will take your new status under law and enjoy the rights you fought to deny your own people. If there is a hell, it was made for people like you.
Actually, what I think would be more hellish would be needing a marriage certificate in order to have a relationship, minority-based quotas to have a job, laws against “hate speech” to squelch anyone who dared criticize what you do, diktats to force people to like you, and an overwhelming belief that, if it weren’t for the government, you would be hung, drawn, and quartered in the public square.
Not for me, thanks. I’m sure you think it’s a very nice neighborhood, but I prefer the real world much more. It’s not nearly as bad as you try to paint it, and if you’re willing to work, follow the laws, respect peoples’ beliefs, and find who you are rather than what the gay and lesbian community dictates you should be, it’s actually quite wonderful.
But then again, taking responsibility for your own actions rather than blaming everything that goes wrong on your minority status is a huge step, and one that’s quite beyond the capability of most gays and lesbians to take. I understand.
posted by Jorge on
Jorge: Minorities didn’t have to convince the whole population. They just had to convince the powerful (Judges, SCOTUS Justices, politicians, the elite in commerce). It was unlikely that say, Black people, were ever going to convince the majority of White Southerners that segregation was immoral and unconstitutional. But they really didn’t have to. They just had to prove their case to the Judiciary. White Southerners didn’t come around on segregation until well after the issue was resolved by the courts. If the courts had not stepped, who knows what the cultural attitudes of White Southerners would be today.
While I am very hard-pressed to deny the worth of ground-breaking court decisions and of acts of politcal courage, I do not believe the spirit of equality upheld by those court decisions would have been upheld without a social movement that strove for political and social change.
In the years between Brown vs. Board of Education and the 1965 Civil Rights Act, a relentless, intelligent, and compelling publicity campaign was waged to show that segregation and its supporters are evil, and harming black Americans grievously and unjustly. The politicians and leaders of this country would not have had any reason to listen to the likes of Martin Luther King and others had those activists not inspired and rallied a nation–or least half of the nation. They would not have acted with political courage if they believed no one would have backed them up in the polls. Not to say it’s all poll-driven, but that the politicians were mirroring the moral judgment of a reasonable cross-section of Americans who had been persuaded on the issue. It is that moral judgment that shaped the civil rights law, and that moral judgment that allowed the spirit of the Civil Rights Act–the stand against racial discrimination–to stand. A national conversation happened leading up to the act.
I can see a rough parallel to our situation. We won’t convince the majority of the population we are equal until the Judiciary mandates the 14th Amendment be enforced and we are treated equally. Once that happens, over time, gay equality will be seen as a given, much like integration of the races is now a given. It’s hard for people to see their counterparts as equals until the law treats them as such. Once it does, the culture will follow.
Massachussets.
I don’t agree with you. I don’t think culture follows the law. I think in a democracy, which is a very majoritarian institution, the law follows culture. I’ve already explained my own reading of history. The direction society and the exercise of power have moved since 1965 on racial issues has been shaped profoundly by politics, in a way that by your reasoning should probably not have been expected. But if you believe that social justice happens through society rather than the law, then it makes sense.
In fact, the polarizing Massachussets decision and any favorable Supreme Court decision could not be possible without an emerging favorable social and/or legislative consensus on the issue of gay rights more broadly, and gay marriage specifically. Such trends were taken into account in Roe v. Wade and Lawrence v. Texas, for example.
Since ND30 didn’t mention it, I mean to refer both the current state of the state constitutions and to the potential of the Federal Marriage Amendment passing, two issues that are explored at length and with considerable among this site’s contributors and references.
posted by Jorge on
Sigh!
The last sentence should read “…two issues that are explored at length and with considerable *disagreement* among this site’s contributers and references.”
posted by Debrah on
“I don’t think culture follows the law. I think in a democracy, which is a very majoritarian institution, the law follows culture.”
*****************************************
Excellent as well as accurate.
“The correct answer is that marriage is NOT a constitutionally-guaranteed ‘right’, but is instead a privilege granted at the discretion of government at the voters’ behest to relationships which they wish to encourage and promote. But that has a major failing in the eyes of gay-sex liberals, because they simply are incapable of making an intelligent or meaningful case for why the public should recognize their relationships.”
*****************************************************
¡Muy excellente!
Some gay “intellectuals” come off sounding quite goofy as they rhapsodize about marriage and how it is the most fundamental human choice and is being taken away from them.
Get off this nauseating schtick of comparing yourselves to civil rights “heroes”.
The gay agenda represents nothing remotely analogous to the civil rights struggle of the 20th century.
The zeal for uniformity of thought among the ultra-Leftists parades as diversity and tolerance across the national stage.
Most brazen on the college campus,
Shush! Keep quiet if simple common sense informs you that HIV is transmitted almost exclusively by profligate homosexual encounters.
For the diversity crowd, there is only one acceptable position regarding homosexuality.
Why, it’s just like any other relationship, of course! Just like the heteros!……..
……..except that it’s not.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Famous case in point: Russia decriminalized sodomy in 1993, a full decade before Lawrence v. Texas, mainly as a show of modernism for European observers. But Russian gays still have great difficulty arranging a low-key demonstration without major harassment from counter-protesters AND police, even in Westernized, cosmopolitan Moscow. (In the minds of most Russians, “gomoséksualizm” — sinónim k “pederástiej”, which I trust needs no translation.)
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Good point, Throbert.
The reason for the skewed perspective is simply that the vast majority of gay-sex liberals were brought up in and staunchly cling to the ideology of the Obama Party, which cultivates the belief that, if it were not for the beneficience of their white liberal massas, all (insert minority group) in the country would be being arrested/deported/mutilated/shot/lynched/hung/drawn and quartered. It’s not unlike how slave owners used to encourage the belief that runaway slaves would be eaten by alligators.
In short, the country simply isn’t as racist or homophobic as gay-sex liberals need it to be, so they make it worse. Hence the rhetoric about concentration camps for gays and whatnot.
posted by Bobby on
O’reilly just came out in support of repealing DADT.
http://advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/07/27/Bill_OReilly_Stop_DADT/
As for the Russia, they are viciously homophobic, anti-semitic, racist and thanks to Putin, communistic. Russia also has a vibrant neo-nazi scene, in fact, David Duke enjoys a comfortable existence there.
Now to be fair, gays do have it better in Russia than they do in Uganda and Zimbabwe, then again, it’s hard to criticize homophobic countries in Africa without some white liberal calling you a racist and blaming homophobia in Africa on the former white colonizers or in the evangelical movement from America. I mean, sure, Scott Lively, writer of The Pink Swastika, is a horrible man. But are we going to blame him for homophobia in Uganda when all he did was ignite the fire that was always there? That’s like arresting the man who incites the riot while ignoring the rioters.
posted by Jorge on
Get off this nauseating schtick of comparing yourselves to civil rights “heroes”.
No.
O’reilly just came out in support of repealing DADT.
http://advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/07/27/Bill_OReilly_Stop_DADT/
Hmm…
That’s a surprise to me. It does seem like he thinks the law should be repealed (vs. he thinks Obama as a politician should just sign an executive order). I’ll wait for the second time he says it.
posted by Hollis Mulwray on
ND30 waxes poetic:
“And in our information-dominated age, the voter initiative system encourages informed, active citizens to participate in the democratic process.”
Do you, or does anyone on this comment board, really believe that the crazy-quilt of (somestimes contradictory) voter-initiated mandates and constitutional strictures in today’s California is really the product of “informed [] citizens participat[ing] in the democratic process”? It’s “democratic”, sure, but informed? Come on. And it’s hardly only fascist leftists who question the damage done to California by the lax initiative process. Again, it may be “democracy”, but to have 5,000,001 people decide to do something over the objection of 4,999,999 is hardly a recipe for comity.
ND30 also mentions the 120 amendments to the Massachusetts constitution. I can’t name a single one of them (and I doubt he can either since the Wikipedia page, which I suspect both of us are drawing on for our information doesn’t list them). But I can point to a quote on that same Wikipedia page from Samuel Eliot Morison, who states that the Mass. constitution has become MORE democratic, not less, via amendment. So, ND30, you want to fire up your Google finger again, and give us all a dissertation on how the fascists liberals have turned John Adams on his head, and made the Bay State into John Kerry’s persona gulag.
And, finally, Throbert:
Russia is a terrible example to use as proof that “culture doesn’t follow law”. Russian was, and is, an autocracy where the rule of law meant little or nothing and was certainly not viewed by the Russian people as a beneficent thing that would protect their lives, liberty (!) or property.
The different between a country like Russian and a country like the U.S. (incomparable so far in this respect) is that Americans do indeed respect laws even when they strongly disagree with them.
posted by John Howard on
But what is frustrating is how Maggie – and, in fact, nearly all of the anti same-sex marriage crowd – fail to show us the respect and humanity that Jon displays so generously. Jon does not shy away from directly confronting the best arguments against his own position.
REally? Jon has never directly confronted my argument against same-sex marriage. He has most certainly shied away from mentioning conception rights of same-sex couples.
My argument, if he would care to acknowledge it, is that marriage should not be stripped of the right to conceive children together, from the couple’s own genes, it should continue to express society’s consent and approval of the couple creating offspring together. But we should prohibit people from conceiving children with someone of the same sex, like we prohibit people from conceiving with siblings and cousins (see this link on the NHS website about the genetic risks of “cousin marriage”.
And Maggie and David are not the only opponents of same-sex marriage, just the ones who happen to like Jon Rauch.
posted by Brave New World? on
Again, with the ban on “conception rights” for same-sex couples.
Last time I checked two men can’t make a baby. Two women, ditto.
This argument is really off the wall. Considering that gays can adopt in almost every state or make a baby with a willing opposite-sex partner in every state, it isn’t likely that this is the stumbling block for most objectors to same-sex unions.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Fair enough.
But if Americans largely disagree with a law (even while they follow it), then in what sense, exactly, has the culture changed?
To me, “culture follows law” suggests that as the people get accustomed to having a law on the books, their attitude towards that law becomes more favorable, and most people are glad to defend the law as a reasonable one.
But if a majority of people privately rankle at being required by legislation to accept gay couples as “married,” and consider the very idea of gay marriage to be a phony-baloney, bureaucrat-invented oxymoron, then it would appear to me that the “culture follows law” prediction has FAILED.
posted by Bobby on
“That’s a surprise to me. It does seem like he thinks the law should be repealed (vs. he thinks Obama as a politician should just sign an executive order). I’ll wait for the second time he says it.”
—I’m hoping he does, he has the largest audience in cable news, he is also loved by the military because Bill and Fox News are the only pro-military venues out there. So his endorsement could be hugely influential.
The most fascinating thing though is the perception of gays in the military by straights who sometimes think we’re actually allowed to serve. A straight former friend of mine who is a soldier encouraged me to join the military, he seemed to dismiss DADT. But after reading Conduct Unbecoming, I know all about the gay and lesbian purges, the gestapo-type tactics from the NIS, and even cases of gays that went to prison for private consensual sex.
It’s just horrible all the careers the military has destroyed, not to mention officers who resigned their commissions for fear of ever being found out. Bill O’Reilly is right, Obama could end this policy with the stroke of a pen, but I doubt he will. Obama is a leftwinger, lefties usually hate the military and don’t understand why would anyone want to serve for something other than free money for college, in Conduct Unbecoming some gay activists used to stand with signs that say “No GI Janes” and even people like Matlovich was rejected by gay activists who didn’t think gays should join a “patriarchal” institution like the military.
posted by Tony Perkins on
I see the Family Research Council is working off of ND30 et al’s playbook:
http://towleroad.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c730253ef0133f2a1756b970b-pi
posted by John Howard on
We shouldn’t be equating my right to conceive with a woman to my right to conceive with a man. The first should be considered a basic human right and protected, the second is not a right at all, it should be prohibited completely. Yet by giving same-sex couples equal marriage rights, we are equating them, which either means denying that I have a right to conceive with a woman, or insisting that I also have a right to conceive with a man. This is how same-sex marriage harms everyone’s marriage, while at the same time being terrible public policy.
Civil Unions should be defined as “marriage minus conception rights” by states, and federally recognized as if they were marriages. Rauch has never stated why my compromise is unacceptable to him, why he would prefer to keep thousands of same-sex couples from equal protections and harm their families than give up same-sex conception rights.
You are correct that it can’t be done and might never be possible, but that’s my point, why insist on a right to it then?
posted by Jimmy on
“But if a majority of people privately rankle at being required by legislation to accept gay couples as “married,” and consider the very idea of gay marriage to be a phony-baloney, bureaucrat-invented oxymoron, then it would appear to me that the “culture follows law” prediction has FAILED.”
How do you see Loving v. Virgina within this context, Throbert?
posted by Loving You, Loving Me on
“How do you see Loving v. Virgina within this context, Throbert?”
Game, set, match for Jimmy.
posted by Jimmy on
“We shouldn’t be equating my right to conceive with a woman to my right to conceive with a man.”
No one is.
The reason Rauch, et al, don’t recognize you is because to confer upon you the same status granted to Maggie in the pantheon of bigotry is to insult Maggie. Even though you are still a bigot, you also desperately want someone to acknowledge and legitimate your phony “movement”.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
“How do you see Loving v. Virgina within this context, Throbert?”
Game, set, match for Jimmy.
I love the deification of Loving and how gay-sex liberals use it as an example of how courts have absolute power.
Because it unravels when you point out that, in Baker v. Nelson, the very same court that decided Loving established clearly that gay-sex marriage is not in any way even remotely worth considering on the Federal level.
I would challenge all the gay-sex liberals here who quote Loving to accept Baker, or simply demonstrate that they are hypocrites who pick and choose decisions.
posted by BobN on
“I don’t think culture follows the law. I think in a democracy, which is a very majoritarian institution, the law follows culture.”
It’s a pity, then, I suppose, that this democracy chose a long time ago to enshrine equality in the Constitution. Clearly a mistake, as it seems to rankle.
Your example of Russia is so on point! I’m sure that the oppression gay people face there with sodomy decriminalized is much worse than it would be if they had left the law on the books…
And, Bobby, Putin “communistic”? Lord.
posted by John Howard on
Everyone who has an HRC “equal sign” logo on their car is, everyone who demands that same-sex couples have equal rights is, everyone who demands gay marriage is.
A man should have a right with a woman that he should not have with a man. That is what needs to be accepted by Rauch and you and everyone and established in law.
Yes, I desperately want someone to acknowledge and legitimate my proposal. It’s not fair to me and my family that my proposal and my argument are simply ignored. Rauch and all the others who refuse to take on my argument and discuss my proposal are harming thousands of couples and their families, including my own. My proposal should be being debated in Congress RIGHT NOW! Congress could be resolving the marriage debate right now! Rauch is the single biggest stumbling block to getting equal protections to thousands of families.
posted by Loving You, Loving Me on
The reference to Loving vs Virginia is in the context of whether “culture can follow law”. Loving vs Virginia is proof positive that it can. Less than 20% of people approved of interracial marriage in 1967 and the number is almost 80% approval now. Where was the backlash?
And as for Baker vs Nelson, please it was 40 years ago. It’s a different world now. Time to step out of the Bronze Age, buddy.
Gay marriage (or gay-sex marriage, whatever that is) will never bear the burden of controversy of Roe vs Wade because it involves too few people and doesn’t touch on the lives of those who object to it in any way.
posted by Loving You, Loving Me on
North Dallas Thirty:
Courts can make mistakes. Bowers vs Hardwick wrongly decided, as Justice Kennedy wrote in Lawrence vs. Texas.
If you are such a big fan of Baker, do you think gay-sex Lawrence should be overturned?
posted by Jimmy on
“I would challenge all the gay-sex liberals here who quote Loving to accept Baker, or simply demonstrate that they are hypocrites who pick and choose decisions.”
Well, the thing is, PF, the SCOTUS did not take the appeal “for want of a substantial federal question.” Now, we have seen the current court is willing to overturn 100 years of precedent, and whichever way Perry v. Schwarzenegger turns out, it will likely find its way to the court.
So, it can be observed that the jury is still out on this question.
posted by BobN on
because it involves too few people and doesn’t touch on the lives of those who object to it in any way
Opposition to same-sex marriage drops significantly once it’s legalized for two reasons. 1) As you point out, it has no effect on the lives of many who oppose it. More importantly, 2) as soon as it’s possible, some members of God’s Own Party go and get gay-sex married (as some would put it). Shock! Amazement! Conundrums (conundra?) about what to buy for the nice couple! All these sweep through the GOP leadership as they get gussied up to attend the wedding. Opposition after that seems, well, unseemly, even for the most hypo of crites.
posted by Jimmy on
Coming back to original question about culture and whether or not it follows law, or visa versa, one must consider why hallmark rulings, and legislation, are so significant. Certainly, a huge part of the culture wasn’t keen on the 15th Amendment, but even those who resented it eventually came around, sorta maybe.
posted by John Howard on
Coming back to original question about culture and whether or not it follows law, or visa versa, one must consider…
What difference does it make? Isn’t the answer obviously a little of both? What a waste of time.
There are thousands of couples and their families that need equal protections right now, today, and all it would take to help them is agreeing that same-sex procreation is unsafe and unnecessary right now, and people should only have a right to conceive with someone of the other sex. But NOOOO, you’ve all got to wax endlessly about whether culture follows law or vice versa?? Cruel.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
It’s a pity, then, I suppose, that this democracy chose a long time ago to enshrine equality in the Constitution. Clearly a mistake, as it seems to rankle.
But, unfortunately, BobN, it didn’t.
The courts have upheld time and again that unequal treatment on whether or not one can marry the sexual partners of one’s choice is permissible even with the Fourteenth Amendment. The court has stated that bans on plural marriage, incestuous marriage, child marriage, and bestial marriage do not in any way violate equal protection laws.
As the courts correctly pointed out in Loving, “race” was essentially undefinable by means scientific and was made quite suspect by other constitutional amendments. Furthermore, Loving states of marriage that it is a right “fundamental to our very existence and survival” — which clearly links it to procreation, and race does not impact procreation in the least.
If you are such a big fan of Baker, do you think gay-sex Lawrence should be overturned?
First problem with that statement: the two cases are involving totally different matters.
Second, I would have no problem with Lawrence being overturned. That decision in mind should have been simply to state that the Texas law was stupid and pointless, but that the Constitution does not preclude the passing of stupid and pointless laws, and that it was the state’s responsibility to repeal its own statutes if it chose to do so.
It all depends on whether you support democracy or rule by judicial fiat. John Adams and I supported the former; gay-sex liberals insist on the latter.
posted by Jimmy on
“same-sex procreation is unsafe’
On this we all agree, and a law should be passed to ban it outright – a law which would apply to everyone from married people to a certain Colorado doctor, Dr. Mephesto, who is about as real as this BS of yours.
posted by Jimmy on
The Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution has been upheld.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/28/protest-planned-phoenix-despite-judges-ruling-immigration-law/
posted by John Howard on
Yes, the law would apply to everyone. But it would prohibit all same-sex couples from procreating, publicly. It would not prohibit any male-female couples from procreating.
If any same-sex couples are married and that law goes into effect, it will be the first time in human history that a married couple was prohibited from combining their own genes and procreating offspring together. It would change marriage for everyone, totally removing the protection of the right to conceive children together that every marriage up until then has enjoyed.
posted by Jimmy on
What would stop a same-sex couple in a civil union from trying to conceive in the way you suggest? Are you suggesting a man and woman in a civil union do not have procreation rights? What would stop opposite-sex couples in a civil union from bioengineering/cloning a child?
In each case, an all encompassing law would apply to the practice, regardless of who is trying to accomplish it. In order to follow through with the procedure, a genetic bioengineering facility would have to facilitate it, and since the law would actually apply to the science, married same-sex bioengineers……huh?……what?……my head hurts……shit, this is stupid.
posted by John Howard on
What would stop a same-sex couple in a civil union from trying to conceive in the way you suggest?
The law that you just agreed we should enact! The law should ban conceiving a person by any means other than joining the unmodified egg of a woman and the unmodified sperm of a man.
Are you suggesting a man and woman in a civil union do not have procreation rights?
If the Civil Union was defined as “marriage minus conception rights” like I’ve been saying they should be, then yeah. Thus, they’d be suitable for siblings, cousins, and other platonic couples that are prohibited from procreating but are parenting a child together or otherwise need the protections of marriage.
What would stop opposite-sex couples in a civil union from bioengineering/cloning a child?
That same Egg and Sperm law that would stop same-sex procreation, would also stop all that stuff.
my head hurts……shit, this is stupid
Yeah dude, maybe you are over thinking. It’s pretty simple isn’t it? Before the law, people are allowed to hire a lab to procreate with someone of their same sex, after the law, they are not. The law would prohibit people from procreating with someone of the same sex.
posted by Jimmy on
“If the Civil Union was defined as “marriage minus conception rights” like I’ve been saying they should be, then yeah.”
It won’t happen as it will effect the majority of people in civil unions, hets.
“The law would prohibit people from procreating with someone of the same sex.”
Whether they are married or not. If no agency can perform the task, then nobody can make it happen, regardless of their motivations.
posted by John Howard on
Most hets would choose to marry rather than get one of these Civil Unions, so that they could have their procreation rights protected and affirmed. But some might decide to get a Civil Union, if they didn’t want society’s approval and protection of their procreation together.
The law would prohibit two people of the same sex from conceiving children together, however they attempt it, whether with a lab or just trying to do it without one. Without a lab modifying one of their gametes, it’d be even more dangerous for them to combine their non-complementary genes.
posted by Jorge on
Do you, or does anyone on this comment board, really believe that the crazy-quilt of (somestimes contradictory) voter-initiated mandates and constitutional strictures in today’s California is really the product of “informed [] citizens participat[ing] in the democratic process”?
You bet I do.
It’s a pity, then, I suppose, that this democracy chose a long time ago to enshrine equality in the Constitution.
I am not aware of such a thing.
The last time I checked, the Constitution implicitly recognizes the inequalities between many classes of persons: citizens vs. non-citizens, criminals vs. people who obey the law, people over 18 vs. minors, citizens born in the US vs. citizens not born in the US (that means you, Ah-nold!), people who are in debt as well as people who have injured others and incurred civil liabilities. Here’s an inconvenient truth for you: even inequalities between men and women (Roe v. Wade), blacks and whites (Univ./Calif. vs. Bakke), gays and the “morally straight” (Boy Scouts of America v. Dale) have been recognized and upheld in the Supreme Court, and this will continue for the rest of our natural lives.
posted by Jorge on
Coming back to original question about culture and whether or not it follows law, or visa versa, one must consider…
–What difference does it make? Isn’t the answer obviously a little of both? What a waste of time.
It’s one of the fundamental differences in assumptions between the gay liberals and gay consersatives on the issue of gay marriage laws (to define the sides narrowly). I know when I’m on the defensive.
posted by Throbert McGee on
(1) “More dangerous” how? When two guys mix their jizz together on their hairy tummies (which is to say, “outside a lab”), NOTHING HAPPENS AT ALL, apart from sperm cells dying and drying out into a crusty stain. Wherein lies the danger?
(2) Could you explain what you mean by “non-complementary genes”?
posted by dc on
Haha. Great response Throbert. John Howard exemplifies the danger of posessing a little bit (emphasis on little bit) of knowledge about a complex issue.
posted by John Howard on
Eggs and sperm have different epigenetic imprinting, meaning some genes are “off” in eggs that are “on” in sperm, and vice versa. That way when they join, only one copy is on. When two copies are on, or both copies are off, that’s a genetic disease, the embryo doesn’t develop right. They have done experiments jamming two eggs together or two sperms together, and know that usually something goes terribly awry right away, like no placenta develops, or no skin, or something like that. That’s what would probably happen if two people of the same sex somehow managed to get their own genes to join together without using a lab, the baby would have horrific problems if it were to survive. So even hypothetically, it would be an unethical conception, because the genes aren’t complementary. Making them complementary requires making stem cell derived artificial gametes and somehow getting them to develop with the opposite imprinting, without any errors or mistakes. That’s unethical too. With lab or without lab, same-sex conception is unsafe and unethical, worse than “cousin marriage”.
posted by Jimmy on
“With lab or without lab, same-sex conception is unsafe and unethical, worse than “cousin marriage”.
How the hell would one do it without a lab!? As Throbert pointed out, we’ve tried numerous times and it don’t seem to work.
This is some phony boloney,
posted by Debrah on
You guys are doing the work of SSM opponents for them.
They won’t have to lift a finger.
By even discussing this grotesque, as well as ultra-silly sh!t, you are making their case for them.
Congratulations.
posted by John Howard on
That’s why we wouldn’t consider gay sex to be a credible attempt at conceiving children together, so the couple wouldn’t be punished with the multi-million dollar fine and jail term that they would be if a lab was involved in the attempt, along with the lab and the workers and everyone involved in the attempt.
The point is that same-sex couples can not ethically conceive together, by any method, and society should not approve or affirm offspring of the couple. Marriage should continue to affirm and approve of the couple conceiving offspring. You want to create some cloud of confusion where society can affirm offspring in principle but prohibit every method they might use, and my point of the last few comments was that, no, we can’t even affirm in principle because the genes are non-complementary in principle.
posted by Jimmy on
That occurred to me, Debrah, and I accept your wisdom.
posted by John Howard on
That’s why Rauch never talks about same-sex procreation, but that strategy only prolongs the status quo, which might be good for him, being a professional marriage debate participant, and probably all hooked up with all the protections he needs, but there are thousands of families that are seriously harmed by the status quo and need protections now. Rauch wants to preserve his job, not help gay people.
posted by Debrah on
Speaking of Jonathan Rauch, more coverage and analyses of his and others’ presentations at the FIRE conference.
John Howard–
I have no idea what Rauch’s inner motivations might be; however, he does provide a reasoned voice for gay issues.
You and I might agree that for same-sex couples to go down the avenue of “procreation” is bizarre, to put it mildly.
posted by John Howard on
Debrah, that’s the conventional wisdom, from folks like Blankenhorn and Gallagher and other professionals who make their livings from the gay marriage debate, but that’s because Rauch also validates them in return and makes his living the same way. They all avoid my argument because it messes up their tight little arrangement. None of them should have any credibility any more, after they have repeatedly shown themselves to be propagandists and hucksters rather than people truly interested in marriage or helping gay people.
posted by John Howard on
You and I might agree that for same-sex couples to go down the avenue of “procreation” is bizarre, to put it mildly.
Merely calling it “bizarre” is indeed putting it mildly. Why do you put it mildly? It should be prohibited, ASAP, before any more people grow up thinking that it may be a possibility someday, before we waste any more money on research, before anyone actually goes ahead and tries to do it. Don’t we agree on that? Even Jimmy agrees it should be prohibited.
posted by BobN on
this will continue for the rest of our natural lives
So, which group to you identify with? Criminals? Psssst… we’re not criminals anymore.
posted by dc on
This discussion of same sex procreation is dumb. The overwhelming majority of gay people who have children have biological children, meaning that they had sex with a person of the opposite sex and for some reason or another had a child. Gay couples who adopt is actually a small percentage of gay couples and people. Only an extreemly small percentage of gays use invitro and other types of technology to have kids since it is so expensive. This idiotic discussion of same sex conception ignores how such technology does not exist for humans. And even if it did it would be extreemly expensive, out of reach for most gay couples. Scientists research all sorts of things (especially on animals). Furthermore, we are now completely off track bogged down in a discussion of something that isn’t even real. Great!
posted by John Howard on
dc, I agree with all of that. This ongoing discussion is indeed dumb, it should be settled by now. You should end this dumb discussion by agreeing to stop demanding a right to do something that isn’t necessary or “even real”, as you say. Continuing to demand an equal right to procreate is indeed idiotic, when I have laid out the steps to achieve federal recognition and recognition by most states immediately, starting with giving up the claim to equal conception rights to a married man and woman.
posted by dc on
John Howard, no. Your argument is dumb. You are obsessing about something that does not exist at the present moment. This is a stupid conversation. They need to post a new topic so we can move on.
posted by John Howard on
No, the research into artificial gametes exists at the present moment. The demand for equal rights exists at the present moment. The demand for equal rights for same sex couples is dumb. When people argue for that, and I respond by saying, well, you shouldn’t have equal conception rights, that’s an argument you have to take on. You can’t just say, “we can’t talk about any of that until after it exists!” That’s not fair. Engage the argument I’m making, justify demanding equal conception rights right now, when they don’t even exist.
There is also the objection that in demanding equal rights, you are stripping the basic human right to procreate with our own genes from everyone’s marriage. That phenomenon exists right now and you need to justify doing that to marriage.
posted by Debrah on
You know what has unwittingly been illustrated here everyone?
And thanks to John Howard for doing so.
In bold relief, this conversation illuminates exactly why same-sex couples should never use the word “marriage” and even hope to legitimately co-opt it except as a joke.
That’s why civil unions are the most sane approach……even as so many allegedly educated and intelligent gay men flail about screaming and crying to be “married”.
Put a fork in it.
Case closed.
posted by Jorge on
So, which group to you identify with? Criminals? Psssst… we’re not criminals anymore.
I am the least of a mighty vanguard of rainbow warriors.
In bold relief, this conversation illuminates exactly why same-sex couples should never use the word “marriage” and even hope to legitimately co-opt it except as a joke.
This poster is wise.
posted by Jimmy on
Well, I just got into a shouting match with my lady-friend from the Verde Valley in Arizona about Sharrods’s lawsuit. Though I detest Breitbart, I don’t think she she has a case, being a public official. To be defamed and to PROVE you’ve been defamed are two different things, especially for a public official. If she sues anyone, it should be her boss.
posted by Throbert McGee on
John, they avoid your argument for the same reason that they would ignore you if you were insisting that the gay-marriage debate can never be settled until we’ve come to a policy consensus on what to do about humans who wish to intermarry with Klingons, Vulcans, and Romulans.
Come to think of it, John, your total lack of attention to the urgent problem of lab-mediated crossbreeding with extraterrestrial humanoids just goes to show how cursory and superficial your analysis of Conception Rights truly is.
For that matter, have you given even three seconds’ attention as to whether the self-aware supercomputers that run our Homes of Tomorrow should have a right to use human housewives as brood mares to incubate a nightmarish race of cyborg-fetuses? HAVE YOU SO MUCH AS ACKNOWLEDGED THIS ISSUE, Mr. Deep Thinker?
posted by Julie Christie on
OMG! this totally happened to me once!!! Kudos for shining a light on this oft-ignored women’s issue.
posted by Jimmy on
“Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind.” – Butlerian Jihad.
posted by John Howard on
But no one is demanding equal marriage and equal conception rights with Klingons, mainly because Klingons aren’t real. People of the same sex are real, Throbert, and people are making the argument that they should have equal rights and equal marriage with someone of the same sex. There is a discussion going on about whether same-sex couples should have the same rights as a married man and a woman. I am saying that it would be unethical and bad public policy to give same-sex couples the same rights that Rauch et al is asking for, and they are wrong in asking for it. They should take on the argument and try to explain why it is more important to have conception rights with someone of the same sex than to try to get equal protections in all other areas with Civil Unions.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Exactly! Just as no one (save in your imagination) is demanding that same-sex couples have the same “conception rights” as opposite-sex couples.
posted by John Howard on
Sure they are, they are all demanding equal rights as a married man and a woman, and a married man and woman have a right to conceive children together from their own genes. People are also directly demanding that same-sex conception be allowed, along with genetic engineering designer babies, etc.
My unanswered plea has been for people to stop demanding equal conception rights with someone of the same sex and support enacting a law that would prohibit same-sex procreation. Jimmy seemed to agree above,
posted by Jorge on
…To be defamed and to PROVE you’ve been defamed are two different things, especially for a public official. If she sues anyone, it should be her boss.
Usually lawsuits like this aren’t filed for about a year or so, time enough to go after the right defendant. It does seem reckless.
*Lightbulb moment!*
This is really about attacking and trying to destroy Breitbart. Social rather than legal punishment. That is either Ms. Sherrod’s motivation or the motivation of the people who are pushing her. A responsible lawyer would be more interested in the size of the payout and nailing as many defendants as possible than what happens to Andrew Breitbart, and that takes time to set up. It’s a very weak case because Breitbart’s clip included at least some exculpatory evidence. Fox’s clip did not.
We shall see.
posted by Debrah on
Jimmy–
As Larry Elder advises, Sherrod and her “preacher” husband, should quite while they’re ahead.
Read this entire column to find out what they’re all about.
Some people don’t know when to stop. The media fawned over this woman to the point where she believes all the hype.
posted by Debrah on
Another interesting one from JWR.
Just a quick glance through recent happenings shows quite clearly that there is no great Jewish monopoly in the media or in the entertainment field that is “all powerful” as some would allege.
Oliver Stone still has his job.
Mel Gibson has gotten no significant push-back for all his anti-Semitic ranting.
If anyone in show biz had made such public statements about black people or gays, they would be ruined within days. Pronto!
Those are the two groups most sheltered and protected and constantly built up far beyond anything they deserve in the entertainment field.
It’s quite thoroughly ridiculous.
Thinking back on the film “Milk”, when I saw it, I thought it was OK; however, nothing close to Oscar-winning material.
Harvey Milk wasn’t an enormously significant figure “assassinated” for his work on gay issues. Of course he made important contributions, but why single out him when there had been many before him?
The fantasies of Cleve Jones helped move things along, no doubt.
Director Gus Van Sant had become firmly planted inside the film industry……the result, I suppose, from screwing around with so many gay actors, etc……more powerful than he.
It’s all quite unfortunate that someone like Mickey Rourke, whom I have never followed or admired really, but who re-emerged that same year (2008) with a monumental comeback in “The Wrestler”. A very Oscar-worthy performance.
But of course, the ever-disgruntled Muslim terrorist-loving, Hugo Chavez-nuzzling Sean Penn played the role of Harvey Milk……and that’s all it took for the Academy drones to press the lever for that film.
A film on the subject could have been made that might have deserved an Oscar and an actor portraying Milk could have pulled off the role deserving of an Oscar…..however…..
…….Gus van Sant’s little gay version of “The Partridge Family Does Castro” wasn’t it.
posted by John Howard on
And I hasten to add that there is no law against same-sex conception right now (except in Missouri, but it wouldn’t prevent same-sex couples in Missouri from going to NJ or Massachusetts for their artificial gametes). So no one even needs to demand it. I am the one demanding that we prohibit creating people by any means other than joining the sperm of a man and the egg of a woman, because it is cruel to make people think that it might be possible someday and is a huge waste of resources and would be totally unethical for someone to try, and it being legal prevents us from entering into international treaties and antagonizes the rest of the world.
Jimmy, was I right that you agree we should enact an egg and sperm law to prohibit genetic engineering and same-sex conception? Who else is on board with that here? Who would oppose that law?
posted by Bobby on
“And, Bobby, Putin “communistic”? Lord.”
—Putin was head of the KGB before he became president and he has become a dictator in everything but name. The media is scared of him, they only throw him softballs. He is also rumored to have been involved in a recent assassination in England where uranium was used. And think about this, what kind of communist joins the KGB? I would think it’s the kind of communist that is willing to do ANYTHING for his country. This guy is a true believer, like the people of The Weather Underground, their ideology hasn’t changed one bit.
posted by BobN on
This guy is a true believer
Yeah, cuz he’s all about spreading the wealth. Honestly, you wouldn’t know an oligarch if one bit you on the ass.
posted by Bobby on
“Yeah, cuz he’s all about spreading the wealth. Honestly, you wouldn’t know an oligarch if one bit you on the ass.”
—Isn’t oligarch the term socialists use to describe the rich? I have family in Russia and Venezuela, I have heard that term before. A communist/progressive doesn’t really spread the wealth, he simply steals from some and gives to others.
You know what spreads the wealth? Rich people. When Bill Gates opens a factory he’s spreading the wealth, when Branson orders a new yacht he’s creating or keeping perhaps 200 jobs. The Dr. Phil Show itself employs 50 people. And unlike government jobs, those jobs don’t hurt the economy, they don’t drain our coffers, they don’t require the government going into debt and they do make a difference.
Putin is a KGB thug, nothing more.