Here's Dale Carpenter's take on Robert
George. George seems to think that an argument against polygamy
isn't "principled" unless it's his own argument, which turns out
not to be an argument-just an assertion. Money quote:
Those of us who have been making a conservative case for gay marriage do so, fundamentally, because we believe in marriage. We do not want to see it harmed and we do not think that this reform means every proposed reform of marriage, including potentially harmful ones, must be accepted. Ironically, George and the Gang of 300 manifesto-writers agree that gay marriage means anything goes. I don't expect that George will hold to that position when gay marriage is actually recognized (indeed, he'll strongly resist the supposed slippery slope to polygamy then), but the damage he is doing now by making a tactical alliance with them and arguing the line cannot be held will not have been helpful.
More:
Maggie Gallagher chimes in. Jonathan Rauch replies
here.
16 Comments for “Dale Carpenter vs. Robert George”
posted by G. Hughes on
I am a “leftist” and belive strongly in SSM. The question I have to ask about ‘slippery slope’ arguments is ‘do they go the other way?’ That is if SSMs are made illeagal,what is next? Inter-racial marriage? How about the handicapped? Will hetrosexual people in De-facto relationships be forced to marry or lose their children to welfare organisations? Will divorce for hetrosexuals be restricted? I think many of the opponents of SSM are pushing a greater agender!
posted by On Lawn on
Jon,
I’ve seen you make pretty intelligent arguments in the past. But I don’t think that pinning the “alliance” on George is one of them.
George is pointing out an alliance that was created by the Beyond Marraige declaration signers, not pretending an alliance. You first attempted to deny that connection, then when that didn’t pan out you settled for dismissing them. I don’t think that washed either, but more on that later.
George is perfectly consistent in his efforts to preserve marriage from being neutered or otherwise abstracted. I take a comment such as, “I don’t expect that George will hold to that position when gay marriage is actually recognized” to be particularly dishonest. I don’t see that it would be a reversal at all, nor do I expect that even if marriage was neutered for the sake of homosexuality that people would quit their efforts to restore equal gender representation to marriage.
posted by Randy on
I guess marriage in the Massachusetts, Netherlands, Canada and Belgium is officially “neutered.” And done so only ‘for the sake of homosexuality.’
I wonder if the residents in those countries think so too?
posted by On Lawn on
Massachusetts certainly does. The Goodridge decision states that anything that references male or female should be removed from anything to do with marriage or parenting.
Canada, Netherlands, Belgium? I don’t know. They were told there was going to be no harm done to marriage, and unfortunately they bought into that lie. Or perhaps they knew marriage was going to be neutered and they didn’t care, which is even worse as I see it.
I kept hearing over and over again the term “same-sex marriage” and “gay marriage”. Now that I think about it, I have no idea how that became a media standard. True, its an oxymoron. But only to people who already are set in a man-woman definition of marriage. I think there is a better reason to re-think the phrase — it’s misleading.
To me, using the adjectives like “same-sex” to describe a change in marriage is problematic. It is misleading because it only describes who is going to benefit from changing marriage, not the change itself. In fact because it just concentrates on a small subset of people it acts like a pair of blinders. Many, I believe, are taking this superficially and think there is no change to marriage at all or any prospective harm.
The other problem is that no seperate or new “same-sex marriage” is being created. Perhaps in Connecticut or Vermont they have a same-sex marriage system in civil unions, but in Mass, Canada, et. al. they simply have marriage that has no gender reference whatsoever. There is no seperate system of “same-sex marriage”, that would run contrary to the whole purpose, wouldn’t it?
Exactly what would be neutered about marriage, and why? The shared public meaning of marriage across society is neutered, even if it only happens in one state. The Massachusetts Supreme Court decision Goodridge v Public Health decided that for the sake of the plaintiffs the current view of marriage needed to be changed. Marriage in its current form, they found, is defined by gender integration and that was a barrier to the same sex couples.
So the order came down from the bench for marriage to be neutered. The people in individual marriages were not set to be neutered but all references to gender in official documents and law were to be removed neutering marriage as an institution. Every significance of fatherhood, motherhood needed to be struck down. And everything gender integration was capable of the state was required to expend its own resources provide to gender segregationists.
And the court went further, painting the ideal of gender integration as the moral equivalent to white supremacy. Government instituted integration becomes the new bigotry, and allowing segregation is the new equality. And ironically the neutering is portrayed as an extension.
Gabriel Rosenburg was the one that first introduced the term to me. If you are really blown back because of the word “neuter” then “gender neutral” marriage. It means the same thing, but for some reason that is out of favor too.
My theory is “same-sex” and “gay” in fromt of marriage feeds a certain narcisism.
posted by On Lawn on
Oh, sorry. I only addresed the first part of Randy’s snark.
The part about “for homosexuals only” should be obvious. That doesn’t need to be explained here where Rauch spent three articles saying just that.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
The Goodridge decision states that anything that references male or female should be removed from anything to do with marriage or parenting.
This is the sort of laughable dreck which renders the social conservatives’ case as the mealy-mouthed “I hate them but I need to look like I have a rational argument” mush that it is.
The Goodridge decision simply mandates the state to remove sex-specific language related to spouses in its law and in government documents so that same-sex and opposite-sex couples could both be accommodated. And the Goodridge decision did not address parenting laws at all.
You should try actually reading the decisions rather than parroting the latest CWA press release.
The Massachusetts Supreme Court decision Goodridge v Public Health decided that for the sake of the plaintiffs the current view of marriage needed to be changed.
No, it stated that the state’s existing “legal definition” of government-licensed and regulated “marriage” was in contravention to the state’s Constitution. And statists such as yourself brought this whole situation on your heads when you decided to use government power to deny a private-sector designation like “marriage” to groups of people you didn’t like. Once you placed government in the position of arbitrating what “legal marriage” is and is not, you brought down the Constitution upon your heads and made marriage a legal question rather than a private-sector religious or secular self-definition. You’ve got little sympathy from me on that front, I’m afraid.
If you are really blown back because of the word “neuter” then “gender neutral” marriage. It means the same thing, but for some reason that is out of favor too.
I suppose word games of this sort are popular amongst the lunatic fringe of both the old parties — right and left alike. I’m sure Andrea Dworkin’s surviving followers could equally “explain” the “out of favor secret meaning” of the word “law,” which “grows out of systematic rape of women” or some other such rot. It would be about as equally enlightening as what you’re presenting.
posted by On Lawn on
the Goodridge decision did not address parenting laws at all.
I’ll give you that the extension to parenthood is not overt in Goodridge. Yet, birth certificates and other references to “father” and “mother” are being altered due to the change in marriage mandated by the court. This is in accordance with the Goodridge decision that said the procreative inference of a child having a father and mother was a slight against homosexuals. As they put it:
No, it stated that the state’s existing “legal definition” of government-licensed and regulated “marriage” was in contravention to the state’s Constitution.
Thats not different from what I said. I just threw that comment from you in here to highlight how exasperated you are, feeling definate hostility to the views and unwilling to see them as the same you’ve accepted. But the animus is not warranted.
And statists such as yourself brought this whole situation on your heads when you decided to use government power to deny a private-sector designation like “marriage” to groups of people you didn’t like.
No such power of denial exists. Private sector arrangements are possible. For instance Delea discusses the creation of such an arrangement Delea’s comments from the previous thread.
Once you placed government in the position of arbitrating what “legal marriage” is and is not, you brought down the Constitution upon your heads
Four justices of the court technically. The chief of whom, in my view, should have recused herself. As has been shown in numerous subsiquent decisions, state constitutions like Massachusetts and the USA do not conflict with equal gender representation in marriage.
It would be about as equally enlightening as what you’re presenting.
As we found in the previous thread (previously linked), NE-L, your views of enlightenment rarely correlate with reality.
Instead, I suggest you take on the arguments as presented here. I’ve rarely seen a more thinly veiled attempt to trade one argument you’d rather not discuss with something else.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
I just threw that comment from you in here to highlight how exasperated you are, feeling definate hostility to the views and unwilling to see them as the same you’ve accepted. But the animus is not warranted.
Ahhh, nothing like a nice conservative “I’m such a victim of unwarranted hostility” persecution complex to kick off with. You’re operating exactly according to formula. 🙂
No such power of denial exists.
Then perhaps you’d care to explain how one gets a private-sector marriage visa for a foreign same-sex spouse, a private-sector Social Security payment for a same-sex spouse, a private-sector joint tax filing capability for a same-sex spouse, etc.
Private sector arrangements are possible.
Suboptimal ones — and not even then in all cases. States like Virginia have passed laws which invalidate private sector arrangements, which is precisely my point.
I want marriage to be a private sector thing, with the “rights” of marriage opened up to everyone. You seem to favor an approach in which you alternate your selective ignorance of “private sector options” with continued perpetuation of the status quo — which is a prima facie deliberate ignorance of the situation as it exists today.
Delea discusses the creation of such an arrangement
We’re all familiar with various private-sector alternatives. In fact, I daresay you’re likely not in the best situation to lecture us — most of us are intimately familiar with what our legal options are through experience.
Four justices of the court technically
No, the state constitution, technically. The judges read the law, compare it to the Constitution’s requirements, and then declare whether the law is constitutional or not.
state constitutions like Massachusetts and the USA do not conflict with equal gender representation in marriage
Quoting J. Edward Pawlick’s web site demanding recusal is amusing enough — would you demand that Scalia and Thomas recuse themselves if a similar case came before the Supreme Court? Doubtful.
With regard to Pawlick himself, he’s well-known as a crank. When I lived in Massachusetts years ago, he threatened to put me on his “blacklist of known homosexuals” when I called his office and requested that he no longer mail me his free “newspaper.” Quoting him is a bit like citing Art Bell’s radio program for evidence of judicial malfeasance.
As for “equal gender representation in marriage,” that’s meaningless gobbledygook.
And as for various “state and federal decisions,” they don’t matter in Massachusetts — the SJC is the final arbiter of Massachusetts constitutional issues. Deal with it.
As we found in the previous thread (previously linked), NE-L, your views of enlightenment rarely correlate with reality.
I don’t know what’s more amusing — your insistence that you speak for a “we” (beyond the two pseudonyms you’re transparently alternating between on the forum), or the fact that a straight homophobe is lecturing gay people on the realities of protecting our families in contemporary America. 🙂
I suggest you take on the arguments as presented here
I prefer the reality-based arguments based on my own experience as a gay man, rather than the alternately amusingly condescending and humorously fallacious rantings of a “Mass News” reader here to explain our options to us. 🙂
I mean, honestly, quoting Pawlick with a straight face (pardon the pun) is perhaps the funniest post I’ve read all month.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
You can read more about Pawlick here. He’s a first-rate nutter. His lawsuit against the Supreme Court, which was dismissed, alleged (along with a book he wrote) that the New York Times Company was at the center of a conspiracy to legalize gay marriage in Massachusetts. Here’s what an editorial in the Boston Globe notes:
Take Pawlick’s new book, “Libel by New York Times: Gay Marriage Didn’t Just Happen in Massachusetts, It Was Engineered by the New York Times.” The 356-page book is a laughable account of how Arthur “Pinch” Sulzberger Jr., chairman of the New York Times Co., supposedly used his flagship newspaper, the Times, and The Boston Globe to get Margaret Marshall, married to retired Times columnist Anthony Lewis, appointed chief justice of the state Supreme Judicial Court and get gay marriage approved in Massachusetts and nationwide.
It gets funnier:
Here is what Pawlick has to say about gays: “It is not a lifestyle that most of them enjoy. That is why their culture is so heavily into drugs and alcohol. But homosexuals earnestly believe they are stuck with it; they were ‘born that way.’ ”
On Marshall, he says: “She’s probably having a good time down at Times Square, laughing with Pinch and her husband, Anthony Lewis, about what they have accomplished here in Massachusetts. They may even be discussing how they’re going to have her appointed to the US Supreme Court.”
I’d forgotten how delightfully deranged Pawlick and his wife are. . . I took a quick trip down memory lane.
In a mailing titled, ”Will Pedophilia Be Next in Massachusetts Schools?” mailed to residents of Newton, Pawlick says, ”The citizens of Massachusetts will soon have to decide whether or not they approve of pedophilia. It will soon be fashionable. … The perfect place for a pedophile to find [children] in Massachusetts would be working with a Gay-Straight Alliance in our schools.”
Frankly, that’s the generator of the only empirical evidence that has been presented so far in Op Ed’s “argument.” So Eddie Pawlick’s allegations of a conspiracy theory by the New York Times to instigate gay marriage, plus his “broad impressions” of gay life, versus the personal knowledge of gay men and women. Hmmmm.
But at least they don’t hate gays. 😉
At Massaschusetts Lawyers Weekly, Pawlick said, ”I had all kinds of homosexuals working for me. … They were good employees, they were top employees. But I wouldn’t want them teaching my children. It depends on what they’re going to teach. Are they going to teach them homosexuality? Are they going to teach them ‘Heather Has Two Fathers’ and that kind of thing?”
Yes, a model of sociological and legal expertise par excellence. 😀
Let’s not even talk about Pawlick’s other mailing, “An Intelligent Discussion About Homosexuality,” where he quoted the “statistics” of Paul Cameron.
Oh dear, time to wipe this “Op Ed” character off the bottom of my boot.
posted by On Lawn on
Ahhh, nothing like a nice conservative “I’m such a victim of unwarranted hostility” persecution complex to kick off with.
Truth be told, I’m non-partisan and believe casting aspersions right and left finger’s one-self as a pawn in the cola-wars of present day politics.
I have a reply to Delea in the previous thread along those lines.
That said, I’m interested in your take on feeling persecuted. After all Delea explained the victimization of being denied marriage in the previous thread, and you neither pointed it out or called it a conservative trait at the time. I’m not saying you are hypocritical, I’m just saying you probably didn’t have anything more relevant to the discussion to say, didn’t you.
Besides, the main charge is that you are flailing and grasping at straws. And your attempt seems to further support that claim.
Then perhaps you’d care to explain how one gets a private-sector marriage [yada-yada]
If that is your complaint (victimization and persecution aside) the ability to make a private contract is not in question. Your complaint centers around the ability to get entities to recognize a marriage, and give them things for it.
Marriage developed recognition not by government enforcement (what government enforces health care for spouces?) but by the normal free-market forces. There was a demand from workers and it was met. This is the same way that DP’s and CU’s are increasingly given recognition today.
Your thrust seems to be tapping into government enforcement to make all these seperate entities give a same-sex couple the same status as married couples. The plan is by making the word marriage, as it already appears in corporate and government policy, mean something different. That violates two chief libertarian policies, the demand for government enforcement beyond the scope of a contract and doing so by the use of fraud.
But the fact remains, private sector arrangements are possible. Your statement is simply not accurate or reality based.
Suboptimal ones — and not even then in all cases. States like Virginia have passed laws which invalidate private sector arrangements, which is precisely my point.
I’ve heard much FUD sent out about the Virginia ammendment. I’m not sure if you are borrowing from their shoddy logic, or if you have your own.
This comment at Terrance’s “Republic of T” does a good job of debunking the myth you are presenting so much faith in.
No, the state constitution, technically. The judges read the law, compare it to the Constitution’s requirements, and then declare whether the law is constitutional or not.
A nice plattitude to tell high-schoolers learning about the legal system. But in real live law is not that determinant. If it were, you’d be right. Yet three justices disagreed, and simular constitutional language from other states have not been shown to do what you are proporting.
would you demand that Scalia and Thomas recuse themselves if a similar case came before the Supreme Court? Doubtful.
Funny you should mention that. One of the links discussing the recusal of Marshall says just that:
With regard to Pawlick himself, he’s well-known as a crank.
Thanks for the giggles. Lets see, you just attempted to dismiss an argument based on who gave it and not on the merits of the argument itself. Perhaps you can help me out then. You seem to be pretty handy at assigning rhetorical maneuverings to others as diversions away from their arguments, and juice them up with right and left affiliations. This is more your playground then mine. So tell me, is dismissing the message because one doesn’t like the messenger a trait from the right or left?
Yes, I’m laughing as I write this. As noted in the previous thread, you seem too quick to misplace blustering for a valid argument.
As for “equal gender representation in marriage,” that’s meaningless gobbledygook.
You seem to corroborate what I said before, “Government instituted integration becomes the new bigotry, and allowing segregation is the new equality. And ironically the neutering is portrayed as an extension.”
And this seems to apply once again also, “I just threw that comment from you in here to highlight how exasperated you are, feeling definate hostility to the views and unwilling to see them as the same you’ve accepted. But the animus is not warranted.”
Besides, you don’t even seem to be clued in enough to know when you are replying to Op-Ed or myself. Here’s a hint that should help you out. As of yet, there is no “Op-Ed” post. That should make it easy for you 🙂
As for Pawlick, what I found really funny about your commentary is that you never discussed his arguments. You called him deranged, and what not.
Pawlicks remarks can stand or fall on their own merits. His legal basis for Marshall’s recusal is based in law and not his views of homosexuality. If I’m wrong, then please show me where in his court brief he mentions that his views of homosexuality should be considered when deliberating whether or not Marshall violated judicial propriety 🙂
Oh dear, time to wipe this “Op Ed” character off the bottom of my boot.
I figure remark probably reflects more accurately on your maturity level better than the alchohol reference before.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
you don’t even seem to be clued in enough to know when you are replying to Op-Ed or myself
Well, you’re both the same person, so why bother with the fantasy?
As for Pawlick, what I found really funny about your commentary is that you never discussed his arguments.
Actually, I did. Although most of his “arguments” are regurgitated crackpotism from Paul Cameron — you know, the one thrown out of the professional psychology practice for unethical “research” on homosexuals?
The moment you and your various pseuds post something which is in any way legit, you can expect a more substantive approach. But so far, you’re hopping repeatedly between ridiculous and moronic. Cheers!
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Funny you should mention that. One of the links discussing the recusal of Marshall says just that:
So you’re counting on Scalia to recuse himself from a Supreme Court case regarding same-sex marriage?
Your link is about a pledge of allegiance case which has no relevance whatsoever to same-sex marriage.
D’oh.
I figure remark probably reflects more accurately on your maturity level
Just trying to keep your victimhood mythology intact. As a social conservative, we all know that nobody suffers more than you do. 😉
posted by On Lawn on
So you’re counting on Scalia to recuse himself from a Supreme Court case regarding same-sex marriage?
Why should he? Has he spoken out on the matter, promising results, as Justice Marshall did?
Your link is about a pledge of allegiance case which has no relevance whatsoever to same-sex marriage.
I have to say, you really make it fun when you continue say something so confidently while displaying your ignorance so blatently. You are like the perfect straight man, so ready to be the brundt of so many jokes.
Anyway, you seem to be pretty ignoranton what a recusal is. Recusals are not just for pledge of allegance cases, or just for same-sex marriage cases. In fact recusals are not for any given topic.
Recusals are for any topic that the justice might have have a personal interest in the case. That interest could be personal connection to people involved in the case, or shown an interest in a particular outcome of the case before hearing it.
That is as true for Justice Scalia in a case about the words “one nation under God” in the pledge of allegance as it is for Marshall on same-sex marriage.
Just trying to keep your victimhood mythology intact. As a social conservative, we all know that nobody suffers more than you do. 😉
I’m not sure what is funnier, that you consider me a social conservative or that you think the giggles I’ve had over your arguments somehow tortures me…
Trust me, if anyone is a victim from your posts, it is from having to read just how bad you are at making arguments.
posted by On Lawn on
Well, you’re both the same person, so why bother with the fantasy?
Me and Op-Ed the same person? You do make it fun.
While you are on the subject, is there anything else you want to add to the delusional paranoia category?
The moment you and your various pseuds post something which is in any way legit, you can expect a more substantive approach. But so far, you’re hopping repeatedly between ridiculous and moronic.
What is really funny here is that you are not only confident in your lack of argumentation, but you seem to be confident that others around here will be ignorant enough that your statements would be plausible to them.
It is proper that you are leaving. Your finger tips were eventually going to have to catch up with your intellect, which was absent pretty early on in the discussion.
Its been a laugh riot so far. You got caught trying to discuss a person rather than the arguments involved (Pawlick). You were shown as ignorant to the most basic elements of the subject matter (recusal). And you figure dropping more names even further from the topic will help you (Cameron).
posted by On Lawn on
Folks, just by way of trackback I’ve written up my take on Jon and Dale vs George over at Opine…
posted by Chairm on
One of the judges recused in the SSM case in the high court of NY (or it might have been Washington DC, the detail escapes me at the moment).
And he recused himself NOT for his own prior actions or words but for the advocacy for SSM that his daughter had been engaged in.