Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney charges it's "disingenuous" of Sen. John McCain to think (1) gay marriage is a bad idea and (2) the issue should be left to the states (not a federal constitutional amendment). This, says Romney, is "having it both ways." Morality trumps federalism. I disagree, but it's a coherent position.
But wait. Mitt Romney opposes abortion. "I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother," he wrote in 2005. So does he call for a constitutional amendment to ban abortion? Umm...actually, abortion should be left to the states. From the same article:
The federal system left to us by the Constitution allows people of different states to make their own choices on matters of controversy, thus avoiding the bitter battles engendered by ''one size fits all" judicial pronouncements. A federalist approach would allow such disputes to be settled by the citizens and elected representatives of each state, and appropriately defer to democratic governance.
So there's room for moral variance on whether to slaughter unborn children, but not on whether to marry gay couples.
Romney isn't the only social conservative whose inconsistency on gay marriage and abortion is glaring, but he isn't just anyone. He's a leading contender for president and, apparently, the leading bidder for the "values vote."
So here's the question John McCain needs to put to Mitt Romney:
"Mitt, if I'm wrong on gay marriage, how can you be right on
abortion?" When Romney ducks, here's the follow-up: "Would you like
to see the Constitution amended to ban abortion throughout the
country, and will you fight for that if elected president? Yes or
no." We're waiting, Governor.
63 Comments for “Romney Is ‘Having It Both Ways.’”
posted by kittynboi on
Romney is gonna stir stuff up by saying some stupid things, but in the end he’s not a serious candidate.
Aside from gay marraige being his ONLY issue, he’s a Mormon;
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Political%20Tracking/Dailies/MormanMittRomney.htm
And so far, polls show that the righties aren’t totally biting that.
the relationship between the fundamentalists and the more unusual cultish xian offshoots, like mormons and jehovas witnesses, has always been an inconsistent affair.
posted by Casey on
Nice catch, Rauch – and here’s hoping somebody comes up with that over in McCain’s office. God knows, I’d give my right arm to hear that line in a GOP primary debate.
posted by ed holston on
I think Romney articulated his position on a federal marriage amendment some time ago.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040623-124646-1081r.htm
The Massachusetts legislature has proposed a state constitutional amendment that would allow for civil unions, and Judiciary Democrats said they didn’t know how Mr. Romney could support both the state and federal proposals, which they said contradict.
The part of the amendment in contention reads: “Neither this constitution, nor the constitution of any state, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.”
Mr. Romney said the federal measure won’t prohibit states from allowing same-sex civil unions, and Mr. Cornyn explained that it would simply prevent courts from requiring a state to adopt civil unions. A state legislature or a state’s constitution could do whatever it wanted, he said.
There is nothing in the amendment that would prohibit “marriage or the legal incidents thereof be[ing] conferred” by state legislators or the people. It would only prevent judges from finding a constitutional basis to impose the same.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The difference between the two is simple.
In the case of abortion, Roe v. Wade and its associated case law are anti-federalist — that is, they specifically deny the states the right to regulate abortion within their own borders.
However, as Ed ably pointed out above, the FMA does not abrogate the right of the states to regulate marriage; it simply makes it clear that the Federal or state judiciary cannot compel states to provide gays marriage rights.
In short, what Romney is saying is that, in matters of marriage and abortion, the states should be able to make up their own minds about what they want without fear of compulsion by the judiciary to go one way or another. Repealing Roe and passing the FMA would do exactly that.
And Romney has it exactly right from a practical standpoint; McCain cannot say he doesn’t want gay marriage, but oppose the FMA, because it’s obvious that gay leftists are trying to use the Federal courts to override state laws and constitutional amendments.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
I don’t know what’s worse — the constant invocation of abortion politics on the site (irrelevant to gay issues), or the efforts to defend anti-gay McCain from anti-gay Romney.
posted by Peter Holden on
Nice try, but it doesn’t work. You chose the wrong part of the FMA to discuss this point. It does far more than simply leave the choice of marriage to the states and free them from recognizing the choices of other states. In fact, it defines marriage as between a man and a woman for all federal purposes, and THEN allows states to choose whether or not to allow gay couples to have state benefits and frees them from recognizing other marriages.
It is that definition of marriage at the federal level that makes his position inconsistent. The federal government gives far, far more benefits to married couples than any state does. THE FMA does not give ANY state the freedom to choose to allow couples the benefits the federal government gives to married couples. Witness Massachucetts now, and that’s without the FMA. Straight couples in Massachucetts get state and federal benefits, gay couples get only the state benefits.
posted by moreon on
There are two versions of the FMA that have been proposed in Congress, as far as I have been able to research.
The one proposed in 2003 stated:
“Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.
Neither this [C]onstitution [n]or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.”
The one introduced in 2004 stated:
“Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.
Neither this Constitution, nor the Constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.”
Note that both of them clearly and unequivocally state: “Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.”
So, go ahead ed holston an ND30, lets see some intellectual gymnastics and hear why both versions would not, in fact, ban the enactment of same-sex marriage in every State.
posted by moreon on
Forgot to mention my source on that was http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Home&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=16804
posted by raj on
ed holston | November 22, 2006, 4:03pm |
The part of the amendment in contention reads: “Neither this constitution, nor the constitution of any state, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.”
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and merely consider you to be just ignorant and not a liar, but the amendment in contention reads, in full, from Thomas
Emphasis added. Now, I’m sure that you can explain to us just why you left out the first sentence–the bolded part of Section 1. I really tend to doubt that it was merely an oversight, considering that you quoted the second sentence so nicely.
posted by raj on
Oh, and Ed, a later version of the text of the FMA, from Thomas, is here. From a legal standpoint, the later version is identical to the earlier one that I cited. I still wonder, just why did you ignore the first–bolded–sentence of the proposed amendment? Do you are to explain?
posted by Randy R. on
Thanks for the info Raj. Too bad ND 30 fell for the lie as well.
posted by Marlon on
Hi,
I am a straight man. I am very concerned with the direction that the US is taking, including the Iraq war and uncontrolled illegal immigration. Therefore I would like to see a real conservative president elected in 2008. So far it seems that the only viable candidate is Gov. Romney.
If you find a conservative candidate that delivers real values to America but is against gay marriage, that is a good thing. I urge you to understand this:
Gays are different. You have to accept that situation. Physically speaking, a male was designed to have sexual intercourses with a female. You want to do it differently, it is your choice. However, don’t expect the State to support or reward you for that. It is problem what you do behind closed doors. The problem is, I don’t want to see gays recognized as OK to get married, simply because my 3 year old son and other children could grow up thinking that being gay is just one more “fashionable” thing to do. It is not. It is an anomaly.
Those of us married have tax breaks and other incentives because we engage ourselves in the difficult path of starting families and raising children. If you don’t have capability to start a real family and raising children, you should not expect any tax breaks or recognition.
Simply live your life and let those who do not want to recognize the gay agenda but are good politicians prosper to save America.
posted by moreon on
Marlon,
You wrote, “Physically speaking, a male was designed to have sexual intercourses with a female.”
Designed by whom? Also, I, along with other people on this message board, are clear counter-examples to this belief. I wasn’t “designed” to have sexual intercourse with a female, for the simple reason that I have no sexual attraction towards females, only males.
Those of us married have tax breaks and other incentives because we engage ourselves in the difficult path of starting families and raising children. If you don’t have capability to start a real family and raising children, you should not expect any tax breaks or recognition.
What about gay people who adopt children? What about lesbians who use invitro-ferilization to become pregnant? Gay people do have families, whether you like it or not.
What about straight people who are incapable of having children, due to sterility or age? Should they not be allowed to get married? What if they just don’t want to have children? Should straight, married couples be required to have children within a certain timeframe or see their marriage dissolved by the State?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
So, go ahead ed holston an ND30, lets see some intellectual gymnastics and hear why both versions would not, in fact, ban the enactment of same-sex marriage in every State.
For the same reason that Massachusetts can have same-sex marriage despite DOMA being in existence, which says, and I quote:
In short, the FMA does nothing that DOMA hasn’t for far longer, but I fail to see people arguing that DOMA prevents Massachusetts from imposing same-sex marriage by judicial fiat, or even that DOMA prevents Massachusetts from disenfranchising voters in attempts by gay leftists like Raj to avoid at all costs putting gay marriage up to a popular referendum that would not include the effect of Massachusetts’s gerrymandered legislative districts.
Or perhaps Raj is desperate enough to say that, since he believes the defining of marriage in the FMA prevents any state from enacting it, that Massachusetts is in violation of DOMA.
posted by Marlon on
First of all, thanks for answering a very polite way.
Responses in line below:
Designed by whom? Also, I, along with other people on this message board, are clear counter-examples to this belief. I wasn’t “designed” to have sexual intercourse with a female, for the simple reason that I have no sexual attraction towards females, only males.
>>> If you don’t believe in God, designed by Mother Nature then. We are animals. Typically we are born with hormones that make us feel attraction to the opposite sex. You made my point. I totally understand that some of us were born with atypical traits. I think that we should respect each other as human beings. That is for sure. If you were born with hormones that make you feel attraction by men, then great, live you life as you are. However, you might agree with me that 1) Your case represents a minority, that is not a normal condition of humans. 2) Children who was born as a typical male could see lots of gay couples around and think that is a normal thing to do. That’s the danger. Children tend to imitate and absorb things in their environment. I strongly believe that many of you gays are like that due to hormone conditions, but many people go into the gay life just to “try” different things. The latter case is the issue to me, and where making that a normal ‘lifestyle’ may induce teenagers and children to grow up with the wrong perception and believe that is a matter of lifestyle, which is not the case.
What about gay people who adopt children? What about lesbians who use invitro-ferilization to become pregnant? Gay people do have families, whether you like it or not.
>>> I know you are generally great people and caring. Sorry, but again, I can imagine how your son would perceive that. How can a child adopted by gay parents look at them and follow a certain model ? If you agree on step 1 that you have these hormones that make you feel attracted by males only, why not constrain that characteristic to you guys only ? Why do you want to extend that and have children and potentially convince them that it is OK to marry man, when in reality we know that is not a typical characteristic of males. That’s what I can’t understand. I wish you could live your life happy, but you guys don’t want to admint that you are different.
What about straight people who are incapable of having children, due to sterility or age? Should they not be allowed to get married? What if they just don’t want to have children? Should straight, married couples be required to have children within a certain timeframe or see their marriage dissolved by the State?
>>> No, because as I said, the model of a male and a female will be there. At least children will not be shocked by that.
Again, thank you for your kind response. Sorry if I sound like intrusive. It is just because I see something happening in America that makes me worried.
Regards,
Marlon
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And, towards moreon’s response:
Designed by whom? Also, I, along with other people on this message board, are clear counter-examples to this belief. I wasn’t “designed” to have sexual intercourse with a female, for the simple reason that I have no sexual attraction towards females, only males.
However, there is no movement or requirement to give the full legal rights and benefits of marriage to those whose “design” predicates them towards sex with children or other deviant practices.
Succintly put, your desire to have sex with something does not automatically legitimize or require that you be granted the right to marry it. That is a right and benefit allocated by the voters who gays so affect to despise.
What about gay people who adopt children? What about lesbians who use invitro-ferilization to become pregnant?
All of these require additional legal processes and activity.
The simple fact of the matter is that a heterosexual one is the only relationship capable of producing children without additional legal activity, paperwork, filings, or processes being required.
What about straight people who are incapable of having children, due to sterility or age? Should they not be allowed to get married? What if they just don’t want to have children? Should straight, married couples be required to have children within a certain timeframe or see their marriage dissolved by the State?
Duplicitous argument. Since the lack of childbearing potential in gay people is irrelevant to whether or not they should be granted marriage, the lack of childbearing potential in straight people is likewise no reason for gays to demand the full marriage rights of couples who naturally produce children.
The simple fact of the matter is, moreon, that Marlon is right; gay couples are not biologically, sociologically, or psychologically identical to straight couples, nor do they have nearly the potential for childbearing that straight couples do. As a result, it makes no sense that they should use an identical structure that is designed and optimized for straight couples.
Where the discussion needs to shift to is what benefits and protections are most appropriate for gay couples, and how those can be best delivered. You will get nowhere trying to argue with the Marlons of the world that you should receive the same benefits as they, but you will get somewhere if you outline what benefits gay couples need.
Unfortunately, what usually kills this discussion is that the marriage debate, at its core, has nothing to do with what is best for gay couples and society; it has everything to do with jealousy, envy, feminist indoctrination, selfishness, and the other portions of the witch’s brew that make marriage less of a practical institution than a means for gay leftists to revenge themselves on people they disdain.
posted by ed holston on
With my comment I just wanted to point out that Romney had articulated a fairly nuanced position on a FMA, one that observed federalism much more closely than JR implied. Most of my post was a paste of the WT article I used to document Romney’s stated position (I just couldn’t figure out how to block quote it), so there was no selective editing.
I agree, the first line of the various amendments cited here is needlessly ambiguous as to the scope and reach of its exclusive definition of marraige as between a man and a woman. Whether that clause conflicts or comports with Romey’s stated federalist postion is a fair argument for clarification.
Yet, as ND30 points out, neither am I sure that the first line, even as worded, should be interpreted much differently in substance from the existing DOMA. Moreover, it seems tenuous to make a “federalist” case for states determining elegibility for federal benefits.
Nevertheless, no version of the FMA cited here is as restrictive as some of the state amendments, like Virginia’s, that would prohibit even civil unions.
posted by moreon on
ND30 wrote, In short, the FMA does nothing that DOMA hasn’t for far longer.
As you quoted, DOMA states: “In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”
DOMA only applies to the Federal government, as it clearly states. Congress cannot make laws which infringe on State’s sovereignty (granted, State’s sovereignty has eroded over the years).
The FMA refers to the ENTIREUnited States, which, last I checked, included all 50 states of the union.
I wrote before, “Designed by whom? Also, I, along with other people on this message board, are clear counter-examples to this belief. I wasn’t “designed” to have sexual intercourse with a female, for the simple reason that I have no sexual attraction towards females, only males.“.
Marlon responded: If you don’t believe in God, designed by Mother Nature then. We are animals. Typically we are born with hormones that make us feel attraction to the opposite sex. You made my point. I totally understand that some of us were born with atypical traits.
Which is exactly my point, not all humans were “designed” to be heterosexual, which you seem to agree with.
However, you might agree with me that 1) Your case represents a minority, that is not a normal condition of humans.
I don’t agree with this. Being attracted to people of the same gender is perfectly normal for homosexuals. And it’s perfectly normal for a small segment of the human population to be homosexual, just as it is for other animals. If by “normal” you mean that most people are straight, of course I would agree to that.
I strongly believe that many of you gays are like that due to hormone conditions, but many people go into the gay life just to “try” different things. The latter case is the issue to me, and where making that a normal ‘lifestyle’ may induce teenagers and children to grow up with the wrong perception and believe that is a matter of lifestyle, which is not the case.
If sexual orientation is due to biology, as you seem to agree, then why would any straight person go against their natural feelings and attractions? If you don’t believe being gay is a matter of lifestyle (as I don’t), then why would anyone “choose” it?
Gay people are visible in society and the popular culture regardless of marriage. How does not allowing same-sex marriage, but still allowing gays to be visible in society, discourage children from “trying” different things?
No, because as I said, the model of a male and a female will be there. At least children will not be shocked by that.
There’s no reason for children to be shocked by a normal part of the human condition.
You wrote before that, “I think that we should respect each other as human beings.”
If you believe that children should respect gays, then whats wrong with children knowing that gay people exist and love members of the same-sex? How can you respect someone if you deny their existence? Most of your arguments against same-sex marriage seem to be that you don’t want children to be exposed to the idea of homosexuality. Well, too late for that, gays are already out of the closet.
ND30 wrote, “However, there is no movement or requirement to give the full legal rights and benefits of marriage to those whose “design” predicates them towards sex with children or other deviant practices.
Succintly put, your desire to have sex with something does not automatically legitimize or require that you be granted the right to marry it.”
You’re being disingenuous here, I never advanced that as an argument for same-sex marriage.
Since the lack of childbearing potential in gay people is irrelevant to whether or not they should be granted marriage…
The simple fact of the matter is, moreon, that Marlon is right; gay couples are not biologically, sociologically, or psychologically identical to straight couples, nor do they have nearly the potential for childbearing that straight couples do. As a result, it makes no sense that they should use an identical structure that is designed and optimized for straight couples.
You’re contradicting yourself. You say that childbearing potential is irrelevent to whether or not gays should be married, and at the same time saying that gays shouldn’t be married because the lack the childbearing potential of straight people. Which is it?
posted by raj on
ed holston | November 23, 2006, 2:21am |
Yet, as ND30 points out, neither am I sure that the first line, even as worded, should be interpreted much differently in substance from the existing DOMA.
I’m not sure what this is supposed to mean, but the existing DOMA reads as follows:
I’ll admit that I can’t find the first sentence Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. of the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment there, but perhaps you might want to elucidate on your comment. If the first sentence of the proposed FMA is not co-extensive with DOMA–and, as far as I can tell, it is not–what does it mean?
posted by Don K on
It seems pretty clear to me that DOMA was drafted narrowly enough to encompass only a definition of marriage for Federal purposes and to exempt states from being forced to recognize same-sex marriages from other states.
FMA, on the other hand, appears designed to pre-empt state definitions of marriage that include same-sex marriage when it says “Marriage in the United States shall consist…”. That much seems to be plain English. I’ll leave it to legal theorists to opine on whether FMA would prohibit a state from amending its constitution to specifically allow same-sex marriage.
Considering the states historically have been considered the authorities on their own constitutions (SCOTUS dos not rule on issues solely involving state constitutions), and that every state has a mechanism in place for amending its constitution as desired, it seems quite presumptuous to amend the U.S. Constitution to tell the judiciary and the people of the states how to construe their own constitutions.
posted by ed holston on
raj,
As I said, “I agree, the first line of the various amendments cited here is needlessly ambiguous as to the scope and reach of its exclusive definition of marraige as between a man and a woman. Whether that clause conflicts or comports with Romey’s stated federalist postion is a fair argument for clarification.”
That’s why I said, “neither am I sure that the first line, even as worded, should be interpreted much differently in substance from the existing DOMA.”
posted by moreon on
Sorry about my unclosed bold tag, folks.
Let’s see if this comment corrects thing. I really wish this forum had a preview button.
posted by Randy R. on
Marlon: I strongly believe that many of you gays are like that due to hormone conditions, but many people go into the gay life just to “try” different things. The latter case is the issue to me, and where making that a normal ‘lifestyle’ may induce teenagers and children to grow up with the wrong perception and believe that is a matter of lifestyle, which is not the case.
This is the crux of your worry. You are worried that people will become gay when in fact they are not. You seem to think that it is perfectly okay for gay people to be gay, but when a straight person sees another gay person, that will somehow encourage him or her to ‘try’ gay. And that this is bad.
Your worries are unfounded. First of all, no one ‘catches’ gay, or becomes gay. They just are. You are probably worried that it appears that more and more people are being gay than what you are used to. That is because years ago, gay people had to hide their lives and identities. There are not any more gay people today than there was 10 years ago, or a 100 years ago. It’s just that we are more open and visible because of it.
As such, more and more teenagers are coming out as gay. This is a *good* thing. Years ago, if you were a teenager and gay (like me in the 70s), you just hid it, denied to yourself that you were gay, and generally were miserable. Some people would even get married to an opposite sex person — like Ted Haggard and plenty of others — thinking that they could stop being gay that way. Of course, it didn’t work. And frankly, if you had a sister or daughter, I’m sure you would prefer that she marry a straight man rather than a gay man pretending and hoping to be straight.
So being out and open is a good thing for everyone, including straight people like you.
But does that influence children? Yes, of course it does. Seeing gay couples, kids will grow up thinking that’s okay. In other words, they won’t think that the couple is necessarily evil or satan-worshipping, as many adults believe, and might even come to think of them as normal people just like you. That, to me, is a good thing, since reducing bigotry is always good.
But does that mean that children will attempt homosexual acts just because they see a happy couple? Hardly. First of all, if you think that NOT seeing gay couples will stop experimentation, then you obviously are quite naive about teenagers and college students. People have sex, and they have it any way they might choose to, regardless of outside influences.
But to get to the crux of your worry — no, there is no evidence that people who are not already gay will become gay, or will do so upon seeing gay couples. Just ask yourself: You’ve seen gay couples. Does that make you want to kiss a guy? If not, then you really have nothing to worry about.
And denying us the right to marry will NOT stop gay couples from marrying in churches, and will not stop gay couples from adopting children and raising families just like you.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
North Dallas Thirty, your hatred of gays is remarkable, you truly are a troll. The FMA clearly prohibits all gay marriages and the DOMA only applies to the federal government but you’d like to mislead gay people into believing the FMA won’t prevent states from allowing same sex marriages.
You made the absurd statement “The simple fact of the matter is, moreon, that Marlon is right; gay couples are not biologically, sociologically, or psychologically identical to straight couples, nor do they have nearly the potential for childbearing that straight couples do. As a result, it makes no sense that they should use an identical structure that is designed and optimized for straight couples. “.
Marriage was never designed, there is no ancient design committee or notarized design document that you can refer to. It simply began informally as a public well-wishing for a couple’s choice to live together in love. There is nothing about marriage that doesn’t suit gay couples just as well as straight couples. No one is harmed in any way by the gay couple down the street getting married and marriage certainly doesn’t harm gay couples. If you want to deprive gays of marriage then deprive yourself (although I doubt you are gay given your opposition to gay equality) but leave those that want to marry to do so.
posted by Craig2 on
Sigh. So, you don’t think Musgrave might have gotten the idea of her Federal Marriage Amendment from the Christian Right’s Human Life Amendment back in ’83, then?
Craig2
Wellington, New Zealand
posted by Raot on
Randy R, since you mention evidence, do you really think there is any convincing evidence that “no one ‘catches’ gay, or becomes gay. They just are”, and if so what is it?
posted by randy R. on
Well, yes, I do. And every person who has acknowledged that they are gay says that they just are gay, have always been like that, and that it can’t change.
And every scientific study on matter has shown that being gay isn’t something one becomes, it is what one is. Just like any heterosexual: You don’t ‘become’ straight, you don’t catch it, you just are a heterosexual. Unless you think that being straight is some sort of choice?
If you think otherwise, you are free to contradict me with evidence. As for myself, I can state without qualification that I have always been gay my entire life, never once was attracted to a woman sexually, and have always been attracted to men. If you want to argue with me, you can, but it will be a futile argument, since I know myself far better than you do.
Furthermore, this discussion began because someone asked about rights. Well, we don’t require that Christians, or Jews, or Buddhists, or agnostics prove that their beliefs are innate and unchangeable. We just grant them the right to choose their religion, respect it, and give them every freedom and right we can. Why is the bar so much higher for gay people?
posted by Randy R. on
But don’t take my word for it. Let’s look at what the leading anti-gay leader has to say about the matter, Dr. James Dobson. You know him, involved with such organizations as Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council, Traditional Values Coalition, and the Concerned Femmes of America. All of which fight gay marriage and any gay rights tooth and nail.
His friend, Ted Haggard, turns out to be gay. Dobson at first agreed to help his friend ‘turn’ back to being straight. But as he said on Larry King last night, he admitted this would take at least four to five years, and he doens’t have the time to help his friend.
Four to five years! And this is with someone who is very motivated to become heterosexual, who is closer — by his own admission — to Jesus than most other mere mortals on this planet, and who has the best help available. If it takes four to five years for him, what about the rest of us poor homos? Could take a lifetime, huh? Maybe never, right? By Dobson’s own argument.
So unless you can find any evidence that contradicts the great and mighty Dr. Dobson, you basically have to accept his findings that being gay isn’t something that we choose, and it isn’t something that, at best, can change very easily.
posted by Raot on
OK Randy, evidence. Your statement that “every person who has acknowledged that they are gay says that they just are gay, have always been like that, and that it can’t change” is factually false. Darrell Yates Rist claimed to have chosen his homosexuality, for instance:
“It seems to me to be cowardly to abnegate our individual responsibility for the construction of sexual desires. Rather, refusing the expedient lie and insisting insteadon the right to fulfill ourselves affectionally – in what ever directions our needs compel us, however contrary to the social norm they may be – is both honest and courageous, an act of utter freedom.” (Quoted by Simon LeVay, Queer Science, p. 6-7).
I cannot respond to your statement that “every scientific study on matter has shown that being gay isn’t something one becomes, it is what one is”, except to point out that it is simply an unsupported assertion. I or anyone else could assert the contrary. Without further support, that counter-assertion would carry just as much or just as little weight as your claim.
As for gay rights, there are some people who would support them if homosexuality were biologically determined but not otherwise (the author of an article you can find here seems to be taking this view http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20061120/cm_usatoday/whenreligionlosesitscredibility). If we are going to be honest, we should tell them that the claim that sexual orientation is inborn has not even come close to being proven.
posted by moreon on
Raot,
I’ll concede that there is no scientific study which definentively shows that sexual orientation is not something which is chosen. However, there have been studies which have shown that in identical twins, if one twin is gay, the other has a 50% chance of being gay as well, even when the twins are not in the same environment. This is strong evidence to support the claim that there is something biological going on, even if the mechanism is not completely understood.
Proving that sexual orientation is an intrinsic and immutable trait just isn’t within our current scientific and medical ability.
That said, the idea that everyone is heterosexual, but many people just choose to have sexual relations with members of the same-sex without any biological drive to do so, is ridiculous and doesn’t pass the common-sense test.
You might be able to point to a few kooks that say they “chose” their sexual orientation, but I hope we can agree that the majority of people would not make such a claim about their own sexuality.
posted by Raot on
Moreon,
Without wanting to make a tremendous issue out of it, I think it’s rather offensive to label people “kooks”, particularly when there is no proof that they are wrong.
You seem to be suggesting that the existence of any biological influence on sexual orientation means that choice cannot also be involved. I think this is fallacious reasoning. Simon LeVay, criticising Dean Hamer for saying that, comments, “it is possible to construct a hypothesis whereby both “gay genes” and a desire to be homosexual are necessary for a person to actually become homosexual.” (Queer Science, p. 244).
posted by moreon on
Raot,
Kook is the appropriate word to use, considering how marginal that opinion is (a person claiming to have chosen their own sexual orientation).
As for “it is possible to construct a hypothesis whereby both ‘gay genes’ and a desire to be homosexual are necessary for a person to actually become homosexual.”
Sure, it’s possible to construct such a hypothesis, but unless you believe that every single gay person who claims they did not choose their sexual orientation is lying, then the hypothesis must be false.
I’ll use myself as an example. I did not choose my sexual orientation. I never had a desire to be homosexual. In fact, when I discovered that I had same-sex feelings, I tried my best to deny them, even going so far as to watch lesbian porn. Now that I’m well-adjusted, I’m perfectly happy being homosexual, but that wasn’t always the case.
Given that, there’s only 2 conclusions to draw:
1) The hypothesis you just outlined is false.
Or
2) I’m lying
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Summary of the argument so far:
“I don’t believe gays should exist.”
“Well, I believe I should exist, and you should validate me.”
“Should not!”
“Should too!”
“Should NOT!”
“Should TOO!”
Here’s an idea — why not let everyone live the way he wants to live, and get the government out of “endorsing” anyone’s life?
posted by moreon on
Here’s an idea — why not let everyone live the way he wants to live, and get the government out of “endorsing” anyone’s life?
1) Because that is an impractical goal that just isn’t going to happen.
2) Like social conservatives, I believe that marriage is an important institution and serves a critical function in the well-being of society. Why shouldn’t the government endorse such an institution?
posted by Raot on
Moreon,
That people who claim to have chosen their sexual orientation are expressing a “marginal” opinion is your opinion. It isn’t proof that their opinion is mistaken or that you are justified in calling them “kooks.”
There is a third possibilty that you are ignoring: that you are honestly mistaken when you claim that your sexual orientation was not a choice. I realize that you may find this suggestion offensive and I hope you will forgive me for making it.
(I don’t think my doing so is more offensive than your calling people “kooks.”)
No doubt you didn’t make a conscious decision to become homosexual, but it’s mistaken to think that choices must be conscious decisions. People make all kinds of choices that aren’t conscious decisions. You probably didn’t make a conscious decision to get out of bed this morning, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a choice. It certainly doesn’t mean it wasn’t voluntary!
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
that is an impractical goal that just isn’t going to happen
That’s funny — I thought “live and let live” was one of the founding principles of America.
If you want the government to legislate and run your life for you, might I suggest moving to Europe? France, the UK and Denmark are all running highly skilled migration programs that are easy for under-50 college-educated Americans to qualify under.
Then, you can move there and debate why the government (and your nosy neighbors) should be running your life for you, and what that life should look like, and spend most of your time justifying your own private decisions to others.
Like social conservatives, I believe that marriage is an important institution and serves a critical function in the well-being of society
No, you believe that your narrow interpretations of your own religious mythology should be imposed on the entire country through the force of government. You wish to use force to push people into narrow, defined roles created by your irrational religious beliefs — something which, again, has no basis in the American political system, with its strong demarcation between the domain of religion (a personal superstition) and the state (which doesn’t have the authority to endorse personal superstitions, let alone impose them upon the populace as a whole).
posted by moreon on
Northeast Libertarian,
I was simply talking about the government having a secular institution of marriage, nothing more, nothing less. I don’t know why you brought religion into it.
I don’t see how the government having a secular institution of marriage has anything to do with “running people’s lives for them.” Please elaborate. I honestly wanted to know from you why you think the government shouldn’t have a secular institution of marriage, as it does today.
Raot,
You wrote, “There is a third possibilty that you are ignoring: that you are honestly mistaken when you claim that your sexual orientation was not a choice. I realize that you may find this suggestion offensive and I hope you will forgive me for making it.”
I don’t find it particular offensive, just absurd.
No doubt you didn’t make a conscious decision to become homosexual, but it’s mistaken to think that choices must be conscious decisions.
On the contrary, if it’s not a conscious decision, I don’t see how it could possibly be a choice. Choice = Choosing, and Choosing = Deciding. Deciding something requires that you consciously think about it.
Since we’re arguing about “choice”, and we don’t seem to agree what it is, I’m going to need a specific definition from you. How would you define “choice” in the context that we are talking about?
posted by raj on
Raot | November 23, 2006, 11:55pm |
As for gay rights, there are some people who would support them if homosexuality were biologically determined but not otherwise…
It’s nice that you believe that, but, quite frankly, I don’t. More than a few of the people who oppose equal rights for gay people would be unwilling to believe that homosexuality was biologically determined even if evidence had been adduced that it was, as confirmed by 99 44/100% of biologists. They just wouldn’t believe the evidence, or the scientific interpretation of the evidence. All you need do is look at the percentage of people who don’t believe that Darwin’s theory of evolution is correct, despite the amazing amount of evidence that has been concluded that shows that it is correct. That shows, quite clearly, that more than a few of these people will reject evidence that does not conform to their preconceived notions–their prejudices.
On the other hand, query why equal rights for gay people should rest on the issue of whether homosexuality is biologically determined. Equal rights for Catholics, Jews, and other religions, clearly do not require biological determination–all religions are choices. So why, even if homosexuality is a choice, should homosexuals be denied equal rights?
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
I was simply talking about the government having a secular institution of marriage, nothing more, nothing less.
Government marriage, as it exists today, is a welfare program. What is so unique about government welfare for heterosexuals that makes it “essential to the survival of society?” Precious little that I can see.
I don’t see how the government having a secular institution of marriage has anything to do with “running people’s lives for them.”
It’s all about running people’s lives for them. Live the way we demand — if you want lower taxes, a visa for your spouse, tax-free asset transfers, recognition in the private and public sectors, etc., etc., etc.
Live a way other than the way we want you to live, and be stopped up with penalties, delays, higher taxes, etc.
More than a few of the people who oppose equal rights for gay people would be unwilling to believe that homosexuality was biologically determined even if evidence had been adduced that it was, as confirmed by 99 44/100% of biologists.
I have an even simpler test for you to consider.
Once, an anti-gay guy told me that gays aren’t having their rights abridged in the “marriage” debate, because gay men can marry women and lesbian women can marry men.
I suggested that perhaps the best course of action would be for gay men to “legally marry” lesbian women and maintain a non-traditional relationship where the purpose of the marriage is mostly tax benefits, health care, social security payments, etc. He looked at me in horror and said “that’s destroying the basis of marriage?”
Well, what was the basis of marriage, I asked. After all, he’d already said that it wasn’t love, nor was it reproduction (he was opposed to efforts to make childbirth mandatory in marriage). He stammered and stuttered and finally said “it isn’t for YOU people, it’s for NORMAL people.”
His objection was not the idea that homosexuality and heterosexuality were inborne characteristics, but rather, the very idea of homosexual people getting any benefits or rights was repugnant to him. He saw the horror of his “you can still get married, just to a woman” canard in stark relief.
That’s one reason why I’ve suggested in the past that gay people defeat the anti-gay bans through just such a series of marriages of convenience. With prenuptual agreements and exchanges for geography, we could provide health care, green cards, and a plethora of other services to our fellow opposite-sex homosexuals while also sending the divorce rate skyrocketing. This will ensure that “legal marriage” finishes becoming the farce that thrice-married “family values” conservatives have already started making it, and ensure that the legal institution ceases to exist — replaced with private contracts between individuals, which is how it always was done up to now.
It would also ensure that lots of people needing health care, visas, etc. could get them.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Raot said “You probably didn’t make a conscious decision to get out of bed this morning, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a choice. It certainly doesn’t mean it wasn’t voluntary!”.
I most definitely have to make a conscious decision to get out of bed every morning. The act of waking up, now that’s not a decision, and nor is who we are attracted to.
Raot the proof that its not a choice rests in yourself. You don’t remember making the decision to be attracted to whomever you are, did you? There’s no reason to believe its any different with gays.
posted by Randy R. on
For proof, all you need to do is check the websites for the American Psychiatric Association, The American Psychological Association, and the American Medical Association. All of them are in agreement that sexual orientation is not a choice, but is innate and set either at birth or shortly thereafterwards, and that sexual orientation cannot be changed.
Now of course the ball is in your court to find some way to dismiss their findings….
posted by Raot on
Moreon,
The issue here is really very simple. People perform voluntary acts without thinking about it all the time. They don’t think about it before doing whatever it is, they don’t think about it while they are doing it, and quite possibly they don’t even think about it afterwards.
This absence of thought does not mean that such acts were the uncontrollable result of inborn instincts or environmental conditioning in childhood. It would be just as silly to argue that my getting out of bed in the morning without thinking about it shows that this act must have been an uncontrollable physical reflex as it would be to argue that my becoming homosexuality must have been involuntary because I don’t remember deciding to do it.
Randy R,
Unfortunately, I cannot answer appeals to perceived authority. If you want to believe them, then believe them, but experience shows that authorities can get things wrong sometimes.
posted by Randy R. on
And you did exactly what I predicted you would: you dismissed their conclusions without ever considering them, simply because they have a conclusion you dislike. Sure, one organization can get it wrong, but two major professional organizations? That’s highly unlikely. And three? Absurd. It’s particularly absurd since all three organizations have structural committees that review constantly new findings and research papers. If there are any credible papers out there that would prove them wrong, they will certainly hear about it from the researchers themselves. Just look at how many times the AMA has changed it’s recommendations on having a healthy cardiovascular system within the last 30 years.
But the really funny thing is that you actually quoted something from Queer Science by Simon LeVay. LeVay’s book actually is an argument FOR the fact that homosexuality is genetic. He spend the first two-thirds of his book reviewing all the current theories, and then rips them apart. The quote that you gave us, from the first few pages, was put there by LeVay to merely show that there are idiots even among gay people. But he most certainly did not use the quote to support your contention; quite the opposite. He used the quote to show it’s prove it’s fallacy, which he does in the last third of his book.
Perhaps you should actually read the evidence you quote before you present it to us. Oh, but then, you might find something you disagree with….
posted by raj on
Raot | November 24, 2006, 11:27pm |
I’ts interesting that you avoid the question put to you in the last paragraph of my comment to you here. Apparently, you believe that your complaints are new to us. Just to let you know, at least some of us have encountered them elsewhere. You aren’t telling us anything new. On the other hand, whenever I have posed the question in the cited comment, I have never gotten a response. And, since you have had almost 24 hours to provide a response, I’ll presume that you aren’t going to respond, either.
Let’s put it mildly: you’re a fraud who just wants to present your anti-gay rhetoric.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
North Dallas Thirty, your hatred of gays is remarkable, you truly are a troll. The FMA clearly prohibits all gay marriages and the DOMA only applies to the federal government but you’d like to mislead gay people into believing the FMA won’t prevent states from allowing same sex marriages.
Then, Randi, since DOMA only applies to the Federal government, explain this portion of it, as cited previously:
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.
In short, all the FMA does is to put DOMA into the Constitution and, by doing so, make it clear that fundamental law shall not be interpreted to require gay marriage. Otherwise, it does nothing different than DOMA.
And DOMA has already been found to be constitutional.
No one is harmed in any way by the gay couple down the street getting married and marriage certainly doesn’t harm gay couples.
If you weren’t so obviously flinging hate at straight people who disagree with you, that might be a logical argument.
However, Randi, your sexual orientation is quite obviously nothing more than an excuse for you to be hateful towards straight people; furthermore, given your unwillingness to consider any options other than marriage to grant gay couples benefits and protections, it should be obvious that you’ve made of marriage a trophy.
posted by Audrey on
Mitt Romney is a mormon man-slut. I?m an agnostic fag-hag. Now you try.
posted by Randy R. on
ND 30: Then, Randi, since DOMA only applies to the Federal government, explain this portion of it, as cited previously:
Thank goodness it wasn’t me who said this!
posted by Randy R. on
Don’t know and don’t care. Come back when you have something to add to the political discussion.
posted by Bill from FL on
Marlon,
I will not be as kind and polite with my answers.
See my responses below. I am doing my best to respond to everything but do not have time to go thru yours with a fine tooth comb.
1. Homosexuality exists in nature. Always has, always will. Is it a permanent thing in most species? No. But how many species really “marry” as humans do. How present is monogamy in nature? (Haven’t you heard about the gay penguins?”.
2. You say you are concerned with what is going on in the country. Good. Why don’t you get more concerned with the war in Iraq, taxes, the erosion of your rights, jobs disappearing, and dare i say plenty of children that already exist and are being squirted out by morons who don’t or won’t take care of them.
3. Children will learn that it’s OK to be gay and that is JUST TOO DAMN BAD! What are you, the right wing thought police? Should kids of snake handler pentecostals be taken away?
Children of gay couples will not be outraged or sickened or converted in any way. You are projecting your OWN feelings onto kids. Of course they may want a mom and a dad, but I grew up without a maternal grandmom for example, and had the next best thing. Did I wish I got to have granny G around and see what it’s like? Yes! Not an exact comparison, but close enough! I am sick of you people demanding that you get to control what children think and learn! Your children are NOT MY KIDS! My gay friends kids ARE NOT YOUR KIDS! Why don’t you people worry more about your sons deifying 50-cent, Eminem, gangsta rappers, Britney Spears, instead of their moms, dads, step parents, etc. I will answer that for you: Because so many of you straights don’t want to take responsibility for that. You do NOT want to admit that it WAS STRAIGHT PEOPLE that DESTROYED FAMILY AND MARRIAGE! Instead, you sit up on your high and mighty horses about how bad gays are and how wonderful you are. e are NOT inferior pal! (You didn’t directly say it but you imply it)
4. Gays throughout history have been for various reasons treated like worse than human garbage. We are not, and finally for the first time we are standing up and getting our place at the table.
5. I do expect government to grant my 7 year relationship the same or relatively similar status to marriage. I have all the responsibilities, at least morally, that you married people do. We sink, we swim, we suceed, we fail, we do it together! It was me that will have to take time off from work for example to care for him, and lose money and maybe my insurance if he gets sick. And this is because we are “not family”. Do I have to go on and on?
6. Hetero’s get all the tax breaks in marriage PARTLY because of the possibility of kids. It is one of few entities that joins 2 people together as a single unit for the purpose of making it in the world. BUT the government lets you decide these days if you want kids, r whatever. Marriage as an institution in practice, benefits, strictures, etc. has evolved over time, especially since we have a strictly civil approach in America to it. Don’t give me that crap about “we get tax breaks because we will have kids.” Tell that to my mom and step dad who married at 50 and don’t want kids. After they dumped their long term spouses. (Oh and it didn’t make me approve of divorce or their divorce)
7. Yes most of us are good people. And all of us deserve the rights to be good, bad, ugly, dumb, or indifferent and not face discrimination based on relationship or sexual preference.
Bring on the debate Marlon!
posted by Bill from FL on
Oh and North Dallas Thirty and Ed Holston Let me address you:
In the case of abortion, Roe v. Wade and its associated case law are anti-federalist — that is, they specifically deny the states the right to regulate abortion within their own borders.
However, as Ed ably pointed out above, the FMA does not abrogate the right of the states to regulate marriage; it simply makes it clear that the Federal or state judiciary cannot compel states to provide gays marriage rights.
In short, what Romney is saying is that, in matters of marriage and abortion, the states should be able to make up their own minds about what they want without fear of compulsion by the judiciary to go one way or another. Repealing Roe and passing the FMA would do exactly that.
Funny how Romney is so passionate about these 2 issues. Aren’t the courts the 3rd branch of government? If the states wanted to pass a law that said Alabama should criminalize saying “Bush is dumb” shouldn’t the courts be able to stop it? Read the FMA a bit closer. You have been speaking about it enough. And does common sense not tell you that a law REQUIRES sometime to happen? What part of “Marriage in the US Shall only be between a man and a woman” don’t you understand about the FMA?
What kind of Republican Activist judges would have fun with this one? Haven’t you ever heard of right wing political correctness and republican activist judges too? (Stop down your local fundi church in perfectly blue SF. You’ll get an idea of right wing political correctness and what it’s like here in FL!”
And Romney has it exactly right from a practical standpoint; McCain cannot say he doesn’t want gay marriage, but oppose the FMA, because it’s obvious that gay leftists are trying to use the Federal courts to override state laws and constitutional amendments.
I do not like the whole judicial strategy, but are courts not where “The little guy” has to go to make sure he gets a fair shake? What about all the other countless court decisions that go one way or the other on various issues?
Your remark about (not exact words) gays not being socialogically, biologically the same, etc as straight couples need I remind you that is only true for NON BARREN straight couples? Should we have to be inferior and wait for big mommy uncle sam to get around and decide what it thinks we should get at the discount government rights and benefits store?
Why do I feel like a Jew in the Weimar Republic?
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Incidentally, John McCain is also on the record as not supporting civil unions, which he apparently considers identical to gay marriage. In reality, whichever Republican wins the Republican nomination won’t matter — we will be delivered another arrogant, unaccountable, big-government, anti-gay candidate.
From the Arizona Star:
“So you’re for civil unions?” Stephanopoulos asked.
“No,” he said. “I do not believe gay marriage should be legal. I do not believe gay marriage should be legal,” he repeated. “But I do believe that people ought to be able to enter into contracts, exchange powers of attorney, other ways that people have relationships can enter into.”
A vote for a Republican candidate is a wasted vote. Any gay man voting for a Republican candidate is voting against lower taxes, lower spending, and equal rights under the law for gays and lesbians — whether he’s voting for McCain or Romney. There’s no difference, whatsoever, in their positions.
posted by raj on
Bill from FL | November 26, 2006, 2:54am |
However, …the FMA does not abrogate the right of the states to regulate marriage…
This is demonstrably incorrect, as has been pointed out above. What part of Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman–the first sentence of the FMA–do you apparently not understand?
posted by raj on
More to the point of the post, from this morning’s (Sun 26 Nov 2006) Boston Globe:
Romney’s dance to the right
By Joan Vennochi, Globe Columnist | November 26, 2006
IT’S LIKE turning a ballerina into a right-leaning elephant.
For more than a decade, Mitt Romney has been dancing around some hot-button social issues. Now, he is running hard to the right to position himself for the 2008 presidential contest.
But his tutu catches on some inconvenient realities: He ran for office twice in Massachusetts as a moderate, pro choice Republican. All the political theatrics in the world can’t change the record.
Take Romney’s war on gay marriage in Massachusetts….
Much more here.
Aside from the liability of his Mormon religion, I wonder how much Romney will be able to survive his obvious flip-flops on social issues.
posted by Bill from FL on
All….
In my tiredness and juggling of 5 things when I posted this be advised that I did not make note or bold when I copied and pasted what someone else said. Raj, I hope I didn’t confuse you or anyone else.
posted by Bill from FL on
This is what I meant to say when addressing Ed Holstonand NDT at 2:54am. My words below:
Funny how Romney is so passionate about these 2 issues. Aren’t the courts the 3rd branch of government? If the states wanted to pass a law that said Alabama should criminalize saying “Bush is dumb” shouldn’t the courts be able to stop it? Read the FMA a bit closer. You have been speaking about it enough. And does common sense not tell you that a law REQUIRES sometime to happen? What part of “Marriage in the US Shall only be between a man and a woman” don’t you understand about the FMA?
What kind of Republican Activist judges would have fun with this one? Haven’t you ever heard of right wing political correctness and republican activist judges too? (Stop down your local fundi church in perfectly blue SF. You’ll get an idea of right wing political correctness and what it’s like here in FL!”
I do not like the whole judicial strategy, but are courts not where “The little guy” has to go to make sure he gets a fair shake? What about all the other countless court decisions that go one way or the other on various issues?
Your remark about (not exact words) gays not being socialogically, biologically the same, etc as straight couples need I remind you that is only true for NON BARREN straight couples? Should we have to be inferior and wait for big mommy uncle sam to get around and decide what it thinks we should get at the discount government rights and benefits store?
Why do I feel like a Jew in the Weimar Republic?
posted by ETJB on
A vote for a third party candidate is also a wasted vote 99% of the time. If you dont like that then I suggest you change the law.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Funny how Romney is so passionate about these 2 issues. Aren’t the courts the 3rd branch of government? If the states wanted to pass a law that said Alabama should criminalize saying “Bush is dumb” shouldn’t the courts be able to stop it?
Under the current Constitutional guidelines of freedom of speech, yes.
However, that hardly means that voters can’t amend the Federal Constitution to allow (or disallow) such laws as these, which would take the courts neatly out of the equation.
The judiciary is the weakest of the three branches of government, and for good reason; it’s the only one in which those in power are not elected by voters and serve life terms. Therefore, it is limited only to interpreting existing fundamental law, and as such, can be with perfect right checked, reversed, and bound by voters’ will as expressed in the constitutional referendum and amendment process.
I do not like the whole judicial strategy, but are courts not where “The little guy” has to go to make sure he gets a fair shake?
A “fair shake”, of course, being the courts ruling in your favor — which is why, despite countless existing decisions against you and your fellow leftists, you continue to file lawsuit after lawsuit, shopping for judges, trying to find one who will rule in your favor.
That is why you and your fellow gay leftists like Raj have succeeded in nothing other than getting more amendments that explicitly prevent such behavior from getting passed — and why your cowardice and fear is such that you refuse to allow a vote even in Massachusetts on whether the people want gay marriage or not.
Your remark about (not exact words) gays not being socialogically, biologically the same, etc as straight couples need I remind you that is only true for NON BARREN straight couples?
Contrary to popular leftist belief, an inability to have children does not turn a woman into a man or vice versa. Even in the absence of children, there are significant biological, sociological, and psychological differences between couples of the same sex and couples of the opposite sex. Gay leftists may wish to deny the obvious, but that doesn’t mean it ceases to exist.
Should we have to be inferior and wait for big mommy uncle sam to get around and decide what it thinks we should get at the discount government rights and benefits store?
Whenever this cry of “inferior” comes up, I always think of a trip to Filene’s Basement. I can buy a lovely pair of Gucci loafers that don’t fit, or I can buy a pair of less-tony shoes that do fit and work with my wardrobe. Yes, the less-tony shoes are “inferior” in terms of brand, but they are superior in terms of usefulness.
Ask yourself the question, Bill: do you want marriage for benefits and protections, or do you just want it because you want to stick it to straight people? Given that leftist gays turned down a reciprocal-benefits arrangement in Colorado that was a shoo-in to pass, instead trying a typical leftist hate campaign that resulted in gay marriage being banned AND civil unions being rejected, one wonders.
Why do I feel like a Jew in the Weimar Republic?
Because the one thing the gay leftist community does well is to brainwash gays into believing they’re helpless victims. It works better for getting them to support antireligious bigotry, mindless socialism, envy and jealousy of heterosexuals, contempt for their parents’ lifestyles, and all the other things that gay leftists try to cloak in the form of “gay rights”.
posted by Bill from FL on
Funny how Romney is so passionate about these 2 issues. Aren’t the courts the 3rd branch of government? If the states wanted to pass a law that said Alabama should criminalize saying “Bush is dumb” shouldn’t the courts be able to stop it?
Under the current Constitutional guidelines of freedom of speech, yes. However, that hardly means that voters can’t amend the Federal Constitution to allow (or disallow) such laws as these, which would take the courts neatly out of the equation.
RESPONSE: Of course they can do that. But it isn’t the VOTERS that do so, it’s state and federal politicians who may or may not care what their constituents (who may not be voters) think! Yes, of course this is representative government. But remember-it’s not the voters!
The judiciary is the weakest of the three branches of government, and for good reason; it’s the only one in which those in power are not elected by voters and serve life terms. Therefore, it is limited only to interpreting existing fundamental law, and as such, can be with perfect right checked, reversed, and bound by voters’ will as expressed in the constitutional referendum and amendment process.
RESPONSE: True at the federal level but as you know it varies at the state level! Some states have recall, retention, or partisan/non partisan political campaiging. The founders/framers knew that it probably wasn’t wise for judges to be totally subject to political pressure as would a congressman, etc. All of this is per the chosen representatives to the ConCon for the federal cons. And then for each state constitution that was designed by the state’s lawmakers/people!
I do not like the whole judicial strategy, but are courts not where “The little guy” has to go to make sure he gets a fair shake?
A “fair shake”, of course, being the courts ruling in your favor — which is why, despite countless existing decisions against you and your fellow leftists, you continue to file lawsuit after lawsuit, shopping for judges, trying to find one who will rule in your favor.
That is why you and your fellow gay leftists like Raj have succeeded in nothing other than getting more amendments that explicitly prevent such behavior from getting passed — and why your cowardice and fear is such that you refuse to allow a vote even in Massachusetts on whether the people want gay marriage or not.
RESPONSE: NOT TRUE! No, think about it for a second: A fair shake meaning the little old lady in Atlantic City that faces losing her home from Eminent Domain from casinos or the city, etc etc. Majoritarian State power squashing dissidents, like communists, non-violent seperatists in Montana, the list goes on and on. And when do the courts always rule in my favor? No, fair is fair (which is subjective of course!) Why are you assuming that I am some flaming liberal which is NOT the case! We got stuck with the “Judicial Strategy” I suppose, because gays do not have the grassroots “don’t mind being told what to do” power that the opposition does. At the same time, we have been lazy, complacent, apathetic, and uninformed. We are not a monolithic group and frankly we are like herding cats! Also, I have this little issue called being employed, family responsibilities, and a relationship. God I hope he doesn’t get sick! (My company won’t/can’t offer DP’s family leave or Health Insurance because of FL law!)
And who are the “you and your fellow leftists”? Since when am I a leftist? And it is not ME and my fellow leftists. Again, I am not a leftist and if I have to tell you my positions I will do so. My cowadice and fear that won’t allow a vote? Not mine specifically, as I am a resident of FL.
I do not like issues like this or many others being submitted for a vote, because any similar issue would NEVER have been submitted for a vote! In many ways, I think direct democracy is not a good thing. And the process that MA went thru for this issue alone was frankly kind of weird and the process has been very ugly and divisive. When the marriage ban gets defeated in MA, if it gets to the voters, lets see what you have to say then!
Your remark about (not exact words) gays not being socialogically, biologically the same, etc as straight couples need I remind you that is only true for NON BARREN straight couples?
Contrary to popular leftist belief, an inability to have children does not turn a woman into a man or vice versa. Even in the absence of children, there are significant biological, sociological, and psychological differences between couples of the same sex and couples of the opposite sex. Gay leftists may wish to deny the obvious, but that doesn’t mean it ceases to exist.
RESPONSE: Fair Enough. Yes there are differences between men and women but that is not the point and it is blatantly obvious that sexes don’t change. You however haven’t seen the denying lefties try to ban “men are from mars and women are from venus” from school/public libraries: have you though?
You and your right wing friends keep puking out the crap about “marriage is about having children” which you KNOW is crap. It is not entirely the truth at all times, or even most of the time in this day and age with people being married 3 and 4 times. Marriage today does not have the same things in common with marriage 150 years ago, except that it’s a male/female thing. Do I have to list examples?
I know that the psychology and dynamics are different in hetero relationships and that we are still an “alternate lifestyle” which I have no problem being. I know I will never have a traditional marriage, which is fine also. I have always said and always believed that heterosexuality IS the dominant Norm. And that’s fine, but because I am different does not make me less of a man, person, or citizen.
Should we have to be inferior and wait for big mommy uncle sam to get around and decide what it thinks we should get at the discount government rights and benefits store?
Whenever this cry of “inferior” comes up, I always think of a trip to Filene’s Basement. I can buy a lovely pair of Gucci loafers that don’t fit, or I can buy a pair of less-tony shoes that do fit and work with my wardrobe. Yes, the less-tony shoes are “inferior” in terms of brand, but they are superior in terms of usefulness.
RESPONSE: I take it Filene’s basement is a thrift shop? It is not a “cry” of inferior. It is a shout in anger. It is very obvious to me from my experience that this is how people feel about us and as couples. You being a hetero probably don’t see it?.but it is very much there. Not to mention you live in or near San Francisco or probably a very “Blue Area”. (My condolences that you live in SF!) For the most part I do like and agree with the shoe analogy and “superior in terms of usefulness” but we are not talking about something as simple of shoes. When my home state of NJ began recently to consider Civil Unions I thought to myself “For God’s sake take it and lobby for marriage later!” I would be comfortable with Civil Unions until the end of time, but I think by now you should know that if you ask for $100 you get $90. If you ask for $85 you get $70.
What I don’t want to see if a bunch of Cafeteria Style government bureaucrats hemming and hawing about “oh no they deserve 6 rights, oh no it’s 50, oh no it’s 175” etc. I don’t like government doing that.
Ask yourself the question, Bill: do you want marriage for benefits and protections, or do you just want it because you want to stick it to straight people? Given that leftist gays turned down a reciprocal-benefits arrangement in Colorado that was a shoo-in to pass, instead trying a typical leftist hate campaign that resulted in gay marriage being banned AND civil unions being rejected, one wonders.
RESPONSE: I have always been an assimilationist. Have you been living in the SF area so long that you forgot we exist? Of COURSE I don’t want to “stick it to straight people”. My parents are straight as are most of my friends. 🙂 But, would it hurt all of you that bad if we did get Marriage/CU? Regarding the Reciprocal Benefits thing, I think it was a good start and the “leftist gays” in CO are probably nice and full with the crow they are eating on that one. At the same time, the religious right would have filed a case in court saying it flies in the face of the marriage ban or somet other argument. (Think of the temper tantrum they have over the federal ENDA bill which is pretty watered down.) Sadly, The gays took a big gamble for a big prize and lost badly. My guess is, they sat in their quintessential urban-blue area-ivory tower and said “we are all knowing and if we say it, they will all follow”.
Why do I feel like a Jew in the Weimar Republic?
Because the one thing the gay leftist community does well is to brainwash gays into believing they’re helpless victims. It works better for getting them to support antireligious bigotry, mindless socialism, envy and jealousy of heterosexuals, contempt for their parents’ lifestyles, and all the other things that gay leftists try to cloak in the form of “gay rights”.
RESPONSE: True to a point, but in practice gays like myself know I am not a helpless victim. If these people are dumb enough to believe it, that is their problem. How many gay welfare queens do you know that natter on and on about “the straight man keeping me down”? Haven’t you heard the latest news from the religious right that we have more money than the average straight people, etc?
I know life will be harder and I will have a lot more enemies, but I know that what does not kill me makes me stronger. I do not hate my parents lifestyles and the like. I do not hate the traditional nuclear family or religion. But I will not sit passively by and keep my mouth shut while religion-which DOES get special rights in our society, the family, etc are used against me and my kind.
My “Jew in the Weimar Republic” comment is like this: I am waiting for the other shoe to drop against gays. It always has throughout history?.think you are accepted today? Guess again in 40 years!
I have studied the gay and anti-gay movements (I have watched their shows, saw their sites, etc) too long to think otherwise!
posted by raj on
Bill from FL | November 28, 2006, 1:16am |
I take it Filene’s basement is a thrift shop?
Filene’s Basement is a store–actually originally in the basement of the Filene’s Department Store in downtown Boston–that bought end-of-season clothing items that did not sell in the original retail outlets, and sold them at off-price. More than a few of the items still had their original labels in them–and a lot of them were from very up-scale retailers from Boston and New York. If that’s a “thrift shop,” I guess it is.
BTW, I didn’t bother trying to find the origin of the “leftist” comment that you were referring to in your comment, but you really should understand that “left” and “leftist” as used on websites such as this one are merely epithets meaning “I don’t like.” They’re noise words, meaning nothing other than “I don’t like,” and, as such, they are to be ignored.
posted by Bill on
Thanks Raj! I didn’t know that. I have never been to boston actually….so it’s an off price retail store like TJ MAxx or Marshalls.No a thrift shop meaning a store like “Sally’s Boutique” (Salvation Army) or Goodwill, or a Church run thrift shop even. Maybe it was a blond moment when I goofed.
Regarding the “leftist” thing. I see what you mean on all account…like how Limbaugh uses “liberal” and vice versa. I just don’t want people to think that because I am unabashedly pro-gay and defend most of our causes that my positions are that of “progressive” “Center Left” or Liberal.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Bill, you and I do hold similar perspectives on several things — and FYI, I am gay.
Where we differ is very simply this; you don’t trust voters, and I do.
I will be the first to admit that gays have done a piss-poor job in appealing to the electorate. But what that means to me is that we should take our lumps and start working harder at the voter level, rather than trying to use the judiciary in lieu of our failings.
posted by Bill from FL on
Bill, you and I do hold similar perspectives on several things — and FYI, I am gay.
-My apologies. I thought I read that you weren’t. Blond moment I guess. I saw your blog a couple days later and clarified it. (How many heteros are into bears? hehehe)
Where we differ is very simply this; you don’t trust voters, and I do.
Fair. I don’t think it’s that simple but I do not trust the voters. I think as did many founders that factions of all kinds are bad sometimes. Popular Sovereignty is one thing, but this is out of control. Plus noone else actually votes anymore anyway on any issue unless they have strong feelings!
I will be the first to admit that gays have done a piss-poor job in appealing to the electorate. But what that means to me is that we should take our lumps and start working harder at the voter level, rather than trying to use the judiciary in lieu of our failings.
-We have, and in every state in the union. For me most of it is time constraints and it makes my blood boil I cannot do more. Please though remember you are in very very blue SF….it’s different for those who aren’t these days.
posted by ETJB on
The problem with just appealing to the Electorate is that most straight Americans generally dont vote for candidates based on their viewes on gay rights.