It looks like the Prop. 8 trial is still going to be held under wraps while the U.S. Supreme Court determines how public a public trial can be.
This has been a longstanding purse-fight within the federal courts. Criminal trials must be public under the Sixth Amendment. The Seventh Amendment guarantees a right to a jury trial in civil cases, and while this, in connection with the rights of the press under the First Amendment, pretty obviously means civil trials, too, are public, the federal courts have bunkered themselves against too much scrutiny by anyone wielding anything more technologically sophisticated than a pen and a pad of paper.
It doesn't take much to show how comical this retrograde policy is: In the age of the internet, iPod Touch with video and YouTube, there are still people employed as "sketch artists" for courtroom proceedings. The only other place for them to ply their trade is at carnivals and seaside resorts.
While the Supreme Court (the Supreme Court, for God's sake) decides whether the trial court is ready for its close up, there are other ways to use your time productively. Ted Olson has a wonderful article in Newsweek once again articulating the fine and entirely consistent conservative argument for same-sex marriage, and pointing out how far out of their way conservatives have to go to argue anything else. Those of us who are non-liberal Democrats have always known how badly gay marriage fits into any notion of liberalism, which is part of the reason the left has had such a hard time defending it. It is far more naturally a conservative proposition, and the fact it has been mischaracterized as liberal shows how topsy-turvy the entire debate is.
And The New Yorker has an excellent background piece on the case. The section where the author accompanies gay marriage supporters going door-to-door in Orange County, California trying and win hearts and minds does a masterful job of showing how deeply the people who vote against us want to avoid hearing anything that might challenge their preconceptions and misunderstandings about homosexuality. This quote from a sixty-year old woman in an apron pretty much sums it up:
"I have grandchildren, and I've told them, 'None of you are going to be gay, and if any of you are I'm going to do everything I can to ungay you.' "
That's what this trial will be about. It'll be awfully nice to be able to see people defending that woman's side.
74 Comments for “No YouTube For You!”
posted by tavdy79 on
Gay marriage isn’t necessarily an inherently non-liberal proposition. The truly liberal viewpoint would be that individuals have the right to determine their own fate and moral values – they have a right to self-determination – and that they have an ethical and fundamental right to be treated equally to others by government while doing so, and to be protected from those who object to them practising their right to self-determination.
A liberal should also recognise that, as we are all individuals, we all have differing needs and desires for life which ultimately must be determined by the individual; one of these may be the benefits and obligations of marriage – and judging by its popularity, it is a need and desire for a significant proportion of humans, just as it is equally an anaethema to significant proportion of humans.
Denying anyone the right to marry denies them their right to self-determination; forcing someone to marry when they do not wish to does exactly the same thing.
posted by BobN on
Those of us who are non-liberal Democrats have always known how badly gay marriage fits into any notion of liberalism, which is part of the reason the left has had such a hard time defending it. It is far more naturally a conservative proposition, and the fact it has been mischaracterized as liberal shows how topsy-turvy the entire debate is.
Good lord. You, too?
Tell you what. You go about living your life with all the freedoms and rights as a gay man that have been secured for you by this nation’s conservatives. I’ll try to remember to drop off a care package the next time I’m driving by the highway rest stop.
posted by David Link on
BobN, my only point is that marriage (along with military service, the only two areas of the law where statutes actually require discrimination based on sexual orientation), is different from most issues of the left, at least when the left focuses on government helping people who can’t help themselves. In contrast, the right has focused on people lifting themselves up by their bootstraps (which is, itself, a respectable position) and taking charge of their own lives. But with marriage, it is the government, itself, preventing people from making a pretty important choice in their lives. That puts the left in the odd position of having to demonize the government they otherwise portray so heroically. They’ve solved the problem by demonizing the electorate, which I don’t think is a very good solution.
Where marriage does fit in on the right is its insistence on social justice, which in this case has a very specific constitutional peg to hang its hat on — the equal protection clause. That’s something the right tends to ignore or eclipse with its obsessive focus on the right to vote on people’s rights. That’s where conservatism is a bad fit, since this effort really does involve changing a law that has wrong assumptions underlying it.
I think marriage is a more comfortable fit with the kind of conservatism I admire (Sullivan, Rauch, Steve Schmidt, and now Ted Olson) than with the kind of conservatism you denigrate. But both are kinds of conservatism, which confuses the issue. As has become obvious, the admirable sort of conservatism has been overtaken by the folks you rightly point to as fighting to minimize my rights.
As should be obvious, I’m not much of a philosopher or social scientist. Nor am I a partisan. As an ex-Catholic, I grew up being taught that I should think for myself, by the very religion that then demanded it could do my thinking for me. I took the best of Catholicism and rejected what I found to be the worst. Same with liberalism and conservatism.
posted by BobN on
Forgive me, David, but your point was that marriage is not an issue of the left. And that just ain’t so.
“That puts the left in the odd position of having to demonize the government they otherwise portray so heroically.”
Another canard. The left demonizes the government when the government does harm in the view of the left. Did the left praise the segregationist governments of the southern states — which in your caricature lefties just must love? Of course not.
Do righties run screaming from the idea of government authority when the government activity is related to the military? Of course not. The right doesn’t see government as evil when it doesn’t want to.
Nor am I a partisan.
If you can look at the sweep of gay-rights history of the last century and have the nerve to say that marriage equality does not “fit” on the left, then you are partisan or woefully blinkered on who did what and when they did it.
posted by Jorge on
I do not want the “gay marriage trial” to be the next OJ Simpson trial.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
It won’t Jorge. This is as important as the Brown vs. Brd. of Ed issue.
Indeed, if you knew enough about the testimonies from both sides, you’d see so many echoes from that past coming to the fore.
It’s a grand opportunity to note that the opposition’s tactics and beliefs are virtually the same.
Whites, back in the day were SO obsessed with black sexuality and protecting themselves and their children from the encroachment of blacks on ‘their’ institutions, you could interchange them.
The spectre of ‘mongrel children’ was reported as if there would be some sort of social, physical and emotional retardation if mixed children issued from mixed couples.
Similar to the supposed concern that the opponents have to children being raised by same sex couples.
Wrong then.
Wrong now.
This is not a CRIMINAL issue, where dangerous gang members could threaten witnesses.
This is a matter of social justice, and all the claims made that witnesses require protection and anonymity in this proceeding seems stupidly redundant since they’ve been HIGHLY VISIBLE in any other area of the media.
This arena just doesn’t happen to be one they can control, and one in which they will have to tell the truth under oath on the very Bibles they are trying to beat gay people with.
I’m frustrated I can’t watch history in the making.
The only resemblence to the Simpson trial this could possibly have, is justice being assigned to prejudice and the outcome painful and a miscarriage of the justice the court is supposed to serve.
I hope not.
God, I hope not.
posted by BobN on
I do not want the “gay marriage trial” to be the next OJ Simpson trial.
I suspect that more Americans learned more about the law and the judicial system from that trial than from any other event in our lifetimes.
(Yes, I know that’s pathetic.)
THAT is why the pro-Prop-8 forces don’t want it televised.
posted by Jorge on
I don’t agree with you one bit, Regan DuCasse, especially the misleading suggestion that Brown vs. Board of Education was or should have been televised.
As I’ve alluded to in another topic, we already know what the opposition’s tactics have been in the courts. How do we know this? The justices deciding the cases in the states have written them down. Everyone who actually cared looked it up, and even more people went to the voting booth.
BobN, the reason the Prop 8 opponents do not want the court proceedings televised is because either they do not want the trial to turn into a cirus, they don’t want any witnsses to receive death threats, or both. These are both valid reasons.
The fact that many Americans gained a justified sense of cynicism after the OJ Simpson trial is all the more reason cameras should not be allowed into the courtroom. The fact that Americans nonetheless learned something useful is a shallow justification. Major trials all over the country are reported on breathlessly by the media anyway, and are open to the public. This is a good balance between the public’s right to know and the need for the plaintiffs, defendents, lawyers, and the judge to do their jobs and put forth their claims with minimal interference and maximum independence and integrity. If we’re going to set a new boundary, this is not the case to test it.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
Jorge, you seriously misunderstood me.
I SAID, the Prop. 8 trial should be televised because it’s AS IMPORTANT as the Brwn. v Brd of Ed. trial.
And further, I think the oppositions claim of death threats, or any threats at all, was complete and utter BULLSHIT!
Why?
Because:
1. The incidents they described were MINOR and couldn’t be substantiated or attributed to anything to do with those who support equality.
2. They’ve spent YEARS all over the media, making commercials, giving recorded speeches and public announcements SINCE Prop. 8 passed, now all of a sudden they’re all squeeged out about standing up and owning their messages?!
3. These claims are just another addition to stereotyping gay people as threatening and they are playing the victim card from the bottom of the deck.
Few people who supported Prop. 8 are willing to face the consequences of their actions. They are running underground and blaming it on gay hostility instead of their own cowardice and I’m sick of it.
Jorge, there is no reason to buy into the idea that their claims are worthy of the witnesses bowing out, even though they got their way, and the proceedings weren’t being shown.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
con’t
So, Jorge
I didn’t mislead at all. I NEVER said that the Brwn trial was televised, nor suggested it should have been.
YOU just didn’t get what I said.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And further, I think the oppositions claim of death threats, or any threats at all, was complete and utter BULLSHIT!
Of course you would.
But then again, you’ve never been much for telling the truth about what you and your fellow “activists” are doing.
posted by BobN on
Jorge:
BobN, the reason the Prop 8 opponents do not want the court proceedings televised is because either they do not want the trial to turn into a cirus, they don’t want any witnsses to receive death threats, or both. These are both valid reasons.
The idea that expert witnesses, many of whom have made careers out of their anti-gay theories, complete with Wall Street Journal op-eds, conferences, TV appearances, etc., it’s pretty ridiculous to assert that they must remain anonymous.
Besides, if you look at the logic of who voted for what, OPPOSITION to same-sex marriage — demonstrated in the outcome of Prop 8 — would indicate that the gay married couples are actually in more danger than anyone else at the trial.
The pro-Prop-8 folks don’t want intelligent discussion of the issues surrounding same-sex marriage. It’s their worst enemy and our best ally.
posted by Bobby on
North Dallas has a point, many gay activist are not afraid to use fascist tactics while condemming others of being fascist. The end justifies the means, they have no sense of principles, no regard for “do unto others as you’d have others do unto you.” Rather than leading by example, their war cry is “do as I say, not as I do.”
With that said, I think it’s better NOT to have a public trial. Let the lawyers and judges solve this without the interference of noisy protesters.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
ND30,
That’s ALL you got?
You call that a death threat? Or threat of ANY kind?
I’m so damn sick of you rehashing and rehashing the same situation over and over again as if that denotes a trend.
Marj didn’t want to face the consequences of her actions, when everyone was sitting quietly in her restaurant.
Which was an insult in itself.
The rally was legal, and orderly, even if loud and large. Protest rallies are like that. Guess YOU don’t attend any.
Not much happened after Prop. 8 that was illegal. And the few incidents that were, were just that, A few.
Minor.
Not a trend. So what if the rally shouted something?
As the song says: “is there anyone who ever remembers, changing their mind from the paint on a sign…?
Is there anyone who, really recalls, ever breaking rank at all from something someone yelled real loud one time…? John Mayer-“Belief.”
Marj was gone before the protests even started.
I was there, not YOU.
And I don’t use people.
But you sure use this forum, to bash who you don’t know.
I don’t use gay people for any reason. Never have.
You haven’t said much about what YOU’VE done to enjoin the issue and change things for the better.
I’ve asked you several times, if you got a better idea, guess not.
Just more lame complaints and hectoring.
And apparently YOU can’t move on from the El Coyote thing, even though Marj has.
Move. On.
You really think the opposition is suffering and oh SO victimized?
Really?
I mean, REALLY?
Believe me, go do a shout out for the other side and state your name and background and see how much they show their gratitude towards you.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
Bobby, it was going to be ugly. I don’t necessarily disagree that there have been some ugly things coming from gay folks.
I want you to tell me, to what degree has the fascist attitude you’re speaking of, manifested in a broad and direct way? What institutional freedoms have been taken away from anyone on the other side? I mean that amounts to consequences in kind?
I mean BROAD and profound way?
None of what the opposition is doing is new. It’s been going on for DECADES and DECADES.
And the progress that’s been made has many casualities from the gay community.
So tell me then, how much character assassination, defamation and all manner of assault are gay folks supposed to take and NEVER show any anger or pain or frustration?
‘what happens to a dream deferred…?’ so to speak.
There were observers in the courtroom, Bobby and there were people carrying signs outside the courthouse. None of which interfered with the proceedings in or out.
All without incident.
The opposition was using a ploy to further stereotype gay people and in a forum THEY can’t control.
They have to reveal substantiation to their claims regarding the marriage issue.
The truth would have had to come out, and the opposition didn’t have the stones to own up to the claims they’ve made. Their real fear, is being exposed for what they are.
It’s not like thousands of gay people voted and rallied to divorce THEM involuntarily.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
You call that a death threat? Or threat of ANY kind?
As a matter of fact, I do.
So did the police and FBI.
The second email came five days after the mayor’s office received the first death threat surrounding Autry’s support of Proposition 8. He and Pastor Franklin lead the local effort to pass the measure to ban same sex marriage. The first email threatened to “gun down” both men also using words like “bigot and racist” to describe Autry and Franklin. Fresno’s Police Chief Jerry Dyer said the FBI requested to take the lead. Dyer said, “The second email not as pointed, not as aggressive however still alarming. However, the third email we have received, I can’t get into the details of that.”
Dyer could not comment about the FBI’s investigation. Police already searched a North Fresno home, but court records indicated a seized computer could not be connected to the threats. Whoever wrote the emails ended the second message with: “I refuse to let you or any other right-wing extremist dissolve my relationship of 9 years. Have a nice day!” Autry said, “This is the world we are living in. And this is the tactic some have taken as a result of Proposition 8.”
Next:
Marj didn’t want to face the consequences of her actions, when everyone was sitting quietly in her restaurant.
“Sitting quietly in her restaurant”?
Click on that video. You can hear the crowd, Regan and her fellow “supporters”, screaming “SHAME ON YOU, SHAME ON YOU, SHAME ON YOU” at gay and lesbian people going into the restaurant.
That’s what kind of a pathetic user Regan is. Regan supposedly “supports” gay and lesbian people, but when they don’t do what she wants, she screams and attacks them.
By the way, the funny part is watching her fellow gay shills like Timothy Kincaid. Timothy Kincaid whines and cries about “hate speech” and trying to “shame and humiliate” gay people, but there he is out in front of El Coyote, speaking on the video, and then screaming “SHAME ON YOU, SHAME ON YOU, SHAME ON YOU” at gays and lesbians who aren’t doing what he wants.
posted by Jorge on
Regan DuCasse, I understood you perfectly, but you need to understand that the only way your argument makes any sense is if Brown vs. Board of Education was televised. It wasn’t, and we turned out just fine. So 1) this isn’t a great tragedy, and 2) Brown vs. Board of Education is a tired, overused rhetorical crutch.
posted by Jorge on
The idea that expert witnesses, many of whom have made careers out of their anti-gay theories, complete with Wall Street Journal op-eds, conferences, TV appearances, etc., it’s pretty ridiculous to assert that they must remain anonymous.
“Many of whom”, eh? Okay, I get it, but, I am not convinced.
Besides, if you look at the logic of who voted for what, OPPOSITION to same-sex marriage — demonstrated in the outcome of Prop 8 — would indicate that the gay married couples are actually in more danger than anyone else at the trial.
That’s relevant. But it’s not the only consideration.
When we have information about who actually is in danger, that takes priority.
The pro-Prop-8 folks don’t want intelligent discussion of the issues surrounding same-sex marriage….
Well, if James Dobson and Maggie Gallager (sp?) were the backbone of the movement they’d be in pretty big trouble, because when it comes to anything scientific they’re very weak. Somehow an underground resistance to modern scientific knowledge has formed. But it’s not very powerful. The power that is in opposition to legalizing same sex marriage comes from somewhere else. We know this. And it’s a place the pro-gay marriage site itself does not like to engage in an honest dialogue.
posted by Bobby on
“I want you to tell me, to what degree has the fascist attitude you’re speaking of, manifested in a broad and direct way? What institutional freedoms have been taken away from anyone on the other side? I mean that amounts to consequences in kind? I mean BROAD and profound way?”
—When people get fired from jobs because of the way they vote and the donations they make and when activists call you on the phone and shout things at you because of the way you are, freedom has been violated.
“So tell me then, how much character assassination, defamation and all manner of assault are gay folks supposed to take and NEVER show any anger or pain or frustration?”
—If a white man opposes affirmative action do you immediately call him a racist? If a woman is against abortion do you get her fired from her job? Hey, we all get defamed, I love guns yet people like Bloomberg and Daly consider that a crime.
“There were observers in the courtroom, Bobby and there were people carrying signs outside the courthouse. None of which interfered with the proceedings in or out.
All without incident.”
—Maybe they wanted to prevent potential riots, who knows? I saw the video of gay activists taking down the cross an old woman was carrying. And today I saw a man shouting things at 85 year old George W. Bush, calling him a zionist tool and using profanity. If people lack civility and the courts take measures to prevent further confrontation, maybe that’s ok.
I seriously don’t understand why some gay activists need to be so hateful. I’m a member of the NRA, we don’t go around calling Bloomberg on the phone or harassing every gun hater in the country. We may put a list of our enemies to avoid buying their products and watching their movies, we’ll make TV apperances and write letters to our congressmen and fight whenever we see bias, but we don’t assault people physically, we don’t knock down signs, we don’t make death threats or call an anti-gun church to tell them there’s a bomb.
In fact, I don’t remember ever reading of an NRA member assaulting anyone no matter how pissed off we’ve been, and believe me, when you’re a gun owner or supporter of the second amendment and you have to put up with the lies people tell about guns you’re gonna be pretty pissed off.
posted by Jorge on
In fact, I don’t remember ever reading of an NRA member assaulting anyone no matter how pissed off we’ve been, and believe me, when you’re a gun owner or supporter of the second amendment and you have to put up with the lies people tell about guns you’re gonna be pretty pissed off.
This is a recurring pattern that people fail to appreciate: deluded from reality + civilized = conservative.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
1. ND30, that’s weak. They couldn’t even connect the seized computer to the death threats. Saying the FBI was in on it, was like saying ‘they called me back’.
So, doesn’t sound like anything could be substantiated one way or the other.
2. I’ve always said the RALLY was loud and it was OUTSIDE. And it was WEEKS after the meeting I mentioned.
3 There WAS a meeting quietly convened IN THE RESTAURANT after Nov. 4, and Marj was disrespectful to those present. Don’t you know the difference between outside and inside, and a meeting as opposed to a rally?
Guess not, you’re so invested in twisting and spinning this issue like a top.
This was over a year ago.
Marj and her restaurant are thriving.
Now get over it.
JORGE.
1. Citing the B vs. B of Ed. case is not a crutch. It was an important landmark civil rights case, as is the Prop. 8 trial.
Since this is about a serious public policy issue, the public deserves to be privy to the PROCESS.
And the witnesses talk the talk about their principles and how tough they were fighting people (who aren’t their enemy), but when the chili hit the cheese, they are COWARDS.
It’s alright to call them that.
The gay witnesses are just as at risk, if not more for doing what they are doing. Ever think of that?
1. BOBBY
That’s not an example of INSTITUTIONAL compromise to someone’s rights. In fact, what you’re stating is amorphous at best.
Who got fired?
Because of how they voted and donated, or because they violated a corporate policy?
There are churches violating the church/state electioneering, politicking laws and taxation. They can’t blame gay people for that. If their zeal to go after gay people exceeds self preservation than blaming gay people for THAT would be wrong.
If you’re bringing up MARJ again, she wasn’t FIRED. She was LEGALLY boycotted and picketed.
And despite that initially, her business is still there and so is she.
She didn’t want to face who she betrayed.
Happens all the time.
That’s the price of taking away the rights of a majority of your patronage that made you prosperous.
I don’t want to talk about her anymore.
I have always agreed that threatening anyone is wrong.
But the INSTITUTIONAL threat is much stronger against gay people than the other way around.
posted by DragonScorpion on
~âIt doesnât take much to show how comical this retrograde policy is:â ~ David Link
Not only retrograde but ass-backward. In which instance, really, is the public more affected? A criminal case in which one person is put on trial to stand for his actions, or a case in which judges are determining the legal validity of laws which effect large segments of the population if not everyone? The public has a right to know. We’re better off being at least aware of the process, afterall, we are involved…
~âIt is far more naturally a conservative proposition, and the fact it has been mischaracterized as liberal shows how topsy-turvy the entire debate is.â ~ David Link
That’s a good point. And it really gets glossed over how social conservatives, particularly Christian social conservatives, who claim to despise all this âsocial-engineeringâ and âpaternalismâ are actually advocating it in regards to their pet projects on making society into some sort of Christian utopia, with the government presiding as church-sanctioned theocracy, promoting âGod’s lawsâ…
As for the 60 year old woman, that is where a lot of people are at in this country, no doubt. That IS the mentality at work! And yes, much of the same-sex marriage deniers are clearly uncomfortable making their legal arguments publicly.
But let’s be honest, Mr. Link, there are legal arguments to be made against recognizing same-sex marriage. They’re specious, inconsistent, and tend to hinge on slippery-slope fallacies and accepting stereotypes as realistic descriptions, but there are actual arguments which couldn’t be simply laughed out of court.
Probably the strongest argument they have in this case would simply be that the voters approved this law. I completely disagree with that vote and the fact it was ever put to a vote, but it was, and there is precedence for that.
Of course it is a travesty. Could we imagine if interracial marriage had been put to a vote after the 1967 Loving v. Virginia case? According to Gallup polls at the time, 72% opposed interracial marriage so it might have passed! Certainly in some states it would have… Most folks today I think would agree that popular vote or not, such a law would be wrong and completely at odds with our pluralistic society and egalitarian legal system. Which begs the question: why ever have such a vote as this?
I make this point about their legal arguments because I think we dismiss the actual legal argumentation at our own peril. We need to understand what their rationale is, how they are attempting to apply the law to deny equality to homosexuals and same-sex couples, rather than just writing it all off as archaic and unreasonable. We shouldn’t rest on the notion that our success is inevitable, and we should try to stay ignorant of the other side’s actual arguments.
All the more reason why it was so important that this trial be made more public. But, the censors won. They want to keep their smoke and mirrors as secluded as possible, because such theatrics aren’t so effective in the light of day. But this doesn’t mean we’ve lost. Not at all.
What we should ALL, and I mean EVERYONE, should be hoping for here is that the Supreme Court (regardless how they determine the validity of same-sex marriage) finds that passing laws like this â tyranny of the majority; voting to exclude the minority â violates due process and equal protection clauses. Because if this trend is allowed to continue, as divided as this nation is getting, we may see the rights of other minority groups being put up for popular vote in a lot of other contexts.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
2. I’ve always said the RALLY was loud and it was OUTSIDE. And it was WEEKS after the meeting I mentioned.
“Weeks”, Regan?
That clearly says November 12th and you are specifically quoted in that link as having been present.
And, as cited in that very same link, “quietly convened”?
At which point the place went insane.
One of the (daughters?) started yelling at everyone telling them (and I quote) “The church just tells you when to donate, it doesn’t tell you how to vote. It very, very rarely tells you how to vote.” (SHUT UP! I KNOW! X2) “Marjorie is your friend-” at which point someone prominently yelled: “SHE IS NOT MY FRIEND. FRIENDS DON’T HELP TAKE THE RIGHTS AWAY OF OTHER FRIENDS AND THEN BLAME IT ON THEIR CHURCH!”
People applauded in accordance while the mounting tension was palpable.
Once the room calmed down, Marjorie was asked again if SHE would do anything to counteract what she had done and she said: “No.” at which point someone yelled “This is bullshit” and another yelled “BOYCOTT EL COYOTE” and Marjorie was swiftly escorted out the back entrance as people dispersed saying “She just made this even worse” and a man started walking through the restaurant telling customers that “MARJORIE VOTED YES ON PROP 8 AND YOUR MONEY IS DOING THE SAME THING BY HER GIVING HER EARNINGS TO THE MORMON CHURCH!”
Everybody got on their cellphones telling everyone what had happened and a guy started protest right away outside the restaurant as the media began filming him
Aside from that IMMEDIATE protest, the next night, November 13th, you and your fellow hatemongers were out front screaming “SHAME ON YOU, SHAME ON YOU, SHAME ON YOU” at everyone.
This is now twice I’ve caught you misrepresenting the facts of an event. You seem utterly incapable of telling the truth concerning this situation. Why?
posted by Debrah on
“This is now twice I’ve caught you misrepresenting the facts of an event. You seem utterly incapable of telling the truth concerning this situation. Why?”
*****************************************
That’s because the truth is most often a casualty when these revved-up, fever-pitched zealots put on their minority boots and go paradin’.
Knowing that their own move-mint has been passé for decades now, they’ve latched onto the gay ’cause’…..hoping to keep the hustling spirit alive.
It’s difficult to explain how utterly creepy it is to see well-educated, reasonably successful men out there ginning up the journals with such melodrama as “taking away the rights of gay and lesbian citizens”….or….”marriage equality”…..or those states voting down gay marriage as “the new Alabama”….and on and on and on.
Such a disastrous image for one to adopt.
Some of those same people have no trouble writing articles about how already-too-well-greased the “black community” has been for decades and how archaic and passé their so-called victimhood is…….
…….yet have no trouble adopting this victim status, themselves.
And all because of the way they express themselves, sexually.
It’s such a turn-off to see a man behave this way. All else that he might do that is exceptional is, tragically, eclipsed by this prissy, fondue, and utterly infantile display.
Dear G/d, try being a man!
Who cares which side of the veranda you swing?
Just use your balls for something new for a change.
Not even those who actually were “victims” decades ago are even remotely so in this 21st century, but we are expected to buy into this new trumped-up version.
Too much.
posted by Bobby on
“This is a recurring pattern that people fail to appreciate: deluded from reality + civilized = conservative.”
—Deluded from reality? Which reality? The reality of the liberal elite and their wine and cheese tastings in lower Manhattan? The reality of uppity academics and their Ivory Towers? Maybe you should step out of your liberal ghetto and stop living in Obama land, then perhaps you can question whether I’m deluded or not.
“There are churches violating the church/state electioneering, politicking laws and taxation.”
—Maybe, but I don’t see the left complaining when churches take stands against global warming, favoring gun control or fighting for civil rights. Nobody was crying “separation of church and state” when Martin Luther King was fighting for his cause. But when it’s a cause the left doesn’t like, they want to tax religion!
In the end, the constitution is the supreme law of the land, and said constitution allows freedom of speech and religion. This idea that a priest can’t speak on political matters is ridiculous. Besides, God help us if only secular people get to speak, last thing I want is to live in the Soviet Union or China.
posted by Jorge on
Citing the B vs. B of Ed. case is not a crutch.
Then, and I don’t necessarily mean you, don’t lean on it too much when you cite it. Brown v. Board of Ed and even the Loving case are not some magical set of words that turn everything you believe in into gold. I get a little annoyed, not because I don’t think these are valid analogies or arguments, but because people throw those cases out there into very bad analogies or without explaining what they mean. People need to use their heads more and stop acting like people of diverse views share some kind of telepathy.
Since this is about a serious public policy issue, the public deserves to be privy to the PROCESS.
They should go buy the New York Times or something, then.
The gay witnesses are just as at risk, if not more for doing what they are doing. Ever think of that?
I think that’s a very dumb question considering BobN brought up the exact same point and I gave a direct response to it.
posted by Jorge on
—Deluded from reality? Which reality? The reality of the liberal elite and their wine and cheese tastings in lower Manhattan? The reality of uppity academics and their Ivory Towers? Maybe you should step out of your liberal ghetto and stop living in Obama land, then perhaps you can question whether I’m deluded or not.
Calm down, Bobby. I am only having a little fun at your expense.
Being that you are an overall smart, Ginsu sharp, reliably rightist/libertarian person, however I’m still unpersuaded from where I fall, I figure there has to be some kind of logical explanation. But I see nothing wrong with pretending there isn’t one and roasting you now and then. Makes things less dreary.
posted by Jorge on
What we should ALL, and I mean EVERYONE, should be hoping for here is that the Supreme Court (regardless how they determine the validity of same-sex marriage) finds that passing laws like this â tyranny of the majority; voting to exclude the minority â violates due process and equal protection clauses. Because if this trend is allowed to continue, as divided as this nation is getting, we may see the rights of other minority groups being put up for popular vote in a lot of other contexts.
Okay, am I missing something important, DragonScorpion? The Supreme Court should rule that referenda can’t decide whether marriage should be between a man and a woman, regardless of what the Supreme Court decides on whether marriage is between a man and a woman?
posted by DragonScorpion on
Jorge::
I am certainly hoping the court will find denying same-sex couples access to civil marriage as unconstitutional.
What I am suggesting, however, is that it is even more important for the court to rule against the concept of passing referenda which deny equal protection and due process to others via a popular vote â a.k.a. tyranny of the majority.
My thesis is, it might be possible that the court could offer a very specific ruling not on finding a legal right for same-sex marriage, but rather an unconstitutionality for the sort of referenda process (its purpose, disenfranchisement, excluding groups, etc.) which was exercised in California via Proposition 8.
The possibility of such an outcome would certainly depend on how the case goes to the court and what the core challenges are determined to be. Such a ruling might not even be possible.
I am suggesting that everyone should hope that it is and that they do manage to determine this. Because if they don’t or something else doesn’t stop it, then I firmly that this refernda process as we’re seeing it exercised now is going to continue, and widen, and be used more frequently, to more and more groups of people. In fact, it could end up biting a lot of people who are championing it now.
Would a strong ruling against this referenda process stop it in the future? No, I’m sure it wouldn’t. It would take some careful legislation to cause this, if even this would stop it entirely. But I think such a ruling (regardless how they determine the legality of same-sex marriage in particular) would have a chilling effect on these types of adventures in ‘popular sovereignty’.
I suppose the overarching point here is that referenda shouldn’t be used to limit the rights or equal access of others. It’s dangerous to let mobs of people vote on whether segments of the citizenry is worthy of what the larger whole is â forgoing due process.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
What I am suggesting, however, is that it is even more important for the court to rule against the concept of passing referenda which deny equal protection and due process to others via a popular vote â a.k.a. tyranny of the majority.
Or, in other words, stating that the right to amend the Constitution is overruled by amendments of the Constitution.
And, since you insist that no one can be denied “equal protection” and “due process” by vote of the majority, please state that any and all bans on marriage of any type passed by the majority are illegal and should be overturned.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
Ah, ND30, you’re right, that was a TYPO, I start out with a lot of copy then delete it and miss some words.
It was a WEEK after the vote.
Three words for you.
GET. OVER. IT.
You and Debrah must have been those kinds of insufferable little schoolyard tools that loved to tattle and point out everyone’s faults.
If that’s all you’re looking for, then that’s all you’ll find.
And the subject at hand is forgotten.
Well, rah rah for you.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
Dragon Scorpion, good points. This is why I needed to see this trial to try and cross reference it with exactly what you’re talking about.
This is a quality of life matter to expand protections for a distinct minority that otherwise is abused without them.
Which is more the point.
The specifics of such protections, or equal standing might seem to have to be elaborate, when really, the situation is or could be simpler.
It’s not like gay folks are a monolithic presence, or who are wards of the state and aren’t participating in the full RESPONSIBILITIES of being a citizen.
But without the rights to go with those responsibilities, it’s being unrepresented and that certainly is also un Constitutional.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Ah, ND30, you’re right, that was a TYPO, I start out with a lot of copy then delete it and miss some words.
Then let’s compare.
What Regan actually said:
And it was WEEKS after the meeting I mentioned.
What Regan is trying to pretend she meant:
It was a WEEK after the vote.
So let’s see; change of plural, change of sentence structure, and entire change of time frame and reference event.
Misspellings are typos. This is making a stupid statement and getting caught lying about something.
And of course, then we get the petulance along with the lousy excuse.
GET. OVER. IT.
You and Debrah must have been those kinds of insufferable little schoolyard tools that loved to tattle and point out everyone’s faults.
Notice the behavior here. Regan is the one who lied, but then she starts screaming at, namecalling, and insulting the people who pointed it out.
Next up, she’ll call us racists and misogynists. It’s the way spoiled brats work; they amp up their tantrums and throwing things until the adults in the room finally get rattled and give in to their demands.
Not this time. She wants to lie, she can take the responsibility. New concept for a bully and a brat like herself, but it might actually be good for her. Pity her parents and her white liberal “friends” couldn’t be bothered to stop this sort of abusive behavior before.
posted by DragonScorpion on
More accurately, that amending state constitutions shouldn’t include restricting the already established constitutional rights of others… Of course that would be real fly in the ointment for you. How then would you be able to advance your agenda to keep homosexuals legally segregated from the rest of society and cast as second class citizens in the name of mandating your social conservatism and theological delusions…? I can certainly understand your indignation at such an ‘outrage’, but, too damn bad.
You mean please endorse your paranoid conspiracy theories and homophobic hyperbole that the entire homosexual population is working to legalize marriage to dead people, dogs and children…? No.
Why are you so opposed to same-sex couples being permitted the dignity of legal marriage, anyway? I know you believe most of us are evil, doomed to hell, and a danger to all of civilization, but haven’t you met at least one same-sex couple who deserved such an official recognition of their relationship? Even one couple whose relationship lived up to the ideals of marriage?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
More accurately, that amending state constitutions shouldn’t include restricting the already established constitutional rights of others…
So, by that logic, the Thirteenth Amendment was wrong, since it restricted the already-established constitutional rights, as stated in Dred Scott, of others to own slaves as property and practice involuntary servitude.
Next:
You mean please endorse your paranoid conspiracy theories and homophobic hyperbole that the entire homosexual population is working to legalize marriage to dead people, dogs and children…? No.
No, I asked that, since you insist that no one can be denied “equal protection” and “due process” by vote of the majority, please state that any and all bans on marriage of any type passed by the majority are illegal and should be overturned.
There’s nothing in there about dogs or children or whatnot. Therefore, you shouldn’t have any problem stating it. After all, that’s what your gay-sex marriage argument is, isn’t it — bans enacted by the majority on marriage are violations of “due process” and “equal protection” and thus illegal and subject to overturning?
And finally:
Why are you so opposed to same-sex couples being permitted the dignity of legal marriage, anyway?
Because respect and dignity are not forced by law; they are earned based on behavior. A marriage certificate does not make one either dignified or respectable, nor is it required to be either.
I always considered the argument that gays needed a marriage certificate, job guarantees, enhanced penalties, and whatnot in order to be able to function in society to being an admittance that gays were inherently inferior and incapable of functioning without.
posted by DragonScorpion on
Ah, the constitutional ârightâ to own slaves. An excellent example of the grave and moral error of the nation’s Founders. From the earliest beginnings, we were founded upon some glaring contradictions:
âall men are created equalâ juxtaposed against âNo Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.â
Fortunately, the illegality of slavery has already long been decided; the ârightâ of white men to keep other human beings as ‘property’ is moot. And so, overruling the legal maneuver of denying equal protection and due process to minorities by tyrannical mandate of the majority wouldn’t have any effect on the rights of people to not be forced into involuntary servitude.
Furthermore, fortunately, with the 14th amendment’s equal protection and due process clauses, the ârightsâ of a slave owner could not trump the rights of a would-be slave.
Of course, the obviousness of all this is that one’s right to basic freedoms trumps another’s rights to curtail that freedom. But ND30, partly out of deliberate dishonesty and partly out of an irrational insistence of a literalistic interpretation of the law in all things, renders him unable to apply any measure of common sense.
Actually, it is bizarrely ironic that ND30 would bring up slavery as a justification for his endorsement of the status quo, because in doing so he is actually arguing for a system in which mobs of people can draw up and pass a referenda to strip a class of citizens of their fundamental rights, which must then be respected because, so their logic maintains, the will of the people rules absolutely.
It is the same sort of rationale behind ‘popular sovereignty’ which was invoked to let territories in the U.S. decide for themselves whether they wanted to preserve or abolish slavery, rather than let the Congress decide (and ultimately abolish it universally).
So let’s compare: I suggest that the constitutional guarantees of equal protection of the laws and due process should not be arbitrarily denied to minority groups by referenda.
ND30 maintains that if a simple majority of voters deems one group of people in some way inferior or worthy of exclusion, they can deny all members of this group equal protection of the laws without applying due process.
As always, I’ll let the readers here determine for themselves which is the more reasonable and egalitarian.
posted by DragonScorpion on
Next:
I know that ND30 abhors ‘liberal’ concepts like citizens having a right to equal protection of the laws and due process, but the scare quotes seem a bit unnecessary.
And again, I will not endorse his wild conspiracy theories and parade of horribles that will inevitably result from recognizing that equal protection of the laws and due process â constitutional rights â cannot be voted away based on the whims of mobs.
Dogs and children can’t consent. Adults can. Try again.
Next:
Ah, the derisive âgay-sexâ marriage rhetoric. The contempt which ND30 possesses for homosexuals is so clear. He finds same-sex relationships so utterly repulsive and inferior to opposite-sex relationships that he will use any strawman argument, any disparaging labels, or any sweeping generalization to undermine any social or legal parity of heterosexual and homosexual relationships.
Again, what he deliberately overlooks in his arguments is that animals and children cannot legally consent.
No one I am aware of, least of all me, has suggested that a marriage certificate is a requirement of being dignified or respectable. Socially and even legally speaking, however, legal marriage has long afforded a status of dignity and respect. And it still does.
So what is inherent in the behavior of same-sex couples that renders them incapable of earning the social and legal status that civil marriage confers? If these marriage certificates are as worthless as ND30 implies â unable to âforce by lawâ dignity and respect â then why do opposite-sex couples âneedâ them? Surely it doesn’t render these heterosexual couples âinferiorâ or âincapable of functioning withoutâ them?
Why did an interracial couple in Louisiana last year feel it important to seek out another justice of the peace to marry them when racist Justice of the Peace, Keith Bardwell, refused to do so on the basis of their racial differences? Surely it must provide something of value? And if so, why should same-sex couples be denied the same?
Perhaps ND30 could actually stick to the questions this time. Though I doubt it.
posted by DragonScorpion on
And lastly:
Nice try. All sorts of fallacious strawmen, loaded rhetoric and red herrings in this one. I think a list is in order:
1) Neither heterosexuals nor homosexuals âneedâ a marriage certificate, nor the legal protections and benefits granted via civil marriage, in order to function in society.
2) The argument for granting same-sex couples the same legal access to the same legal contract (marriage) that opposite-sex couples are given access to, in no way suggests nor depends upon the proposition that homosexuals are inherently inferior nor incapable of functioning without it.
3) Creating legal protections for prospective or actual employees from being discriminated against solely based on race, gender or sexual-orientation in no way âguarantees jobsâ, rather, it simply guarantees that one cannot be denied employment based on bogus prejudiced motivations, without having some recourse to contest it.
4) For the federal government to have the authority to ensure that local law-enforcement agencies properly conduct investigations and prosecutions of crimes committed against minority groups in no way suggests that those minority groups are âinherently inferiorâ nor âincapable of functioningâ without them.
Of course, ND30 knows all of this. He is simply so desperate for any rationalization to marginalize and dismiss efforts at recognizing the civil rights of people who just so happen to be homosexual that he must rely on lies, deceptions, and distortions to build his dubious cases upon.
posted by Timothy Kincaid on
Timothy Kincaid whines and cries about “hate speech” and trying to “shame and humiliate” gay people, but there he is out in front of El Coyote, speaking on the video, and then screaming “SHAME ON YOU, SHAME ON YOU, SHAME ON YOU” at gays and lesbians who aren’t doing what he wants.
I’ve long since realized that North Dallas Thirty is little interested in facts or reason. But, for the record, it was mostly not gay and lesbian customers who were the subject of chants of “shame on you”. Large numbers of gay customers came up, found out what was going on, and went for dinner elsewhere. “Shame on you” was chanted at the busload of Mormons that came up. It was chanted at the hostile heterosexuals who were making a point of ‘showing them faggots their place’. And, if there were some few gay customers who chose to put their taco plate above their civil rights, then I’m glad to have called shame on their behavior.
Now as I do not respect North Dallas Thirty or his opinions, I don’t really care what he thinks of me. At all. But I thought I’d provide some facts to shine light on his motivations.
posted by Timothy Kincaid on
Oh, and I don’t whine and cry about hate speech.
That’s just bizarre. I’ve no idea where that came from; I’m not sure that I’ve ever used the term, or at least not positively. In fact, I tend to argue on the side of free speech.
I think perhaps North Dallas Thirty may have sanity issues.
Now if y’all will forgive me, I need to get back to more important things like continuing our ground-breaking coverage of the Kill Gays bill in Uganda and synopsizing the Perry v. Schwarzenegger trial which, without blogger action, would be hidden from public view.
posted by DragonScorpion on
I’m glad you did state your side of things, Mr. Kincaid. It’s important to get both sides. And while I tend to dismiss most of what ND30 has to say, I know that there are some in our community who have supported some pretty despicable things. When that happens, in my opinion, we shouldn’t support it.
In this case I didn’t really have a clue what he was talking about. And considering the banality of what he normally posts, I didn’t really care, either. At least now I have a little better idea about it.
While I don’t support any violence or threats & intimidation of violence, those folks (especially the religious fanatic interlopers from out-of-state) who vilified others for the ‘crime’ of being homosexual, and militantly advocated encoding their prejudiced world-view into a state constitution, they should be ashamed, and told so.
Lastly, while would-be crusader ND30 is tilting at windmills in his ‘culture wars’, I’m glad that some are more focused on real issues, including not only Perry v. Schwarzenegger but the Uganda human-rights travesty. We all should be.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Actually, it is bizarrely ironic that ND30 would bring up slavery as a justification for his endorsement of the status quo, because in doing so he is actually arguing for a system in which mobs of people can draw up and pass a referenda to strip a class of citizens of their fundamental rights, which must then be respected because, so their logic maintains, the will of the people rules absolutely.
And that is exactly what happened in that case; a “mob” of people drew up and passed a referendum that stripped a class of citizens — slaveowners — of their fundamental right, as had been established in Dred Scott, to own people as property and impose involuntary servitude. And it was perfectly legal and legitimate for them to do so, because, as the Constitution emphatically states, the will of the people is the ultimate authority.
It all depends on whether you prioritize the constitutionally-established right of voters to decide upon and determine their own form of government, or the selfish needs of a tiny minority for validation. I side with the former.
So let’s compare: I suggest that the constitutional guarantees of equal protection of the laws and due process should not be arbitrarily denied to minority groups by referenda.
ND30 maintains that if a simple majority of voters deems one group of people in some way inferior or worthy of exclusion, they can deny all members of this group equal protection of the laws without applying due process.
Or, put differently:
DragonScorpion denies the basic, established constitutional right of voters to determine their own form of government, as is explicitly stated in the United States and California constitutions.
I state that the right of voters to determine their own form of government, as is explicitly stated in the United States and California constitutions, is paramount.
Simply put, I support voters’ rights, even if they are personally inconvenient for me; DragonScorpion believes his personal convenience should overrule everyone else’s rights.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Of course, the obviousness of all this is that one’s right to basic freedoms trumps another’s rights to curtail that freedom.
Then therefore, since you have stated that marriage is a basic freedom, please state that no one else has the right to curtail that freedom for anyone else for any reason.
Let’s deal with your first attempt to object.
Dogs and children can’t consent.
Sorry. That determination is made by a law passed by the majority. And what have you stated about that?
I suggest that the constitutional guarantees of equal protection of the laws and due process should not be arbitrarily denied to minority groups by referenda.
Indeed, this is why the gay and lesbian community has advocated so hard against age-of-consent laws and stated that they are “discriminatory”. That is the whole point of the ILGA-affiliated gay organization NAMBLA.
If these marriage certificates are as worthless as ND30 implies â unable to âforce by lawâ dignity and respect â then why do opposite-sex couples âneedâ them? Surely it doesn’t render these heterosexual couples âinferiorâ or âincapable of functioning withoutâ them?
Hardly. But try dealing with the natural consequences of heterosexual coupling — children — without the legal structure of marriage to demonstrate rights, obligations, benefits, inheritance, property, and the like without it.
Since homosexual sex does not have as a natural consequence children, it doesn’t need to be dealt with similarly.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
But, for the record, it was mostly not gay and lesbian customers who were the subject of chants of “shame on you”.
Unfortunately for Timothy Kincaid, the sources do not corroborate his statements.
But the anger was apparent as the few customers of the evening walked in, including a lesbian couple. They were met with angry chanting of “Shame on you, shame on you, shame on you!”
Also, if one listens to the embedded video, one can actually hear Timothy Kincaid commenting; then, at about 45 seconds in, you hear people angrily querying, “Are you a lesbian?”, at which point the crowd closes in, screaming louder and louder, with one person distinctly yelling about “being embarrassed”, and so forth.
Those are the facts, Mr. Kincaid. You simply lied.
And this was particularly entertaining:
I think perhaps North Dallas Thirty may have sanity issues.
Meanwhile, it’s quite obvious that Timothy Kincaid does have hypocrisy issues.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I’d also like to point out DragonScorpion’s We don’t need lynch mobs going around browbeating others into conforming, punishing the ‘wicked’ in some sort of vigilante justice.
Of course, that was before he knew Timothy Kincaid and Regan DuCasse supported, endorsed, and were participating in such things — at which point, of course, he became fully supportive of it.
And that really is the interesting point to me. As a gay and lesbian person, you can publicly testify in front of the Canadian Parliament that it is “common” and normal for gays and lesbians to have sex with underage children, state as a psychiatrist that it is an “educational experience” to dress children as sex slaves and take them to a sex fair, use taxpayer dollars to fund studies demanding that gay sex be taught to children as young as five, and file frivolous lawsuits against drug companies claiming that gay men are so helpless and unable to control themselves that Viagra advertising needs to be banned, and nothing but crickets from Timothy Kincaid and the other leaders of the gay and lesbian community.
Dare to go into a restaurant where Timothy Kincaid is incensed over a person’s $100 donation to a cause he doesn’t like, though, and you get the full bore “shame on you, shame on you” screamed at you, told you’re an “embarrassment” to gays and lesbians everywhere, and have it justified by the gay and lesbian community.
And if you criticize Kincaid for doing it, he claims you have problems with your “sanity” — a neat trick, given that he doesn’t seem to have any professional qualifications in psychiatry or psychology, and has also never seen in person the individual who he’s diagnosing with “sanity problems”.
By the way, Kincaid, DO you actually have these qualifications? If you do, there will be a complaint filed, since diagnosing a patient you’ve never met for the sole purpose of tearing them down publicly is a serious professional breach, and will likely result in any license you have to practice in the state of California being revoked.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I’d also like to point out DragonScorpion’s pronouncements from another thread, in response to my question as to why the gay and lesbian community refused to condemn and criticize outrageous behavior by gays and lesbians.
We don’t need lynch mobs going around browbeating others into conforming, punishing the ‘wicked’ in some sort of vigilante justice.
Of course, that was before he knew Timothy Kincaid and Regan DuCasse supported, endorsed, and were participating in such things — at which point, of course, he became fully supportive of it.
And that really is the interesting point to me. As a gay and lesbian person, you can publicly testify in front of the Canadian Parliament that it is “common” and normal for gays and lesbians to have sex with underage children, state as a psychiatrist that it is an “educational experience” to dress children as sex slaves and take them to a sex fair, use taxpayer dollars to fund studies demanding that gay sex be taught to children as young as five, and file frivolous lawsuits against drug companies claiming that gay men are so helpless and unable to control themselves that Viagra advertising needs to be banned, and nothing but crickets from Timothy Kincaid and the other leaders of the gay and lesbian community.
Dare to go into a restaurant where Timothy Kincaid is incensed over a person’s $100 donation to a cause he doesn’t like, though, and you get the full bore “shame on you, shame on you” screamed at you, told you’re an “embarrassment” to gays and lesbians everywhere, and have it justified by the gay and lesbian community.
And if you criticize Kincaid for doing it, he claims you have problems with your “sanity” — a neat trick, given that he doesn’t seem to have any professional qualifications in psychiatry or psychology, and has also never seen in person the individual who he’s diagnosing with “sanity problems”.
By the way, Kincaid, DO you actually have these qualifications? If you do, there will be a complaint filed, since diagnosing a patient you’ve never met for the sole purpose of tearing them down publicly is a serious professional breach, and will likely result in any license you have to practice in the state of California being revoked.
posted by Timothy Kincaid on
I don’t recall “commenting” on any “embedded video”, but if I did then I’m fine with that. And if North Dallas Thirty thinks that is objectionable (or admirable, or anything else) it makes no difference to me.
I very much pity North Dallas Thirty, much in the same way that I pity James Hartline or others on that level.
We have one who regularly comments on our site who believes every evil thing about gay people no matter how irrational. He thinks that anyone who presents evidence to the contrary is lying, no matter how credible. It’s very very sad. For all of them.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I don’t recall “commenting” on any “embedded video”
My, how these “activists” conveniently forget things.
And again; if one listens to the embedded video, one can actually hear Timothy Kincaid commenting; then, at about 45 seconds in, you hear people angrily querying, “Are you a lesbian?”, at which point the crowd closes in, screaming louder and louder, with one person distinctly yelling about “being embarrassed”, and so forth.
I very much pity North Dallas Thirty, much in the same way that I pity James Hartline or others on that level.
Which is, of course, why you stated that I’m not sane — again, a neat trick, given that you don’t seem to have any professional qualifications in psychiatry or psychology, and have never seen in person the individual who you’re diagnosing with “sanity problems”.
So you make claims that have no basis whatsoever against the people you claim to “pity”. That’s pretty hilarious — and also hypocritical.
He thinks that anyone who presents evidence to the contrary is lying, no matter how credible.
That would be because your sources have a bit of a truthfulness problem.
Heck, just look at the bloggers; you’re making psychological and psychiatric diagnoses of peoples’ sanity without having a degree, certification, or license to practice either, and without even having met the person in question.
What makes you “credible” in that respect, Kincaid? The fact that you repeat the gay and lesbian propaganda, so you must be credible?
posted by DragonScorpion on
ND30 sides with mobs who can, by tyranny of majority, vote away the basic rights of others, including same-sex marriage rights in California and the basic freedom of slaves in Kansas.
I state that the right of citizens to be protected in their inalienable rights to âlife, liberty and the pursuit of happinessâ, as explicitly stated in the Declaration of Independence, as well as the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution which explicitly states, âno State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the lawsâ are both paramount, and trump the fleeting whims of public opinion.
What âpretty rhetoricâ, a shame it’s bullshit. ND30 doesn’t support same-sex marriage; it is no inconvenience to him at all.
Simply put, ND30 supports tyranny of the majority, and this is actually quite convenient for him as, so far, the majority has been pushing his socially conservative, anti-homosexual equality agendas in over 30 states. No wonder he is so supportive of the status quo.
posted by Timothy Kincaid on
Oh my gosh, I’d completely forgotten that. But a number two, chicken soft taco with a cheese enchilada does sound mighty good on a rainy Monday afternoon.
As for the rest, I think the kindest thing is to let it go.
posted by DragonScorpion on
Various courts, including the SCOTUS, has found the marriage is one of the âbasic civil rights of manâ. But yet, consistently, they have not held it is an ABSOLUTE right, to ALL couples, for ANY reason, under ANY and ALL circumstances.
If ND30 had even a basic understanding of the law (and a shred of decency and honesty) he would understand and admit that establishing something as a ârightâ doesn’t necessarily make it ABSOLUTE. It does, however, mean that compelling arguments have to be made why it should be limited in certain circumstances. And certainly, if courts or legislatures have established this as a right to a class of people, this should not then be taken from this class of people by bigoted mobs.
Some examples: Freedom of speech is a constitutional guarantee, but child pornography or yelling fire in a crowded theater or inciting a riot have been determined to not be protected as free speech… The right to vote doesn’t apply to the underage, non-citizens or felons.
Do either of these mean that the right to vote or to free speech doesn’t exist? Nope. Only in ND30’s warped reality is this the case.
Sorry, animals aren’t people. And they damn sure aren’t citizens. And children have not reached the age of majority and therefore are not entitled to many of the protections that are guaranteed to people who have reached the age of majority.
As has been pointed out so many times now to this lunatic liar, one person or one group (which is all he can find), âthe gay & lesbian communityâ does not make…
Fortunately, ND30 provided a source earlier showing ILGA coming out strong against NAMBLA. But then ND30 thinks he gets to have it both ways â claiming the âgay communityâ supports NAMBLA, then claiming the âgay communityâ turned its back on NAMBLA, whenever it is convenient for him.
There is that famous double-standard again. The argument for same-sex marriage is reduced by this liar as âan admittance that gays [are] inherently inferior and incapable of functioning without [it]â. But then, when convenient, it is apparently essential for opposite-sex couples. He and his bigoted ilk just invoke ‘the children’. But to hell with those children of same-sex couples who are seeking marriage and could certainly benefit from those legal protections and societal recognitions.
To him, heterosexuals shouldn’t have to face such a burden. Homosexuals, on the other hand, can just make do without it.
posted by DragonScorpion on
I don’t condone violence or threats of violence. I can’t speak for what Mr. Kincaid has done as I wasn’t there. I don’t know the circumstances. And I am certainly not taking ND30’s assessment of the situation as the truth as he has proven himself time and again to be a inveterate liar.
I do know that people have a right to protest, most anywhere they want and for whatever reason they choose.
I fully support peaceful protesting of Proposition 8 and similar efforts to codify discrimination against homosexuals into law. That also goes for the the groups and organizations that support/finance these sorts of laws. In my opinion, any self-respecting homosexual would… As ND30 is not one of us, I can understand why he doesn’t.
Further on the subject of protests. The Black Civil Rights movement made protesting a very effective component of their agitating for equality. Loud, passionate, and sometimes even violent, for the most part, the movement exercised peaceful civil disobedience. Much of this was due to the leadership of Martin Luther King, Jr. Today we celebrate his achievements. Our community could benefit greatly from such a leader…
While the Black Civil Rights movement made mistakes along the way, and racist Whites certainly tried to use this against them, their struggle was a just one nonetheless.
Our movement has made mistakes as well, and the anti-homosexual camp and their lackeys do their damnedest to capitalize on these mistakes. But our cause is a just one, too.
Some criticism is deserved. Others are simply attempts to demonize, discredit or marginalize our legitimate grievances. We should be willing to take an objective look at the tactics that those in our movement are employing. This does not mean we have to accept the arguments of those who will grasp onto any tactic to shoot our core struggle for equality down.
On a lighter note… I don’t think one needs a license in psychiatry to make a diagnosis of insanity in a case as obvious as ND30’s â the lunacy of his posts, the disconnect from reality, the pathological lying….. Oh, and then there is that sensitivity â I’m gonna file a complaint â thing… All too amusing.
posted by Timothy Kincaid on
I can’t speak for what Mr. Kincaid has done as I wasn’t there. I don’t know the circumstances.
I can, I was, and I do. There was no violence and, to the best of my knowledge, there were no threats of violence.
If there is any question as to who you should believe about the situation… consider North Dallas Thirty’s record so far.
🙂
posted by DragonScorpion on
I have considered his record, Mr. Kincaid. ND30 has zero credibility with me. He deliberately distorts my comments (and others) to the point of blatant lying, unapologetically uses sweeping generalizations to a degree I’ve never seen before, and relies on derisive, juvenile labels — “gay-sex marriage”; “Obama party”, etc. And when it comes to any semblance of basic respect for homosexuals in general or any support for civil rights recognition of us, he exhibits none.
All I can do is take your word about the violence and threats of violence. I would, however, be interested to know how you would handle or have handled the situation, if there were violence or threats of violence among homosexual-advocacy protesters…
And of course, I’m asking you. I’m not asking for ND30’s assessment of you. Though I’m sure he’ll give it anyway. A re-posting of the same links, no doubt.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Sorry, animals aren’t people. And they damn sure aren’t citizens. And children have not reached the age of majority and therefore are not entitled to many of the protections that are guaranteed to people who have reached the age of majority.
Sorry, but both citizenship and the age of majority are established in law by the vote of the “bigoted mob”, as you have put it.
Since you oppose any restrictions on rights or freedoms put in place by the majority, please demonstrate some intellectual honesty and decry such bans. After all, the gay and lesbian community have already made it clear that age-of-consent laws, which establish the age of majority, are nothing more than an attempt by bigots to prevent gays and lesbians from having sex with children, as is normal and common for gays and lesbians. Indeed, your fellow gay-sex marriage supporters have already made it clear that bans on plural marriage are unconstitutional.
To him, heterosexuals shouldn’t have to face such a burden. Homosexuals, on the other hand, can just make do without it.
Yup.
You see, DragonScorpion, this may be news to you, and is squarely against the propaganda of the gay-sex marriage community, but no homosexual couple anywhere has ever produced a child on its own without the outside assistance of heterosexuals.
In short, homosexual couples don’t need marriage because there is exactly zero possibility of them ever producing one of the most basic things that marriage exists to protect. If they want to get a child from somewhere else, fine, but there are umpteen legal processes involved that all require undoing the biological claim of the opposite-sex parent or parents that were required to produce the child in the first place.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
We should be willing to take an objective look at the tactics that those in our movement are employing. This does not mean we have to accept the arguments of those who will grasp onto any tactic to shoot our core struggle for equality down.
Only that actually having an objective look would require that you WOULD accept such arguments when they are correct.
But this really isn’t about objectivity or facts, as we see from this comment.
If there is any question as to who you should believe about the situation… consider North Dallas Thirty’s record so far.
Indeed.
In describing Kincaid’s actions, I’ve quoted a Firedoglake piece with embedded video and a piece from “Shut Up! I Know!”.
Both of whom were referred by Kincaid as good sources.
Of course, that was before he needed to cover his behavior and insist that I was only citing lies about him.
And finally:
On a lighter note… I don’t think one needs a license in psychiatry to make a diagnosis of insanity in a case as obvious as ND30’s â the lunacy of his posts, the disconnect from reality, the pathological lying….. Oh, and then there is that sensitivity â I’m gonna file a complaint â thing… All too amusing.
Not surprising. It’s just like Regan’s screaming above that I was a “tattletale”; it’s the classic infantile and childish response of the emotionally immature to avoid taking responsibility for their behavior by blaming the person who pointed it out.
Most people outgrow this. Apparently, though, it’s standard and accepted behavior in the gay and lesbian community to blame others for your problems.
posted by DragonScorpion on
Sorry, these laws aren’t established by âbigoted mobsâ, they were not put to popular vote, in fact most were put in place from time immemorial by legislatures. And as I’ve repeated over and over again, some liberties and privileges are legitimately curtailed. Like free speech. But this isn’t done on the mere whims of the mobs, it isn’t limited selectively to just certain types of people.
Discrimination against homosexuals has no legitimacy other than that the heterosexual majority prefers to discriminate against us. Just like the white southern majority liked slavery. By the way, ND30 should really stop comparing homosexuals to animals and children.
Key words, WHEN THEY ARE CORRECT. It also helps when these claims are not being offered by someone who has conclusively proven that he is a habitual liar. Being dishonest has a price. Part of that is that others cannot take what you have to say seriously anymore. If one ceases the obvious lying then perhaps people will take that person serious again.
Nope. Age-of-consent and many other age restrictions are necessary and already long-established law. As are animals not being protected as citizens. Laws discriminating against homosexuals for no other reason than we are deemed unnatural and morally inferior by the majority is NOT necessary, NOT a compelling case, NOT a legitimate argument. Of course, ND30 agrees with them so he’s trying to build up their case. And failing at it.
Yet another lie, the âgay and lesbian communityâ has not and does not support repealing age-of-consent laws, nor does the community support removing restrictions on plural marriage. There are some homosexuals who have, but apparently there are very, very few as so far ND30 has only managed to produce two examples and at least one of those was from someone from outside the U.S…
Ah, but then we’re just all one big monolith to him, so of course we’re accountable for what some homosexual does or says from 8,000 miles away. In the mind of such a lunatic, he manages to twist 2 incidents into a pattern… Why? Because he desperately wants for there to be one, even if he has to make it up.
posted by DragonScorpion on
Factually WRONG! This illustrates just how patently ignorant (and prejudiced) ND30 is. The most obvious example: same-sex couples who rely on a homosexual donor, particularly a trusted friend.
But ND30, in his revulsion of homosexuality, thinks we are so helpless, so inferior, so unnatural, that we can’t get by without our heterosexual masters… What a pathetic human being he must be to hate homosexuals so much that he must resort to wholesale insults of us in EVERY FUCKING POST.
So keep this kind of rhetoric from ND30 in mind, folks. It is goons like him who want us to stay second-class. No access to marriage, no serving openly in the military, no adopting children, no protections to having access to public accommodations, no protections from being denied employment merely on the basis of our orientation, and no respect from society at large. None. Ever. And also keep in mind that his precious anti-gay Republican party that he supports so mindlessly, seeks to ensure all of this remains a reality for generations to come…
Welcome to the 21st century. Marriage stopped being entirely about procreation in the 20th. It is not codified in law that procreation or the ability to procreate is a prerequisite to marriage. Nor is there any mention that couples not only MUST procreate and be able to, but that they must do so within their own relationship, no use of fertilization methods outside of them. So ND30 better get his mobs together, they’re going to need to change a lot more laws to mandate their heteronormative agenda…
My, ND30 is sensitive about that ‘insanity’ retort above… Quite telling… And as we can all see, yet again, he has reduced the entire âgay and lesbian communityâ to âemotional immaturityâ and he insists that we, all of us, simply blame others for our problems…
Just makes you want to see more of his like-minded ilk in government, no?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Sorry, these laws aren’t established by âbigoted mobsâ, they were not put to popular vote, in fact most were put in place from time immemorial by legislatures.
Which, surprisingly enough, are elected, empowered, and exist solely by the consent of those “bigoted mobs”. That’s why so many of them are titled, “Representative”.
And as far as “from time immemorial”, the same applies to marriage. Why do you attempt to argue for that when you’ve already declared elsewhere that the argument is invalid? Haven’t you and your fellow supporters of gay-sex marriage thought this through?
It also helps when these claims are not being offered by someone who has conclusively proven that he is a habitual liar. Being dishonest has a price. Part of that is that others cannot take what you have to say seriously anymore.
Of course, we keep in mind that this declaration of “habitual liar” comes from someone who adamantly refuses to review sources that might contradict his existing prejudices and insists that anything that comes from a person who he dislikes is automatically wrong.
I don’t need to go to your blog to see garbage from someone I not only dislike but who has done his âdarndestâ to try to hurt me and every other homosexual in the world with his dehumanizing rhetoric, I can see all your rantings right here.
Next:
Yet another lie, the âgay and lesbian communityâ has not and does not support repealing age-of-consent laws, nor does the community support removing restrictions on plural marriage.
Please. You’ve already stated that you oppose bans on plural marriage, for example.
And while I am not supportive of these sorts of relationships because I believe they are throwback to patriarchal enslavement of women, you also will not see me out supporting or voting for constitutional amendments banning plural marriage.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The most obvious example: same-sex couples who rely on a homosexual donor, particularly a trusted friend.
Oh really? How does that whole three women or three men thing work for producing a baby? Or — horrors! — does it require a person of the OPPOSITE SEX?
Nor is there any mention that couples not only MUST procreate and be able to, but that they must do so within their own relationship, no use of fertilization methods outside of them.
That would be because the laws are not designed to discriminate against those who, through no fault of their own, have biological dysfunctions that prevent them from having a child naturally.
If you want to argue that homosexuality is a biological dysfunction, feel free. However, as gay and lesbian heroes like “Bishop” Gene Robinson and Jim McGreevey demonstrate, gays and lesbians are perfectly capable of marrying people of the opposite sex, having sex with them, and producing children. In essence, you are equating people who simply choose to change sex partners with those heterosexual couples who genuinely want a child, but are through no fault of their own biologically incapable of producing one naturally.
What a pathetic human being he must be to hate homosexuals so much that he must resort to wholesale insults of us in EVERY FUCKING POST.
The funny part is that you think that pointing out these basic facts of reproduction is an insult.
So keep this kind of rhetoric from ND30 in mind, folks. It is goons like him who want us to stay second-class. No access to marriage, no serving openly in the military, no adopting children, no protections to having access to public accommodations, no protections from being denied employment merely on the basis of our orientation, and no respect from society at large. None. Ever.
And in that last, we find the problem.
Gays and lesbians need laws that force people to “respect” them.
The fact that you are not capable of getting respect from other people has very little to do with your sexual orientation. It has to do with your open and utter contempt for your coworkers, your hatred that you express towards your neighbors, and the way in which you treat those around you.
The classic response of those who are unable to deal with the consequences of their own behavior is to blame others. Furthermore, one of the things those individuals hate the most is someone who refuses to join them in their victim pool and instead calls out the behaviors that put them at the edge of society in the first place.
posted by DragonScorpion on
Well hello Captain Obvious! Yes, we live in a ârepresentative democracyâ, not a âdirect democracyâ. One that helped give us the abolition of slavery. Something that bigoted mobs had long protected.
Perhaps more important still, we also have a strong judiciary which tends toward upholding liberty, ensuring that the law is applied evenly, protecting minorities from a tyranny of the majority or tyranny by oligarchy.
In many instances our judiciary has done just that, protecting minorities from bigoted mobs and opportunistic legislators who foisted anti-miscegenation or same-sex marriage bans on us. But now, via popular sovereignty, the bigoted mobs are circumventing the judicial process entirely, attempting to ensure that marriage will NOW & FOREVER be forbidden to same-sex couples…
The justification that marriage can be denied to couples based on gender was ruled unconstitutional in some 7 states, based on both state and national constitutional provisions of equal protection of the laws & due process. That throws the âtraditionâ argument out the window, just as they did in regards to anti-miscegenation laws.
Now, with the aid of Republican opportunists, bigoted mobs have written discrimination into their state constitutions in regards to same-sex marriage.
The courts have yet to conclude that children and animals should have access to the same legal rights & privileges as adults. The fact is, they never have been afforded the same legal recognition in this country. With exceptions, homosexuals have. In the past several decades ADULT homosexuals have finally been given more recognition as equal to ADULT heterosexuals, thus, why the law has been changing in our favor (equality) and away from the socially conservative agenda (inequality).
Now, if ND30 wants to make a compelling argument why adults should be permitted to marry kids or dogs, that’s his prerogative. The rest of us are talking about ADULT CITIZENS marrying other ADULT CITIZENS. Speaking of which, I’m still waiting for the ârationalâ argument how it is appropriate to deny same-sex couples the same civil contract that opposite-sex couples are afforded.
posted by DragonScorpion on
Hilarious! And in trying to discredit me for not trafficking his blog, he yet again proves my point, North Dallas Thirty is a habitual LIAR! No where in that post did I state that everything those I dislike {nor ND30 in particular} says is automatically wrong. Yet he makes that claim. Because he is a LIAR.
Let me state again, however, that I have seen enough of ND30’s garbage here that I have decided I’m not going to traffic his blog of propaganda on top of everything else. As I have stated before, I review his links from independent sources. This is evidenced by the fact I often find statements in them which contradict what he says and I post those…
I will also state, again, that given the gross level of obvious dishonesty that ND30 displays in nearly every single post that he makes here, as far as I’m concerned he has zero credibility. I firmly believe that all of his claims should be viewed with great suspicion.
Here is another classic example of ND30’s deliberate lies and distortions. ND30 quotes me:
âYet another lie, the âgay and lesbian communityâ has not and does not support repealing age-of-consent laws, nor does the community support removing restrictions on plural marriage.â
And then he responds: âPlease. You’ve already stated that you oppose bans on plural marriage, for example.â
Here is my CLEAR stance from the post ND30 cites:
âAnd plural marriage is completely different from 2-person marriage. It isn’t merely an issue of race or gender, it’s a radically different concept entirely involving unlimited numbers of people. This is obvious to an intellectually honest person, but then that would exclude ND30…
Now if those in favor of it want to argue for legal protections then they can make their case. Unlike ND30, I’m willing to listen. And while I am not supportive of these sorts of relationships because I believe they are throwback to patriarchal enslavement of women, you also will not see me out supporting or voting for constitutional amendments banning plural marriage.â
A CLEAR opposition to plural marriage. A CLEAR statement that I won’t join with his bigoted mobs to pass constitutional amendments banning plural marriage or any equivalent thereof. Even more clear, I, DragonScorpion, am not âthe gay communityâ. His linking one person’s comments, or even two, or three to an entire community is not only grossly dishonest, it borders on insane.
posted by DragonScorpion on
He’s trying to evade what he actually said, but it isn’t going to work… Let’s revisit what ND30 wrote previously:
âYou see, DragonScorpion, this may be news to you, and is squarely against the propaganda of the gay-sex marriage community, but no homosexual couple anywhere has ever produced a child on its own without the outside assistance of heterosexuals.â ~ North Dallas Thirty
There you have it. I think this little slip-up from ND30 was quite telling in what he really thinks of us. Without “heterosexuals” ND30 figures we can’t do anything, we’re helpless, inferior. He claims same-sex couples cannot possibly produce a child on their own without the help of âHETEROSEXUALSâ. Which is, FACTUALLY WRONG.
Rather a convenient excuse ND30 relies on. With infertile couples or elderly couples, etc. it’s âno fault of their ownâ, nor is it the fault of those who CHOOSE not to have children, but for same-sex couples who cannot procreate without fertilization aids but have done so and thus procreated, ND30 implies it IS our fault and therefore we CAN be denied access to civil marriage.
Civil marriage, which, again, welcome to the 21st century, stopped being entirely about procreation in the 20th. It is not codified in law that procreation or the ability to procreate is a prerequisite to marriage. Nor is there any mention that couples not only MUST procreate and be able to, but that they must do so within their own relationship, no use of fertilization methods outside of them.
By the way, many of those laws of which ND30 refers to did not forbid marriage to same-sex couples or establish them exclusively for heterosexuals. Like in Minnesota for instance. But the new laws which he advocates for, does. It prohibits same-sex marriage solely on the basis of the gender of those involved. Clear un-warranted discrimination.
Just as interracial couples living under anti-miscegenation laws were perfectly capable of marrying people of the same racial classification, but still deserved the right to choose for themselves to marry their partner that they had formed physical and emotional bonds to.
ND30 needs to think these through, he’s on the wrong side of history, and justice.
posted by DragonScorpion on
In essence ND30 is insisting upon procreation being a legal prerequisite and/or condition for civil marriage or access to civil marriage that does not exist. Nor should it.
The disgusting part {not a bit funny} is that ND30 thinks that it isn’t insulting to insist that same-sex couples are inferior of deserving access to civil marriage because they cannot reproduce outside of surrogates, etc. yet opposite-sex couples who are infertile for one reason or another should have automatic access to marriage, regardless. The double-standard reveals his blatant anti-homosexual prejudices…
First of all, I DEFY this liar to cite examples where I have shown âopen and utter contemptâ for my co-workers, âhatredâ to my neighbors, and the way I treat those around me in ways which is deserving of wholesale disrespect by my peers and society at large…
Second, passing the blame for homophobic bigotry to homosexuals is as legitimate {disgusting} as passing the blame to interracial couples who didn’t {some still don’t} get any respect from their peers.
Anyone who has any shred of a sense of justice and fairness knows that it is WRONG to judge and hold accountable an entire segment of the population, in this case an entire class of people because of the actions of some. But then that’s what ND30 does.
ND30 comes from the school of thought that ‘it’s okay to hate and belittle a minority, because some of them are bad people’. That’s the thinking of a bigot who hates and disparages first, then goes looking for justifications why, and clings to them dogmatically.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
So let’s see.
No where in that post did I state that everything those I dislike {nor ND30 in particular} says is automatically wrong.
But then:
Let me state again, however, that I have seen enough of ND30’s garbage here that I have decided I’m not going to traffic his blog of propaganda on top of everything else.
Now, given that DragonScorpion boldly points out that he has never visited my blog, how on earth could he declare it “propaganda” and thus wrong — unless he’s assuming that, because I wrote it, it automatically is wrong?
Next:
A CLEAR statement that I won’t join with his bigoted mobs to pass constitutional amendments banning plural marriage or any equivalent thereof.
In other words, he opposes bans on plural marriage and thinks they’re wrong.
The problem is that he doesn’t want to admit that the gay-sex marriage community that he represents and who shares his views also opposes bans on plural marriage and thinks they’re wrong.
The disgusting part {not a bit funny} is that ND30 thinks that it isn’t insulting to insist that same-sex couples are inferior of deserving access to civil marriage because they cannot reproduce outside of surrogates, etc. yet opposite-sex couples who are infertile for one reason or another should have automatic access to marriage, regardless.
And again, the denialist has to resort to the most extreme of situations in order to justify why gay-sex marriage is necessary for him.
Infertility is not a normal situation for heterosexual couples. It’s the result of a biological dysfunction, extreme age, or having to take conscious and deliberate steps to STOP one from getting pregnant or producing a child. Marriage developed as a logical way of dealing with the natural consequences of heterosexual coupling.
The problem is that, once again, we see the consequences of the antisocial and hatemongering behavior that the gay community produces. When people like DragonScorpion act as gay and lesbian people are told they should — supporting and defending pedophiles, mocking their neighbors as “uptight” and belittling their town as “Bible belt”, and screaming at other gays and lesbians just for their choice to eat at a restaurant — that IS the behavior of an inferior, and society reacts accordingly. But instead of having the strength to take an honest look at themselves and the behavior their “friends” encourage, DragonScorpion and his ilk are taught to wallow in their victimhood and blame their problems on other people. Yesterday, DragonScorpion was demanding that laws be passed to force people to respect gays. Today he’s whining that the fact that gays are subject to the same marriage rules as everyone else and can’t just marry whatever they wish to have sex with makes them “inferior”. He is obsessed with what everyone thinks of him, and is trying to pervert the laws, the court system, and the very fabric of our country to prevent himself from ever being criticized, held accountable for his behavior, or inconvenienced, even if it involves stripping people of their right to vote on their own constitution and government.
This is not only socially bad, it’s dangerous. DragonScorpion is actually advocating that courts should strip voters of the right to amend their own constitutions. That in itself is an unconstitutional exercise of judicial power, and it shows the degree and length of desperation that these individuals will go to in order to eliminate criticism instead of honestly evaluating their behavior and what they and their community support.
posted by DragonScorpion on
Like I said before, âno where in that post [or anywhere else] did I state that everything those I dislike {nor ND30 in particular} says is automatically wrong.â So again, ND30’s earlier comment to the contrary is a lie.
Here’s the way I look at this blog of his. ND30 displays nothing but gay-blaming propaganda here, but yet I and everyone else are supposed to believe his blog is somehow different? I, for one, am not that naïve. And I waste enough time on him already…..
Moreover, just like his other demands, the more he pushes the more determined I am to refuse his demands. Honestly, it’s downright pitiful to watch a grown man act this desperate to get traffic to his blog…
In other words, due to the finality of them, I oppose using constitutional amendments to restrict individuals. To me, constitutions are for setting limits on the government, not people.
Furthermore, I won’t âadmitâ that the âgay-sex marriage communityâ shares my view about this 1) because I don’t ârepresentâ them, 2) because I don’t oppose simple statutes limiting marriage to two people, 3) because not everyone who advocates same-sex marriage shares my view against this sort of use of constitutions.
Next:
The âextreme of situationsâ that ND30 refers to here is simply a fact that he got dead wrong, and a reality that is taking place in the world today.
He should try exercising the test ‘how does the law affect real people’s lives’ sometime. It might help him to come to more reasonable conclusions about how to apply prohibitions. It’s at least worth considering, but he never does.
Instead, ND30 tries to justify restricting the rights of homosexual citizens in this country by orchestrating elaborate conditions for marriage (which don’t legally exist) and then gives heterosexual couples an automatic out from being held to the same conditions. An all too convenient rationalization I’ve seen used all too often by the anti-homosexual crowd. It’s a creation designed specifically to narrowly target ONLY same-sex couples.
There’s that lying again. I don’t support nor defend pedophiles, I don’t mock my neighbors as âuptightâ {though some of them certainly are}, my town IS a âbible-beltâ town which few here would disagree with {the Christians are proud of it}, and I don’t âscreamâ at other gays and lesbians for eating at restaurants…
Seriously, when is this lunatic going to come up with a new example of the oh-so-common practice of ‘bullying’ from the âgay and lesbian communityâ? One incident doesn’t exactly suggest a pattern, unless you already hate the minority in question, of course…
posted by DragonScorpion on
Wrong. I asked the lying bigot here why he is so opposed to same-sex couples being permitted the dignity of legal marriage. He responded, ârespect and dignity are not forced by law; they are earned based on behavior.â
Which, of course, is to suggest that same-sex couples simply haven’t âearnedâ respect nor dignity and therefore shouldn’t have legal access to marriage. A blanket assumption and extremely insulting. But ND30 is too prejudiced to see this. Meanwhile, this statement also suggests that opposite-sex couples HAVE earned respect and dignity, thus why they are legally entitled to it. . . .
I then asked: âIf these marriage certificates are as worthless as ND30 implies â unable to âforce by lawâ dignity and respect â then why do opposite-sex couples âneedâ them? Surely it doesn’t render these heterosexual couples âinferiorâ or âincapable of functioning withoutâ them?â
To which ND30 responded: âHardly. But try dealing with the natural consequences of heterosexual coupling — children — without the legal structure of marriage to demonstrate rights, obligations, benefits, inheritance, property, and the like without it.â
Again, according to ND30, 1) opposite-sex couples who CAN’T or DON’T have kids still get the benefits supposedly designed only for kids, 2) same-sex couples who DO have kids don’t get these legal benefits because they need âheterosexualsâ to have the kids. Which, as I pointed out, is factually incorrect.
I also pointed out that ND30 displays ZERO respect for what he dubs âgay-sex marriageâ and those same-sex couples who ARE monogamous, who ARE respectable, ARE productive members of their community, and ARE seeking to formally commit themselves to a life-long, monogamous institution. Instead, ND30 has these folks lumped into the ‘disrespectful gays worthy of wholesale scorn’ category.
Wrong again. First off, I don’t depict same-sex couples as inferior, ND30 does when he accuses ALL of them of having children just for the purposes of having sex slaves and trophies for their friends, or when he deems ALL of them them as having not “earned” “respect and dignity”.
Second, heterosexuals are automatically granted a legal protection to marry those whom they are naturally inclined to be attracted to â members of the opposite sex. Homosexuals, on the other hand, are forbidden in 45 states to marry those whom they are naturally inclined to be attracted to â members of the same sex.
More lies. I will challenge the bigot, again, and again he will refuse to prove himself because he can’t. I defy this bigot to point out where I am trying to “pervert” the laws, courts, “fabric of the country” to prevent myself from ever being criticized.
Though he tries so hard to obfuscate the issue, the REALITY is, the struggle for homosexual civil rights, including same-sex couples having access to civil marriage, IS NOT about “preventing criticism” it’s about civil rights, justice, and equality, period.
Nope,
as I pointed out at the beginning of this exercise in futility, a strong ruling against this sort of referenda process would not stop it in the future, even careful legislation probably couldn’t bring this about. Rather, it would have a chilling effect on such attempts by mobs of voters to gather and vote away the constitutional guarantees to equal protection and due process from their neighbors.
Furthermore, it is dangerous for ALL minorities to let the sort of tyranny by majority which took place in CA and MA to continue.
Lastly, other than engaging in non-heterosexual relations, these constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage has NOTHING to do with homosexual behavior and our evaluations of such behavior. This is just another bit of smoke and mirrors from ND30 that it’s OUR fault bigoted mobs keep voting away our rights.
It’s a ruse. ND30 has said it himself, same-sex marriage shouldn’t be allowed because same-sex couples have no need (in his mind) for the same legal protections, the same civil contract as opposite-sex couples.
A while back he was claiming the whole “gay-sex marriage” movement was about supporting the Obama party. This delusional character, ND30, literally seems to wake up in a new reality every day.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Here’s the way I look at this blog of his. ND30 displays nothing but gay-blaming propaganda here, but yet I and everyone else are supposed to believe his blog is somehow different?
Sounds familiar.
— is there an unwillingness to be challenged or admit that their view may be flawed?
— are they closed-minded to genuinely considering and understanding contradicting views?
— is there a refusal to accept new information which might undermine their belief?
Moreover, just like his other demands, the more he pushes the more determined I am to refuse his demands.
Good. That also demonstrates the point, which is that you and your fellow members of the gay and lesbian community are bigots who put your personal convenience ahead of facts.
This also explains why DragonScorpion needs laws that guarantee him employment based on his sexual orientation; apparently when one of his coworkers points out a mistake he makes, he screams and insists that he doesn’t have to listen to or respond to “Bible-belt”, “uptight” individuals and that they’re only acting out of homophobia.
This is not something that comes out of being gay or lesbian, by the way. It’s simply a behavior that the gay and lesbian community encourages and supports.
In other words, due to the finality of them, I oppose using constitutional amendments to restrict individuals.
Mhm; then you should oppose the Thirteenth Amendment because it prevents individuals from owning slaves or holding others in servitude.
To me, constitutions are for setting limits on the government, not people.
And that is what Proposition 8 does; it restricts the judiciary from ordering the other portions of the government to carry out gay-sex marriages, and from the other portions of the government from imposing it without the express consent of the people.
The fact that that is horribly inconvenient to you is not a relevant argument, any more than it was for the plantation owners who “needed slaves”. It comes down to which is the greater principle — your convenience, or the right of people to vote on and determine their own form of government.
Seriously, when is this lunatic going to come up with a new example of the oh-so-common practice of ‘bullying’ from the âgay and lesbian communityâ?
As you request.
Which, of course, is to suggest that same-sex couples simply haven’t âearnedâ respect nor dignity and therefore shouldn’t have legal access to marriage.
Or that respect and dignity do not come through legal fiat, and that if that is truly your goal, you’re going about it exactly the wrong way.
I can assure you, for example, that your gay and lesbian community leaders who dress up children as sexual slaves, take them to sex fairs, claim it as an “educational experience”, and insist that anyone who disagrees is “close-minded” have the piece of paper. According to you, that means they are automatically respectable and dignified, and thus anyone who dares to criticize them is homophobic and wrong.
Next:
I defy this bigot to point out where I am trying to “pervert” the laws, courts, “fabric of the country” to prevent myself from ever being criticized.
That was entirely too easy. Just look lower in the post.
Rather, it would have a chilling effect on such attempts by mobs of voters to gather
This thug wants to bully and intimidate people into not exercising their constitutional rights.
Do you think people should be punished for gathering, acting collectively, and voting accordingly, DragonScorpion? Do you?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Furthermore, it is dangerous for ALL minorities to let the sort of tyranny by majority which took place in CA and MA to continue.
Oh, gee, doesn’t that sound like a familiar argument.
Father of two, John Kruse said it is an educational experience for children. He said there were conservative parents against having kids at the event.
“Those are the same close-minded people who think we shouldn’t have children to begin with,” he said.
Or this one.
Long story short, that argument that “action that inconveniences one minority will hurt all minorities” is usually a sign of an unpopular minority trying to gather numbers when it hasn’t a leg on which to stand.
By the way, isn’t that an interesting last link? It points out that the worldwide gay and lesbian community emphatically ordered its members to “lobby their governments to abolish the age of consent laws”.
ND30 has said it himself, same-sex marriage shouldn’t be allowed because same-sex couples have no need (in his mind) for the same legal protections, the same civil contract as opposite-sex couples.
Yup.
A while back he was claiming the whole “gay-sex marriage” movement was about supporting the Obama party.
Yup. That’s obvious from the fact that you yourself have stated that Obama Party members supporting, endorsing, and voting for bans on gay-sex marriage does not in any way undermine or affect the gay and lesbian community, and causes it no damage.
The two are quite complementary. You’re asking for something you don’t need because it makes for good political theater.
posted by DragonScorpion on
Ah, yes, that line again how I’m a âbigotâ for not reading ND30’s blog. Just like I’m a âbigotâ for not frequenting the site of the Fred Phelps klan. In other words I’m a bigot against bigots. Ok, I can live with that. At least, unlike North Dallas Thirty, I don’t target an entire group of people, homosexuals, and blame ALL of them for the actions of a few. Unlike ND30, I don’t bash the innocent along with the guilty and claim this as righteous.
By the way, I’m sure those who read my post on identifying bigotry caught this line of mine:
âI’d say that if you could describe a person or their actions as fitting more than 3 of these then they probably are a bigot. But then it also depends on which ones and the severity…
In the end, I think perhaps whether or not one is a bigot is just one of those things one knows when they see it.â
posted by DragonScorpion on
FINALLY some new material! I guess this will be reposted about 4 dozen times over the next few months, along with the other. . .
What I liked about the article was that the author, unlike ND30, didn’t indict the entire âgay and lesbian communityâ in this incident. Also, not only did he state the he voted against the same-sex marriage ban, he also stated that Prop 8 was âmean-spiritedâ. I wholeheartedly concur. A refreshing change from ND30’s ridicule of same-sex marriage & the “gay community” at large.
Here’s where I come down on the issue. In some cases I certainly believe that someone’s personal biases against a minority could interfere with their ability to fulfill their duties as a civil servant and thus should probably be opposed by the public from serving in such a capacity.
The author of the article seems to agree with my sentiment on this, âIf during Hoopes’ 20 years on the board he had expressed homophobic beliefs that clouded his ability to serve, it would be a different matter entirely.â
Having said this, in this instance it doesn’t seem to me that the viewpoint, financial contribution and public position of Mr. Hoopes warranted such concerns nor an effort to keep him from being appointed. Certainly his past history should be weighed as well and it appears as though he’s probably earned this position.
By the way, while we’re discussing bullying, violence against homosexuals by homophobes is still a serious issue.
posted by DragonScorpion on
This is incorrect. First of all, this would be like justifying a constitutional amendment establishing marriage as only being between people with the same racial classification as not an infringement on the rights of individuals/interracial couples but rather merely restricting the judiciary from âimposingâ itself without the âexpress consent of the peopleâ. Of course, maybe this is what ND30 was trying to suggest. . .
Secondly, it is a critical duty of the judiciary to overturn laws that are unconstitutional. The executive and legislative branches certainly aren’t going to do this. If it weren’t for the judiciary having the authority to overrule unconstitutional laws, then countless unconstitutional infringements on everything from freedom of religion, freedom of the press, to freedom of speech which have been enacted would still be considered lawful and enforced. And we’d all be living under them.
Such is the sort of draconian nightmare that conservatives like ND30 would have all of us living under if they had their way.
No one ever suggested the fact that it is âinconvenientâ for me or other homosexuals was the relevant argument as to the rightness or wrongness of the repeal of same-sex marriage in CA & MA. If it were then certainly there would not be so many heterosexuals supportive of same-sex marriage.
Rather, stripping same-sex couples of their established right to equal access to marriage in California and Maine denies fair and equal treatment under the law, denies due process, and has no justification other than the personal prejudices of socially conservative heterosexuals.
Again, the author of the article that ND30 provided above seems to agree with me here: âit nullified rights already conveyed on California citizens, and that was wrong.â
posted by DragonScorpion on
Civil marriage does indeed bestow varying degrees of respect and dignity onto the relationship, both in the eyes of much of society and the law. But this isn’t the reason for legalizing same-sex marriage (at least it’s only one of many reasons). Quite simply, there is no legitimate justification to deny same-sex couples access to the same civil contract, the same benefits, protections, rights, privileges that opposite-sex couples are afforded. . .
ND30 has been very clear on this. In his view, same-sex couples have not earned the respect and dignity that tends to accompany civil marriage. That’s disgraceful.
And yet if this were such a common practice among homosexuals ND30 would cite more than his one example of the guy at a sex fair. But this, and the guy who claims homosexual adults having sex with minors is common, is all he ever provides. . .
Certainly such incidents make it more difficult for those of us who do not agree with these depraved morons to be taken seriously. But there is no justification in heterosexuals assuming that this is reflective of all of us. No more than I would accept some black gangsta thug claiming his lifestyle is reflective of black culture. Or some hetero pedophile who claims that the historical practice of men marrying young teen girls makes sex with young girls acceptable today.
Unfortunately, those who come from a prejudiced perspective tend to take such examples as âproofâ that their prejudices and stereotypes and sweeping generalizations are all legitimate. They’re wrong.
Next:
I challenged ND30 to point out where I am trying to “pervert” the laws, courts, “fabric of the country” to prevent myself from ever being criticized.
He literally chopped up a quote of mine mid-sentence as his evidence. Which, even chopped up STILL didn’t illustrate an example of my perverting anything to prevent myself from being âcriticizedâ.
Here is the actual quote:
âas I pointed out at the beginning of this exercise in futility, a strong ruling against this sort of referenda process [Proposition 8 & 1] would not stop it in the future, even careful legislation probably couldn’t bring this about. Rather, it would have a chilling effect on such attempts by mobs of voters to gather and vote away the constitutional guarantees to equal protection and due process from their neighbors.â
Now ND30 claims the above is an example of a âthug [who] wants to bully and intimidate people into not exercising their constitutional rightsâ.
Conclusion: ND30 fails. This goon even believes that homophobic mobs should have a âconstitutional rightâ to strip homosexuals of their established constitutional rights to be treated as equals to opposite-sex couples…
Nope. I think legislatures should refuse to accept or promote referenda which would strip an entire class of law-abiding citizens of their constitutional rights to equal protection and due process of the law. If ND30 wasn’t such a manipulative liar with a hate-streak for homosexuals, he’d understand this and stop trying to dishonestly twist it into something it isn’t.
posted by DragonScorpion on
Now that is a statement I could at least give ND30 a little credit for. He attempts to suggest it isn’t homosexuality that is flawed, it is just the behaviors or choices of some homosexuals. That’s what I’ve been trying to tell that hateful bigot for over a month and a half now…
Unfortunately, none of his other comments over the past 2 months has bothered to make any such distinction.
I suppose he figures it’s time for some damage control. If he were to continue making such distinctions perfectly clear, he might not be so easily dismissed as a gay-hating troll… With the abundance of evidence from him thus far, though, I think he’s proved his true nature as a bigot rather conclusively. Only time will tell…..