The comment section of that one is fun. Greene should try living in places where that’s what his neighbors sound like. But I suspect that like most gay conservatives, he lives in a big blue city.
That said, he makes a common mistake. He claims “[…] no person should be forced to participate in any activity he or she morally opposes”, but like everyone else who has made this claim for the last decade, he has no interest in any such cases that don’t involve gay people.
Do you know what you call it when someone only speaks up about the handful non-discrimination cases that involve gay people and never speaks up about any of the hundreds (every year) that don’t involve gay people? You call them someone that’s okay with forcing people to participate in activities they morally oppose. His objection to the specific case can not be generalized, and he’s dishonest for suggesting it is.
posted by Jorge on
“You and your “husband’s” personal benefits from marriage are nice, but they help you and not the nation state. First and foremost, we need babies for war and the economy.”
It’s not “nationstate” it’s homophobe, and he doesn’t want me he wants an heir. The straight man won’t be happy until he has my baby.
How is it a benefit to homophobe to be forced to have a baby I don’t want and to give up on everything I want in life?
posted by Jorge on
“Kansas Republicans introduced House Bill 2320, which essentially argues current LGBTQ political action is an aspect of secular humanism, which it reasons is a religion. By requiring the states to recognize same-sex marriage, they argue the federal government is imposing religious standards onto the people of the state, many of whom do not wish their tax dollars to benefit “parody marriages.””
Although I think that this paragraph is a denim-combusting take on what that bill actually says about gays and religion (which I frankly think should have the author censured by his own party as anti-gay), that would make an excellent argument for why Obergefell was wrongly decided.
It is not even remotely an argument for why it is legal for states to assume powers reserved to the federal government since Marbury v. Madison and nullify the federal judiciary’s interpretations of federal laws. You ratified the Constitution that held the 10th Amendment that said you don’t have the powers designated to the federal government, and you ratified the 14th Amendment that said that you, “Bleeding Kansas,” the ill-begotten get of federal judicial suzerainty, shall not deny to your residents the equal protection of federal law.
Does the Kansas homophobe party of 7 want to overturn Marbury v. Madison and (noble man-b****es!) Make America Great Again? Fire Marshall! Get him out! Lock SCOTUS up! Wait, no?
Then suffer.
….
“As of 2017, 61 percent of same-sex couples are married, an increase from 38 percent prior to Obergefell.”
I don’t take that statistic very seriously, especially in an article trying to argue that marriage is more than a piece of paper.
If you were to ask me before Obergefell how many same-sex cohabiting couples either consider themselves married or the only reason they don’t is there’s no legal recognition of their marriages, I’d have that stat be about 60%, too.
Either the piece of paper is essential to the marriage, or it is not. I believe it is not. The very idea that there is some kind of mystic power in a marriage license that wards of homophobic vampires and keeps Devil Santorum out of the home is precisely the sort of superstitious bunk that encouraged that dumb Kansas bill in the first place. And Mr. Greene is feeding right into it.
posted by Kosh III on
The Kansas bigot-legislator said “But in my opinion, they’re trying to force their beliefs on society.”
Exactly what bigots like him have been doing to gay people for centuries: using the coercive power of the state to compel people to conform to his religious OPINION.
No lie is too big for conservatives to tell in their quest to remain nannies in control of our lives.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Chad Felix Greene’s comments about Obergefell are revealing, and may well fairly represent the views of many/most conservative homosexuals:
Before the Supreme Court decision Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015, which found states limiting marriage to one man and one woman violated the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, I was fairly conservative on the topic. I did not oppose same-sex marriage, but I was more or less content with letting individual states do as they pleased on the issue. I opposed the federal government either banning this policy or imposing it onto the states.
But once the decision came down and gay couples began getting married across the country, I accepted that sometimes progressives bully their way through and there are simply more important priorities to focus on.
I don’t know what percentage of conservative homosexuals believe that Obergefell was wrongly decided — a result of undue influence and unprecedented pressure on an aging and infirm Justice now retired, but I’ll bet that the percentage is substantial.
For me the fight came down to ensuring those with religious beliefs opposing same-sex relationships were not forced to participate in same-sex weddings. It became important to me that creating a new legal right did not infringe on the rights of others.
I quietly note that if Chad Felix holds this to be true of the “new legal right” articulated by Obergefell, then he is being less than honest with himself and with us if he does not also apply that reasoning to the “new legal right” articulated by Loving. To the extent that one case “created a new legal right”, then so did the other. In fact, of the two cases, Loving was the more radical departure from longstanding traditions about marriage, because interracial marriage was commonly criminalized by state law, and same-sex marriage was merely prohibited.
I wonder, though, if Chad Felix would similarly defend the rights of Christians to deny goods and services to interracial marriages. We have no way of knowing, of course. As is the case with almost all conservative homosexuals, he is steadfastly silent on the question.
5 Comments for “Our Rights, and Theirs”
posted by JohnInCA on
The comment section of that one is fun. Greene should try living in places where that’s what his neighbors sound like. But I suspect that like most gay conservatives, he lives in a big blue city.
That said, he makes a common mistake. He claims “[…] no person should be forced to participate in any activity he or she morally opposes”, but like everyone else who has made this claim for the last decade, he has no interest in any such cases that don’t involve gay people.
Do you know what you call it when someone only speaks up about the handful non-discrimination cases that involve gay people and never speaks up about any of the hundreds (every year) that don’t involve gay people? You call them someone that’s okay with forcing people to participate in activities they morally oppose. His objection to the specific case can not be generalized, and he’s dishonest for suggesting it is.
posted by Jorge on
“You and your “husband’s” personal benefits from marriage are nice, but they help you and not the nation state. First and foremost, we need babies for war and the economy.”
It’s not “nationstate” it’s homophobe, and he doesn’t want me he wants an heir. The straight man won’t be happy until he has my baby.
How is it a benefit to homophobe to be forced to have a baby I don’t want and to give up on everything I want in life?
posted by Jorge on
“Kansas Republicans introduced House Bill 2320, which essentially argues current LGBTQ political action is an aspect of secular humanism, which it reasons is a religion. By requiring the states to recognize same-sex marriage, they argue the federal government is imposing religious standards onto the people of the state, many of whom do not wish their tax dollars to benefit “parody marriages.””
Although I think that this paragraph is a denim-combusting take on what that bill actually says about gays and religion (which I frankly think should have the author censured by his own party as anti-gay), that would make an excellent argument for why Obergefell was wrongly decided.
It is not even remotely an argument for why it is legal for states to assume powers reserved to the federal government since Marbury v. Madison and nullify the federal judiciary’s interpretations of federal laws. You ratified the Constitution that held the 10th Amendment that said you don’t have the powers designated to the federal government, and you ratified the 14th Amendment that said that you, “Bleeding Kansas,” the ill-begotten get of federal judicial suzerainty, shall not deny to your residents the equal protection of federal law.
Does the Kansas homophobe party of 7 want to overturn Marbury v. Madison and (noble man-b****es!) Make America Great Again? Fire Marshall! Get him out! Lock SCOTUS up! Wait, no?
Then suffer.
….
“As of 2017, 61 percent of same-sex couples are married, an increase from 38 percent prior to Obergefell.”
I don’t take that statistic very seriously, especially in an article trying to argue that marriage is more than a piece of paper.
If you were to ask me before Obergefell how many same-sex cohabiting couples either consider themselves married or the only reason they don’t is there’s no legal recognition of their marriages, I’d have that stat be about 60%, too.
Either the piece of paper is essential to the marriage, or it is not. I believe it is not. The very idea that there is some kind of mystic power in a marriage license that wards of homophobic vampires and keeps Devil Santorum out of the home is precisely the sort of superstitious bunk that encouraged that dumb Kansas bill in the first place. And Mr. Greene is feeding right into it.
posted by Kosh III on
The Kansas bigot-legislator said “But in my opinion, they’re trying to force their beliefs on society.”
Exactly what bigots like him have been doing to gay people for centuries: using the coercive power of the state to compel people to conform to his religious OPINION.
No lie is too big for conservatives to tell in their quest to remain nannies in control of our lives.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Chad Felix Greene’s comments about Obergefell are revealing, and may well fairly represent the views of many/most conservative homosexuals:
I don’t know what percentage of conservative homosexuals believe that Obergefell was wrongly decided — a result of undue influence and unprecedented pressure on an aging and infirm Justice now retired, but I’ll bet that the percentage is substantial.
I quietly note that if Chad Felix holds this to be true of the “new legal right” articulated by Obergefell, then he is being less than honest with himself and with us if he does not also apply that reasoning to the “new legal right” articulated by Loving. To the extent that one case “created a new legal right”, then so did the other. In fact, of the two cases, Loving was the more radical departure from longstanding traditions about marriage, because interracial marriage was commonly criminalized by state law, and same-sex marriage was merely prohibited.
I wonder, though, if Chad Felix would similarly defend the rights of Christians to deny goods and services to interracial marriages. We have no way of knowing, of course. As is the case with almost all conservative homosexuals, he is steadfastly silent on the question.