It has become clear that there are many on the left, when posed with a choice between embracing someone who mostly agrees with them on an issue, or slightly disagrees on a procedural way in which to achieve a goal or issue, the choice is simpey. Don’t engage in honest debate- engage in a scorched earth policy so that the doctrinal purity of liberal goals remains constant.
For example, take this post from Jesse Taylor (and the charming remarks from the readers), in which he does everything but call me John Derbyshire, all in response to this post yesterday. To be fair, Jesse takes on my characterization of marriage- it is his readers who really make this a personal attack.
For the record:
I am in favor of ‘homosexual marriage.’ I am even in favor of such crazy ideas (/sarcasm) as homosexual adoption. I do not think the greatest problem facing our nation is a rush of people coming forward publicly professing their love for one another. Probably a family with a mother and a father is the ideal for raising children, but I can think of a whole helluva lot of families that would be better off under the roof of two daddies or two mommies.
In fact- this is not a new development:
(I am in favor of same sex civil unions- well, more honestly, I don’t care- if homosexuals who love each other want to get hitched, more power to ’em- except it is currently against the law). I am not sure what is wrong with same sex civil unions, particularly if they grant all the legal benefits of marriage.
I also have wondered about the views of some in the GOP:
I will never understand the homophobia of some in the Republican party. I am not sure why, if two consenting adults love each other, why is it any of the business of anyone else what they do?
There are plenty of other examples of my position in the archives. I mocked the Texas Sodomy Laws. I mocked Bush’s recent proposal for ‘marriage promotion,’ my logic being that if marriage is so good some are kicking and screaming to keep it from the gays, why do we need to spend 25 million to promote it? At any rate, I am no virulent homophobe, and I find it offensive that Jesse and his ilk would assert otherwise.
At any rate- my point(s) in the post that got Jesse’s knickers in such a twist were:
1.) It seems to me the rush to get married with fraudulent documents is pointless. I understand civil disobedience, but it seems to me that the Mayor of San Fran isacting illegally and in bad faith. What happens when those documents don’t stand up?
And please- I understand WHY the couple want to get married- I would assume for the same reason that anycopuple wants to get married, heterosexual or homosexual- they are in love. And no, Jesse, you vile twerp, it doesn’t upset me that all of the couples are not “flamboyant fire-breathing hetero-killers whose unions will lead us into a new age of depravity and destruction.” If they were, I would remain similarly unfazed, and still in favor of their right to be together. But I am in the minority, you gutless punk.
2.) The concept of marriage, the definition of marriage, is pretty entrenched in the American mind. IF you ask the great majority of people, they will have no qualms defining it as between a man and a woman. That was the point of the DOMA- to codify it, to entrench it legally as well as popularly.
I may have not spoken clearly- this phrase in particular is sloppy to the extreme (and conveys the exact opposite meaning than what I intended- I apologize for the lack of clarity):
“Clearly, marriage is not just what society decides it is- at least not in the sense that it is some malleable man-made construct that can be whimsically changed.”
Clearly marriage is what society determines it to be- but the idea that these changes just happen is absurd. Changes like this happen at a glacial pace. You don’t just simply change the institution, and everyone’s understanding and belief systems change with the touch of the pen. My disagreement with the Calpundit was that this is something that happens overnight- these changes to man made institutions take years- just as the current levels of tolerance for open homosexuality took years to achieve. This is particularly the case when you have the majority of the population aligned against the proposed change,as iscurrently the case.
So why, then, are civil unions such a bad next step? Leave marriage to those who want to retain it in its current form, and over time, just like every other advance made by gay rights groups, attitudes will change. And, for the criminally stupid such as the readers at Pandagon, I have no idea why people are opposed to gay marriage. I have never felt that if I were to be married to a woman, it would some how be cheapened by two men down the street getting married. But that is me, and like it or not, I am in the minority.
Slartibartfast
I pretty much agree with you, John, so I think you’re not alone in that majority. But I’m pretty sure the fact that neither of us is willing to put legalization of homosexual marriage at the very tip-top of the urgent issues facing this country will continue to be viewed by those inclined to do so as typical right-wing bigotry.
But I don’t see that as a major plank in the Kerry, Edwards or Dean platforms, either, so I guess the lot of them are bigots, too.
Brandon
I used to post on Jesse’s site and really enjoyed the give and take. But the evil clown crew that comments on his site drove me away. Every thread felt like being in Thunderdome.
To your point, though, incremental steps will never be acceptable to people who believe that it is a right that they are being denied.
Steve
I agree with Brandon. Homosexuals will not settle for “second best” when by rights they should have the “first best” just like everybody else. I agree with you that it might be a better strategy, but people don’t always go for the most rational strategy.
As for Jesse, he’s stonedeaf on this.
http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame78.html
You’ve clarified your position, yet he is now denying you have made any such clarification. Your earlier (and somewhat imprecise) comments are carved in stone, and anything beyond that is meaningless.
Michelle
John,
Thank you for the clarification.
Jon H
“You don’t just simply change the institution, and everyone’s understanding and belief systems change with the touch of the pen.”
Well, why not?
The change doesn’t effect the marriage of anyone who isn’t gay.
That makes it a relatively minor change. Compare it to the change from wives being chattel, essentially property, to wives being equal partners in marriage. THAT is a significant change to marriage.
What’s the damage, exactly, in gay marriage? How, exactly, does marriage change for straight people? It doesn’t. At all.
Jon H
“What happens when those documents don’t stand up?”
Then they get stuck sitting in the back of the bus again.
thomas
I wonder why you have to get permission(license) from the government to even get married.Just register it as a contract afterwards for tax and benefits purposes.
Ricky
You got called names over there by the commenters? No way! :)
addison
The word “homophobe” is a misnomer. Is there not a better word? I have yet to see an article opposing gay marriage written by someone who was literally afraid of homosexuals.
I fail to understand how their disagreement is transformed to fear. There is no logical connection between the two other than for opponents to pigeonhole and assert that someone is something they are not.
As an example of someone adamantly opposed to same-sex marriage, Dennis Prager, is, last I checked, was not literally afraid of gay people.
JKC
John-
I don’t want to defend Jesse’s over-the-top rhetoric, but look at the comments in the thread below: you have some clown named Tatterdemalian who tries to compare homosexuality to child molestation, and then skitters back into a corner like a frightened dung beetle when called on it.
I DO respect those who have religious objetions to homosexuality, even if I think they’re wrong. But just as you tire of the lies you see some liberals use against the GOP, some of us get damned sick of the crap poured out by the Christian fundamentalist Taleban-wannabes the GOP seems stuck with these days.
The shame of it is that reasonable conservatives like you (and Slartibartfast) get tarred with the same brush.
DANEgerus
The devaluation of marriage through frauds like ‘nofault’ divorce make the contractual aspects of that contract a contradictory farce.
Same-sex marriage is likely to allow reevaluation of those double standards and ultimately rebuild the institution.
But the narcissistic orgy of self aggrandizement in SF reveals the motives of the participants is to demand preferential treatment.
So laws apply to thee… but not to ‘special’ me…
Which will hurt their ’cause’.
Dodd
As someone who voted ‘No’ on Prop 22 (which puts me to the left of Kerry, Dean, & Edwards on this issue, I might add), I think Mayor Newsome is engaging in pure lawlessness. And, as I’ve said elsewhere, I think the result of the full court press that lawlessness – and the court cases – represents will be the exact opposite of what they hope. Slow, gradual change through the proper mechanisms of a democracy (legislatures, initiatives, persuasion) would inevitably lead to the desired result, but the way they’re going about it makes the ratification of the FMA more likely every day.
Which would be a shame because, if anything, getting the gov’t out of the business of regulating marriage (for anyone who wants it)would be a much better result. Its usual job of contract enforcement is as much as the gov’t needs to have to do with it.
peggy
The legality of Newsom’s actions (and of course the validity of the marriages performed so far) will be decided in the courts, but I’m in the camp that says this is a civil rights movement whose time has come. If the San Francisco weddings are ultimately deemed invalid, so be it (for now, anyway). Probably the more pivotal battle will be the challenges to the Mass. court ruling that barred this last frontier of legalized bigotry in America.
“Civil unions” are the back of the bus, John. I offer these links, (for the curious), that explain why:
http://www.glad.org/marriage/SJC_Advisory_Opinion_Quotes.shtml
http://www.equalmarriage.org/aboutmarr.php
Dodd
In all due respect, peggy, the legality of Newsome’s actions has already been determined. He, a public official charged with upholding and adminsitering the law, is performing an action explicitly barred by state law. Therefor his actions are illegal. The fact that we dislike that law or consider it unjust doesn’t change that fact. And, as I said above, relying on the courts to overturn an initiative voted into law by 2/3 of the state population will only serve undermine their goal by making FMA passage and ratification more likely.
Jon H
Dodd, the “law” you refer to is probably in violation of the California constitution. In which case, it is null and void and might as well not exist.
And last time I checked, it was not an “overreach” for a judge to declare a law unconstitutional. That’s their job. The courts exist as a check against overreach by the legislature (or, in this case, against initiative overreach).
peggy
Dodd, I do understand when you say technically Newsom’s actions are ‘illegal.’ He did not take this course lightly, though, having met & brainstormed with activists and attorneys ahead of time, and then concluding that they could probably launch a viable challenge to the constitutionality of the current law and that the first step was this public act of civil disobedience. He knew/knows exactly what he’s doing and why, and IMO takes his inspiration from the civil rights movement of the 60’s.
I’m honestly glad you support the cause-we need compassionate heterosexuals on our side, for sure.
I wonder, after seeing the “spree” of love in San Francisco last weekend if California voters would still vote against marriage freedom for gays & lesbians. That would seem a bit hateful and regressive, wouldn’t it?
Ricky
If it’s found to be unconstitutional, then it’ll be overturned. Until that time, it’s the law.
B
I’m going to draw some heat here. I don’t believe in homosexual marriage. I don’t agree with the lifestyle “choice”.
If you decide to do something that flies in the face of the accepted social belief of a majority of a population, and they point at you and laugh, well, don’t you deserve that? I just don’t agree with the concept of homosexual love, I guess. I have good friends that are male that I would jump in front of a truck for. I would literally give up my life for several guys. Does that make me want to have sex with them? Nope. Does that help me understand homosexuality? Nope. Does that mean I don’t love them? No. It just means that your particular fetish isn’t palatable to me, and a majority of our society. Hollywood and the relentless pressure of other socially liberal institutions has remarkably transformed a percentage (although still a minority) of the American populace’s opinion on the issue of homosexuality, but it boils down to nature. Is homosexuality a survival trait? Nope.
I don’t agree with multiple partner marriage either (ala 1800s Mormon teaching) but if you accept marriageable love between same sex couples, why don’t you support multiple partner marriages? Just asking.
B
Jon H
“If it’s found to be unconstitutional, then it’ll be overturned. Until that time, it’s the law.”
But following that law would violate the higher law of the constitution. (Or at least a good case can be made of that.)
If he’s sworn to uphold the state constitution, he can’t violate it by enforcing the voter initiative.
Either way, the mayor would be breaking a law. If he’s going to break a law, he might as well break the lesser one. You need more than an initiative to trump the state constitution.
Jon H
B writes: “If you decide to do something that flies in the face of the accepted social belief of a majority of a population, and they point at you and laugh, well, don’t you deserve that?”
You mean, like celebrate Chanukah?
peggy
B,
You won’t believe it, because I think you don’t want to and/or cannot imagine it to be true, but homosexuality is not a “choice.”
Who would choose such a difficult path? No one.
It is no “fetish,” it is visceral, like breathing.
I don’t bring my love of my men friends, my female friends, um…any of my friends into discussions like this because, well, it has nothing to do with it (i.e., I don’t have to worry that others will think I’ve gone straight!), and nor should you. It’s just dumb to do that. You love your friend, he loves you, and it has nothing to do with what we’re talking about here.
Nor do the Mormons, and whatever it is some of their radical factions believe in & do.
Marriage to me what it is for lots of people who already legally get to do it: a public, spiritual, singular affirmation of commitment to my chosen one.
Ricky
Sorry, you don’t say that you can make a good case & therefore ignore the law. See Moore, Roy.
Sheesh…..I think I’ll go get some slaves because I think I can make a good case that the laws are iffy in that area….come on.