-
Adieu, Adieu, Remember Me
March 25, 2011 | 38 comments
-
DeMint’s Defense of RomneyCare is Ignorant…And Dangerous
March 17, 2011 | 85 comments
-
McConnell Pushing Vote to Block the EPA from Regulating Carbon Emissions
March 17, 2011 | 9 comments
-
More Barbour on Afghanistan
March 16, 2011 | 8 comments
-
House Passes Three Week Spending Bill
March 15, 2011 | 8 comments
The Spectacle Blog
McCain presidential campaign strategist Steve Schmidt spoke to the Log Cabin Republicans today and made a very strong Republican case for gay marriage. I don’t agree with him entirely. For example, I think he underestimates the potential backlash among social conservatives if the GOP were to abandon its stance on marriage, and overlooks other electoral challenges — for instance, gay marriage is one of the issues where Republicans appeal to Hispanic voters who may otherwise not agree with the party’s economic stances. But the strength of his argument, I think, lies in the fact that he drops the sanctimonious tone employed by many advocates of gay marriage and shows respect and understanding to those who firmly believe that marriage should remain between a man and a woman. I think the whole speech is worth a read, but here’s a taste:
Social conservatives remain an indispensable part of the Republican coalition. I don’t subscribe to the notion that social conservatives are a monolithic bloc of close minded people who would tread on the rights of Americans who disagree with them. Nor do I think conservatism will or should abandon its reluctance to change or abandon social conventions that are important to the strength and stability of our society.
The institution of marriage is the foundation of society and alterations to its definitions shouldn’t be lightly undertaken. It has always been defined as the legal union of a man and a woman, and it’s understandable that many Americans are apprehensive about making a definitional change to so profoundly an important institution. But it is a tradition, not a creed, or, at least, not a national creed. It is not how we define ourselves as Americans. And while we shouldn’t carelessly dismiss the importance of enduring traditions, we should understand that traditions do change over time in every society. And as long as those changes do not conflict with the tenets of our national creed then they can, and inevitably will, be modified by a society that has come to view them as inequitable….
The argument of the pro-life community acquires its moral force because it holds that the life of the unborn is not distinct in its dignity from the life of the born, and, thus, possesses a God-given right to be protected. The same protection cannot be argued to extend to the institutional definition of marriage as exclusively the union of persons of the opposite sex.
It can be argued, although I disagree, that marriage should remain the legal union of a man and a woman because changing it to admit same sex unions would undermine the most basic institution of a well ordered society. It can be argued according to the creeds and convictions of religious belief, which I respect. But it cannot be argued that marriage between people of the same sex is un-American or threatens the rights of others. On the contrary, it seems to me that denying two consenting adults of the same sex the right to form a lawful union that is protected and respected by the state denies them two of the most basic natural rights affirmed in the preamble of our Declaration of Independence – liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That, I believe, gives the argument of same sex marriage proponents its moral force.
This is more or less where I stand. My political beliefs are always rooted in the basic idea that people should have the freedom to do what they want as long as they do not harm others in the process, and I don’t see how allowing two people of the same sex to marry harms a third party. In my ideal world, government’s role would be limited to granting something akin to civil unions for everybody and the concept of marriage would be preserved for religious institutions, who would have the right to marry or not marry whoever they choose. But as long as government is in the marriage business, I just don’t see the harm in extending marriage rights to same sex couples.
View all comments (76) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Philip Klein
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/04/17/mccain-strategist
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Inside the Gates of Eden
- The Demise of Money and Credit
- The Welfarians
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Ron Davis| 4.17.09 @ 5:24PM
Really good post Mr. Klein. You are one of the more impressive bloggers on TAS. Objective, pragmatic, and smart.
Jon| 4.17.09 @ 5:26PM
I am sick and tired of Republicans telling me, a young voter, that I'm liberal. I support the Constitution, lower taxes, border enforcement, State's rights, the Second Amendment, the First Amendment, I'm pro-life, and pro civil union. Not pro-gay marriage. Marriage is an institution created by the CHURCH, not the government. I guess this makes me a bigoted homophobe, racist, anti-CNN right-wing extremist.
BD57| 4.17.09 @ 5:32PM
I understand the argument and it makes sense as far as it goes.
Where trouble starts is when coercion begins - for example, how will the church which, as a matter of doctrine, won't recognize a gay marriage? Will the weight of the state prohibit it from restricting its hiring to those who agree?
If traditions are to change, it's best if they do so from the bottom up - the sentiment of the body politic leading, over time, to changes in the law through representative government - and not (as has been the strategy) from the top down, through judicial imposition.
Pingback| 4.17.09 @ 5:40PM
Former McCain Strategist Makes the Case for Gay Marriage | But As For Me links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
L. Ross| 4.17.09 @ 6:12PM
I was having a similar discussion last week with my flightcrew. Half were on the side of gay marriage, half were against. While I understand the arguement of those who are pro gay marriage (who wants to be seen squashing someone else's desires), I think it is important to clearly articulate the arguement against. It is rather simple. Culture is not static, it is a dynamic, changing thing. (Much like the liberals imagine the constitution to be!). Undermining the foundation of what a marriage is would also undermine one of the basic pillars of our culture. I believe such wholesale changes should be made only with extreme care. No one can accurately predict what the long term effects of this change would be, but I can assure you, changing the culture back would be almost impossible.
Quartermaster| 4.17.09 @ 6:25PM
Actually, Ross, we can know what will happen. Sweden has allowed it for years. Heterosexual marriage went down the tubes. My understanding is most kids are now born out of wedlock, and all the instability that entails. We've seen what happened among blacks when marriage was destroyed, and the same will happen in the larger culture as well.
Jon, you need to read some history. Marriage was not created by the church, it predated the church by at least 4 millennia. The church has existed only since about AD 30. Egytians were marrying long before that.
Society invented marriage some in the ancient mists of time and government simply recognized what society had already established from primitive times. To monkey with it is to monkey with a very ancient pillar of society and will bring the entire structure down,as it is already doing in places like Sweden and Holland. None of the radicals have thought this through because they want what they want, and to hell with society. They are whistling past the graveyard.
hmm_contrib| 4.17.09 @ 7:04PM
In Sweden, "Heterosexual marriage went down the tubes." Lie. Nice lie, and has fake documentation to support it, but it's a lie all the same. Straight marriage trended downward from the year that SSM was legalized. The problem with this data? It was trending downward *before* SSM was legalized and SSM had no impact on the data whatsoever. You are trying to link two data sets that have no causal link.
2) Your analogy to the black community fails, since what is happening there is marriage basically isn't happening, so your case actually means we *should* allow gays to get married to ensure the ever-more-visible gay community does not go the way of the black community by accepting the lack of marriage as a status quo, especially as more and more gay households have kids.
3) It doesn't matter who created marriage; what matters is to whom as a free society and electing a repbublican government do we give marriage licenses? Only hetero couples based on religious preferences? Or gay and straight couples alike to encourage stable households and a stable community? Gay people are here, will be around tomorrow, will have kids, will go to PTA meetings, will get insurance, will inherit houses, and will split up. Marriage rights and responsibilities are better for them and for society (not to mention their kids), as conservatives keep telling everyone. Why does all of this not apply when the principals are gay?
around the track| 4.17.09 @ 7:12PM
I am almost immovable in my conservative convictions. This issue, however, finds me to be a potential waffler. This discussion by conservatives on a widely read blog is a very important one that, I would guess just from the few responses above, is an increasing dilemma for us conservatives. Let's duke it out, but in a civil fashion. It's too important to many good people on both sides and to the future of conservatism.
Jon| 4.17.09 @ 7:23PM
Okay, Mr. Semantics Man (Quartermaster). In the context of affording any legal or publicly recorded state to a domestic union of a man and a woman, the Church of the middle ages began the registration of marriage. No government or other official organization prior to the church recorded or otherwise cared about marriage. Yes, men and women have declared themselves in a monogamous or otherwise committed domestic union since before recorded history. The Church started recording it and established it as a legal institution. Thanks for keeping me on my toes. It still doesn't change the fact that in order to honor this original intent, a homosexual union afforded the same legal rights as a heterosexual union, should not be called marriage. I propose that such a union should be called a "Happy". This is appropriate since homosexuals have commandeered the word "gay", rainbows, and the color purple, as well. A happy then has the same legal rights as a marriage. Why is this not a sufficient and rational end to such a debate?
hmm_contrib| 4.17.09 @ 7:34PM
BD57: How did churches in the south handle it when Loving v Virginia was decided? It's a nonsensical question made up by the anti-gay right to make people vote for SSM bans. No church has been or ever will be forced to marry someone. Free exercise of religion will always win out. (Thank God for the Bill of Rights)
Will a hiring institution be forced to offer health insurance to a married gay man's spouse? Yes, just like Ollie's BBQ was forced to serve black customers and would be forced to offer insurance to a black wife of a white employee. Religious exemptions to discrimination law? Do you really want that in your country? So Muslims would be free not hire Jews or Christians due to their religious beliefs?
Aln Brooks| 4.17.09 @ 7:48PM
let the fags and lesbos get married.
"look at me! I'm Ellen Degeneres! I'm Lindsay Lohan (yuch, is SHE disgusting)
Alan Brooks| 4.17.09 @ 7:49PM
let the fags and lesbos get married.
"look at me! I'm Ellen Degeneres! I'm Lindsay Lohan (yuch, is SHE disgusting)
Alan Brooks| 4.17.09 @ 8:40PM
look at me! I have genitals! I'm gay! I'm Elton John!
Alan Brooks| 4.17.09 @ 8:42PM
I'm gay and I'm getting hitched to the new ball and chain! did you hear me?
I'm GETING MARRIED!
Pkane| 4.17.09 @ 9:20PM
"denying two consenting adults of the same sex the right to form a lawful union that is protected and respected by the state denies them two of the most basic natural rights affirmed in the preamble of our Declaration of Independence – liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Schmitt completely discredits himself with this statement. It is downright absurd to say we somehow deny founding principles by not soothing the damaged ego of someone who demands social approval for their lifestyle.
If society has deemed that the institution of marriage no longer worthy of government sanction then lets end it.
Here's the question: suppose we eliminate heterosexual marriage to appease gay marriage advocates. Does anyone think gay marriage advocates would be any less elated then if we had granted them their precious word?
Erich| 4.18.09 @ 1:39AM
"This is more or less where I stand. My political beliefs are always rooted in the basic idea that people should have the freedom to do what they want as long as they do not harm others in the process."
I understand your argument Philip, but the flaw is in the sentence above. How many forms of behavior can you justify with your logic? Prostitution? Hey if two consenting adults want to do this, let them. It's not hurting anyone else. Drug use? Hey, if a guy wants to go buy some crack or heroin, take it back to his house and get wasted, let him. As long as he's not under the influence while driving and no kids are around, what's the big deal? He's doing what he wants and isn't harming anyone else.
The gay marriage crowd never considers where all of this is headed. Philip, if ever a legal precedent is set based on your philosophy, what we will have is a free for all. It won't stop with gay marriage, and you're kidding yourself if you think it will. Hey I'm all for liberty and freedom, but if you don't draw lines, eventually the worst in us will subsume our better nature. What's left will basically be anarchy of some form.
Basil Plumley| 4.18.09 @ 10:54AM
hmm_contrib| 4.17.09 @ 7:34PM
BD57: How did churches in the south handle it when Loving v Virginia was decided? It's a nonsensical question made up by the anti-gay right to make people vote for SSM bans. No church has been or ever will be forced to marry someone. Free exercise of religion will always win out. (Thank God for the Bill of Rights)
Will a hiring institution be forced to offer health insurance to a married gay man's spouse? Yes, just like Ollie's BBQ was forced to serve black customers and would be forced to offer insurance to a black wife of a white employee. Religious exemptions to discrimination law? Do you really want that in your country? So Muslims would be free not hire Jews or Christians due to their religious beliefs?
I see someone failed to appear for their Logic 101 classes. The strawman argument is getting quite old w/r/t this subject. Equating gay marriage with civil rights for Blacks? Can you make an argument for gay marriage without the "me too" argument?
I have a problem with folks who seek to deny Gays and Lesbians basic rights but advocating gay marriage is pushing the envelope beyond the pale.
Perhaps, you could better articulate your case if you would admit you support anarchy; anything goes. It would be more logical than your "if Blacks were afforded those rights, why not ......" argument.
Steve Schmidt makes a similar and just as disingenuous argument. I am not so sure the Founding Fathers had gay marriage in mind when they incorporated "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence. If that is the template, why stop at gay marriage?
This is from the same guy who advised John McCain to suspend his campaign and take a few days off to solve the financial crisis. Is it possible he could be wrong twice?
bob| 4.18.09 @ 11:48AM
I adhere to no political community but visit everywhere. It seems clear to me that the community of "The American Spectator" is divided on this issue, the handwriting is on the wall and it needs no Daniel to interpret it. The arguments in favor of traditional marriage have been found wanting and its days are numbered.
Mary| 4.18.09 @ 12:20PM
My first apartment occasioned a meet up with a pair of homosexuals who had been together for years. They loved to cook and they figured because I was an Italian immigrant I was probably pretty good at it. Wrong! They were quite a bit older than I was. I was 27 at the time and they were in their early 60s. Anyway we became friends. They really did love each other. And neither one had any affectations. The "husband" of the pair had worked as engineer his whole life.
Every time the subject of gay marriage comes up I can't help but think of them. It isn't an issue that frazzles me much because marriage lost its traditional holiness a long time ago. Heterosexuals are the ones responsible for its diminished state.
That said, viva? "freedom" and let the consensual games begin!
William R| 4.18.09 @ 1:57PM
Oohh brother. If we allow Steve and Harry to Marry, then why not James, Donna, Barbara and Gale. Once you cross the threshold and destroy the historic meaning of marriage then all bets are off. Juan Insane, The Straight Jacket Express ran the worst campaign of any GOP nominee since I first voted in 1972.
Originalist| 4.18.09 @ 3:24PM
Meaning no disrespect, who cares what your personal views are on this matter. If state legislatures want to recognize it, fine. It shouldn't be imposed by courts reading "sexual preference" into equal protection clauses.
Originalist1| 4.18.09 @ 3:25PM
Meaning no disrespect, who cares what your personal views are on this matter. If state legislatures want to recognize it, fine. It shouldn't be imposed by courts reading "sexual preference" into equal protection clauses.
PKane| 4.18.09 @ 3:35PM
Why can't we have an honest discussion on this issue? Nobody is talking about denying any rights to gay people. This has NOTHING to do with rights. Recognition of marriage is something granted by the government. It has a specific purpose: to encourage a particular behavior - durable union between a man and a woman - in the interest of social cohesion and stable child rearing. Now, we can have a debate about the efficacy of this policy. We can discuss the church/state implications. We can talk about the value of this institution in our current society.
But the purpose of the government stance on marriage has NOTHING - N-O-T-H-I-N-G!!!! - to do with the affirmation of love! I don't care if you are gay, straight, bi or whatever. If your obsession in life is a need for your personal life to be affirmed by a rubber stamp applied by an overpaid bureaucrat in between games of minesweeper you have SERIOUS PROBLEMS!
Especially when the majority of people already support a policies that take into account all of the practical concerns: tax credits, hospital visitation, etc., etc. (here's a link to one of many recent polls: http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=150)
All that's left is the WORD marriage.
There is ZERO government interest in gay marriage. ZERO. This doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with gays, or that anyone hates gays, or that anyone should have anything against a loving gay couple. All it means is that your personal behavior is of no public concern.
Do those of you who think defenders of marriage are all hate-filled monsters, how do you explain the at least 20% who oppose gay marriage but favor civil unions? Do they hate gays?
And to in any respect equate this absurd issue to the horrific, systematic dehumanization of blacks that occurred under Jim Crow is an absolute abomination.
Pingback| 4.18.09 @ 5:19PM
Republicans And Conservatives Torn On Gay Marriage | News Fu links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 4.18.09 @ 5:50PM
Topics about America » Archive » The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Former McCain links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
gokart-mozart| 4.18.09 @ 7:47PM
>> Yes, just like Ollie's BBQ was forced to serve black customers and would be forced to offer insurance to a black wife of a white employee.
Pingback| 4.18.09 @ 7:50PM
Drasties - Dutch on the World - World on the Dutch links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 4.18.09 @ 9:50PM
Republicans And Conservatives Torn On Gay Marriage - Blogs - NewsSpotz links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Angel| 4.19.09 @ 2:19AM
Liberals like hmm_contrib creep me out with their blithe assertions that gay marriage won't, positively won't interfere with Religious free speech. They sound so positive about their assertions; why don't I believe them? It's called the law of unintended consequences. This kind of legislation always morphs and grows into something we don't want or can't expect. Right now in Canada, the Clergy is being prosecuted for hate speech for merely preaching from their Bibles: There is absolutely no guarantee that this won't happen here. In fact, you can bet on it. Also, in California before Prop. 8--all students in grades K-12 were required to sign up for pro-gay lifestyle instruction; no opt-outs allowed. I have a problem with the coercion, and there will be coercion. In fact, I believe there will be payback. They're already placing pro-lifers, NRA members and vets on their terrorist watch list--those who disagree with the homosexual lifestyle could be next. Think long and hard about this before you acquiesce, people. Sounds like the makings of a witch hunt to me.
Siegfried X| 4.19.09 @ 9:39AM
I am so glad that John McCain lost. If he had won the Republican Party would have moved even further to the left, becoming a wing of the Democratic Party. Conservatives would be being purged from the party now.
An article recently came out, explaining how close McCain came to choosing Democrat Joe Lieberman as his running mate. McCain might have done it, except that sore loser laws would have kept Lieberman off the ballot in several states.
Siegfried X| 4.19.09 @ 9:58AM
"This kind of legislation always morphs and grows into something we don't want or can't expect"
That is exactly what liberals do, get the camel's nose under the tent by passing a law, then use the courts to massively expanded it.
This "political correctness" is the greatest non-military threat to our freedom. We have already lost the right to free speech, and fair treatment in a court room. Anyone can lose everything based on an anonymous whisper of "abuse", "harassment", or "hate speech". We never get to confront our accusers or live under the rule of law, because the definition of "wrong" is whatever makes someone "uncomfortable".
The Republican Party stopped talking about this and opposing it years ago, which is one reason I'm an independent conservative, not a Republican.
Bill| 4.19.09 @ 1:01PM
Reasonable people can disagree about this issue, but I think most people can agree that gay marriage will be a reality in many states, if not a majority, within one or two generations. I do think the argument that gay marriage could lead the way for other unions, like plural marriage, is somewhat credible. Plural unions are indeed "natural" and have been observed throughout history. What I think is important is that society comes to a consensus, through a majority vote, to expand marriage to allow for gay marriages. I find this preferable to a court declaring that gay marriage must be allowed. Indeed, a court has no power to do such a thing, but rather only be able to strike down marriage laws that only allow marriage between heterosexual couples as unconstitutional (assuming the court so finds, and which I believe would be the wrong holding).
Then, if plurual marriage enthusiasts, first counsin marrying enthusiasts (many U.S. states and foreign countries allow first cousins to marry), etc., wish to also have their associations recognized, then they too must bear the burden of convincing society to recognize their unions formally. Honestly, if one has the opportunity to observe a loving homosexual couple, it is really difficult to still conclude that they should for some reason not have their association formally recognized by society.
bill| 4.19.09 @ 1:08PM
I could not disagree with Siegfried X more. Who is the "we" that he is talking about? In what way are these "we" people denied fair treatment in a court room? Anonymous whispers are not admissible as evidence due to the rules of evidence regarding hearsay. Therefore, it is not accurate to say that anyone could lose everything based on an anonymous whispter of abuse, harrassment, or hate speech. Look at figures who have been criticized for supposed hate speech: Imus, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, etc. They are all still working or have gotten other jobs. O'Reilly did pay some lady 4 million dollars to settle a sexual harrassment suit, but that had to do with inappropriate conduct at work, and he could have had his day in court. 4 million is way above nuisance value too, which tends to show that he may have really been in the wrong.
SiegfriedX| 4.19.09 @ 3:38PM
Shock jocks get paid for insulting people, and boxers get legally rewarded for beating other people up. They are rare exceptions.
Anyone can see I am correct by investigating the following, and comparing it to our long held traditions, the way things used to be: hostile environment sexual harassment, (rape) shield laws, hate crimes, and various kinds of "abuse". Compare how accusers of something like rape or abuse are protected and allowed to break legal rules which hold in cases of murder and attempted murder.
In most cases the accused never even gets a day in court. The anonymous whisper goes behind the back to their boss, and they lose their job in the next round of layoffs without knowing why. Employers don't need to go to court to terminate their employees, and the laws allow unlimited damages for keeping an "abusive" employee, but no penalty for firing an innocent one.
Smitty| 4.19.09 @ 3:41PM
What does O'Reilly have to do with gay marriage? Where did you get 4 Million dollars? Shall we discuss the outrageous sexual harassment and alleged rape case against a sitting president--Bill Clinton? Explain Canada's prosecution of clergy for hate speech if you don't think Religious free speech could be threatened here.
Pingback| 4.19.09 @ 8:16PM
race42008.com » Blog Archive » A Gay Marriage Canard links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Tim| 4.20.09 @ 9:47AM
I have been married for 20 years and I put the term "gay marriage" in the same category as "jumbo shrimp" . ..
Michael Dooleu| 4.20.09 @ 9:49AM
There is an informal social observation/equation which I believe holds up pretty well: “government strong—society weak / government weak—society strong”. If our government were truly limited as we all claim to wish, social conventions and mores would largely be determined and enforced by society itself. Society would control moral status and the rites of passage while welding one of the most powerful weapons known to mankind: ostracism. It is safe to say that under those conditions “gay marriage” wouldn’t have a snowball’s chance in Hell. There would be little debate because it would be (rightly or wrongly) a non-starter. Any changes would have to come about organically. “Gay marriage” would first come at the very edges of human community. It would then be how such” marriages” work out over time that society may allow them, forbid them or (more likely) restrict them to a convention all their own.
In our present conditions (government strong—society weak), “gay marriage” is only coming about because 1.) It is an enthusiasm of the left and 2.) It has secured the coercive power of the state as a sponsor. Or to put it plainly, gay marriage is only possible by the direct intervention of the state into self-governing human communities. And governments have a bad habit of ignoring Aristotle’s warning that it is an injustice to treat unlike entities the same. (The libertarian fantasy of “weak government—weak society” isn’t even close to a serious answer to this or other similar issues)
Where society is powerful, the question shifts from “equality " to “what is marriage for?”. For all its complexities and contradictions, marriage comes down to children. Grownups may or may not “need” marriage; but children certainly do. Children need an institution to protect and nourish them. Children need an institution to trump their interests over the whims and dramatics of willful adults. Unfortunately, “we” have nearly sawed marriage off at the knees as far as children are concerned as it is. The results of all our “compassion” for the grownups have been a crippling disaster for millions of children. Of course, for those centered on the issue of equality for the grownups, children are a secondary consideration—and that is just the trouble.
Angel| 4.20.09 @ 3:05PM
Great post, Michael. What about the law of unintended consequences regarding Religious Free Speech?
Angel| 4.20.09 @ 3:06PM
Great post, Michael. What about the law of unintended consequences regarding Religious Free Speech?
Sue| 4.21.09 @ 9:10AM
Smitty and Angel:
Canada's prosecution of clergy for hate speech has nothing to do with gay marriage and everything to do with the Canada Human Rights Act (1977) which prohibits discriminatory practices based on certian things (like religion, race or sexual orientation etc) "that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination."
The clergy case you are speaking of wasn't just "preaching from the Bible" to his congregation, he submited to a newspaper a letter encouraging hate to "wicked homosexuals", comparing gays to "pedophiles and drug dealers", after which a gay teenage boy was severly beaten.
In Canada, Churches still (as they did before the Human Rights Act) have their rights protected. The ones that think homosexuality is a sin, still preach that it is a sin and can (and does) refuse to marry gay couples and they do not get punished for it. What they can't do is expect the laws of the country to limit the freedoms of others who happen to not follow their particular beliefs.
Oh.. and they also can't encourage attacks on people who are different (but again, Canadian free speech laws prohibit that. Does the 1st Admendment do the same?)
bc| 4.21.09 @ 9:15AM
The whole big government boogieman argument is pretty weak. As a society, we elect the people that represent us. Those people make laws, those laws are interpreted by judges that are either elected or appointed by many elected officeholders. The justices of the supreme court are appointed precisely so they can be immune from political pressure and freely make controversial decisions. Reactionaries of course often take issues with decisions that introduce change from the old established norms. Change to them means they will have to adapt to a new situation which introduces an element of risk into their lives. The founding fathers anticipated that the world would continue to change rapidly, so they created a system of checks and balances to prevent power from concentrating in any one place, they established multiple forums for discourse, and they created a judicial branch that could interpret and either apply or strike down laws per the needs of the day. As long as humans reproduce, society will continue to change, rules will be rewritten, majorities will become minorities, new technologies will pulverize old industries into dust, and the world will continue to liberalize, much as it has been doing for centuries if not millennia. You can be a part of the future, or a part of the past. If you choose the past, get used to being a relic. Gay marriage is here, and it probably isn't going away, so you'd better learn to adapt.
Pingback| 4.21.09 @ 2:24PM
Topics about Go-greener » Blog Archive » Former McCain Strategist Makes the Case for links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Smitty| 4.21.09 @ 4:18PM
Fascism has a way of running over checks and balances. Coercion is not part of the Constitution. The gay community is vindictive--payback would not surprise me--look at the young Miss USA contestant. Stay out of my church and there won't be a problem; otherwise, all bets are off. So, you better learn to adapt.
Smitty| 4.21.09 @ 4:20PM
Your numbers are small--you don't threaten me. You don't reproduce--you're the relic.
MT| 4.21.09 @ 4:22PM
YUP!
CH| 4.21.09 @ 4:23PM
whatever.
bc| 4.21.09 @ 9:37PM
You shouldn't assume that in order to defend equal marriage one must be gay. I simply believe that equality means we all have access to the same institutions, and I'm okay with sharing the full measure of those institutions with people who are not the same as me. John Adams defended English soldiers that fired on a crowd of colonists - how awesome was that? He knew it wasn't a popular move, but he also knew that mob rule is never a good idea. Just to be clear, I don't endorse forced equalism - some of us are smarter or more talented and should be rewarded for it, but all of us should be thankful that we live in a society that constantly reinvents itself and always strives to be better than it was, and whose institutions allow for all the forms of expression that allow us to succeed in the first place. I reject the view that any one group, because of birth characteristics, is inherently inferior to another. If folks are too thin-skinned or scared of change to deal with that, it's their problem. It is the nature of the world, the big mass of humanity, to change and to advance. Fear of difference cannot be allowed to hold us back from reaching our full potential. We rejected those views on religious affiliation, we rejected those views on race, we rejected those views on sex, and now our society is rejecting those views on sexual orientation. We all $h!+ and we all stink and we all depend on one another. That is not a fascist point of view, by the way. Fascism is a repugnant political philosophy that suppresses dissent, idolizes war as a competitive international rivalry of the fittest, and fosters extreme nationalism. You couldn't post on this forum if we lived in, or faced any serious threats from a fascist state. The Taliban - that is a form of scary fascism.
Hutch| 4.21.09 @ 10:19PM
We were born in the desert
We were reared in a cave
We conquered in the sun
Though we lived in the shade
Yeah baby we were savage
We existed to kill
Our history is damaged
At least it was a thrill
But now we can see
Now that our vision is strong
We don't need to admit we were wrong
Now we can see
But the images don't stick
Our enemies lie dead on the ground and still we kick
Now we can see
the warnings and the signs
Read in between the lines
Like writing on the wall
Now we can see
What do we need
We should need nothing nothing at all
We were born on an island
We grew out of the sand
Never saw another creature
Never knew another man
Yeah baby we were nothing
We existed for less
Our present was empty
Our history a mess
But now can see
Now we do as we please
Now we do away with the disease
Now we can see
Now the image sticks
We still need the medicine quick
We still take the pill
But only for the fix
Smitty| 4.22.09 @ 1:45AM
You're right bc, and I want to make sure that we can continue to blog freely in this country. That's why I don't like the government getting involved in religious matters. That's repression/coercion/fascism--and if you can't see it you're blinded by intolerance. I have the right to Religious freedom of speech--I won't 'adapt' to anything else. If you don't like it, that's fine--but you don't have the right to 'repress' my freedoms, either. Understand?
Jo| 4.22.09 @ 1:47AM
The Taliban is a form of government coercion--just like our government would be if it tried to tell me what to believe.
Smitty| 4.22.09 @ 1:53AM
You say that fascism suppresses dissent--what do you think you're trying to do to me, moron? Damn, you're obtuse.
Smitty| 4.22.09 @ 1:54AM
You say that fascism suppresses dissent--what do you think you're trying to do to me, moron? Damn, you're obtuse.
bc| 4.22.09 @ 9:23AM
What I am saying has nothing to do with suppressing your religious freedom at all. I believe in God, but no one, no church, no government entity, no person alive or dead has any authority over how I define that relationship. My religious freedom, like everyone's, ends at the point that it interferes with someone else's ability to live their life freely. Which pairs of people choose to marry has almost zero impact on your life. Granting a group equal rights that conflict with your religious views is neither suppression nor is it coercion. You don't have to agree with everything the state does. Disagreeing with you is also neither suppression nor coercion. Equal rights will always trump religion. When I say you'd better adapt, it isn't a threat - it just stating the obvious. Society's tendency is to liberalize and expand the scope of freedom. Trying to stop that is a waste of energy. Live your life and fight for things we can all get behind, like smashing the Taliban.
Smitty| 4.22.09 @ 1:49PM
Stop wasting your energy by trying to change me. It's none of your business what I think, and trying to use government power to suppress my freedom of speech is fascist like the Taliban. How does my religious freedom interfere with others' ability to live freely? It doesn't. Gays already have equal rights--they just shouldn't have 'supra' equal rights. No one should be more equal than another. Like I said before, stay out of my church and we won't have a problem: Otherwise, we will. You Taliban thought-police liberals better learn to adapt to that assertion.
bc| 4.22.09 @ 3:48PM
If your religious beliefs are the basis for making a law that excludes the institution of marriage from someone because they are gay, that is when it interferes with someone else's ability to live freely. You are free to practice any religion you choose, and you will continue to be free to say whatever you want to say, so long as actions resulting from that practice and those words do not tread on someone else's space. Disagreeing with, being offended by, or not getting what you want aren't the same things as coercion and suppression. They are the natural result of representative government. You win some, you lose some. Who does or does not get married has little to no impact on you. Extending the state's definition of marriage to include gays is not a granting of excess rights, but the current situation is in effect a set of lesser rights for those individuals. Unless the body that controls your church or denomination decides to change its rules, churches are essentially free to deny membership to people for any reason. I don't think that is right, but as long as churches stay out of politics and don't use public money, they are free to do that. So all I can say is, I fundamentally do not understand your position. In the grand scheme or things, this is a small issue, and the biggest problem I have with it is that it is an issue at all. There are bigger problems in the world that deeply affect peoples' lives, problems like the Taliban.
Smitty| 4.22.09 @ 4:07PM
How do my religious beliefs form the basis of a law excluding gays from marriage?
Smitty| 4.22.09 @ 4:12PM
You invest too much time in this issue to be a casual by-stander. You're just part of the vindictive/payback fascist liberal gay agenda. It's not about rights with you people, it's about power. Stay out of my church.
Smitty| 4.22.09 @ 4:14PM
YOU ARE THE AMERICAN LIBERAL THOUGHT- POLICE TALIBAN. Butt out of my life, loser. Go get a job.
Lily| 4.22.09 @ 4:22PM
"Disagreeing with, being offended by, or not getting what you want are not the same things as coercion or repression--they are the natural result of representative government." EXACTLY!! You've made my case AGAINST the legalization of gay marriage; so stop whining. Thank you, moron. LOL!!
bc| 4.23.09 @ 9:12AM
"How do my religious beliefs form the basis of a law excluding gays from marriage? ", "Stay out of my church."
They don't. Until a law is passed based on religion rather than evidence. There is zero evidence that gay marriage has any negative effect on society, so laws banning it must have some other basis. This could be religion or prejudice or misinformation about a nonexistent gay conspiracy to force everyone into same sex relationships, but I'm giving you, personally, the benefit of the doubt by assuming you aren't prejudiced and don't believe in conspiracy theories.
No one is going to make your church change its rules, nor would it be legal in the first place. Only your church can do that from within - it's outside the government's scope just like government and politics is outside the church's scope in exchange for tax exempt status.
No thought police. Think and say whatever you want. As I said before it's actions that matter.
It isn't about power, it's about equality. You can marry, gays should be able to as well.
Lily, all that statement establishes is that you won't like the outcome of every law that is passed. But society's path is always toward liberalizing and expanding the scope of freedom. Put your energy into things that matter.
In a civil forum there is no room for name calling.
Pete| 4.23.09 @ 10:00AM
Mind your own business, fascist busybody. People like you are the kind who ratted out Jews to the Nazis. You are a gay Nazi--but a Nazi just the same--just like Perez Hilton.
Pete| 4.23.09 @ 10:00AM
Mind your own business, fascist busybody. People like you are the kind who ratted out Jews to the Nazis. You are a gay Nazi--but a Nazi just the same--just like Perez Hilton.
Jon| 4.23.09 @ 7:13PM
bc, I appreciate your civility in this forum. I'm not sure I would be so kind to people calling me idiot or moron. Obviously, with your proper grammar, punctuation, spelling, and cogent thought processes, you are neither, however, this does not change the fact that all of the arguments you are making apply as equally in the reverse. I must disagree with your stance, and I'm as libertarian as it sounds like you are. I fear this is where a bit of pragmatism comes into play. Not everything can be an Ayn Rand laissez faire utopia.
Marriage is still an institution in which there are intense religious connotations, and the majority of the populace still views marriage in this light. As such, be it bigotry, intolerance, or whatever other label you want to put on it, the majority of religous Americans (which if you believe polls is still 70% of us) still view homosexuality as sinful and not morally sound. Calling a homosexual union a Marriage, with all of the religious connotations associated with it is a slap in the face of those religious Americans who still cherish marriage as a sacred rite of passage. So in order to respect the wishes of the vox populi (everywhere this has been put to a vote it has been prohibited), and to still respect the ability of homosexuals to conduct themselves with freedom and an ability to form domestic unions as they wish, a homosexual union of the same legal standing as a heterosexual marriage should be called something else. This doesn't make homosexuals less equal, it makes homosexual unions something else on par with a traditional marriage. This is the only compromise which will ever make sense to the majority, while still respecting the rights and wishes of the minority.
bc| 4.24.09 @ 8:07AM
Jon, thanks for your civility and intelligent response.
"... in order to respect the wishes of the vox populi (everywhere this has been put to a vote it has been prohibited), and to still respect the ability of homosexuals to conduct themselves with freedom and an ability to form domestic unions as they wish, a homosexual union of the same legal standing as a heterosexual marriage should be called something else. This doesn't make homosexuals less equal, it makes homosexual unions something else on par with a traditional marriage. This is the only compromise which will ever make sense to the majority, while still respecting the rights and wishes of the minority. "
I essentially think this will be the state of things for the next generation or so. Everyone's present day politics aside, I think in 30-50 years' time, society at large will place no real distinction between hetero and homosexual marriage.
Many of my arguments above could be described as follows. 1) I feel that gay marriage should be legal while others disagree. 2) Because society has a tendency to liberalize, our present views don't actually matter. 3) In light of that and because this is such a low-impact issue, people should focus their energies on real threats. Pure pragmatism.
You could argue that it's asking the social conservatives to lie down and look the other way, which it kind of is, but it's also asking them to look at all the ways in which society has changed in the last 300-500 years, and to consider whether or not they have a chance at winning this one. I don't think they do.
bc| 4.24.09 @ 8:08AM
Jon, thanks for your civility and intelligent response.
"... in order to respect the wishes of the vox populi (everywhere this has been put to a vote it has been prohibited), and to still respect the ability of homosexuals to conduct themselves with freedom and an ability to form domestic unions as they wish, a homosexual union of the same legal standing as a heterosexual marriage should be called something else. This doesn't make homosexuals less equal, it makes homosexual unions something else on par with a traditional marriage. This is the only compromise which will ever make sense to the majority, while still respecting the rights and wishes of the minority. "
I essentially think this will be the state of things for the next generation or so. Everyone's present day politics aside, I think in 30-50 years' time, society at large will place no real distinction between hetero and homosexual marriage.
Many of my arguments above could be described as follows. 1) I feel that gay marriage should be legal while others disagree. 2) Because society has a tendency to liberalize, our present views don't actually matter. 3) In light of that and because this is such a low-impact issue, people should focus their energies on real threats. Pure pragmatism.
You could argue that it's asking the social conservatives to lie down and look the other way, which it kind of is, but it's also asking them to look at all the ways in which society has changed in the last 300-500 years, and to consider whether or not they have a chance at winning this one. I don't think they do.
kmichaels| 4.24.09 @ 2:16PM
Klein, again showing off a very naive and immature approach to things concludes he sees nothing wrong with same sex marriage as long as nobody is harmed.
First off, the vast majority of Americans believe that society, especially family and children, is harmed by trying to redefine marriage.
So either Klein misses this point or he disagrees. If he disagrees, then his conclusion is just plain wrong.
So, what rationale does he use for his conclusion. Nobody is harmed, adults are consenting, therefore it must be legal.
Ok, take this tact with polygamy then. He can disagree with polygamists saying that nobody is harmed, but they can make the same claim that he makes with gays. Nobody is harmed, it is all consenting adults, so it should be allowed.
But both groups are just plain wrong. Society is harmed, kids are harmed, millions are harmed, the economy is harmed, etc, etc. Lots of people are harmed. But Klein simply does not see the harm of it. Well, he should look longer, deeper and harder then. If he sees no harm, he is blind.
kmichaels| 4.24.09 @ 2:30PM
The RIGHTS of VOTERS and representation. Nothing wrong in just saying to hell with all you voters and all you representatives that decided what benefits you should get based on the definition of one man and one woman. Now, apparently after the fact and retroactively, we should apply all your thought, all your logic, all your rationale as to what benefits were to go to whom and for what reason and now apply it to two guys or two gals that happen to enjoy having sex with each other, with no possibility of children.
Klein does not see a problem with the rights of the voters and their representatives for the last several hundred years. So he is ok with changing the definition after the fact. To me, that is a total disregard for the rights of the voters. It is a stupid and horrible precedent to set up.
Lets use that approach to Social Security. The voters and their representatives pass financial benefits to people past the age of 65. Along comes 20 year olds demanding their equal rights to the same benefits. So, we now conclude that we should not have age discrimination and if 65 year olds can get SS money then 20 year olds should get it too. After all, we must be fair and equal to all. Nobody gets harmed, the 20 year olds are adults just like the 65 year olds. So lets change the definition of who gets benefits and nobody is harmed.
This is how stupid Klein and these sort of thinkers really are.
Same thing with kids. Studies show that kids do better with one male and one female as their parents. But hey, since it is all in fairness, lets just damage the hell out of our future children for the sake of this everyone is equal BS. Nobody is harmed. Except reality shows that many many people will be harmed. But hey, I want to pretend that I am open minded so I dont need to make a mature decision. Instead I will pretend that warm and fluffy is our goal and all things are always equal.
bc| 4.25.09 @ 3:12PM
Now this is fun. Substance.
"First off, the vast majority of Americans believe that society, especially family and children, is harmed by trying to redefine marriage. "
"Klein does not see a problem with the rights of the voters and their representatives for the last several hundred years."
Beliefs and facts are not the same thing. Most people believed diseases were caused by unbalanced vital fluids 100 years ago and that the shape of the bumps on one's head were indicative of different types of mental disorders. Since we know more every year than the year before, old decisions need to be reevaluated all the time. Also, prior to the 20th century, the pool of voters was relatively small, and arguably not very representative.
"Ok, take this tact with polygamy then. He can disagree with polygamists saying that nobody is harmed, but they can make the same claim that he makes with gays." Not true, or at least definitely not the same. Man and woman = 1+1. Man and man or woman and woman also = 1+1. Polygamist unions = 1+n. With regards to the legal complexity of the above marriage configurations, hetero and homosexual couples would present essentially the same issues, with the exception that homosexual couples are less likely to have children. Polygamy, on the other hand, is (probably) a completely different matter. In a divorce scenario there would be (n)* (n-1)*(n-2)*...*(1) potential remaining marriage arrangements to contend with and no apparent limit to the number of spouses(?). Of course that is just speculation, but it seems like it might be difficult to understand the rights/responsibilities/roles of all those involved and therefore difficult to define via laws that are enforceable.
"Society is harmed, kids are harmed, millions are harmed, the economy is harmed, etc, etc. " I will give you that I have seen some very unfortunate outcomes in polygamist sects. I don't know if that is because polygamy is driven underground or not. Either way, someone ought to look into that. Personally I can't wrap my head around it entirely. Again, though, as I stated above, polygamy would be legally complex and I think arriving at a standard but flexible enough definition that polygamists themselves could agree on, let alone the general public, probably isn't likely anytime soon. I am neighbors with a gay couple that has kids. They are smart, well adjusted kids, and they are a nice family. In school there was a kid in my class that always showed up late, started fights, made no effort to learn, and was obviously getting beaten up at home (2 parents, male/female), and by graduation got expelled for showing up (sporadically) to class obviously drunk. He was finally incarcerated in his early 20s for trying to rape a minor.
"Lets use that approach to Social Security. " Okay. Let's start with the bill's title. OASDI. Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance.
"Same thing with kids. Studies show that kids do better with one male and one female as their parents." Which studies? Sociologists are notoriously bad at setting up studies because their math skills often lag their research skills. Is it statistically significant? Was the sample population large and diverse enough to draw valid conclusions? What controls were used?