Last night, with Andrew Sullivan’s solipsistic 2008 essay and other “rights”/personal validation arguments on gay marriage in my head, I recalled a scene, 3 seconds actually, from the movie Fiddler on the Roof* which defined marriage better than any of the “feel-good” arguments put forward by the gay marriage movement. At 2:51 in the clip below, Motel (Leonard Frey) promises Tevye (Topol) that should he wed his daughter, Tzeitel (Rosalind Harris), she “will not starve.”
To be sure, there’s more to this scene that those telling three seconds. A few moments earlier, the meek tailor had earned the admiration of his beloved when he stood up for himself. How much is said with Tzeitel’s astonished expression as she witnesses the gentle boy she loved becoming a man. Motel has moved from talking about his feelings for Tevye’s daughter to talking about what he’s going to do to take care of her.
Only when he promises to make sure Tevye’s daughter has enough to eat (at a time when starvation was a daily concern) does the father realize that his eldest’s intended is “beginning to talk like a man.”
Now, I don’t mean to suggest by this post that gay marriage advocates ignore this aspect of marriage, of one spouse taking care of another. But, in the current debate, this point takes a back seat to personal validation, equality and “rights” arguments, yet is more central to the notion of marriage than most arguments put forward in defense of extending the institution’s government benefits to same-sex couples.
That said, I would dare say that the better part of gay couples who seek to have their unions recognized as marriage get that aspect of the institution, at least the ones I know do. There is a dichotomy between gay marriage as promoted and same-sex unions as practiced.
The issue is making that argument to gay marriage skeptics and opponents. And maybe some of the couples are making that case in that San Francisco courtroom, but that’s not the place they should be making it. Had they instead made that case to the people of California in 2008, they wouldn’t be pleading their cause to a sympathetic judge today.
*Interestingly, Jonathan Rauch begins, what is perhaps the best book on gay marriage, by recounting a different scene from that movie.
In other words: society benefits when people pair off into these little, stable 2-person welfare societies called “new families”. And whether or not they proceed to have children.
Exactly, ILC. It promotes other socially-stabilizing behavior like buying property and keeping it up, saving instead of spending, and in other ways investing in community in ways that go far beyond “gay community” and benefit everyone. This certainly IS a conservative argument.
It is because gay couples care for each other in exactly this way that gay marriage is worth fighting for. Such care is the very essence of the movement. The language of rights and equality is necessary because we already care deeply for each other and desire to have the same government backing as ‘traditionally married’ couples have. That same love deserves the same recognition.
The particular group of ‘rights’ we’re most concerned about (such as visitation rights, child custody, wills, etc.) are all about taking care of our near-spouses and families. Why should we not talk about equality?
DRH, because when you talk about equality, the average Joe and Jo-anna American don’t get what you’re talking about. And anyway, all the equality talk doesn’t seem to be working very well.
So, instead of repeating your mantras, learn from your mistakes, change your rhetoric.
What a powerful argument. Fidelity and community building is dead on. “On the other hand” …… patriotic, conservative, fundamental values are s-o-o-o-o yesterday for so many.
I think Spencer Tracys speech from guess who’s coming to dinner says it best.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Yt0wxoFl4o&feature=related
Screw all those people.
Love will WIN! It always does!
I wish more people would read the ELCA’s statement on Human Sexuality. It is mature, compassionate, and helpful. Christians really do come up with good things every now and then:
http://www.elca.org/What-We-Believe/Social-Issues/Social-Statements/JTF-Human-Sexuality.aspx
Dan, Since youve made it clear that it is okay for your friend to attack my arguments directly by addressing his comments to you, I will now employ the same silly, intellectually dishonest tactics knowing I will receive the same preferential treatment.
Now there’s an argument even more “conservative” than anything I have proposed…that marriage exists so that women will not work, but will stay home with the children and be provided for by, and dependent on, the man.
Not at all a “mutual welfare” society, where both partners provide for each other, but where the man provides income for himself and for the wife, the wife provides NO income for anyone (there goes the “mutual welfare crap), but stays home to take care of the man’s child.
So rather than being mutual welfare, it is a DEPENDENT situation. Where the wife and children are dependent on the man.
A situation that ONLY benefits society if children are involved, since without children, society is OBVIOUSLY better off with two productive citizens rather than just one.
See how “mutual welfare” has now been re-defined into just plain old “welfare”? One-directional welfare.
Funny what some people will latch onto, and redefine, in their desperate attempts to beat life back into a dead horse.
I absolutely agree that it is best for children when the mother stays home, but once again, no State in the entire union has defined marriage as such, and the ONLY benefit society could ever gain from one partner being dependent on another is if that partner were contributing to society by raising children.
Which is yet another reason that no state in the country recognizes this utter falsehood that marriage exists for the benefit of adults. It doesnt — indeed, the very idea that it does damages the institution!
“Funny what some people will latch onto, and redefine, in their desperate attempts to beat life back into a dead horse.”
That is an argument degrading not only to gay couples, but to childless heterosexual couples as well.
Funny what some people will latch onto, to justify expanding the welfare state to subsidize what everyone with common sense used to understand was good on its own merits.
It is? How? I dont think you understood the comment.
Lori, I am not the one arguing that marriage exists to provide welfare to able-bodied childless adults. That is someone else’s argument and it is unsupported by any law in the country. I reject that idea outright because able-bodied adults, being able bodied adults dont need the government butting in to their affairs. I argue that the ONLY reason government has any business whatsoever getting involved in the affairs between able bodied adults is for the benefit of the helpless members of society who are unable to look out for their own benefit — that is, children.
the only ones arguing for expanding the reach of government, and expanding the welfare state are those who suggest that marriage exists, and the reason we subsidize it is to get adults to take care of adults. IN other words we give our tax dollars to other adults so they can save us money? We spend money to save money? And what about all the single adults? Are they on welfare? No, they take care of themselves. Because that’s what adults DO.
Sorry, its just an absolutely retarded argument that some people cling to despite the fact that it has been utterly destroyed and it is a socialist definition of marriage that is not shared by ANY legislature or statute in the entire country.
As I have always said, the ONLY welfare program society benefits from is welfare for those who cannot take care of themselves. Not those who are expected to take care of themselves.
DRH, because like it or not, the point of State licenses for things is to create a form of inequality. The point is to say, some people get the license and therefore have privileges that others don’t. True of a driver’s license, professional license, marriage license, anything you can think of. The second gay marriage advocates talk about “equality”, they confess their inability to understand that basic fact.
The question is whether it would be good public policy, that is -good for society-, to bring gays within the orbit of State-licensed marriage or at least of civil unions. I say it would. I advocate on that basis.
“DRH, because when you talk about equality, the average Joe and Jo-anna American don’t get what you’re talking about.”
Why do you say that Dan? Do you really think the average American does not understand the concept of equality?
“And anyway, all the equality talk doesn’t seem to be working very well.”
I disagree. The concept of equality has been central in the civil rights movement, and the women’s movement, and both of these movements have had enourmous historical successes. Equality has been a central issue in the gay rights movement, and that too has made enormous gains over the past 4 decades.
The American people understand equality perfectly well – it is a core political concept that has benefited almost all Americans in one way or another. The dream of being treated equally has been an essential part of that beacon that brought so many of our ancestors to these shores, and continues to inspire and draw people today.
There are few arguments more powerful than to look the American people in the eye and ask (and if necessary, demand) to simply be treated equally. Americans, to our great credit, always seem to respond positively to legitimate arguments of that kind – eventually,
Let me get this straight: gay couples should have tried harder to convince all the religious people who supported Prop 8 that marriage is just about economics, about one partner making sure the other won’t starve… as opposed to some divine, moral, exclusive right? And how well do you honestly think that would have gone?
In fact, I don’t think honesty had much to do with this post at all. From this “observation” and others, is embarrassingly clear that you are not following the actual trial itself at all, and you don’t really care to, either.
So, objectively speaking, you have no idea what you’re talking about. You are the equivalent of an out-of-courtroom heckler who spouts his willfully ignorant opinion to anyone else out there who might listen. Like all the “experts” and Prop-8 organizers currently being decimated, literally decimated, in the cross-examination, this post exposes you as both sloppy and dishonest, relying on vague, bigoted instinct instead of actual facts and context. Instead of posting clips from musicals, why not link to trial coverage, or better yet, blogging and transcripts themselves?
Well, I guess if you did that, you’d have to actually engage with the subject matter, instead of just commenting on it from a place of ignorance.
Here’s one liveblog that the more curious among your readership might find helpful:
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/author/teddysanfran/page/4
You ARE treated equally. What you are doing is looking the American people in the eye and demanding that they recognize your apple is an orange. And if they dont call your apple an orange, they HATE APPLES!!!!111
And along comes william to demonstrate the sort of selfishness of which Dan writes. Damn shame gay liberals only believe in “equality” for themselves.
Tell you what, Tano, go back and read Dr. King’s speeches and find where he talk about “equality.” In his celebrated, “I have a dream speech,” he wanted freedom to ring, not equality.
Well, william, you’re right about one thing, I don’t care to follow the trial because I don’t think a court of law is an appropriate place to make the arguments there being made. But, your first paragraph betrays an incredible ignorance about what I’ve been trying to say and who you’re trying to convince. You don’t need convince all those religious people, you just need convince some of the skeptics. I’m putting forward a strategy, indeed, have been putting forward to change minds on an issue about which I’m ambivalent and you accuse me of dishonesty. Amusing and telling.
Again. Comrade Elephant comes snarling out of the swamp at the mention of gay marriage. He has to turn his own personal issues into a crusade.
And again with the fraud that he is a conservative. What dreck. He must twist the words of others in order to accomplish his little trick. He’s like a child with a Halloween mask.
I NEVER said the government should use anyone’s tax funds to subsidize anyone’s marriage. I would never say such a thing because I don’t believe it. What I believe is that two consenting adults should be able to protect their assets in their relationship, divide them as they see fit, arrange medical care as they choose and all the rest of what constitutes legally protecting their relationship — without having to pay tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees just to do it.
Civil unions are all the government should be in the business of granting — to any couple, gay or straight. Holy unions are the proper business of the church, and clergy should not be drafted into serving as officers of the State. That is the only rational position any citizen of a free country can take.
How touching that frauds like Elephant can squeeze out crocodile tears “for the children.” They would, of course, be just as well cared-for by parents in a solid domestic partnership as they would by those who felt entitled to rake off the tax bucks of single people. Any “parents” who feel they need to do that are nothing but parasites, and they probably won’t raise kids who amount to a damn. Which ought to be their problem and no one else’s.
The whole notion that one citizen is entitled to the earnings of another is the basis of thievery. And any “conservative” who advocates such twaddle is nothing but a phony.
Incidentally, the same government “social conservatives” think should be in the business of playing God and determining who deserves to keep the money they earn and who doesn’t will one day suck dry the hard-earned gains of the very poor, sweet little children about whom Elephant and his ilk are so weepily concerned.
The government does not — cannot — own its citizens. The whole basis for the State’s confiscation of our earnings is the notion that it owns us — that we are its subjects, existing only to serve and obey its dictates.
Let’s not forget that the same premise — that the State owns us — lies behind its assertions that it can educate our children however it pleases, regardless of our own convictions, or even yank those children away from us if it sees fit. It does this not only to gay couples, but to straights as well, and it is coming up with ever more creative reasons for doing so.
I hope I have made myself properly clear. Next time Elephant tries to make his “conservative” mask fit by twisting my words to try to make me sound like a typical liberal-lesbo loony, he will even more clearly show himself to be a liar.
Lori,
I’m not the one with personal issues. Unlike you, I have accepted that homosexuality is NOT equal to heterosexuality. If you think it is, please go try to get your girlfriend pregnant with your penis. And please, do us all a favor, and dont come back until you do.
I recognize that vital difference that is responsible for ALL of the 6.5 BILLION human beings on Earth.
You on the other hand, get viscerally, viciously angry any time anyone says anything that reminds you that children come ONLY from a MAN and a WOMAN.
It must SUCK to be so deeply angry at simple biological facts. But I assure you, the truth that every baby on earth has a mother AND a father, and could not exist without them, remains a fact no matter how hard you rage against it.
Why on Earth should I pay for your legal fees?
Oh, wait, I know…here’s where you tell me that homosexual relationships are equal to heterosexual relationships again.
Sorry, the 6.5 billion lives on Earth vs the ZERO lives that homosexuality has created says you’re wrong.
And the cycle of rage, denial and self loathing begins anew in 3…2…1…
Indeed. Exit polls for Prop 8 in 2008 showed that a majority of CA moderates rejected it. And slight majorities of CA whites and Asians overall. Overall, its four-point win was pathetic next to the eighteen-point win in 2000 of Prop 22, and the forty-point win of Hawaii’s Amendment 2 in 1998. Taking the long view (as I usually do), it is part of an ongoing tectonic shift in favor of gay marriage. Such shifts do not happen overnight nor produce majorities overnight. They may take years or decades to play out. This one is in the middle of playing out. Perhaps that is why the arguments of some gay marriage opponents are shriller and more desperate than they ought to be.
Lori, yes. However, I had even more than that in mind. Dan’s example of marriage/union as a tool for people to care for each other was primal, taking it to the absolute bottom line: Can 2 people work together to keep from starving? When someone dies of starvation, or because no one is there to call 9-11 or take them to a doctor appointment, that in itself is a loss to society community. Conversely, when people experience and participate in the benefits of a stable home life, and in so many ways are better people for it, that in itself is a huge gain to society, regardless of specific financial aspects. As well, the people involved set a good example for society AND are less likely to be out there at night disrupting others’ stable home lives – which is yet another benefit to an ordered and stable society. The benefits go on and on. So Lori, your point is fine, but I actually don’t have the strict financial aspects in mind (and I never have) when I say things like comment #1.
Lori, as neither have I. There are times when I see comments of mine mistaken/misrepresented as that and worse, but the misrepresentation is of course the other party’s problem. Your comments overall are fair. I agree with you that “Civil unions are all the government should be in the business of granting — to any couple, gay or straight. Holy unions are the proper business of the church” and I think that over the next 30 years or so, that is where we end up. And this:
Lori, that’s talking my language 🙂
What I believe is that two consenting adults should be able to protect their assets in their relationship, divide them as they see fit, arrange medical care as they choose and all the rest of what constitutes legally protecting their relationship — without having to pay tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees just to do it.
However, that does not require reworking marriage.
That requires simplifying the laws around wills, health care powers of attorney, and transactions.
Doing the latter benefits everyone, including gay and lesbian people. Doing the former merely pisses the vast majority of people off.
Marriage is a specific combination of benefits and protections designed for a specific purpose — to enhance and facilitate the production and raising of children. Granted, not everyone who meets the baseline qualifications chooses to do so, but those who do receive the maximum benefit and value from the way marriage is legally structured.
For gay and lesbian couples, that reality is quite a bit different. There are not going to be any children in that relationship without quite an additional amount of legalese and outside activity that takes it out of the scope of marriage in the first place. What there can be is a simplification in law that establishes, “This is a binding power of attorney. This is a binding will. If you pass on or whatever without one, we will revert to biological ties, but otherwise, these are what dictate the outcomes. Also, we’re going to update the tax code so that, if you like, you may have up to one non-dependent on your health insurance without paying imputed income, and if you’ve made provision for the disposition of your estate to another person by a valid will, they are not taxed.”
What this does is to make this modular. If you want the one-size-fits-all package and you meet the criteria for it, fine. But if you don’t or don’t want to meet the criteria, for whatever reason, you may easily and simply building-block your relationship as you see fit.
I guarantee you that, if it were phrased that way, you would have 95% Republican support. The only people who would object would be the Obama Party members who saw billions of dollars in tax revenue slipping away from them.
…or is remotely able to. My dad’s retirement community is a hotbed of new marriages that have nothing to do with producing or raising children; the couple is incapable of producing children and even if they were capable, they would be 100% opposed.
NDT, I acknowledge the above as a reasonable and good-faith effort to have an alternative to gay marriage, which is traumatic for some people, for whatever reasons. Having said that, I am confused on certain points. Aren’t powers of attorney and wills already sufficiently binding? And, not to put to fine a point on it, but in practice, or in daily reality, aren’t they unlikely to be used by many people, including those poorer and/or less educated? A few weeks ago I came across a shocking statistic, that 25% of America’s adult population do not even have bank accounts. I find that inconceivable, but apparently they make do with check-cashing outfits.
Dude, give me a break with your whining!! You aren’t “ambivalent” on this issue; you’re willfully contrary and reactionary. As someone who’s had your number for quite a long time recently pointed out:
“His Auntie Tom schtick is pretty much to find any anti-gay Republican talking point, the more outrageous the better, and defend it. Up until this latest post, the apex of this schtick was probably when Blatt organized a brunch at a Mexican restaurant to show solidarity with the owner’s financial support of the campaign against gay marriage in California. Alternatively, the apex may have been the time he said he was going to vote against gay marriage because gays are soooo rude to Carrie Prejean.”
In other words: william is too lazy to think for himself or make reasonable charges in his own name.
My dad’s retirement community is a hotbed of new marriages that have nothing to do with producing or raising children; the couple is incapable of producing children and even if they were capable, they would be 100% opposed.
The interesting thing about that, ILC, is that in a lot of those cases, those folks are disadvantaged by marriage — because the benefits cap for Social Security for a married couple is usually less than the combined amount for which the individuals involved are eligible. Not to mention the fact that, if you remarry, pfft go any previous survivor benefits. This is why California’s DP law allows opposite-sex couples in which one of the members is age 62 or older — it’s based on the Social Security minimum age eligibility threshold, and provides a means to end-run the Federal stricture, since DPs are not recognized under Federal law.
That sort of situation is why I propose what I do. If all they want is a better way to distribute property, there are better alternatives than the one-size-fits-all-designed-for-childrearing marriage structures.
Aren’t powers of attorney and wills already sufficiently binding?
Yes and no. The problem is that there is no clear and uniform standard across states or the Federal government for what one is, what it should say, and how it’s created, so it’s hard to say that anything is sufficiently binding.
My proposal to this effect is simply to establish a uniform Federal standard and support the states aligning themselves along with it, or at least committing to recognize a Federally-valid one. That would help both heteros and homos, since it would allow you to designate people outside your blood relationships to take care of you and receive your property if necessary.
And, not to put to fine a point on it, but in practice, or in daily reality, aren’t they unlikely to be used by many people, including those poorer and/or less educated?
Yes, they are. But my rebuttal would be that the price and complexity of access is what drives that, and that the solution is to work on those. In my ideal universe, it would be a simple form that you download, insert names, and then swear before a notary. Obviously, if you want to do a more complex dispersal, then you would need a list of assets and destinations and whatnot, but really, it’s not rocket science. It’s just not standardized enough to be reliable.
whining, where? Please, william, show me where I’m whining, I don’t see it. Go read my post above, note the line of argument I’m criticizing and the suggestions I offer.
And please, if you’re going to quote somebody who’s been writing about me, make sure they understand what I was doing. I never organized a brunch at a Mexican restaurant (it was a dinner). And I didn’t do it to show solidarity with the owner, but to defy a boycott. And I never said I was going to vote against gay marriage because gays were rude to Miss Prejean.
Go reread my posts for the last point–and learn what rhetoric is.
You know, william, it’s people like you who help make my point about left-wing prejudice against conservatives. If you find fault with my argument above, then take issue with the faults, but don’t make up things I have said in order to dismiss my arguments.
All that said, you do provide sport on a busy day for me and I thank you for that. 🙂 Most amusing, really quite amusing. 🙂
e’s the link for your readers: this site, in fact, offers several illuminating insights into what you’re all about.
I see I’m going to have to do all the work for the ignorant liberal again.
Here is the link.
Here is where the puppet in question attempts to quote GPW as saying the following:
I have absolutely no problem with anyone saying that, as a gay man, I should have less rights than a straight person as long as they say it really nicely. In fact, if someone says “Dan, eat a shit sandwich” with a smile on his face, I will, in fact, eat a shit sandwich for him and then tell him how absolutely delicious it was and ask if I could please have another. But when mean gay people rudely tell someone that gays should have equal rights, it makes me so mad that, if I could change my vote on Prop 8, I would. By the way, it’s loads of fun being the one gay person that Glenn Reynolds and the others here at Pajamas Media like. One day I might even get to have lunch with Glenn or get his autograph or something. That would be soooo cool.
And here is the actual article, which demonstrates that the puppet william is simply lying about what GPW said.
Had I known gay marriage advocates would react with vitriol and venom to the passage of California’s Proposition 8 (amending the state constitution to limit the definition of marriage to its traditional meaning: one man and one woman), I might have left my ballot blank on that issue and not voted “no,” as I had.
So william, what you’ve shown is that all “real” gays and lesbians like yourself are outright liars who can’t be trusted to tell the truth and will say anything to smear people publicly.
“you’re right about one thing, I don’t care to follow the trial”
B. Daniel Blatt actually admits, proudly, that he has no idea what he’s talking about.
If you paid any attention to this issue whatsoever (you wouldn’t have had to follow the trial, maybe just pick up a newspaper once in a while), you would know very well that churches and other religious organizations were the ones that mobilized their masses to vote for Prop 8. You’d also know that a very many organizers of Yes on 8 were motivated by and trafficking in ignorance about homosexuality in general, not just taking a stance on gay marriage specifically. Exhibit a: Mr. Tam. Does that name ring a bell to you? I know, of course, that you “don’t care to follow the trial.” It wasn’t reasonable skeptics that made a difference in California; it was religious bigots, scared of predatory gays. Just take one look at what’s being exposed at this trial, and that will come clear to you. If, in fact, clarity were what you were truly after.
But wait, it’s not. “I don’t care to follow the trial. I just like to opine idiotically from the sidelines.” For those who choose not to bury their head in a sand of ignorance, a relevant excerpt from an interview with David Boies on the issue, pre-trial:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/230316
“It’s ironic that the most vocal proponents of family values and marriage oppose extending it to everyone.” Lastly they will explore how the primary basis for preventing gay marriage is religion, “but the First Amendment also precludes pushing views on others. To have the state step in and say we’re going to legislate for one religious group over another is exactly what is prohibited in the anti-establishment [of a state religion] clause.”
And report of testimony from the Pro-Prop 8’s most recent “star witness”:
http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=101600
Miller was examined about an article he had published in a French journalist year titled “The Democratic Coalition‚ Religious Divide: Why California Voters Supported Obama but Not Same-sex Marriage.” In that article, he had dealt with the split among Democratic voters on Prop 8 despite a recent history of stronger support of gay rights.
“The apparent contradiction can be explained by examining the religious characteristics of California Democratic voters,” he wrote. The Prop 8 opponents “lost in large part because the state’s Democratic coalition divided along largely religious lines.”
He was then asked about another sentence he had written: “The opportunity to establish marriage for gay and lesbians in California was lost in large part because the state’s Democratic coalition divided along religious lines.”
I’m not sure of all that. First, marriage has other advantages, including practicalities of daily life and social, moral, psychological and spiritual ones. (I do not understand all this focus on tax this and financial that. It’s never what I’ve meant, or the only thing I’ve meant, when I’ve talked about marriage as an advantageous mini-mutual-aid society.) Second, I concede that my knowledge on Social Security benefits is lacking, so you could be right – but it *seems* to me that when my dad and stepmom married, they did not lose anything in terms of my stepmom’s Social Security benefits from her previous (deceased) husband.
…in contrast to the $2000 I paid a lawyer to set up my estate. (And that was a fairly average fee for the time.) I see your point there.
Don’t masquerade as “ambivalent” if you don’t want to be called out for what you are: a willfully ignorant, reactionary and – yes – whiny (incessantly whiny, usually about how the gays aren’t “polite” enough for you) fraud.
If you paid any attention to this issue whatsoever (you wouldn’t have had to follow the trial, maybe just pick up a newspaper once in a while), you would know very well that churches and other religious organizations were the ones that mobilized their masses to vote for Prop 8.
As is their right.
Your problem, william, is that you and your gay-sex marriage movement believe people should be stripped of their right to vote because of their religious beliefs. This is what your pathetic attorney David Boies supports and this is what you support.
Perhaps if you were not such an obvious fascist and bigot with no regard whatsoever for the Constitution of this country, you might have public support. Also, as we’ve proven above, you are a flat-out liar.
You have stated that being gay or lesbian requires you to be an antireligious bigot and tell lies about other people. Since your sexual orientation makes you act in an inferior fashion, the laws should treat you as an inferior.
Don’t masquerade as “ambivalent” if you don’t want to be called out for what you are: a willfully ignorant, reactionary and – yes – whiny (incessantly whiny, usually about how the gays aren’t “polite” enough for you) fraud.
Actually, william, as I demonstrated above, you are the fraud. You willfully misquoted GPW and lied about it.;
Furthermore, you have just stated that you and your attorney, David Boies, believe people should be stripped of their right to vote because of their religious beliefs.
You are a fraud and a fascist. And since you claim that your sexual orientation makes you act like you do, you have convincingly demonstrated that all gay and lesbian people are like you, a fraud and a fascist.
“Why on Earth should I pay for your legal fees?”
Why on earth WOULD you pay for my legal fees? That comment doesn’t even make sense.
Wow, you really are a mental case. Sorry mommy and daddy won’t accept you “Elephant.” I hope you manage to convince them, someday, what a real, big “conservative” you are.
Is there no way to ban people from this board when they make remarks about personal body parts to other people? This loon wants all women to stay home in the kitchen, barefoot and hetero where they belong, and yet when a woman comes onto this board, she has to hear all sorts of vileness about body parts she doesn’t even have.
I guess the “conservative” costume doesn’t include “polite big boy” pants.
So NDT is like the idiot bodyguard for poor Auntie Bruce? Or maybe his alter-ego? Auntie Bruce takes my posts and gives them to NDL to re-post? And throw around big words like “fascist” that he has no true understanding of (unless you count Doughy Goldberg’s utterly preposterous work of revisionist propaganda. Even that might be a bit too much for FDL to wrap his little mind around)? You make such cute little tag-teaming boyfriends.
Hey Lori…
I’m all for all women being hetro. Maybe if we increase the pool, I could find one who will put up with me for more than three years 😉
More seriously, I think AE is trying to argue, overheated rhetoric aside, that people in non-standard relationships (you and a hypothetical GF, me and a definately real roommate) have options available to us to secure the privileges given by the state governments. He is saying (again I think) that we should avail ourselves of those options. That they aren’t government sponsored doesn’t make them less valid, and asking him to pay the ‘legal fees’ is his way of saying to not bother him when you (and I) apply the effort.
Again, not speakign for him, just trying to look at it in a less hostile light.
excuse me, Auntie Blatt. Bruce, Blatt… maybe you’re all one big “patriot” (sic).
If this country is truly a center-right nation, then the best argument for gay marriage is making a plea for more freedom. I was a little conflicted over gay marriage myself, until I read someone who said that when the choice comes between more freedom and less freedom, he’ll choose more freedom every time. That was in the context of the recent 1st Amendment decision by the US Supreme Court that gutted McCain-Feingold. It applies equally to the 2nd Amendment, and pretty much every other issue, including gay marriage.
Those who are against it should ask themselves what is gay marriage taking away from them. They (heterosexuals) can still marry whom they like, they’re just extending the word “marriage” to people who marry someone of the same gender. Their (heteros) freedoms and privileges are not curtailed whatsoever. Besides the emotional arguments about tradition, what is left to say against gay marriage? Everything points to more freedom, not less.
I do have to add that the proper forum to forward these arguments is to the people, not inside a court room. I voted FOR Prop 8 because of recent attempts to undermine prior decisions by the people regarding marriage by appealing to the courts.
excuse me, Auntie Blatt. Bruce, Blatt… maybe you’re all one big “patriot” (sic).
What a surprise! William is so ignorant that he doesn’t even recognize who he’s criticizing.
And of course, since he can’t explain why he lies and why he supports stripping people of the right to vote based on their religious beliefs, he has to resort to attempts to insult.
Too bad you’ve already been exposed as a liar and a fascist, william. By the way, why does David Boies support stripping people of their right to vote based on their religious beliefs? Can you explain that?
ILC — I agree with you for the most part. Since you’re capable of framing an argument like an adult, you generally make more sense.
I am not asking anyone else to pay anything — fees, taxes, or anything else — toward my simple ability to, as Anna says, exercise my own freedom. You, Anna and NDT are making very good sense here. I may not agree with any of you on everything, but I appreciate the civility and maturity.
NDT, your suggestions are good ones. I have no problem with them. My problem is with government meddling into the lives of its citizens, which always ends up created more problems than it purports to solve. No one should see their earnings stolen by the State to prop up anybody else’s relationship — which has been my point all along.
“which always ends up created more problems…”
That should, of course, be “creating.”
Unlike one of our resident liberals, I work for myself now. This means I’m taking time off from my workday to post here. Since I am my own boss, I’m giving myself permission to do this. But now it’s back to the grind.
Thanks, again, to all of those with intelligent advice.
from FOX news. . .Don Imus interviews Bois
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=223bBc3p_4I
Thanks for posting this Rusty. It’s a great interview, which goes to NDF’s question (?) about religious beliefs. First, one fundamental point: This is a case about equal protection under the US Constitution. And some quotes: “No religion has the right to impose their beliefs on another group of people.” And finally: “Do you discriminate against a class of people knowing that it harms them and their children just because that’s the way it’s always been?”
It’s also important to note, of course, that Proposition 8 actually stripped away the right to marry that had been guaranteed to same-sex couples. Generally speaking, when we look back in history, movements that try to remove rights from a class of people, or limit their rights, don’t tend to look so pretty in hindsight. Something to mull over if you’re feeling “ambivalent.” How will you explain your position now to your grandchildren?
What rights got removed from what class of people?
And some quotes: “No religion has the right to impose their beliefs on another group of people.”
Answer: “Why do you advocate stripping people of the right to vote in accordance with their religious beliefs, as is spelled out in both the Federal and the California Constitutions?”
And finally: “Do you discriminate against a class of people knowing that it harms them and their children just because that’s the way it’s always been?”
Answer: “If the lack of marriage is harmful to children, then why did gay and lesbian people bring children into their relationships in the first place, knowing it would be harmful to them? Furthermore, would they be willing to state that, since lack of marriage is harmful to children, that unmarried gays and lesbians should have their children taken away because they are harming them?”
Generally speaking, when we look back in history, movements that try to remove rights from a class of people, or limit their rights, don’t tend to look so pretty in hindsight.
Sort of like how gays and lesbians want to strip the Constitutional rights of people to vote based on their religious beliefs.
It’s just too bad that the gay-sex marriage movement had to engage such a bigot as Boies, whose hatred of peoples’ religious belief is so great that it makes him ignore the fundamental rights actually written in the Constitution. But then again, given how william expresses his antireligious bigotry so freely, I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised.
You GO RITA BEADS* aka NDT, remember ‘hands on hips, head cocked’
*The reason Rita Beads is such a funny name is probably sadly lost to most of you, but the threat to “read your beads” was a common expression back in the day, one homo to another. Reading someone’s beads meant to tell them off, to give them what-for, to put them in the their place, in the sort of high-drama that only can come from a place of great creativity and style. And cuntiness. JMG
NDT: Most sentient beings on this planet have been seeing through your vapid, first-grade rhetorical reversals ever since the right started bandying them about years ago (i.e., anyone who mentions race is a “bigot”). But I guess when you don’t actually have anything real to say, well, it’s all you’ve got. Carry on then, sad little bully queen.
But I guess when you don’t actually have anything real to say, well, it’s all you’ve got.
Actually, there was plenty of real conversation going on in here long before you arrived.
The problem is that you showed up with your “Auntie Tom” juvenile taunts and are now running away, rubbing your sore behind and whining to momma about how all the other kids are so mean to you.
Gays like yourself are inferior, william, which is why you’re treated accordingly. No wonder you turn to the government; it’s the only thing more incompetent, pathetic, and foolish than yourself. Perhaps one of these days when you grow up and actually do something of value for society instead of whining and demanding that you be handed everything because you’re a minority, you might actually be worth some consideration. For now, second-class status is more than a lying, thieving, irresponsible brat like you deserves.
Actually Lori, You were the one, as usual, who jumped into a conversation that had nothing to do with you, gnashing your teeth, hurling insults and trying to prove what a tough guy you are.
I was talking to Dan, NEVER talking to you, but that didn’t stop you from launching into your usual unbalanced tirades. At least you haven’t resorted to your usual ridiculous threats of violence. Perhaps you’ve grown up some? Or are those coming next?
But I had no idea the simple fact that you dont have a penis would be so upsetting to you. I assumed that like rational people you were aware of and comfortable with your genitalia. I was wrong. I’m sorry. You clearly aren’t. I thought it was much ruder to suggest you never come back until you achieve that impossible feat of getting your presumably fictitious partner pregnant. But again, that was just rhetorical, emphasizing that it is an impossibility. And alas, you came back anyway.
I would never dream of being offended if someone pointed out that I dont have a vagina. Thats like being offended if someone told me I dont have three arms. No wonder you’re so viciously angry at the suggestion that heterosexuality is different than homosexuality! You certainly epitomize all the angry stereotypes don’t you?
Yes, You did. You said that the subsidies and recognitions that are already available to married people should be made available to you.
You are the one demanding that other people recognize some sort of artificial bond between you and your most unfortunate partner. A bond that anyone else OTHER than married couples has to pay lawyers to establish. Why should you get for free what others have to pay lawyers for? Why shouldn’t they get it for free as well?
For that matter, why on earth should anyone recognize your relationship? It’s of absolutely zero consequence to anyone other than you. Why should society grant you rights that it does not grant to a single person? What makes your relationship with your poor unfortunate partner any more meaningful to society than a single person to their best friend?
Answer? It isnt!
The reason we recognize bonds between married couples while we dont for others is because it benefits society to do so. Because UNLIKE homosexuals, heterosexuals can have children practically at the drop of a hat. And recognizing bonds between men and women encourages those children to be born into protective relationships between their mother and father. Relationships that come with expectations and obligations on the part of the parents.
But selfish, angry, narcissists like you have transformed children from a deep responsibility into an accessory, or worse yet, therapy, and marriage from an institution that serves an important purpose to society into just another entitlement program that exists to serve YOU.
Like this post talks about, you haven’t even begun to think about what the institution of marriage means to society, you just heard that it gives out free goodies that you aren’t getting and dammit you want some.
Ask not what your country can do for your relationship, ask what your relationship does for society.
Answer? Nothing worth my tax dollars.
NO! You are an adult, you are expected to take care of your own needs, you are expected to save and prepare for your future, you are expected to take care of your property, not demand that society pat you on the back for wiping your bottom and taking care of yourself. there is NOTHING conservative about that argument at ALL. You dont get free goodies for doing what adults are SUPPOSED to do!
Um, I hate to break it to you, but the only thing the government DOES grant are civil unions. You have more red herrings than the fish market!
No, another lie. I never said anything of the sort. I think that’s up to individuals to decide. It was actually someone else that suggested the video was proof that marriage exists to get people to take care of one another. Something no marriage law in the country agrees with. I was pointing out that the woman in the video was DEPENDENT and not “mutually” providing for anyone.
But hey, you’re already raging like a lunatic, what’s a few more lies and red herrings going to hurt at this point?
“What’s a few more lies and red herrings going to hurt at this point?”
Again the socialist phony-conservative “Elephant,” aping his idol, Saul Alinsky. Typical radical liberal statist, calling every point with which he disagrees with someone “lies” — a childish (and potentially legally actionable) term, used by those who know how to use a dictionary to mean “deliberate falsehoods” rather than simply opinions with which they disagree.
The wild extrapolations you make are endless. Of course we have to hear that because I’m a lesbian, I must want to be a man. Which, of course — using the same logic — would have to mean that you must desire to be a woman. You’re saying far more about yourself than you are about me.
“You said that the subsidies and recognitions that are already available to married people should be made available to you.”
You’re the liar. What I said was that marriage law should be identical for gays and straights. That is by no means the same thing as saying that the “subsidies” available to married people should be the same as those that should be available to me, as I have repeatedly gone on record as saying that NO ONE should have their relationship tax-subsidized by anyone else.
Of course you call other people “liars.” It’s a common psychological reflex for people to accuse others of the sins of which they know themselves to be most guilty.
My assertion that you want women to stay home in the kitchen was not a “lie,” but an opinion. Get a dictionary and see if you can figure out how to use it. If it’s wrong, then surely you can muster the emotional maturity to say so without resorting to a word you evidently don’t understand.
“For that matter, why on earth should anyone recognize your relationship?” Again with the reflexive attribution of your own sin to someone else. YOU are the narcissist, if you imagine I care whether a head-case like you “recognizes” my relationship or not. I don’t give a damn who “recognizes” it or who doesn’t — I want them to leave me the hell alone and stop stealing my earnings to support people who should be perfectly able of supporting themselves.
Again, I have asserted that many times here. You know it. You are a lying fraud.
“You dont get free goodies for doing what adults are SUPPOSED to do!”
My own earnings are not “free goodies,” you statist, socialist pig. You are a thief, and you’re trying to justify your thievery the same way every other statist does — by assuming that the State (i.e. you and the rest of the loafing thieves who want to confiscate the money earned by others) have some sort of divine right to it.
Why you persist in the pathetic charade that you are a conservative is anybody’s guess. Maybe someday mommy and daddy will actually accept the big act. No thinking person who reads any of your statist, freeloading comments on this blog ever will.
Lori, you appear to believe that any form of State marriage license is a government subsidy for the people/relationship, to the extent it involves things like tax preferences, the automatic defraying of legal costs (that unmarried individuals must pay lawyers to get right), etc. “Government subsidy” being bad. I am sympathetic to that line of argument. In general, I can be counted on to point out and oppose government subsidies.
So why would I not, in this area? Well, I like the idea of straight people being married. As I’m sure you do. And for similar reasons, I like the idea of gay people being married or at least “unioned”.
Is that inconsistent of me? Perhaps. I’m open to someone arguing that. It could also be a matter (for me) of realism and priorities. I am certain you already understand that in restoring a small-government society, some issues are more urgent than others. For example, in a country where stopping ObamaCare, ending deficits and keeping taxes down at Bush levels is controversial, it doesn’t bother me if the roads and fire departments are privatized. I figure I’ll worry about that later. In fact, I’ll be darn lucky if we get to that point.
typo, “it doesn’t bother me if the roads and fire departments are -not- privatized”
So if you think I’m inconsistent or overlooking something, let me know. I’m only explaining my side of it here, not making any great point.
NDT: get back on your meds, girl, it sounds like you’re about to take out a high school.
In the Prop-8 case a couple days ago, some of the many problems with the ballot initiative process were addressed during cross-exam of the state’s own witness, who wrote a paper in 2004 suggesting that ballot initiatives undermine key norms of democracy. Here’s the relevant rough blog of it; the actual transcript should be available soon:
The first sentence reads that by limiting opportunities for the proponent to … initiative system makes compromise less necessary.” This is what M wrote in 2004.
M: I agree with this.
B: Reads: By allowing proponents (of initiatives) to eschew compromise, initiative system leads to polarization. You wrote that?
M: Yes.
B: Do you believe it to be true?
M: More or less, yes.
B: Last full sentence: thus in CA, both initiative const amendments and statutes undermine the authority of representative government. What did you mean there by representative government?
M: I’ll have to recall… In general I meant that initiatives have the tendency to make it more difficult to do its job, for example by locking in spending mandates or other things. Fair characterization of my views on this.[…]
B: Looks at another article he published in 2001. We discuss how ironically direct democracy can be less democratic than representative democracy because it violates norms of… transparency, compromise…”
M: Yes, that’s what I called my Madisonian critique of democracy.
B: Hence, direct democracy that forms greatest threat to democratic government are initiative forms. Initiative Constitutional Amendments most seriously undermine representative government because they can only be undone by another constitutional amendment. Do you still believe this is an accurate statement?
M: I don’t believe it is always the case. It can be. It’s true that an initiative constitutional amendment can only be undone by another amendment. Has to be put on ballot, maybe by leg, but still has to be passed by the people.
B: Looking at heading, Undermining Democratic Opportunities. “Leg procedures tend to maximize” compromise vs. initiatives.
M: Generally true.
B: You have studied initiatives?
M: Over 900.
B: When do initiatives provide for compromise and building consensus in society?
M: I cannot say specifically, but in general it’s better to have informed deliberation, consensus building and compromise.
B: How many would you give where initiatives fit the above?
M: Maybe 3 or 4 or 5. Would have to do serious investigation to see how drafting done and campaign run.[…]
B: Heading here says violating democratic norms. “Initiative process violates number of norms in democracy.” What were the norms you were referring to?
M: I’m trying to get the context here (paging through). I think it’s the norms in the paragraph above: competence, fairness, accountability (and one other).
B: Go back to your law review article. “In sum it is ironic that initiative process is considered purer democracy …when it violates democratic opportunities and procedural guarantees.”
on second thought, NDT, it sounds like you’re ready to take out a gay bar:
“Gays like yourself are inferior, william”
A little alarming, I’d say. Is that your inner Aryan coming out, perchance?
ILC, we can agree to disagree here. ANY government subsidy, in my opinion, of people’s private behavior is a Faustian bargain. I believe that it will — like all such “bargains” — eventually go bad.
The government has no business treating us like children, or animals, and attempting to stimulate the behavior it finds desirable — especially not when it must jack our money from us, at gunpoint if necessary, to fund it. The underlying rationale — however benign the language that they use to “justify” it – remains one of master to servant, owner to slave. They think they own us.
They do not own us, and today more and if we want to keep them from stealing our whole country right out from under us, we need to stand up and make ourselves heard on this.
There will always be some holy and glorious cause to which someone believes the citizens’ money should be spent. Usually it’s other people’s money they want to spend to do this, but even if it’s their own, they have no right to make that decision about anyone else’s money BUT their own.