Gay Patriot Header Image

More tolerance for gay marriage proponents among gay marriage opponents (than vice versa)?

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 6:40 pm - May 10, 2012.
Filed under: Academia,Civil Discourse,Gay Marriage,Random Thoughts

Surveying the returns on North Carolina’s Amendment One, William Kristol finds that the measure was soundly defeated in two counties with large universities by margins of “5 to 1 and 5 to 2, respectively”, yet passed by margins of 2 to 1 in neighboring “counties like Alamance, Person, and Granville”.

This causes him to “bet there’s more tolerance in Alamance, Person and Granville for those who are proponents of gay marriage than there is at Duke or UNC-Chapel Hill for the opponents.

I’d made the same wager.  Here’s one piece of evidence that suggests the odds on this wager are better than even.

Share

84 Comments

  1. HA HA HA OH WOW.

    People who fight for equal rights are bigots now?
    Huh. Must’ve missed THAT memo.

    “Intolerant” is one of those words (like “torture” “racist” and “bully”) that has had its meaning changed so that leftists can use it as a smear against anyone who disagrees with their agenda.

    “Intolerance” = not tolerating intolerance

    “Torture” = according to Yoo, Addington et al, definitely not waterboarding – Nuremburg notwithstanding – because 911 NEVAR FORGET

    “Racist” = not sufficiently respecting the dire oppression of white male Christian RealAmericans – or doing anything whatsoever to reduce the epic imbalance of power & privilege they enjoy

    “Bully” = anyone who doesn’t either nod or STFU when ridiculous BS is passed off as fact … but not gay-bashers (at least as long as “religious belief” can be cited to justify it)

    So the GOP are leftists?

    Educational to watch just how fast “criticizing a wartime POTUS = supporting terrorism” went down the Memory Hole as of January 2009. Ditto “deficits don’t matter.” What happened back then to magically invert reality overnight, I wonder? Presumably it was the same eldritch incantation that retroactively made “????” President from 2000-2008, while using some as-yet unknown occult power to put a two-week time-limit on the results of ????’s damage to America.

    – How does allowing children to marry damage you?

    – How does allowing incest practitioners to marry damage you?

    – How does allowing bestialists to marry damage you?

    – How does allowing people to marry multiple individuals damage you?

    The 1st & 3rd examples are both abusive & incompatible with consent & are thus damaging to society at large, the 2nd carries a real physical risk to its offspring, which winds up damaging society at large, & the 4th is perennial as a vehicle for slavery by another name. Troll Fu FAIL – I could just as readily argue that classifying women as chattel property doesn’t damage me, nor does legalizing human sacrifice, as long as some OTHER person is up on the altar.

    Someone’s failure to address the actual point is showing.

    Interesting that nobody here sees any problem with putting basic civil rights to a popular vote – & in fact the prevailing opinion seems to be that opposing such societally toxic folly means LIBERAL FASCISM ISREAL. That the Founding Fathers explicitly stated that they feared the results of Democracy Gone Wild in regards to individual liberty almost as much as a standing army or political parties is surely central to their point, somehow.

    It sure is a real hoot to see the GOP’s Small Government fanboys cheerleading for an approach to governance guaranteed to create a bureaucratic nightmare of 50 de-facto micronations that would all have to work around the Byzantine maze of laws & regulations that “States’ Rights” inevitably leads to (good thing the states’ budgets are so abundant, so they can easily afford this total waste of time & money)… or for that matter, whistling past the graveyard of who ELSE loooooves them some State’s Rights (hint: they’d also love to give LGBT people a free one-way train ride to camp for some Zyklon-B Therapy).

    PS: “Gays are free to marry people of the opposite sex, ergo STFU” – please tell me you’re trolling, because the alternative likely involves the childhood consumption of paint-chips.

    PROTIP: “QED” & “non sequitur” are not synonyms.

    Comment by jim — May 11, 2012 @ 11:55 pm - May 11, 2012

  2. Ah, here comes PeeJ’s fellow bigot, Jenn.

    As to your moronic observation about the Loving case, it was never challenged under full faith & credit but rather under equal protection grounds. Which might, you know, explain why no case on full faith & credit grounds was ever heard, because as you probably haven’t guessed, once the Supreme Court said “you can’t outlaw interracial marriage,” there was NO NEED FOR ADDITIONAL SUITS, because all state laws outlawing “miscegenation” were null and void.

    Actually, nowhere in my post did I even cite Loving.

    You tried to spin and make it about Loving because, like the duplicitous lying bigot that you are, you couldn’t explain why, in the several decades years prior to Loving ever having come about, not a single case was decided in favor of the Full Faith and Credit Clause requiring states to recognize interracial marriages contracted in other states where they were legal.

    Next up:

    And as for your even dumber ploy regarding concealed carry laws, those refer to what you can legally do WITHIN THE BORDERS OF THE STATE WITH THE LAW. Are you really suggesting that because Arizona says you can openly carry your firearm in any daycare in the state that somehow it’s a violation of full faith & credit that you can’t do the same in New York?

    Yup. Because remember this?

    Because the constitution says that all states have to respect “the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State,” not just that they have to respect those that they don’t find icky.

    Comment by JennOfArk — May 11, 2012 @ 9:08 pm – May 11, 2012

    No exceptions written there. Suddenly you’re twisting yourself into a pretzel to make some up because you find the laws icky. LOL.

    Going all the way back to your “I provided a quote,” the equivalent of “but it’s got FOOTNOTES!” as a proof of veracity, I don’t care about your quote. It doesn’t change anything.

    Comment by JennOfArk — May 11, 2012 @ 11:50 pm – May 11, 2012

    So you admit that you don’t care about facts and won’t review anything that contradicts your already determined conclusions.

    That’s bigoted and irrational, but we already know that about you.

    Speaking of which:

    I have to say, I find it a bit of a mystery why the guy who is arguing against equal treatment under the law is referring to those who argue in favor of it as “bigots.” I challenge you to point out a single bigoted statement I’ve made.

    Easy. Here and here.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 12, 2012 @ 12:07 am - May 12, 2012

  3. God love you guys for trying. God love you.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — May 12, 2012 @ 12:26 am - May 12, 2012

  4. So, in defense of calling me a bigot, you link to 2 things, neither of which illustrate me being a bigot? classic.

    Since you’re so het up sure that full faith & credit arguments against miscegenation laws were found unpersuasive by the courts, please cite a case, any case, in which miscegenation laws were challenged on the basis of full faith & credit. Perhaps, you know, the courts never upheld an objection made on that basis because, you know, it was never challenged on that basis.

    As for your pathetic failure to understand the meaning and reach of full faith & credit, please explain to all of us how, if New York has a law that says “you can’t carry a gun in a daycare center in the state of New York” it is failing to respect a law that says “you CAN carry a gun in a daycare center in the state of Arizona.” Nuff said there.

    As for failure to “review anything that contradicts your already determined conclusions,” you presented nothing for “review.” I read the quote you posted, and as already noted, there’s nothing in it regarding direct democracy via referendum as the preferred way of determining the rights of individuals or groups of citizens. It contradicts nothing, while at the same time, not in one iota undermining the point I’ve made all along, which was that Madison did not endorse or favor referenda for determining or protecting rights and civil liberties. In other words, I don’t have to “admit” anything, because you’ve not made a case. Unless of course you want to pick up the challenge and explain to all of us how the quote you provided is actually a ringing endorsement of government via referendum, in direct contradiction to everything else Madison wrote.

    So, to sum up: 1) the “bigoted statements” you attribute as the basis of calling me a bigot were not made by me; 2) you mischaracterize the history of legal challenges of miscegenation laws by pretending that there was a case made on full faith & credit grounds that was rejected by the courts (when in fact, no such case was ever made); 3) you continue to exhibit a tragic lack of understanding of the nature of full faith & credit; and 4) you’ve assailed me for not reviewing a quote which was posted in full here, so there wasn’t much for review, and said that I “admit” I “don’t care about facts” when in reality, the quote you posted for “review” was already fully addressed, but because it doesn’t say what you claim it does – that Madison was a huge fan of apportioning rights via plebiscite, somehow I’m dishonest for not reading something into it something that isn’t there and that in fact is contradicted by pretty much everything else the man ever wrote.

    In short, you’re doing a bang-up job of convincing everyone that you really are much dumber than you appear at first glance. Congratulations on an own-goal brilliantly executed!

    Comment by JennOfArk — May 12, 2012 @ 12:46 am - May 12, 2012

  5. Hey Jim, guess what?

    Since gay and lesbian bigots like you are screaming for all Republicans to be murdered, why don’t we just point out what a lying little hypocrite you are?

    Or how about the fact that you and your fellow barebackers have driven the US HIV rate among children, teens, and yound adults to twice that of sub-Saharan Africa, mainly because you can’t keep your hands off your own kids?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 12, 2012 @ 12:52 am - May 12, 2012

  6. Jenn, you attached your comment to my blog post and used some very uncivil language without even acknowledging my arguments. Hence, my followup.

    And oh yeah, I thought it was a bad thing to question someone’s patriotism. Oh, wait, that’s when your allies alleged that W did it all the time (when he, in fact, never did such a thing).

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — May 12, 2012 @ 1:24 am - May 12, 2012

  7. Mr. Blatt, I’m sorry if you were offended that I addressed Mr. Kristol’s absurdity in comments on your post, but since your post mostly consisted of a link and reiteration of Mr. Kristol’s piece, I didn’t think it out of place. I am perplexed as to what you considered “uncivil” in my language, seeing as how some of your regular commenters do little other than fling baseless insults against those with whom they disagree, while I at least demonstrated what was objectionable about Kristol’s description of the goings-on in North Carolina as a prime example of “Madisonian democracy.”

    As for me questioning Mr. Kristol’s patriotism, he has a long history of impugning the patriotism of those with whom he does not agree, of rhetorically asking why they “hate freedom” or “hate America,” and as such I don’t think it’s unfair to question him similarly when he wilfully and knowingly misrepresents the opinions of the founding fathers by suggesting that James Madison was down with letting the majority decide which rights individuals and minority groups should be allowed to enjoy.

    Comment by JennOfArk — May 12, 2012 @ 1:39 am - May 12, 2012

  8. ND30 >> I forget … do you include me in the group you designate as barebackers? I can never remember.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — May 12, 2012 @ 1:51 am - May 12, 2012

  9. Since you’re so het up sure that full faith & credit arguments against miscegenation laws were found unpersuasive by the courts, please cite a case, any case, in which miscegenation laws were challenged on the basis of full faith & credit. Perhaps, you know, the courts never upheld an objection made on that basis because, you know, it was never challenged on that basis.

    Comment by JennOfArk — May 12, 2012 @ 12:46 am – May 12, 2012

    Or perhaps it’s because you simply didn’t do your research.

    When a couple asks a court to recognize their marriage in this type of situation, the analysis has always been very different. A marriage is not the same thing as a court judgment. The mere act by one state of marrying a couple has never been entitled to the kind of mandatory legal enforcement that judgments receive in our legal system. Rather, courts have always treated the recognition of out-of-state marriages as a matter of public policy, and various factors have influenced the decisions that states have made about recognizing an out-of-state marriage that could not have been entered into locally.

    And:

    Most scholars and commentators in the field of Conflict of Laws — the area of law that deals with this kind of dispute across state lines — agree that states should have the power to decline to give effect to an out-of-state marriage that is inconsistent with local laws, whether because that marriage violates public policy, because it was the result of a couple deliberately evading local marriage laws, or for some other reason.

    Now, since we know what comes next, which is you screaming about Liberty University and whatnot as you desperately try to spin out of your own stupidity and failure to do any research rather than repeating talking points, here is the author’s bio.

    They’re called facts, Jenn. We know you don’t bother with them, as you so proudly bragged; you just repeat Obama talking points, the arrogance of ignorance all you need to spout your usual drivel.

    And, to no one’s surprise, you’re a huge advocate and supporter of Sadly, No! and Tintin, which means you support and endorse this.

    Very rational there. And also showing that not only are you a bigot, you’re a Jew-hating bigot as well.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 12, 2012 @ 2:29 am - May 12, 2012

  10. I am perplexed as to what you considered “uncivil” in my language, seeing as how some of your regular commenters do little other than fling baseless insults against those with whom they disagree

    Comment by JennOfArk — May 12, 2012 @ 1:39 am – May 12, 2012

    Let’s post an example of what JennofArk and her friends at Sadly, No! consider civil discourse.

    Dan Blatt is a loathsome piece of sh*t who will sell out other gay people in order to curry the favor of straight Republicans who pat him on the head every now but then call him a c*ck-sucking heels-in-the-air fudge-packed girlie-boy behind his back (even though only the girlie-boy part is actually true). Dan says all this stuff because the probability that any gay man would ever give enough of a sh!t about Dan to visit him in a hospital, much less to have a relationship with him, is remote — as remote as the possibility that Dan will ever have sex with anyone other than a blind leper in a darkened truck stop in rural Alabama, and even then the leper will have to down a fifth of Jack Daniel’s before he can bring himself to do it. F*ck you, Dan, you wretched, illiterate prick.

    My, my. Usually hypocrites aren’t nearly that stupidly blatant, but JennofArk is special.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 12, 2012 @ 2:49 am - May 12, 2012

  11. North Dallas CineSnatchy,

    If JennOfArk has to take responsibility for those words in your second blockquote of Post #60, then it follows that you placed those scissors in Romney’s hands. Just sayin’ …

    Comment by Cinesnatch — May 12, 2012 @ 3:50 am - May 12, 2012

  12. JennofArk, are you Tintin? In other words, did you author that post that NDT referenced?

    Comment by Pat — May 12, 2012 @ 8:40 am - May 12, 2012

  13. Jennifer, actor212, Tintin, ALL ONE GUY!

    Comment by PeeJ — May 12, 2012 @ 10:53 am - May 12, 2012

  14. Thank you RT,

    So you support someone having multiple partners, since they can’t, that’s ‘discrimination’.

    You support 10 year olds being married in CA, since that’s ‘age discrimination’.

    You support the blind getting driving livenses., since that is ‘disability discrimination’.

    You support psychopaths getting grenade launchers, since that’s discriminating against the mentally ill.

    After all, all those groups don’t meat the current requirements for recognition, so it must be discrimination.

    Try again.

    Jenn has the same privilege as any other woman of having her union with a man recognized. Again how is that discriminatory?

    Comment by The_Livewire — May 12, 2012 @ 10:58 am - May 12, 2012

  15. Also it’s telling that Jenn’s ‘constitutional scholar’ nature can’t even answer my question.

    Comment by The_Livewire — May 12, 2012 @ 11:04 am - May 12, 2012

  16. LW, it doesn’t follow that I support any of those things. After all, the law allows and even enforces many kinds of discrimination, such as the ones you mentioned. There’s ample legal history in our country grappling with the issue of what types of discrimination should be legal and what should not. That gets us into rational and strict scrutiny, and so on.

    But your original question didn’t asked about that. You merely asked how it was discrimination. And, as I said: Jenn has the legal right to marry my long-term partner and I do not, purely on the basis of gender. That, obviously, is gender discrimination.

    Now, whether this discrimination is just and whether it should be legal, those are follow up questions, which I’d be happy to answer after you acknowledge gender discrimination is at play here.

    Comment by rt — May 12, 2012 @ 11:13 am - May 12, 2012

  17. LW, I’m not your bitch; I don’t have to come at your beck and call to answer the most recent ridiculous rhetorical question you’ve come up with. Perhaps you may have noticed that I hadn’t posted here since late last night before jumping up and down and screeching about how I “can’t answer your question.” What, you think I have a GayPatriot beacon like the bat signal or something that alerts me when some dummy wants to waste my time with stupid counterfactuals? Well, let’s put that to rest: I don’t.

    Now, as to your dumb rhetorical questions:
    1) there are documented social problems – that affect all of us – that occur with polygamy, including but not limited to expulsion of young men from their homes to prevent “competition” for women, marriage and sex with girls as young as 10, failure to support multiple wives and their children which leads to welfare dependency. As soon as you can either tell us why those factors should have no impact on polygamy remaining illegal, or conversely, how allowing two persons of the same sex to marry creates the same problems, it’s as we’ve pointed out before, a really stupid argument.
    2) No one, other than the polygamists you insist are the equivalent of same-sex couples, advocates marriage of 10 year olds, and given that they aren’t of the age of legal consent, it’s hard to see how they could enter into a legal contract with another person of their own volition.
    Another dumb argument.
    3) A driver’s license is predicated on being able to safely perform the function of driving. Those who are blind or have seizure disorder clearly don’t fit those parameters; granting them licenses would endanger the lives of other drivers and passengers on the roads. As soon as you can demonstrate how allowing a same-sex couple to marry endangers the lives of others, you might have a point other than the one on top of your head.
    4) To the best of my knowledge, no one outside of the military is allowed free access to grenade launchers, regardless of their mental health. You might as well be ranting about how your second amendment rights are being infringed because you’re not allowed to possess a personal nuclear warhead. Again, this is just a dumb argument, unless you can demonstrate how allowing a same-sex couple to marry might result in innocent bystanders having their limbs blown off.

    Now, don’t screech again about how I “can’t” respond to you; I CAN, but I WILL NOT as long as you continue to posit such blatantly absurd tripe as you have here. Taking on your stupid arguments is like a Dick Cheney quail hunt – it’s not sporting.

    Comment by JennOfArk — May 12, 2012 @ 12:39 pm - May 12, 2012

  18. Not gay, nor a bigot, nor a barebacker, nor do I have any kids – & I find the ad hominem in place of anything more relevant or substantial very, VERY amusing … but what the heck, feel free to keep digging … you never know: maybe there’s a magical pony for you at the bottom.

    For some REAL Republican “Family Values” insight, Google “armchair subversive blog” – but make sure you bring a barf-bag … & keep in mind that every single sickening crime listed there (& the sheer quantity of that catalog of horrors is literally breathtaking) is on the public record.

    It doesn’t take Sherlock Holmes to deduce that psychopaths – including sexual predators like pedophiles – will almost all naturally gravitate toward an authoritarian culture where they can acquire (& abuse) the maximum power over their victims. When that culture denies their existence &/or doesn’t do anything to weed them out, there’s an excellent chance they’ll wind up becoming its dominant subculture: they’re usually both intelligent & very skilled at psychological & emotional manipulation – & they play by their own rules.

    Comment by jim — May 12, 2012 @ 12:45 pm - May 12, 2012

  19. After all, the law allows and even enforces many kinds of discrimination, such as the ones you mentioned.

    Thank you for conceeding that. That is the point. You want the government to recognize same sex partnerships, make that argument (Surprise, as I have). Don’t whine that it is ‘unfair’ unless you want to be supporting 10 year olds getting married (as the 9th circut has).

    As an aside, it’s still not discriminatory. She can marry any one person of the opposite sex. You can married any one person of the opposite sex.

    Comment by The_Livewire — May 12, 2012 @ 3:06 pm - May 12, 2012

  20. And thank you Jenn for proving you *can’t* answer my question.

    Actually, the 10 year olds and grenade launchers are directly from the 9th Circut’s ruling on Prop 8.

    Comment by The_Livewire — May 12, 2012 @ 3:20 pm - May 12, 2012

  21. LW, I’m not “conceding” that — I’ve never said anything else.

    And of course it’s still discriminatory. Yes, Jenn and I both have the right to marry a member of the opposite sex, so when it comes to that right, there’s no discrimination. But it’s simultaneously true that Jenn has the legal right to marry my long-term partner and I do not, purely on the basis of gender.

    You have found an aspect of current marriage law that is not discriminatory. I have named another aspect that is discriminatory. Ergo, the while you’ve established the law is not discriminatory in every imaginable way, I have established that it’s discriminatory in at least one way — gender discrimination.

    Thus, I’ve answered your question, ““How is that discriminatory?”

    Comment by rt — May 12, 2012 @ 3:42 pm - May 12, 2012

  22. Taking on your stupid arguments is like a Dick Cheney quail hunt – it’s not sporting

    I nominate this for best line in the thread.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — May 12, 2012 @ 4:12 pm - May 12, 2012

  23. And a blind person can’t get a drivers license, RT. Your point?

    There are qualifications for government recognition. You aren’t singled out for not meeting them. A blind man can’t get a driver’s license. You can’t marry a 10 year old. In both cases why? Because the qualifications set for the privilege are not met. You can’t marry a man any more than I can. So how is that discrimination based on orientation? Jenn can get married if the relationship meets the qualifications. So can my sister? Again, how is that singling out sexual orientation? Men can enter it. Women can enter it.

    Comment by The_Livewire — May 12, 2012 @ 5:20 pm - May 12, 2012

  24. Name for us any other legal contract in which the parties’ genitals determine whether or not they may legally enter into the contract.

    Comment by JennOfArk — May 12, 2012 @ 5:52 pm - May 12, 2012

  25. How about the left’s favorite, hiring and employment quotas based on gender?

    Or mandatory pay levels based on gender?

    Or contracts set aside by the government for female-owned businesses?

    Seems you like genital-based discrimination a lot, Jenn.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 12, 2012 @ 6:25 pm - May 12, 2012

  26. Well, it’s clear Jenn can’t answer my question honestly, so she’s off to non-sequeter land.

    Still, I’ll amuse her. States requiring no copay for routine mammograms/pap smears. Congratulations, you lose, again.

    Do you agree with the 9th circut that once a privilege has been extended to a group by a state it can’t be revoked? Or do you agree with the President that Prop 8 should stand since it was determined by the state?

    Comment by The_Livewire — May 12, 2012 @ 6:27 pm - May 12, 2012

  27. Seems you like genital-based discrimination a lot, Jenn.

    Which is way less kinker than it sounds. 😉

    Comment by The_Livewire — May 12, 2012 @ 6:28 pm - May 12, 2012

  28. What you don’t get is a lot, NDT. And when I say “don’t get,” I’m sure it’s true on multiple levels.

    Name for me any other contract between two individuals where the government grants or disallows the contract based on the parties genitalia. Last time I checked, quotas weren’t considered contracts.

    Comment by JennOfArk — May 12, 2012 @ 6:30 pm - May 12, 2012

  29. If you amuse me, it’s through your poor understanding of the term “contract”. Last time I checked, insurance coverage isn’t extended or denied based on the insured’s genitalia.

    Comment by JennOfArk — May 12, 2012 @ 6:34 pm - May 12, 2012

  30. Of course, that’s coming from Jenn, who says Government contracts awarded on the basis of the gender of the business owner/contractor are not contracts.

    Don’t bother Bigot Jenn with facts. Lol.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 12, 2012 @ 6:42 pm - May 12, 2012

  31. thank you for displaying your ignorance.

    When you sign up for a policy, you agree between yourself and the insurance company for coverage of services. That’s a contract.

    When a doctor agrees to a payment schedule for services rendered, it includes writing off for non-covered services. That’s a contract.

    both are contracts with conditions specifically based on genitals. A man can’t enter a contract to have his mammograms covered at a routine benefit.

    Would you like to display more ignorance for us Jenn?

    Comment by The_Livewire — May 12, 2012 @ 6:43 pm - May 12, 2012

  32. Ok, now smartguy tell me – where’s the law that says “insurers can only enter into contracts with insureds who have male genitalia”? The services offered vary based on the gender of the insured, but the ability to ENTER INTO THE CONTRACT does not. The law doesn’t care. The only place where the law DOES stipulate that parties to a contract have to be of specific genders is the MARRIAGE contract. Again, you’re free to try to think of another one in which the government says, “oh, you’re both men so you can’t make this contract together” or “you’re a woman so you can’t enter into this contract” or whatever. They don’t exist.

    So, here’s your opportunity to make yet a bigger fool of yourself by trying again.

    Comment by JennOfArk — May 12, 2012 @ 6:51 pm - May 12, 2012

  33. Just to add – the law doesn’t stipulate that a man can’t buy an insurance policy that covers mammograms as a routine benefit. Men don’t typically buy policies for themselves that cover mammograms because…well, they’re men, so that would be stupid (just like your example is), but there’s no law prohibiting them from buying such a policy or “entering into a contract” for such a policy from an insurer.

    Comment by JennOfArk — May 12, 2012 @ 7:21 pm - May 12, 2012

  34. LW, in comment 73, you asked me my point. Here it is: I entered this conversation because you asked, “How is that discriminatory?” I’m answering you.

    Regarding the rest comment 73: Nowhere in this thread have I said that current marriage law discriminates based on orientation. In comments 39, 66, and 71, I identified it as discrimination based on gender.

    As for a blind person who can’t get a driver’s license: yes, that’s discrimination based on a disability — and that’s okay. As I said in comment 66:

    “After all, the law allows and even enforces many kinds of discrimination, such as the ones you mentioned. There’s ample legal history in our country grappling with the issue of what types of discrimination should be legal and what should not.”

    But that’s off topic, because the issue at hand is “How is that discriminatory?” — not whether such discrimination should be legal.

    Now, back on topic, please explain me how a law that permits Jenn to do something but forbids me from doing it, ENTIRELY based on gender, is not a case of gender discrimination.

    By the way, invoking the word “qualifications” doesn’t get you out of the discrimination quandary: Qualifications can themselves be discriminatory (look at the qualifications for getting into some country clubs back in the 50s, or the 19th amendment, which eliminated a discriminatory qualification for voting).

    Comment by rt — May 12, 2012 @ 9:12 pm - May 12, 2012

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.