Via a diary by Daniel at Tacitus
RedState has endorsed South Carolina Senate candidate Republican Jim DeMint. In fact, RedState said he represents “a dying breed.”
All I can say to that is I certainly hope so.
Gays and lesbians should not be allowed to teach in public schools, Republican Jim DeMint said Sunday in a U.S. Senate debate.
The remark came late in the first debate between DeMint and Democrat Inez Tenenbaum — a testy and acrimonious hour that broke little new ground on their positions on most issues.
DeMint, a Greenville congressman, said the government should not endorse homosexuality and “folks teaching in school need to represent our values.”
Tenenbaum, the state education superintendent, called DeMint’s position “un-American.”
DeMint said after the debate that he would not require teachers to admit to being gay, but if they were “openly gay, I do not think that they should be teaching at public schools.”
What a peach of a guy….he’ won’t require teachers to admit to being gay; he’ll let the ones who hide in their closets keep their jobs. Hell, forget the formalities, let’s make him Emperor right now.
Surely the GOP can do better than this.
Agreed.
I contributed to DeMint in the past because I supported his views on trade; he gets nothing more from me, however. I don’t expect the Republican party to be pro-gay marriage (though I am); I do expect them not to nominate bigots, however.
(A more passionate — and, unfortunately, typo-laden — opinion is posted on the Redstate donate-to-DeMint thread.)
Nice post on Red State von…
e
Scrolled down and found your comment, Von: excellent. (The rest of the thread’s kinda depressing after reading DeMint’s comments: sorry no one else felt like you did.)
I’m still supporting DeMint. If you want an explanation why, it’s here.
And please, don’t let’s pretend that the GOP enjoys a monopoly on this brand of stupidity. Counterexamples upon request.
If it was one dumb comment said to get votes, it would be despicable.
If it’s what Jim DeMint genuinely believes – that discrimination against gays and lesbians ought to be enshrined in law – then I have to ask:
If he’d made the same comment about Catholics – the government should not endorse Catholicism and “folks teaching in school need to represent our values” and therefore “he would not require teachers to admit to being Catholic, but if they were ‘openly Catholic, I do not think that they should be teaching at public schools’ – would you regard it simply as “one dumb comment”?
If you would then oppose him, why do you regard discrimination against gays and lesbians as less important than discrimination on the grounds of religion?
What enjoys explicit Constitutional protection, Jesurgislac? What doesn’t?
By the way, you are speaking to the man who thinks that religion deserves the same scrutiny as any other ideology or belief system. FYI.
What enjoys explicit Constitutional protection, Jesurgislac? What doesn’t?
That doesn’t answer my question. Are you going to answer it?
Yeah, it does, actually. Since 100% of exchanges with you on all topics culminate in you bawling “bigot,” you’ll excuse me for not fully engaging.
Yeah, it does, actually.
No, it doesn’t, actually. But I guess you’re not going to, and somehow I’m not surprised.
Jesurgislac: If it’s what Jim DeMint genuinely believes – that discrimination against gays and lesbians ought to be enshrined in law – then I have to ask:
He’s already on the record as supporting certain forms of legal discrimination against gays and lesbians. I’m more curious if he has stated clearly what forms of discrimination he would not support?
The constitutional question doesn’t settle the moral question. Slavery & Jim Crow were once constitutional but were never moral. (Not trying to draw a comparison; those are just the most obvious examples that spring to mind of “immoral but constitutional.”)
In a way Constitutional protection of religion cuts the other way, because it’s clearly unconstitutional for schools to fire teachers on the basis of religion. Whereas if the balance on the Supreme Court shifts &/or if the marriage amendment passed and led to a general conclusion that the equal protection clause allowed discrimination based on sexual orientation, it’d be constitutional for schools to fire teachers on the basis of sexual orientation.
Therefore, a Senator has much more power to harm people based on their sexual orientation than on their Catholicism. He’s also more likely to succeed at this in the current political climate.
(And of course the Senator can definitely vote to continue to allow private employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.)
I guess you’d could argue that being in favor of religious discrimination shows an ignorance of the Constitution that supporting sexual orientation discrimination does not. That’s kind of a reach, though.
Disagreement with the your preferred understanding of the Constitution does not constitute ignorance, Katherine. Mormon history rather supports my view.
And please, let me know when the United States Senate shows itself apt to release homosexual school teachers from public service.
Now if we’re talking moral arguments against discrimination most people agree that you should not discriminate based on:
1) something that a person has no power to change, or
2) something so fundamental to someone’s identity or conscience that the person should not be made to change it.
So:
1) I think sexual orientation is harder to change than religion.
2) I think sexual orientation is just as fundamental to one’s identity as religion.
3) I do not see any immorality in being gay.
4) Therefore, I think it is wrong to try to force people to try to change their sexual orientation (or to be celibate if not).
5) Therefore, I think it is wrong to give people lower legal status because of their sexual orientation.
I’m pretty sure, though not certain, that you disagree with me about one of those steps. I don’t know which one it is, though.
I have a question:
Although I’m probably warmer and fuzzier on the issue than DeMint-types, I’d vote for him, if I lived in South Carolina. But I don’t, so I won’t:
For you liberal types, Is there any position that someone can honorably take against a homosexual-oriented issue?
As it stands now, I’m juss thinkin’ where I stand:
1. Decriminalize sodomy? For
2. Expand federal civil rights to include gays? On fence (could be persuaded either way)
3. Permit gay adoptions? For (in limited cases)
4. Legalize gay marriage? Against
5. Civil unions? For
6. Expand Hate crimes to include gays? Against (bad idea in general)
7. Forbid gay teachers? Against
If I wuz a politician in South Carolina, I guess I’d have to talk in vague sweepin’ terms, that we are ALL created in God’s image, with innate dignity, and this means ALL people, no exceptions, even disfavored groups, because we ALL have a moral duty to include ALL people in the American dream….. I guess stuff like dat.
That be my 2 cents.
“And please, don’t let’s pretend that the GOP enjoys a monopoly on this brand of stupidity.”
I don’t believe anyone made that contention, although I’d bet you anything you like that the GOP is the market leader in this particular brand of stupidity.
There are a couple of ways to go. You could either decide that this sort of explicit bigotry is an inextricable component of Jim Demint, and then weigh his positives vs this defect, or you could see it as an opporunity to educate Jim. Maybe he’s mistaken about the beliefs of his constituents and supporters. Maybe it’s an opportunity for him to be a leader.
I’m curious, is there a candidate that is either pro-life AND pro-gay or pro-abortion AND anti-gay. I realize that there are _people_ who are, but I’m wondering if any candidate has taken either of these positions. I ask realizing that it is possible to fudge these positions, but I’d be interested in any clear or relatively clear examples.
RedState, as I’ve expressed before, is largely a collective of shrieking, bigoted yahoos, and deserves no more attention than Little Green Footballs. I would like to believe they represent nothing more than the lunatic fringe, but sadly, their representatives dominate the Republican Party right now. When an actual conservative party exists again in this country – one that isn’t going to try to tell me how to live my life and define my family – let me know. Until then, I’m voting and donating to their opponents until either sane Republicans take control or their twisted little hatefest goes the way of the Whigs.
Navy Davy: If I wuz a politician in South Carolina, I guess I’d have to talk in vague sweepin’ terms, that we are ALL created in God’s image, with innate dignity, and this means ALL people, no exceptions, even disfavored groups, because we ALL have a moral duty to include ALL people in the American dream….. I guess stuff like dat
And that would be a respectable choice to make, in my view. All politicians have to make compromises – and especially in their speech patterns. 😉
Navy Davy, why, oh why, should some Americans get rights that others don’t? Why should heterosexuals get to marry – once, twice, as many times as they want to, while homosexuals are denied a civil marriage certificate? Why should gays only be given the chance to adopt in “limited cases”? The standard objection to hate crimes legislation is that no one should be given special treatment. Why should straight Americans be given special treatment?
“He’s already on the record as supporting certain forms of legal discrimination against gays and lesbians.”
Funny how that could be easily applied to Bill Clinton and get a somewhat different reaction from the liberals on this board.
I’m specifically thinking of the “Defense of Marriage Act” and the atrocious but totally within Presidential control “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy.
Either you totally misunderstood what I just wrote or I totally misunderstood what you wrote when you said that religion “enjoys explicit Constitutional protection.”
I was agreeing with you: the Constitution is clearer about religious discrimination than sexual orientation discrimination.
Do you think there’s a plausible argument that you can Constitutionally discriminate against Catholic schoolteachers? I can certainly believe there was discrimination against Mormons and the courts did allowed it, but I don’t think that made it constitutional to do so anymore than the Court’s acquiescence in segregation made that constitutional.
Is the issue that I should have said “contempt for the Constitution” or “a willingness to violate the Constitution” rather than “ignorance of the Constitution”? Okay, sure, whatever.
Why should heterosexuals get to marry – once, twice, as many times as they want to, while homosexuals are denied a civil marriage certificate?
Because otherwise civilisation will be destroyed. We’ve been over this!
Navy
I’m one of those crazy left centrists who think the government shouldn’t be in the “marriage” business at all – gay or straight. It should only oversee civil contracts. “Marriage” is under the purview of religious organizations.
In essence the government only got involved in “marriage” originally to keep women from becoming property owners and then, as times changed, to allow women to become property owners (flaky and inconcise – yes but not far from the mark).
Let religions oversee the spiritual bond. Let the courts oversee the civil one.
Sebastian, Clinton clearly wanted to lift the ban on gays in the military and chickened out. It wasn’t admirable, but it’s hardly comparable to DeMint.
You know what I think of DOMA. The Democrats are for the most part pathetic on gay marriage and gay rights in general, but there is no question that the Republicans are worse, and you know that very well. Forced to choose, I’ll take the best that lack all conviction over the worst full of passionate intensity.
“I’m curious, is there a candidate that is either pro-life AND pro-gay or pro-abortion AND anti-gay.”
Depends on how you define the terms, but the most common Democratic position is to be pro-choice and support DOMA and oppose gay marriage. Some Democratic candidates–I believe Herseth and Tenenbaum, but I may be mistaken–support both Roe and the FMA.
The other combination is very rare in a political candidate. My Massachusetts state rep., Tim Toomey, is the only one I know of. There are probably other state representatives as well, but I don’t know about anyone in Congress.
RedState, as I’ve expressed before, is largely a collective of shrieking, bigoted yahoos….
So very true.
Look what you’ve become, Moe.
By the way, I think this church agrees with me.
I answer the right, Honorable Ironfish Lung in my own, inimitable style:
Navy Davy, why, oh why, should some Americans get rights that others don’t?
Well, it happens all the time. Examples:
1. 34-year old Americans have no right to run for Prez
2. 17-year old Americans have no right to vote.
3. Gay Americans have no right to serve openly in the military (Remember when Clinton signed “don’t ask, don’t tell:))
4. 64-year old Americans have no right to Medi-Care bens.
5. Male Americans have no right to marry other Male Americans.
6. Military Americans lose certain First Amendment rights, while wearin’ the uniform.
7. Female Americans have the right to reject a marriage proposal from someone based on race and religion.
8. Male Americans have no right to avoid the military draft, whereas Female Americans do have the right to avoid such draft.
I could go on. But, you get the point, my ingenuous young friend:)
Why should heterosexuals get to marry – once, twice, as many times as they want to, while homosexuals are denied a civil marriage certificate?
Because there isn’t a right to gay marriage in the Constiution, and men have been exclusively marryin’ women, for, like, 3 million years.
Why should gays only be given the chance to adopt in “limited cases”?
Because there are circumstances, where orphans have it so rough, that the adoption of two committed loving devoted gay parents, is preferable to the status quo.
However, adoption by a married couple, mom & dad, is probably better for the kid, in general.
The standard objection to hate crimes legislation is that no one should be given special treatment. Why should straight Americans be given special treatment?
I would abolish all hate crime legislation, ‘cuz it’s bogus. So, I wouldn’t want to further this extend this bogusity to my Gay American brethren.
Of course, beating up a gay person, because he is gay is despicable. So, I’d be in favor of publically beating up the culprit in that circumstance.
How’s dat?
Sebastian Holsclaw: I’m specifically thinking of the “Defense of Marriage Act” and the atrocious but totally within Presidential control “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy.
Agreed – two instances where Bill Clinton failed to do the right thing. He failed to veto the “Defense of Marriage Act” (though, if we’re doing party politics, who voted the 15 nays?), and he failed to push through his promise to an end to anti-gay discharges in the military.
And if Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is an issue that matters to you:
Back twenty years ago, I knew half a dozen people who were in the military and who had promising careers – and who were all, discreetly, gay. Not one of them is in the military now – all of them were discharged for being gay, usually after some truly unpleasant and disgusting investigation of what they would have preferred to keep private. I’ve never considered this fair or right – and I’ve frequently thought it remarkably stupid and short-sighted of the Pentagon to prefer discrimination.
Woah, there.
First, for L.J.’s benefit, I happen to be the mythical guy who’s pro-life (with some exceptions) and pro-gay marriage. Moe is another member of the mythos.
As for “shrieking, bigoted yahoos,” two thoughts
1. The posting rules do not permit gross generalizations like this, because they are (a) invariably incorrect (b) stupid and (c) really, really rude to 2.5 of your hosts: Sebastian, Moe, and .5 of von. Quit it now. (There’s a sometime exception to this rule for LGF, but only because Charles Johnson is insufferably idiotic.)
2. I repeat what I posted on Tacitus:
Red State supports a bigot? Who’d have thunk it?
Next, you’ll be telling New Republic Online believes adjusting real income numbers for inflation is just liberal chicanery.
I think the difference between Clinton and DeMint is about having the power to do what you profess. Clinton had the power to end the ban against gays in the military but did not. Therefore it wasn’t that important to him. DeMint, even if elected to the Senate, will not have the power (or be able to contribute to power able) to ban gays from teaching.
I do not choose to support DeMint. But I do think it is silly for gay people to give so much credit to a man who had the power to change things for them, and chose to sell out their interests, while castigating a man who openly professes to dislike their interests, but who cannot change them.
I’ve seen an interesting parallel discussion in California circles about Gov. Schwarzenegger’s position. Most other gay people I know castigate him for his gay marriage position even though it is indistinguishable from Clinton’s.
Clinton had the power to end the ban against gays in the military but did not. Therefore it wasn’t that important to him.
So has George W. Bush had the power to end the ban against gays in the military – but not only has he not done so, he’s supported it. Therefore, as you support George W. Bush, ending the ban against gays in the military is clearly not that important to you.
I do think it is silly for gay people to even consider supporting a man who has the power to change things for them, and chose to sell out their interests… would you agree, Sebastian?
Sebastian?
“Clinton had the power to end the ban against gays in the military but did not.”
You’re joking, right?
Unless you mean right after Clinton had the power to completely change our healthcare laws, he had the power to end the ban against gays in the military.
Because there isn’t a right to gay marriage in the Constiution,
There isn’t a right to straight marriage in the Constitution either, as I’m sure you’re aware.
and men have been exclusively marryin’ women, for, like, 3 million years.
A lot of people have been doing a lot of things for a long time. Is this supposed to be an argument of some sort?
BTW, I am pro-life and pro-gay marriage. Which makes me more pro-gay marriage than most elected Democrats including Kerry.
As for “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” I think the entire ban in any form is idiotic. I just find it silly that so many Democrats can absolutely count on gay support while they do nothing but lip service for the things that gay activists profess to want. (Yes I see the crude pun. But the phrase is accurate and not worth avoiding the pun for.)
“Unless you mean right after Clinton had the power to completely change our healthcare laws, he had the power to end the ban against gays in the military.”
No, he did in fact have the right to end the ban against gays in the military by Executive Order. Unless I am wrong, the same is not true of healthcare laws.
“Funny how that could be easily applied to Bill Clinton and get a somewhat different reaction from the liberals on this board.”
Tweet. 20 yards.
“men have been exclusively marryin’ women, for, like, 3 million years.”
Er. . no. There hasn’t been marriage for 3 million years. The only way you could argue in this direction is to say that among all the varied coupling and relationshiping that has gone on in the history of humanity, only the ones with one man and one woman were really ‘marriage’, which is, as I’m sure you know, completely circular. Also, humans owned other humans as property for a very long time, but eventually we decided this didn’t square with our ideals, so we stopped it.
“Because there are circumstances, where orphans have it so rough, that the adoption of two committed loving devoted gay parents, is preferable to the status quo.”
How bad would it have to be to make it a net positive to justify the horrors of being adopted by a gay couple? Would physical abuse be necessary? Extreme deprivation? Maybe ongoing torture?
Me, I think living in an orphanage or children’s home at all is far and away bad enough.
I did say largely shrieking, bigoted yahoos. I’ll note, Von, that I haven’t seen much of you or Moe posting at RedState lately (granted, Moe’s had more important things to do) and I usually read Sebastian’s posts here – I like the company better. But the typical RedStater is of a tone fairly alien to the Republicans here at ObWi.
I would offer that to critique another blog’s tone and/or sanity isn’t automatically grossly offensive – hell, most take it for granted that Charles Johnson is barking mad – especially a blog that overwhelmingly praised Zell Miller’s lunatic call to state-worship. I don’t see it violates posting rules to say, “that place sounds crazy.”
I would also suggest that to critique the Republican party as it stands today does not indict every Republican in America. It suggests that for those Republicans who are true conservatives – who do not support the notion of a religious, militaristic, fundamentally Statist government – the modern GOP does not represent you.
Hi Von, I hasten to add that I wanted examples of ‘candidates’, not ‘people’ so no slight was intended. As Katherine observes, the first example of pro-life AND pro-gay is certainly more common than the second of pro-abortion AND anti-gay. Moving away from the question of whether DeMint is stupid or craven, when we look at this as a simple question of population and where society is heading, I think this points out that more movement on the acceptance of gays in society is inevitable, yet abortion is less so. (I would add that I’m a basically pro-choice type)
It was my understanding that one train of thought among Republicans was that as Hispanics were often polled as anti-gay, this position was pitched as a logically demographic one. I also recall some discussions that an anti-gay pitch was a wedge issue for African-Americans. Setting aside any questions of what people really think, I wonder if anyone has any thoughts on that.
As for “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” I think the entire ban in any form is idiotic. I just find it silly that so many Democrats can absolutely count on gay support while they do nothing but lip service for the things that gay activists profess to want.
Isn’t it even more silly, though, that Republicans can count on any gay support…?
Seriously, Sebastian, if you support the Republican party despite its wholehearted support for DOMA, “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”, and the Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, you surely have not a leg to stand on when you complain about other gays supporting the Democratic party despite its often less than wholehearted opposition to DOMA, “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”, and the Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.
I don’t profess that gay issues are on the top of my list of voting issues–quite the contrary to many of my compatriots.
“I just find it silly that so many Democrats can absolutely count on gay support while they do nothing but lip service for the things that gay activists profess to want.”
Maybe they’re aware of the alternative. You don’t have to be very principled to be more principled than the GOP on this.
I don’t profess that gay issues are on the top of my list of voting issues–quite the contrary to many of my compatriots.
But if gay issues were at the top of your list of voting issues, would you be voting for George W. Bush? Somehow I doubt it.
Not that I’m saying they should be – that’s your decision. I’m just saying – Democratic representatives tend not to be that good, but they also tend to be way better than the Republican alternative.
And please, let me know when the United States Senate shows itself apt to release homosexual school teachers from public service.
A little slippery here, Tacitus. The Senate won’t because there would be enough opposition to stop it, not to mention that hiring and firing teachers is typically a local government function.
But I think a large number of Senate Republicans, and the Administration, would gladly do so. After all, these are people who are so bigoted that they fire Arabic language translators who happen to be gay. I guess the “gay agenda” is more frightening to them than terrorism.
And lets not forget the Senate’s power to confirm judges who might be inclined to favor Jim Demint’s values over silly notions like Equal Protection.
Sebastian
Are you too young to remember the political climate Clinton was working in?
Sadly, “don’t ask don’t tell” was a first down in a long drive toward the goal.
Shows how far from the goal we were. Are.
How bad would it have to be to make it a net positive to justify the horrors of being adopted by a gay couple? Would physical abuse be necessary? Extreme deprivation? Maybe ongoing torture?
Me, I think living in an orphanage or children’s home at all is far and away bad enough.
If I (or my spouse) dies, the children will be raised by the parent they still have. If a US gay couple has kids together and one of them dies, the other might loose the children completely if (s)he is not the biological parent. The children would loose both parents, because partners cannot adopt the children of their partner.
Btw; research here shows no difference between kids with gay and kids with heterosexual parents – and that includes sexual preferences of the kids (though not mentioned here that seems to be another point people are afraid of).
from About.com
“When President Clinton was running for office, the Department of Defense (DOD) had a policy (which was based upon Article 125 of the UCMJ), which *PROHITIED* homosexuals from serving in the military. If one was even suspected to be homosexual (whether or not they were actively engaging in homosexual conduct), they were investigated, and (if determined to be homosexual) discharged. Sometimes they were court-martialed. Often, they received Article 15s along with their discharge.
Clinton promised (as a campaign promise) to eliminate the restrictions about homosexuals serving in the military. When he was elected to office, he set about trying to make this happen, by drafting an Executive Order which would have ordered the Secretary of Defense to eliminate the policy.
This worried the members of Congress who introduced legislation which would have made the DOD policy into Federal Law, that Clinton (nor any other President) would not be able to over-ride. It was very clear that not only did Congress have enough votes to pass the law, but they had enough votes to over-ride any possible Presidential veto.
Clinton was now between a rock and a hard place. If he tried to enact an Executive Order, Congress would pass their legislation, and he could not afford (politically) to have his first veto over-ridden by Congress.
So, the negotiations began, which ultimately resulted in Clinton issuing an Executive Order for the Current “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. In exchange, Congress dropped the legislation which would have made a federal law, forever forbidding homosexuals to serve.”
I don’t profess that gay issues are on the top of my list of voting issues–quite the contrary to many of my compatriots.
Why not? What I’ve never understood is how otherwise intelligent, caring people can overlook discrimination or bigotry. To my mind, it’s a fundamental issue.
If a candidate advocated a return to segregation, I’m fairly certain most in this forum would condemn that candidate. Yet, it seems there are a fair amount who would be willing to overlook institutionalized bigotry against people based on their sexual preference.
Carsick: Thanks for the blurb on DADT. I recognize and appreciate the political realities confronting our last democratically-elected President but there are times when you have to stand fast in the box and take one for the team.
By the way, his tax plan is loony too.
Jadegold,
in your first at-bat? (g)
Sorry, Navy, I’m late to the party on this. Since you asked:
For you liberal types, Is there any position that someone can honorably take against a homosexual-oriented issue?
If you are against gay marriage, you are welcome to find a religious denomination and a congregation who do not endorse or perform gay marriages within their church.
You are welcome (though I will dispute you on this) to try to extract the word “marriage” from the contract of civil marriage. Any attempt to do so must apply equally to heterosexual unions as homosexual ones. However, if you agree a civil contract entered into by a heterosexual couple, currently referred to as a “marriage” does no damage to your religious union, which you also call a “marriage,” then I would find it difficult to accept an argument from you that the same civil contract when entered into by a homosexual couple causes your religious union any damage. I will dispute you on this because I was wed in a civil ceremony and I enjoy the rights that accompany that status… including being able to refer to my status as “married.”
You are not welcome to restrict other denominations or congregations from offering the sacrament of marriage to members of their congregation. That such denominations and congregations exist seems to be a missing element in this debate.
“It was very clear that not only did Congress have enough votes to pass the law, but they had enough votes to over-ride any possible Presidential veto.”
I dispute that the defenders of the DOD policy had a 2/3 majority in both houses. The Democrats were a majority in the Senate at the time and they were going to overrule Clinton’s first veto? Please. I’m not that naive and neither are you. Clinton took the path of least resistance. It let him pretend to be a hero while not changing the policy.
BTW if they could get a 2/3 majority, what does that say about a large number of allegedly pro-gay Democrats? Perhaps you should argue that Clinton adopted “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” because it would have revealed too many Democratic hypocrites who were happy with gay support if they never had to worry about voting for it Congress? Or was Clinton too much of a political ingenue to have thought of that?
Either way, Democrats are the pro-gay party in name but not deed.
You are not welcome to restrict other denominations or congregations from offering the sacrament of marriage to members of their congregation. That such denominations and congregations exist seems to be a missing element in this debate.
For clarity’s sake, the above refers to offering the sacrament to heterosexual and homosexual couples.
Trivia: Over 10% of past US presidents belonged to religious denominations that now endorse gay marriage.
i’m late to this party too. and after reading this thread, i still can’t figure out what the federal republican party stands for.
devolution of power to the states? not any more, we see “convenient federalism” instead.
free trade? explain textile, steel and shrimp tariffs.
pay-as-you-go budgetary policy? snicker.
isolationism? not so much.
smaller federal government? nope.
interventionist social conservatism, at home and abroad? AHA. now i see.
it’s odd — for years republicans have been lecturing democrats about the failure of govt intervention in social problems. they were largely right. And yet, having achieved their twin goals of capturing power and moving democrats away from 1960-70s notions of welfare, the republican party seems determined to repeat the dems mistakes, but on an even larger scale.
go figure.
Francis
Sebastian: Either way, Democrats are the pro-gay party in name but not deed.
While the Republicans are the anti-gay party in both name and deed. So I’m still not sure where you’re coming from criticizing gay activists for supporting a party that gives at least lip service to being pro-gay, when the alternative is supporting a party that gives rather more than lip service to being anti-gay.
Sebastian: “The Democrats were a majority in the Senate at the time and they were going to overrule Clinton’s first veto? Please. I’m not that naive and neither are you.”
Actually, they might very well have. I have no idea whatsoever how old you are, and thus whether you remember the politics of 1993, but basically: in addition to their normal fractiousness, the Democrats in Congress had gotten very used to not having a President in their own party, and thus to thinking of their role as fighting discrete rear-guard actions to prevent Presidents from doing (what they saw as) too much damage. Since they were also the only Democrats in federal institutions, they had also had no one behind whom they had needed to rally, so they were out of practice on that. And a lot of them saw Clinton as a sort of upstart. So they were abundantly willing to go against him, and did, on a whole slew of issues. On this one in particular, more or less everyone saw Clinton’s having promised to allow gays to serve as being right on the merits but a political disaster, and would have been totally willing to bail.
Remember the BTU tax that was dismembered by the Senate Energy Committee? GATT and NAFTA, which Clinton passed (iirc) with more Republican support than Democratic? His budget proposal, which went down to the wire before passing with one vote?
Serious party discipline is a GOP thing. Democrats defect constantly, and would have done in this case, especially since the uniformed military had basically said, over our dead bodies.
fdl,
They stand for nothing but power. They cater to selfishness, bigotry, and religious idiocy. They mistake belligerence for toughness. They have no compunction about doing or saying anything that helps them maintain power.
I know it is against the rules here to criticize “Republicans” en masse, because that includes people who do not endorse torture, bigotry, and the like. OK. But why exactly are these people Republicans? What is the appeal of the gang of thugs and morons who run today’s Republican Party? And is there anything that is so offensive, so disgusting, that it would cause these individuals to abandon their support, despite agreeing with Bush on some other issues? Apparently not.
I don’t understand, but I fear for the country.
in your first at-bat? (g)
Yeah, sometimes. Sometimes you just have to dig in and take the pain.
If you really think about it, Clinton would’ve been better off taking the whack of having a veto overridden.
The Senate won’t because….hiring and firing teachers is typically a local government function.
Oh, thanks, Bernard. Exactly.
But I think a large number of Senate Republicans, and the Administration, would gladly do so.
Eh. I worked in the Administration. My corner of it? Not really anti-gay. You are free to demonize as you wish.
After all, these are people who are so bigoted that they fire Arabic language translators who happen to be gay.
I regret to inform you, Bernard, that neither the Administration nor Senate Republicans administer the United States military’s personnel policies. Which, in this case, were implemented by one Bill Clinton.
Gromit, no doubt Jim DeMint may fail to adhere to your Constitutional interpretations.
Fascinating, really. Most Republicans I know can understand why a person might be a Democrat. Not terrifically hard, after all — just wrong. So many Democrats, by contrast, have an increasingly difficult time grasping why one might be a Republican. The blinding power of hate. A pity.
Serious party discipline is a GOP thing. Democrats defect constantly, and would have done in this case, especially since the uniformed military had basically said, over our dead bodies.
This is where Clinton erred badly; he asked. And he got the predictable answer. BTW, the military said ‘over our dead bodies’ when Truman was considering desegregating the military in the aftermath of WWII.
Jadegold, you definitely have a point, but hindsight is 20/20. As Senator Chafee is coming to realize, eh?
(assuming I didn’t propitiate the HTML gods sufficiently, the link is to the 4 oct NYTimes article about Chafee)
LJ: I’m on the fence WRT Chaffee–seems to me he’s hedging his bets being a GOP Senator in very Dem state. Chaffee should bail; not play the Pollyanna-ish game of Colin Powell.
So many Democrats, by contrast, have an increasingly difficult time grasping why one might be a Republican.
It’s not that I find it difficult to understand why Republicans want to be Republicans. It’s that I find it difficult to understand why people who claim to profess Republican values want to support someone like George W. Bush.
(Or, indeed, why anyone not a bigot would want to support someone like Jim DeMint.)
As you say, the blinding power of hate – but given that I witnessed blind hate being whipped up against each Democratic candidate who looked like being the Democratic nominee in the months before Kerry was finally the clear front runner, I think you’re mistaken which side of the fence the blind hate is coming from. (Those “purple heart” band-aids at the RNC? Only blind hate could have missed how insulting they were to every wounded veteran.)
Opposition to George W. Bush is pretty clear-sighted and based on what he’s actually done and not done, said and not said: opposition to John Kerry seems to be based on more fantasy and fear than fact.
Understood, jadegold and I not trying to tag you with anything. It’s just that while there might be general agreement as to Clinton doing a Truman on the military, I think there were a lot of people who felt that Clinton could not take a firm stance because of the questions of military service and such.
Tac wrote:
” So many Democrats, by contrast, have an increasingly difficult time grasping why one might be a Republican. The blinding power of hate.”
I think a lot of dems have a difficult time grasping why someone might be supporting this particular Republican at this particular time. There is a difference.
It’s that I find it difficult to understand why people who claim to profess Republican values want to support someone like George W. Bush.
As opposed to whom, exactly? I’ve had this conversation a million times with fellow conservatives. Is either candidate really one of us? Certainly not. Which one is most like us? That’s pretty easy.
(Or, indeed, why anyone not a bigot would want to support someone like Jim DeMint.)
You historically have a hard time seeing how someone disagreeing with you is not a bigot. See my link above on this very question.
….I witnessed blind hate being whipped up against each Democratic candidate….
Nah. You really didn’t. Derision, sure. Hate? Not so much of that. Certainly not compared to what Dems have in store for the President.
(Those “purple heart” band-aids at the RNC? Only blind hate could have missed how insulting they were to every wounded veteran.)
Feh. Let this veteran assure you that they were no more than a moronic prank, and certainly not insulting to every wounded veteran.
Opposition to George W. Bush is pretty clear-sighted and based on what he’s actually done and not done, said and not said: opposition to John Kerry seems to be based on more fantasy and fear than fact.
Oh, QED. Indeed.
Bernard Yomtov, I won’t tell you to go read the Posting Rules, because it’s clear that you have; you apparently just don’t care. I find that damned offensive. Don’t you DARE deliberately violate the rules again.
Moe
Who is bitterly resentful of the lost time it took to calm down sufficiently to post on this. I have things to DO here, people. Real-life things. I don’t have time to regulate comment threads.
As opposed to whom, exactly? I’ve had this conversation a million times with fellow conservatives. Is either candidate really one of us? Certainly not. Which one is most like us? That’s pretty easy.
Well, if you really think you’re most like George W. Bush, I have to say I think you’re wrong – and that, believe it or not, is a compliment. You have, IMO, far more in common with John Kerry. And that’s a reluctant, but an honest, compliment.
Oh, QED. Indeed.
Indeed. Republicans who I’ve been reading keep coming up with arguments about why they’re not supporting Kerry – yet they’re rarely, if ever, founded in what Kerry’s actually done. Further, Republicans whO I’ve been reading, appear really reluctant to set up the same set of standards for Kerry as for Bush, and judge both candidates by those standards. (Sebastian is doing something similar in this thread when he criticizes Clinton for “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”, even though it was a compromise virtually forced on Clinton, but won’t criticize Bush even though Bush has had the same power as Clinton had to stop gay-related discharges from the military – and Bush supports “DADT”.)
not hate. deep, bitter and profound contempt.
we live in such a beautiful wonderful country. we provide a political, intellectual, economic and ecological environment that is the envy of the world. we have dreamt so big that we sent men to the moon!
and yet.
so many of us see the present leader as a contemptible little man. he is squandering the country’s financial future, treating allies with contempt, and involving us in dangerous foreign entanglements with little indication of how to win, or what “winning” even means. for lawyers, he has shown contempt for the rule of law, now even seeking a law to legitimize, retroactively, outsourced torture. for enviros, he has shown that he is the captive of industry. for advocates of gay rights, he has shown a willingness to inject evangelical religious values into his management of the state. on labor, he seeks to deny possibly millions of salaried workers overtime benefits, without even doing the studies to determine who will be adversely affected. his grand scheme to fix soaring health care costs is “tort reform”, which is administration-speak for denying pain&suffering damages to patients injured by negligence. and so forth.
no hatred, just contempt, richly deserved.
but feel free, please, to think we are blinded by hatred. it serves exactly to prove the point of liberals — that it is the republican party that has lost its vision. contemptuous attitudes like yours do wonders for democratic party recruiting.
Francis
Moe, I’m confused about your take on Bernard‘s comment, who I think is accusing the Republican leadership of various things (not a violation) while explicitly saying Republicans are not guilty; and asking how the latter can support the former (not a violation). Maybe it’s a dumb question since of course the latter either disagree re the former or think the badness of the alternative trumps – but it seems like a within-bounds if blunter-than-I’d-ask one.
Anyway, you’ve signed up for a tough job.
Francis, you go ahead and show me a single person who became a Democrat because a Republican loathed the bilious haters of your party.
I’ll wait.
Republicans who I’ve been reading keep coming up with arguments about why they’re not supporting Kerry – yet they’re rarely, if ever, founded in what Kerry’s actually done.
Except for all the arguments based upon his thirty+ years of public life, eh?
And is there anything that is so offensive, so disgusting, that it would cause these individuals to abandon their support, despite agreeing with Bush on some other issues? Apparently not.
rilkefan, I am a registered Republican who plans to vote Republican in the upcoming election (meaninglessly: I live in a solid Blue State). That accusation applies to me, as if I would continue to support the party if it came out in favor of, say, ritual cannibalism or child rape (two items that I would fairly call offensive or disgusting – I can come up with others that would be more likely, mind you, but I’m not the one who made the first wild accusations). Such accusations are against the Posting Rules. As Bernard Yomtov well knew, and deliberately ignored.
Moe
I regret to inform you, Bernard, that neither the Administration nor Senate Republicans administer the United States military’s personnel policies. Which, in this case, were implemented by one Bill Clinton.
Unstuff your shirt, Tacitus, and quit being a pompous ass.
Let’s see. Implemented by Clinton were they, through executive order? Then they could be changed by Bush, couldn’t they, if he valued having translators above pandering to the likes of DeMint and his supporters. But he doesn’t.
You worked in the Administration? I’m impressed. Not anti-gay? You are deluded. Does an Administration that is not anti-gay push the FMA?
Blinding power of hate? Yes. I hate torturers and those who provide them legal justifications andsupport. You want them in power. I hate those who claim the President is an absolute ruler, unanswerable to any court. You don’t. Fine. We have our differences. I do understand how someone can be a Republican. What I don’t understand is how anyone with the tiniest sense of justice or morality can support the Republican Party as it exists today. So huff and puff and posture all you want. If you think DeMint and his like belong in the Senate you are a dangerous fool.
Moe, I see your point – that part was indeed unacceptable.
Hey Bernard, tone it down please – re your 9:32 too – I’d suggest an apology for the ad homs for that matter. I can’t imagine how a reasonable pro-gay person could vote for DeMint over a responsible Democrat either, but apparently people who contribute here do, so just accept it, take a walk around the block if need be, and post civilly. I’d dislike you to get banned.
Moe,
I did not intend to wilfully violate the rules, but I knew I was coming close. Here is what I am asking.
It seems to me that at some point a politician, or a party, can take a position that is so loathesome that it automatically disqualifies him or it from further support, whatever we think about any other issue. In my mind the Republican Party in terms of its leadership has long since passed that point.
Now, I’m no conservative, so you can question my biases if you like. But it seems to me that whenever one of these issues comes up here the response from Republicans is that they disagree on the particular matter. OK, but we’re not usually talking about fine points of environmental or tax policy. We’re talking about the rights of gay citizens, we’re talking about torture. In other words we’re discussing fundamental questions about what kind of society we want to have. And on these issues the Republican Party, as represented by its leaders, takes revolting positions.
So the question I am asking is this: at what point do you say that regardless of your agreement with Republican positions on many issues – taxes, education, Social Security, whatever – there are simply some positions that are so awful that the party forfeits your support? Does it really take cannibalism, or child rape, or are there lesser offenses that would do it?
You’re angry? Well, me too. I see a party that has gone seriously off the rails, and yet still manages to command the support of apparently intelligent people. It boggles me. I honestly do not understand. Republican officeholders, with some exceptions, seem to be a collection of thugs, buffoons, bigots, and morons. What am I missing?
“Look what you’ve become, Moe.”
This guy TacitusTrevinoJosh has put so much work into being eloquent and here we have it all diminished in a small, crabbed cheap shot. Iron Lungfish can speak for himself.
The way I understand it from some time back when Tacitus the site was not diluted and left foundering by the proprietor’s move to the partisan Redstate (nothing wrong with that; lots of rhetoric there is the partisan mirror image of Iron Lungfish) is that there are two moral universes; one for Tactitus and a few others (Jim Demint comes to mind) and one for everyone else.
These universes have peculiar properties in that my moderate position on abortion (just an example) puts me in one universe wherein if a woman needs a medical emergency abortion her doctor can be transported through the membrane between the universes to be executed in Trevino’s (Tom Coburn’s) universe, but the membrane is impervious the other way with the exception of the little trapdoor down there in the corner just in case somebody in Trevino’s universe needs to cross over for an emergency abortion in my universe.
I don’t know. I offer recipes to Moe as peace offerings; the other universe has nothing left but cheap shots.
Yet another appropriation of my universe.
P.S. Clinton, like Moe, had to pragmatically please two moral universes, as configured by the moralistic. Hence the triangle.
P.P.S. Department of Education. Abolished. As long as Tacitus gets that he can handle some s—head thoughts regarding gay teachers from Demint. Yet more triangulation.
John, it’s going to get worse before it gets better. The blogosphere seems akin to the pot of slowly heating water and we are like the frogs. Get set for a long 4 weeks…
OK. Moe gets an apology for my suggestion that there is nothing that would cause him to abandon his support for the Republican Party. That’s unfair.
Tacitus, however gets no apology. If he wants one, which I doubt, let him begin by changing his absurdly unjustified oh-so-superior tone. Meanwhile, I retract not a word of that post.
John Thullen,
Even if you object to Tacitus’s tone or feel he is otherwise misbehaving, and even if his identity is thinly veiled at this point, it is a breach of etiquette to put a name on a pseudonymous blogger. I think an apology is in order.
I have to agree with Gromit if there had been a singular identity involved, though I did think the purpose was to link posts on Redstate made under one name to another. I think that is fair, though still not quite sure.
“I see a party that has gone seriously off the rails, and yet still manages to command the support of apparently intelligent people. It boggles me. I honestly do not understand.”
Then I suggest that you – all of you with this problem – stop, restart from zero and re-examine your primary assumptions. Because this isn’t my problem; it’s yours, and I can’t fix it for you.
Moe
PS: And, actually, you WILL apologize to Tacitus. He is as much a guest here as you are, and I don’t CARE what problem that you might have with him; take it elsewhere.
Apology for that particular is pending.
Trevino is well known as Tacitus, unless the ruse is merely coy. The third name was used several times in diaries at either Tacitus or Redstate. By Timmy, if I’m not mistaken. When does this stuff become public knowledge?
O. K. Apology offered. I only resent his cheap shot being cheaper than mine.
I’m not well versed in the etiquette of this medium. No kidding. It’s odd that Dan Rather can go by his own name and screw up in his own name, but those who take him down for it can’t be held accountable in their own names.
Odd, that. What do we think we are? A Greek chorus?
John Thullen hereby apologizes.
I agree that it is wrong to use someone’s name when that person has posted under a handle. Someone did it to me, and I did not appreciate it, despite the fact that it is extremely easy to figure out the boring truth about me. Those of use who post anonymously have our reasons. If you choose to disregard our wishes, you are assuming that those reasons, whatever they may be, are such that you can decide to ignore them. That’s wrong, and it’s wrong even if the person has previously identified himself elsewhere. All we know is that he has not chosen to use it here, and we should respect that.
I would also respectfully ask people to cool down a bit. I ask this not because I want anyone here to lose, or to fail to express, either the depth of their concern about either party or their questions; but for a few other reasons. First, there are posting rules, and we need to enforce them. We do not want this to reach the point where we have to. Second, while I don’t actually know any of you in real life (at least, I don’t think I do), pretty much everyone here is a basically decent person, and they deserve to be treated with respect. Third, as a matter of tactics (see my Brooks post), no one on either side is likely to change anyone’s mind if we do not treat them with respect. And finally, we are all going to have not just to live with one another, but also to function together as citizens, after this election, and none of us needs to make it any harder. Each of us no doubt has his or her own views about who exactly is doing the most to make it harder, but none of that relieves any of us of the responsibility to do our best not to join them.
If anyone, on either side, thinks that I am recommending just somehow rolling over, I disagree. We can argue hard — that’s what we do here — without losing our grip on civility. And we need to trust one another enough to believe it’s not impossible that our arguments can prevail, if they deserve to; and also to believe that ugly tactics will not, in the last analysis, prevail.
PS: And, actually, you WILL apologize to Tacitus. He is as much a guest here as you are, and I don’t CARE what problem that you might have with him; take it elsewhere.
Great, now I’m shouting. (Rubbing forehead) Look, Bernard, we’ll downgrade that from a (rude) order to a strong suggestion – but, people, please stop sticking knives in each other. (blatant attempt at guilt) I ask you, and my dentist asks you: I’m apparently grinding my teeth these days…
“Even if you object to Tacitus’s tone or feel he is otherwise misbehaving, and even if his identity is thinly veiled at this point, it is a breach of etiquette to put a name on a pseudonymous blogger. I think an apology is in order.”
I don’t think Tacitus can complain – he once used Billmon‘s real name during an argument at Whiskey Bar which lessened my opinion of all concerned. Still, it’s nice to observe the niceties.
Just a humorous interlude before the apologies get completely out of hand. This thread reminds of the scene in “The Bachelor and the Bobby-Soxer” in which everyone gets ticked off (including Myrna Loy, of all people) and starts slamming doors as they leave in a snit. A guy is trying to play chess while all of this is going on and he eventually throws over the chess pieces and slams a door himself on the way out.
Moe’s that guy, as long as I get to be the Cary Grant character.
Is either candidate really one of us?
Point one, there are more than two candidates. Point two, you can write in whoever you would like. You have made you choice based on an “us versus them” view of the world. Not surprising.
You historically have a hard time seeing how someone disagreeing with you is not a bigot. See my link above on this very question.
Your actions go beyond disagreeing with someone. Redstate is funding a bigot. Redstate is begging others to provide money to enable a bigot to profess his bigotry (and, quite probably, profiting financially from doing so). Redstate is advocating putting a bigot in a position of great power. These are actions redstate is taking, and they are morally wrong. And if I am not incorrect, you are implicated in these actions.
These actions, if successful, will lead to greater bigotry in the world.
All facts you seem to be unwilling to face.
Nah. You really didn’t. Derision, sure. Hate? Not so much of that
An argument missing its evidence.
Certainly not compared to what Dems have in store for the President.
And now you receive the Karnak award. Being unable to make your argument with historical facts (in fact completely ignoring the inarguable facts of the Clinton years vs. the Bush years), you resort to the Time Machine gambit. Well done.
Feh. Let this veteran assure you that they were no more than a moronic prank, and certainly not insulting to every wounded veteran.
More arguments minus evidence.
Hilzoy is the Myrna Loy character.
And, she’s right.
Jim Demint was not a character in that movie.
Edward’s outrage is on the money, and nothing is this thread blunts his point.
Trevino is well known as Tacitus, unless the ruse is merely coy. The third name was used several times in diaries at either Tacitus or Redstate.
If you mean the “Josh” in “TacitusTrevinoJosh”, then no, it wasn’t. I have the username “Josh” at both Tacitus and RedState, and I assure you I’m not Tacitus. (Although we do share a first name.)
Wow. This has been an interesting thread. Let’s try and give Moe a break, yes?
I’m not following the Jim/Inez race closely, so I can’t evaluate Tacitus’ contention that Inez would be worse than Jim-minus-his-homophobia…but I think one of the concerns about voting sin omeone with DeMint’s ideas because he has other, better, more noble ideas is that if we keep making that exception, soon there *might* be enough Santorums and DeMints and Coburns to change Federal law — and because that brand of Republican supports things like Constitutional change over states rights for “morality” issues, we know they would actively attempt such changes.
So you say, “yeah, DeMint is wrong on this point, but he’ll be right on lots of others” and you may be correct — but while he’s fighting for a balanced budget, he’ll also be meeting with all those who seek to legislate their view of moral behavior, and how many of *them* will we have elected for the same reasons we elected DeMint?
Too wordy, but I hope the point somehow comes across.
Josh:
I was referring to something different in the diaries, if memory serves.
But, since I was wrong to bring it up in the first place, yours is the last word.
Jeez, I’m really confused now. Are the articles posted by Trevxxx at Redstate by Tacixxx or not? I thought that the WSJ article iirc had a picture and a name, but googling doesn’t bring it up. And who is Jxxx? I add the x’s so as to lower google visibility.
I agree that a person’s privacy should be respected in most cases (except mary rosh’s), but if that person says, well, I challenge you to find something that I’ve said that contradicts what I’m now arguing for, I think things get a bit fuzzier.
A few points.
1) Thullen’s first post on this thread — incomprehensible. Please translate.
2) My name is not a secret. If it were, you wouldn’t know it. So thanks to Gromit, but no worries there.
3) Billmon’s real name, address, and employer are public knowledge because, like a fool, he wrote hatemail to one of his many, many, many bete noirs from a non-pseudonymous e-mail account.
4) Bernard doesn’t like my tone: tough, kid.
Finally, felixrayman makes a few points of his own, viz.:
Redstate is begging others to provide money to enable a bigot to profess his bigotry (and, quite probably, profiting financially from doing so).
Of course, these are terribly bad and ignorant points. The issue of a profit for RS from the DeMint donations is wholly absurd. Were we financially linked to the campaign, we would have to reveal it; in any case, clicking on the donations links reveals a website controlled by the DeMint campaign, not Red State. This much ought to be obvious.
As for “provid[ing] money to enable a bigot to profess his bigotry,” this too is simply evidence of Felix failing to read. We are providing him money to advocate tax reform, free trade, Republican independent-mindedness, pro-life legislation and Social Security privatization. Nowhere do you see our exhortation to fund Jim DeMint so gays won’t teach. This is both because (as has been stated) we disagree with this, and because he cannot do anything about that. Curious, that.
Felix is outraged(!) that Red State would choose to stick with its endorsement of DeMint. Let us consider what DeMint has done: he has expressed a point of view that he cannot possibly implement, the net negative effect of which is to offend Edward and assorted others, and make me cringe in embarrassment for a bit. This, then, is the worst condemnation we can find for Jim DeMint.
Meanwhile, Felix and millions of other Democrats in the United States will on 2 November pull the lever for a man who, in his debut in public life, expressed a point of view which was implemented, the net negative effect of which was to abandon millions of Indochinese to slaughter, enslavement and exile. This, then, is the worst condemnation we can find for John Kerry.
Note the outrage gap. Truly, facts you seem to be unwilling to face.
“3) Billmon’s real name, address, and employer are public knowledge because, like a fool, he wrote hatemail to one of his many, many, many bete noirs from a non-pseudonymous e-mail account.”
If I send a mail to someone offlist, that makes information about who I am public knowledge? Let me go disable my SMTP settings…
E-mail is fair game. Particularly if you’re doing your best to be unpleasant.
And who is Jxxx? I add the x’s so as to lower google visibility.
I’m just this guy, you know? (Tacitus and Trevino are the same guy: Josh Trevino. Neither one is me.)
Oh please oh please let’s not refight the Vietnam war. I was there, I am dying to take exception to Tacitus’ last point, but I won’t. I need to practice strength of will in any case. This will be my little exercise.
The issue of a profit for RS from the DeMint donations is wholly absurd
“Advertise on RedState”, the link says. Something is absurd. Not anything I wrote, however.
We are providing him money to….
Implement his agenda. And bigotry is part of his agenda. Redstate is doing what it can to provide those funds. Redstate is responsible for what it helps to fund. There is no moral way to weasel out of that, try as you some people have and will.
he has expressed a point of view that he cannot possibly implement
To implement that point of view he needs help. Yours and others. So far, he has yours.
I’ll submit to hilzoy’s wishes about refighting the Vietnam war, although mostly because your posts in the past have betrayed somewhat of a lack of knowledge on the subject.
I have some honest questions, to any federal marriage amendment supporters out there:
1) do you generally agree with the statement “it is wrong to discriminate against people for characteristics they cannot change”?
2) do you believe that people can choose their sexual orientation?
3) do you believe that gay people should be celibate?
4) do you generally agree with the statement “it is wrong to discriminate against people for characteristics or choices so fundamental to their identity that they should not be forced to change them”?
5) do you believe that the choice of your husband or wife is as fundamental to your identity as the God you pray to?
6) do you believe it is a sin to be gay?
7) do you believe that gay couples somehow harm heterosexual couples?
8) if so, how? please give examples.
9) do you believe that it is wrong for marriage laws to discriminate on the basis of race?
10) if yes, would you believe this even if marriage laws had discriminated on the basis of race for the length of human history, to the extent that race could be said to be incorporated into the definition of marriage itself?
11) answer 9 & 10 substituting “religion” for “race”.
I think that covers it.
Obviously, there is some disagreement with me over the answer to at least one of those questions and probably more than one, because if there wasn’t I don’t think they could possibly support the FMA. But I have a hell of a time trying to figure out where it is, because when I meet them in real life and not in Family Research Council press releases and Rick Santorum speeches, and tend to give vague answers and non-answers and shift from one question to the other, and generally do not want to give a straight (no pun intended) answer.
These are honest questions. I admit, you have absolutely no hope of persuading me that the FMA is good or even defensible, but I would like to know exactly where we differ and I honestly am not sure. I will certainly not call you names in response to your answers and probably will not even respond because I doubt I’d convince you. I really am more curious than anything else.
Thanks, Josh, for the straight answer. much appreciated.
Tacitus: Fascinating, really. Most Republicans I know can understand why a person might be a Democrat. Not terrifically hard, after all — just wrong. So many Democrats, by contrast, have an increasingly difficult time grasping why one might be a Republican. The blinding power of hate. A pity.
Huh. First you insinuate Democrats are Nazis (viz. “the banality of evil”). Now we’re all blinded by hate. Would you like to just declare us all the spawn of Satan and have done with it, or are there a few intermediary steps on the way to absolute evil?
Or, to put it more directly: perhaps you’re having more trouble understanding why a person might be a Democrat than you think. Toning down the condescension a few million notches would be good first step.
Katherine, are there any FMA supporters on this board? 🙂
Tacitus, I seem to remember you expounding repeatedly and at great length that anti-war protestors who marched with ANSWER knowing what kind of an organization they were could not divorce themselves from guilt by association. The fact that most anti-war protestors would be or are repulsed by some of ANSWER’s more unsavory associations, and only attended such events because they agreed on the common opposition to the Iraq war, didn’t seem to change your opinion any.
Exactly how is this different from you making common cause with and raising money for an extremely bigoted candidate simply because you happen to share some of his /other/ positions?
This strikes me as the rankest sort of hypocrisy. You will undoubtedly try to manufacture some superficial and irrelevant way in which the situations are not comparable, but I defy you to reconcile your two positions here. You cannot. They are contradictory.
Perhaps they all went to bed, but then again, no, maybe there aren’t. Which brings us back to the original post, are there any Jim DeMint supporters out there? If so, why?
Saying that you want to start up a new communist empire (ANSWER) and that North Korea is a good example of communism isn’t quite the same thing as saying you want gays to not teach.
Both are wrong. But comparing the two is like saying that cheating on your taxes and passing your 15 year old daughter around as a sex toy for your friends are both examples of wrongs.
You aren’t technically incorrect. You just aren’t showing any sense of proportion.
speaking of proportion, let’s have a show of hands: who here has donated to Ramsey Clark’s Senatorial campaign committee?
Catsy: You will undoubtedly try to manufacture some superficial and irrelevant way in which the situations are not comparable,
And if Tacitus won’t, Sebastian will.
Tacitus, I seem to remember you expounding repeatedly and at great length that anti-war protestors who marched with ANSWER knowing what kind of an organization they were could not divorce themselves from guilt by association.
The particular phrase utilized was “fellow travelers”. It attained something of a (dire) celebrity status for a week or two on the liberal side of the blogosphere.
You aren’t technically incorrect. You just aren’t showing any sense of proportion.
You’re missing the forest for the trees here. Tacitus said:
As for “provid[ing] money to enable a bigot to profess his bigotry,” this too is simply evidence of Felix failing to read. We are providing him money to advocate tax reform, free trade, Republican independent-mindedness, pro-life legislation and Social Security privatization. Nowhere do you see our exhortation to fund Jim DeMint so gays won’t teach. This is both because (as has been stated) we disagree with this, and because he cannot do anything about that.
First of all, Tacitus is either naive (hint: not) or disingenuous when he says that DeMint “cannot do anything about that”. DeMint, as a Senator, would have /considerable/ power, both as an individual and as part of a voting bloc, to work against the rights of gays, not just in teaching but in all walks of life.
Since Tacitus is surpassingly familiar with the kind of influence United States Senators have to advance their agendas, I submit that he is simply being dishonest here.
Second of all, Tacitus has made it unequivocally clear–on multiple occasions–that he believes you shouldn’t make common cause with someone unless you’re willing to endorse their full agenda. In this context, proportion is irrelevant: Tacitus is indulging in a contemptible double standard, rationalizing his support of a bigoted candidate with a hostile anti-gay agenda behind a veneer of common cause with said candidate’s uncontroversial positions. At one point during the ANSWER flap, he said of anti-war protestors that “no one is saying they’re Stalinist — only that they actively lend legitimacy to those who are. Which is in itself morally damning.”
Well, Tac, guess what: I’m not saying that you’re bigoted. But you’re lending legitimacy to a bigot by endorsing his candidacy and raising money for his campaign.
By your own words be morally damned.
==== is well known as Tacitus, unless the ruse is merely coy
FWIW, I had no idea, and intend to forget this as fast as possible: as the regular user of a pseud, I both respect the use of a regular handle on the Internet and expect to have it respected in turn.
Moe Lane: That accusation applies to me, as if I would continue to support the party if it came out in favor of, say, ritual cannibalism or child rape (two items that I would fairly call offensive or disgusting – I can come up with others that would be more likely, mind you
Torture, for example.
“Advertise on RedState”, the link says. Something is absurd.
Indeed — your perverse obstinacy. The ad is free — the ad is something we created. Look that text over and tell me that’s a professional campaign creation. If you sincerely believe we are receiving a dime in any way from the DeMint campaign, by all means, ask the FEC to investigate and force disclosure. Or not, more likely.
To implement that point of view he needs help.
Oh, certainly — help changing the Constitutional role of a United States Senator. Help massively changing the traditional manner of hiring of teachers nationwise. Now, you may think these things are likely. I don’t. It should be clear which of us has a better grasp on the mechanisms of governance, here.
I’ll submit to hilzoy’s wishes about refighting the Vietnam war, although mostly because your posts in the past have betrayed somewhat of a lack of knowledge on the subject.
Nah. You’ll submit because you can’t win this one, and you are well aware of the risible hypocrisy in which you — and every other Kerry voter yelping about DeMint — engage on this point. Don’t hide behind Hilzoy, Felix: it does you no credit.
Oh, Anarch: give me a reason, please.
As for Catsy: The people choosing to march with ANSWER had many meaningful alternatives — United for Peace and Justice, for example. If there is a meaningful conservative alternative to Jim DeMint in the SC senatorial race, please alert me to him. Furthermore, legitimizing Stalinism and legitimizing (inasmuch as we are) DeMint’s ideas on school hiring are not even remotely on the same moral plane. Sebastian is right — you have abandoned all sense of proportion, here. Finally, unlike the mass of pitiful dupes who marched with ANSWER, I have taken the time and trouble to repeatedly, publicly and explicitly denounce the wrong in question.
The parallel you draw is, to be kind, absurd.
And if you think I’m being dishonest about the Constitutional powers of a United States Senator, well, there’s not much I can do about that. They are what they are — and not what you think they are.
Oh, Anarch: give me a reason, please.
So that a productive dialogue can commence? Seems like a laudable goal to me.
Don’t hide behind Hilzoy, Felix: it does you no credit.
Hilzoy is a moderator of this blog, Tacitus. I think it does Felix great credit. I like the way the moderators of ObWing run it, I confess.
Finally, unlike the mass of pitiful dupes who marched with ANSWER, I have taken the time and trouble to repeatedly, publicly and explicitly denounce the wrong in question.
But not in the context of asking for donations to deMint’s campaign. Indeed, it’s something that you have neither mentioned at the time (two days before the infamous Senate speech, though apparently deMint’s anti-gay views were known before it) nor considered important enough to go back and edit in a reference to now. Given that it’s still the top-level post in the Endorsements section, it would seem appropriate for you to “take the time and trouble to repeatedly, publicly and explicitly denounce the wrong in question”… but no.
(And I apologize for linking Trev!no with Tac!tus if I’m wrong to do so – it’s been done very emphatically in this thread already, but I don’t intend to do so outside this thread, whether or not it’s right.)
Nice to see the temp has gone down since last I checked…. Of course, this is what the blogosphere does best, which is play guilt by association. It’s not a blog thing mind you: I recall Daniel Dennett discussing why he refuses to admit to any labels because he said that he was a X and ended up spending a lot of time getting pasted with every idiotic thing that everyone else who claimed to be X said. Perhaps Tac might, if given a time machine, provide a few words of counsel to the ANSWER=the left posting Tac back in the day, but good luck on getting him to admit it.
Getting back to Katherine’s questions about the FMA, I’ll play devil’s advocate a bit and say that maybe there are situations where you could support someone who is supporting FMA. This is based on my presumption that most people don’t really know they know gay people. I once had a gay roommate, and my mother would always ask me ‘That XYZ is such a nice young man, when is he going to get married and settle down?’. (as for why I didn’t have a heart to heart with my mom, this was 25+ years ago. I was also majoring in music, so if I had given her a list with checks, she would have thought that there was something in the university water system)
I have a suspicion that there are a lot of people like that who just don’t know that they know, upon whom the notion of the FMA might be used as a wedge. If a moderate candidate in one of those states who was fully cognizant of the problems but had to immunize him/herself on the issue, I think that there might be a defense. But I’m not really sure. But it is apparent that Jim DeMint is _not_ in that category, so it makes flogging for contributions for him even more perverse. Ain’t no one I know who was channeling money to ANSWER.
Tacitus , you seem to be saying that the only anti-gay public policy stance that DeMint has is against openly gay teachers in the public schools and that, since he can’t do anything about *that* while in the Senate, there’s no problem.
But is that accurate? Is DeMint supportive of partner rights, for example (medical visitation, adoption, etc.)? I assume he supports the FMA, so — at least in original language — no.
I gather that, even if DeMint came out and said, “homosexuality is wrong, and we should have legislation, like many states, that prevents gays from getting “special rights,” that you would still support him because, in balance, he would have less ability to do that than to implement the parts of his agenda with which you agree. Is that right?
Anarch, no one is stopping you from discussing things in any way you please.
Given that it’s still the top-level post in the Endorsements section….
Wow, yeah — we’ll definitely run Red State according to your preferences, Jesurgislac. Sure. For my part, I’m comfortable I’m sufficiently on record.
the ANSWER=the left posting Tac
Of course, such a Tac being purely a figment of your imagination, providing that advice even with the existence of time travel would be a difficult task indeed.
Ain’t no one I know who was channeling money to ANSWER.
No one you know marching with or for ANSWER? Eh? Are you really prepared to equate ANSWER’s brand of evil with Jim DeMint’s?
Opus, I assume Jim DeMint’s public record is, well, public. You are welcome to research it as you wish. Your hypothetical question is meaningless without context and particulars.
What the hell happened here?
I come back after several hours and all sense of civility has been drowned in the sewer.
Reading through the thread, I get the sense that many here are using this issue as license to work out long-standing grudges…and it’s perhaps something more appropriate for an open thread.
It’s my fault for bringing in RedState, I now realize…I could have left that out of the post (I was going for a cheap pun with the “dying breed” bit [gay humor…sorry], and I’m now quite sorry I did)…but there’s a much more important issue here than whether or not long-term blogging instills deep-seeded grudges…clearly it does, and clearly more than one person here owes some other person here an apology (oddly enough, that seems to be totally independent of partisanship as well).
Back on topic…DeMint was right about people in positions of public responsibility needing to reflect our values…I’d suggest that includes teachers AND senators.
“No one you know marching with or for ANSWER? Eh?”
Actually, no, but I am in Japan, so it might have been a little hard. I leave it to the others on this thread to describe their day to day lives to you in sufficient detail to receive your brand of absolution. As for ‘equating’, no I’m not prepared, just wondering aloud if you ever express any regrets over your OTT persona or if you just confine it to Hamiltonian sighings.
As for time machine physics, the best I can do is here:
http://web.archive.org/web/20030202035425/http://www.tacitus.org/archives/000327.html
Opus–you guessed right.
Having the right to visit one’s partner in the hospital is, presumably, a “special right” in DeMint’s eyes.
Amazing that eschewing Stalinists becomes “my brand of absolution.”
But, you know, voting for DeMint — that’s bad. Ah, the left.
By the way, LJ — trip down memory lane is nice and all, but where’s the support for your assertion?
I come back after several hours and all sense of civility has been drowned in the sewer.
Aha, so it’s YOUR fault. That’ll teach you to leave your computer for more than five minutes. 😉
Katherine, who’s being denied hospital visits for loved ones, exactly? Any cases to cite? Is it a widespread problem? Something we need legislation to correct? Wading hip deep in AIDS policy as is my occasional wont, I’ve yet to see this issue rear its head in the United States. But hey, maybe I’ve missed something. If I haven’t, though, this is a canard.
That I live in Japan? Well, there is a lot of Japanese signage and almost everyone speaks Japanese, so I assume that I am living in Japan.
Oh, you mean ANSWER=the left? Of course, if I could have, I would have put the little squiggly line over the equals sign, but I thought, given the brevity of my post that I would be understood. But you want support for my assertion. (after you write ‘Ah, the left’? Eh?)
Well, the list that you have is Patrick Nielsen Hayden, Oliver Willis, Max Sawicky, Jim Henley, and Atrios, which covers a lot of ground. Did you feel that they were simply outliers and the real left wasn’t supporting ANSWER? I don’t think so. In fact, in the post, you quote a previous post that says:
“I forget that we live in a country where the left will howl about you if you express addled nostalgia for the Confederacy, but march alongside you if you strongly support the proprietors of modern-day slave camps.”
and then opine further
“How true it is. And that’s the dirty secret of the American left wing.”
thus spake Tacitus.
Nah. You have problems with prepositions, associations vs. equivalencies, etc. My guess? Intentional. ‘Cause the rest of your argument — such as it was — is dead.
“On the order of 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits. Among them are the rights to:”
-status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;” cite
I have heard of instances where the parents of an adult child, legally the next of kin, shut their child’s partner out from all decisions – from medical care to funeral arrangements. Which would have been impossible had their child and his/her partner been married, but is all too possible when the couple have the status only of “two adults who have been living together for twenty years”. It is, of course, possible to have someone declared legally your next of kin: indeed, it’s possible to get a good many of the same legal rights as a married couple have piecemeal by powers of attorney, wills, leases, child-custody arrangements, joint bank accounts and health insurance.
Providing, of course, that a state such as Virgina doesn’t just decide to take all those rights away from same-sex couples, because they make a relationship between two gay people too much like marriage.
But, to answer your question, most hospitals probably do permit a same-sex partner to visit. But it should be a matter of right, not a permitted privilege that can be taken away at any time.
Is it a widespread problem? Something we need legislation to correct?
Pataki seemed to think so.
Besides, when your partner is in the hospital, you won’t have the time to call up your legislators and discuss it…this is the sort of thing that most definitely needs to be taken care of ahead of time.
My almost-State Senator for one. Though that was his child rather than his partner. Of course I would be shocked if DeMint thought Barrios should be legally allowed to adopt children.
See also here, here…I assume you’re saying it’s made up because there are private contractual arrangements that can get you around it in most cases. However, you may not have those or have time to draw those up in an emergency, and those can sometimes be overridden by other family members.
You also generally need a lawyer. Lawyers are expensive.
DeMint has also called the antigay Family Research Council “the conscience of Congress”:
“Of all of the critical issues that will be debated in the next election, such as jobs, the economy and national security, I would argue that no issue is more critical to the long-term health of our society than traditional marriage.
Thanks, Katherine — that’s what I thought he would believe. DeMint has clearly stated his priorities.
Early in this thread, it seemed like some of the posters were simply gleeful that RedState’s signature candidate had said something so obviously wrong. No, no one actually said that — there just seemed to be too much glee about it. I hope that this debate is not about that — but about genuine concern for our fellow citizens and their rights, and expressions of the standards to which we want to hold our representatives.
quoting myself:
“Of course I would be shocked if DeMint thought Barrios should be legally allowed to adopt children.”
I guessed right about this. DeMint voted to outlaw gay couples from adopting in Washington, D.C.
Also, there is a decent chance that DeMint would vote about this bill, prohibiting employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, as a Senator.
Based on DeMint recent statements I can only assume he opposes it. Someone please correct me if I am mistaken about this.
The bill “exempts small businesses, religious organizations and the military, and does not require employers to offer benefits to the same-sex partners of employees”, so there is no possible argument that it would harm religious freedom. It has 44 Senate cosponsors indicating that this might be a close Senate vote. So much for the argument that DeMint’s pro-employment discrimination views can’t possibly have any concrete effect.
Tacitus: you wrote : “Nah. You’ll submit because you can’t win this one, and you are well aware of the risible hypocrisy in which you — and every other Kerry voter yelping about DeMint — engage on this point. Don’t hide behind Hilzoy, Felix: it does you no credit.”
This violates the posting rules on several counts. First, on this board we do not allow generalized condemnation of whole classes of people without serious evidence. We have threatened to ban people when they have said bad things about “the Republicans”, even when in context it seemed likely that they were referring to the Republican leadership. You can see Moe making this very point earlier on this thread. It applies to people on the right as well as people on the left.
Second, it is uncivil. I asked that we not refight the Vietnam war, not because I knew I would lose, but because I thought that Edward’s thread had a perfectly good subject of its own. If any of the moderators here wants to start a thread about Vietnam, they can do so; I, for one, choose not to. Felix acceded to my request. You have no reason to doubt that he was being polite, and certainly no reason to suppose that he was either hiding behind me or sure he would lose the argument. (I, for one, am not the least worried about losing it.)
Moreover, none of us is a hypocrite unless we both support Kerry and believe that his opposition to the continuation of the war was wrong. (And, I suppose I should add, believe that that doesn’t just make him the lesser of two evils.) As I am sure you know, there is a school of thought that holds that Kerry was right on this point, one that is held by a significant number of the people who support Kerry. You may think we’re wrong, but I do not see how we’re hypocrites.
You are, as the blogroll assures me, our blogfather, and I respect that. But that does not give you the right to come over here and violate the rules. If you do it again, I will advocate banning you.
Opus, I don’t really see that. I see someone trying to provide a defense of DeMint’s stand and getting busted for it and then questions about what RedState’s support means and what it represents. To me, the general question (and I mean general, not limited to Redstate or Answer but a general question to all) is what does association mean? For example, let’s say there’s a colleague of mine down the hall, and I basically disagrees with everything that he says or thinks. In a situation like that, I can’t really go hammer and tongs after him, I mean, we work at the same place. I guess that I _could_ (and I know people who have gone that option) but what holds things in place is that I can’t easily get rid of that guy and he can’t easily get rid of me. So I try to carve out the things I want to do and let him play where I’m not really interested.
However, on the internet, there is no ‘guy down the hall’ and the act of association actually becomes more rather than less meaningful. Yet I don’t think that the distance has changed and the person I’m associating with now is somehow more indicative of who I am than before. At least that’s what I’m thinking now. Obviously, since the specific case we are talking about here has gotten a little hot to handle, it might make sense to wonder in general terms what association is really all about.
Opus, go to dKos, post a short Diary on me, and watch the venom flow. What you’re seeing here is a mere hint of that. But you’re right as to the nature of the phenomenon.
So we’ve established that Jim DeMint is a social conservative. We knew that going in, yes?
Katherine, it’s hardly honest to put up your State Senator as an example — encountering a baffled bureaucrat on the telephone isn’t discrimination, and it’s nowhere close to being denied access to a loved one. Your other two cites are more apt (although, pace Edward, legislation isn’t evidence of need). This is easily remedied — as is noted, mostly through existing structures and recourses.
As for “the argument that DeMint’s pro-employment discrimination views can’t possibly have any concrete effect,” I’m sure he will indeed vote his values on legislation before him. Will that legislation include a bill to deny homosexual teachers employment in local school districts across America? Come now.
Cobloggers, please log in and read the draft post there. Use the full access login and password so that you can read it.
First, on this board we do not allow generalized condemnation of whole classes of people without serious evidence.
And such was presented, Hilzoy. An argument was made culminating in that statement. I can retrace it if you like.
You have no reason to doubt that he was being polite….
Oh, I do. I am not in the habit of saying these things ex nihilo.
I, for one, am not the least worried about losing it.
By all means, engage when you feel like it.
You may think we’re wrong, but I do not see how we’re hypocrites.
You’re getting the argument wrong. Let’s put it this way: if you oppose DeMint because of the notional effects of his policy advocacy, then given the actual effects of Kerry’s policy advocacy, supporting the latter is hypocritical.
If you do it again, I will advocate banning you.
As you prefer, Hilzoy. You’re quite wrong in your stated rationales here. However, as you note, it’s your place.
Tacitus: 2) My name is not a secret. If it were, you wouldn’t know it. So thanks to Gromit, but no worries there.
Tomorrow it could be someone digging up my real name because he disagrees with my political views. The fact that it doesn’t bother you doesn’t excuse the practice.
3) Billmon’s real name, address, and employer are public knowledge because, like a fool, he wrote hatemail to one of his many, many, many bete noirs from a non-pseudonymous e-mail account.
This seems like a pretty low standard. Without knowing the details, I won’t comment further on this particular instance, but what I do know is that there are folks here who know my real name from other contexts (not that it would probably be hard to find otherwise), but I count on them to have the decency to allow me to decide when and where to reveal it.
Tomorrow it could be someone digging up my real name because he disagrees with my political views. The fact that it doesn’t bother you doesn’t excuse the practice.
Agreed.
“Katherine, it’s hardly honest to put up your State Senator as an example”
Surely some other word than “honest” belongs here. Maybe “sporting”, or “aardvark”, or “kablooie”.
Moe,
I understand your strong suggestion, and the basis for it. I will consider it on one condition – that you evaluate the tone and content of Tacitus’ posts here as well.
There are many ways to be uncivil. Calling someone a dangerous fool is certainly one such way. But adopting a generally supercilious, condescending, and dismissive tone towards those who disagree is surely another. So is describing someone as “blinded by hate.”
You’re right. I do have a problem with Tacitus. And it is based, at least in part, on what I perceive as his lack of civility. After reflection, you may disagree, but please think about it.
Rilkefan: Surely some other word than “honest” belongs here. Maybe “sporting”, or “aardvark”, or “kablooie”.
Or wombat.
fdl – “for years republicans have been lecturing democrats … they were largely right….the republican party seems determined to repeat the dems mistakes, but on an even larger scale.”
The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn’t work and then they get elected and prove it. — P.J. O’Rourke (Note – I strongly disagree with O’Rourke’s politics, but I admire his sense of humor.)
Re: the breakdown in civility, I don’t want to pick on any poster, but I thought it might be worthwhile to mention a couple of reasons why I think ObWi’s posting rules are so important.
It’s natural, when we’ve looked hard at a political/moral issue, that we consider important, to think that those who come up with opposite conclusions must be ignorant/deluded/stupid/evil. The reasons for not expressing that feeling are:
1) It’s likely factually wrong. In real life, I have certain friends who are highly intelligent, reasonably well-informed, and undeniably good people. I’d trust them with my bank account or my physical well-being. I also disagree with their political opinions as strongly as any two posters arguing on this board. What do I think the explanation is? Despite their intelligence and good will, they’re interpreting the facts based on a set of cognitive filters for simplifying and making sense of the world. So am I, but my filters are different. So are you, and so is everyone you know. There’s no escaping it, the real world is too complex for any human to grasp without those filters. Personally, I find life much nicer if I presume the people I disagree with online are, for the most part, intelligent, sane and of good will.
2) Tactical good sense. If you want to influence the world, you need to persuade those who disagree with you. I’m fairly certain that no-one is ever convinced in a political argument by having their opponent insult them. Therefore, if you resort to said insults, you’re really saying “I don’t really care about promoting my cause, I just feel like venting my spleen.”
Just my two cents …
I plead aardvark kablooie. I misread Barrios’ example–somehow I was reading this conversation as taking place on the phone and not at the emergency room. That said, I am quite certain that good faith mistakes by confused bureaucrats have also resulted in people being denied access in the emergency room.
I’m not sure why it would be wrong for DeMint to fire people for being gay but it’s okay, and completely unrelated, for him to vote to keep it legal to fire people for being gay. Those issues seem pretty intertwined to me.
In general, while this thread has improved some, I don’t think anyone’s convincing anyone else & won’t post here further. I still wish an FMA supporter would answer some of that list of questions above.
And I really don’t think a condescending tone be the basis for banning a poster. What next, banning people for self-righteous tones? Then where will I be? 😉
argh. transpose “on the phone” and “in the emergency room” in previous post.
Meanwhile, Felix and millions of other Democrats in the United States will on 2 November pull the lever for a man who, in his debut in public life, expressed a point of view which was implemented, the net negative effect of which was to abandon millions of Indochinese to slaughter, enslavement and exile. This, then, is the worst condemnation we can find for John Kerry.
Yes, clearly before Kerry spoke before the Senate there was no anti-war sentiment whatsoever. Oh please.
Meanwhile, Tacitus, as Katherine has noted on this very blog, at this very moment – not before you were born – the Republican leadership of the House is trying to eviscerate a key provision of an international treaty designed to prevent shipping people to be tortured.
Outrage gap indeed.
EXECUTIVE DECISION:
Please note that after discussing this behind the scenes, the ObWi team has decided we will implement a policy of shutting down threads that become too destructive. This is not meant to single out any individuals on this thread, but although we enjoy a hearty debate as much as anyone, we remain primarily dedicated to finding common ground and maintaining some degree of civility in the process.
There’s still plenty of non-ad-hominem discussion that could take place on this topic, so we’ll leave the comments on for the time being, but please understand why we will monitor the tone and reserve the right to pull the plug if things become too vituperative.
Tacitus: You’re getting the argument wrong. Let’s put it this way: if you oppose DeMint because of the notional effects of his policy advocacy, then given the actual effects of Kerry’s policy advocacy, supporting the latter is hypocritical.
1) DeMint’s attitudes toward gays and lesbians are not merely notional. He has explicitly stated an interest in the role of the judiciary with respect to gay rights, and if he ends up spending six years in the Senate, there is a very good chance he will end up voting on the confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice or two, to say nothing of federal judges. This will have very concrete effects on whether gays and lesbians are treated as second-class citizens in the coming years, as DeMint has openly advocated.
2) Support for Kerry, by your reasoning, is only hypocritical if one accepts the morally simplistic, revisionist premise that drawing out the war even further would have somehow resulted in less slaughter and/or a free Vietnam. If you instead believe that by the time he testified to congress the war was already a lost cause (as many quite sane and moral observers do), then his stated goal of getting his fellow soldiers home in one piece doesn’t look quite so abominable. You may not agree with me, but that does not make me a hypocrite.
And I don’t think supporting DeMint makes you, or RedState as a whole, bigoted. However, it does indicate a clear lack of concern about such bigotry which, I should reiterate, DeMint has explicitly condoned.
Anarch, no one is stopping you from discussing things in any way you please.
A statement trivial in its profundity. [Also technically false, but we’ll leave that aside.] The point I was making is that if you continue belittling not just your opponent’s positions but also their persons this thread is going to degenerate — as it is in the process of doing — into vituperation (thanks, Edward!) which is neither productive nor interesting.
In re your specific remark, there is nothing “stopping” me from joining the discussion in a physical sense, of course, but there is nonetheless a rather marked barrier to entry: if I know that what I post will likely be met with personal derision and the occasional outright calumny, why should I bother? I have more important things in my life to worry about than being insulted by some random online personality. ObWi’s charm is precisely that our baser instincts have been kept admirably under control by Moe et al.; should that change, well, there are other venues I can frequent, but so much for the dialectical process.
And since I think the utility of this thread has diminished beyond the point of interest, that’ll probably be my last post in this topic. My apologies to the owners for contributing to its general decline.
ObWi’s number of daily hits must be very attractive to some of the other bloggers whose numbers have fallen off in the past year.
Kind of like the neighbors deciding you have the nicer house so they’re moving in.
And I don’t think supporting DeMint makes you, or RedState as a whole, bigoted. However, it does indicate a clear lack of concern about such bigotry which, I should reiterate, DeMint has explicitly condoned.
This is the contention causing all the headaches. Given that most of the time there are no perfect candidates, we all have to make judgments about which package of plusses and minuses is the better choice. The fact that DeMint’s objectionable views on homosexuality don’t constitute a deal-breaker for RedState and its denizens isn’t enough evidence to say that they lack concern about it.
Katherine,
These are good tough questions! My answers:
1) do you generally agree with the statement “it is wrong to discriminate against people for characteristics they cannot change”?
Generally, yes. But too broad. People change ages, change religions, and, in S.F., sometimes they even change sexes!
2) do you believe that people can choose their sexual orientation?
Tough one. But, Yes, some do.
3) do you believe that gay people should be celibate?
Depends on whether buggery is a Sin or not. I tend to think not, but it ain’t yet clear to me.
4) do you generally agree with the statement “it is wrong to discriminate against people for characteristics or choices so fundamental to their identity that they should not be forced to change them”?
Too fuzzy. “Choices so fundamental to their identity” don’t work.
5) do you believe that the choice of your husband or wife is as fundamental to your identity as the God you pray to?
No. Poor analogy. People wrestle with their belief (or lack thereof) in God much of their lives. Choice of spouse is…..a choice. Some choices don’t work out too well, some work out great. Some spousal choices (blood relative or underage or 3–some) are illegal and immoral.
6) do you believe it is a sin to be gay?
Tough one. I could dodge and say, “we’re all sinners” or sumptin’ like dat. I’m gonna say tentatively, “NO.” Sins, to me, deal with thoughts, words and deeds, not the static state of being X or Y.
7) do you believe that gay couples somehow harm heterosexual couples?
Harm, in what sense? Tend to think not, but don’t know.
8) if so, how? please give examples.
You’d have to give me examples on how any third party couple could harm another couple.
9) do you believe that it is wrong for marriage laws to discriminate on the basis of race?
Yes. But this is tricky. It means that individuals do have the right to discriminate on the basis of race. For example, a woman could reject a marriage proposal by sayin’, “sorry, you’re a nice fellow, but I ain’t marryin’ a Frenchman.” Is this wrong or not? It certainly is discrimination based on race.
10) if yes, would you believe this even if marriage laws had discriminated on the basis of race for the length of human history, to the extent that race could be said to be incorporated into the definition of marriage itself?
Too cumbersome. But, not applicable.
11) answer 9 & 10 substituting “religion” for “race”.
Same response.
I would note that race, religion and sexual orientation don’t quite fit into equivalent, generic “classifications.”
This is particularly true of race, whereas we read all this high-falutin’ language about non-discrimination, but then colleges go to the mat with all sorts of convoluted, unprincipled, aggressive arguments to defend racial preferences writ large.
And, of course, the history of mankind is fraught with numerous, epic religious wars, so that’s a pretty big one, too.
Dispute over sexual orientation, to me, juss doesn’t rise to those two levels, particularly, in a society that has increasingly liberalized as we have. Sorry.
3) do you believe that gay people should be celibate?
Depends on whether buggery is a Sin or not. I tend to think not, but it ain’t yet clear to me.
I have to point this out, Navy, tongue-in-cheek: by no means all gay people commit (or want to commit) buggery. Or are even equipped to do it. *whistles innocently*
KenB: The fact that DeMint’s objectionable views on homosexuality don’t constitute a deal-breaker for RedState and its denizens isn’t enough evidence to say that they lack concern about it.
Not a total lack of concern, perhaps, but a serious deficit.
Navy
I didn’t get past the irrelevancy of your very first point.
“1) do you generally agree with the statement “it is wrong to discriminate against people for characteristics they cannot change”?
Generally, yes. But too broad. People change ages, change religions, and, in S.F., sometimes they even change sexes!”
I believe it states very clearly “characteristics they cannot change” so why do you respond by saying it’s “too broad” and then bring up the wholly different category of ‘charcteristics people can change’?
Makes no sense to me.
Carsick,
Because the argument is:
1. You shouldn’t discriminate against people based on immutable characteristics.
2. Sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic.
Therefore, you shouldn’t discriminate against someone who is gay.
And, I think the first premise is not accurate. We do discriminate (sometimes) based on immutable characteristics (women aren’t drafted); and we do prohibit discrimination against non-immutable characteristics (religious converts, for example)
So, all these unending labors to demonstrate homosexuality as an immutable characterictic — the sine qua non of discrimination analysis, to me, doesn’t quite fit.
I prefer morals and manners to law. Whether homosexuality is immoral or not — is the toughest question to me. If it is not immoral, then it is very difficult to find a rationale to prohibit gay marriage.
My 2 cents.
2) do you believe that people can choose their sexual orientation?
Tough one. But, Yes, some do.
Huh?
Who?
Navy:
Your logic is flawed. The first premise reads: “You should not discriminate” not “We do not discriminate.”
Rest assured that if there is a draft, plenty of those who fight for gay rights will also argue that women should be drafted.
Your earlier dismissal that because some choose to have homosexual encounters that sexual orientation is not a choice, while taking advantage of the flawed wording of Katherine’s question, is still a dodge.
I’d love to hear your responses to my answer upthread (07:18 PM).
1. Our bisexual friend S.
2. The pretty girl I knew in law school who got so political, she decided to go Lesbian!
3. The several people who start out straight and end up gay, or go the opposite way.
4. Anne Heche:)
Your logic is flawed. The first premise reads: “You should not discriminate” not “We do not discriminate.”
Fair point. But, moot. We should discriminate against men and for women, by drafting men in war-time.
We should discriminate in the Olympic events, too — I don’t see any feminists demanding co-ed competitions in the shot-put:)
Navy Davy: “We do discriminate (sometimes) based on immutable characteristics (women aren’t drafted)”
Past performance is not indicative…:” the draft – which will include both boys and girls this time around – is a no-brainer in ‘05 and ‘06″ says Hackworth.
You’re citing people who chose a certain behavior at a certain time, not an “orientation,” Navy.
We do discriminate (sometimes) based on immutable characteristics (women aren’t drafted);
Excuse me, Davy, but last I looked we didn’t draft men either. Do you know something the rest of the world doesn’t?
and we do prohibit discrimination against non-immutable characteristics (religious converts, for example)
This is what’s called affirming the consequent. If you punch me in the face, my nose will hurt. My nose hurts. Therefore, you must have punched me in the face.
You seem to assert that because we prohibit discrimination against non-immutable characteristics, this must mean we shouldn’t, as a rule, prohibit discrimination against immutable characteristics. There’s no logical connection there; there’s only a gaping fallacy. There is, in fact, constitutional protection for both religious beliefs and, as you say, immutable characteristics (such as race and gender). It’s just taking a long time to get sexual orientation recognized as such – but then again, it took decades to give women the right to vote after the Fourteenth Amendment supposedly granted equal protection under the law.
I prefer morals and manners to law. Whether homosexuality is immoral or not — is the toughest question to me.
It’s not a tough question for me at all. How can the private love of any couple or group hurt or damage someone else? The bedrock of morality should not be adherence to a list of arbitrary rules – what meat you eat, what you do on certain days, what hand you use to brush your teeth, what is contained in the composition of a communion wafer, who you can or cannot have sex with – but how you treat your world and your fellow human beings. Morality exists as a structure to preserve the human race, to tell us do not bash your neighbor’s brain out with a rock to get his wallet, because if that was okay, civilization wouldn’t exist. It doesn’t exist to tell us who to love, any more than it tells us what races to breed with.
It leaves me positively breathless that the same party that can talk to me about morality in my bedroom is working so hard to legalize torture right now. Loving who I choose to love versus pulling their fingernails out with a pair of pliers – that’s a no-brainer for me. I know which one’s immoral.
As far as preferring morals “and manners” to law – I prefer my law to be moral. It’s been my experience that religious law tends to be amoral, and serves an entirely different purpose other than the furthering of morality, but that’s a discussion for another time.
So your new argument is:
1. You should discriminate against people based on immutable characteristics.
2. Sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic.
Therefore, you should discriminate against someone who is gay.
Did I get that right Navy?
Rike,
So, the hypothetical draft will hypothetically include women, says Hackworth, the hypothetical military authority. Hah!
Eddie,
Look at the defect in your argument.
1. Sexual orientation is immutable.
2. The folks who change from straight to gay or vice-versa, really aren’t changing — they were just wrong at first.
How can anyone disprove this? Moreover, how can a disprovable argument ever be valid?
Question: What evidence would you need to see that sexual orientation was changeable?
Bisexuality isn’t “choosing” an orientation, ND. It means you’re attracted to men and women. Now, if you’ve had a personal experience that indicates otherwise, and you’d like to tell us about it, well then, I’m all ears… 🙂
Question: What evidence would you need to see that sexual orientation was changeable?
You flipping to the back pages of your local newspaper, calling a male escort and getting a thorough rogering.
Yup. That’d pretty much do it.
ND, would you like it better if gays/bis/what-have-you wore little labels that said “immutably gay!”, perhaps with little lights they could turn on and off, so that you could know when to discriminate against them or not?
I’m getting this bizarre vibe from you, like you’re chomping at the bit to find out when you get to deny rights to people.
No, I never served time in prison:)
So, what is the sexial orientation of a bisexual then?
Seems to muddle up the topic even more
Someone asked for a pro-FMA type to respond — thats all I did. Because it’s a thermonuclear topic, where folks often get upset–I tried to be civil and organized, which as you know, is a heroic feat for my addled brain
But, that’s it. For me the Golden rule is and remains –we’re all created in God’s image with innate dignity, and that means everybody, rangin’ from Barney Frank to Rick Santorum.
I’m done
So, what is the sexial orientation of a bisexual then?
Bisexual. What else?
Navy Davy: But, that’s it. For me the Golden rule is and remains –we’re all created in God’s image with innate dignity, and that means everybody, rangin’ from Barney Frank to Rick Santorum.
The Golden Rule tells us to treat others as we would have them treat us. It is an argument against preserving certain rights for yourself but denying them to others. It is a brilliant rule, which is antithetical to the Federal Marriage Amendment as well as to DeMint’s views on gays and lesbians.
ND, thanks for answering.
“Dispute over sexual orientation, to me, juss doesn’t rise to those two levels, particularly, in a society that has increasingly liberalized as we have. Sorry.”
First of all, while I agree that no wars have been fought over sexual orientation, there is no question that people have been murdered over it, denied jobs over it, and been discriminated against for it in a way that caused a great deal of suffering.
Second of all, your last paragraph sounds like an explanation of why you believe courts should not find that the Constitution requires equal marriage rights for gays and lesbians. It does not sound like an explanation of why you are so certain that gays and lesbians must not married that you believe we must amend the U.S. Constitution to ensure they cannot.
I may misunderstand…you do support the FMA, right?
I fail to see why the question of mutability or immutability arises in this context. Isn’t it a question of whether we should allow discrimination based on people’s sexual preferences, regardless of their origin?
If two people of the same sex love each other and wish to marry, why should their right to do so depend on a scientific conclusion as to whether their preferences are immutable or not?
Suppose the best evidence is that they are in fact immutable, and gay marriage becomes widely permitted because of this. A few years later it is discovered that this conclusion is incorrect, and there exist therapies to change sexual preference. Would we then invalidate all existing homosexual marriages? Change the law? Surely not.
Katherine,
Hey, a sane friendly voice among static!
I do not prefer the FMA.
However, I do not want the Mayor of S.F. violating the law by marrying men. And I don’t want bogus state Supreme Court decisions like Mass to predominate. It doesn’t take Oliver Wendell Holmes to see the historical chess board clearly from Brown v. Board (a good result) to Roe v. Wade (a bad result).
Gettin’ married in Mass, flying to Cal, suing to throw-out DOMA by a sympathetic federal judge, means gay marriage across the country with nary a vote.
I prefer this less than I prefer FMA.
My preference: state-wide referenda on the issue, losers gracefully accept decision.
By my count, y’all will get gay marriage in NY, Rhode Island, Mass, possibly California, and several other states, and nobody should have a problem wid dat result.
My preference: state-wide referenda on the issue, losers gracefully accept decision.
If this is your view, Navy Davy, why do you agree with Brown, then? Couldn’t the issue have been settled through state referenda, with the losers gracefully accepting the decision? There would have been plenty of states with integrated schools, why should folks have had a problem with that result?
What evidence would you need to see that sexual orientation was changeable?
No one needs any “evidence.” Each individual figures it out for themselves.
By a certain age, you know whether or not you could fall in love with another man, Navy. You know it as well as you know anything about yourself. If you cannot fall in love, seriously in love, you are not gay.
If you can, that doesn’t prevent you from fooling some woman into marrying you (by telling her you love her), but it wouldn’t be fair to her nor would it be fair to yourself ultimately.
My point is there’s a degree of personal intergrity here that transcends even others’ sense of morality. You do what you know is right in your heart, for you and for your potential spouse.
No one needs any “evidence.” Each individual figures it out for themselves.
This is where we differ.
If this is your view, Navy Davy, why do you agree with Brown, then?
Slave trade. Missouri Compromise. Dred Scott decision. Secession. Civil War. 14th Amend. Jim Crow.
It’s called, history, my friend. A page of which is worth volumes of logic –OWH.
This is where we differ.
Sure, but would you if you were on the other side of the question?
I sincerely doubt it.
Navy, are you saying that if history comes down on the side of the MA court decision, you’ll agree it then?
“So, the hypothetical draft will hypothetically include women, says Hackworth, the hypothetical military authority. Hah!”
No, Hackworth says there will be a draft, and it will include women. Judging whether Hackworth is a military authority is beyond my expertise, but as far as I know he’s widely respected across the spectrum.
I don’t know how we’re going to deal with a (hypothetical) second front without a draft, a tax increase, and a new leadership.
Navy, apologies if I offended in response to your earlier question on evidence.
Let me put it this way: Is there a body of evidence you could assemble to prove that you are straight?
“…you’ll agree it then?”
Make that “agree WITH it then”.
Navy
“No one needs any “evidence.” Each individual figures it out for themselves.
This is where we differ.”
So did you sit down with a pen and paper and list the pros and cons before you made the decision about your sexual orientation?
Ha ha ha
See, thatsa problem with some of y’all. Bein’ so emotional and entrenched, ya don’t even see a potential helpin’ hand reachin’ out from across the political divide.
First detection of heterosexual proclivities: I would say watchin’ those damn Charlie’s Angels on T.V. in the 70’s.
Current confirmation of same: My ornery wife, Crazy Janey, and those damnable offspring, who be squanderin’ my vast estate.
ya don’t even see a potential helpin’ hand reachin’ out from across the political divide.
Surely, you’re no Jim DeMint, Navy.
Still, there’s an underlying “emotional” aspect of your protest here…everyone disagreeing with you is using logic about emotional issues, not emotion about logical issues…why you’re reading it the other way around suggests the logic is disturbing for you, no?
I’m sure most of you have read this, but I thought it very relevant, which is Crooked Timber’s Chris Bertram on Lou Reed and the time line of change
http://www.crookedtimber.org/archives/002272.html
“Navy, are you saying that if history comes down on the side of the MA court decision, you’ll agree it then?”
The MA court decision leads to what I see as the right result–legal gay marriage. It does so by taking a role which the courts ought not take–advocate for change.
The MA court decision leads to what I see as the right result–legal gay marriage. It does so by taking a role which the courts ought not take–advocate for change.
Philosophically I get that. But if that one burp in the process then leads to the spread of legislatively mandated gay marriage (which in my opinion is the right and fair and American thing to have happen), isn’t that still just the flexibility the founding fathers built into the system working as it should?
Serious question.
Edward: No one needs any “evidence.” Each individual figures it out for themselves.
Navy Davy: This is where we differ
And yet: First detection of heterosexual proclivities: I would say watchin’ those damn Charlie’s Angels on T.V. in the 70’s.
So, it sounds like – just like Edward said – you figured out your sexuality for yourself. No one had to provide any “evidence” to prove to you you are heterosexual. Right?
Sounds like when you told Edward “This is where we differ” you were wrong.
“But if that one burp in the process then leads to the spread of legislatively mandated gay marriage (which in my opinion is the right and fair and American thing to have happen), isn’t that still just the flexibility the founding fathers built into the system working as it should?”
One wonders whether you would accept this line of reasoning if it were being used to support the Iraqi liberation. After all, if the ends justify the means here, why not there*?
Moe
*Bearing in mind that this is not the argument that I so use wrt my stance on Iraq, that I have absolutely zero interest in hijacking this thread with a digression about my stance on Iraq and I am equally indifferent to anybody’s lowered opinion about my stance on Iraq. There. That should cover most of the attempts to change the subject. 🙂
That should read ‘lowered opinion about me wrt my disinclination to comment about…” etc, etc, etc.
Just wait. The issue of disenfranchised voters will prevail!
One wonders whether you would accept this line of reasoning if it were being used to support the Iraqi liberation. After all, if the ends justify the means here, why not there*?
I do think that’s a very fair and interesting question.
I wrote long ago on Tacitus that I hoped I was wrong about Iraq…that given cause I would be happy to admit I was wrong about Iraq, but that given the “facts” as I saw them, I had to conclude it wasn’t the right thing to do.
More than that, I allowed for the possibility that Wolfowitz was a genius who future generations would praise and that it was simply impossible to see it from where I currently stand.
Clearly, ten years from now, if Iraq is a free and stable state, my opinion will matter very little on this specific action, and perhaps I’ll even have softened my stance against pre-emptive war…but I doubt it.
Having said all that in all earnestness though, I think the bar is higher when we’re talking about actions that will unquestionably cost innocent lives than ones that some folks fear without any proof might harm the fabric of society.
“One wonders whether you would accept this line of reasoning if it were being used to support the Iraqi liberation. After all, if the ends justify the means here, why not there*?”
I would if the ends looked anything similar to the ends of those advocating that gay people be treated equally before the law (I say this especially since I was one of those liberal hawks) But it is certainly not as clear-cut in the case of Iraq.
While I’m sympathetic to Sebastian’s idea of judicial conservatism, it does seem that having an “activist” judiciary (adopting the usual meaning of this term on the Right, for now) can actually be a force for democracy in the context of social change. For one thing, the will of the indifferent majority can often be hijacked by a vociferous minority; for another, sometimes people just need to be exposed to that thing they’re fighting before they can learn to accept it.
I’m thinking in particular about Massachusetts, where a majority was against gay marriage, but now that it’s there due to court fiat, people are realizing that it’s really not the end of the world as they know it, and the movement to overturn it is losing steam. By forcing the issue, the court revealed that the majority against gay marriage was based on ignorance. One wonders how many years it would have taken for a legislative majority to reach the same place.
I know that focussing on the results instead of the process is a dangerous game, but it’s worth considering the consequences of the majoritarian approach.
I’m thinking in particular about Massachusetts, where a majority was against gay marriage, but now that it’s there due to court fiat, people are realizing that it’s really not the end of the world as they know it, and the movement to overturn it is losing steam. By forcing the issue, the court revealed that the majority against gay marriage was based on ignorance.
Back a few months ago, I was looking up the terms “tyranny of the majority” and “tyranny of the elite”, and this led me to Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America. I’d never read it before (indeed, I haven’t read it all now) but what I have read is fascinating stuff, and very relevant to current affairs, though it was written over 170 years ago.
PS Incidentally, I finally discovered my online identity: only problem is, I think it’s Crusading Ogre… but with aspirations. 😉
Actually, having just skimmed the MA constitution, I think the decision by the MA Supreme Court is perfectly justifiable on the merits, without requiring any ‘activism’ at all. That being said, about Moe’s question (“One wonders whether you would accept this line of reasoning if it were being used to support the Iraqi liberation. After all, if the ends justify the means here, why not there*?”):
I didn’t read Edward as saying ‘the ends justify the means’, exactly. I thought the idea was: the system was constructed to accommodate the odd bad decision, and to provide us with a basis for accepting its legitimacy even if we don’t agree with the legal reasoning behind it. That it was also the decision he hoped for was a separate point.
Applying this reasoning to Iraq: as it happens (and I would prefer not to reargue this one either), I thought Bush v. Gore was wrongly decided on the merits. Nonetheless, the Constitution does not say that I get to decide these matters (drat!), so I accepted the decision, and thus the Bush Presidency, as legitimate. One consequence of Bush’s being President is the war in Iraq. I don’t like it, but I accept it as a legitimate choice by the President. (Any doubts I have about this concern the more general question whether the Senate has, under the Constitution, the right to delegate its power to declare war, which is a separate issue.) My attitude towards the war is thus quite different from my attitude towards, say, extraordinary renditions performed by the government, which I think are illegal.
So I think that, for me, the answer is: I do take the same view. Fwiw.
“Philosophically I get that. But if that one burp in the process then leads to the spread of legislatively mandated gay marriage (which in my opinion is the right and fair and American thing to have happen), isn’t that still just the flexibility the founding fathers built into the system working as it should.”
Judges changing the law in that way was not part of the flexibility the founders built in to the system. It leads to the kind of thing where people say, “The most important thing about electing X will be the judges he nominates.” That should not be a true statement in our political system.
“I’m thinking in particular about Massachusetts, where a majority was against gay marriage, but now that it’s there due to court fiat, people are realizing that it’s really not the end of the world as they know it, and the movement to overturn it is losing steam. By forcing the issue, the court revealed that the majority against gay marriage was based on ignorance.”
I don’t agree with that interpretation at all. I strongly suspect that people realize changing the Constitution in response to awful judicial decisions is incredibly difficult. I’m also not sure the movement to overturn it has lost that much steam. And if it forces a constitutional change denying gays the ability to marry (as it has done in other states), it will be that much harder to deal with when the polity is more willing.
“For one thing, the will of the indifferent majority can often be hijacked by a vociferous minority…”
I’m kind of annoyed that you would even bring such an excuse up in this context, as it clearly is not the case in this instance. If anything the argument is far more likely to run in quite the opposite direction.
“Actually, having just skimmed the MA constitution, I think the decision by the MA Supreme Court is perfectly justifiable on the merits, without requiring any ‘activism’ at all.”
I’d be interested in what makes you think so. Especially considering that the most often used phrase in the MA Constitution used as a defense had the issue of gay marriage raised at the time it was voted upon, with those suggesting that the language could be used to justify gay marriage denounced as idiots.
“I didn’t read Edward as saying ‘the ends justify the means’, exactly.”
Oh, he didn’t, exactly, and I wasn’t trying to suggest so. I just thought that it was a new, interesting angle from which to view the topic, and I seem to have gotten a few thoughtful responses from it, so there you go. 🙂
Sebastian writes:
“Judges changing the law in that way was not part of the flexibility the founders built in to the system.”
But my understanding is that judges are supposed to interpret the law in the context of new developments and changes in society. Perhaps this hinges on some discussion of precisely what was at issue in the MA case that I am not aware of (and I was much less interested in the MA case than in the SF case as an example of civil disobedience) I agree that one can interpret somthing in a way that completely changes it, but is there something specific in the MA case that had the judges changing the law?
Moe — you’ve got mail 🙂
Sebastian: it’s the predictable argument. The MA Constitution says things like:
The point of such passages is (and is read by the Justices as being) to say that there are certain “essential” rights which it is the purpose of government to secure, and which it cannot infringe arbitrarily. (It can imprison me after it convicts me, but not arbitrarily.) Moreover, that people have them equally (though they can forfeit them.) The rights listed are “among” these essential rights; thus, the essential rights are not limited to those enumerated. Which unenumerated rights belong on the list? If any right other than those enumerated is ‘essential’ to a person’s liberty, the right to marry the person of one’s choice would seem to be; and this view has various other decisions (e.g., Loving v. Virginia) behind it.
The Justices argue (pdf) that the state could infringe this right only if it meets some standard. They do not decide whether that standard should be strict scrutiny or rational basis, since they think it doesn’t meet the rational basis test. QED.
About the fact that the people who wrote and voted in the MA Constitution didn’t think that it would allow gay marriage: here I suspect that you and I are going to come down to a difference in views on interpretation. According to me, what we need to preserve in interpretation is the meaning of the terms, not their extension (this set of things they apply to.) Thus, if we are interpreting ‘carcinogen’, to get it right we need to interpret it as ‘cancer-causing substance’, or something; we do not need to agree with the people who drafted a law using that term about what things are, in fact, carcinogens.
In the case of gay marriage, if I had to guess, I’d suspect that I do not differ with the framers of the MA constitution that the right to marry the person of one’s choice is a basic right. (If I did, the disagreement would probably concern whether I or e.g. my parents should get to decide; not whether or not the state should get to pick my spouse. I imagine that would have been just as horrifying to John Adams as it is to me.)
I suspect that the disagreement would have concerned the question, is there a rational basis for forbidding gay marriage? I suspect that to anyone in the late 18th century, the answer would have been ‘obviously, yes’, while to me it is, no. Here I think it’s quite possible to say: we have learned things since then, things that are relevant to this question.
The basic point is just: I think I get there through straightforward interpretation of the MA Constitution. You may think I’m wrong, and/or that the Justices are; but while they and I might be misguided, I don’t think we’re obviously misguided.
“For one thing, the will of the indifferent majority can often be hijacked by a vociferous minority…”
I’m kind of annoyed that you would even bring such an excuse up in this context, as it clearly is not the case in this instance. If anything the argument is far more likely to run in quite the opposite direction.
An “excuse”? “Annoyed”? Oh dear. I was floating a general idea about some drawbacks of a purely legislative approach, so for me, that was the context. I actually realized after I posted that I should have begun the second paragraph with “regarding the second point” or some such thing. So sorry to have offended you, I’ll try to be more careful in future.
I strongly suspect that people realize changing the Constitution in response to awful judicial decisions is incredibly difficult.
On this point neither of us have enough evidence, so I guess we should agree to let it lie. In any event, the feared reaction has not taken place in Massachusetts.
And if it forces a constitutional change denying gays the ability to marry (as it has done in other states)…
It’s entirely true that I wasn’t thinking of the effect that the decision had in other states.
And a straightforward understanding of the term marriage obviously includes all potential gender pairings? Only because you want to define marriage that way.
As for the meanings of words as enacted, I think it is a very clear sign that a particular interpretation is wrong if it can be shown to have been explicitly considered and dismissed by those who passed the law. Take away something that explicit and frankly you aren’t left with much.
Sebastian: “I think it is a very clear sign that a particular interpretation is wrong if it can be shown to have been explicitly considered and dismissed by those who passed the law.”
I disagree. First, we’re talking about the extension, not the meaning, of the concept. There are lots of cases in which people think a term applies to X and then we learn something which makes us conclude that it doesn’t, or vice versa. What’s crucial is to be able to say what that something is in a way that makes the claim that we have learned something new, as opposed to changing our meanings, plausible. That’s why I used the simple case of ‘carcinogen’: it’s easy to explain why, despite the fact (pretend it is one) that the drafters of a law banning carcinogens from something didn’t think their law applied to a given substance, but we do, without invoking any change of meaning at all.
In the case of gay marriage, as I said, I suspect that the difference between me and the framers of the MA constitution comes down to the question whether or not there is a rational basis for mandating that marriage be between a man and a woman. Here I think two things have changed. First, it seemed obvious then that gay marriage was ludicrous, and it seems a lot less obvious now. Likewise, it might have seemed (for all I know) just obvious that people from different races should not marry, back in 1780, but it doesn’t now. This means that we need to consider arguments one way or the other, whereas they might not have thought they had to. Second, we now know various things that they don’t. For instance, we have evidence about the effects on children of having two parents of the same sex; they did not. This means that whereas they might have assumed that those effects would be bad, we do not have to make assumptions; we can consider the evidence. Etc.
Bottom line: there’s a story, which I find plausible, about why this disagreement exists that has nothing to do with changes in meaning, and everything to do with the combination of our not being tempted to see an answer to the question ‘does the state have the right to deny same-sex couples the right to marry?’ as too obvious to need a serious answer, and the fact that we know a lot more about some of the facts that are relevant to answering that question than they did.
Sebastian is an “original intent” originalist, which even Antonin Scalia claims not to be (though Scalia sometimes makes “original intent” arguments as well as “original meaning” ones in practice).
Also, Goodridge places less reliance on the ERA than he suggests.
Katherine — Once upon a time, in a land far far away called Princeton, there was a dinner for Antonin Scalia, and whoever did the seating had the perverse idea of seating me next to him. (I mean: you can’t chalk that up to anything other than someone’s truly twisted sense of fun.) He had just made an argument very much like Sebastian’s, to the effect that the only alternative to original intent in constitutional interpretation was judicial activism, since without appeals to original intent there was nothing whatsoever to guide interpretation, and thus no alternative to judges’ making stuff up. So somehow we started talking about this over dinner, and I made basically the argument I made above, and he said, basically, that moral terms were different from terms like ‘carcinogen’ (or whatever example I was using), and when pressed he ended up saying that this difference consisted in the fact that there is no way of telling how to apply moral terms correctly, at all. Argument ensued. And I remember this moment when I looked at him and said, “So, Justice Scalia, would it be right to say that the difference between you and Ronald Dworkin is that you are a moral nihilist and he is not?”, and he said, “yes.” I love this moment. — Of course, it was over dinner and so forth, so it should not be taken as, um, his considered opinion. But it was classic.
I hope that comment came with the dessert course…
No I’m an original meaning constructionist, and a consensus among those who pass a law that its meaning does not include gay marriage is very strong evidence that the meaning doesn’t include gay marriage. Original intent would involve trying to speculate on the MA ratifier’s intention. That is completely unnecessary as the issue was explicitly raised and explicitly dismissed while the issue was being debated.
There is a huge problem with the ‘carcinogen’ analogy. It isn’t the generally accepted understanding of the term marriage to include same sex partners. Evidence for that fact is the need to mention ‘same-sex’ marriage. If scientific evidence shows that something causes cancer, it becomes a carcinogen under legal definitions because carcinogen means ‘cancer causing’. There is no similar analogy for a social concept. Science cannot discover that word marriage has meant all possible permutations of relationships because it has in fact never meant that. There are a huge number of intimate relationships that it does not cover. If we would like certain permutations to be covered by the term, people are welcome to use the democratic process to change them. Putting judges in the social change role is an abuse of jurisprudence and a horrible abuse of the Constitutional process. If you want people to respect Constitutions you can’t whine to judges everytime you think something is unjust. You are supposed to whine to legislators or go through the Constitutional process. You can’t appeal to a new ‘understanding of rights’ either, because if the community really had a new understanding you wouldn’t be having trouble with the legislative process. One possible exception would be a Miranda type ruling, where the Court recognizes that well-established rights are not being vindicated by the current process. The key there is ‘well-established’.
If the meaning of a word or phrase is explicitly examined by those who pass a law, and a certain interpretation is clearly out of bounds at the time, that meaning cannot be later added by judges without making a mockery of the whole process. Why bother passing laws in words if judges can transform them into something completely different? Why not just say:
Marriage Statute:
Marriage is blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah.
The rights conferred by being married are blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.
Marriage does not include blah blah blah blah.
My statute now limits marriage under your theory of jurisprudence exactly as much as:
Marriage is between a man and a woman, or
Marriage is between any gender, or
Marriage is any loving relationship, or
Marriage is a cat.
There have been zero new discoveries about the term marriage since the MA Constitutional amendment was enacted. The only thing that has changed is that gays are more vocal about their desire to codify their relationships under a marriage rubric which does not currently include the possiblity of two people of the same sex. This is not a discovery like ‘X causes cancer’. This is a political desire which ought to be fulfilled or not fulfilled in the normal legislative channels.
“So, Justice Scalia, would it be right to say that the difference between you and Ronald Dworkin is that you are a moral nihilist and he is not?”
The correct answer is: legislators are empowered to make novel moral judgments in the course of their profession. A judge is not.
Do we let policemen decide what is against the law? No, that is not their function.
Do we let fireman decide military strategy? No, that is not their function
Do we let amusement park ride operators set SEC policy? No, that is not their function.
Ought we let judges make substantive changes to laws? No, that is not their function.
Ought we let legislators make substantive changes to laws? Yes, that is their function.
SebastianAnd a straightforward understanding of the term marriage obviously includes all potential gender pairings? Only because you want to define marriage that way.
To be fair, Sebastian, Merriam-Webster’s online edition now defines marriage just that way. (Which means that M-W11, whenever it comes out, will define marriage that way in print.) And M-W isn’t the only dictionary to recognise that the definition of marriage has, of necessity, changed. In the Netherlands, a gay couple can get married: in several states in the US and in several other countries in Western Europe, a gay couple can enter a civil partnership that is equivalent to marriage. Therefore, unless you wish to exclude certain geographic areas from your linguistic universe, the dictionary definition of marriage must be written to include same-gender pairings – simply because both the concept of marriage, and therefore the language used dealing with it, have changed. Neither language nor social structures are eternal and unchanging.
” Neither language nor social structures are eternal and unchanging.”
Of course not, and the proper venue for changes in the law based in changes in social concepts is the legislature. That is what they are for.
Once upon a time, in a land far far away called Princeton…
Oh good grief, that’s why your name sounded so familiar; must’ve seen it in the PAW or something. Class of ’98 here.
Of course not, and the proper venue for changes in the law based in changes in social concepts is the legislature. That is what they are for.
See de Tocquville on why the US legislature is geared to make such changes far more difficult than they reasonably should be, thus effectively putting changes into the realm of the judiciary. Seriously. It was an illuminating read.
In any case, my point was in response to your assertion “Only because you want to define marriage that way.” Not so – as M-W’s change to the dictionary definition of marriage attests.
Sebastian: we’re still arguing about whether or not the meaning of a term includes facts about its extension. And, my discussions with Scalia notwithstanding, on gay marriage my contention is not that the view of rights changed, but that it had seemed too obvious then that gay marriage was wrong for there to (seem to) be a need for a serious explanation of why the state had a rational basis to forbid it, and also that we know more (factual) things about e.g. the effects on children of being raised by a gay couple, effects which in 1780 had to be imagined.
This is not about whining to a court every time I want a change; it’s about making (what seems to me to be) a serious argument that forbidding gay marriage is in fact unconstitutional (under the MA constitution).
Anarch: I was only there for that one year, on a fellowship, and also as an undergrad long before you. Great philosophy department.
“See de Tocquville on why the US legislature is geared to make such changes far more difficult than they reasonably should be, thus effectively putting changes into the realm of the judiciary. Seriously. It was an illuminating read.”
Show me the ‘thus’ I don’t remember that.
Hilzoy, you keep mentioning 1780. What does 1780 have to do with the discussion? The Equal Right Amendment in question to the Massachusetts Constitution was adopted in 1976. This isn’t an artifact from a bygone era–full of confusing terminology that we have to work unusually hard to understand. This was a debate in modern English taking place in our lifetimes.
Jesurgislac your appeal to the modern M-W has nothing to do with it. Please note the difference in how this works:
Hilzoy’s carcinogen example: the meaning of carcinogen remains unchanged. A quick and dirty definition of it both in historical context and in the modern context is: ‘thing which causes cancer’. The change is in our understanding of which things cause cancer. Term meaning-unchanged. List of things included in the term, changed by scientific research.
Marriage: The meaning of marriage historically does not include same sex partners. If it currently does (which I doubt because of the absolute necessity of including ‘same-sex’ as a prefix), that represents a change in term meaning from lawmakers past. A change in common usage does not change the law. If it did, slang meanings could easily swamp changes into the law which are both undesireable and completely unnecessary. A change in the term meaning is to be enacted by a legislature.
Do you see how in hilzoy’s example, the meaning of the word has not changed?
A quick and dirty definition of marriage is: “Two or more people living together in a customary union recognised by their society.” That meaning has not changed – and is far more universal than the meticulous definition of “one man one woman” which excludes so manay marriages, historically and worldwide.
A change in common usage does not change the law
No, indeed. But it does change the definition of marriage, which is the (trivial) point I was making.
From The American Heritage dictionary (just to ring the changes):
Marriage means:
1.
a. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
b. The state of being married; wedlock.
c. A common-law marriage.
d. A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.
2. A wedding.
3. A close union: “the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics” (Lloyd Rose).
Meaning 1a requires both participants to be of opposite genders. You could argue that 1b and 1c derive from 1a and therefore the implied meaning is hetero marriage only. 1d, however, plainly states that “marriage” can include same-sex couples.
Meanings 2 and 3 do not demand both participants to be of opposite genders.
which I doubt because of the absolute necessity of including ‘same-sex’ as a prefix
It’s no more an “absolute necessity” than it’s an “absolute necessity” to refer to “interracial marriage”.
Sebastian: I was talking about 1780 because significant chunks of my reading turned on the assertion that government should not infringe our ‘essential rights’, which is from then.
You write: “The meaning of marriage historically does not include same sex partners.” But this is the point I keep coming back to: that’s a claim about who can be married, not about what “marriage” means. Obviously, there are some beings who we couldn’t imagine being married absent some serious change in the meaning: tin cans, for instance. But why assume that gay couples are among them?
Besides, as I said before, my argument does not turn on the meaning of ‘marriage’, which (iirc, I am not going to go back and check this now) is not a word that appears in the MA Constitution.
Jesurgislac, when a dictionary has a definition like: The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife, that indicates that there is a legal issue to be resolved past the dictionary.
Hilzoy, you write: “Besides, as I said before, my argument does not turn on the meaning of ‘marriage’, which (iirc, I am not going to go back and check this now) is not a word that appears in the MA Constitution.”
Correct. It turns on the meaning of the 1976 amendment which reads in total:
One of the arguments against the Massachusetts ERA in 1976 was that many conservatives were worried it could legalize gay marriage. They were roundly condemned as scare-mongers, indicating that such an interpretation was not considered plausible by proponents of the Massachusetts ERA.
The potential interpretation was specifically raised at the time of ratification, and specifically denied as implausible and not indicated by the amendment by proponents of the amendment.
And that is strongly dispostive in interpreting the amendment–especially because it is centered around a debate that occurred within our lifetimes.
Sebastian Holsclaw: It isn’t the generally accepted understanding of the term marriage to include same sex partners. Evidence for that fact is the need to mention ‘same-sex’ marriage.
Much like “Women’s Suffrage”, “Same-Sex Marriage” is a term made necessary by the discriminations of law not because the notion of people of the same sex getting married is culturally meaningless (the inclusion of women in the vote certainly didn’t destroy or erode the meaning of the original word). I very much doubt the term will find widespread usage outside a policy context, as couples will simply get “married” and nobody will misunderstand just what that means. “Gay Marriage” won’t be printed on many wedding invitations, folks won’t go on “same-sex honeymoons”. The ones whose marriages fail won’t get “same-sex divorces”, though I do admit there is a longstanding precedent for “Gay Divorcees”.
And exactly like Women’s Suffrage, change requires legislative or constitutional change. Thanks for making my point.
Sebastian Holsclaw: And exactly like Women’s Suffrage, change requires legislative or constitutional change. Thanks for making my point.
Yeah, just like “Interracial Marriage” or “Integrated Schools” neither of which was decided in the courts, right? It’s a good thing you don’t need to cherry-pick examples to support your argument.
Of course the amendment process is a perfectly valid method for social change, it just isn’t the only valid method. If you want to convince folks otherwise, you’ll have to do better than to simply point to examples of changes that you support that were made by Amendment, and address why you don’t support changes made through the courts, as the Brown and Loving decisions were.
And are you unwilling to address my actual point, that “Same-Sex” is a policy distinction, not semantic proof that marriage between same-sex partners is inconceivable under our current cultural understanding of the institution?
Actually the inter-racial marriage and integrated schools things came from the civil war amendments. Which explicitly have to do with race therefore you are making my point yet a third time.
Thanks for being on my side. I don’t pay well though.
“And are you unwilling to address my actual point, that “Same-Sex” is a policy distinction, not semantic proof that marriage between same-sex partners is inconceivable under our current cultural understanding of the institution?”
Yup, it is a policy decision. Policy decision making authority is given to the legislature and some of it to the administration. Policy decision making is not a power given to the court.
So you agree with me again.
And what is this ‘inconceivable’ thing? I didn’t say it was inconceivable. I am in fact discussing it, which suggests I can conceive of it. In fact I support same sex marriages. I also support the Constitutional order of our country. Which means I support legislatures making the decision.
I have never argued that the Courts have NO role. I have never argued that Courts are not empowered to vindicate Constitutional rights. I argue that they do not have the right to make changes which are in direct contradiction with the meaning of the clauses in question. In fact they are not empowered to make any changes except those which are in direct conformance with the clauses in question.
BTW, I suspect that accusing me of ‘cherry-picking’ examples when I merely use the ones that you bring forward is a slight misinterpretation of the phrase.
Sebastian Holsclaw: Actually the inter-racial marriage and integrated schools things came from the civil war amendments. Which explicitly have to do with race therefore you are making my point yet a third time.
…
I have never argued that the Courts have NO role. I have never argued that Courts are not empowered to vindicate Constitutional rights. I argue that they do not have the right to make changes which are in direct contradiction with the meaning of the clauses in question. In fact they are not empowered to make any changes except those which are in direct conformance with the clauses in question.
First, please stop pretending I’m making your points for you in order to avoid directly addressing my original argument. I think you are better than that.
Now, lets look at the things you have actually said:
You appear to have difficulty saying the C word in anything but a negative context. The way you tell it, these cases were decided by the amendment process, and no action on the part of the courts was needed to correct the failures of the legislature! That must be some consolation to the millions of victims of Jim Crow. It is one thing to argue that the decisions the courts make are wrong, which you do seem to be engaging elsewhere, but this argument that the courts are not a proper venue for these cases seeks to undermine the very structure of our government.
Yup, it is a policy decision. Policy decision making authority is given to the legislature and some of it to the administration. Policy decision making is not a power given to the court.
You are still ignoring the semantic discussion exclusively in favor of complaining about venue (which I never mentioned in my original comment, it is worth noting). Why don’t you feel like answering my point? Can you?
BTW, I suspect that accusing me of ‘cherry-picking’ examples when I merely use the ones that you bring forward is a slight misinterpretation of the phrase.
You are cherry-picking because while I freely acknowledge that both the courts and the legislatures have a role (as does the executive branch), you habitually turn a blind eye to the role of the courts in bringing about social change. You pounce on “Women’s Suffrage” as if it argues against some point you imagine I have made, when all it argues against is your assertion that the need for the phrase “Same-Sex Marriage” proves that marriage is for heterosexual couples only.