GOP candidates insisted that no, no, they had nothing against gays, and were all for gay rights…as long as it didn’t entail actually giving them any. Santorum, as you might have surmised, encapsulated the hypocrisy with this nugget in last night’s debate:
“But just because you don’t agree with someone’s desire to change the law doesn’t mean you don’t like them or you hate them or you want to discriminate against them.”
Here’s the thing: people in opposition to gay rights are the ones desiring to change the law, and have done so. What else was DOMA (signed into law, to my eternal shame, by a Democrat) except institutionalizing discrimination? You want to defend marriage? Outlaw divorce. Or the Kardashians. But insisting that marriage can only be defined as a man and a woman? I’m sorry, I missed where in the Constitution that that’s anyone’s gøddámņ business, much less the government’s. I find it interesting that, for instance, defenders of the Second Amendment are quick to say that any infringement on their rights to buy an Uzi opens the door for the government to come in and confiscate all their guns. But nobody seems to wrap their noggins around the concept that allowing the government to dictate that people can’t marry someone of the same gender can easily be precedent for the government to dictate who can’t marry who based on psychological testing. Or who can’t have children, or how many children you can have. In some parts of this country there are still judges declaring that blacks can’t marry whites, and yet we’re okay with the government creating laws saying men can’t marry men and women marry women? Really?
But no, it’s the GAYS who want to change the law. No. They don’t. They want to have access to the rights that the Constitution already guarantees them and that their opponents are trying to take FROM them. That’s not abuse of a process. That’s simply justice.
PAD
• 
Indeed. At this point, I think we should stop fearing the use of this word and just call people who seek to deny people justice and liberty while legislating bigotry exactly what they are: Nazis.
What would you call the president? he has stated that “I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman.” and is willing to let the states discriminate against gays on marriages…which is better than being for a constitutional amendment opposing gay marriage but still pretty bad. Nazi? Bigot? Craven coward who uses the polls to determine right and wrong?
.
Oh well, if the election doesn’t look like it will be too close and his advisors say it is safe to do so maybe his views will “evolve”.
.
Profiles in mendacity and cowardice each and every one of them.
Maybe not every one. I could be wrong, but I’m pretty sure Ron Paul hasn’t changed any of his opinions. And he’s considered the most bonkers.
.
PAD
Bill,
.
The president is also on record as opposing DOMA, being against a federal mandate for same-sex marriage, and believing that individual states should decide the issue. What you posture as bigotry and cowardice on his part may be seen by others as pragmatism in the face of true prejudice, bigotry and hate that continues to deny the LGBT community their due human rights and recognition.
What would I call Obama on this issue?
.
“Coward” is possible, but will depend on how things “evolve” — seriously.
.
I think Obama is probably a a reflection of his upbringing, rather like most of us. My dad (much older than Obama) was pretty homophobic in some ways when he was younger, but seems to have eased up a lot as he’s progressed through life. I know that the gay marriage concept has grown very quickly by a lot of social standards: hëll, fifteen years ago civil unions were a radical idea, and now they’re the moderate fallback position.
.
So I think Obama is in some ways wrestling with how he was raised, loosely speaking. Maybe I’m wrong and it’s just poll-watching; in reality we’ll probably have no way to find out.
.
Absolutely a fair question, though, and one I’d certainly ask him in the rather unlikely event I got the opportunity.
Pragmatism in the face of bigotry is cowardice. In fact it’s as fine a definition of cowardice as any other. i have gay friends who tell me they really believe that Obama is 1005 for gay marriage but says otherwise to get votes and I’m aghast–that would actually make him less of a man in my book than a nut like Santorum who at least believes the foolishness. To say that Obama give aid and comfort to bigots by pretending to agree with them and that’s ok because it’s pragmatic…words fail.
.
I prefer to think that he has no great feeling either way and will go whichever way plays best, which is a subtle but critical improvement over the “secret supporter” theory.
.
PAD, I’m not sure why never changing your opinion would be any indication on non-bonker status. For all I know Santorum has been spewing this stuff since birth, doesn’t make it any more sane. It’s not that I think they can’t or shouldn’t change their minds. One reason why I am willing to give some anti-gay marriage people some benefit of the doubt is because this isn’t an issue that has been on the table for very long. It wasn’t even something that my gay friends had any great feelings on until recently (hëll, some of them are STILL actually against the idea…though they are a pretty small radical minority (Hi kiddo! You know who you are!)). So I can accept that some people are going to come around slowly to what is a relatively new idea.
.
So it’s fine and ok for people to change their views but jeeze, at least TRY to pretend it was for reasons other than a cold calculated effort to get more votes.
.
(As for Ron Paul, I am pretty unimpressed with how he has handled the issue of the racist newsletters with his name on them. Obama had the h=good sense to cut Wright loose when his bigotry became too egregious to ignore. Ron Paul seem to think he can just ignore it and lash out at anyone who brings it up.
.
I don;t think these people get it–we are voting to give them the power to destroy civilization as we know it with the press of a button. So I think we are well within our rights to say to them “fûçk you if you don’t want to answer any questions about your history as they may pertain to your qualifications for so powerful a position.”
Tim, I was writing all that when you posted, it was not meant to be a direct reply to your post–which is a very very wise one.
.
I think I could say the same about many of my family members and I’d probably be much the same except I had the good fortune to live in a time when gay people could tell their straight friends they were gay. How could I grow up prejudiced against people I know and love?
Bill,
.
To say that Obama is giving aid and comfort to bigots by not flat out supporting same-sex marriage is a wild stretch, especially since you’re choosing to ignore what he has done for gays and lesbians to date, not only with the repeal of DADT, but also supporting the Respect for Marriage Act and the “It Gets Better Project” for LGBT youths. You want to think he’s a coward for not “saying” he’d support unrestricted gay marriage publically, well, you go right ahead, but I’ve lived long enough to know that in real world the fight for change takes a hëll of a long time and has to be fought strategically and with patience and perseverance; my African-American fellows and ancestors would attest to that. You and I have the luxury of stating unequivocally where we stand on any social issue; we have no political enemies who could take those stances as ammunition to emboldening opposition forces against us to take us down. I have no problems whatsoever with political pragmatism when it leads to a positive result; I’ve served with gays in the military before and after DADT, and while I’ll admit that I wasn’t always as enlightened to their issues as I am now, I never once questioned their ability and willingness to be a part of their nation’s Armed Forces. I always knew that they’d be able to serve openly one day, just as I knew that there’d be a lot of setbacks, disappointment and tears before it happened: that’s the real world. So yeah, I’m more than happy to have a president who will take the careful steps necessary to get to where it’s necessary for LGBT’s for finally get their marriage rights across this nation (and make no mistake, it WILL happen), rather than putting out what may be his true position on the issue right away in order to not be a “coward”, and thus getting a much stronger push-back than he is now.
So it’s fine and ok for people to change their views but jeeze, at least TRY to pretend it was for reasons other than a cold calculated effort to get more votes.
.
I think this is what it comes down to for me, as well.
.
I don’t think we’re seeing too many politicians who are actually giving serious thought and genuine changing of opinions. But, rather, we’re seeing them fret over losing or gaining votes.
I know that, Bill — no worries there. (Among other things, as soon as I reloaded after my post yours was already there — and ain’t nobody writes that quickly, our host included!)
.
And it is interesting how times change. I don’t think anybody was openly gay while I was in HS, and there weren’t many in college. (One friend of mine considered bringing his boyfriend to my wedding, but decided that would be a bad way to break the news. We’d have been fine with it, though I’m not sure about some family members.) Now, on the other hand, I have several colleagues who are out, and several students as well — plus a very vibrant GSA with plenty of people representing each of the first two letters.
.
That’s one of the things I point out to them when they gripe about occasional legal or political setbacks — “attitudes about this are changing quickly; you just don’t realize it because you weren’t around to see how much slower things usually run.”
I would call him “wrong.”
To say that Obama is giving aid and comfort to bigots by not flat out supporting same-sex marriage is a wild stretch, especially since you’re choosing to ignore what he has done for gays and lesbians to date
.
If people are willing to accept the premise that to be against gay marriage–I don’t know what “unrestricted” gay marriage” means other than to add a word that makes it sound somewhat scarier–is tantamount to Naziism it’s worth asking if they are really willing to believe that since it would mean we will likely soon have an election that will feature a choice between Nazis. So right there I think we need to ramp down the rhetoric. Calling people Nazis isn’t going to win hearts and minds.
.
But I’ll defend my claim that Obama’s position-if it is what some of his supporters insist it is–is tantamount to cowardice. That is, they claim he secretly supports gay marriage but is too afraid to say so for fear of losing votes.
.
For starters, that would be a dumb position to take. As you point out, Obama has taken some good stands on gay rights and is justifiably seen as more pro-gay rights than pretty much any other president (especially Clinton, who talked a good talk and gave us DOMA and Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. I know, I know, they made him do it. Another profile in courage.) So anyone who is likely to vote against a candidate for being too progressive on gay rights is already not going to vote for Obama. Why would he feel the need to hide his real opinion?
.
Secondly, I for one am annoyed by this ridiculous “my views are evolving” nonsense that Obama has put out. (Or, more specifically, annoyed by people accepting it.) What does that mean? Why are we supposed to assume that it is “evolving” in the direction we want it to? Especially since you could make the argument that it isn’t.
.
See, in 1996 candidate Obama responded to a questionnaire with a letter saying, “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.”
.
In 2010 he stated that he did not support gay marriages but did support civil unions. So his views had apparently evolved away from support. Heaven knows where they will end up.
.
(A spokesman later stated that Obama had not actually written that earlier statement…only to have another spokesman say that yes, yes he had. Followed by the mirth provoking claim that “He’s been very clear about his position on gay marriage. He’s been very clear about how that position is evolving. I don’t have any new announcement to make.”
.
If this is what you are willing to accept in a politician, expect more of the same. Me, I think he’s playing people for chumps, saying one thing with a Clark Kent wink so that the people who disagree still get to think he’s on their side.
.
And you know? I’m sort of ok with that because it’s their own fault if they buy into it. I’d rather think the president is a savvy politician than an out and out coward. I’m with Tim on this; the guy may just be of a generation that can’t quite make the jump…but at least he knows that he is supposed to feel empathy for them. And if he can honestly say he’s uncomfortable but still get credit for not feeling that way…well, hey. Just toss out a vague “evolving” line and watch the rubes lap it up.
Bill,
.
You wrote, “So anyone who is likely to vote against a candidate for being too progressive on gay rights is already not going to vote for Obama. Why would he feel the need to hide his real opinion?” Now I’ve read enough of your posts over the years here to peg you as someone with a good amount of political savviness, even though we’re basically on opposite sides of the fence, so I’m having a very difficult time believing that you really don’t see any possible backlash to Obama admitting that he fully supports gay marriage. Even though a bit more than half the country in various polls now favor the allowance of gay marriage, there are yet a great deal of moderates who still see it as a wedge issue, and could bolt from the president’s favor if he stated it (and I do believe he really supports it), and in addition to that, now that we’re fully into election period, doing so could be seen as a pure political stunt to appease a demographic and it’d be a sledgehammer for his opposition. This isn’t the same as his coming out against DADT and DOMA; the pulse of the nation was much farther along in agreement with Obama on those issues, but the president still receives significant heat for the right for his championing their repeal and they’ll definitely be used as weapons against him during this campaign. Gay marriage still trumps both of those as a hot button, especially as a national rights issue, so even with my own feelings of support for it, I fully understand politicians having to treat it with kid gloves depending on the extent of their influence.
.
It feels like really are talking about two different things here: political conviction vs. political pragmatism. Now I’ll agree that the 180 Obama’s done with 1996 and 2008 statements on the same sex marriage is a flip flop, and if he had just stopped with that, one could maybe find justification in calling it just political pandering. But all of his subsequent actions and stances to date for gays rights certainly supports a deduction that his convictions towards same sex legal unions, if not quite there yet, could indeed be evolving towards opening supporting gay marriage while he’s the president; for the now the extent of opposition may not make it pragmatic, but I can certainly see the possibility of a strategy of doing it after the election if he wins, when it’s potential as a weapon is nullified.
.
Now, you may say that I’m a “chump” for accepting that type of political gamesmanship, and that I should accept nothing less than a politician who’ll stand by his convictions like a rock, dámņ the torpedoes. Well, what I want and what I expect in a politician are two different things. In 2012 I know that a “politician” is someone who’s going be dealing in the dirty, guttural world of politics, no matter how shining their character may be. Believe me, as a Democrat, I took no joy watching the ugly knock-down drag-out primary battle between Hilary and Obama in 2008, but I knew dámņ well that I was going to support whichever of them got the nomination when the smoke cleared because either of them was going to be (in my biased opinion, of course) a hëll of a lot better that the Republican alternative; hëll, the thought alone of Sarah Palin today in the V.P.’s office waiting for McCain to keel over is enough to solidify that stand for me.
.
Obama’s not my favorite politician ever, let’s get that straight. I don’t really even have one; but let me give this scenario for you: I greatly admire former Florida congressman Alan Grayson, the self-described “Congressman with Guts” who’s running to re-obtain his lost seat. Now let’s say he suddenly, out of a deep sense that a new Democrat was needed to step up to challenge the Republican field, he decided to run as a third-party candidate because he felt that Obama wasn’t up to the task. In my heart, I’d be thrilled that Grayson, who’s gotten in the faces of many a right-wing sycophant unhesitatingly with bold conviction, craved the office of the President. And after that euphoria dissipated quickly, I’d do whatever I could to get him to change his mind and get other Democratic supporters to do the same, because the reality of his involvement would be to split the Democratic vote and hand over the election to the GOP. And believe you me, there is no way that having to live through four years of a horrendous Republican administration with the one of the current clown-college field could ever be assuaged by a warm fuzzy inside of me knowing I “voted my conscience”.
.
What are you willing to accept in a politician, given the existing Republican candidate field? You seem to have no real love for any of them, so are you going to just sit out this election; “write-in” a candidate as a protest vote; or just suck it up, hold your nose and vote for the Republican out of party loyalty? I’m willing to bet that some “pragmatism” will sway your decision quite a bit. Idealisms are something that I find no fault in aspiring to, but if you’re looking for flawless candidates for any high office anytime soon you’re going to sitting out a lot of future elections. We can both hope that future generations will evolve beyond the political nastiness and polarization that pervades the current system, but we ain’t there yet.
L, you make many valid points. I’m not just concern trolling here, I see Obama’s dance as seriously emblematic of how low our expectations have gone vis a vis politics. I’d just love to see one reporter, just once, take him on but most of them seem to be angling for a job or just not up to the task.
.
I guess one thing that bugs me is the fact that if he wins a second term and does NOT do diddly squat on gay marriage–if he is asked how the evolving is going and tells us that his opinion has left the ocean for the land and developed opposable thumbs but is STILL opposed to full rights–I know people will be upset and feel betrayed and complain bitterly. And they won’t have a leg to stand on.
.
Would we accept this is, say, a supreme court nominee? He or she plays the role of moderate during confirmation and then once on the bench declares that they want to ditch Roe V Wade, Plessy vs Fergussen, Godzilla vs Biollante, etc and when asked about earlier statements replies “Hey, if I’d let you know how I really felt I wouldn’t have gotten the nod. I’m a frikken kook! Wink!”
.
As for who I will vote for…I will almost certainly not sit this out. Looking at the possibilities it could go either way. Gay marriage is not a deal breaker, since either one of the likely candidates is on record as being opposed to it so that leaves me in the dark (and I will not encourage this nonsense by voting for Obama based on an assumption that he’s secretly on my side. If anything, that’s a demerit.)
.
I think Obama has been a lousy president in many ways, all the more so because he had potential to be much more. But I’m not one of those unimaginative partisans who says foolishness like “XXXXXX could not possibly be worse.” Oh yes, they could. The word “possibly” get abused a lot. Things could always get worse. Unemployment at 8%? Ok, imagine it at 10% Ta daaaaaa! Worse.
.
Alan Grayson???? Boy we really ARE on opposite sides of the fence! Nevertheless, you are an intelligent person who makes his points well so thank you for the rational discourse. A beer is on me should we ever meet up.
Bill,
.
I don’t consider your responses “trolling”; of all of the conservative visitors here, I’ve found your entries amoung the most thought-provoking and coherent (yes, that is a compliment). Obviously, our ideologies drive what we each find acceptable and righteous, and if somehow we do hook up for that beer, say after the election, it’d be real interesting to see which of us winds up crying in it.
Bill Mulligan: What would you call the president?
Luigi Novi: A politician. At the end of the day, that’s all he is, Bill, just like any other.
Bill Mulligan: What would you call the president?
Luigi Novi: A politician. At the end of the day, that’s all he is, Bill, just like any other.
.
Well, if we are going to call private citizens Nazis based on their political views I sure as hëll am not going to let politicians off with less criticism just because they are politicians. If anything, we should be tougher on them, since their opinions can do actual long term harm.
.
I hear it a lot but it makes no sense to me to hold politicians to a lesser standard. I’m sure they love it that way but I see no reason to buy into it.
All three who God supposedly told to run are all out of the race… and yet we’re somehow still left with Mr. Frothy.
.
He’s against gays. He wants to take contraceptives away. He thinks if you were unfortunate to have had cancer as a kid, too dámņ bad if you can’t get insurance as a result as an adult. I’m sure I’ve missed a few things.
.
I’ve long since heard enough, and really don’t care to think about what’s going to come out of his mouth next.
Actually, Dave, (and somewhat more to the point). Using your 2nd Amendment analogy, if the government can tell me what gender I can and cannot marry, how soon will it be before they tell me that I can’t marry a non U.S. Citizen, or someone of a different race, or national origin.
It wasn’t so long ago that my mother’s father (northern Italian) tried to stop her from marrying my father (Sicilian) even though both of my parents were born in this country.
A good point, and one that’s been made here with respect to abortion as well in the past: anything you give Big Government [tm] the power to ban, you’ve also given it the power to mandate when and if circumstances change.
.
Be careful what you wish for…
Santorum has a face that needs to be punched on a regular basis to stop the stupid from freely flowing.
Isn’t it the GOP who constantly talk about how government should not be big and interfere in our lifes, but they are the only ones that want to define marriage and have issue with gay rights? Or am I completely wrong. It sounds like something from Animal Farm, “All people are equal, but some are better” and so on.
I believe it was something like “All people are created equal, except that some are more equal than others.”
Actually it “All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others”. From the novel Animal Farm by George Orwell
I wasn’t trying to quote Animal Farm just paraphrasing it to make a point.
.
I just still find it amazing (although I have no idea why at this point) that Republicans and their defenders can champion actions such as this one and some of the other ones that got the frothy, Man-On-Dog candidate some of his big applause moments and still be taken seriously when they give lip service to their devotion to “states’ rights.” Various states are moving to legally recognize gay marriage. Their solution? Declare that they will champion DOMA; a federal act that says that states’ rights on the matter and their recognition of it don’t really count. They declare that they will champion an amendment to the Constitution of the Untied States that declares that the law of the land recognizes that marriage is only between a man and a woman and that the states really have no say in the matter.
.
But that’s nothing new for them. It’s nothing we don’t already know and haven’t seen from them already. Santorum didn’t say anything that his supporters haven’t been championing themselves for a long time now.
.
Me? I was much more taken aback by Perry in that debate. Rick Perry, the man who a lot of conservatives are still hoping will rally back and pick up the pieces of fallen support from other candidates to win it from Mitt, declared that if he were President, we would be sending troops back into Iraq. We didn’t leave Iraq just because Obama and the Left wanted us to do so. We left Iraq because Iraq wanted us out and did not want to cut further deals to let us stay in their country.
.
To do what Rick Perry said he wants to do, we would have to intrude into a sovereign country against its wishes by threat of force at best or invade Iraq again at worst. And this got applause from the audience.
.
Rick Perry is the guy that many conservatives hold up as one of the few “real” conservatives in the race who speaks for them and one of the ones that they primarily speak of as the candidate that they would be happy to vote for. Rick Perry is advocating a course of action that really would, when comparing the two of them to each other, make W. look like the smart one.
.
That should be more than enough to scare the hëll out of anyone about Perry and the people that would support him in that action.
Perry really seems like a guy who got talked into running for president and never bothered to ask himself why. He had a good thing going as the Gov of one of the few states doing reasonably well and now he looks hapless.
.
Gingridge started out wanting to sell books, suddenly made it look like he might have learned something from all his previous history of ego driven foolishness and then showed that nope, he hasn’t learned a single blessed thing.
.
Ron Paul is an old, cranky semi-kook, with some fine ideas and some that are ridiculous. Some say they support him because it would drive the party in some positive directions (eliminate the War on Drugs, for example). More likely he would go down in flames, maybe the worst electoral crushing ever, which would most likely ensure that those positions would be anathema to the party.`
.
Santorum is a joke. The only thing positive I can say about him is that the people who have been attacking him over the death of his child have made monstrous áššëš of themselves but that in no way makes him a better person or fit for the job. And just as a general rule, if any party nominates a guy who lost his re-election by 18 points, they deserve the drubbing they will almost certainly get.
.
So it will most likely be Romney vs Obama. Unless Romeny chooses Ray Harryhausen for veep I am going to have a considerable hard time working up any enthusiasm for either candidate. 4 years of President Golfpants has been plenty and nothing I’ve seen from Romney makes me think he’ll turn things around.
.
Bill Mulligan: “So it will most likely be Romney vs Obama.”
.
I think it’s time. Everyone needs to start learning The Five Stages of Being a Conservative in 2012.
.
Learn.
.
Pass it on.
.
Share the love.
.
http://jjchandler.wordpress.com/2012/01/08/the-five-stages-of-being-a-conservative-in-2012/
Mr. Chandler, that was beautiful. Thank you.
Bill Mulligan: Ron Paul is an old, cranky semi-kook../
Luigi Novi: How? The guy is for a small, limited government that adheres to the Constitution, doesn’t exceed what’s it’s supposed to do, stays out of people’s personal lives, low taxes, etc. He’s the only one on the docket that I’d vote for over Obama if he were chosen as the Republican candidate.
I am glad you are on the correct side of this issue. But DOMA didn’t change anything. Gay couples were not allowed to get a marriage licences before DOMA. And DOMA doesn’t say that a state has to prohibit gay couples from marrying. All DOMA did was make it so that the federal government and any of the states didn’t have to recognize the marriages of gay couples that took place in any other state. Still that is more than enough reason to get rid of DOMA and to say that it is unconstitutional.
Letting gay couples marry is changing the law, albeit prior to DOMA and all the various state DOMAs it was a de facto law rather than a de jure law. But it is changing the law in a good way.
DOMA was the first law passed by Congress of which I’m aware that plainly denied Article IV, Section 1 (the so-called Full Faith and Credit clause, which requires each state to recognize the validity of “…the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State”).
.
Prior to that, if someone in, say, Nebraska wanted to deny marriage benefits to someone from, say, New York with a same-sex spouse, he’d have to just be a plain open bigot. Under DOMA, our hypothetical Nebraskan could claim that he’d like to extend those benefits, but since it wasn’t a legal relationship in Nebraska, well…
.
(One can hope that if this nonsense isn’t repealed by Congress, we will at least one day see the gay equivalent of the Loving v. Virginia decision.)
But the thing is that prior to DOMA there were no states marrying same-sex couples so there was no chance of the hypothetical Nebraskian denying benefits to a same-sex couple married in New York or any other state.
And while I detest DOMA and think that it violates the spirit of the Full Faith & Credit clause, it may not be unconstitutional. The next sentence after the Full Faith & Credit clause reads “And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.” So Congress can make a law that says there is no effect of a same-sex marriage in one state upon the other states. In other words DOMA.
.
“But DOMA didn’t change anything. Gay couples were not allowed to get a marriage licences before DOMA. And DOMA doesn’t say that a state has to prohibit gay couples from marrying. All DOMA did was make it so that the federal government and any of the states didn’t have to recognize the marriages of gay couples that took place in any other state.”
.
That’s not actually true. DOMA did change things. Prior to DOMA, if a state said that you were legally wed, the other 49 states and the federal government were required to recognize that. Hëll, the feds had to recognize it for tax purposes alone.
.
DOMA came along and said that the Federal Government was allowed to refuse to recognize a marriage that was recognized by a state and that no state outside of that one had to recognize that marriage if they did not want to.
.
That was very much a change to the the law of the land from what we had the day before DOMA went into law.
In terms of the Full Faith & Credit clause DOMA did change the law, which I stated. However in terms of actually letting gay couples get married it did not change anything. And a person reading PAD’s post could assume that gay couples were getting legally married before DOMA.
And letting gay couples legally marry is changing the law. But, again, it is a good change to the law.
I wonder.
One of the arguments against gay marriages I hear often is, that marriage is something ‘holy’, sanctified, pure and so on.
Ok, if it is, the remvoe the laws that allow divorce. Let it be ‘untill death do us part’.
Let’s see how many will go for that. Let’s see what happens if (a religious minority (which I think they are)) get what they want.
And if they don’t get enough people behind it, it can’t be that holy or pure, not with that many divorces each year.
Just wondering here, what would happen.
.
Marko: “Ok, if it is, the remvoe the laws that allow divorce. Let it be ‘untill death do us part’.
Let’s see how many will go for that. Let’s see what happens if (a religious minority (which I think they are)) get what they want.
And if they don’t get enough people behind it, it can’t be that holy or pure, not with that many divorces each year.
Just wondering here, what would happen.”
.
It gets even better on that front.
.
The CliffsNotes Christians out there that are anti-gay marriage like to quote a specific passage of the Bible at their protests and rallies. It was a very popular line back during the New York gay marriage debate where they were screaming about the sanctity of marriage and about the need to follow the word of God.
.
“Jesus answered, “Don’t you know that in the beginning the Creator made a man and a woman? That’s why a man leaves his father and mother and gets married. He becomes like one person with his wife. Then they are no longer two people, but one.”
.
That’s their money Bible quote. The anti-gay marriage crowd and the holy rollers are on record holding that passage up and reciting it as the Word of God and thus what must be obeyed and followed to the letter. There are pictures of them holding up signs with that passage written large across the signs and plenty of audio and video recordings of them arguing that this Bible quote leaves no room for doubt in what God intended and what man should do.
.
But that’s not the full quote.
.
Matthew 19:3-8 – Some Pharisees wanted to test Jesus. They came up to him and asked, “Is it right for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?” Jesus answered, “Don’t you know that in the beginning the Creator made a man and a woman? That’s why a man leaves his father and mother and gets married. He becomes like one person with his wife. Then they are no longer two people, but one. And no one should separate a couple that God has joined together.” The Pharisees asked Jesus, “Why did Moses say that a man could write out divorce papers and send his wife away?” Jesus replied, “You are so heartless! That’s why Moses allowed you to divorce your wife. But from the beginning God did not intend it to be that way.
.
It’s not an anti-gay marriage passage in the Bible. It’s an anti-divorce passage in the Bible. Jesus is telling the Pharisees that the act of divorce by his creations is against the will and desires of God. So not only are they using it wrong (and thus showing their ignorance of what they claim they believe in and know,) but they’re also showing their hypocrisy and selective outrage about the “cultural decay” if they’re not going to use this passage to declare that they want an immediate ban on divorce in this country and that the people who flaunt God’s will so blatantly as to be divorced, and even worse to be divorced more than once (which is what most of the modern conservative/Republican icons have been,) are destroying this country.
.
But they won’t do that. They won’t insist on adhering to the Word of God and to God’s will when it’s inconvenient to/for them. And certainly the Conservative/Republican lawmakers and popular talking heads pandering to that crowd are not going to insist that we legislate the Bible and God’s morality in this country when it might effect their lives and keep them from divorcing several wives to marry their new, younger trophy wives as they get older and more wealthy.
.
This is about discrimination. If it was about the sanctity of marriage, the teachings of the Bible and the Word of God then they would be quoting the full passages they claim that they love so much and demanding that they be enforced and not cropping Bible quotes, misrepresenting them and attacking people they hate.
.
Besides, marriage isn’t really even a religious thing. The church ceremony is essentially window dressing. It’s nice decoration for those who want it, but it’s really no more important than the decorations on the cake.
.
My wife and I were married without stepping foot into a church. We were legally married for months before we had any sort of ceremony (longish story that’s more appropriate for a healthcare thread) and even then we didn’t have the ceremony in a church.
.
Lots of people get married without involving the church at all. Some get married in the “church” of entirely different religions and some in other countries before coming here. Atheists may get married without involving anything of even the slightest religious symbolism into their ceremony.
.
My wife and I and all of those other couples are seen as legally wed in the eyes of the law. We are seen as legally wed in every state and by the federal government. There’s nothing that any church can say that changes that.
.
Go get “married” in a church without filling out any of the legal paperwork at the local clerk’s office. Don’t involve any of the requirements of the State and just have your ceremony in a church and blessed by whatever god you worship.
.
You’re not married. You have no legal claim to being married. You can point to the fact that you followed every single requirement of marriage as laid down in the religious text of your choice, but it means absolutely nothing beyond being a purely symbolic act for you alone in the end if you do not involve the state. Your local church can say that you’re a married couple, but the state can and will say differently.
.
Two people of legal age and of legal mind to enter into a contract with one another to form a union where they will love each other, take care of each other, support each other and declare themselves as legally married couple go before the state and have the legal paperwork signed off on and filed. This contract with each other is then recognized as a social contract under/with the state. That makes them a legally married couple.
.
No where in that is anything religious unless the couple wants to add that in as, depending on their personal beliefs, personal desire to recognize their faith or simply for additional decoration. No where in that is anything that really requires gender specific references either.
.
Two people of legal age and of legal mind wish to enter into marriage. There’s absolutely zero reason to discriminate against them.
Not to mention that the apostle Paul bluntly states that anyone who marries a divorcee, or who divorces and remarries, even if it’s to the same person(!) is committing adultery. And, between adultery and homosexuality, I think we all know which one made the Ten Commandments. I have to agree with Marko; any so-called “biblical definition” of marriage is incomplete unless it either prevents divorce or prevents divorced people from re-marrying. Anything else is hypocrisy. Show me *that* constitutional amendment and I’ll at least believe in the sincerity of their religious convictions, if not their intelligence.
The Bible? You mean that book, that has been rewritten in part (or whole) over about 1000 years again and again, to better fit the current Pope’s policies?
That only includes a few passages that came directly from god or his son?
The Bible? You mean that book, that has been rewritten in part (or whole) over about 1000 years again and again, to better fit the current Pope’s policies?
.
Interesting. This is news to me. Can you point me to some sources for this assertion?
.
Andy, for some such issue I would recommend buying a copy of this book. Interesting reading and not done in an anti-Christian POV.
.
Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0060859512/?tag=googhydr-20&hvadid=15188349835&ref=pd_sl_5gdoottjmn_b
.
The Council of Nicea wasn’t exactly a great moment in Christian history either. Or the church ruling that the man who Jesus appointed to run his church and teach the proper teachings wasn’t the man they wanted leading the way. Etc, etc, etc, etc…
Andy, for some such issue I would recommend buying a copy of this book. Interesting reading and not done in an anti-Christian POV.
.
Thanks for the suggestion; sounds interesting.
.
While I haven’t read that particular book, I am not entirely unfamiliar with the challenges presented by trying to assemble a complete and accurate text from the available manuscripts. I do think it is important to take an eyes-open approach to the issue, which I believe Dr. Ehrman advocates as well.
.
In that spirit, allow me to recommend in return the NET Bible:
http://bible.org/netbible/
It is a modern translation of the Bible that takes advantage of its on-line format to provide copious annotations on the decisions made in selecting translations and resolving manuscript discrepancies. I find that sort of transparency very helpful.
Personally, I think marriage ideally should be a great many things, including some that you list. But I’m not convinced that a secular government that recognizes freedom of religion (among other things) should legislate that all marriages must be those things.
.
I also agree with the sentiment that the institution of marriage can be tarnished plenty even when it involves 1 man and 1 woman, and sadly has been even by some who claim the name of Christian. We would do well to deal with the plank in our own eye before we consider the mote in our brother’s.
.
“Personally, I think marriage ideally should be a great many things, including some that you list. But I’m not convinced that a secular government that recognizes freedom of religion (among other things) should legislate that all marriages must be those things.“
.
I’m not 100% sure what part of what I said you’re responding to or just quite what you’re saying there. If you could clarify that last bit it would be helpful.
I’m not 100% sure what part of what I said you’re responding to or just quite what you’re saying there. If you could clarify that last bit it would be helpful.
.
I was actually responding to Marko’s comment, but between the time that I clicked “reply” and the time that I hit “submit”, your comment appeared, creating the confusion. Or at least some of it; perhaps my comments would still have been obtuse under any circumstances.
.
To be more blunt, I’m one of those people who would use words like “sacred” to describe an ideal version of the institution of marriage. But I do not think the US government should be in the business of legislating any particular person or group’s notion of sacredness.
Santorum’s comments on gay couples are so vile it’s easy to overlook the fact that his comments on straight married couples are equally outrageous. He’s said that straight vanilla married couples who use birth control to delay having children until they can afford to take better care of them are being disrespectful of women, children, and the family. WTF?
Well, Louie C.K. had many good points on this topic (totally NSFW clip at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtJ_sDRRVVI&feature=related ) The “argument” that bothers me the most is that if gay people can get married, then they’ll ruin marriage for straight people. Why?!? I can’t imagine any happily-married couple who would hear that gay marriage is legal and suddenly decide they can’t remain as husband and wife. I believe society is heading towards universal gay marriage — DADT repealed, several states legalizing gay marriage already — and someday we’ll look back on the attemots to outlaw it like the laws forbidding people of different races or religions to marry.
As for Santorum, the GOP nominees are beginning to shift their view from the insular Tea Party-and-Uber-Conservative voters to the more general election to come. (For example, Gingrich has talked about how he has worked with Democrats before, something none of them would have said a few weeks ago.) So they’re not changing their positions, but they’re trying to soften it with comments like Santorum’s “I would restrict and remove their rights — but that doesn’t mean I *hate* them” bit, posted above. Actions still speak louder than words.
I believe society is heading towards universal gay marriage — DADT repealed, several states legalizing gay marriage already — and someday we’ll look back on the attemots to outlaw it like the laws forbidding people of different races or religions to marry.
.
Those of us who are old enough will recall that many of the same arguments being used against same-sex marriage today were being used to argue against interracial marriage forty-five years ago. The parallels seem to already be in place.
“Those of us who are old enough will recall that many of the same arguments being used against same-sex marriage today were being used to argue against interracial marriage forty-five years ago. The parallels seem to already be in place.”
I agree with you 100% — and I’m still amazed how many black groups and organizations seem very opposed to gay marriage. A lot of these groups are on religious grounds, yet it’s still amazing that see no parallels between when they were denied the right to marry who they wanted and denying gay men and women the right to marry. My suspicion is that it’s the same sort of mentality as that of a child who is bullied and later becomes a bully when the opportunity arises (like in WELCOME TO THE DOLLHOUSE). Also, there were (are?) many black women who are against black men dating any non-black women, since it takes the men away from “their” community; maybe these women are also afraid of losing black men to men?
(I hope I don’t get labeled as a racist for this…)
PAD, may I play Devil’s Advocate for a moment? Based on what I have gleaned of your political leanings after nineteen years of reading the highly enjoyable comic books you have written, I somehow doubt you would be any happier if Rick Santorum were to announce: “I do not now and never will agree to compromise my religious positions on gay marriage, regardless of the unconstitutionality of my position.” I really don’t think that what bothers you is Santorum being a hypocrite, rather that he is trying to couch his position in a way that would be more pleasant to the ears of voters. That is not hypocrisy, just politics.
I’m not sure how someone who is expected to defend the constitution and then asserts that he doesn’t give a dámņ about the constitution avoids the label of “hypocrite.”
.
But in any event, that’s beside the point. I didn’t say his position was hypocritical based upon Constitutional grounds. I said he was a hypocrite because he claims that people shouldn’t change the law in order to cater to their own agendas…and yet that is EXACTLY what has already happened: in DOMA, in Prop 8, in any endeavor that was taken to curtail the rights of gays as outlined either in the Constitution or in the courts. In other words, he doesn’t REALLY have an objection to laws between changed or made or twisted in order to push agendas; he just objects to gays wanting the laws being changed BACK to what they were before bigots and pinheads successfully took them away.
.
PAD
I said he was a hypocrite because he claims that people shouldn’t change the law in order to cater to their own agendas…and yet that is EXACTLY what has already happened: in DOMA, in Prop 8, in any endeavor that was taken to curtail the rights of gays as outlined either in the Constitution or in the courts.
.
Um… and what were those exactly? The law that criminalized homosexual sodomy? (On the books in 14 states until a 2003 Supreme Court opinion, and reaffirmed by the Supreme Court as recently as 1986). The law allowing two members of the same sex to get married? (Didn’t exist anywhere until 2004, and then only in one state.) The Supreme Court opinion denying that the Constitution protected gay marriages? (1972, and since Santorum is a lawyer, there’s at least some chance he actually knows that.)
.
Claiming that DOMA, in 1996, changed the law because in theory there was nothing previously stating that the zero same-sex marriages that had ever happened in the United States wouldn’t be honored, is like saying that a law requiring lawyers to be human would be a change because nothing had previously prevented a parakeet from taking the bar exam. The accepted definition of marriage in this country was one opposite-sex couple. Every marriage in the country before about 2004 fit that paradigm. I support gay marriage. But it’s ludicrous to believe that isn’t a change in the definition of marriage. It is, as other posters have commented, a desirable change. Changes in the law aren’t inherently bad. The Reconstruction Amendments, prohibiting slavery, protecting voting rights, and imposing equal protection laws on the States, were a desirable change. The Nineteenth Amendment, extending voting rights to women, was a desirable change. But defining marriage to encompass two people of any combination of sex is a change, and I don’t understand why people argue that it isn’t. (I also don’t understand how, in the same paragraph, you deny calling Santorum a “hypocrite based on Constitutional grounds” and then accuse him of joining the endeavors to take away rights outlined in the Constitution. Either he’s trying to twist the Constitution, or he’s right that the Constitution doesn’t protect gay marriage.)
.
Also you claim he just objects to gays wanting the laws being changed BACK to what they were before bigots and pinheads successfully took them away. Actually, it’s the bigots and pinheads that want to change the law back. Proposition 8 was explicitly a veto of the California Supreme Court opinion creating same-sex marriage in California. Again, by maintaining the futile argument that gays aren’t the ones changing the law, you basically make yourself into a straw man. Admit that it’s a good, just, and worthwhile change in the law, but a change nonetheless.
David, DOMA did indeed change the law, or at least did an end-around on the Constitution. It specifically stated that states in which same-sex marriage was not yet the law were free to ignore same-sex marriages performed in other states, in direct contradiction of Article IV, Section 1. Further, it stated that the Federal government was also unencumbered by any need to respect what had been done in a given state – a highly dangerous precedent, to be sure. (The Constitution limits Federal power for a reason – once a government, any government, is given the chance to seize some power, they will continue to do so until stopped, sometimes by force. Give the Feds the right to ignore a state’s marriage laws, and what’s next down the slope? Environmental laws? Laws against slavery? Election results that Congress doesn’t like?)
Jonathan argued that DOMA specifically stated that states in which same-sex marriage was not yet the law were free to ignore same-sex marriages performed in other states.
.
Yes, but my point is that at the time DOMA was enacted, “states in which same-sex marriage was not yet the law” was ALL of the states. (Nice use of the word “yet” there, by the way.) The list of marriages that were harmed by DOMA was, at the time, a null set. You could pass a law proclaiming that human clones have no civil rights; would that actually change anything, given that human cloning doesn’t exist as a technology yet? At the time it was enacted, the practical effect of DOMA was zero.
.
There’s also an argument to be made that marriage has always been a field in which a state’s public policy has been allowed to trump comity, but that’s a more obscure point that I don’t want to get into.
The list of marriages that were harmed by DOMA was, at the time, a null set.
.
Then, in that case, there was no need to pass such a law in the first place.
we need more straight allies like you.
keep up the good fight PAD.
x
I second, third, and forth this notion. thank you PAD. It means the world to us.
As a gay man i always use this as my example.
If they said a white man and a black woman couldn’t get married today would it be ok? If they said anyone that wasn’t Christian could not get married would it be ok? If they said anyone from the state if Texas could not marry would it be ok?
We are Americans. And despite your religious views, I pay taxes, I served in the Navy and put my life on the line for those same freedoms you deny me. Without invoking God, Jesus, The Bible or anything that is based on faith, tell me as one American to another. Why can I not get married to the person I love and you can?
Haven’t you heard? Because it will destroy marriage. Oh, sure, marriage has survived no-fault divorce, annulment, and Sinead. But this would be the absolute last straw for no discernible reason other than that people say so.
.
PAD
I would have a lot more respect for Santorum if he admited he was against gay marriage for religious reasons, period. I would still hate his guts, but I would have more respect for him.
.
One of the problems with American Conservatives is that they have at least THREE driving influences, and they try to pretend they don’t conflict with each other, when the truth is that they’re almost mutually incompatible.
.
There is the cultural/religious/moral angle, that IMO is the strongest, but that many Conservatives try to disguise a little, because it’s the most scary to the moderates. There is the liberatarian/small government angle, that a few of the more intelligent Internet Conservatives try to take seriously, but most of them only pay lip service to. And there is capitalism/free market, that is really a subdivision of number two.
.
What I find amusing as hëll is that capitalism is, at heart, amoral. If sex sells, then capitalism will be ready to promote sex. If gay people are good consumers, then there will spring up new markets for gay people. In the long term, capitalism isn’t really compatible with the Christian-oriented society some Conservatives would love to implement.
.
In this, Conservatism is a house divided against itself. The only solution for this would be for the GOP to divide into two parties. The Christian Republicans and the Libertarian Republicans.
Well, you could argue the same about liberalism, that you have one group that favors free expression and people being allowed to have even unpopular ideas…and there are those who are eager to use any means possible to stamp out “incorrect thought.”
.
Liberals used to be the ones most suspicious of government having too much power, now there is a sizable part that seems eager to have government as powerful as it takes to solve all of life’s ills.
.
You could argue that there is conflict between the secular non-religious wing and the inclusion of minorities like Latinos who are more likely to be deeply religious.
.
Or any one of a number of things–which is good, nothing scarier than a party where everyone walks in lockstep. What’s amusing is that some people try to argue both sides–the GOP is made of of nothing but rabid rightwing tea bagging religious extremists…AND the GOP is being destroyed from within by all the various factions that can’t get along!
.
One thing I think we can predict–50 years from now, if we’re alive o see it, both parties will be very different from where they are now, possibly in ways that will astound us.
The problem, Bill, is that it’ll likely still only be 2 parties.
Probably. It’s a matter of inertia. Everyone knows that if one of two parties splits they lose each and every time so it is more likely that a party will evolve than actually splinter. Unless both fracture which would be all kinds of fun but unlikely.
As you pointed out, neither party has a monopoly on hypocrisy. Of course, humans are complex that way.
Sure, I’ve seen contradictions in Liberals too, many times. Particularly, when one group you feel sympathy for (Muslims) is persecuting other groups you feel sympathy for (women and gays), who do you support?
.
But I’m not sure how much of it impacts on the U.S. Democratic Party. My own cynical view of the modern-day Dems is that they don’t do much. They’re ineffectual in advancing liberal causes in general, so they don’t really have a chance of advancing one liberal cause in detriment of other liberal causes.
There’s more direct contradictions. For example, the party that argues they want the government out of their personal lives and bedrooms is the same one that pushes for more government involvement in the doctors office, and interference with personal medical decisions. There are more examples I could make. Even just takings PAD’s 2nd amendment example from above and reversing it and you get another one. It’s typical of US politics though.
A lot of the anti-gay marriage bigots are not thoughtful people who examine their positions on issues before coming to conclusions. They simply find gays distasteful or strange and are against accommodating them in any way that helps them approach a level equivalent to themselves.
I’ll give you an example: My stepmother married my father about five years ago. She’s well into her 50s, and my siblings and I are all adults and living on our own. When the issue of gay marriage came up in conversation recently, I was surprised to learn that she was against it. Her reason? Because marriage is intended for raising children. Yes, she’s against gay marriage for a reason that invalidates her own marriage! When I pointed this out, she didn’t seem phased by it and just shrugged it off.
I’ll do you one better: Back when ALLY McBEAL was on, Richard Fish (arguing for the right of two women to get married) pointed out the hypocrisy that murderers and rapists can get married but any gay couple can’t. You can extend that list almost infinitely (from arsonists to pedophiles),and as long as they want to marry someone of the opposite sex, it’s fine. And yet *that* isn’t considered a threat to the sanctity of marriage!
The funny thing is, conservatives should be celebrating gay marriage. It’s a triumph of traditional values. It’s taking gay culture, which was all about going in new crazy directions and getting it to embrace the same old cultural norms. It’s expanding marriage in the face of cultural trends that are shrinking it.
.
I don’t consider my enthusiastic support of gay marriage an aberration of conservative values but completely and totally consistent with same.
A good point.
.
And it’s happening already. Gay marriage and gay adoption already are making the gay community more conservative. The focus changing from pleasure and freedom to duty and family.
.
I’ve already met gays in stable relationships who look down on the promiscuous ones. I find it a bit sad for gay and straight alike. Monogamy should be a matter of temperament, not obligation. And sex just for the pleasure of sex shouldn’t be demonized. But that’s the breaks.
.
Next you’ll have parents calling their gay sons once a week to ask them when they’re adopting, ’cause they want to play with their grandchildren.
It’s not just the gay community they’re hypocritical with.
The Daily Show did a story on a muslum-american that wanted to join the Republican party. However, he was subsequently the target of a vile smear campaign painting him as a terrorist. He got rejected, where, out of almost 200 people voting on his application, only 11 said yes.
The source of this campaign? A group called “Republicans Against Hate”. And the guy behind this group was also the head of the chapter he wanted to join. As Assif Mandvi said, “What’s your definition of ‘against’?”
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/01/09/fisking-rick-santorums-remarks-on-gay-rights-at-the-new-hampshire-gop-debate-on-saturday-night
Some broader implications of what Santorum stands for here.
Am I the only one who expects “Santorum” to be something El Patata shouts just before he shoves his fist through someone’s chest?
.
Yeah. Yeah, okay, I probably am. 🙂
.
(cf. “Potato Moon”)
My issue with Santorum and Bachmann is how conveniently Christian they are — they will use the government to enforce their own form of social justice but doing the same thing for the benefit of the poor is socialism. How can you make the argument that legally requiring someone to buy health insurance is government overreach but denying people the right to legally marry (basically enter into a contract) is not?
Again and again, these guys tend to put freedom of profit over freedom of choice, as evidenced in their abortion stance. I could actually respect a pro-life position from them if they seemed to give a dámņ about what happens to babies once they are born. Their stances on health care and social programs os such that it just seems to make their abortion stance sadistic.
Santorum’s “it’s not personal” line to gays reminds me of both The Godfather (horrible acts excised as “just business”) and You’ve Got Mail (“it was personal to me.”). I think of the love that Peter has expressed for his wife on this board. If I had legally prevented him from marrying her, how dare I say I didn’t like or hate him for my act of cruelty?
Just wanted to let you know that a political group called “Minnesota for Marriage” has, through Google Ads, placed an advertisement on this page.
You can do nothing about this. I will in November.
I’m straight, but in their opposition of marriage, they seem to me to be perpetrating nothing less than a hate crime. Thus, I oppose them.
Hi Peter, I know we have argued about this in the past and I don’t foresee any argument I make making any headway with you, but I just wanted to add that this is a battle of world views and Your side is winning, you should be happy. The old judeo/christian/western philosophy is fading away and being rejected by your and your children’s generation. Christians don’t reject “gay marriage” because they “hate” gays, they reject gay marriage because they believe in a morality that superecedes that of the State and comes from God. We are in the minority and the new morality that you embrace will justify discrimination against religious conservatives. Already Catholic adoption agencies have had to leave Massachusetts because they don’t accept the new morality. It won’t stop there either. We are coming full circle. Once our parent’s generation is gone, I think we will see society embrace moral relativism/hedonism/communism.