June 28, 2013

"So many people here, people that I otherwise respect, have written so much cloaked or naked vituperation about gay people..."

"... and our effect on civilization, that what little sympathy I had for your 'feelings' has long evaporated."
At this point in my life I'm finished with the lot of you, the plantation master so-called "liberals" who are less distinguishable from Fascists every day, and the so-called small-government "conservatives", who have such little faith in their God and the eternal and sacred institution of marriage that they bray for the State to enshrine their doctrine in secular law, and scream "Apocalypse!" when it doesn't happen.
Writes Palladian, in last night's café, where the whimpers of the losers of the DOMA case continued, along with slurpy wound-licking over my calling them losers — which is what they were, having lost in that case — and advising them not to whine over the more-or-less false perception that they'd been called bigots.

Sometimes, I get discouraged about the way people can't or won't read. It's not just the skimming and leaping to assumptions that you know what is being said, it's normal-speed reading of concision, and the failure to stop and see humor and wordplay. The post that people continued to get outraged over — which explained the extent to which the Supreme Court called gay-marriage opponents "bigots" — ended:
You took the opportunity to oppress when it was there, and now that it's gone, you want to say you are oppressed. Man up, losers. You lost. And you deserved to lose. Now, stop acting like losers. If you can. (I bet you can't!)
The losing was the losing of the case. I gave advice not to cry about it. You're a former victor, since you won when DOMA was passed into law. Many years later, those oppressed by DOMA ousted the oppressor. You need to get some perspective on how laughable your sadness over your loss looks to those who were saddened by the oppression you enjoyed all those years. But I've interacted with you and communicated with you over this issue since 2004, when this blog started. I didn't intend to write a legal or a political blog at all, but this issue had intrigued me for a long time. I have been patient in these conversations — over 400 of them. And now, what is obviously to me the good side has won in Windsor. I refrained from gloating over this important victory. But I saw all this whining and crying about being called a "bigot," and I wanted to tell you that this did not look good, that you needed to find a way to a positive, productive future that would contain this right going forward.

I said "stop acting like losers." I didn't say that you were losers in every aspect of your being. "Man up, losers," referred to losing this case, and "man up" is a sarcastic allusion to homophobia — on the off chance that some of you might think gay men are unmanly — and to the fact that we are in a turnabout in which the former losers have become the victors. There were winners and losers in that case, and the losers need to decide how they want to deal with it. I said "stop acting like losers." That implies that there is a sort of person who is an all-around loser. I didn't say you were one of them. My locution was: Don't be like them.

That was good advice, and it was intended to be a slap in the face. Wake up!



I had a premonition as soon as I wrote that line that you wouldn't snap out of it, that you would continue the crying that I find laughable. That's why I said "If you can. (I bet you can't!)"

I was right.

And I anticipate another round of crying over how terribly mean I have been to you.

381 comments:

1 – 200 of 381   Newer›   Newest»
C Stanley said...

I think you need to recognize that those who disagree with your point aren't necessarily missing it or misunderstanding it.

And recognize that it is always unseemly for a winner to admonish a loser in that way. As much as you want to highlight the unappelaing behavior of the losers, you're not doing your side any favors.

David Gray said...

Ann if you want to talk about how all orthodox Christians are bigots knock yourself out and indulge yourself. Get yourself a bar of chocolate to go with it.

The fact is Kennedy could have held the ruling he did without the move to delegitimize orthodox Christians and other traditionalists and unlike you he has public responsibilities. You can say what you like in a way he ought not. Kennedy is a fool.

The ruling isn't a surprise. We've been devaluing marriage for decades and this is just another step down the road. If people had cared 50 years ago we wouldn't be here now but people were lazy and wanted exceptions for people they personally knew. And here we are.

Lyssa said...

For whatever it might be worth (probably nothing), I did not understand, and am still not sure that I understand, what you were trying to say in the referenced post. (I am not one of the "losers" referenced - I've supported gay marriage since long before it was cool). I guess it's something along the lines of "accept gay marriage and move on", but I don't know why you can't just say that.

It did sound kind of gloaty - I think that you wanted to gloat, but also wanted to act as if you were above gloating.

Tank said...

I don't think I did any whining about this case, but I understand it. We, conservatives, traditionalists, libertarians, are losers. We've lost. It's their country now. Those of us who remember when the US was a great country are saddened by this.

For me, all of these "gay" issues are unimportant. They are important to a very small minority, but are not important in any meaningful way to the USA (notwithstanding the constant assault on us by the cathedral).

Many of us are whining because we are losers. The Andy R's, the Reasonable ones, the Garages, they've won.

It's a good time for crying.

But, not me. I'm going to a concert tonight and a wedding tomorrow. Cocktail time.

MayBee said...

I wasn't involved in the conversation, but we all know "losers" has a different meaning than "the person who lost a contest". We don't say the Wisconsin Badgers are losers, we say they lost the game.

There's no need to be disingenuous. That turns celebrating into gloating.

Scott said...

"Sometimes, I get discouraged about the way people can't or won't read. It's not just the skimming and leaping to assumptions that you know what is being said, it's normal-speed reading of concision, and the failure to stop and see humor and wordplay."

How terribly ungrateful we are.

From your side, it looks like you're interacting with a room full of students.

From our side, experiencing everything interesting on the internet is like trying to drink from a fire hose. And you're a drop of water.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

Lyssa said...

I should add, I do understand Palladian's frustration. I've been too busy to participate, but what he's talking about has long-passed the point of being silly and absurd.

Scott M said...

And recognize that it is always unseemly for a winner to admonish a loser in that way.

...in any way.

Pete said...

I like how you're not gloating, Althouse.

m stone said...

Many years later, those oppressed by DOMA ousted the oppressor.

And the oppressor is...??

MayBee said...

I'm for gay marriage and I think DOMA was a bad law, but saying get over it, bigot doesn't work. If it did, we'd be done discussing abortion by now, and we wouldn't be arguing affirmative action any more.

Lem said...

Althouse doubles down.

Pogo said...

One sometimes finds magaminity in victory, but in others the urge to humiliate.

I wish you peace.

Scott said...

Saint Paul Wellstone voted for DOMA.

So much for liberal integrity.

CWJ said...

Lem, did you expect anything else from her?

Pete said...

Oh, and you're acting like a jerk, Althouse. Not that you are one. Just a acting like one. See, I learned how to do that from you.

Tank said...

AA wants to spike the football on this one. It's personal. She has a gay son. Cut her some slack.

CWJ said...

Palladian's comment is well said, and I don't know whether he considers me among those he mentions. I am saddened if this means his departure from this blog's commentators.

CWJ said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lem said...

Gloating about a go ahead on an experiment.

I'm not impressed by Althouses flare.

We'll see in 10, 20 years what or who won... winning and loosing is such a myopic way to look at this.

rhhardin said...

Bad and good as oppressor and oppressed is the progressive argument axis.

You could choose the conservative civilization and barbarism axis.

Or the libertarian freedom and coercion axis.

Arnold Kling is trying to figure out why people can't get anywhere in argument with these.

I claim that you don't know what you're doing. The word marriage as it supports a particular constellation of man and woman arrangements is going to be made unthinkable, and along with it the ability to express those constellations.

A better course, without 99% of the disagreement, is civil unions. A different word. Its own constellations.

I don't get the gloating.

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

You're getting disoriented by the reality that you harbor in your head regarding other human beings, replacing the reality of actual other human beings.

You are so certain you understand what makes other people tick and why, and that your proscriptions are correct. Have you ever considered that maybe you don't know dick?

I wish you were capable of seeing how ridiculous you sound. You will be told that dozens of times today by people who are intelligent, articulate and who (maybe most importantly) agree with you that you are way off base here, and it will 100% fail to penetrate your arrogance.

You need a sabbatical spent digging ditches or vacuuming hotel room floors. Something that will get you out of your head a little bit. I really think you are losing it.

C Stanley said...

The oppressor is nature, or biology. We are male and female. Some people can't accept that and insist that government policy try to overrule nature.

Freder Frederson said...

Although I disagree with Scalia's assertion that the majority implied that anyone supported DOMA is a bigot, in the particular case of your particularly vile commetariat, the accusation of bigotry is valid.

Lem said...

Lem, did you expect anything else from her?

I don't know.

I think she could voice our opinion, perhaps even better that we could, if she wanted to.

But she chose to go with what is popular at the moment instead.

virgil xenophon said...

"Where you stand depends on where you sit" is a phrase coined by Harvard's Graham T. Allison some 40 years ago in his study of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Althouse "sits" as the mother of a homosexual--need we ask ourselves why she writes as she does?

"Cruel neutrality" indeed..

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

And by the way, you sound like an adolescent when you whine about us whining about what a meanie you are. Expecting you to treat other members of your online community with a basic level of dignity and respect and assumption of good intentions is not too much to ask.

Freder Frederson said...

Ann if you want to talk about how all orthodox Christians

Talk about bigotry! You have decided that "orthodox" Christians (and by orthodox, I assume you mean mainline christian denominations) must agree with your narrow view.

Big Mike said...

I have always believed that it was right and proper for gay couples to have the same legal standing as married heterosexual couples. But some forms of Christianity hold that marriage is a sacrament. (I recognize that others don't.) I believed before the Supreme Court ruling, as I continue to believe now, that the word "marriage" was chosen entirely to stick a finger in the eye of those Christians. And even to an atheist such as myself, that's simply wrong.

If Professor Althouse or Palladian or Pogo or any other individual has made the case that I'm wrong about their choice of the word "marriage," I haven't seen it. Perhaps I overlooked it, but I suspect not. If Palladian or you, Professor Althouse, or anyone else wants to make the case that the word "marriage" was chosen for reasons other than to humiliate Christians, I'd be pleased to read that analysis.

But as of right now I believe that no one has made that case.

And FWIW, Professor, you were gloating. This post is simply a weak effort to walk it back a bit.

Freder Frederson said...

We, conservatives, traditionalists, libertarians, are losers.

One of these things is not like the other. I would think that it would be at the heart of libertarianism that a true libertarian wouldn't care who someone else was married to.

Chris Lopes said...

DOMA should have been struck down on Federalism grounds. Nowhere in the Constitution does it state that the federal government actually has the power to define what marriage is. Unfortunately, SCOTUS decided to turn it into an issue of victimization, which is a concept that can be stretched to fit just about any law when you get down to it.

Icepick said...

Much parsing of language lately. To the layman it looks like people trying to have their cake and eat it too: You weren't REALLY called a bigot; I didn't REALLY call you a loser; etc. Lots of sore winners lately, with the Left looking to rub everyone else's faces in it. Don't be surprised that there's a backlash, Professor.

A bigger point is that all of this parsing of language has come to be a way to completely turn the world on its head. You have now succeeded in making a great many people feel that words and ideas mean nothing anymore.

Michael said...

Palladian is a good man but sometimes touchy on the subject of homosexuality. I hope he sticks around because he is a bright and humane commenter. I for one am in favor of gay marriage. Among other reasons I am exhausted with hearing about other people's sexual preferences. I believe that a good many gays will be disappointed with the joys of matrimony just as now half of straights are. The "win" is for the country more than for gays. We need to move on. As gay couples adopt more children in need of adoption I believe that there will be a growing consensus for fewer and fewer abortions. A whole new cohort of life affirming humans will thrive. Good for us all.

Caroline Walker said...

Losers, perhaps; but it's more urgent than ever to stand for the truth about the human person. Marriage is not an estate which, properly understood, can accommodate the post-modern concept of equality, because its essence is hierarchy and complementarity. The state has a compelling interest in the promotion of marriage because it is how the next generation of citizens is nurtured. I realize we've abandoned that understanding; but it doesn't remain less true or valid. It remains the case that children are created by means of sexual union and complementarity. it is in the state interest to promote stable families in which the biological issue of a couple are raised and nurtured by them. that there are exceptions this model that tread the same path is a necessary accommodation....but to substitute and enshrine the exception as normal and salutary is cultural suicide. If that makes me a bigot, then I'm out and proud, baby.

CWJ said...

Sorry Lem, You've been commenting here longer than I so you may know better. But doubling down appears to be part of AA's MO. I think she's on record as saying never apologize, while freely demanding same from others.

It seems to me that she views this as a winning strategy, or at least a way to avoid losing.

Lem said...

Rh!

I love the connection of the imagery.

Æthelflæd said...

My favorite Althouse posts are when she excoriates her otherwise excellent commentariat for misreading her genius and ignoring her helpful advice. She's so cute when she stamps her tiny little foot in outrage.

C Stanley said...

Talk about bigotry! You have decided that "orthodox" Christians (and by orthodox, I assume you mean mainline christian denominations) must agree with your narrow view

You may want to consult a dictionary on thw meaning of "orthodoxy".

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

Talk about bigotry! You have decided that "orthodox" Christians (and by orthodox, I assume you mean mainline christian denominations) must agree with your narrow view.

You assume wrongly. Words mean things. Orthodox Christians does not mean mainline Protestants. Look it up. Maybe before you call names ("bigotry") you should have some vague notion of the terms of your insult.

Freder Frederson said...

But some forms of Christianity hold that marriage is a sacrament.

So what? Some forms of Christianity (and Judaism for that matter) are fine with sanctifying a gay marriage. Why should the loudest and most obnoxious Christians get to define marriage. Why isn't the UCC or reform Judaism definition of marriage good enough for everyone else?

sinz52 said...

Justice Kennedy cited the House Judiciary Report on DOMA at the time, which stated explicitly that one of its main purposes was to express moral disapproval of homosexuality itself.

Justice Kennedy didn't say that was bigotry. He said that a law that enshrines moral disapproval of an entire class of law-abiding people (gays in this case) constitutes *discrimination*.

X said...

poor althouse. constantly misread when she writes so clearly, if she does say so herself.

Lem said...

Well said Caroline Walker.

Phil 3:14 said...

While I don't necessarily agree with Palladian, I would agree that Althouse's comment section has become a rant-fest. (I guess that's the inevitable evolution of all comment sections.)

virgil xenophon said...

Echoing Michael's comment about Palladian--a guy I admire on so many levels although I am firmly opposed to most of the public policies of the homosexual "agenda." Palladian is the kind of thoughtful guy one needs in any rational discussion about anything.

rhhardin said...

crying over how terribly mean

Logic rules with men.

Freder Frederson said...

You assume wrongly. Words mean things. Orthodox Christians does not mean mainline Protestants.

I was giving David the benefit of the doubt. Orthodox Christian with a lower case "o", which is how David used it, is a vague, and wholly inaccurate term. I am pretty certain that David was not referring to Orthodox Christians, since they are a very small proportion of this country's Christians.

Phil 3:14 said...

While I don't necessarily agree with Palladian, I would agree that Althouse's comment section has become a rant-fest. (I guess that's the inevitable evolution of all comment sections.)

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

Love the sanctimonious posture of the male gays, who owe all of their "acceptance" to the ubiquity of benign sounding euphemisms for their particular sexual fetish - one of the few that has broken out into anything resembling mainstream.

They ought to thank their lucky stars that they DON'T get equal treatment on TV, for example. Extended PG-13 scenes of male gay sex, and even kissing, would rapidly turn public opinion against them, invoking as it does a lizard brain revulsion in most. It is only because we don't refer to it explicitly, or see it, that it is tolerated at all.

Consider that of the 4 main sexual things that gay males can do, two of them can be done heterosexually, to and by women, so it not those two acts that make one gay. Only the other two do - being sodomized and giving fellatio. That requires man on man, and is what truly makes one gay. Both are very 'feminine' acts and offensive to most eyes.

So don't get all high and mighty. Other sexual fetishers would kill for what you have achieved, and still you're not happy. Go figure.

m stone said...

Well said, Caroline Walker.

Æthelflæd said...

"UCC or reform Judaism defnition of marriage " -

Now that's funny right there, I don't care who you are. Which week did you mean? Definitions are oppressive tools used by the patriarchy to keep womyn down.

Lyssa said...

f Palladian or you, Professor Althouse, or anyone else wants to make the case that the word "marriage" was chosen for reasons other than to humiliate Christians, I'd be pleased to read that analysis.

Big Mike, I don't know that I can offer you an analysis, just an opinion. While I definitely agree that there are some people that are willing and anxious to do anything to stick their finger in the eye of Christians, I do not think that that is the majority of those wanting SSM.

I heard a bit on the radio yesterday from Ms. Winsor, the plaintiff in the DOMA case - she described her and her wife's decision to get married, after living together for many years, and said "Marriage is just different, and you don't know why."

That is the case; it is different. I don't know why. Maybe it's not for everyone in every case, but I know that the fact that my husband and I are actually married is important. It's different than it was when we were living together. We're not very religious; it's not really that. It's the public affirmation, the commitment, the pledge to be life partners, rather than just two people that love each other.

Religion lost its claim to marriage a long time ago - when it let it get tied up in secular legal systems. Maybe the religious should start a new institution, call it something else, a marriage plus, that specifies their claim to the religious aspects of the covenant but avoids secular legalities. Yes, you can say it's not fair that you (the traditionalists) need to change, but it's too late for that, you already let it go; the ship sailed long before anyone was talking about gay marriage.

Jay said...

not to whine over the more-or-less false perception that they'd been called bigots.


"Called bigots" by whom and when?

Just related to the DOMA case or ever?

Your thoughts on this gay marriage issue get more preposterous by the post.

Gahrie said...

...and Althouse proves yet again that the Left has absolutely no idea about how to win with class.

Phil 3:14 said...

I don't think I did any whining about this case, but I understand it. We, conservatives, traditionalists, libertarians, are losers.

Ironic since Palladian is nothing if not a libertarian.

Æthelflæd said...

People who actually believe the stuff = orthodox Christians. Are you really that obtuse, F? I doubt it. Nice posturing. Still chuckling about the UCC.

Freder Frederson said...

being sodomized and giving fellatio.

Apparently you have never heard of a strap-on.

Icepick said...

The Purpose Of a System Is What It Doe. That's a principle form cybernetics.

The purpose of a statement such as "Don't act like losers" is how it makes people feel. Despite parsing, what people hear is "Loser". That's it. If the person making the statement wanted the "like losers" crowd to act differently, they should state what they mean instead of using that particular language.

Another example. If I go out on the street and find a bunch of brothers hanging around with their pants falling off their asses and big old grills in their mouths and say, "Stop acting like a bunch of niggers", I am going to (correctly) get my ass kicked. And stating that "I didn't say you were niggers, I said you were ACTING like niggers" isn't going to convince one person anywhere that I wasn't being a horse's ass deserving of a beat down.

Perhaps a tag is needed for the non-gloat gloat, which is similar to the non-apology apology.

Tank said...

Freder Frederson said...

We, conservatives, traditionalists, libertarians, are losers.

One of these things is not like the other. I would think that it would be at the heart of libertarianism that a true libertarian wouldn't care who someone else was married to.


You're correct (mostly, a libertarian might care, but would not interfere). We libertarian types have lost on most other issues.

ricpic said...

Palladian's holier than thou bullshit is as unappealing as Althouse's.

Icepick said...

I believe that a good many gays will be disappointed with the joys of matrimony just as now half of straights are.

Given the origins of the word, I don't think two gay men can enjoy matrimony at all.

Tom Gallagher said...

It appears that Ann prefers fairness to principles; although you could almost predict when the next aggrieved special interest group complains how their "rights" are being witheld how she might declare, "not so fast".

Æthelflæd said...

" Religion lost its claim to marriage a long time ago - when it let it get tied up in secular legal systems. Maybe the religious should start a new institution, call it something else, a marriage plus, that specifies their claim to the religious aspects of the covenant but avoids secular legalities. Yes, you can say it's not fair that you (the traditionalists) need to change, but it's too late for that, you already let it go; the ship sailed long before anyone was talking about gay marriage."

You know I get what you are saying here, but in what civilizations and in what century, until this one, has marriage NOT been tied to religion? It is not as if Christians made that some kind of deliberate strategy. It was ever thus, even in pagan societies.

Peter said...

"The oppressor is nature, or biology. We are male and female. Some people can't accept that and insist that government policy try to overrule nature."

In California, a child can have three parents. And why not? What's mere biology before the majesty of the law?

Biology shall be what we declare it to be, said Trofim Denisovich Lysenko.

Roll Over Gregor Mendel (and tell Darwin the News).

MadisonMan said...

I agree with Lyssa -- 'Marriage' lost its solely religious connotation (as a sacrament) long ago when the Government started issuing marriage licenses.

My own opinion is that the Govt should not issue marriage licenses at all -- just civil union licenses. Return the word 'marriage' to the church.

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

Fred--he did mean small-o orthodox, not the Eastern Orthodox Church (see the big O there). This means, in this context, adhering to strict theology and practice.

Icepick said...

The state has a compelling interest in the promotion of marriage because it is how the next generation of citizens is nurtured.

By God, we're Americans. THE STATE does not have that interest, SOCIETY does. The STATE should merely reflect what the citizens desire in this matter. Putting the STATE first demotes the CITIZEN.

Which is a good part of how we came to this situation.

virgil xenophon said...

@Lyssa (lovely redhead)

You may perhaps be right that the majority of those wanting ssm for themselves do not have the damaging of Christianity and Christians uppermost in their mind, but I can assure that from my vantage-point a healthy majority of the public "advocates" of ssm certainly seem to do so...tho YMMV..

NotquiteunBuckley said...

Since when is Althouse divine?

When her side wins a personal battle in a war she celebrates like all warriors do, by raping and pillaging the loser's spirit. Althouse the fierce warrior has a lot of Conan in her.

Really, these high stakes are what makes these wars so much darn fun!

And hey righties, if you don't like abortion why not celebrate butt sex between men and women or men and men?

Ain't no such thing as butt-babies so were it not for deep, dark harborings of hate you would advocate for an all-sodomy-all-the-time culture.

Just think this through even though I doubt you can after observing for years you not.

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jay said...

I said "stop acting like losers."

And when, pray tell, you arrogant woman have you ever offered this advice to the left?

n.n said...

"Our feelings are our most genuine paths to knowledge."

My concern is the selective interest in equal treatment without objective or consistent cause. Neither reason nor reality are sufficient arguments, which implies an unprincipled, indefensible position.

Anyway, the normalization of homosexual behavior is the least of our concerns. They have denigrated individual dignity, devalued human life, and generally sponsored dysfunction in select classes. Let the experiment continue.

Lem said...

Palladian doesn't strike me as irrevocably and obtusely solid on gay marriage.

When the intimately personal issue called for picking a side Palladian had to pick a side and picking the side that he did is consistent with his expressed nature and the times he finds himself living in.

Palladian is the kind of thoughtful guy one needs in any rational discussion about anything.

Anyone who has ever read his comments knows that to be manifestly true.

Lyssa said...

in what civilizations and in what century, until this one, has marriage NOT been tied to religion?

Don't know, but I would guess western civ, 20th century (I almost said this century, since I still can't remember it's not the 20th anymore). Whenever it was decided that the non-religious and un-church affiliated could participate in the institution, and that the laws associated with it were to be enforced on a secular basis.

Robert Cook said...

"We, conservatives, traditionalists, libertarians, are losers. We've lost. It's their country now. Those of us who remember when the US was a great country are saddened by this."

Why? What have you lost? Can you not get married to the person you love, just as before? Does the right of two men or two women to marry impede your right to love and marry the person of your choice? How does this extension of equal rights to a previously unequal-by-law cohort of our society make a "once-great country" less great?

For me, all of these 'gay' issues are unimportant. They are important to a very small minority, but are not important in any meaningful way to the USA (notwithstanding the constant assault on us by the cathedral)."

How can these issues be "not important in any meaningful way to the USA" yet they somehow make a "once great country" less great? How can you presume to know for whom how many people these issues are important? Why do you attempt to minimize gay people (or those sympathetic to their concerns) by baselessly calling them a very small minority?" And since when do equal rights only apply to a majority (or a "large" minority)? If this were of moment only to a "very small minority," would it not still be important to them as human beings and as Americans to whom are promised--and who therefore rightly expect--equal rights under the law?

Freder Frederson said...

This means, in this context, adhering to strict theology and practice.

Another meaningless phrase. Who gets to decide what is "strict theology and practice"? Wars have been fought and millions of people killed because one group's "strict theology and practice" did not comport with another groups (e.g., The Thirty Years War)

Icepick said...

What's mere biology before the majesty of the law?

The very crux of the issue, but why let little things like reality get in the way of one's dearly held preferences.

Icepick said...

Ain't no such thing as butt-babies....

You don't' follow Congress much, do you?

/ snark

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

Whatever you say, Fred.

Robert Cook said...

"...some forms of Christianity hold that marriage is a sacrament. (I recognize that others don't.) I believed before the Supreme Court ruling, as I continue to believe now, that the word "marriage" was chosen entirely to stick a finger in the eye of those Christians. And even to an atheist such as myself, that's simply wrong."

Marriage is not a concept, practice or word invented by or the sole province of Christians or by Westerners or Americans.

It is hardly an intentional assault on the sensibilities of Christians to expand the legal right to "marriage" to gay people, or to use the word "marriage" (as opposed to "legal partners" or somesuch) to describe a practice that is exactly the same as that heretofore permitted to the heterosexual members of our society.

Jeez, Christians: it's not always about you.

Freder Frederson said...

Whenever it was decided that the non-religious and un-church affiliated could participate in the institution

Oh come on, marriage certainly predates Christianity (and is not unique to it) and probably predates organized religion. It is the height of arrogance to claim that some subset of Christians are entitled to define marriage in a secular country.

virgil xenophon said...

Peter has touched upon a common thread which runs shot-through the left (and Obama and his minions with a vengeance): namely rampant Lysenkoism--whether it be the science of biology, climate, or nuclear arms, the leftist political/ideological cart always drags the tortured scientific horse in the name of saving "humanity" and social "progress."

Icepick said...

Why? What have you lost?

The ability to live within well-defined bounds. Definition mean nothing anymore, people are realizing this, it leaves them uncomfortable and rootless. Their mental and emotional ties are being decoupled from reality.

It is no small loss that two men can now engage in "matrimony". Where, pray tell, is the "mater" in this arrangement?

Lem said...

Palladian's holier than thou bullshit is as unappealing as Althouse's.

And I continue to like them both.

GPE said...

A classic from 1940, "How to Read a Book: The Classic Guide to Intelligent Reading, by Adler may lend insight into the problem with lengthy, emotional, evolving comment threads. Adler describes four types of reading (books, in this case, but it could very well apply to blogs):


* Elementary - This is just what it sounds like. It’s what we learn in elementary school and basically gets us to the point that we can understand the words on a page and read them, and follow a basic plot or line of understanding, but not much more.
* Inspectional - This is basically skimming. You look at the highlights, read the beginning and end, and try to pick up as much as you can about what the author is trying to say. I’ll bet you did plenty of this with high school reading assignments; I know I did. Think of SparkNotes when you think of inspectional reading.
* Analytical - This is where you really dive into a text. You read slowly and closely, you take notes, you look up words or references you don’t understand, and you try to get into the author’s head in order to be able to really get what’s being said.
* Syntopical - This is mostly used by writers and professors. It’s where you read multiple books on a single subject and form a thesis or original thought by comparing and contrasting various other authors’ thoughts. This is time and research intensive, and it’s not likely that you’ll do this type of reading very much after college, unless your profession or hobby calls for it.

Paul said...

My view is that now gay marriage is acceptable' then next will be polygamy, then polyandry, then bestiality, pedophilia, incest, etc....

All in the name of 'rights'.

Yes there is a 'man/boy' love society in the USA.

All of this is a perversion and one day the US and the world will rue the day they allowed it.

Robert Cook said...

"'What's mere biology before the majesty of the law?'

"The very crux of the issue, but why let little things like reality get in the way of one's dearly held preferences."


Not in the least the crux of the issue. Romantic love and sexual desire are not solely aspects of or determined by biology.

AprilApple said...

I like Palladian and when I am skimming the comment section he is at the top of my list for "stop and read". He's a true independent thinker.

DOMA is over. It started with Clinton and now it's dead. The states can now take on the issue one at a time. Though, like CA, if voters say one thing, the black robes will say another.
I don't have a problem with gay marriage per say. I see both sides and agree/disagree with both sides. I am uncomfortable with the anger and rage that comes from both sides. I know gay couples and when I think of their devotion to each other, I am not bothered at all by the concept of equality for them. My feelings (yes feelings ugh) about gay men who adopt little babies inspires less confidence. I'm old fashioned and I think children, in an ideal situation, need a mom and a dad. I see gay male couples at the park with their babies and it looks to me like they are clueless. It looks like the latest look-at-me-fashion-statement. and that makes me pity the child. I'm sure there are male couples who do a great job parenting, but I'm equally sure there are gay males who don't.
Oh wait- straight couples can be idiots too. I know some. These are just my random rambling non-law school thoughts.
.... to be cont,....

El Pollo Raylan said...

Religion lost its claim to marriage a long time ago - when it let it get tied up in secular legal systems. Maybe the religious should start a new institution, call it something else, a marriage plus, that specifies their claim to the religious aspects of the covenant but avoids secular legalities. Yes, you can say it's not fair that you (the traditionalists) need to change, but it's too late for that, you already let it go; the ship sailed long before anyone was talking about gay marriage.

No. There's an unassailable core still there since antiquity. It shines on, brighter in some faiths than others. And it is self-replicating, having that built-in advantage. It doesn't rely on other people's kids or the extinguishment of one little flame and the rekindling of it with exchanged element to spread. To be sure, it is buffeted and appears to flicker, but that flame will not go out until the last adherent is denied oxygen.

I will join my fellow commenter Palladian in partial withdrawal from these comments (supposing that's what he meant) but for different reasons. I will cease to contribute the things I enjoy contributing here, but will instead listen and speak only when necessary.

Robert Cook said...

"'What have you lost?'

"The ability to live within well-defined bounds. Definition mean nothing anymore, people are realizing this, it leaves them uncomfortable and rootless. Their mental and emotional ties are being decoupled from reality."


It's time to grow up.

You are still free to live within your own "well-defined bounds." However, your assumption that others must live within those same bounds is egotistical, childish, and tyrannical.

DADvocate said...

I can't write with vituperation because I can't vituperate. It's a congental defect.

I suppose we have 4 bigots on the Supreme Court plus many others on both sides of the aisle in politics. I'm wondering when it'll now longer be legal to discriminate against males, especailly white males who have no other special protected class designation to fall back on - just white, not female, gay, handicapped, etc. That's why I'm on strike.

Sorun said...

"Oh come on, marriage certainly predates Christianity (and is not unique to it) and probably predates organized religion. It is the height of arrogance to claim that some subset of Christians are entitled to define marriage in a secular country."

Freder is right. It's Christianity (and other religions) that tookover marriage from whatever culture the religion embedded itself in.

Culture is dynamic, and so is whatever that culture defines as marriage.

Jay Retread said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Matthew Sablan said...

"And the oppressor is...??"

-- Mainly Bill Clinton.

C Stanley said...

Robert Cook, is there a society in history that has succeeded without adhering to cultural moral norms?

Lem said...

Radical Femenism was the first plane to hit the towers.

Gay Marriage is the second plane.

Jay Retread said...

Ann created her Althouse Hillbilly posse. Now she finds them all embarrassing.

Now go buy some toilet paper through her portal you rubes!

jacksonjay said...

Ying and Yang, BABY!

Winners and Losers
Males and Females
Moms and Dads
Right and Left
Liberals and Conservatives

Not sure how this will play out in the future!

Dads and Dads??
Moms and Moms??
Liberals and Liberalas??

Lyssa said...

Freder said: Oh come on, marriage certainly predates Christianity (and is not unique to it) and probably predates organized religion. It is the height of arrogance to claim that some subset of Christians are entitled to define marriage in a secular country.

Heh, that's funny. Now, please try going back and reading what I actually wrote, slowly, rather than just assigning some random opinion to me based on your sheer hatred towards conservatives.

Matthew Sablan said...

I don't get the thinking this is as big a political divide as it is. Until very, very recently, Dick Cheney was more on the "right side of history" on this one than Barrack Obama.

jacksonjay said...


Ask the Chinese how playing around with sex selection has worked out!

Freder Frederson said...

Robert Cook, is there a society in history that has succeeded without adhering to cultural moral norms?

Gee, how about the United States. Questioning the authority of the monarch was a pretty radical departure from the "cultural moral norms" of the eighteenth century.

Icepick said...

Marriage is not a concept, practice or word invented by or the sole province of Christians or by Westerners or Americans.

Yes, but this is a Western country, founded by and for Christians, and we are Americans. (Or we were - per the left I guess we're United Statesians now.) So these traditions actually DO matter.


It is hardly an intentional assault on the sensibilities of Christians to expand the legal right to "marriage" to gay people, or to use the word "marriage" (as opposed to "legal partners" or somesuch) to describe a practice that is exactly the same as that heretofore permitted to the heterosexual members of our society.


It IS designed as an intentional assault on Christian and traditionalist beliefs. It doesn't exactly take a lot of looking into the matter to see that is the case.

More importantly, gay marriage is NOT "exactly the same" as heterosexual marriage. No matter how much they fuck each other in the ass, mouth or any other orifice, two men have exactly ZERO chance of producing offspring with each other. The same is true for two women and a strap-on.

There are certainly heterosexual marriages that don't produce offspring and even that knowingly can't. But forming families that create offspring and caring for those offspring is the ultimate goal of the institution, and the well-spring from which meaning is derived.

Legalistic parsing notwithstanding, obviously, as words are now completely devoid of meaning as the Left steamrolls humanity in order to provide the STATE with all authority over everything.

Farmer said...

It's true that some are acting like sore losers. But Althouse, you're acting like a poor winner.

I also don't understand how this is any sort of ultimate victory. It's a battle in a much larger war. Advising the other side to lose gracefully suggests that we should stop fighting.

And since we're criticizing each other's behavior, you have a habit of claiming people don't read carefully or misunderstand you in situations where they understand you perfectly, and are just pushing back. It's almost as though you think that if people just understood you correctly, they'd naturally agree with you. It makes you look arrogant, elitist, and delusional.

I still like you though.

Writ Small said...

Here's what I wrote back in March related to the Michelle Shocked controversy when she tried inelegantly to express the bewilderment some devout and unsophisticated Christians felt about SSM:

Writ Small said...

If you've seen any polling by age, you know adoption of SSM is simply a matter of time. The question is how the transition will play out. Is one historically marginalized community going to humiliate another minority in the adoption of new rights? Maybe they feel they're entitled to some payback, but it's remarkably short sighted.

A whole lot of people aren't invested in this issue and are merely taking in the various reactions and forming opinions as events unfold. If supporters of SSM behave with magnanimity in victory, the silent observers will notice and draw appropriate conclusions.

I was watching stock footage of the MLK "Dream" speech last year, and what struck me was the shots of the crowds. I have to believe the images of thousands of dignified, serious, middle-class black people did as much to change hearts as the speech itself.

Freder Frederson said...

founded by and for Christians

Gee, I missed that part of the Constitution.

DADvocate said...

Now that gays can get married, how much longer will they be gay?

Jay Retread said...

And please note she will not come out of her protected ivory tower and converse with Althouse Hillbillies in the comment sections of these posts insulting them.

What a prissy, self important person she is!

It must be a great life duping the state of Wisconsin for $160,000.00 a year through tenure abuse. How many decades has it been since she published an article in a law journal btw?

You peons let her think of herself as big. Don't you get it?

Michael Haz said...

Awwww....Miss Stompy Foot has a upset.

Lem said...

Until very, very recently, Dick Cheney was more on the "right side of history" on this one than Barrack Obama.

Like Cheney, Althouse is compromised by a conflict of interest on this issue. Their choices are understandable from the perspective of their vantage point.

Which is really funny because that kind of sentimentality is at the heart of what I believe the debate to be about.

Michael Haz said...

It's hilarious to see liberals react with joy when shit done by liberals gets cleaned up by liberals.

DOMA. DADT. Jim Crow laws.

All liberal ideas.

Bob Ellison said...

I submit the conjecture that this post by the Professor is a deliberate and thoughtful cleansing operation. Her blog-comment community has become a bit of a conservative scrum, and that makes it boring. Maybe she is just trying to scare a few folks off and win a few more lefties into the community.

Icepick said...

It's time to grow up.

You are still free to live within your own "well-defined bounds." However, your assumption that others must live within those same bounds is egotistical, childish, and tyrannical.


Why? You are insisting that I live within the bounds that you SET. If I run a business, you absolutely insist that I follow the rules YOU are setting for what is and isn't a situation where I can extend benefits to my workers. You are insisting that I pay taxes to support a government that will support people I do not want supported.

ricpic said...

Did DOMA, on "purpose," "demean" "insult" "disparage" and "insult" homosexuals? Those are Kennedy's words. I find it inexplicable that Althouse has had nothing to say about the extraordinary lack of judicial temperament in the Kennedy majority opinion's accusations. They shocked Scalia.

Henry said...

Lyssa wrote: Religion lost its claim to marriage a long time ago - when it let it get tied up in secular legal systems. Maybe the religious should start a new institution, call it something else, a marriage plus, that specifies their claim to the religious aspects of the covenant but avoids secular legalities. Yes, you can say it's not fair that you (the traditionalists) need to change, but it's too late for that, you already let it go; the ship sailed long before anyone was talking about gay marriage.

Perfectly stated.

I would only add that many religions already do that and have done that for centuries. Catholics celebrate marriage as a mass. Mormons have template marriage.

Henry said...

Bob Ellison wrote: Her blog-comment community has become a bit of a conservative scrum, and that makes it boring.

Also to the point. It's just really tedious stuff.

Icepick said...

Fuck it. Time to take my daughter, that my wife and I produced in the usual fashion, to the park. That's something that two gay men can't do, no matter what Cook says about my marriage being exactly the same as that of two sodomites.

Oh, and BTW, my marriage is also different from the situation I witnessed the other day when I saw a man of about twenty bragging about having six different children with five different women. Culture needs to harness biology, not dent it, if it hopes to thrive.

Tank said...

For me, all of these 'gay' issues are unimportant. They are important to a very small minority, but are not important in any meaningful way to the USA (notwithstanding the constant assault on us by the cathedral)."

How can these issues be "not important in any meaningful way to the USA" yet they somehow make a "once great country" less great?


Robert, I said I don't thing this one is important. But I understand how others feel because they/we have lost so much, and will continue to because it's a lost cause. As I said, the left has won.

Robert Cook said...

Icepick,

You don't get to choose who is equal and eligible for benefits under the law and who is not. Why do you think you should be able to? If we're not all free and equal, then none of is, as it only takes a seachange in cultural mores for a previously favored cohort to lose favor. Would you like your rights (to marry the person of your choice or any other rights) restricted or removed according to the preferences and biases of other individuals who don't share your beliefs?

Gahrie said...

It's almost as though you think that if people just understood you correctly, they'd naturally agree with you.

Of course she does. She's:

A) A Lefty
B) A Woman
C) A University professor

Lyssa said...

Fuck it. Time to take my daughter, that my wife and I produced in the usual fashion, to the park. That's something that two gay men can't do

It's also something that my husband's aunt and uncle, good Catholics and wonderful people, can't do. However, they were and are very much excellent parents to the two children they adopted. And they are very much married.

Henry said...

"Temple marriage", I should have written. Anyone who has grown up in Mormon culture knows how incisively the culture distinguishes temple marriage from civil marriage.

Gahrie said...

Questioning the authority of the monarch was a pretty radical departure from the "cultural moral norms" of the eighteenth century.


Actually for Englishmen, it wasn't. They'd already executed one king, and disposed another.

Robert Cook said...

"As I said, the left has won."

No. We all have won. The expansion of freedom and civil rights to a previously excluded, unequal and thus not fully free cohort is to be celebrated by all; it is the restriction or removal of freedom and civil rights from any particular segment of society that is harmful.

If the equal rights of every person are not guaranteed, the rights of none of us are.

Bob Ellison said...

Robert Cook, you're going to need to define those rights to get agreement from those of us on the right.

traditionalguy said...

Palladian come back. You are my favorite commenter.

Surfed said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
AprilApple said...

I like it when Palladian kicks the shit out of it.

Independent thinkers are rare. He's the anti-cliché.

Robert Cook said...

"...this is a Western country, founded by and for Christians...."

Uh, no. It was not founded for Christians.

Tank said...

Last try.

Cook.

This issue is unimportant.

The left has won OVERALL.

We'll need about fifty years to find out if we all won on this particular issue. Me, I don't think it makes a difference. Marriage has been so devalued by hetero's at this point. But I could be wrong.

jacksonjay said...


The Farmer said:

It's almost as though you think that if people just understood you correctly, they'd naturally agree with you. It makes you look arrogant, elitist, and delusional.

Made me think of Saint Barry! More speeches, "common sense legislation", "everyone agrees", etc.

I like her too!

CWJ said...

Lyssa said - Religion lost it claim to marriage a long time ago - when it let it get tied up in secular legal systems.

I don't dispute the end result of this statement, I just wince at the "[religion] let it" phrasing. Religion had little choice in the matter once the state chose to get involved.

See Madisonman's comment above which has much to recommend it.

X said...

Robert Cook said...
If the equal rights of every person are not guaranteed, the rights of none of us are.


I still don't have the right to give or receive an estate tax-free so I'm still in the excluded cohort. thanks for the bigotry scotus.

Surfed said...

Read the entire comment thread. That was a half hour of my life I'll never get back. Going sailing. Sheesh...

DADvocate said...

You don't get to choose who is equal and eligible for benefits under the law and who is not. Why do you think you should be able to? If we're not all free and equal, then none of is,

Tell me how you feel about affirmative action, preferences based on race and gender for college admissions, jobs and such. I'm not accusing you of being one way or the other. I don't read your comments enough to know that.

Saint Croix said...

the failure to stop and see humor and wordplay

I'm usually pretty good at spotting your humor, Althouse. These posts seem angry.

As a thought experiment, what sort of tone should pro-lifers take if and when Roe is overruled?

kathleen said...

"Sometimes, I get discouraged about the way people can't or won't read. It's not just the skimming and leaping to assumptions that you know what is being said, it's normal-speed reading of concision, and the failure to stop and see humor and wordplay."

It's because your writing is banal, tiresome and not worth the effort. But at least you have the good sense to be discouraged.

Bender said...

marriage certainly predates Christianity (and is not unique to it) and probably predates organized religion

That's exactly right.

Marriage predates government, such that it is beyond the province or legitimate ability to define marriage. All it can rightly do is enact laws that protect what is pre-existent.

Likewise, marriage predates churches, it predates specific religions. Marriage predates all religion, organized or disorganized. Consequently, as churches and religion rightly understand, they do not and did create marriage. Rather, by observation and right reason, the churches and religions merely recognized what already existed -- that a man and woman are specifically designed for physical, sexual joinder with one another, with the potential result of children. To "marry" something means to join them together. Only a man and a woman can joined in this way with, sorry to get graphic here, a penis going into a vagina with a consequent transmission of procreative genetic material. Even though they may mimic is some respects a vagina, another man's anus and mouth are not capable of true joinder with an organ that is made and designed for a vagina.

Sorry to break everyone's bubble here, but that is simple basic truth of human personhood. Churches did not invent it, governments did not create it.

The result is that we have a choice -- we can either recognize reality, we can recognize things as they truly are, or we can engage in infantile and irrational exercises in fantasy and indulge in the raw power and might to issue "laws" which decree that which is false to be true.

Henry said...

Robert Cook wrote: No. We all have won. The expansion of freedom and civil rights to a previously excluded, unequal and thus not fully free cohort is to be celebrated by all; it is the restriction or removal of freedom and civil rights from any particular segment of society that is harmful.

Exactly right.

Michael K said...

Freder Frederson said...

"Although I disagree with Scalia's assertion that the majority implied that anyone supported DOMA is a bigot, in the particular case of your particularly vile commetariat, the accusation of bigotry is valid."

Congratulations ! You have someone who agrees with you completely !

Nice couple you make.

Chuck said...

Ann, the only reason that Justice Kennedy did not use the word "bigot" is because his entire opinion is written in an unclear manner.

Scalia, Alito and Roberts made clear what Kennedy failed to make clear.

Humperdink said...

As a bible believing fundamentalist Christian, the ruling was certainly no surprise. Gay marriage is just one example that US is a post-Christian nation.

Taking prayer out of school, the ACLU suing anything Christian (Darth Vader Ginsberg ACLU graduate),slaughtering of babies as the Moabites did(you would have thought the Gosnell trial would awakened the nation), rampant drug use, the absolute destruction of the black family, caucasians on the same path, trillions in debt with no conceivable way of repayment, gay marriage .. the list is endless. God has seen all of this before.

This will not end well for the US.

For believers, however, we are not losers, victory is ours. We aliens in a foreign land, soon to be liberated .



Humperdink said...

As a bible believing fundamentalist Christian, the ruling was certainly no surprise. Gay marriage is just one example that US is a post-Christian nation.

Taking prayer out of school, the ACLU suing anything Christian (Darth Vader Ginsberg ACLU graduate),slaughtering of babies as the Moabites did(you would have thought the Gosnell trial would awakened the nation), rampant drug use, the absolute destruction of the black family, caucasians on the same path, trillions in debt with no conceivable way of repayment, gay marriage .. the list is endless. God has seen all of this before.

This will not end well for the US.

For believers, however, we are not losers, victory is ours. We aliens in a foreign land, soon to be liberated .


CommonHandle said...

Not sure whether or not anyone else is truly gloating, but I sure will.

If the DOMA ruling has caused you some psychic harm, offended your sensibilities as a Christian, traditionalist, or conservative, then I am positively gleeful.

It fills my heart as much to know that you perceive some real harm as it does to know that there may be some theoretical relief to the oppressed.

That's gloating.

Lem said...

Palladian come back. You are my favorite commenter.

Can he live w/o some of our vituperation?

I'm asking this question with some hesitation and unman-upness... I never want to be on the receiving end of his wrath.

Boxty said...

Freder Frederson said:
...founded by and for Christians

Gee, I missed that part of the Constitution.

6/28/13, 9:01 AM



"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Preamble to the U.S. Constitution

Pogo said...

Bob Ellison said...
"I submit the conjecture that this post by the Professor is a deliberate and thoughtful cleansing operation."

Ah, I get it.
Message received.

Freder Frederson said...

Preamble to the U.S. Constitution

And where exactly does it say the country was founded for Christians?

traditionalguy said...

Point of order: Althouse posts are the best reasoned and clearest that exist. She takes a side and convinces me with cogent reasoning.

She is a great advocate. She is never wrong because her words are precise and properly hedged when she is unsure. I covet her skills.

Maybe that is why she is sometimes seen as giving them hell, she tells the truth and they think it is hell (credit to Harry Truman )

edutcher said...

Ann, you were out of line.

The "loser" stuff is what I expect from trolls like Ritmo or machine.

If it's taken 3 posts to get your point across, maybe you need to think your language through a bit more.

I can't speak for anyone else, but my concerns stem from the clear lessons of history on this matter and the unalloyed (and undisguised) cynicism of the Left in creating another group of bickering camps for them to exploit.

I understand you have a personal dog in this fight. OK, fine, but that does not give you the right to look down on the people with whom you disagree any more than the people who disagreed with you over your support of Scott Walker had the right to threaten you.

Has it occurred to you that the people with whom you disagree just might be right on the implications for society? I hope you're thinking
that far ahead.

As for Palladian, he gave as good as he got. Although he cites "vituperation", some, I'm sure, he feels came from me, he also gave it back in refusing to address some legitimate issues of the homosexual movements.

Ann Althouse said...

And I anticipate another round of crying over how terribly mean I have been to you.

Now you sound like shiloh or machine.

It's beneath you.

Patrick said...

And here I thought Althouse's post was just a gambit to get Shouting Thomas to come back and comment.

Roughcoat said...

I'd like to see Ann Althouse and Elizabeth Scala ("The Anchoress")debate this issue. It would be interesting to see whether Ann Althouse would moderate her tone when conversing with Scalia.

bagoh20 said...

Ann's message yesterday and everyone's who is arguing for gay marriage is just saying one simple thing at this point: "Shut up, and accept it. We don't want to discuss it." How about we just do that from now on with every issue?

Palladian, you are getting what you want, we all know it. You are the winner, so stop acting like a loser, and taking your ball home. Man up! Everyone here who disagrees with you is gonna have their face rubbed in this the rest of their lives. I think you can deal with the soft cushion of your victory chair. You know I like I you. I think I've made that clear, and I really hate the anti-gay stuff that gets said here, but the viciousness is pretty strong on both sides. You are are well able to take the assholes here. It's gonna be that way anytime people can be anonymous. This is the price of free speech. Nobody said it was cheap.

Paddy O said...

So I'm a social conservative, with almost all that means. And if I'm disappointed by the ruling, I agree it's not something to whine about.

The argument was lost. Not to the Supreme Court. The argument to the public. And who lost it? The Christian Right. They wanted to be Caesar, and rule as Caesar rules. They wanted a Pax Romana, where there were some who had peace through the application of force and exclusion.

They didn't just lose the argument to the nation. They lost it to next generations, they lost even the church for the most part.

I can agree with their basic position but find their approach utterly destructive for what it was, and reflects Palladian's comment. It was faithless, looking to the powers of the world to substantiate a religious position.

We're hearing the dying gasps of Christendom and most people don't even know how to argue their cause without having the backing of the State.

The only argument they have is that 1) it's wrong 2) Because the Bible says so. And this to people who disagree with the first and don't care about the second, or disagree that the second says so. Stopped at that level of sophistication it becomes a battle of wills.

Christendom is not an argument anymore. And it never was really transformative. It just made a list of the powerful and the excluded. It pampered some grievous sinners and persecuted others.

If there's a lesson in all this, it's precisely not to whine, but to take seriously the critique that people heard what the church was saying and didn't care, don't care. Yelling louder, playing the victim, doesn't work.

The task for those in younger generations is to find new ways of talking about issues like sexuality, and not just same-sex. The whole system is broken and far too much of this brokenness is even celebrated in many churches.

That's why I mostly stay out of the gay marriage debates, because the issue is so much deeper and points the finger in a lot of directions.

edutcher said...

Tank said...

I don't think I did any whining about this case, but I understand it. We, conservatives, traditionalists, libertarians, are losers. We've lost

Who's this "We"?

If you've lost, don't include me.

Lem said...

Palladian doesn't strike me as irrevocably and obtusely solid on gay marriage.

Quite the opposite.

His stand was government has no business in marriage one way or another.

Freder Frederson said...

But some forms of Christianity hold that marriage is a sacrament.

So what? Some forms of Christianity (and Judaism for that matter) are fine with sanctifying a gay marriage. Why should the loudest and most obnoxious Christians get to define marriage. Why isn't the UCC or reform Judaism definition of marriage good enough for everyone else?


Because the others are too busy being Leftists to practice their faith?

Of course Freder is one who thinks they're the Ten Suggestions.

Whenever it was decided that the non-religious and un-church affiliated could participate in the institution

Oh come on, marriage certainly predates Christianity (and is not unique to it) and probably predates organized religion. It is the height of arrogance to claim that some subset of Christians are entitled to define marriage in a secular country.


If that secular country was founded on those principles, it's perfectly reasonable for those principles to be used to define marriage.

Tell us, Freder, how long will it take them to brainwash you to go along with pederasty and incest?

Preamble to the U.S. Constitution

And where exactly does it say the country was founded for Christians?


Pick up a history book, genius.

C R Krieger said...

NotquiteunBuckley said...
Since when is Althouse divine?


I think of the Althouse as having been divine, being divine and will be divine!

As for the various combinations of men and women, I was at a meeting this week were someone mentioned a client (no names or other identifiers) who, with her daughter, is moving in with the Father and his pregnant girlfriend and how the State, in it's processes, resists this kind of thing.

I am expecting that after the SCOTUS DOMA Ruling we will be embracing this sort of thing, because of individual human dignity and respect, if not for the children.

Separating the divine from the secular, I am betting the late Jim Hayes was in a Temple Marriage when he introduced No Fault Divorce as a California Legislator. But, I like the distinction. Governments do Contracts. People Marry each other, as in the R/C Sacrament (Priest as witness) and as Althouse and Meade did on a rock in Colorado.

Regards  —  Cliff

AJ Lynch said...

What Kathleen said at 9:24AM.

bagoh20 said...

All the called for compassion is one-sided. The winners are supposed to be appreciated, and the losers are supposed to appreciate the pain of their loss, absorb it, and learn from it, because well, you deserve the pain. I want gays to get their rights, so I'm not a loser in that respect, but the proponents are acting like nothing is being lost by the other side. Either that or the loss is deserved, and the pain quite enjoyable to watch. I just find it ugly. I hoped that they would be bigger than that.

AJ Lynch said...

And if there were a Hall of Fame for your best commenters, Palladian would be a 1st round nominee.

Mitchell the Bat said...

I think it was maybe in Sleeper that Diane Keaton tells Woody Allen that science has identified some chemical that builds up in the body and that's why other people inevitably get on our nerves.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I love the way that Althouse and Palladian (among others) lump everyone together into one category. YOU ALL. The generic YOU. So convenient. Stereotype much? The indiscriminate grouping of people into convenient groups so that you can chastise, attribute negative characteristics and minimize people IS the hallmark of a prejudiced bigot. Take a look in the mirror.

Many of the posters in the previous thread mentioned accepted the repeal of DOMA. Many remarked on the hypocrisy of the bigot label being attached to conservatives when the DOMA legislation was conveniently supported by Democrats....until it wasn't convenient. This is also a classic definition of hypocrisy. Maybe instead of trying to invent new definitions or create out of whole cloth new usages for commonly used words and phrases, someone should use a dictionary.

With the exception of those habitual bomb throwers, well know trolls and those who can't help but agitate them the remarks by the majority were not "whining".

Others.....such as myself pointed out that the repeal was on the Federal level, leaving the 30 States that have banned or refused to recognize SSM alone (at this time) and wondered about the legal ramifications of that action re: federal laws and the application of those on a State level. Expecting this to be a so called "legal" blog, you might expect some conversation at least from the "legal" expert on that topic.
------ CRICKETS. --------

It is pretty obvious that Ms. Althouse doesn't brook any deviation from correct mind-think on topics that are near and dear to her liberal heart. She says she want honest discussion on topics but when that happens and there is rebellion to toeing the line we are chastised....called whiners, bigots, racists (Obama phone lady), homophobes and many other slurs. I'm surprised she, herself, hasn't called all of us the favorite jibe of the vituperative leftists: Althouse Hilbillies. If it weren't for the high level of intelligent commenters, most of us would likely not be frequenting this blog.

On a personal level, I could give a flying fuck if two people of the same sex decide to get married. I could give a shit if the government wants to recognize that marriage and confer all the good and BAD things that come with marriage. I do care if the ruling intrudes into the Religious beliefs and practices of those who hold the act to be sinful or wrong. I don't hold that belief because I don't care and it is above my pay grade, but I do hold to the rights of those who are religious to not be FORCED to abandon their religious principles. I do believe that there is some legal precedent for this protection...I dimly remember something called the Constitution....Perhaps Althouse could look it up for us and solve this mystery.

MadisonMan said...

It's beneath you.

You. A law Professor

(You're welcome)

Paddy O said...

That being said, I just read through the rest of the Cafe thread, and I didn't hear whining.

I read disappointed and frustration that well-reasoned and thoughtful people get dismissed out of hand. People who have been here a while and participated in many discussions, most of whom are not at all insulting. Except inasmuch as their position itself is understood as some kind of inherent insult.

At the core is the question whether sexuality is identity. And with this is the effects of determining identity through sexuality. Because there are effects and as a society we, like it or not, deal with the effects of other choices so can have debates about such philosophical and expressed positions.

Is sexuality something we do or someone we are? Is it a big deal or not a big deal at all? Many want to make a claim that it's both everything and hardly anything all at once, our very identity while at the same time entirely unrelated to psychological or social influences.

When people take it seriously with all its implications, they get dismissed, and put into the irrational category. Meanwhile, the whole topic is about feelings. One person feels one way, how do we feel about that person's feelings.

It shouldn't surprise us when people use the category to celebrate some and dismiss others. Doesn't make them right, though. Doesn't make me right, either, simply because I disagree. So I don't take it personally.

This post probably deserves an "Emotional Althouse" tag.

bagoh20 said...

I will apologize to Palladian and others for not batting back at some of the nastiness toward gays here. He, at least did not deserve it, and should not be left sitting there undefended. But, he is often defended, and supported as he was classically against Ritmo's embarrassing attack a while back. But the vicious slurs here are truly vile sometimes. I did feel the ugliness of it, and I chose to let it slide too much, not that I could do much, but I could say something at least.

Nobody here gets as vicious a treatment as Inga. I know she's an irritating partisan sometimes, but the attacks are just juvenile and ugly. I've done a little to question that, but not enough. She's just so irritating though, but she thinks I'm cute so a lifetime of hormones and training won't let me hate her...completely.

So Palladian, it could be worse - you could be Inga.

urpower said...

Weirdly, last night Cher re-enacted that "Moonstruck" scene on a Bravo talk show.

edutcher said...

MadisonMan said...

It's beneath you.

You. A law Professor

(You're welcome)


No thanks offered. My point is she could have phrased it better and had the effect she says she desires.

As MadMan says, she's a law professor, a teacher, and, in the case of explaining what something means to all of us who speak C++, but not legal mumbo jumbo, she's shown herself to be a very good one.

My point is I've seen "teachers" who give their students a hard time and a lot of sarcasm.

They're not very good at their job.

If she wants to get the people who disagreed with the ruling - or the way it's written - to buckle down Winsocki, she has the intellectual wherewithal to do it.

Resorting to shiloh's or machine's level is the way.

C Stanley said...

It will be interesting to see how Christianity might begin to revitalize when (or if) it can shake off the majoritarian role.

And the converse also: will gays and others who relish the avant garde, the countercultural begin to lose their edge now that they are the majority and have the force of law behind them? Be careful what you wish for.

bagoh20 said...

I think it's pretty clear that the big loser here is the one calling people "losers". Calling her people "losers."

The effort was a big fail, but don't be discouraged Althouse, your commenters will show how to behave, as surprising as that might be to you.

Roughcoat said...

I'm curious, does anyone else here read Elizabeth Scalia's blog ("The Anchoress" at Patheos)? Any thoughts thereon, in the context of Ann Althouse's comments?

bagoh20 said...

I read the Anchoress, and I'm pretty sure Ann does too. I think she has linked there before.

traditionalguy said...

What Paddy O said.

Paddy's new book is very well written and begins a great story, but I fell asleep. Try to finish it this weekend. But will not give away the ending.

bagoh20 said...

Yea, The Anchoress is listed in the Althouse blogroll.

C Stanley said...

Another juicy irony: the Professor of Paraphrase telling conservatives that we're assholes and idiots for accepting the legitimacy of Scalia's paraphrase of Kennedy.

I guess I need more instruction. Figuring out when we should paraphrase and when not, is proving rather confusing.

prairie wind said...

You are are well able to take the assholes here.

Well, this IS a discussion about gays, after all.

edutcher said...

C Stanley said...

It will be interesting to see how Christianity might begin to revitalize when (or if) it can shake off the majoritarian role.

The problem with Christianity is that there's too much Socialism in it.

Get rid of that and it will revitalize.

And the converse also: will gays and others who relish the avant garde, the countercultural begin to lose their edge now that they are the majority and have the force of law behind them? Be careful what you wish for.

They're not the majority now or will they ever be.

All they've got is the Lefty attack machine.

And that's being exposed.

PS I've read Mrs Scalia. Interesting lady.

C Stanley said...

I would pay to see a debate between Althouse and the Anchoress.

By the way, the Anchoress's new book is terrific.

C Stanley said...

Edit her, what I meant by majority is that the majority and the courts support gay marriage. They are becoming mainstream.

n.n said...

You know who the biggest losers are, don't you?

It is simian derivatives who can no longer offer a principled defense of their faith.

It is agnostics and other people of neutral faith who now know that human affairs are directed by faith and feelings.

It is liberals who time and again confirm their select or missing principles.

It is progressives who frequently qualify their conception of "progress" as negative or inconsistent with individual dignity, human life, and the terms and circumstances of reality.

Paradoxically, it is not the people whose faith is unchallenged by arbitrary conclusions based on competing faiths or feelings.

Henry said...

DBQ wrote: YOU ALL. The generic YOU. So convenient.

It is a convenience. It allows you to self-select into the group.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

Missed the topic yesterday and really, really late today but here's my $0.02.

Althouse was butt hurt about the savage beating she took on her really stupid "ass-cracker" post*. So she lashed out and wrote her "bigot" post. She us the only blogger I know he regularly trolls her own commentators.


* seriously Althouse try to escape your rich lilly white bubble and try to met and befriend at least one black, southern or working class person.

somefeller said...

On vacay for the day and I see everyone is still debating the gay. (See what I did there?) Anyway, this is a good post by Ann. It's too bad it was necessary for her to write it, but it seems like some commenters didn't understand her earlier ones or did understand them and got all fussy and hurt by them.

It's also amusing seeing some of the losers (hey, Althouse's term, not mine) lamely try to play the condescension game by talking about meanies, stomping feet, etc. Sorry guys, you have to do that with more grace to pull it off.

Anyway, I hope Palladian returns. His comments are always interesting. Otherwise, please continue.

Pogo said...

And last, my apologies to Palladian and Althouse for any hurt I have caused.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

DBQ wrote: YOU ALL. The generic YOU. So convenient.

Henry: It is a convenience. It allows you to self-select into the group.

I guess you didn't read the rest of my thoughts, since I obviously self selected out of the bigoted and manufactured category of YOU ALL>

It's OK. I understand the pathetic lack of reading skills bestowed by a public school education and your possession of an attention span as short as your dick. -----Darlin'

edutcher said...

C Stanley said...

Edit her, what I meant by majority is that the majority and the courts support gay marriage. They are becoming mainstream.

I'm assuming you're replying to me, so I'll say this:

This is like the abortion thing 40 years ago. The people who opposed were on the losing side and would eventually be swept away. Ultrasound and people like Kermit Gosnell have changed a lot of minds.

Many of those who "support" all this only do so because they've seen "Glee" and "Will And Grace". And I'm leery of the polls that support it (the skew is still there), but let's wait to see what happens when every town has to have a Gay Pride parade.

The San Fiasco kind.

As for the Court, most of the short termers are Lefties.

Robert Cook said...

"The problem with Christianity is that there's too much Socialism in it.

"Get rid of that and it will revitalize."


Yeah...what's the problem in throwing Jesus out with the Holy Water?

Revenant said...

The fact is Kennedy could have held the ruling he did without the move to delegitimize orthodox Christians and other traditionalists

"But we've been wrong for thousands of years" is not actually a defense against charges that you're wrong now.

MnMark said...

This legal step in the movement to legitimize homosexual "marriage" is not particularly remarkable. It has no particular meaning in itself and will not be remembered by history.

What has meaning in a historical sense is the way that the speed towards the "Left Singularity" (as some call it) is increasing. We are accelerating towards the point where the notion that equality is the highest moral good has been taken to its utter, ridiculous extreme and is revealed as ugly and wrong for all thinking people to see.

The mistake was made when we, Western civilization, latched onto the idea that equality was the highest good. Once that occurred things like homosexual "marriage" were a foregone conclusion. Once you decide that all things human are equal and that nothing should be thought any better than anything else, and that it is immoral - not just incorrect, but immoral - to believe some things are better than other things....well, you're on your way to some kind of Pol Pot-style radical egalitarian nightmare.

For the egalitarian true believers, it will not be enough that homosexuals are now officially allowed to pretend they are "married". The true believers will next move on to forcing everyone to publicly celebrate it, to denounce themselves Paula-Deen-style if they make a slip-up. There will be versions of the political indoctrination sessions ("diversity training") we all forced to endure at our workplaces. The true believers will force this on everyone, puritan-style, because they believe they are combating immorality in the form of "intolerance" and "hate".

And then somewhere down the line - and it will be in a society much, much more ugly and ridiculous than where we are now - the simple Darwinian fact that all things are NOT equal, and that those who try to base a society's morality on the lie that they are end up destroying the bases of strength of that society, will force a recognition that the highest value is excellence, beauty, quality, Darwinian survival of the fittest - which is most emphatically NOT equality in virtually any form - and that real biological and social differences cannot be papered over with egalitarian ideology.

So the thing to regret here is not homosexual "marriage", but the wrong turn our civilization took when it set equality as the highest moral value.

edutcher said...

somefeller said...

On vacay for the day

As opposed to the rest of the week? Staying up all night when you have to go to "work" at the "office"?

and I see everyone is still debating the gay. (See what I did there?) Anyway, this is a good post by Ann. It's too bad it was necessary for her to write it, but it seems like some commenters didn't understand her earlier ones or did understand them and got all fussy and hurt by them.

Even more interesting to see the usual suspects show their standard no class attitude.

It's also amusing seeing some of the losers (hey, Althouse's term, not mine) lamely try to play the condescension game by talking about meanies, stomping feet, etc. Sorry guys, you have to do that with more grace to pull it off.

The only foot stomping I see is from people like the Baghdad Bob of Althouse jumping up and down screaming, "You lost, you lost!!! Now give up!!!".

Michael K said...

"Ann Althouse said...

And I anticipate another round of crying over how terribly mean I have been to you.

Now you sound like shiloh or machine.

It's beneath you."

No, I think it's who she is. I don't care if homosexuals bugger each other on the street. I have sewn up a few anuses that got too much enthusiasm. Two good friends died in the early AIDS epidemic. I don't care about SSM, as it seems to be called these days.

The nastiness associated with the DOMA decision is one thing I don't like. The gloating is what one might expect from people who define their lives by who they have sex with. The world has more important things to concern itself with.

I am far more interested in many of them and since this site seems to be more concerned with sex, I will spend less time here.

edutcher said...

Robert Cook said...

The problem with Christianity is that there's too much Socialism in it.

Get rid of that and it will revitalize.


Yeah...what's the problem in throwing Jesus out with the Holy Water?


Since when was Christ a Socialist?

Roger J. said...

Perhaps I am not understanding the issue here. This is a blog run by one person. No one is forced to participate; those who disagree are free to leave; those who wish can start their own blog. If you do not like the way the blog is administered, then leave. It is still a (relatively) free country. If you don't like the commentariat, do as Palladian has done. Are people so dependent on this blog they cannot say adios? Apparently so.

Pastafarian said...

I have two questions:

1) Was that a flounce-off by Palladian?

2) Is it allowable, under our new ass-cracking overlords (whom I welcome, by the way) to apply a term like "flounce-off" to Palladian, or are veiled homophobic references reserved only for straight dudes?

Saint Croix said...

Gay marriage is so yesterday!

Saint Croix said...

Fat is the new gay.

Saint Croix said...

Gay is the old black.

Pastafarian said...

A third question:

3) I wonder: If I keep dropping references to the Great Ass-Cracker Catastrophe and Althouse's subsequent mockery and humiliation, do you suppose that tomorrow she'll write a post with the headline: "All of My Ignorant Althouse Hillbilly Commenters Can Choke on a Bag of Dicks!"?

Saint Croix said...

See what I did there? With gay fashion?

Too late! That joke's already old.

Damn it.

AReasonableMan said...

bagoh20 said...
Nobody here gets as vicious a treatment as Inga. I know she's an irritating partisan sometimes, but the attacks are just juvenile and ugly. I've done a little to question that, but not enough.


I would like to second this. The persistent misogyny that Inga faces day after day is genuinely shocking to me. Everyone loses their temper on occasion but the attacks on Inga are an unrelenting barrage of unpleasantness that is unjustified by what she writes. People are free to simply ignore her posts.

Darcy said...

I hate this topic. I love my gay friends and family members.

I'd like government completely out of the marriage business, but I know that is pretty much impossible.

Saint Croix said...

I never get credit for my love of hot lesbians. Never! Not even a little.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 381   Newer› Newest»