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 cafĂ©, 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.

379 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 379 of 379
Saint Croix said...

Hot lesbians! I love you!

not even looking at me

damn it

Dante said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
edutcher said...

Roger, as always, has a good point.

The only rebuttal I can offer is that, if Ann truly wants a salon or coffee-house (as I believe she said once) where all are welcome, she might want to consider how she'd like being on the other side.

As I said in the cafe, I will miss him and would urge him to come back. We disagreed greatly, but he was never a hypocrite.

AnUnreasonableTroll 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


This from one of the "Trayvon" lynch mob.

Spare me.

She picks most of her fights and is the first to get nasty.

Ann Althouse 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."

But you haven't learned my rule against "Oh, and..."

Dante said...

I've put up a survey seeking reactions to Ann's comment, and have a sample size of 25 (with one decline). I'll leave it up until the next cafe/after a while, and post the results.

If they think crying about being called bigots — when, again, the majority didn't even use that word — is going to help, I just have to laugh. 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!)

Ann Althouse said...

"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."

Your guess about how I think is wrong. I don't try to get people to agree with me. I don't care about persuasion. Others can do that. I say what I feel, including jokes and jabs. I like to perceive things and to have fun... often at the expense of others. I like to pick powerful others to have fun at the expense of. I think those who lorded it over gays while the could and then lost their dominance deserve a kick on the way down. I think their crying is laughable. If you think my laughing seems arrogant, consider the arrogance of the people who passed DOMA.

bagoh20 said...

If you want to get your head around how much of a fail this was, we might lose Palladian and keep Inga.

Just kidding, Inga. We want you both to stay. The value of this commentariat is demonstrated by the fact that the two of you don't agree on much of anything but are still here.

Ann Althouse 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."

Now we know Icepick's wife never gives him blowjobs. TMI!

Gahrie said...

Now we know Icepick's wife never gives him blowjobs. TMI!


Are you 14?

get a hold of yourself.

Roger J. said...

"...consider the arrogance of the people who passed DOMA..."and signed into law by the serial womanizer and rapist, William Jefferson Clinton. Good job Billy

Gahrie said...

I think those who lorded it over gays while the could and then lost their dominance deserve a kick on the way down

Yeah, that's mature.

Ann Althouse 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."

Ha, ha. Thanks. But funny to get to that after writing my recent comment, above, saying I am not trying to persuade. Persuasion is a byproduct of my respect for your freedom to think what you want and my sticking to what I'm really doing, which is honest and emotionally grounded.

"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 )"

Thanks.

Gahrie said...

If you think my laughing seems arrogant, consider the arrogance of the people who passed DOMA.


How about the arrogance of the people who switched their opinion for political expediancy?

Especially since you have condemned those who didn't switch their vote for political expediency. Principles be damned.

Roger J. said...

Even law professors are entitled to have a lousy day and be prickly--gotta tell you althouse--you haven't covered yourself with glory today. Tell you what: why don't you write and submit an article for publication in a law review journal--will make you feel better

bagoh20 said...

You know what else is fun? Remembering that Obama vote. That's a knee slapper.
I crack up (that's why they call us crackers) everyday when I go to work and realize that after tripling my payroll in 2 years by hiring a bunch of people, that I have not added a single new hire since Obamacare was found constitutional. Instead the economics forces me to buy labor saving equipment from foreign competitors making my countrymen poorer in every way. The employees I do have are looking at an end to big regular bonuses along with a big increase in their health care cost and a devastating wrecking of their actual access to care. That is some funny shit right there.

Gahrie said...

my sticking to what I'm really doing, which is honest and emotionally grounded.


Where does you apparently belief that emotionalism is superior to rationality come from?

Especially given that you are a lawyer and law professor.

RichardS said...

The good Professor might be frustrated because she agrees with Casey, and its famous mystery clause: "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

The troble is that by enshrining that idea in American law, the Court is, in fact, establishing religion. The charge of bigotry exposes that contradiction. Hence Prof. Althouse seems to be shooting the messenger.

somefeller said...

Hey, in looking at the earlier comments, I saw this from El Pollo: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.

Bummer. Someone else needs to take up the burden of complaining about how mean Andrew Sullivan was to a current reality show star back in 2008. Over and over again.

Sayyid said...

Back when I was nine and playing team sports, I'd repeatedly see fellow nine-year-olds win with more poise than Althouse.

In fact, most of them had enough sense to recognize how unbecoming this sort of behavior was, and chide their teammates for losing composure.

One of the things I've learned as I've grown up is just how much I didn't realize I had learned from those years my father forced me to play team sports.

Brotip: ending a post about how you're not gloating with the "tears of unfathomable sadness" clip from South Park is, er, doing it wrong. Very wrong.

Ann Althouse said...

"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."

It's a totalitarian impulse that seeks to use the state like this. And this particular use of the state picked a target of people who were perceived as weak.

If these social conservatives really cared so much, they'd make all sex outside of marriage illegal before they'd bar some people from marrying.

Kchiker said...

" 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."...

What an impressive comment.

paul a'barge said...

What surprises me most is that I had thought Althouse too old to be subject to PMS.

Who knew?

Roger J. said...

paul--I had the same thought, but wasn't going to comment. :)

Ann Althouse said...

"Since when is Althouse divine?"/"I think of the Althouse as having been divine, being divine and will be divine!"

Years ago, Terry Teachout referred to me as "The Divine Ms. Althouse." I had that in the banner for a while with a couple other quotes. I think I had Jonah Goldberg saying "Althouse is cool" and Glenn Reynolds saying "She's smarter than me" (or something).

jr565 said...

Instapundit linked to her quote about the various dems who supported DOMA and didn't get pegged as racists but now call opposition to DOMA racist and said:
"It was opportunism then, and it’s opportunism now. Both times wrapped in self-righteous moralism, as opportunism in Washington generally is."
Only I think her gloating is that self same opportunist wrapped in self righteous moralism.

What stuck I my craw was the use of the word oppressor. We oppressed people. No. We supported keeping marriage the way it's always been which has not been oppressive. Some of us saw the point that gays were being denied rights and suggested that an alternative to redefining marriage would be to set up civil unions. This is what a gay marriage is anyway, and it would allow gays to get their rights and not force churches to marry people they don't believe should be married.but even this position is still bigotry and oppression.
What really gets in my craw though is that Althouse is not one of those people who says foxy can't regulate marriage. So in the cases where althouse agrees with a restriction how is she not the same oppressor that those against gay marriage are. She would say her opposition is based on some rational basis, but so did traditional marriage advocates. But she's still for
Denying those people marriages and by the same token their benefits. So who's the oppressor again.
Self righteous moralizing indeed.

In this debate I've often wondered why I'm supposed to support gay marriage but not pay attention to polygamy. All this ire is directed for those who don't support gay
Marriage but very little ire is directed to those not supporting polygamy. If you oppose one you get called names, if you oppose the other it's silence.if you were really for marriage equality wouldn't you be pushing for both?
So fine anti gay marriagers are oppressors. Non pro polygamists are self serving moralist opportunists.

Sofa King said...

I really don't care about the policy at all. But:

1. Attempts by advocates on either side to make me care are more likely to make me push back against those advocates.

2. What I really do care about is the law, and the unprincipled way in which the Supreme Court reached the DOMA decision has me angry and frustrated. I should be able to express this without having it taken as whining.

Geoff Matthews said...

I'll admit that I'm disappointed by the ruling for DOMA and Prop 8. But whining about this won't do me any good.
So what now? I'd propose that the Feds no longer provide benefits for domestic partnerships where SSM is legal. If teh gays want to provide benefits for their SOs, they'll have to do it the old fashioned way (straights to).
The real problem here is one of sexual morality, so another idea that occurred to me is the issue of children raised out of wedlock. How can we encourage marriage? One idea would be higher child support payments for children born out of wedlock. Divorced fathers pay at a lower rate than the fathers of bastards.
Back on teh gays, I'd stop funding STD awareness programs for them. They have marriage, and they're now expected to show restraint. Find that special someone and settle down, etc. STDs should now be no more prevalent in homosexual circles than it is in straight society.
Part of me is curious about the marriage patterns for SS couples in the US. Canada's history (over a small period of time) has been one of limited embracement, with ~15% of same-sex couples (in 2011). Another 29% (approximate) were in common law marriages, but I'm left wondering why we'd even recognize CLM (Common-Law cheapens real marriage, so I'd ditch that as well). Will SSM in the US reach these levels? Will promiscuity drop?
What I'd like to know is the predictions that SSM proponents are now making on society in general.

bagoh20 said...

I'm not a social conservative, I'm not religious, I support gay rights, but like some gays, I still oppose calling it marriage.

And this question remains ignored: Who can we logically refuse to call married if not same sex people?

Humperdink said...

Paddy O: "Christendom is not an argument anymore. And it never was really transformative."

Well, it transformed my life. Completely.

Geoff Matthews said...

I have to say that AA's reaction here is an ugly one. No sense of a gracious winner, so sense of empathy. More viciousness than I expected. It's revealed a side of her that lower's herself.

Roger J. said...

Well--since I regard myself as a social libertarian, I have absolutely no problem with the DOMA ruling. I welcome my gay brethren to the joys of matrimony and the subsequent tears of community property and divorce. You are going to be sorely disappointed.

Aridog said...

Whew. After all this I still don't give a shit about any of this. I don't feel threatened by gays or lesbians.

Henry said...

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

It is a knee-jerk reaction for me...I hear that "YOU" and my reaction is "fuck you" ... you do not speak for me.

jr565 said...

Althouse wrote:
"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."

looking to substantiate a religious position?! The way you state it its as if there was no marriage and the religious right wanted to create a structure based solely on their religion which excluded gays because of animus.
When in fact marriage has always been this way in this country and around the world and traditionalists were defending the institution from being neutered.
You make the argument that the religious right is trying to impose something. In fact it's the secular state.

somefeller said...

Paul a' Barge says:What surprises me most is that I had thought Althouse too old to be subject to PMS. Who knew?

What doesn't surprise me is that Paul can't make a criticism without being a misogynist moron. I realize you've never been successful with women, but you've also never been successful in anything, so why single them out?

Roger J. said...

Ah yes--Terry Techouts's allusion to the "divine Ms Althouse." apparently you believed that professor--alas, like all icons, you have clay feet.

Ann Althouse said...

edutcher said..."MadisonMan said..."'It's beneath you." You. A law Professor' (You're welcome)." No thanks offered."

Leave it to edutcher to misread absolutely everything. He thinks the thanks MadisonMan imagined hearing was supposed to come from him. He goes on to say:

"My point is she could have phrased it better and had the effect she says she desires."

Phrasing things that edutcher doesn't get wrong? If that is indeed even possible, it would be written at an absurdly simple level. That's nothing I'd want to do. I really don't know why you read this blog, but my working theory is you're a guy pretending to be a guy that misunderstands everything.

"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."

The proper terminology is argle-bargle.

See if you can understand this: MadisonMan was invoking a longtime running joke on this blog.

"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."

My blog is what I choose to make it, not a job someone has defined for me. I'll give hard times to the targets of my choice, though I'm not sure you'd recognize a hard time if it kicked you in the ass.

"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."

I also have the intellectual wherewithal to write first grade primers, but that's not what I choose to write.

Dante said...

I'm not a social conservative, I'm not religious, I support gay rights, but like some gays, I still oppose calling it marriage.

And this question remains ignored: Who can we logically refuse to call married if not same sex people?


I used to think I was socially liberal, but I'm beginning to wonder now. It seems now to be socially liberal, you have to agree to gay marriage (which I don't, as I think able bodied people ought to make their own bread, and not get taxpayer subsidies), and I also am not in favor of continuing to import low skilled labor from south of the border.

But I've argued variously for the maximum freedom possible for people, including legalization of pot, and wish there were some way to safely legalize other drugs, etc.

Now, however, socially liberal seems to mean "You want to give away more taxpayer $ to others." That's where I break with socially liberal.

somefeller said...

Re: Althouse contra Edutcher at 11:51am above, that's gonna leave a mark!

bagoh20 said...

You know what else is fun? Remembering that Obama vote. That's a knee slapper.
I crack up (that's why they call us crackers) everyday when I go to work and realize that after tripling my payroll in 2 years by hiring a bunch of people, that I have not added a single new hire since Obamacare was found constitutional. Instead the economics forces me to buy labor saving equipment from foreign competitors making my countrymen poorer in every way. The employees I do have are looking at an end to big regular bonuses along with a big increase in their health care cost and a devastating wrecking of their actual access to care. That is some funny shit right there. Yep we are all just having fun here.

But fuck it, I'm going flying. Whatever I would make today will be stolen anyway, so lets get high! It's Friday!!!!!!

Roger J. said...

"I also have the intellectual wherewithal to write first grade primers, but that's not what I choose to write."

LOL-- pride goeth before a fall. I am thinking Sendak and Scarry do a much better job than an overeducated and underchallenged law professor in writing first grade primers. YMMV of course.

you really are full of yourself, Professor--which is why I go to Volokh for legal issues. You don't have much to offer.

Rialby said...

Gay men who want to be in a completely monogamous marriage is an edge case. The vast majority of gay men are propelled by the very worst impulses of the male psyche. If you do not believe me, go read this on slam parties.

President-Mom-Jeans said...

Awww, what's the matter Ann? The cold and hot flashes of menopause drive you down from your ivory tower to respond to your bigoted commentators?

You have been like a pissy Andy R. these last few days. Alienating and offending even people who support the end result of the repeal of DOMA. We get it, your son prefers the company of men. You don't have to be a gloating bitch about it.

You are absolutely correct that this is your blog, and you can post whatever you like. Absolutely your prerogative.

It's also true that the readers of your blog are free to think you are a condescending egomaniac who can't accept that your writing isn't the clear and eloquent brilliance that you believe it to be.

Perhaps you could take a lesson from Glenn Reynolds about how to promote gay marriage. You are certainly second fiddle to him in terms of blog traffic, credibility, and of course, talent.

Ugly Ann, ugly. But you are what you are.

Lem the artificially intelligent said...

...my sticking to what I'm really doing, which is honest and emotionally grounded.

How commodious for you.

MadisonMan said...


Spare me.

She picks most of her fights and is the first to get nasty.

And the reason you engage is....?

Speaking as the youngest child, let me say the But he started it!!! defense has never worked for me.

Lem the artificially intelligent said...

And this question remains ignored: Who can we logically refuse to call married if not same sex people?

Bags hits one out of the park!

Rabel said...

Althouse is a professor, a lawyer and a woman. If you're here looking for an admission of fault or error, the laws of probability are working against you.

My calculation (based strictly on personal observation and limited math skills) would be:

.2 x .3 x .2 = .012 x 100 = 1.2%

The potential exists, but the odds are unfavorable.

Lem the artificially intelligent said...

...and emotionally grounded.

And my castle is in the air.

Mark said...

MadisonMan ... But they are forced to come here, forced to read it, and forced to respond!

Oh wait, all this caterwauling is completely self inflicted.

The funniest part is some of these people are supposedly working right now. Such important members of the economy they choose to go somewhere and read stuff that makes them feel aggrieved. How unjust it all is for them.

edutcher said...

I'm sure this is just a one-off (so to speak) homosexual man adopts boyfriend to avoid inheritance tax..

Ann Althouse said...

MadisonMan said..."'It's beneath you." You. A law Professor' (You're welcome)." No thanks offered.

Leave it to edutcher to misread absolutely everything. He thinks the thanks MadisonMan imagined hearing was supposed to come from him.


No, you're wrong. I see your point, but he was putting words in my mouth, not someone else's.

He goes on to say:

My point is she could have phrased it better and had the effect she says she desires.

Phrasing things that edutcher doesn't get wrong? If that is indeed even possible, it would be written at an absurdly simple level. That's nothing I'd want to do. I really don't know why you read this blog, but my working theory is you're a guy pretending to be a guy that misunderstands everything.


Perhaps you just get angry when someone doesn't construe things the way you want.

There are always alternate points of view.

You, especially on this topic, should understand that.

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.

The proper terminology is argle-bargle.


Only if you come from the DC area.

See if you can understand this: MadisonMan was invoking a longtime running joke on this blog.

Yes, dear, I know the gag, but I think you misread the direction in which it was aimed

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.

My blog is what I choose to make it, not a job someone has defined for me. I'll give hard times to the targets of my choice, though I'm not sure you'd recognize a hard time if it kicked you in the ass.


I wasn't talking about what you put on your blog although I'm the first to say your blog, your rules; I was disagreeing about the most effective way you could phrase it.

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.

I also have the intellectual wherewithal to write first grade primers, but that's not what I choose to write.


Goody, but, if you're trying to motivate people, you seem to be going about it in a counter-productive way.

somefeller said...

Re: Althouse contra Edutcher at 11:51am above, that's gonna leave a mark!

As always, the Baghdad Bob of Althouse thinks wishing will make it so.

PS Ann, you've had your back up about me since New Year's and I don't think it has anything to do with how I construe things. Actually, you're sounding like the trolls are doing some of your comments.

You and/or Meade has my email address. If you want to drop me a line and say whatever it is happens to be at the root of it, feel free.

jr565 said...

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.

I've gone after Inga because I find I disagree with her often, but I don't think I called her any names. Ritmo I've called names all the time.

CWJ said...

Althouse @11:41

Thanks, now I can't get Springsteen's "Glory Days" out of my mind.

Known Unknown said...

I think those who lorded it over gays

At our nuptials, my wife and I lit a special "Lording Over Gays" candle. It was awesome. The oppressive powers I felt on that day were amazing.

I would love to know who, by your estimation, was lording it over the gays? Does that include Bill Clinton?

Here's my point: I support same-sex marriage wholeheartedly. DOMA was terrible law.
But bigotry in response to bigotry really doesn't work in my book. Most of the commenters here who are against SSM attempt to make reasoned arguments why, many from a religious point of view. I seek to understand their motivations as much as I do the motivations of homosexuals in support of gay marriage. A few commenters are bomb throwers but you learn pretty quick who they are and how (not) to engage them.



Smilin' Jack said...

Sheesh. We try to save Palladian from eternal damnation, and this is the thanks we get. We don't hate you, Palladian. God does. Read your Bible, for fuck's sake.

Unknown said...

MnMark at 10:56 : great comment. It made me wonder if you've read Jonathan Haidt's book, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. I highly recommend it to anyone interested in understanding why conservatives see the world (and progressivism) as they do. The amazing thing is that the author is a liberal but he gleaned that there was something important that conservatism offers, and he studied it from the perspective of moral philosophy and psychology, so that he is able to articulate it better than most conservatives can.

Known Unknown said...

I've gone after Inga because I find I disagree with her often, but I don't think I called her any names. Ritmo I've called names all the time.

As have I. I try to refrain from name-calling. Inga does take a lot of shit although I do think it would behoove her that if she ignored certain commenters, she would be better off (and face less crap) in the long run.

Known Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
President-Mom-Jeans said...

"I've gone after Inga because I find I disagree with her often, but I don't think I called her any names. Ritmo I've called names all the time."

Oh bullshit. Civility bullshit in fact. It's okay to call Bitchmo names (and I do) because you think he has the proper alignment of chromosomes, but delicate little flower females (not that Inga is delicate and certainly not little) cannot be made fun of?

You say misogyny, I say equality.

And since words don't have fixed meanings anymore, like "marriage" "tax" "penalty" how dare you criticize my interpretation?

Males, females, gays, straights, and every other identity politics group is not immune to being mocked and insulted.

Get the fuck over it. You want equality? You are going to get it.

jr565 said...

Robert Cooke wrote:

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.

well in act you're wrong. We all have to live In the bounds of the law.
In he case of marriage, gays are pushing to say that marriage doesn't have to be between a man and a woman but any two people. But its still going to,be two people. Meaning polygamists will have to live in those same bounds and become the oppressed. And if you define marriage in any way, people will need to marry within those bouds. And not everyone will be able to marry therefore. Doesn't that then refute your argument?

Anonymous said...

Glenn Reynolds saying "She's smarter than me" (or something).

Now that's what I call damning with faint praise!

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

jr565 said...
I've gone after Inga because I find I disagree with her often, but I don't think I called her any names. Ritmo I've called names all the time.


I did not intend a blanket complaint regarding Inga and apologize if it appeared that way. I do not understand why Inga gets treated the way she does since it is perfectly straightforward to simply ignore her posts.

jr565 said...

Mom jeans wrote:
Oh bullshit. Civility bullshit in fact. It's okay to call Bitchmo names (and I do) because you think he has the proper alignment of chromosomes, but delicate little flower females (not that Inga is delicate and certainly not little) cannot be made fun of?

I don't curse Ritmo because he's a dude. Rather because he is a horrible person. Inga, less so.

Dante said...

Rabel Says:

.2 x .3 x .2 = .012 x 100 = 1.2%

Actually, that ought to read:

.2 x .3 x .2 = .012 x 100% = 1.2%.

See the period at the end, because that's a sentence. And .012 * 100 does not equal .012, so it's wrong.

100% is 100/100 which is 1.

This may seem like nit picking to some, but Rabel's statement is factually wrong. Having seen some Althouse quips about grammar errors, poor choice of words, even though the meaning is quite clear, it is good practice to point out trivial nits as a form of argumentation in other people's posts.

Meanwhile, I rarely disagree with Rabel, so it's not as if I'm using this to win any points over him.

And with this post, I'm trying to lower myself to the new lows of Althouse, in which she can spend a long post saying why she need not apologize to her faithful readers, but instead find new reasons why they were really wrong, and to pile on with additional contempt.

And I'm going to stick to this, no matter what anyone says. Try to pull this post down. It's obvious you don't understand it if you disagree with it or find it offensive.

jr565 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Ann, I'm sorry to have to read once again that your commenters are engaging in sore loser-ism. Maybe that's not fair, you dont OWN them and their wrongheadedness. You've tried to give them good advice, lord knows.

As for Palladian, really? I understand the hurt from the relentless slurs against gay people here in the comments section, but very very few actually attacked him personally.

As for the attacks on myself, I sometimes think I'm used as a whipping boy for Althouse, because the very worst of the attacks come from SOME of her rightist commenters when I'm AGREEING with her, when she's had the cheek to express views contrary to mainstream conservatism.. I guess some folks feel more comfortable projecting their venom on me, than Althouse, although she gets plenty. For her strength and principles on Gay Marriage and Abortion, I SALUTE her.

That's when I like and respect her the most. And Bagoh, you ARE cute and a true gentleman even when you are mad at me, I appreciate that. I no longer am shocked by some commenters here, it only reinforces what I've said before regarding the extreme stances and viciousness of some of the more pathological types.

One last thought, Edutcher is ALWAYS wrong, as Althouse has pointed out and for that I once again saluter her. :)

jr565 said...

Althouse wrote:
Now we know Icepick's wife never gives him blowjobs. TMI!

actually we don't know that. He's saying he can have sexual intercourse that will produce babies, but that doesn't preclude that they also engage in oral sex.

somefeller said...

Edutcher says:PS Ann, you've had your back up about me since New Year's and I don't think it has anything to do with how I construe things. Actually, you're sounding like the trolls are doing some of your comments. You and/or Meade has my email address. If you want to drop me a line and say whatever it is happens to be at the root of it, feel free.

I know reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, but it's obvious that Althouse thinks you are either an idiot or someone playing one, as evidenced by this comment: Phrasing things that edutcher doesn't get wrong? If that is indeed even possible, it would be written at an absurdly simple level. That's nothing I'd want to do. I really don't know why you read this blog, but my working theory is you're a guy pretending to be a guy that misunderstands everything.

Why on earth would she spend the time to send you an email? You obviously wouldn't understand it or would act like you didn't. (I suspect the former.) Plus, she probably has better things to do than to trade emails with someone who is either a self-parody or beyond parody. But keep up the good work! It's comic relief.

Anonymous said...

Hey, if we are going to talk about people being treated meanly on this blog, what about poor little ol' me? How many of you have been called an asshole by Ann herself? Who else has Cedarford hoped would be lynched?

The person I really feel sorry for though is Simon. Althouse broke his heart and ground it into the dirt with her sensible shoes when she chose Meade over him. He hasn't been the same since.

DADvocate said...

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

Quite true. Thus, the equal rights of none of are guaranteed. Through affirmative action, VAWA and other legislation equal equal rights have been stomped upon. Democrats and the left in general care nothing about equal rights. Totalitarian governmental power lights their fires. The DOMA fight is as much about creating a distraction from the destruction of our rights as it is about anything. They want us to worry about an rather insignificant event rather than the IRS, NSA, RICO, Patriot Act, etc.

Palladian said...

Geez, Althouse is correct about some people's reading comprehension. I did not write that I was "leaving" the comments section, I simply wrote a polemic to parry the polemics and lamentations of those who continue to think that a change in the secular State's regulation of marriage is equivalent to Roman persecution of early Christians, or one of the Horsemen Of The Apocalypse.

Any long-term reader of the comments here at Althouse knows my position on government-regulated marriage— it shouldn't exist at all. Striking down DOMA is a step in that direction, and should be celebrated by anyone who favors small and minimal government. But the lure of government-as-social-control is too strong for many so-called conservatives, who at this point are no less a danger to liberty than any soft-socialist Obama fan. You're both Statists, for the same basic reasons.

Thanks for the kind words, those of you who offered them. There are a lot of good and intelligent people who comment here, as well as a lot of thorough-going nasty idiots.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Freder Frederson said...
How many of you have been called an asshole by Ann herself?


I have, so quit your whining. ;)

Who else has Cedarford hoped would be lynched?

Cedarford and I go back and forward but I'm pretty sure he would vote for lynching at the moment.

Anonymous said...

I have, so quit your whining. ;)

I wear it as a badge of honor. I like getting under her skin.

Darcy said...

I agree with Inga that Bagoh is cute.

Rabel said...

My Dearest Dante,

Thank you very much for your most civil correction to my post. It demonstrates well how we here at the Althouse blog, working together in a spirit of cooperation and comradeship in our quest for accuracy and truth, can move forward out of the darkness and into the light. You are an inspiration to us all.

Warmest regards,
Rabel

Krumhorn said...

I read triumphalism. I don't read word play and sarcasm. I guess I'm dense that way.

However, as much as I admire her, I thought Ann's response to the Scalia position that the resolution of this issue should come from among the political bodies and not the courts was positively sophomoric.

She expressed the view that our civil liberties and rights trump political processes...as if our rights were all that clear in every instance. If all men should be equally treated, then, why must a rich person pay a higher percentage of his earnings in taxes than a poor person?

I realize that Ann is a supporter of SSM. Ok fine. But just because some district court judge decides that Prop 8 is an unconstitutional infringement of the rights of gays, that's not the same as saying that it had been inscribed upon one of Moses' stone tablets.

The court is very often right, and frequently wrong. We presume to look back in history and smugly declare ourselves to be morally superior to public actors long ago without imaging how we would have behaved without wearing the lens of history.

I say Scalia was right. It is best that we work this out on our own. It may take longer, but a public consensus is far more socially stabilizing than sanctimonious diktat from a judge. And the public consensus is moving toward Ann's view. It should have played out that way.

I find it remarkable that it is axiomatice that gays have the right to marry, and once a judge says that, it is enshrined in the Jefferson Memorial as immutable and so obvious that only a bigot could disagree. But heaven help us when Citizens United determines that unpopular speakers don't have the right to speak.

I am opposed to gay marriage, and not for religious reasons. I think it is bad public policy.

- Krumhorn

DADvocate said...

Now we know Icepick's wife never gives him blowjobs. TMI!

This has me wondering about Ann and Meade. Hard to picture. But, I don't want an answer. TMI!!

Krumhorn said...

Excuse me "unpopular speakers have the right to speak"

- Krumhorn

Nomennovum said...

Well, I supported SSM. So, I guess I'm not a loser. I don't, however, really consider myself a winner in this either ... yet.

The "win" will be when -- if -- gays are able to destroy the anti-men/pro-women matrimonial and child custody laws as they now exist. I think this is a possibility, but only if gays are able to finally put a bullet through the head of the zombie corpse that is the holey (sic) state of modern matrimony.

Of course, if they do this, it’s not certain that Marriage 2.0 will include them.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

I can understand some of the frustration of SSM opponents based on how quickly public sentiment has changed on this issue. I am also surprised how fast this happened. Maybe seven years ago I remember discussing this issue and thinking that SSM would be unlikely to happen and that some form of legal union would remain the most likely outcome. I had not considered how problematic the separate but equal argument would prove to be.

This change is clearly driven by straight youth. Being gay has gone from being marginally accepted by my generation to being broadly accepted. It is heterosexuals rather than gays that are largely responsible for this change.

Nomennovum said...

Althouse is a professor, a lawyer and a woman. If you're here looking for an admission of fault or error, the laws of probability are working against you. - Rabel

Ah, Rabel: the best bon mots on Althouse. What are the odds?

somefeller said...

This change is clearly driven by straight youth. Being gay has gone from being marginally accepted by my generation to being broadly accepted. It is heterosexuals rather than gays that are largely responsible for this change.

Don't forget Saul Alinsky! He's responsible, too. He was very clever.

harrogate said...

"This change is clearly driven by straight youth. Being gay has gone from being marginally accepted by my generation to being broadly accepted. It is heterosexuals rather than gays that are largely responsible for this change."

A lot to this, yes. But also the popular culture has had a lot to do with it as well. Network and cable television, for all their problems, have done a lot of substantial work on behalf of gay rights. It's easy to condemn the entertainment industry for the things it gets wrong. Give it credit when it deserves that, too.

ed said...

@ Althouse

So you're basically little more than a troll on your own blog?

meh. I've got better things to do.

Pastafarian said...

Inga: "As for Palladian, really?...very very few actually attacked him personally."

Didn't you yourself call him a "bitch"?

Anonymous said...

Inga: "As for Palladian, really?...very very few actually attacked him personally."

Didn't you yourself call him a "bitch"?

6/28/13, 2:17 PM
Why yes I did, after he called me one first! :)

Anonymous said...

And I didn't call him a bitch for being gay.

Baron Zemo said...

When this discussion began I gave a personal example of how a gay supervisor tried to prevent me from going to church on Sunday. How the higher ups backed his play. How he forced me to take off my ashes on Ash Wednesday. How it was more important that the company be politically correct than that I be able to simply go to church. Or that he hated the church so much he had to stop me from going. Nothing to do with marriage or the sacraments or anything as esoteric as that. Simply to be able to worship on my holy day on my own time. That opened my eyes.

I used to think that you could debate these matters and that it wouldn’t affect me in a tangible way. That the enforcement of the gay agenda through political activism was just something that was over there and not my problem. That it wasn’t a big deal. But that is not how it will be.

You can see by the attitude of the people supporting SSM like the Professor. They are vindictive and vile and triumphant in their victories and brook no opposition. You are not “decent” and are an idiot if you do not sign on to the totality of the gay agenda. They will enforce their politically correct dogma and you will pay a severe price if you attempt to live your life in your own way. Political correctness will be used to destroy you. Just ask Paula Dean who was ruined by a word. You are not entitled to your own beliefs and practices. They will determine what is permissible by force of the law. The day will come where the Church will be required to offer the sacraments of marriage to same sex couples or be severely penalized and taxed out of existence. That is their endgame.

Some ask how does this affect your personal life and your ability to live a traditional life in a conservative religious way? This decision does not directly change how you will live your life. It is just one step on the road. The imposition of abortion and birth control on religious institutions is another. Chip by chip and step by step they will attempt to limit religious practices to what they deem as “decent.” They will tell you all day long that you are trying to force your beliefs on them but what they are doing is demanding that you adhere to their world view. Or else . They are imposing this one step at a time. A court case here. A medical requirement there. Step by step and piece by piece they will enforce their agenda like the good little fascists they are.

They will soon turn to going into your church and telling who can be married and who will get the sacrament under the auspices of the Church. The day will come where they will turn the full force and wrath of the government on religious groups who do not agree with the current politically correct dogma as promulgated by the great minds that populate small Midwestern colleges.

Who will stand with you when you simply want to practice your faith in your own houses of worship in the faith of your fathers? Be you Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Mormon or Jew. Freder Federson? Robert Cook? Revenant? Inga? Althouse?

I think not. They have shown you that today. Listen to them. They are telling you it loud and clear.

President-Mom-Jeans said...

Ah the queen of victimhood with her boozed up alternate reality.

Drink up you fat old crone. Those liver cells aren't going to kill themselves.

1:30 in the afternoon is a completely normal time to start pounding cheap wine, you deserve it.

After all, you are a victim of misogyny, ageism, and prejudice against those with disease like obesity.

In fact, why don't you pour yourself another?

Baron Zemo said...

I submit that the adherents to the radicalized gay agenda will never stand by you and the principle of religious freedom. Gay rights trumps religious freedom. I have seen it happen it in real life. It is now the law in NY and California and is coming to Alabama and Indiana. Voting against it will just be thrown out of court. You can’t win by voting and winning. You have lost even when you won the vote.

This is coming soon to a church or a synagogue near you. The government led by the likes of Barack Obama and Eric Holder given free reign under the color of law by people like Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Elena Kagan and will actively seek to impose this agenda. They will not step up to defend you and your beliefs if they are not politically correct. Or more properly they will not leave you alone to live and pray and worship as you wish. They will try to stop you from going to church because they hate the church that much. The people who most decry a state religion will seek to control religion by the state fiat. Telling you who to perform the sacrament of marriage to members of the same sex and to provide abortions and birth control and what you must allow in your places of worship. It is plain to see what the next steps will be.

Winter is coming.

Pastafarian said...

No...you called him one because you're a gay-hater. I think I'd probably put the word "bitch", with respect to a gay man, in the same class with "boy" with respect to a black man.

You also said (in the same thread) that he was "seriously messed up" and "selfish".

Now, Inga, I'll go along with some of the commenters here, that have pointed out that several people have gone after you with a level of derangement and nastiness that's uncalled-for.

But they didn't read the whole thread, or the thread two nights earlier, in which you'd called them impotent or senile.

And frankly, some of the people that have gone after you most vociferously, were clearly mobys and sock-puppets.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

No Pastafarian, you are WRONG. Don't try to emulate Edutcher. I don't appreciate being called a bitch by Palladian either. I'm sure Palladian has been called a bitch by straights and gays alike, in love and affection of course.

Robert Cook said...

"Gay rights trumps religious freedom."

How so?

Anonymous said...

And yes, I see him as selfish and messed d up in some ways, he's said similar to me, much worse actually. I forgive him and continue to like him despite himself.

Pastafarian said...

Inga, I've got a friend that's probably been called "n*gga" by his neighbors, but I'd bet my last dollar you wouldn't call him that to his face.

Whether someone else ever said "bitch" to Palladian is as immaterial as edutcher (?!) to this conversation. Coming from you, it was inappropriate and a personal attack.

My point was this: You claimed that very, very few had attacked Palladian personally, when you yourself did, several times in one thread. Just yesterday.

And that's your MO -- your comments are occasionally nasty and personal, and then you play the victim when someone punches back. It made the white-knighting upthread just a little hard to stomach.

Anonymous said...

Oh and one more thing Pastafarian, I'm a gay hater, really? I got abused MORE than Palladian on these comments section in SSM posts, defending gays and THEIR rights, please, that's a totally ridiculous assertion.

Mark said...

Humor me, Zemo. Link me to this detailed explanation.

Pastafarian said...

Those damned ungrateful gays. They're such selfish little bitches. Can't they see all you've done for them, all of the abuse you've taken playing for Team Blue?

Anonymous said...

Pasta, I defend myself, I am not anyone's victim. I do not attack generally. I also have defended several commenters here when they were being unduly abused by the commentariat. You have a right to your opinion about me, I don't have to share it and I get to tell you that you are wrong.

Am I being made the whiping boy again? It somehow feels that way, oh well, whatever.

Baron Zemo said...

Robert Cook said...
"Gay rights trumps religious freedom."
How so?

The government will force the Catholic church to perform gay marriages just as they are now attempting to force them to provide birth control and abortion services.

It has not all happened yet. But it is in the works.

If you don't believe that you are fooling yourself.

Anonymous said...

Whipping/ whiping, similar thing actually.

Pastafarian said...

Yes, Inga, you can tell me I'm wrong and you can even type it in ALL CAPS to make it that much more convincing.

Sorry to have whipped and abused you by...quoting your own words. I'm such an abusive bastard.

Anonymous said...

Yeah Pasta, and your black leather and whips are damn scary.

Anonymous said...

The government will force the Catholic church to perform gay marriages just as they are now attempting to force them to provide birth control and abortion services.

That is just bullshit paranoia. I am certain of this because nearly fifty years after Loving v. Virginia, never has a religious institution been forced to perform an interracial marriage. And no church is being forced to provide birth control. The contention about abortion is just ridiculous.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

What is it that causes otherwise sane individuals to get into pissing matches with Inga? What am I missing here?

Modern Whig said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

ARM, exactly. I wonder myself, daily.

Robert Cook said...

"...a gay supervisor tried to prevent me from going to church on Sunday. How the higher ups backed his play. How he forced me to take off my ashes on Ash Wednesday. How it was more important that the company be politically correct than that I be able to simply go to church."

The Constitutional right to freedom of religion does not apply to private businesses.

"Or that he hated the church so much he had to stop me from going. Nothing to do with marriage or the sacraments or anything as esoteric as that. Simply to be able to worship on my holy day on my own time."

How can your boss or your company prevent you from attending church on your own time?

I think a little more detail is necessary to make this a more plausible scenario.

"Who will stand with you when you simply want to practice your faith in your own houses of worship in the faith of your fathers? Be you Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Mormon or Jew. Freder Federson? Robert Cook? Revenant? Inga? Althouse?

"I think not. They have shown you that today. Listen to them. They are telling you it loud and clear."


Oh, please. Applauding more freedom to previously hindered Americans does not equate to pogroms against the religious of any faith. I support your right and everyone's right to practice their faith as they please...on your own time and as long as you don't assume your right to practice your religion includes the right to try to tell others how to live their lives.

Robert Cook said...

"If you don't believe that you are fooling yourself."

If you do believe it you're foolish.

Revenant said...

When this discussion began I gave a personal example of how a gay supervisor tried to prevent me from going to church on Sunday.

One of the downsides to being an atheist is that you don't get to pull the "my beliefs prevent me from doing my job today" line.

Pastafarian said...

So Robert Cook; if this is all about equal treatment under the law...then how do you justify different tax brackets for different income levels?

Or how do you justify anything other than a literally flat tax, where we all have to pay the same amount regardless of our income?

Isn't that disparate treatment under the law?

Aridog said...

Baron Zemo ...

I tend to agree with your predictions here. My problem is, in events I am involved in right now, that the Church itself has devolved in to equivalent lying deceitful fascists just like government has evolved.

I do not see a bright future on either side.

President-Mom-Jeans said...

Awww, Unreasonable Homophobic Bitch is standing up for Boozed Up Bug Eyed bitch.

I notice that Inga had nothing to say about your homophobic slur there, Unreasonable. Shall I quote it for everyone?

On 6/23/13, 1:22 PM

AReasonableMan said...
Birkel said...
I am all but certain, after the last few days of comments, that "AReasonableMan" is in fact a woman.

I am all but certain, after this comment, that Birkel is in fact a faggot.



And then he doubles down and equates Homosexuality with Paedophilia.

At 6/23/13, 3:03 PM

AReasonableMan said...
Birkel said...
Your hetero-normative comment notwithstanding...

I am sorry. I retract that. I meant pederast. I wrote in haste without thinking about the underlying pathology.



How about it Inga? You are such a friend of Homosexuals, you declare it constantly, particularly in this very thread. Got any denouncement for this?

The hypocritical "tolerance" of the left.

Revenant said...

When in fact marriage has always been this way in this country and around the world and traditionalists were defending the institution from being neutered.

Marriage has very seldom been the way it is in this country.

"One man, one or more women, with the man possessing most or all of the authority and society willing to tolerate adultery on his part provided it isn't with a married woman" -- that, my friend, is "traditional" marriage.

One man, one woman, co-equal, monogamous: that's about as "traditional" as gas-fueled automobiles.

Anonymous said...

I try not to engage lunatics. Best to ignore such scum, even most conservatives here have come out in agreement with me on this person.

Anonymous said...

And I don't mean ARM.

Revenant said...

I'm sure this is just a one-off (so to speak) homosexual man adopts boyfriend to avoid inheritance tax..

I'm pretty sure that if I took the time to give through the archives here, I could find comments from you to the effect that the inheritance tax should be abolished. But even if you don't think that, I do.

"Gay man weasels out of unjust law" ain't something that gets the rage-blood flowing in my veins.

Baron Zemo said...

Under Obamacare churches and religious institutions are required to provide birth control and abortifacients under their medical insurance polices. The canard that Obama issued a waiver is simply not true to this point.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

PM-J, I am not claiming that I don't get angry on occasion. I get legitimately pissed off every now and then. I don't hammer away at people in a pathological manner in every single post.

Baron Zemo said...

The vehemence of their objections shows that it has struck a nerve. They will dissemble and lie and say it would never happen.

But it will. That is the end game.

Winter is coming.

somefeller said...

Revenant says:That is just bullshit paranoia. I am certain of this because nearly fifty years after Loving v. Virginia, never has a religious institution been forced to perform an interracial marriage. And no church is being forced to provide birth control. The contention about abortion is just ridiculous.

Exactly. And another example is the fact that laws against discrimination based on religion don't force churches to perform interfaith or other-faith marriages if they don't want to. The anti-SSM people who trot out this claim are either uninformed about basic US constitutional law or are simply demagogic liars.

edutcher said...

somefeller said...

I know reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, but it's obvious that Althouse thinks you are either an idiot or someone playing one, as evidenced by this comment: Phrasing things that edutcher doesn't get wrong? If that is indeed even possible, it would be written at an absurdly simple level. That's nothing I'd want to do. I really don't know why you read this blog, but my working theory is you're a guy pretending to be a guy that misunderstands everything.

No, the Baghdad Bob of Althouse is just mad because I always call him on his lies and his pomposity.

As creeley noted, "Most of what being liberal is about these days is feeling superior, as somefeller now demonstrates", and that's what he wants to do now.

and the reading comprehension thing is the biggest joke of all. He pulls it out whenever somebody backs him into a corner and he wants to change the subject.

Why on earth would she spend the time to send you an email?

Maybe because we've corresponded before on several occasions.

Pleasantly, I might add.

(he wouldn't understand that)

You obviously wouldn't understand it or would act like you didn't. (I suspect the former.) Plus, she probably has better things to do than to trade emails with someone who is either a self-parody or beyond parody. But keep up the good work! It's comic relief.

Anybody who thinks the New York times and the ACLU is going to stand up for the rights of all Americans beats me for parody every time.

President-Mom-Jeans said...

Ah, so it's okay if you are angry. Got it. Thank you for clarifying what the new rules are.

Is it okay if Paula Deen was angry? So hard to keep track of the left's politically correct rules these days.

Did somebody say "Fen's Law?"

edutcher said...

somefeller said...

That is just bullshit paranoia. I am certain of this because nearly fifty years after Loving v. Virginia, never has a religious institution been forced to perform an interracial marriage. And no church is being forced to provide birth control. The contention about abortion is just ridiculous.

Exactly. And another example is the fact that laws against discrimination based on religion don't force churches to perform interfaith or other-faith marriages if they don't want to. The anti-SSM people who trot out this claim are either uninformed about basic US constitutional law or are simply demagogic liars.


No, the patholigical liar is the Baghdad Bob of Althouse.

The opponents of same sex marriage see the writing on the wall and know where this is going.

Already military chaplains are being pressured to do them.

Then it will be a civil rights issue in civilian society.

Try again, Bob.

Anonymous said...



"Why on earth would she spend the time to send you an email?"
------------------
"Maybe because we've corresponded before on several occasions."

"Pleasantly, I might add.

(he wouldn't understand that)"
--------------------
"You obviously wouldn't understand it or would act like you didn't. (I suspect the former.) Plus, she probably has better things to do than to trade emails with someone who is either a self-parody or beyond parody. But keep up the good work! It's comic relief."

6/28/13, 3:25 PM

No, it would be just too mean, even for me to respond to this. Poor Ed.

somefeller said...

No, it would be just too mean, even for me to respond to this. Poor Ed.

Yeah, after reading Ann's brutal and contemptuous spanking of edutcher earlier in the thread, I'm starting to ask myself if responding to his mumbles constitutes a sort of cyberbullying.

Anonymous said...

Already military chaplains are being pressured to do them.

Objecting to a requirement that would prohibit military chaplains from performing gay marriages is not the same as pressuring them to conduct them.

effinayright said...

Just boycott the Althouse Amazon Portal for a month or so. That'll bring her to heel.

edutcher said...

somefeller said...

No, it would be just too mean, even for me to respond to this. Poor Ed.

Yeah, after reading Ann's brutal and contemptuous spanking of edutcher earlier in the thread, I'm starting to ask myself if responding to his mumbles constitutes a sort of cyberbullying.


As I say, this from the slug whose best shot has been, "Sedition! Treason! Alinsky!".

The Baghdad Bob of Althouse can't get a fact straight or even a convincing lie.

And, yes, I notice you've been spending more and more afternoons here, not to mention long Sunday nights into Monday morning.

Getting laid off from the "job"?

Not enough work at the "office"

Again the trolls are always in trouble when they send in the Baghdad Bob of Althouse. He's so lame he can't even link.

PS if anybody wonders why the She Devil gets it as hard as she does, as I says, she picks most of the fights.

Robert Cook said...

"...the Church itself has devolved in to equivalent lying deceitful fascists just like government has evolved."

'twas ever thus, didn't you know?

somefeller said...

Yeah, I may be on to something here with that cyberbullying concern.

Anonymous said...

Edutcher, cyber bully someone? Ohhhhh noooo, he would never, ever, nope.

Robert Cook said...

"So Robert Cook; if this is all about equal treatment under the law...then how do you justify different tax brackets for different income levels?

"Or how do you justify anything other than a literally flat tax, where we all have to pay the same amount regardless of our income?

"Isn't that disparate treatment under the law?"


No. A flat tax is more onerous the less money one has and less onerous the more one has. A flat tax is unequal treatment under the law. Graduated tax brackets are an attempt to equalize the tax burden relative to income.

Lydia said...

Palladian's not gone. He emerged briefly to make a less-than-humane comment about Krauthammer on the thread about K.'s latest column. Called him Dr. Strangelove.

somefeller said...

Inga, I mean that by responding to him, we might be the cyberbullies. I know it's fun, but look at him and how Ann gutted him today (though it's unlikely he understood her comments). Maybe it's time for a little soul-searching.

caplight45 said...

1. Let me say to Palladian, I think I get it from your perspective. And let me say, "Back at ya!" I agree with what Fr. Martin said the other day that we will increasingly have citizens disengaged from the body politic and I would add from other tribes within that body. This has been brought about by Lib/Progism, it is strategic and part of the long haul picture.

2. For the same reason I no longer care about Black Americans as a group or a cause. I don't dislike them. I have been driven to indifference by the Lib/Prog constant whining, blame shifting and empty accusations of racism.

3. The "losers are whining meme as a turn-off has some validity. However, it only really works because it is being propagated by the ruling class of media, politicians and educators.

4. Lib/Progs are so convinced of their utopian ideas to roll the dice in making them public policy doesn't bother them. In fact they have the political elite, the media and the academy so lock step that they screw things up against the warnings of the conservatives and they still get to say we cause it and then we have to pay for it.
The best example is the War on Poverty that wound up destroying the Black family, neighborhoods and future. A classic liberal experiment that failed horribly for which they have never been held to account. so what effect will this have? I have my guess and you have yours but we won't know the answer for a long time.

5. While this is probably the crest of the slippery slope of the destruction of the functioning family as we have known it, the only way that this has been possible is because straight people have disrespected marriage, their marriage partners, their children and in many cases their faiths by divorce. So it is certainly not the fault of the homosexual tribe.

6. In the almost forty years since the American Psychiatric Association decided homosexuality was not an abnormality in its DSM there has never, I repeat, never been a tested psychiatric or medical explanation given for the presence of homosexuality in the population. At this point it is more of a political diagnosis than anything else. To say as a creedal statement that one is born homosexual, while it may be true and someday verified, takes as much faith as my belief that God the Father raised Jesus Christ the Eternal Son from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenlies.

7. The Lib/Prog cry for tolerance is a tactic that they use in the time between them trying to establish their new values and institutions and the time they succeed. History is emphatic about the left, from the Nazis to the Commies and now I would add the Muslim shariists, once achieved they will brook no dissent or no dissent without a price. That they can now garner the support of Media, government and academy calling people like me "biggots" is not personal it is strategic.

If you take this to be whining then I charge that you have already embraced the need to marginalize the thinking of people like me at you have become part of their team; at worst a willing cooperator at best what V.I. Lenin called a "useful idiot."

Oh, Inga, next time in in Madison, I'd love to buy you a cup of coffee. Someplace on the State House Square. It'll be my treat.


Palladian said...

When did the formerly humorous bra-fitter turn into such a sanctimonious wet blanket— or should I say, wet altar-cloth?

Anonymous said...

Yes, of course you are correct, I understood what you were getting at, I was being a bully, now I'm ashamed. Do you think it will make Edutcher reflect on his own behavior if we are kind and undertstanding to him? Hope so.

Palladian said...

In the almost forty years since the American Psychiatric Association decided homosexuality was not an abnormality in its DSM there has never, I repeat, never been a tested psychiatric or medical explanation given for the presence of homosexuality in the population.

There's never been a tested psychiatric or medical explanation for religion in the population either. Maybe someone should get on that.

edutcher said...

somefeller said...

Inga, I mean that by responding to him, we might be the cyberbullies. I know it's fun, but look at him and how Ann gutted him today (though it's unlikely he understood her comments). Maybe it's time for a little soul-searching.

That would require a soul.

The Baghdad Bob of Althouse, who's supposed to be on a vacay day (a poet and don't know it, how clever) nonetheless spends all afternoon (3+ hours) waiting for me to answer him after drooling something about my answer to Ann.

This is a pathetic creature, who can't find anything better to do than hang on a blog comment board on his "vacation" day waiting for someone brighter than the She Devil of the SS to interact with him..

Me, I took The Blonde to lunch.

Don't cry, Bob, there are lots of other people who don't have a life, either.

Palladian said...

Palladian's not gone. He emerged briefly to make a less-than-humane comment about Krauthammer on the thread about K.'s latest column. Called him Dr. Strangelove.

In retrospect, that wasn't fair. Dr Strangelove was funny.

caplight45 said...

Robert Cook said: "No. A flat tax is more onerous the less money one has and less onerous the more one has. A flat tax is unequal treatment under the law. Graduated tax brackets are an attempt to equalize the tax burden relative to income."

No, it is the height of inequality based on the political classes desire to treat groups with in the body politic differently in such a way that they may achieve a redistribution of possessions, a policy that they have cleverly called, "equality."

Anonymous said...

I'm glad you had a nice lunch with The Blonde Ed. I had lunch out on the pontoon boat with my grandkids, great fun.

Baron Zemo said...

When he had to deal with gay people in positions of authority and saw what it would be like in the real world. How destructive it would be. That live and let live is a one way street.

It stopped being funny.


somefeller said...

Probably not, Inga. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't ask ourselves if we are doing the right thing. I mean, fun is fun and all, but still, just take a look...

James said...

Wow. Time to remove Althouse from my bookmarks. Try to become less of a flaming asshole, at least for your own sake.

somefeller said...

In retrospect, that wasn't fair. Dr Strangelove was funny.

And he was right about those damn Commies!

Modern Whig said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dust Bunny Queen said...

"I repeat, never been a tested psychiatric or medical explanation given for the presence of homosexuality in the population."

There's never been a tested psychiatric or medical explanation for religion in the population either. Maybe someone should get on that.

There actually have been many studies for both things religious feelings and homosexuality. There are many theories. They are all just inconclusive.

I feel the same way about Religion and Homosexuality. A big giant 'so what'. Keep both of them to yourself. People should be free to exercise their religion. Exercise their sexuality. Get married. I don't care. Get on with your lives and I will get on with mine: just leave the rest of us the fuck alone about it.

I don't know how I can be any more plain about it.

I...Don't..Care.

somefeller said...

Good bye Ann. I don't like being laughed at when I am crying.

Okay, well that I'll laugh at and ridicule without wondering if I'm being a bully. Ha! Just one ha, though. Self-control.

virgil xenophon said...

Now that Palladian has confirmed he is not leaving us I guess we can all stop sucking up to the fat bastard now.. :)

Anonymous said...

Yes Somefeller, words of wisdom.

virgil xenophon said...

Speaking of "bastards," there is a British blog entitled "The Fat Bastard Opines" (run by a British Civil Servant/ex-politician) that is well worth reading, although unfortunately he's almost in hibernation now..

Lem the artificially intelligent said...

Somebody tell Pollo to come back...

Palladian never left.

Paddy O said...

It's a totalitarian impulse that seeks to use the state like this. And this particular use of the state picked a target of people who were perceived as weak.

If these social conservatives really cared so much, they'd make all sex outside of marriage illegal before they'd bar some people from marrying


Entirely agree. It's totalitarian and it's not inherently Christian. If social conservatives cared so much, they'd have addressed the sexual misbehaviors within. There wouldn't be so much divorce, there would be significantly more faithfulness in marriage, no physical or sexual abuse. There would also be significantly better expressions of community so that those who are not married would find a fullness of life without feeling like marriage gave validity.

It's a much deeper issue indeed, and again, I think the underlying stuff must be better addressed in order for social conservatives to have a voice again. And must be addressed in must substantive ways than just assuming authority.

Palladian said...

Now that Palladian has confirmed he is not leaving us I guess we can all stop sucking up to the fat bastard now.. :)

Oh... well, then, I'M LEAVING!

traditionalguy said...

At this point I am starting to suspect Inga is paying Edutcher to make her look better.

I have always instinctively felt affection for Inga and admired her courage (and her good looks too.) So it warms my heart to hear others feel the same way.

It is only recently that I have felt what Inga goes through myself by a drumbeat of weird ass crackers telling me that I cannot be a real person.

I need to ask PaddyO if Jesus said we have to forgive them, they know not what they do, or did He go all Deuteronomy 33:25-27 on them and say He would drive them out before me saying destroy them.

Anonymous said...

Ah Trad Guy, I loves ya. Yes and what's worse than having your credentials discredited, is having supposedly Intelligent people who don't know you, claim you have no children after you say numerous times that you do! I may not exist.... Maybe I'm a computer program... but that doesn't mean my kids and grandkids don't!!

Hmpfff! ;)

Valentine Smith said...

After the loss of Palladian (one of the few non-windbags here), the authentic Althouse finally shows up! All those years of pandering to the hillbillies and windbags to build a blog now, finally, she can tell commenters how she really feels. All those years of torment over spawning a heretofore mutant son, she's vindicated! Jaltcoh is human after all! No more secret tearing the the bodice, no more yanking at the hair, O What Have I Done To My Poor Son! She hasn't been this orgasmic since, well since ever!

It's so good to see the Divine Althouse, that smarter than Reynolds dynamo law prof is as petty and vituperative as a low-class ignorant mug like me.

Valentine Smith said...

Oh, so now he's back?

Fucking drama queen!

Lydia said...

If these social conservatives really cared so much, they'd make all sex outside of marriage illegal before they'd bar some people from marrying

At least as far back as the 1950s, the Catholic Church has been trying to shore up marriage and the family. Anyone else around here remember Fulton J. Sheen and his TV show and "the family that prays together, stays together"?

Well, it didn't do much good. Popular culture was just too strong an influence to combat. And it's much, much stronger today.

Anonymous said...

Hey Pastafarian, Valentine here called Palladian a drama QUEEN! Aren't you going to scold him too?

Bob Ellison said...

Darcy said "I agree with Inga that Bagoh is cute."

Just because some cute guy uses an actual picture? How about all of us (possibly non-cute) guys? We might be cute inside. You're bigoted.

Palladian said...

Jaltcoh is human after all!

Psst, Jaltcoh is the straight one, 'tho I'm glad you agree that straights are mutants.

hombre said...

Althouse: "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."

One can only ask: Is Igna Althouse's sock puppet? (See also, yesterday's original thread.)

Anonymous said...

Yes I am.

Anonymous said...

Kidding.

Anonymous said...

Or am I really kidding?

Anonymous said...

Only Meade knows for sure.

hombre said...

"... the Divine Althouse, that smarter than Reynolds dynamo law prof ...."

Really?

hombre said...

"Now we know Icepick's wife never gives him blowjobs. TMI!"

Crikey! I hadn't seen that. I'm gobsmacked!

bagoh20 said...

"Just because some cute guy uses an actual picture"

It's easy. You just search facebook for the look you are going for, and steal that guy's photos. I found this 70's gay porn actor, and presto chango, I'm cute. Thus I was really surprised when Titus was bagging on my looks. I specifically chose this guy to appeal to him. You see I feel bad about all that lording over him I've been doing.

Nathan Alexander said...

1)
I've never called Inga names, nor said anything rude towards her. Ever.

But she's told me to go to Hell because I tried to hold her accountable to her own words.

What should we conclude from that?

Nathan Alexander said...

2) Ann Althouse has embraced "Equality of Outcome" and rejected "Equality of Opportunity".

Congratulations.

Nathan Alexander said...

3) I fervently wish that SSM advocates will embrace the unexpected results of this social engineering as strongly as they embrace the triumphalism of the judicial ruling.

But they won't. They will always blame the failings dictated by reality on someone else.

That's what fools do.

SukieTawdry said...

Good grief, Althouse. You are an advocate for same sex marriage. The High Court just gave your wheels a thorough greasing. What are you so pissed off about??

Achilles said...

This whole thread is a testament to the power of government intervention. If you leave an issue up to majority rule and force the minority to succumb to tyranny the issue immediately becomes bitter and divisive.

Big government conservatives are just reaping what they have sown. Soon we will be forced to officiate for gay weddings and fund abortions because you still want to moralize from a government pedestal. Now you won't even take responsibility for your failures.

Thanks a lot.

Anonymous said...

The obvious advice here to the losers of Windsor is to take a deep breath. Sure, it's a setback to anyone who believes in genuine traditional marriage, but it's not like this is the first domino to fall here. The important thing is to live according to the ideal you hold, and let the example speak for itself. It really shouldn't be that hard in a society where half of the marriages already end in failure as a result of the enlightened improvements of recent decades.

That said, I don't think it's necessarily wrong or a lack of faith to want to implement your beliefs in civil society. After all, that's what the winners in Windsor are doing, same as the losers. No religion, philosophy, or ideology worthy of the name would ever seriously propose its vision of the world and then turn around and say it's not worth trying to bring about. DOMA's biggest sin, if you will, is that it was a pre-emptive strike against a future people saw coming. At the time, it impacted nobody since gay marriage wasn't legal anywhere for another 7 years.

I don't like the outcome of Windsor, but it should have been obvious to everyone that it was coming, and that it's a perfectly logical consequence of social changes that happened to marriage and sexual practice decades ago (the most consequential being no-fault divorce and contraception).

As a sidenote, I am interested to see if the courts uphold the prohibition on consanguine marriages, since in the case of gays, such a prohibition is idiotic since they aren't having kids together, while straight folks would have an equal protection argument if the courts let blood-related gay people marry.

Kirk Parker said...

Humperdink,

Paddy O didn't say Christianity, he said Christiandom. I find it completely unbelievable that you were transformed by the latter.

On the other hand, Paddy, my problem with the demise of Christendom has nothing to do with Christianity or a privileged position for it. Rather, it's geopolitical: the demise of Christendom is part and parcel of the suicide of the West, and when Pax America finally dwindles away what replaces it will be far, far worse for the great majority of people of the world.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 379 of 379   Newer› Newest»