June 27, 2013

What accounts for this sudden and shocking spike in bigotry?

"A year and a half ago, even the president of the United States opposes gay marriage.  President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, signed DOMA into law.  Now all of a sudden, after Obama changes his mind, the whole country supports gay marriage, and those who don't are bigots."

What accounts for this sudden and shocking spike in bigotry?

It depends on what the meaning of bigotry is. (To paraphrase that humanitarian, Bill Clinton.)



But — to quote Marbury v. Madison — as quoted in the DOMA case, United States v. Windsor, "‘[i]t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.’ ” Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 566 U. S. ___, ___ (2012) (slip op., at 7) (quoting Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803))." (I know, who quotes Marbury like that? And what the hell was Zivotofsky v. Clinton? Was there some insuperable urge to bring up Bill Clinton? The Clinton in Zivotofsky was Hillary Clinton, in her Secretary of State role, and this was the case about the State Department's refusal to list Israel as the place of birth on a U.S. passport for a person born in Jerusalem.)

So if it's the Court's duty to define the terms, and opposition to same-sex marriage is defined as nothing but bigotry, then it's the Court's decision in Windsor that accounts for the sudden and shocking spike in bigotry.

But let's be clear about a few things.

1. The majority opinion in Windsor did not use the word "bigotry" (or "bigot"). That word appears in Chief Justice Roberts's dissenting opinion: "At least without some more convincing evidence that the Act’s principal purpose was to codify malice, and that it furthered no legitimate government interests, I would not tar the political branches with the brush of bigotry." Justice Alito also uses the word: "Acceptance of [Windsor's] argument would cast all those who cling to traditional beliefs about the nature of marriage in the role of bigots or superstitious fools."

2.  The majority's expression is "a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group," which might sound extreme, but it appears in the case law going back to the early 70s, and it's a stock phrase used to characterize the government's interest when the Court is applying minimal scrutiny and therefore needs to say that there is no legitimate governmental interest.

3. What that "bare... desire to harm" language really means is: We don't want to have to heighten scrutiny for this discriminated-against group — they don't want responsibility for what that would mean in future cases — but we do want to be able to strike this down while staying at the minimal scrutiny level.

4. This doctrinal maneuver produces the strange impression that the Court is calling Bill Clinton and the majority of the members of the 104th Congress a bunch of bigots.

5. Now lots of traditionalists have the raw material to whine and cry about being called bigots. I doubt if that will work out very well for them, but they've been stewing in their own juice for a long time, and they're going to find it hard to stop. Unfortunately, same-sex marriage was originally presented as a conservative idea, and traditionalists could have gotten out in front of liberals on this issue if they'd listened to the original argument and predicted the future better, and now they'll have to scramble to improve their image. 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!)

476 comments:

1 – 200 of 476   Newer›   Newest»
EMD said...

Activists are louder than most people who are just living their lives and haven't made a cause like gay marriage their existence.

There isn't more bigotry, just more outrage over supposed bigotry.

We used to look up to pious people. But they are just so intolerant with their faith and beliefs.


edutcher said...

No spike.

The Lefties are brainwashed fools and the Democrats are hypocritical politicians.

MajorSensible said...

What accounts for this sudden and shocking spike in bigotry?

Political expediency.

Seriously, the goalposts are on wheels like James May's Motorized Picnic Table.

TosaGuy said...

EMD nails it.

Also, the vast majority of the nation perceives that this issue has no impact on them so they aren't going to invest anything in it.

mesquito said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Thomas said...

Took the opportunity to oppress? Give me a fucking break. No opponent of SSM ever sought a judicial determination that the very possibility of SSM was beyond the pale. Opponents of SSM have always made this a matter of deliberation among equal citizens. It is only now that the court has removed it from that arena. That is oppression. Declining to provide a subsidy to certain couples isn't oppression, just like declining to provide subsidies to plural marrieds also isn't oppression.

Mitchell the Bat said...

Bigotry has its uses.

There's an evolutionary explanation, probably.

Kevin said...

If Anita Bryant and Jerry Falwell had come out in 1978 and said, we're 100% in favor of gay sex as long as it is in the bonds of holy matrimony, then I assure you that today being pro-gay marriage would be the sign of being an oppressive fascist bigot.

There is no way, absolutely no way that conservatives could have gotten in front of the issue. They would always be defined as wrong no matter what.

TosaGuy said...

If people are depicted as bigots, then the accusers get to feel self righteous and don't have to engage in rational, logical debate. Takes far less work to call someone a bigot than to craft an argument.

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

A bigot is someone who expresses a position held by the President until about 37 minute ago.

Sorun said...

Gay people are prone to being overly dramatic and hyperbolic (just look at their parades). That's where all the talk of bigotry came from. Saying that isn't bigoted of me, is it?

Ann Althouse said...

I hope people read the post before commenting.

The question in the post title is satirical, and I don't think some of you are getting my point.

EMD's comment exemplifies this problem.

n.n said...

A "bigot" is defined as a sanctimonious hypocrite.

The only bigots in this context are individuals who support selective rights for convenience or with other ulterior motives. It is individuals who deny their faith and selectively deny the principles of evolution. It is individuals who purport a desire for equal protection but do not support it in equal measure.

Conservatives, whether religious or otherwise, are not bigots if their positions are consistent with their faith or the principles of evolution.

That said, this issue is not strictly about homosexual unions. In fact, the traditional or naturally-derived conception of marriage restricts unions based on a diversity of criteria including numbers, kinds, and forms, and its basis is correlated with the requirements of evolutionary fitness. It does not on principle support or seek to normalize dysfunctional behaviors.

BarrySanders20 said...

Althouse is provacative today.

As George Thuroughgood's landlord says, it don't confront me none. If you see it as a equal protection issue, then this is long overdue. Good riddance.

I just don't see why anyone would care if someone else wants to get married to someone of the same sex. It's not like there is a shortage of marriage licences and you won't get one.

Now one at a time and no siblings, I get.

Chuck said...

"Bigotry" in America is routinely whatever ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR and the NYT say it is. Bring in the usual suspects.

The 5-4 Kennedy opinion in Windsor is an inexplicable mess for any serious constitutional scholars. When are you going to admit that, Professor Althouse?

And let me say this; there is nothing so appealing to me, as a conservative, as being called a "bigot" in an argument. I am glad that all of them (Scalia, Alito, Roberts) called it out for what it was. The blowback from the right and against the left ought to be very very rough.

I'm thinking particularly of the electoral blowback. And how many conservatives will be motivated in an off-year election by Kennedy's running roughshod over traditional equal protection/due process analysis.

Elections matter.

gerry said...

Oh, man, Professor, points #2 and #3 were a real comfort and informative. #4 was even amusing.
But #5 was just plain mean, and lacks self-awareness, since your remarks constitute a bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group - traditionalist Chrisitans (many of whom are African-American).

n.n said...

Another post about semantic games? There is a causative link between manipulating semantics and evoking feelings.

Anyway, the distortion (e.g. "Urban Dictionary") of semantics has consequences. Not the least of which is to cause language to lose its coherence and thereby its utility.

Harsh Pencil said...

There is nothing wrong with the dissents calling out the majority for calling all those who disagree with same sex marriage bigots, even if the majority didn't use the word. There should be no reward to the majority for being coy.

And I don't feel like *I* lost on this issue. The country lost. Self-government was nice while it lasted. Maybe it will reemerge in some other country someday.

edutcher said...

Ann Althouse said...

I hope people read the post before commenting.

The question in the post title is satirical, and I don't think some of you are getting my point.


One can approach it seriously, as well as in the spirit written.

As such, it is not for nothing Victor Davis Hanson once characterized Willie as the American Alcibiades (now that's a tag).

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

Althouse isn't getting the reaction she wants. Dammit, you bigots better live up to her expectations NOW... or else!

Matt said...

Conservatives who are libertarian may have been able to get behind gay marriage in the past. But most conservatives who are traditionalists and religious would not - and still won't. So I just don't see how they would have gotten behind the idea in the past. Many Democrats weren't behind it until recently.

Although, in my opinion, the only reason Clinton signed DOMA was because it was politically expedient for him to do so. Same with Obama. Politicians often feel the political winds before making decisions that they later change.

Paul Zrimsek said...

Why would anyone want to get out in front of liberals? Not only are you putting yourself in a position where you can't see what they're doing, you're giving them easier access to your wallet.

jacksonjay said...

Ah-Ha! Another trick question!

Carol said...

Andrew Sullivan didn't originate the idea of gay marriage. There were activists back in the 60s and 70s who wanted it but there was so much other work to be done first.

MajorSensible said...

The majority opinion would have been much more resounding if it had referred to a "bare-ass congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group."

bagoh20 said...

Only lawyers see the law as a game of winners and losers. The rest of us pay the bills for your little game, so have some respect. At least learn good sportsmanship if you're gonna play.

Amartel said...

BarrySanders said "As George Thuroughgood's landlord says, it don't confront me none."

I always wondered what it was the landlady was saying to George.*



*Purposefully totally off topic due to woke up feeling bigoted.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

YAWN......

Astro said...

The question in the post title is satirical...

Oh, ok.
'Cause you implied with that reference to Andrew Sullivan's book that gay marriage was a 'conservative' idea. No one really believes that false flag anymore.
Clearly you were being satirical there too.

Real American said...

HOW ABOUT YOU MAKE THE DAMNED CASE WHY WE ALL BENEFIT FROM GAY MARRIAGE? YOU CAN'T, SO YOU RESORT TO NAME-CALLING. you call traditionalists bigots and haters and H8ers because YOU HAVE NO FUCKING ARGUMENT. The only reason to support gay marriage is because you want to destroy marriage. the gay activists have said this many times over. That's as illegitimate as it gets, but that doesn't get scrutinized, so job well done. you covered up the true motives.

Just read these opinions. They're making it up as they go along. The court should say what the law IS, not what they want it to be, but the left doesn't give a shit about that. the left wants to destroy this country to turn it into a socialist utopia. there's no family but government. there's no religion but government. there's no freedom, but government. It's sickening. JUST GOVERNMENT!

the problem here is that all of this ground has been fought on the left's terms. the right tries to engage the left's arguments/lies and the left just calls the right haters and bigots and racists and sexist and homophobes, again because there's no argument. that's not an argument. It's just saying "shut up." Well, the right needs to stop doing that. So don't bother to make an argument because we all know you don't have one. Instead, just shut the fuck up, bigot.

Beach Brutus said...

Why is it bigoted to point out that a penis and vagina are biologically complementary and that a penis and anus are not; and that the forced coupling of the latter is unhealthy in its mechanics, unsanitary in its results, and has proven deadly to millions?

Meade said...

I wouldn't call Barack Obama and Bill Clinton bigots.

But they are bullies.

edutcher said...

Nice point.

Ann Althouse said...

"Althouse isn't getting the reaction she wants. Dammit, you bigots better live up to her expectations NOW... or else!"

My post ends: "Now, stop acting like losers. If you can. (I bet you can't!)"

Seems like I'm going to win my bet, which is the clearest expression of my expectations.

I don't get my hopes up, and I am not disappointed.

I've been trying to give conservatives good advice on ssm since 2004. I have zero expectations of ever seeing any improvement.

rhhardin said...

The right's position, as far as I know, is that civil unions are fine but marriage is a word already in use for something else, and that something else has to remain thinkable.

Against an effort on the left, not satisfied with civil unions, to make marriage unthinkable.

All 1984-like.

Words follow what there's an interest in expressing, unless they're ruined.

Like "begs the question" is gone owing to idiot news anchors.

Gahrie said...

I've been trying to give conservatives good advice on ssm since 2004. I have zero expectations of ever seeing any improvement.

Because of course, the rightnesss or wrongness of an issue is unimportant. The only thing that matters is what is politically expedient.

Paul Zrimsek said...

Man up, losers. You lost. And you deserved to lose. Now, stop acting like losers. If you can. (I bet you can't!)

What are you, twelve?

viator said...

Well, that didn't take long...

The case for polygamy

Daily Caller

Don't be a bigot.

Joe said...

It's a craven attempt by both sides to claim the moral high ground.

Reminds me of my niece ranting that those supporting SSM won't even listen to the counter debate, as she shut off all counter debate.

Baron Zemo said...

I used to think gays were harmless. That they were amusing in their silly ways and what they did would not affect my life. You know like monkeys or dolphins or something. I was foolishly tolerant and thought it really had nothing to do with me.

But then I had a gay supervisor who was in charge of a project I was on. He actively tried to stop me from practicing my religion. He tried to stop me from going to church on Sunday. He forced me to remove the symbols of my faith during a time of religious observance. I was told that I should contact a lawyer and make a complaint. But that would have destroyed the project because the head of the company and the top tier of executives were all gay as well.

So I had to swallow it so to speak.

I regret it to this day. Very much.

However it opened my eyes. To what it will mean when the gay agenda is implemented.

Ann Althouse said...

"Another post about semantic games?"

The technical term is "argle-bargle."

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Honest answer to why the sudden rise in bigotry?

The redefining of the term and as to what actions or ideas constitute bigotry. When Clinton et al do/did it....whatever it is....then it isn't bigotry. Since the term has been redefined, or rather the goal posts have been moved, so that the very same position held by Democrats now can conveniently encompass conservatives, suddenly...bigots.

bagoh20 said...

We ARE losers, because the lies continue. People are treating each other badly, and arguing in bad faith, and being rewarded for it. That's what makes us losers, not the damned law, that will progress no matter what else happens. Just like a divorce, it's really the fight caused by the lawyers that ruins the relationship, and prevents healing. Yesterday was just another hearing where everyone told terrible lies about the their spouse. Nobody is winning.

d243e478-b01b-11e2-b6bf-000bcdcb5194 said...

Althouse is a shining example of why people think academics are idiots. First ass-cracker, now gloating and preening.

Shut up, "Professor." I wouldn't hire you to clean my toilets. You think your piece of paper entitles you to lecture us all on trash you don't have the faintest clue about.

Go bark up a tree, loser.

PS: I'm gay. You don't speak for me. I'm smart enough to know marriage is about family, and don't expect to be showered with tax breaks just because I am gay.

But then again, I have common sense. Something the "professor" hasn't an ounce of.

Ass-cracker, indeed. Does she even realize how stupid she sounds?

Skeptical Voter said...

oh well poke me with a stick Ms. Althouse. I long for the day when the LGBT crowd suffered in silence as the "love that dare not speak its name". They left me alone; I left them alone. Live and let live worked just fine.

And now they are the crowd that just won't STFU---I never got in their face. Why are they in mine?

Amartel said...

What Bag said.

Off to the Castro (yes, really) to meet with my fellow loser and client.

P.S. No one took your bet.

Jay Retread said...

As I wrote yesterday, this outcome politically is a disaster for Republicans. They will have to continue to play to elements of their base that are often bigoted. The Republicans will continue to be more of a regional party, dominated at the national level by members from the south.

Democrats were wise to be on the side of Freedom while pubbies will continue to suffer for being on the wrong side of history.

rhhardin said...

I found gay people at work had the most amusing observations and characterizations of stuff, a valuable contribution.

There was no power grab in it, if I can put it that way. Just an undermining of some kind.

That was before activism.

It may today be like working for feminists. I've been out of it for a while.

Working for feminists would be amusing, come to think of it. Some undercover chaos would emerge.

mccullough said...

It's funny this case would not have been in court if Republicans had their way and abolished the estate tax. The plaintiff would not have needed to claim the marital exemption.

Obama must be conflicted about the ruling because it upheld gay rights but the plaintiff was among the 1%.

Maybe the Court should have held the estate tax unconstitutional.

Chuck said...

Professor Althouse really ought to respond to the money quote from Justice Scalia:

"In the majority’s telling, this story is black-and-white: Hate your neighbor or come along with us. The truth is more complicated. It is hard to admit that one’s political opponents are not monsters, especially in a struggle like this one, and the challenge in the end proves more than today’s Court can handle. Too bad. A reminder that disagreement over something so fundamental as marriage can still be politically legitimate would have been a fit task for what in earlier times was called the judicial temperament. We might have covered ourselves with honor today, by promising all sides of this debate that it was theirs to settle and that we would respect their resolution. We might have let the People decide.

But that the majority will no do. Some will rejoice in today’s decision, and some will despair at it; that is the nature of a controversy that matters so much to so many. But the Court has cheated both sides, robbing the winners of an honest victory, and the losers of the peace that comes from a fair defeat. We owed both of them better. I dissent."

Ann Althouse said...

"'Cause you implied with that reference to Andrew Sullivan's book that gay marriage was a 'conservative' idea. No one really believes that false flag anymore."

I was here, among left-liberals in Madison (and Colorado and Boston/Cambridge) circa 1990, when the idea of ssm was sneered at as conservative.

I heard a whole job talk on this subject, dealing with left lawyers who wanted to create a procedural barrier that would keep right-wing gay activists types from moving forward on this, the wrong issue. And these were people who were simultaneously critiquing marriage from a feminist perspective.

I heard this debate first-hand 25 years ago, and I know what the left was saying.

They were also adamant that sexual orientation was NOT inborn, and they would chastise you for even expressing interest in scientific inquiry into whether it was.

Believe me, Sullivan was viewed as conservative by the left (and he also claimed to be conservative).

rhhardin said...

I'd recommend Goffman's Asylums for survival strategies in the new total-control thought society.

A good book on its own.

My favorite is gathering bits of string and putting them in your pockets, so as to have something that's your own, unless an orderly discovers it. Then it's taken as a sign of your sickness.

bagoh20 said...

"I wouldn't hire you to clean my toilets."

I just want to say I don't agree with this. In fact, I think it would be awesome. Meade and I will sit in the spa and sip cold brews until the work's done. Relax Meade, I'm no asscracker.

Roughcoat said...

I really don't understanding what's happening here.

However, I do think that Andrew Sullivan is not and was not, ever, a conservative, despite his claims to the contrary. As a result, I can't agree that SSM was originally a conservative idea because Sullivan was plumping for it. I know of no conservatives who favored SSM.

Or was that entire paragraph meant as satire?

Dust Bunny Queen said...

It's funny this case would not have been in court if Republicans had their way and abolished the estate tax. The plaintiff would not have needed to claim the marital exemption.

Exactly. And the decision still didn't change this aspect of the gay or SSM conundrum. Is the IRS going to allow the marital exemption only for those marriages in states that allow SSM and disallow the exemption in those 30 States that still do not recognize SSM. The Supremes left it up to the States (I believe) to make that determination.

What about the Federal Taxation rules. Are they going to be applied everywhere and contradict State rights? or are we going to be selective about how Federal Laws are applied based on geography.

What a can of worms.

Jay Retread said...

Also, Clinton and Obama strategically hedged their support so that they could push forward and fight another day when the terrain was more favorable. (JUST like Lincoln.)

It is fun to watch Republicans whine about Clinton and Obama. Republicans are just mad Obama and Clinton did not commit political suicide. Those who support Freedom are glad that the battle continued to this day when the terrain is much more favorable.

Harsh Pencil said...

Chuck,

No one will respond to Scalia's arguments. They make too much sense. Much better to simply call him a sore loser a ranter, a bigot, whatever but DON"T READ HIM.

TosaGuy said...

"I hope people read the post before commenting."

We don't read your posts. We are here for the commentary.

jacksonjay said...


Beach said:

Why is it bigoted to point out that a penis and vagina are biologically complementary and that a penis and anus are not; and that the forced coupling of the latter is unhealthy in its mechanics, unsanitary in its results, and has proven deadly to millions?

You obviously didn't hear about those gay penguins!

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Believe me, Sullivan was viewed as conservative by the left (and he also claimed to be conservative)

The "left" also views Karl Rove as Conservative....they couldn't be more deluded.

Roughcoat said...

Re "I heard this debate first-hand 25 years ago, and I know what the left was saying."

But no one on the right was saying that, apart from Sullivan.

Sullivan did not speak for the right, or for conservatives in general. He spoke for himself.

Ann Althouse said...

"Professor Althouse really ought to respond to the money quote from Justice Scalia..."

That's an elaborate way to say what is the conventional thing to say to an assertion of rights that you are rejecting: This is something that ought to be left to the political processes.

All questions of rights are like this: Does the majority decide or is this something where the individual/minority will be protected?

That's another way to ask what counts as a right.

Those who don't see the right say what is the necessary consequence: the majoritarian processes of democracy will determine the answer.

But in a system of the rule of law, there are individual rights, there are limits on the exercise of political power, and it's emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.

These are very basic and agreed-on propositions at this level of abstraction.

The question is where the line is, and Scalia isn't on the "rights" side of this particular line, so he says the predictable, conventional thing about why his position is good.

mccullough said...

DBQ,

I sense a good opportunity in estate planning here.

jacksonjay said...


We are talking about DOMA right? Voted FOR by many libs and signed by Bill Clinton!

Andrew Sullivan?

JRH, esq. said...

Posts like this, where the Prof can't contain her contempt for those who disagree with her, are exactly why I will never click on the Amazon portal here.

Right back atcha!

TosaGuy said...

"I hope people read the post before commenting.

The question in the post title is satirical, and I don't think some of you are getting my point.

EMD's comment exemplifies this problem."

EMT's point is right on....most people don't give a shit about this whole thing. Satire doesn't work when people don't care.

JRH, esq. said...

Posts like this, where the Prof can't contain her contempt for those who disagree with her, are exactly why I will never click on the Amazon portal here.

Right back atcha!

Baron Zemo said...

Post like this illustrate what a vile and bigoted person the Nutty Perfessor is in fact and in life.

If you want to hear some crazy ass bigotry listen to some gays talk about traditional religious faith.

You will get an ear full.

mccullough said...

Althouse,

Scalia's argument about standing was the better view. It's up to the executive branch to enforce and defend the law. What are we doing here? was the money quote from the dissent.

Seeing Red said...

Genetic manipulation will be very interesting.

Joan said...

... 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!)

Mockery ≠ satire.

Besides, even if losers (somehow) stop acting like losers, they're still losers, right?

I predict that the DOMA ruling will have very little affect on marriage rates (either heterosexual or homosexual) -- they'll be stable and high among well-off and well-educated people, and will continue falling to zero in the lower classes. That's not going to change.

What will change is state and federal government action against religious groups will step up even more. "Freedom of religion" will be whittled down to something like "the right to attend whatever house of worship you want," rather than the right to follow the tenets of your religion in your daily life, as most religions exhort.

bpm4532 said...

When you are losing the argument based on history, reason, science and the law, you dig deeper and deeper for personal insults to throw at you opponents, regardless of how baseless they are.

Roughcoat said...

Apart from Sullivan, what other mainstream, prominent conservatives have spoken in support of gay marriage?

It is true that gays formerly rejected the notion that homosexuality was at least in part a heritable trait, but is, it seems to me, irrelevant to the discussion of whether SSM was orginally a conservative idea.

Again: I'm an orthodox Catholic--a "traditionalist Christian," if you will--and I have never once come across any other orthodox Catholic or traditionlist Christian who supported SSM. Andrew Sullivan being the sole exception. Which his self-identifying as a conservative highly problematic.

Mitchell the Bat said...

Let's take a closer look at those bigots.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I sense a good opportunity in estate planning here

Very much so. Insurance agents and financial planners are ecstatic.

Jay Retread said...

Clinton when faced with the Republicans DOMA political gambit right before the 1996 election decided it was more important to win that election and appoint more Supreme Court justices. So he reluctantly signed it. (Republicans had the votes to over ride his veto btw.)

As it turns out Clinton was right. Appointing justices was more important in the long run.

Browndog said...

Today's new and improved pejorative:

traditionalist

...stew in your own juices, losers!

Renee said...

We're all losers, though.

"I could cite law journals from 2006, a sponsored bill by Senator Obama back in 2007, even a court opinion from New York in 2006, the UN rights of children, anthropological kinship models, and numerous studies how fractured non-intact families affect children.

When you encounter a response of "i really hate the argument that marriage is all about the children"

Really, what can you do?

I can give you all the compelling reasons, who I have to acknowledge that a relationship between a man and a woman is objective different and why we need to tailor public policy on this different"

The break down and decline of marriage has a real impact, much seen in father absence homes. This trend will apparently continue and no one cares.

We all lose. There are no winners.

Bender said...

The fact of the matter is that the door was wide open for the Court (via Kennedy) to decree a fundamental right to "same-sex marriage," but it refused to go through that door.

Scalia (and Rush just now) seem to argue that Windsor sets it up and that the libs are now just looking for the next case in which to take that next step, but not only did they fail to do that when they had the opportunity in Windsor to do it, they also could have done it in Hollingsworth.

The Prop 8 case was the next case.

But what happened there? Three of the four libs who would jump at any chance to manufacture "same-sex marriage" voted against considering the case on the merits.

Hollingsworth was just sitting there waiting for them to declare "same-sex marriage" to be a fundamental right everywhere if only Ginsburg or Breyer or Kagan had voted to consider the merits -- but none of them did! Why? Because the votes were not there. Because if they had gone to the merits, the issue of "same-sex marriage" would have gone down in flames forever.

They blinked. In other words, they lost. And they and you who support them deserved to lose. You can prance around in infantile name-calling, exhibiting your typical ignorant irrational animus, but you lost.

Now the matter is set to solidify the matter as being forever a state issue, rather than you getting to dictate a nationalization of the artifical construct of "same-sex marriage."

Professor Chaos said...

"Traditionalists could have gotten out in front of liberals on this issue if they'd listened to the original argument and predicted the future better." You could say that about anything -- that the losers could have changed their views and then they wouldn't be losers. Try it with every other issue -- abortion, gun control, tax cuts or tax hikes, etc. -- and you'll see how stupid this form of argument is. It assumes people don't have real beliefs that they're trying to advance, that the goal is just to predict the future and take the winning side.

Roughcoat said...

Me must learn to much better self-edit my posts.

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

I rather like my own juices, they are fragrant, tasty, and occassionally hallucinogenic. Hence I will continue to stew in them, gladly.

rhhardin said...

Why wouldn't a judicial determination that "marriage" must be replaced by "marriage or civil union" in all federal law have done the trick?

Preserving a word (marriage) that already means something else, and thus still lets the idea be expressed.

Jay Retread said...

Public opinion has now moved in the direction of Freedom and Republicans can't get the stink off of them.

Boo-hoo whiny Pubbies!

jacksonjay said...


The Retread said:

Clinton when faced with the Republicans DOMA political gambit right before the 1996 election decided it was more important to win that election,,,

I don't recall Bill Clinton being in much danger of losing to Viagra Man!

kentuckyliz said...

So, now will a business be bigoted if they only offer spousal benefits to married homos?

No more free ride for the no commitment crowd.

Browndog said...

But in a system of the rule of law..

...such as Prop 8, immigration law..

if any man should choose not to enforce or defend that law...

The law is moot...sayeth other men...

under the law.

cubanbob said...

Upon reflection of the court's ruling on DOMA and Prop 8 I have concluded the court has a wicked sense of humor. With DOMA the court ruled marriage is whatever a State said it is within it's own borders and nowhere else. Which puts the national government in a bind because now the federal aspects of marriage are localized ( insofar as the section that was declared unconstitutional ) which is a strange place for the national government.

As for California that gets even more Alice-Wonderland. The Supreme Court vacated the appellate court ruling leaving only the district's court ruling. I will leave it to Ann or other commenters here to comment on whether a district courts ruling is applicable to the whole state or only the district. That aside if I am not mistaken under California law only an appellate court can decide the constitutional validity of a state statute and state constitutional ammendment so if I am correct Prop 8 is still valid in California and the state can't grant SSM licenses. If that is the case then gays can't be legally married in California or have the DOMA ruling applied in California. So if I am correct it appears that the proponents of SSM in California or going to have to get another constitutional ammendment to repeal and replace Prop. 8. Or find another case to litigate in a district court and put the governor and the state attorney general in a political hell-hole of defending Prop.8 in both the district, appellate and Supreme Court levels all the while praying to lose. A wicked sense of humor indeed.

Chip S. said...

@BaronZ, is that "crazy-ass bigotry" or "crazy ass-bigotry"?

It actually makes sense this time.

Seeing Red said...

Kind of makes on wonder how long The Professor's been sitting on her anger, no "cruel neutrality" there.

So what's the beef against religion? Think the muslims will be pacified by giving them polygamy?

englishkanighit said...

"Democrats were wise to be on the side of Freedom"

"Those who support Freedom are glad that the battle continued to this day when the terrain is much more favorable."

"Public opinion has now moved in the direction of Freedom"


A scheme where certain private relationships are granted special recognition and benefits from government was just expanded.

And the bootlickers call this freedom.

gutless said...

The bigotry and hatred theme is merely battle field preparation for the ratcheting up of Obama's and the left's attack on the Catholic Church.

Methadras said...

Again, this is another smokescreen by you, Althouse. It is blatantly transparent what you are doing. Squirrel.

Aridog said...

Althouse said ...

I just have to laugh ... Man up, losers. You lost. And you deserved to lose. Now, stop acting like losers. If you can. (I bet you can't!)

Me? I am laughing at the winners...they just ensured the federal government can tax them more due to the impact of the "marriage penalty." Way to go, winners! :-))

As I've said several time before, this is a subject that I don't care about, not one whit. In this instance it is merely amusing.

hombre said...

Althouse: "I was here, among left-liberals in Madison (and Colorado and Boston/Cambridge) circa 1990, when the idea of ssm was sneered at as conservative."

Oh, then it's settled. The academics were sneering while defining reality despite the difficulty of seeing the light with their heads up their collective ass.

Never mind that even "circa 1990" conservatives were closely identified with Christian values which, as I recall, have never endorsed homosexual behavior let alone ssm.

Really. Could you be any more absurd?

Browndog said...

Aridog said...

As I've said several time before, this is a subject that I don't care about, not one whit


Don't get too comfortable.

Making you care is pre-ordained...post "acceptance".

Dante said...

Now, stop acting like losers. If you can. (I bet you can't!)

A) What, because of the Supreme Court decision? I don't view it as losing. I view it as the country losing. I prefer Scalia's dissent.

B) It's nice to know according to the Supreme Court my opposition to gay marriage isn't bigotry. Of course, I didn't need the Supreme court to tell me that, though gays have told me I'm a bigot for holding my view that marriage is for the children many times. My opposition has been there is no reason for gay marriage, and it's merely more taxpayer subsidies for what otherwise would be normal individuals paying their own way through life. I don't think that's bigoted, I think that's smart.

C) If I understand it, gay marriage will now be up to the states. I'm fine with that.

D) Unfortunately, I live in CA, where our government does not defend the majority will of the people. If the decision were flipped, I doubt the reaction would be the same. But that's a problem with CA. Having now read past Supreme court decisions, I tend to agree with the Prop 8 decision, though I probably would need to read the Federalist papers to get a better sense of what state governments are allowed.

E) Gays will now push to force other states to accept the marriage program of other states. I think that is execrable within the conclusions of the Supreme court decision on prop 8, and DOMA.

What's your view on that, Ann? If the government wants to give all this latitude to states, doesn't it make sense states do not have to accept marriages from other states?

In any event, I do not view this as being a "Loser" opinion. I'm not happy with the DOMA decision, and I don't think it is going to stop the incessant whining of gays. They will continue to seek out additional Federal protections, as opposed to the acceptance by their peers. See, I don't like that either.

Diamondhead said...

I know a very nice gay married couple. They do this charming thing on Saturday nights where one of them sits at home and watches television while the other hits the clubs and trolls for no-strings-attached sexual encounters on his phone. These two guys are passionately invested in the notion of gay marriage. Their own approach seems to indicate to me that their engagement in the issue doesn't have much to do with the idea of being able to bind their lives together permanently in the eyes of the law. On the other hand, I also know a lesbian couple that both stay home on saturday night and watch tv. So the hell with anecdotes I guess.

I Callahan said...

I was here, among left-liberals in Madison (and Colorado and Boston/Cambridge) circa 1990, when the idea of ssm was sneered at as conservative.

So, nowhere on planet earth, you mean.

I heard a whole job talk on this subject, dealing with left lawyers who wanted to create a procedural barrier that would keep right-wing gay activists types from moving forward on this, the wrong issue. And these were people who were simultaneously critiquing marriage from a feminist perspective. I heard this debate first-hand 25 years ago, and I know what the left was saying.

That was the LEFT that was saying that, not the right. I can't think of anyone on the right (and no, Andrew Sullivan doesn't count), who believed that gay marriage was something the right should champion.

They were also adamant that sexual orientation was NOT inborn, and they would chastise you for even expressing interest in scientific inquiry into whether it was.

Word to the wise: lefties have NO IDEA what is a conservative idea or not. You may have asked someone who is really a conservative for a conservative opinion.

Academics. I'm speechless.

Aridog said...

Renee sasid ...

We all lose. There are no winners.

Thread winner, if truth is told. What is next, polygamy [polygyny and polyandry]? Of course it is. Enjoy.

This is sucker bait. Eventually everyone will be taxed at the marginal rates set for individuals under the married filing separately category ... just to be fair, no one gets an advantage of higher AGI just for being single.

BTW...that means tax levies are doubled with all other things equal. Fantasitc idea. Right?

Baron Zemo said...

You will care when what your priest, minister or rabbi preaches and is arrested for hate crimes.

Dante said...

We are talking about DOMA right? Voted FOR by many libs and signed by Bill Clinton!

You believe A-Moral Bill cares about this one way or the other? It was merely political maneuvering to make himself acceptable.

EMD said...

I hope people read the post before commenting.

The question in the post title is satirical, and I don't think some of you are getting my point.

EMD's comment exemplifies this problem.


Just because I refuse to play your games doesn't mean there isn't a reality out there that exists beyond the Supreme Court.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

My post ends: "Now, stop acting like losers. If you can. (I bet you can't!)"

Seems like I'm going to win my bet, which is the clearest expression of my expectations.

I don't get my hopes up, and I am not disappointed.

I've been trying to give conservatives good advice on ssm since 2004. I have zero expectations of ever seeing any improvement.


Sorry Althouse, I haven't lost anything so there's no reason to act like a loser. I'm just mocking your approach on this issue. You haven't received the response you expected so now you're attempting to provoke it. It's a boring tactic. My only surprise is that you waited a day to use it.

Marshal said...

Althouse:
I just have to laugh. You took the opportunity to oppress when it was there, and now that it's gone


Yep, everyone used to wake up in the morning and ask "how can I oppress the gays today?". Ah, the good old days.

Aridog said...

Browndog said...

Aridog .... Don't get too comfortable.

See my response to Renee...but you are right, my comfort will evaporate about the time I am taxed at half the AGI for being single today.

Renee said...

@ Airdog

Remember when Obama was a winner!

From Catholic World Report

"In a speech for Father’s Day 2008, Barack Obama was emphatic in championing fatherhood:

“We know the statistics—that children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of schools and 20 times more likely to end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioral problems, or run away from home, or become teenage parents themselves. And the foundations of our community are weaker because of it.”"


"Yet, supporting gay rights, and the right of gay people not to be discriminated against, should not automatically mean supporting the literal redefinition of marriage. Why must tolerance mean the redefinition of something as ancient and stable as marriage between one man and one woman?

The original push for gay rights was about stopping discrimination. Gays should not be persecuted, denied benefits, fired because of their sexual orientation. We all support that. But like with many other things, liberals in their zeal for whatever new “rights” are pushing too far, without pausing to carefully consider the impact."

--------------

Tolerance isn't enough.


Call everything civil unions, including non-sexual friendship, BUT DON'T MESS WITH BIRTH CERTIFICATES.

And do whatever you can for biological mothers and fathers to reside with one another in a healthy relationship 'for the sake of the children 'without referencing the fact children come from the heterosexual bonding of egg/sperm.


geesh, this is so messed up.

hombre said...

Jay Retread: "Public opinion has now moved in the direction of Freedom and Republicans can't get the stink off of them."

Wait! The SCOTUS is the arbiter of public opinion? Who knew? Until now the SCOTUS is where the libs went when public opinion was against them - as it still is on this issue among a large segment of the populace.

Beyond that: "freedom" to do what? Engage in behavior that but for PC and its nastier implications, e.g., accusations of bigotry, most people would characterize as repulsive or laughably absurd? Bfd.

The left has used the education system to create ignoramuses and now uses them to circulate bile on behalf of Democrats.

Aridog said...

Question:

Am I a bigot because I just don't care? Really?

I suspect that is the concept being promoted. Browndog's comment opened my eyes perhaps...so thanks for that.

Drago said...

Ann Althouse: "I was here, among left-liberals in Madison (and Colorado and Boston/Cambridge) circa 1990, when the idea of ssm was sneered at as conservative."

Oh, so lefties were saying SSM was a "conservative" idea.

Were any, you know, actual conservatives making that case?

Ann Althouse: "I heard a whole job talk on this subject, dealing with left lawyers who wanted to create a procedural barrier that would keep right-wing gay activists types from moving forward on this, the wrong issue."

"Right wing gay activists".

Fascinating.

Names? Groups? Examples?

Ann Althouse: "They were also adamant that sexual orientation was NOT inborn, and they would chastise you for even expressing interest in scientific inquiry into whether it was."

The science was "settled"! And there was "consensus"!

Who needs anything else?

Ann Althouse: "Believe me, Sullivan was viewed as conservative by the left (and he also claimed to be conservative)."

Irrelevant.

Sullivan was never a conservative.

He just wasn't as full blown Marxist-Leninist as many others on the academic left.

Inga said...

Althouse wins the bet.

EMD said...

I've been trying to give conservatives good advice on ssm since 2004. I have zero expectations of ever seeing any improvement.

That would be helpful if I were a "conservative" and opposed to SSM, which I am not.

So, thanks for nothing.

EMD said...

Althouse wins the bet.

What was the bet again?

Methadras said...

Ann Althouse said...

All questions of rights are like this: Does the majority decide or is this something where the individual/minority will be protected?


I've heard this all before, why should the majority impose upon the minority via the ballot box? If that's the case and the way that SCOTUS basically vacated and dropped Prop. 8 back on the lower state court that overturned the people, then the only question should be is whether or not voting has any purpose anymore? Does it have a purpose in the face of the argument that a voting majority of people cannot impose, via the ballot box or a vote, their values into state laws without having them overturned because the minority of people affected believe its unfair or unconstitutional? Why bother to vote then if any such initiatives or propositions will simple be sued against and overturned.

rhhardin said...

But in a system of the rule of law, there are individual rights, there are limits on the exercise of political power, and it's emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.

You might look at where the rights of man come from. It's not an uneasy truce in a war of opposed wills.

The court can be badly wrong.

Levinas the chapter "The Rights of Man and the Rights of the Other."

Conclusion but without the argument that makes it compelling.

It's originally a phenomenological watching out for the rights of the other guy, and only by a flat generalization turned into a legal code.

There's no reason for its moral being without the first step.

If you can't settle the issue, you have to go back past the court to the appearing of the original rights, if you want to argue it.

The hidden phenomenology is how the West managed to make the rights of man appear as a priori rights. The rest of the world hasn't gotten there, and the West seems to be abandoning it.

Inga said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Renee said...

The breakdown of the family has already occured, 40% of Americans back in 2010 already thinks marriage is obsolete.

Many parents will never marry and break up during a child's life, and if married a good change they will divorce within the child's life, as well.

No matter how bad the stats are, marriage matters, or should I say the relationship between a mother and father has a positive affect on the child. There is only one way out of this mess, and it seems the very few people care.

I care. If I'm the last person on Earth, I will still care. If I have to be a martyr.... um I hope not. I really hope not.

It's little things that have changed over the years, for instance the subject of genealogy. This would be an interest subject for young adults, but no longer it is not. Hard to follow a family tree with too many broken branches.

Culturally, we are really broken as a civilization. I'm not a Supreme Court Justice, but I do what I can within my own community for help families and support families.

It would be nice, not to be thrown under the bus.

Lem said...

I was going to compliment the professor for her insightful #3 paraphrasing of the courts "bare... desire to harm" language.

But then I read #5; a scathing conclusion of her remarks, which I must say are dripping with contempt and sarcasm.

Althouse said...
Man up, losers. You lost. And you deserved to lose. Now, stop acting like losers.

We didn't loose. Plainly stated.

Our attempt at reversing the perilous trend of dishonestly representing things by what they are not, lost.

And for that I'm immensely saddened.

Chip Ahoy said...

Why are married people against unmarried people? Why all the bigotry against us so that you fashion government carve outs for yourselves and leave us behind? I've been fighting this bigotry you bigots harbor against me most of my life and it's really wearing me down and making me fell like a second class citizen. What did I ever do to you? Bigots. Just because you're the majority you jackass bigoted oppressing majority keep stepping on my neck and I'm uckingfay iredtay of it.

Methadras said...

BarrySanders20 said...

Althouse is provacative today.


Only if you believe she has some mystical ability to be right on this subject. She's been laying down a lot of squirrel posts lately and I'm not sure why? It's her blog as she loves to let people know that, so it's clearly her prerogative.

Rabel said...

There is one good thing about Title IX. By involving more young women in competitive sports it allows them to learn (when well-coached) to be both good losers and good winners. In other words, it teaches good sportsmanship.

Many women did not take advantage of this opportunity or did not learn the lesson when they did.

Inga said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Baron Zemo said...

That Althouse is sophist of the Nth degree who should be laughed at as laughably foolish. Pretentious. Vile.


Methadras said...

Inga said...

Althouse wins the bet.


Here's a Kleenex. Your nose is a little brown.

Inga said...

EMD,
"Now stop acting like losers. If you can. ( I bet you can't!)".

That was the bet.


Dale said...

So I'm a loser - that's what you want to call me, Ann? you want name calling?

Pervert Bitch.

EMD said...

EMD,
"Now stop acting like losers. If you can. ( I bet you can't!)

That was the bet.


I'm not acting like a loser. I support the decision. DOMA is terrible law.

Congratulations!

Dale said...

Inga - you slut.

EMD said...

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

Here's an exercise:

Log in to Facebook.

Write a post that clearly defines you as opposed to Same Sex Marriage on religious or 'traditionalist' grounds.

Wait to see if you are called a bigot.


Like I said, there's a world beyond the court that is very real.

Jay Retread said...

Watch out Ann! You got your Althouse Hillbillies wild up! They are going to stop buying their toilet paper through your Amazon portal if you keep it up!

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

The whole idea that its bigotry to oppose gay marriage is tipsy turvy. Yes, there are people who hate gays, and yes some of hem are republicans (but some also are democrats- the black community in general doesn't seem to have a high opinion of gays and many of them are democrats). But it doesn't hold that simply because you don't want to redefine marriage from what it HAS ALWAYS BEEN, that therefore you hate fags.
Gays should remember that they are the ones assaulting traditional marriage which people have viewed as being relevant for ordering society AS IS and demanding it be changed. Considering that its not good manners to call people bigots for not wanting the change. Especially when many states have tried to rectify the issue by accommodating gays with a compromise that doesn't gut marriage but also gives them what they want.
And to argue that there is no logical basis for having marriage be ordered as is, as if the whole rationale for having marriage be centered around a man to raise the children is stupid frankly shits on the concept of marriage and argues that such an ordering has no basis for being the way it is.
That is arrogant. Presumptuous and rude.

Stephen A. Meigs said...

How exactly should losers act if not like losers? Anything else would imply dishonesty.

Inga said...

Althouse once again presents her commenters with an opportunity to rise above it, and once again they fail. Why is it so difficult to learn from ones mistakes? DOMA was a mistake, lefties understood this, corrected it, moved on. Why do rightists not learn from their mistakes, why do they insist on perpetuating a wrong? Do they truly not see that excluding a segment of American citizens from a right the rest of us enjoy, is WRONG, was WRONG and would be WRONG to continue?

Then to top it off be sore losers?


jacksonjay said...


Coach said somepin like "Show me a good loser and I'll show you a loser!"

It made sense when Vince said it!

rhhardin said...

Why are married people against unmarried people?

The marriage difference actually tries to make it equal, but runs into a mathematical impossibility:

1. Families with the same total income should pay the same tax

2. The tax law should neither favor nor disfavor married status.

You can't do both with anything but a flat tax. In particular a progressive tax will make it impossible.

The tax law has varied from favoring marriage to disfavoring it every few generations, as they try to fix it by making it do the other instead.

Quayle said...

The majority pounded on my ancestors for their views on marriage.

We're still here.

Soon the majority will again pound on us for our views on marriage.

We'll survive just like our ancestors.

Marshal said...

Althouse once again presents her commenters with an opportunity to rise above it...Then to top it off be sore losers?

Althouse: Man up, losers. You lost. And you deserved to lose. Now, stop acting like losers.

Althouse herself refused the opportunity to rise above it. But the left has always been a poor winner, mostly because there's always a next step. Letting America heal rather than stoking the fires of hatred would be missing an opportinuty to use this issue to win the next debate.

Lem said...

To the best of my recollection Althouse has never tackled Obamcare's tax-is-a-penalty-until- its-not-and-back-again lawful experiment.

I suspect its because it's a useful methodology for making something up.

Quayle said...

<"I've been trying to give conservatives good advice on ssm since 2004. I have zero expectations of ever seeing any improvement."

"I've been trying to give that Christ character good advice on relations with the Pharisees since he came out of Nazareth. I have zero expectations of ever seeing any improvement."

The wisdom of Ann's first statement doesn't work in all contexts, does it.

Michael K said...

"Man up, losers. You lost. And you deserved to lose."

Wow ! Did I just wander into the Daily Kos site ? Maybe the majority opinion language is contagious or something.

Same sex marriage, which was promoted by Andrew Sullivan when he broke with George Bush, was NEVER a "conservative" idea. It was libertarian and I could care less about it but don't try that old line.

See you another day when you have cooled off.

Jay Retread said...

I must admit I also find it quite humorous that Ann uses some academic job talk as solid evidence that SSM was a conservative idea back in the day. Talk about living in the Ivory Tower! Ann is such a bird brain.

Michael K said...

" I heard this debate first-hand 25 years ago, and I know what the left was saying.

Oh well, that explains it.

Jeeezus !

bpm4532 said...

So, all the people who voted for Clinton and Obama, voted for bigots.

n.n said...

I've been trying to give conservatives good advice on ssm since 2004.

Does your interest in equal protection extend to other unions or is there a threshold for your liberal perspective?

Dust Bunny Queen said...

They are going to stop buying their toilet paper through your Amazon portal if you keep it up!

Quite so. We spent over $2000 on Amazon last 6 months: 3 Toto Toilets and seats at half the cost at the local plumbing supply place (good profit margin for The Dumbplumber's business), plus free delivery with Amazon Prime. A Dewalt portable compressor, Dewalt radio and charging station, digital capacitor tester, Mission oak entertainment console for our 60" flat screen tv, accessories for my Kindle Fire, the Fire and Ice series of books for Kindle and several other books, lots of vitamins and supplements, toner for the various printers, office supplies and a nifty new drafting table.

None of which I would purchase through the Amazon portal for the reasons of the money chortling over purchases (which thankfully has at least stopped) and because we sense a veiled (and sometimes not so veiled) contempt for some of the opinions that commenters have expressed. Calling your commenters names and insulting them because they don't agree sycophantically with you doesn't go down so well.

We buy our toilet paper at Costco.

jrberg3 said...

"I've been trying to give conservatives good advice on ssm since 2004. I have zero expectations of ever seeing any improvement."

Sort of like Chuckie Schumer giving conservatives advice on illegal immigration??

Give me a break.

Baron Zemo said...

I recently purchased ten cases of Pellegrino water through Amazon. It was a great deal as I did not pay for shipping because I have Amazon Prime.

I would never do it through the Amazon portal because that would be like supporting the Taliban.

They make some great carpets by the way.

gerry said...

See you another day when you have cooled off.

I agree.

Chuck said...

Inga said...
"Althouse once again presents her commenters with an opportunity to rise above it, and once again they fail. Why is it so difficult to learn from ones mistakes? DOMA was a mistake, lefties understood this, corrected it, moved on. Why do rightists not learn from their mistakes, why do they insist on perpetuating a wrong? Do they truly not see that excluding a segment of American citizens from a right the rest of us enjoy, is WRONG, was WRONG and would be WRONG to continue?

"Then to top it off be sore losers?"

Funny thing, Inga; I was going to say the same thing about the Shelby County decsion. The Democratic Left and the racial grievance industry should just man up, and take the loss in the "preclearance" section of the Voting Rights Act like big boys. Quit griping. The nerve of them. And yet there they were, talking about more congressional action in the wake of this week's decision.

bagoh20 said...

If you want to find the only possible wrong reading of something apparently you ask a crazy ass academic, or even better a whole conference full of them. Only they would come up with the ideas I've read here today. I guess it's a need to try and separate themselves from the rest of us mouth breathers. A need to prove themselves elite enough to not understand the things obvious in language or philosophy of the others. Then you won't need to address whether something is right or wrong, but rather just who's winners and losers. No wonder politics has been reduced to horse races without rules.

Inga said...

I may be wrong, but I doubt Meadehouse really cares if disgruntled commenters don't use her Amazon portal. Should she fashion her opinions in a blog post in such a way as to not antagonize her commenters, if she feels strongly about said opinion?

I don't think Meadhouse is THAT mercenary and are not intimidated by commenters who threaten to forgo use of thier Amazon portal for their purchases, lol.

edutcher said...

Ann Althouse said...

Man up, losers. You lost. And you deserved to lose. Now, stop acting like losers. If you can. (I bet you can't!)

Ann says there was an implicit /sarc tag on the post and I take her at her word.

For those who do otherwise, let's all remember that 40 years ago, abortion "rights" were the big thing and we were all supposed to get with the program.

Then something called ultrasound came along and women had it shoved in their faces that wasn't a "fetus", it was a human being they were going to kill.

Also, the antics of people like Tiller and Gosnell shone light on what a sleazy business abortion was.

Now it's homosexuality is swell and we're all supposed to get with the program.

Guess what? I think it's going to take a lot less than 40 years for most Americans to realize they've been scammed.

You heard it here first.

Jay Retread said...

Public opinion has now moved in the direction of Freedom and Republicans can't get the stink off of them.

If it has, then the Demos are the ones in trouble, unless illegally obtained data used to coerce people from legally participating in an election is the direction of Freedom.

Inga said...

Althouse once again presents her commenters with an opportunity to rise above it, and once again they fail.

That sucking sound isn't jobs going south to Mexico.

Why is it so difficult to learn from ones mistakes? DOMA was a mistake, lefties understood this, corrected it, moved on. Why do rightists not learn from their mistakes, why do they insist on perpetuating a wrong? Do they truly not see that excluding a segment of American citizens from a right the rest of us enjoy, is WRONG, was WRONG and would be WRONG to continue?

Christ, what drivel.

And, worse, phony drivel.

The Demos are so desperate for votes, they will pander to anybody. This is just one element, like granting amnesty to Mexican gang-bangers, y'know, the ones who left pools of blood in places like Nuevo Laredo and Ciudad Juarez.

The She Devil of the SS, raised on the Lefty notion the only WRONG is losing, wouldn't know standing for a principle if somebody shoved it up her ass, but she belches talking points like somebody with a bowel obstruction.

bgates said...

crying about being called bigots — when, again, the majority didn't even use that word

Dredd Scott v Sandford doesn't use the word "nigger", but I'm as sure the authors of that opinion were thinking it as I am that they were wrong to do so.

I bet Althouse's 19th century antecedents were giving Republicans the advice to predict the future better and quit whining about being losers. Hey, I won my bet!

bagoh20 said...

I'm warning you - I can take my candy cigarette business elsewhere.

X said...

Inga said...Do they truly not see that excluding a segment of American citizens from a right the rest of us enjoy, is WRONG, was WRONG and would be WRONG to continue?

are far as I can see the SC's decision still excludes many people from claiming the estate tax exemption. by your logic that makes the decision and the tax code WRONG WRONG WRONG.

Renee said...

As a loser I should gather my things, such as the federal government's publication of The Importance of Fathers in the Healthy Development of Children.

Maybe some day, people will care again.

I don't know, what do you think archaeologists will think of us in a thousand years?

ricpic said...

At the heart of the Stevens decision was the assertion that DOMA was itself an act of bigotry. No evidence provided. None whatsoever. Simply the assertion that those who disagreed with the radical devaluation of the central pillar of civilization were bigoted, voted for DOMA to suppress homosexuals, no more no less. By so crafting his opinion, not an argument at all, Stevens, supported by the cabal of lefties, accused the Congress and the President of bigotry. That's where the shocking spike in bigotry occurred. What the opinion really lacked, shockingly, was evidence of judicial temperament. Which apparently doesn't bother the law professor in the least. After all, WE WON!

Baron Zemo said...

Renee you are not a loser.

You have your faith and your family. They can not take that away from you.

Yet.

Baron Zemo said...

We have to be strong and united to face down those who are trying to destroy both.

Kensington said...

"Ann says there was an implicit /sarc tag on the post and I take her at her word."
=========

She only says that about the title to the post. That nastiness at the end? That's not sarcastic or satirical; that's how she really feels.

Chuck said...

Ann Althouse said:
"But in a system of the rule of law, there are individual rights, there are limits on the exercise of political power, and it's emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is."

Wonderful point. So what IS the rule of law coming out of U.S. v. Windsor? What do we now know, about Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment review in gay rights cases? What is the rule? And what is the rule based on? Is there now a fundamental right to homosexual "liberty"? Where does Kennedy say that? Didn't he say the opposite in Lawrence v. Texas? What is the "constitutional" right to homosexual sex, marriage, etc., based on? When exactly did the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments' guarantees of equal protection and due process aborb the freedom to practice homosexuality as part of equal protection and due process? Because for more than a hundred years (two hundred in the case of the Fifth Amendment as applied in Windsor) absolutely nobody seriously thought that homosexual conduct was a fundamental right guaranteed by the constitution.

So, yeah, Perfesser. The Supreme Court gets to review laws and decide whether they meet Constitutional scrutiny. Don't you teach your law students that there are carefully-prescribed methods for determining what basis (strict scrutiny, rational basis, etc.) federal judges look at questions of constitutional validity? What will you tell them about Windsor?

Renee said...

"You have your faith and your family. They can not take that away from you."

Yeah, but for how long.

Inga said...

The sky is falling! Doom! Doom I tell ya!

harrogate said...

Ermahgerd!

Drago said...

chuck: "Funny thing, Inga; I was going to say the same thing about the Shelby County decsion. The Democratic Left and the racial grievance industry should just man up, and take the loss in the "preclearance" section of the Voting Rights Act like big boys. Quit griping. The nerve of them. And yet there they were, talking about more congressional action in the wake of this week's decision."

LOL

Chuck, the "rules" (formal and informal) that Inga and her pals like to see are designed to be applied to conservatives only.

Her side? Not so much.

Hence: Clinton promotes and signs DOMA?

Fan-tab-u-lous!!

Republicans sign on?

Bigots.

Renee said...

I'm a loser, because I really do care about my community and the effects of marriage decline, specifically how it affect children.


This is basically my statement, I've held for the past six years to quote myself.

"While in high school and college, my peers always talked about their parents and their relationship with each other. Even though it was never considered a factor in success and happiness, we talked about gender, incomes, and race, even sexual orientation but never how marriage affected society in formal terms. Informally though I could tell you the lives of dozens of parents, because we spoke so much of them.

We talked about how well they got along with each other, if they fought, if they were divorced, remarried, abandoned us, and even if they smoked pot. Parents were important to us, even though educators, marketers, and counter sub-cultures wanted us to ignore what they represented to us. "

"So when people say the definition of marriage hasn’t affected anyone and never will. The reality is marriage has affected everyone, because everyone has a mother and a father and that relationship between their mother and father is the number one factor upon their survival and well being."


Parents matter.

There is no way around it.

Well, except if everyone stops having children.

And then... humans go extinct I guess.

Drago said...

Inga: "The sky is falling! Doom! Doom I tell ya!"

The income tax will never be more than 1/2 of 1%.

The IRS will not play favorites (politically) with groups applying for 501c3 status.

We will never take away your gun rights.

If you like your health insurance, you can keep it.

edutcher said...

BTW, about the intelligence of all those Lefties (notice the She Devil of the SS no longer calls is "rightists"), consider this little anecdote:

Our Fearless Leader, on his $100,000,000 safari through the Dark Continent, decided to trumpet the DOMA decision in a joint presser with the President of Senegal. Said President corrected our Fuhrer, telling him diverging opinions are tolerated - in Senegal.

Seems they're ahead of us.

Baron Zemo said...

It may end by our lifetime.

It is entirely conceivable that the government under people like Barack Obama will limit the number of children just like they do in China.

That some religions will be proscribed or taxed out of existence or have to worship underground.

It can happen here.

These days there is a wiff of Weimar in the air.

Inga said...

Dear Drago, I've said this before, but I'll say it again, regarding DOMA, it was WRONG, Democrats were WRONG to support it, Democrats were right to not defend it in court. Democrats are right to recognize that rights we enjoy as Americans should not be withheld from a segment of our society based on their sexual preference.

Duh.

Palladian said...

I'm proud to be personally responsible for the destruction of everything good and righteous.

President-Mom-Jeans said...

What a cunty post.

Does your son love you more now? Still not getting any grandchildren.

Religious bigot.

Ugly Ann, ugly.

Drago said...

Palladian: "I'm proud to be personally responsible for the destruction of everything good and righteous"

Pride goes before the fall.

Now Palladian, you know good and well you are only responsible for the destruction of SOME of the good and righteous things.

Sheesh.

The hubris!

edutcher said...

Drago said...

Inga: "The sky is falling! Doom! Doom I tell ya!"

The income tax will never be more than 1/2 of 1%.

The IRS will not play favorites (politically) with groups applying for 501c3 status.

We will never take away your gun rights.

If you like your health insurance, you can keep it.


You forgot AmnestyCare will save $1,000,000,000,000.

You also forgot the Roman Empire.

Palladian said...

Democrats are not responsible for the advances made in the cause of gay rights. They are one of the things that had to be overcome to make those advances.

And now Democrats have the audacity to claim this as a victory? Fuck you, you vultures.

Drago said...

Inga: "Duh."

Did you ever call Clinton a bigot?

Did anyone on the left?

If not, why not?

Leads inevitably to: what do you get when you cross a LGBTQ activist with a leftist?

Ans: A leftist.

Renee said...

Baron,

We are already below replacement levels with out total fertility rate. I actually think once the baby boomers pass away, they may try to encourage people to have more children.

But other countries tried to increase the fertility rates with no success.

It is easier to force people not to have children, then it is to encourage them.

Children are a big risk, especially if you are not in a committed stable relationship. If you don't trust the relationship, or fear divorce, it is hard to have any more then one or two.

Inga said...

Teh Gays will take over uteri all over this country, do not resist their power. Next.....the churches.

Evil laugh........

chrisnavin.com said...

Is this correct?

"Stop wriggling on your bellies in the muddy trenches of the culture wars you social and religious conservatives. The cultural tide has turned, the tea leaves have been there to read for decades."

Your positions aren't fortified and your strategy comically dated.

Stop whining and being outraged and make good arguments if your cause is just, you know like Andrew Sullivan.'

edutcher said...

Baron Zemo said...

It may end by our lifetime.

It is entirely conceivable that the government under people like Barack Obama will limit the number of children just like they do in China.

That some religions will be proscribed or taxed out of existence or have to worship underground.

It can happen here.

These days there is a wiff of Weimar in the air.


A little more like Bunker Hill, or at least Fort Sumter, to me.

Inga said...

Dear Drago, I've said this before, but I'll say it again, regarding DOMA, it was WRONG, Democrats were WRONG to support it, Democrats were right to not defend it in court. Democrats are right to recognize that rights we enjoy as Americans should not be withheld from a segment of our society based on their sexual preference.

No, the She Devil of the SS was all for it, back when it gave Willie and chance to Wag the Dog (his and hers).

Inga said...

Gawd Palladian, take off your blinders. They hate you and what you represent, yet you dance to the rightist's tune, you are seriously messed up.

Drago said...

Palladian: "They are one of the things that had to be overcome to make those advances."

And yet they were never called out on it (outside of select fundraiser locales where the activists could safely vent a little more openly).

Palladian said...

It disgusts me that so-called "liberals" think that they can exult over advances in gay rights, as if we're just another self-assured part of their desperate attachment to power.

jrberg3 said...

"Democrats are right to recognize that rights we enjoy as Americans should not be withheld from a segment of our society based on their sexual preference."

So 52% of Californians are Republican? I mean that was the percentage that voted for Prop 8.

The right to marry is not withheld from any segment of our society with the exception of minors under the age of consent!

Petunia said...

Left-liberals anywhere, but especially in places like Madison, Colorado, and Boston/Cambridge, are not known for their intellect, their honesty, or their prescience. They're mostly known for their intolerance and ability to sneer at others they deem inferior...that is, anyone who is not among them.

Palladian said...

They hate you and what you represent, yet you dance to the rightist's tune, you are seriously messed up.

Just because "they" hate me doesn't make you and your kind any less of a threat to my liberty.

This isn't your victory, bitch.

Alex said...

No spike.

The Lefties are brainwashed fools and the Democrats are hypocritical politicians.


So says edutcher, resident Althouse hillbilly bigot.

Palladian said...

And yet they were never called out on it

I can't be responsible for the stupidity of some of my fellow faggots.

Drago said...

Inga: "Gawd Palladian, take off your blinders. They hate you and what you represent, yet you dance to the rightist's tune, you are seriously messed up"

And Inga pulls immediately into the "hey gay guy, you're too stupid to understand your own interests" routine.

Not realizing of course that in attempting to infantilize Palladian she displays the very characteristics that make leftist ideology so dangerous: the unwillingness to allow others contrary ideas and to act on those ideas.

You are free to believe anything that Inga and her pals want you to believe.

You are "free" to form a 501c3....if you happen to a progressive.

Otherwise, well, gee, where are those papers again?

I can't seem to find them....

Inga said...

Yes, it is Palladian, it IS my victory as an American, who sees a wrong and wants it made right. Stop being such a selfish little bitch.

Drago said...

Palladian: "Just because "they" hate me doesn't make you and your kind any less of a threat to my liberty."

pshaw!

I don't hate you.

Inga, of course, NEEDS me to hate you, so that she can feel better about infantilizing and attempting to control those who think differently.

I'm having deja vu.

Didn't we have this same conversation months and months ago with basically the same players?

Palladian said...

Notice how the so-called "liberals" attach presumed allegiance as a condition of their support of gay rights. If I don't whole-heartedly support all of the Statist agenda of the Democrat party, then all of their supposed "acceptance" evaporates and I am deemed "messed up".

Stay on the plantation, faggot, or we'll throw you to the theocons!

Drago said...

Inga: "Yes, it is Palladian, it IS my victory as an American, who sees a wrong and wants it made right."

LOL

Palladian's point, and it is a valid one, is that when the dems were in exactly the same boat as republicans re: SSM, liberals/lefties like YOU never called them out on it, never penalized them for it, never called them bigots, never made them pay a price for it.

In fact, quite the opposite.

Now, NOW, that the worm has turned and SSM is rapidly moving across the landscape you and your pals want to jump on board the bandwagon that Palladian and his chums have been pushing all along and take credit for this "great victory".

President-Mom-Jeans said...

Ugh, do you really need to assault our eyes with that disgusting bug eyed photograph?

Gross.





Blogger Palladian said....

This isn't your victory, bitch.



Well said Palladian.

Renee said...

"So 52% of Californians are Republican? I mean that was the percentage that voted for Prop 8.

The right to marry is not withheld from any segment of our society with the exception of minors under the age of consent!"

A lot of African Americans also voted, as well for Prop 8, when they were voting for Obama for President.


Drago said...

Palladian: "Notice how the so-called "liberals" attach presumed allegiance as a condition of their support of gay rights."

Precisely.

Same with all the little "groups" in the democrat tent.

Remember Billy boy and all the bimbo eruptions?

Remember his groping the help and gals in distress?

It led to uber-feminist Gloria Steinem giving Billy boy the "one grope" out?

That is "one grope" more than they would allow any republican...for any reason.

Once again, what do you get when you cross a _________(any group name here) and a leftist?

Ans: A leftist.

Why?

Because..Fen's Law: Inga and her pals don't really believe a single thing they lecture the rest of us about.

Their positions are simply "tools" to be used to gain political advantage.

Inga said...

Palladian epitomizes just how selfish libertarians are, oh well. I'm glad most gay folks are liberals.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 476   Newer› Newest»