Look at what he's comparing. Las Vegas is a place where couples who have a right to get married anywhere go to get married because it's quick and easy. Massachusetts was to become a place where couples who are unable to marry elsewhere would go in order to have the right to marry. It disrespects marriage and it disrespects gay people and it disrespects the nature of rights to make a joke out of this comparison.
It's one thing to believe there should be no right for gay people to marry. But if you want to take that position, you should still be decent and respectful about it. It's not funny to say to people who have sincere and important personal relationships that they cannot acquire the same stamp of honor that other people can get. It is another matter to treat gay couples who want to marry as if they are like the couples who just don't want to have to put up with the waiting period and red tape that blocks the path to marriage in their home state.
And I say that as someone in an opposite-sex marriage who traveled to another state in order to avoid the waiting period and red tape that blocks the path to marriage in my home state.
Mitt Romney, trying to look grounded in traditional moral values, comes across as flimsy and clownish.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
330 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 330 of 330Hatman has yet to tell us how anybody has ever done anything even faintly unpleasant to him except disagree with him.
Oh, yes, and make fun of his idiotic sanctimony.
Andy R. said...
I think Obama will support gay marriage in his second term and also that he has and will continue to fight for the rights of gay people in other ways where the Republicans are fighting against gay people.
For instance, DADT.
That was the all-Demo Congress, genius.
So far, GodZero has said or done nothing to advance the homosexual agenda.
Ann Althouse said...
"In other words: Romney is not going to out-social-conservative Santorum. Why should he even try?"
Because, apparently, that's the kind of guy he is, which, ironically, is the opposite of a real social conservative. That's why I called him flimsy.
"How Romney Lost Me"... is something I thought of myself, but unfortunately, they have all lost me. I don't like anyone who's currently in the running, so that means no one has lost me yet.
In that case, we can expect "How Obama Lost Me".
MayBee said...
What do you expect? ... She's blonde.
So am I. I got over Obama in the late spring of 2008 and have never looked back. It's not a blonde thing.
The Blonde has never been able to stand him.
To me, anti- and pro-gay marriage people are on the same side: the side of big government and social engineering. Statists, both.
Looks like our posts crossed.
"Palladian: I don't know why you're so intent on labeling yourself as someone that is opposed to same-sex marriage when you're really opposed to all marriage."
I said I was opposed to all State-sanctioned marriage, not just State-sanctioned gay marriage. I'm all in favor of marriage, outside of the government. It's important for society. But I believe that those sorts of things are above the government's pay-grade.
Andy R. said...
Mormons are some of the most hateful anti-gay bigots around.
Most bigoted statement in the thread. But never mind, Christians are an approved target of the left, so all hate directed towards Christians, as a group or as individuals, is likewise approved.
@ Peter Hoh,
Heterosexuals didn't damage marriage.
Liberals did.
Quick: name as many prominent liberals who fought against no-fault marriage as you can.
Quick: name as many feminists who fought against no-fault marriage as you can.
Quick: name as many feminists who fought against the female bias of our legal/penal/child protection system.
Quick: name as many liberals who have fought against welfare as harming marriage/the family.
But I applaud your ability to come up with a plausible strawman.
Peter Hoh
It was Ronald Reagan I believe who signed the first no fault divorce law.
That Newt comment was a hoot BTW
By the way Justin, I do commend you for arguing for your point of view without stooping to the level of calling anyone a bigot who happens to have opposite views.
That's different than mocking people's moral and religious beliefs, by the way.
I don't mean to come across as mocking either, and if I have to anyone, I apologize.
But religious beliefs are not a legitimate basis for government action. Moral beliefs are, but only if there is some rational basis for imposing a majority's morals on the rest of society. And with the same-sex marriage debate, I haven't heard any rational reasons to oppose it. (Other than your reason, which is an opposition to state-sponsored marriage generally.) It all boils down to moral disapproval of homosexuals (equated by Jay above to drunk drivers). That without more should not be enough to treat gay people differently than straight people.
"I think many of you are in so much of a cocoon"
The Althouse conservative bubble!
>
"One more vote for Obama and the Althouse crew is going to take their ball and go home."
Indeed! :)
@Maybee
re: 12:48 voting as a "special interest"
When once listed all of the socio-political movements I oppose, I was struck by how they were all based around people who defined themselves and their political support around a single issue.
To me, that's sad: to ignore all the myriad of things you are in order to sum up your being and desires in one single element, whether that is race, gender, religion, sexual preference, etc.
Which is to say: I agree with you, and I would enjoy talking over just about any political issue with you...you have some perspective.
Hatman has yet to tell us how anybody has ever done anything even faintly unpleasant to him except disagree with him.
About ten years ago I went with a friend of mine to some rush activities because he wanted to join a frat and didn't want to go by himself.
A brother at the house introduced himself and shook our hands and then said something like, "Nice strong handshakes. That's good, we don't want any faggots around here." I can, apparently, pass for straight.
Also, some friends of mine in St. Louis got beaten pretty badly for being gay.
And I used to live in California, where a bunch of bigots decided they I shouldn't have the legal right to get married.
Jay: Name 3.
Ted Haggard, George Rekers, Eddie Long.
And that's without consulting this list.
This fight for strong marriage is older than you think. Moses was the first to loosen marriage laws (Matthew 19:8)
And it's important to state that I believe in the right of churches to refuse to marry anyone they are doctrinally opposed to marrying.
If your church won't marry you, it's time to find a new church, or advocate for change in your church.
If you're not religious, have a solemnization ceremony presided over by friends, or a ship's captain.
Argue with your ideological opponents about your differing views on morality and what's best for society.
You see how wonderful life is without the State interfering? You see how humanity, and marriage, survived for so long without a bureaucrat making decisions for people?
But the allure of State control is irresistible for those unwilling to conceive of themselves as free, and entitled to freedom by virtue of their humanity alone, not because it is "granted".
It's just too scary. Someone might hurt themselves.
"I don't mean to come across as mocking either, and if I have to anyone, I apologize. "
I wasn't referring to you, Justin. You've been entirely reasonable.
Inter-racial marriage prohibition:
Not allowing marriage on the basis of how someone looks, in complete disregard of how they act.
SSM prohibition: not allowing marriage on the basis of how someone acts, in complete disregard of how they look.
Polar opposites.
Or, both are not allowing marriage on the basis of moral disapproval of a person's relationship.
" I can, apparently, pass for straight."
It's the cap.
"The bottom line here is that I'm right about this and most of you are wrong. As usual."
And more modest as well
"Mormons are some of the most hateful anti-gay bigots around. Why wouldn't Romney oppose gay marriage?"
My experience living is Utah, as a Mormon, is that this is not true. Of course there is a certain percentage of Mormons that are anti-gay bigots, but I seriously believe it is less than the average in the population. Of course that is based on anecdotal evidence. I have gay friends and gay coworkers who have commented about how much they like living in Salt Lake City and how nice people are to them. I don't think you would hear that from someone living among anti-gay bigots. In addition, most of my Mormon friends have a fairly open views about gay issues and some (like me) support the right for gays to marry.
Of course the LDS' churches political position in the California debate may be viewed by some as bigoted. But the church's political position isn't necessarily that of its people. Even if it is, it wasn't done with anger and was tempered with talk of love, respect, and understanding for the other viewpoint.
As for me, I like to keep the government out of religion. I think it is easy to agree on common moral concepts, such as not legalizing activity that directly harms another person. But I have never understood the argument that allowing two men or women to marry harms my own marriage. I view my marriage as something between my wife, me, and God. The state license is just a way to get tax and other legal benefits. Withholding those benefits from two individuals that love each other and want to commit to each other just seems mean and pointless to me.
One other thing - Althouse, herself, seems mean and emotional when criticizing Romney on this issue. I am not a Romney fan, but don't understand the hostility here.
I grew up in a fairly backwards-minded rural environment, and I was occasionally picked on for being fat, for being a weirdo, for being smarter than the other kids, for wearing my grandfather's 40's era neckties. But I was never picked on for being a faggot, because by the time I realized I was a faggot I had learned how to fight and scared the hell out of people.
"sucking up"
It's shocking politicians would be sucking up to their constituents! Something FDR, Ike, JFK, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush would never do.
>
Althouse needs a conservative whining meter and when it exceeds 150% as many of her threads have done lately, "they" should be closed. Hey, I'm empathetic to the opposition. :D
"And it's important to state that I believe in the right of churches to refuse to marry anyone they are doctrinally opposed to marrying."
That's the easy call, what happens when a baker refuses to supply a SSM wedding cake?
@Justin,
Or, you are playing with words to make a ridiculous assertion sound plausible.
Fail.
Behavior != appearance.
Behavior has consequences. Appearance does not.
I'm not crazy about Romney and think he's been running a juvenile campaign, but if this is the sort of thing that would have you vote for Obama again, in light of all that's going on internationally and domestically, you are a lot less smart than I think you are.
Outside of the academic precincts, the economy , the Administration's unconstitutional overreaching,and the growing threats in the Middle East take precedence over this bit of frippery.
For what it's worth I suppose he meant out of staters coming in to be married.
Nothing is stopping gay people from being married in any state. It's only state recognition they're seeking.
""Mormons are some of the most hateful anti-gay bigots around."
My father's side of the family are all Mormons. I'm a direct descendant of an important figure in the early Mormon church (a man who had 11 wives and 57 children). I have never felt any sort of bigotry or unpleasantness from that side of the family, and I've never concealed anything about myself. The only people in my extended family who have actually displayed bigotry and unpleasantness to me because of my sexuality were dopey charismatic Christians who belonged to a strip-mall church, some black relatives (by marriage to a distant cousin) who were Baptists, and a couple family members that weren't religious in any way.
Intolerance doesn't necessarily correlate to doctrinal beliefs.
Ted Haggard
By which standard is Ted Haggard an elected Republican?
An erected Republican...
Behavior has consequences. Appearance does not.
You are oversimplifying the issue. Opposition to interracial marriage was grounded primarily in a widley-held religious belief that races should not mix. (Read the trial court opinion sometime in Loving v. Virginia.) Moral disapproval. It goes deeper than appearance.
Palladian said...
An erected Republican...
Now that's good.
But again, "hypocrisy" would mean wanting to outlaw gay sex, but engaging in gay sex yourself.
"So am I. I got over Obama in the late spring of 2008 and have never looked back. It's not a blonde thing."
You're right, it's not a blonde thing ... It's a joke thing.
Nathan Alexander, try as you might, you can't pin divorce and it's associated ills solely on feminists, Democrats, or liberals.
When Reagan signed no-fault, he had some conservative reasons for doing so. Among others, the status quo at the time encouraged people to lie to the court.
The state that resisted no-fault the longest? New York.
A liberal who spoke up about the harms of welfare on the family: Moynihan.
When Stephen Baskerville (a substantial figure in the father's rights movement, by the way) makes the argument that heterosexuals destroyed marriage, I think it carries some weight.
Baskerville: Conservatives have completely misunderstood the significance of the divorce revolution. While they lament mass divorce, they refuse to confront its politics. He goes on to support that claim with several specific citations.
When you do that, you remind me of the sort of atheist who mocks people who are sincere about their religion. Those atheists think it's obvious that there is no God, but that doesn't justify disrespecting religious people. There are a lot of other atheists who feel sure there is no God but still treat religious people with respect. (For example, I think that would describe President Obama.)
So you don't believe Obama is a Christian, even though he frequently invokes his Christianity in his policy speeches (lately, for his tax proposals and his requirement for religious institutions to buy birth control insurance). And he has been heard speaking about honestly religious people in a patronizing manner.
This is respect? Lying about his religion, invoking that fake religion for political gain, and patronizing the religious?
No. That's not respect.
Ted Haggard, George Rekers, Eddie Long.
And that's without consulting this list.
I forgot what this was trying to prove.
Oh, hypocrisy ... which one can find on nearly any street corner.
EMD, I wasn't trying to make a point about hypocrisy, but I was willing to answer a question posed in the thread.
Is the "newest" link missing for others at the bottom of these comments?
"EMD, I wasn't trying to make a point about hypocrisy, but I was willing to answer a question posed in the thread."
Oh, that's why I was confused. But frankly, the entire effort is futile. Hypocrisy exists along the entire political spectrum, and defining it does little to actually debate the issue at hand. (Not criticizing you, just sharing a thought.)
That is so sweet, Nathan Alexander. I feel the same way about you!
andyR: "Palladian: I don't know why you're so intent on labeling yourself as someone that is opposed to same-sex marriage when you're really opposed to all marriage."
If you read Palladian's posts you will see that he is opposed to the STATE being involved in any way with marriage between humans of any sexual persuasion. I do not think you can conclude that he is against marriage from that.
That's offensive.
It was meant to be. You don't seem capable of appreciating the principle that it's wrong to smear a group based on the conduct of a few members, much less based on a hyperbolic exaggeration of the conduct of a few members, so I thought I'd show you how offensive it is by using a group you identify with.
I wasn't suggesting that all who oppose same-sex marriage are secretly gay in their private lives.
No, you were claiming that some large number ("all of those") are not just secretly gay but sleep with prostitutes, a claim for which you have no evidence. I didn't suggest that all gays are narcissists who would sacrifice the lives of their sex partners to get off - but there are some who have.
Milquetoast Mitt says what?
By which standard is Ted Haggard an elected Republican?
By the same standard that says sending a text message == taking an escort to a hotel room.
No, you were claiming that some large number ("all of those") are not just secretly gay but sleep with prostitutes, a claim for which you have no evidence.
That's fair. I got a little carried away with the language. I didn't mean to suggest that a majority of same-sex marriage opponents fall into this category. Only that there are more than a few. (You could run some internet searches and find at least twenty prominent politicians who fall into this category.) And you have to allow for some number that just haven't been caught yet.
My only point is that, in my opinion, it's hard to swallow (pun intended) politicians who sponsor anti-gay legislation and then engage in gay sex in private. Stones, glass houses, etc.
Kudos to Peter Hoh for linking Baskerville piece upthread.
Baskerville: Marriage between two men or two women simply mocks the purpose of the institution. Homosexual parenting only further distances biological fathers (and some mothers too) from their children, since at least some homosexual parents must acquire their children from someone else—usually through heterosexual divorce.
Palladian's position is that he wants to ignore about 400 years of American history and say no governmental entity has any business regulating marriage.
That's his right. I think it's unrealistic, but it's his right.
Andy R. said...
About ten years ago I went with a friend of mine to some rush activities because he wanted to join a frat and didn't want to go by himself.
A brother at the house introduced himself and shook our hands and then said something like, "Nice strong handshakes. That's good, we don't want any faggots around here." I can, apparently, pass for straight.
He may have been joking, it was a frat house, after all.
Also, some friends of mine in St. Louis got beaten pretty badly for being gay.
For being homosexual, or something else?
Granted, the world is full of idiots and, as I say, a few claim to be on the side of the good guys, but I'd be willing to bet they would have done it, regardless.
Being a bit on the short side, I've gotten jumped a bit in my time for no other reason than they thought they could.
I always found the advice of Sykes and Fairburn valuable, "When you're fighting for your life, there's no such thing as fighting fair".
Palladian,
Marriage can be seen as a special kind of contract. While I agree with the principle that "he who governs best governs least", I also see a proper role for government as the arbiter of contracts. Do you reject government arbitration of all contracts or just marriage?
By the same standard that says sending a text message == taking an escort to a hotel room.
Again, I was a bit careless with my language because I was a bit worked up. I didn't mean to imply that Mark Foley's conduct (inappropriate texts to subordinates in the workplace), for instance, was as severe as someone like Ted Haggard (sex with the same gay escort for over two years). Just that they are/were both hypocrites.
Does anybody here seriously believe Ann will vote for anyone but Obama no matter his dismal record or what he does from now to November or who is the Republican nominee? If not, why bother even engaging her in such an unserious discussion of her "cruel neutrality". Ann, I love you but I'm calling bullshit.
This reminds me of Andrew Sullivan pretending he wasn't sure if he would endorse Bush for a second term.
I also see a proper role for government as the arbiter of contracts.
This is why I can't agree with the argument that there should be no state sponsored marriage. It's a good idea in the abstract, but if there were no state-sponsored marriage, there would be too many people getting married without defining their respective rights through contract (or by getting shitty advice from a lawyer in advance of getting married -- marriage as a contractual free for all will result in more lawyers and more lawsuits, which nobody wants other than lawyers). So there needs to be a default set by the state.
Note that if there were no default, and people had to define their rights contractually, a body of contract law (common law) specific to marriage contract would develop (there already is one that applies to prenups), so we would end up with regulation through common law as opposed to through statute. Maybe that's better, but probably only marginally so.
Did anyone notice that Ann posted this vulgar emotional outburst?
"people like me who perceive him as being an asshole."
Remember before Ann actually knew the law and was going to have Meade ride sheriff on our asses, this sort of thing would have come under some sort of scrutiny.
In my experience when law professors resort to the epithet "asshole," they have come to realize at a deep level just how silly they are.
We do.
Yes. Fine, reasoned analysis. Asshole? That answers it all. On Wisconsin.
Or, both are not allowing marriage on the basis of moral disapproval of a person's relationship.
The problem is, if that rationale is invalid, then the slippery-slope argument is very plausible.
Personally I have a hard time with this issue because I can't understand why anybody would want to get married.
@Mark O,
Everything here is subject to some sort of scrutiny. Generally, not strict. But epithets, in and of themselves, have never been a problem.
Meade said...
Everything here is subject to some sort of scrutiny. Generally, not strict. But epithets, in and of themselves, have never been a problem.
I wish you'd get her out there on the lake to scrutinize and photograph some iceholes close-up like last year.
Mittens steps into the *known* pile of shit again.
"Personally I have a hard time with this issue because I can't understand why anybody would want to get married."
I totally understand your skepticism, given the host of cautionary tales out there, but honestly it can be a beautiful joyful thing. Trust, patience, and humility are essential, maybe that's why it's so hard.
They do this as a big FUCK YOU to conservative Christians who oppose changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex.
Well. Conservative Jews, Hindus, Muslims as well.
The belief that the definition of marriage is the union of a man and a woman.
Believe me after you've been married for a few dozen years, the idea begins to lose its charm.
So change the definition and shut up already.
@Peter Hoh,
You seem to think that if you can use hyperbole to blame a Conservative heterosexual for one aspect of the liberal war on marriage and the family, that you have proven there is no liberal war on marriage and the family.
Do you really think that is persuasive at all?
'... they cling to guns, religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frutrations."
For Obama, these people suffer from the Marxists call "false consciousness". He has nothing but intellectual contempt for them. "If I can take away their frustrations", he thinks, they will have no use for "guns or religion...", or the other pathologies he lists.
@Justin,
Oversimplification? That's what people say when they don't want to confront clear, unambiguous truths.
You may assume there is more to it than that, but your assumptions are no more accurate than someone assuming that NAMBLA represents the motivations of all homosexuals.
Nathan, you talk of a "liberal war on marriage and the family" and yet claim that I am using hyperbole?
I'm not denying that liberals have been behind some of the changes that have hurt families over the past 50 years, but I will not concede that it is only liberals who are responsible.
I don't think there is hyperbole in pointing out that Ronald Reagan signed the nation's first no-fault law, and that he had some conservative reasons for doing so.
"I'm not going to vote for someone whose goals, in part, are to make me a second class citizen."
Oh, you need to just get over that. Everybody is a second class citizen in one way or another. Part of the gay agenda (like all victim identity politics) includes gaining special rights above those of others. The pursuit of being more equal than the rest.
Should two straight men have the right to marry to get the benefits?
If people are against that, is that bigotry?
This is usually where you hear a response like: "That's not what we're talking about", or "that using extremes".
Now that we've established that people who get married in Las Vegas are among the lowest scum in our society, what non-inflammatory city (or metaphor) should Romney have employed?
Peter Hoh: I'm not denying that liberals have been behind some of the changes that have hurt families over the past 50 years, but I will not concede that it is only liberals who are responsible.
But why your fixation on finding the exceptions? If we want to fix something, why not recognize the the more prevalent factor(s)?
Since homosexuals can't reproduce...
Oh my, it appears Jay flunked his sex education course. :(
The bottom line here is that I'm right about this and most of you are wrong. As usual.
Finally, someone with a sense of humor!
I don't get all the stress here. As if no person ever had to deal with a stupid law, or a stupid comment. If Obama had said it it wouldn't even get a mention. Cowboy/girl up people.
About ten years ago I went with a friend of mine to some rush activities because he wanted to join a frat and didn't want to go by himself.
A brother at the house introduced himself and shook our hands and then said something like, "Nice strong handshakes. That's good, we don't want any faggots around here."
Wow, you poor baby!
How did you ever survive!!!
You should write a book or speak out about this, it sounds like we have another Selma on our hands!
If not, why bother even engaging her in such an unserious discussion of her "cruel neutrality". Ann, I love you but I'm calling bullshit.
This reminds me of Andrew Sullivan pretending he wasn't sure if he would endorse Bush for a second term.
Indeed, cf.
I respect Althouse's intellect enough to try to challenge her to see what she is doing.
I'm reading her posts with cruel neutrality.
I do wish Willard hadn't bragged about enforcing an anti-miscegenation law from 1913. Big mistake!
Let's draft Jeb.
Massachusetts is not now, nor will it ever be, the "Las Vgas of gay marriage." What is happening, slowly but surely, is that states are sanctioning equal rights for gay and lesbian citizens who pay the same taxes, walk the same streets and have the same dreams as straight folks. To those who say anti-gay marriage supporters will never look back and regret their unsupportable antagonistic behavior, I recommend you read Justice Powell's commentary on the only Supreme Court decision he regrets joining: Bowers v. Hardwick. I also invite you to research the apologies and embarrassment of countless politicians and plain old citizens who deeply regret and are ashamed of their action during the civil rights movement of the 60's and 70's. Did you know that before she died, Mildred Loving, the African American pparty in Loving v. VA, gave a heartfelt interview in which SHE tied the gay rights marriage movement to her own situation, and supported gay marriage?
It is not a matter of "if" this will happen in each state and in the nation as a whole. It is a mattter of "when." And I am quite certain that most, but not all, vocal opponents to gay marriage will express the same level of shame at ther actions. Maybe even some of you.
I can say that because I observe the fact that not one of you responded to the facts of my relationship and daughter. And do you know, there are thousands of couples who have done the same thing, and deserve the same recognition. You should be ashamed to presume that the married couples who abused and abandoned my daughter are treated more fairly than we are.
Also, for the person who challenged anyone to name 3 Republican closeted homophobic virulent anti-gay folks:
1. Larry Craig- Republican Senator from Idaho- 'nuff said.
2. Bob Allen- Republican State Rep in Florida who was author and virulent anti-gay legislative activist- arrested for offering a BJ to a male cop for $20
3. Richard Curtis- Washington State Rep. voted against establishing gay rights. Busted in a hotel room with a male escort
4. Roy Ashburn. Republican from CA. RAn on anti-gay platform, supporte every piece of anti-gay legislation. Until he was caught in a DUI coming from a gay club annd decided to come out of the closet.
5. Ed Schrock. Republican Congressman from VA. Voted against any remotely pro-gay legislation, adn one of teh authors of the proposed Amendment to the US Constitution. Busted soliciting gay partners on a sex line.
6. Phil Hinkle- Anti-gay Republican legislator in Illinois. Tagged for responding to a Craig's list ad from an 18 year old man looking for a "Sugar Daddy" and then exposing himself to the kid.
Want me to continue? Because I can. Oh. One more thing. Every single one of the guys listed above is married to a woman and receiving all of the legal benefits afforded marriage.
lawyapalooza said...
Also, for the person who challenged anyone to name 3 Republican closeted homophobic virulent anti-gay folks:
Nice Hyperbole.
Really, that was standard over the top boilerplate.
PS: being opposed to gay marriage and engaging in gay sex is not "hypocrisy" given that gay sex isn't gay marriage.
But please, continue with your list!
It disrespects marriage and it disrespects gay people and it disrespects the nature of rights to make a joke out of this comparison.
It disrespects rights to call gay marriage a right, and it disrespects marriage to call it a marriage.
Anyone else having an issue seeing the new comments on this?
'Same sex marriage' is about gaining respect and administrative superiority over others who might be critical and denying those traditionalists the power/freedom to freely associate and act within a like minded group on their personal opinions. It seems to me the Civil Rights Act barring discrimination may have been necessary racially but I don't think that kind of administrative social control is appropriate here. What we're dealing with in Romney's comment though is a reaction to a social change that has an ick factor for him. Your mileage may vary.
@Nathan Alexander
I've granted you that the comparison between the struggle for the right to marry someone of another race does not provide a direct analogy for the issue we're discussing on this thread. But it has relevance, and there are obvious parallels.
I'm not sitting here suggesting that the two issues are one and the same, because I don't think that they are. A lot of people do think they are the same. They are wrong. You think there are no similarities. You are equally wrong.
Anyone else having an issue seeing the new comments on this?
Yes! I keep seeing new comments from Jay even though I really truly don't want to. :(
"I'm waiting for you or anyone else to explain why marriage is limted to two people if it is not limited to opposite sex couples."
Two people in a union of equals, regardless if they are of the same or opposite sex, upholds the value of individual rights. Individual rights and equality are sacred values underlying our Republic.
OTOH, group marriage and polygamy destroy the value and construct of individual rights. Invariably there is a male leader and the women are treated as chattel or second class citizens. It's a tribal concept where the welfare of the group is supreme over the individual.
Regarding Romney, I too am disgusted by his snarky attitude towards gays which reflects a general dismissive attitude towards a group of people who are as deserving of respect as any other law abiding citizens. At least Obama expressed his openness to thinking about the topic, an acknowledgment that people sometimes change their minds about things over time.
Being snarky is fine on a blog or amongst friends, but is not acceptable for a person running for political office where he would be expected to represent all the people.
I really appreciate your outrage on this, Ann.
"After all, gays have higher incidences of HIV, STD's, drug & alcohol abused, and eating disorders than the general population."
Even granting you HIV, this is a pretty ridiculous statement. Got any sources to cite for those specific claims? Of course, I'm talking about actual sources, not partisan or religious folks who say this stuff on Fox "News" as if it's fact. I'm looking forward to reading the research you cite.
Ann Althouse said...
And my point is that in taking that attitude, he pushes away people like me who perceive him as being an asshole.
The same position on gay marriage did not turn you away from voting for Obama. I wonder why would it turn you away from Romney.
Anyway, IMO the view on the gay marriage is absolutely not an issue I would judge a presedential candidate. I do want a presidential candidates to be as little PC, as possible.
Jim said...
Even granting you HIV, this is a pretty ridiculous statement. Got any sources to cite for those specific claims? Of course, I'm talking about actual sources, not partisan or religious folks who say this stuff on Fox "News" as if it's fact. I'm looking forward to reading the research you cite.
Hysterical.
Um, you're not really "interested" in any such thing or you would know them as fact.
But since you're so interested in reputable sources, let's start with the CDC:
CDC Analysis Provides New Look at Disproportionate Impact of HIV and Syphilis Among U.S. Gay and Bisexual Men
I think you should call the CDC pretty ridiculous. (Rates of syphilis are reported to be more than 46 times higher among gay men and other MSM than among heterosexual men and more than 71 times higher than among women.
Ok, moving on:
Gay and bisexual men had significantly higher prevalence estimates of eating disorders than heterosexual men.
You should tell the NIH they are "ridiculous"!
Moving on:
Gay men, for example, are significantly more likely to have used marijuana, stimulants, sedatives, cocaine, and party drugs (ecstasy, ketamine, and GHB) than men in the general population. The use of crystal methamphetamine in gay and bisexual men has increased dramatically in recent years.
I think you should tell the pride institute how bigoted they are!
Bonus:
A study by Dr. Michael P. Marshal of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center revealed that LGBT teens are 190 percent more likely to use drugs and alcohol than are heterosexual teens
You have completely beclowned yourself with the "fox news" comment.
Enjoy the reading!
Oh,
As a subgroup, 50% of gays admit to illicit drug use. Lesbians spent more time in bars and drank more alcohol than heterosexual females.
Happy Reading Jim!
Hi Jim.
I also found this for you:
A new study Robert Wood Johnson Health & Society Scholar Mark Hatzenbuehler (Cohort 8) found that lesbian, gay and bisexual teens are five times more likely to attempt suicide than their heterosexual peers
Now go tell those bigots at Columbia University how ridiculous they are!
Lesbians spent more time in bars and drank more alcohol than heterosexual females.
And if that doesn't prove that homosexuals are more likely to suffer from alcohol abuse than heterosexuals, then you're probably a crazy irrational libtard! After all, researchers always establish alcohol abuse by measuring time in bars.
R. Chatt said...
Two people in a union of equals, regardless if they are of the same or opposite sex, upholds the value of individual rights. Individual rights and equality are sacred values underlying our Republic.
OTOH, group marriage and polygamy destroy the value and construct of individual rights. Invariably there is a male leader and the women are treated as chattel or second class citizens.
Hysterical.
So you are using your notion of "individual rights" to deny 3 people who want to be married, happiness.
Good luck with that, bigot.
"It's not funny to say to people who have sincere and important personal relationships that they cannot acquire the same stamp of honor that other people can get."
Oh, please....
How is a piece of paper given to you by a nameless bureaucrat somehow 'a stamp of honor' for your relationship with another human being? As if, without that scrap of paper your relationship is a sham?
C'mon.
I ♥ Willard said...
And if that doesn't prove that homosexuals are more likely to suffer from alcohol abuse than heterosexuals,
Clown,
In the LGBT community, research suggests that alcohol abuse and dependence occurs at even higher rates than in the mainstream population. Independent studies collectively support the estimate that alcohol abuse occurs in the LGBT community as rates up to three times that in the mainstream population. Said another way, alcohol abuse is estimated to occur in up to 45% of those in the LGBT community.
You're boring.
Now go create another sock puppet.
Gay and bisexual men had significantly higher prevalence estimates of eating disorders than heterosexual men.
From the same article:
"There were no differences in eating disorder prevalence between lesbian and bisexual women and heterosexual women."
You forgot to mention that fact, Jay. No need to thank me for my help!
It's one thing to believe there should be no right for gay people to marry.
This always bugs me a little. Gays have the same rights we have. We can both marry someone of the opposite sex. The right denied is same sex marriage, and that is the right they want and many of us just don't give a shit one way or the other. In today's USA, getting married is a huge financial gamble. Maybe that's why Romney compared Massachusetts to Vegas.
Oh, I forgot to add depression to my list.
Major depression—also known as clinical depression—is a serious but common medical condition that affects gay men and lesbians at a higher rate than the general population.
So again, the state shouldn't be trying to encourage gay behavior because being gay is abnormal and hazardous to your health. After all, gays have higher incidences of HIV, STD's, drug & alcohol abuse, depression, and eating disorders than the general population.
Happy reading Jim!
It's one thing to believe there should be no right for gay people to marry. But if you want to take that position, you should still be decent and respectful about it.
I think it's funny that - when you decide to have ethics - you A) are choosy about what subjects to do so (Gays - gotcha) and B) you just make up an ethical guideline out of thin air.
Really? You should be 'decent and respectful' about something you think 'there should be no right for'?
As Bugs used to say, what a maroon!
Willard said: There were no differences in eating disorder prevalence between lesbian and bisexual women and heterosexual women.
But isn't that just a coincidence causeb by all the gay male fashion designers conspiring to starve straight women?
Oh Jim, I hope this doesn't come your way:
LGV can infect both sexes, although new cases diagnosed so far are among men having sex with men.
Is MSNBC a legitimate news source Jim?
So you are using your notion of "individual rights" to deny 3 people who want to be married, happiness.
Poor Jay seems to have a tremendous concern about polygamy.
Just to be clear, do you object to same sex marriage because you fear polygamy will follow, or do you object to same sex marriage because a provision allowing for polygamy isn't included? Or is your repeatedly stated concern about polygamy just a red herring that is the result of a slippery slope fallacy?
"For more than 25 years, conventional wisdom has held that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) individuals are much more likely to abuse alcohol and other drugs than are their heterosexual counterparts. But recent efforts to clarify and quantify the prevalence of drug and alcohol use within the LGBT community have cast doubt on the veracity of this long-held belief."
More here.
Or is your repeatedly stated concern about polygamy just a red herring that is the result of a slippery slope fallacy?
In this case it should be a slippery slope phallicy.
Personally, I support polygamy more than same sex marriage. Polygamy has a long history to support it also.
Well, I'm willing to support legalization of polygamy if it helps cure Jay of his homophobia.
Althorse 1: It's one thing to believe there should be no right for gay people to marry. But if you want to take that position, you should still be decent and respectful about it.
Althorse 2: And my point is that in taking that attitude, [Romney] pushes away people like me who perceive him as being an asshole.
And she means that in the most decent and respectful way.
I’ve said it before and I remind you again: Blonde to the bone.
At a point where the very wealthy are discretely buying "refuge ranches" in Idaho, Wyoming, Texas, Utah, Montana, even patches out in Kansas....
When ordinary people are thinking about the "what if??" if they too should go to gold, food stockpiles, guns,topping off all gas and oil tanks ....
You have conservative right-wing Republicans not addressing the dire matters - but retreating to the comfort of the past.
25 years did not pass!Its still 1988 - no deficit, jobs problems, the US is the Giant hyperpower discussing globalisation and Free Trade for Democracy and Freedom! with China.
Oil is abundant and costs 1.28 a gallon.
It was a time for the Religious Right to indulge themselves. With no great problems - the focus HAD to be on Jesus, the drug menace, more military engagements as the lone Hyperpower with unlimited wealth, more tax cuts, the gay problem, guns, who was more socially conservative than the next person.
So we now have a pack of fuckwads stuck 25 years in the past. And any that try to take about fixing the present situation get "out-Reaganed" and dragged back in the crab bucket to return to 1988 social values political discussions.
@Cedarford: Did I tell you thanks for helping vote in Obama lately?
Strange. I can't see any links to comments >200 via IE, FireFox, or Chrome. Maybe my system is the problem, but I doubt it, because I've tried it from three different computers. I suspect a Blogger defect, and Professor, I've told you before that Blogger sucks like a Hoover.
Ah, I see it now. Blogger/Google, being incompetent and convinced that they should own the world, does not recognize people who are not constantly logged in. I could go on about this supposition, but trust me: it's the case.
Professor, you have a sampling error. Didn't I tell you to leave Blogger? It sucks like a Eureka.
It's a very interesting bug. I would venture to guess that nobody who comments after comment 200 can see any of the >200 comments. That makes for an unusual comment group. Worth study!
And the people visiting here are probably unaware of the bug, because most people never log out of their comment ID. That muddies the comment waters.
And Blogger and Google suck worse than a...than a...well, than something that sucks badly, but effectively, and in a way that is to be disdained. But I doubt that the Professor will notice this problem.
Amendment: most commenters can see past 200 comments, because they never log out.
Justin said...
Anyone else having an issue seeing the new comments on this?
Yes, there is an issue when there are more than 200 comments. There are two work-arounds.
1) When you are on the main Althouse page, instead of clicking the comments link below the post, click on the title of the post. This will take you to the first 200 comments. To see more, scroll to the bottom of the page and click newer ( The newer near the top won't work )
or
2) Click on the comments link below the post, which takes you to the first 200 comments. Once there, go to your browser's address bar and append &page=2 to the URL and hit enter.
lawyapalooza said...
Oh. One more thing. Every single one of the guys listed above is married to a woman and receiving all of the legal benefits afforded marriage.
Good. We can finally put to rest that lie about gays being denied the right to marry.
Ignorance is Bliss, your suggestion #2 works! Well done. As I said above, though, this sucks like a big sucking thing that sucks effectively but in a bad way. Kinda like a shop vac that keeps spitting out the side when you've got a flooded basement. Not that I've ever been through that.
Similarly, Blogger has become buggy WRT login/logout running into the captcha stuff. Let me know if you want to know more, but not here, 'cause I'll probably never see it.
These problems will all be solved at althou.se!
I don't know why our gracious host was bugging about moving the archives. Leave them here, and just link to them, for cry eye, as a short-term solution until a long-term one could be found.
The comments infrastructure on Blogger is older than dirt, and sucks like a Dyson.
Wish the far right and evangelical voters that dominate some of these primary states would let candidates talk about how they will start fixing America instead of expecting them to ignore the fixes and talk about "their deep innermost conservative heart and love of Saint Reagan".
Got a dying daughter and want to talk about the sacredness of life except for all the foreigners you want new wars with? Pity voters are swallowing that and "fundamental space exploration transformation" instead of what they will do to create jobs and get the country prosperous and off the path to being another bankript Greece.
chickenlittle said...
@Cedarford: Did I tell you thanks for helping vote in Obama lately?
-------------
No, but I'm still waiting for the thanks about avoiding John McCain putting us into two more major wars while the rest of the world was plunged into Depression and 7.50 a gallon gas prices with the blame square on the US unilateralism for rushing into the two wars McCain wanted.
And unless you were one of the people on a middle class income or an illegal that bought a 550,000 dollar McMansion on no money down and would have benefited from McCains idea to just give 530 billion to "distressed homeowners" so they had more house they owned and less to the bank so they could afford their McMansion and prices would stay high....
Well, thank the moderates and independents for keeping McCain out.
And given how Palin acted after the contest was over, you can thank us for the whole country wondering each day if McCain's health would fail again and the Goddess Palin would take over. (Though Biden is just as big a dumb idiot with a big mouth.)
For my part, there's no problem in seeing all of the comments, including those 200+ and beyond, attached to this post. I haven't yet encountered that problem here at Althouse in recent memory, even on threads where others have said they are (and no doubt they are). Perhaps there's a glitch that's not so much universal--which, yes, sometimes is the case, though not all that often--as shared among a subgroup of people experiencing a particular, real thing. In that case, the better question is: What's going on, what's the shared thread in that sub-grouping, that they're experiencing a technical glitch that others are not?
Cedarford wrote:
And unless you were one of the people on a middle class income or an illegal that bought a 550,000 dollar McMansion on no money down and would have benefited from McCains idea to...yadayada
Nope. Actually we're just 3 years shy of paying off our 15 year mortgage on our well-kept fixer-upper bought in 2000 for under $200 (no refies either).
But, fools on both sides of us overpaid and went belly up. One large family "liar loaned" and defaulted under Bush and went back to Guatamala; the other side (nice Mid-westerners) all "down with Obama's promise of free healthcare" could afford to pay but chose not to and were foreclosed on. They moved but we keep in touch. They're hoping to ride out the bad times. Oh and they are banking on your 2008 choice because hey, hard times are rich people's fault.
You can't make this shit up.
"We can finally put to rest that lie about gays being denied the right to marry."
Oh shut up.
@Cedarford: One last thing: the Guatamalan family were devout Catholics; the Mid-Westerners on the other side were avoided atheists so go factor that into your certainties.
PPS Cedarford: The new families on both sides are both USMC, paid reasonable prices and appear to be stable and in for the long haul.
"avowed atheists" not "avoided atheists"
$200
Wait. You bought a home for $200 in 2000? If that's the case, fixer-upper or not, well-maintained or not, that's a sharp buy which, intentionally, provided a leg up from the git-go.
(Which I applaud, but probably is not a great analogy, generally speaking.
That said, I assume you meant $200,000 or something else in terms of at least one more zero than $200?)
Sweet jump on a rotted log, Althouse and Meade: The wv-entry demands tonight are fantastical and more. Thanks be that I am an experienced, persistent and stubborn little bit o' thang.
; )
Ironically, at the ophthalmologist earlier this evening, I was told I had an early onset of a condition that will require surgery in a few years, at least a decade earlier than usual even in early normal terms, and that there may be other issues: we'll just have to wait and see.
Well! All the better to have the opportunity to be cussedly stubborn in wanting to express my vision, as I see it, no matter how distorted and twisted the damn wv test is required to "please prove you're not a robot."
So. There.
I ♥ Willard said...
Well, I'm willing to support legalization of polygamy if it helps cure Jay of his homophobia.
Except I don't have homophobia.
Just to be clear, do you object to same sex marriage because you fear polygamy will follow, or do you object to same sex marriage because a provision allowing for polygamy isn't included?
So let me be clear.
The state encourages marriage because 2 parent (opposite sex) families are the best scenario for raising the next generation of productive citizens.
Since homosexuals can't reproduce, there really is no reason for the state to encourage them to be married. On top of the fact we really have no idea what inserting children into gay parent homes is going to do to them.
Further, the state shouldn't be trying to encourage gay behavior because being gay is abnormal and hazardous to your health. After all, gays have higher incidences of HIV, STD's, drug & alcohol abuse, depression, and eating disorders than the general population.
The state should no more be encouraging gay behavior (which has cost government budgets billions due to the above named afflictions) than it should be encouraging obesity, smoking, and drunk driving.
Now if you want to take those facts and pretend I typed them because I don't "like" gay people, knock yourself out.
Ann, this is the second time in a couple of days when I have to go WTF. The first was, IMO, incoherent taking Rush / conservatives to task on contraception.
Are you about to anounce a run for public office and creating these "sister souljah" moments?
Romneys's almost lame joke was obvious but your flying of the handle was "priceless"!
Since homosexuals can't reproduce, there really is no reason for the state to encourage them to be married.
Marriage also encourages stable, monogomous relationships. Why wouldn't that be a good thing in the gay community where promiscuity and the spreading of STD's was once (still is?) a very life-threatening problem?
Sadly you have to post a new comment to see the most recent ones.
@Ignorance is Bliss
Thanks!
David said...
"Let's draft Jeb."
I'll second that.
@rcommal: Yes, $200k I forgot the units.
Sorry to hear about your eyes. :(
I think that the Mormons are against SSM mostly because the government stepped in and told them they had to bow to the one man, one woman rule.
Considering that Historical fact, the claim that gay people face some particular discrimination concerning marriage or that there is a Right some place or other to not have to bow to arbitrary rules about who is allowed to marry whom, just doesn't get very far.
Then add the silliness that somehow this has nothing at all to do with polygamy and could never ever possibly have anything to do with polygamy, and what possible reason could any Mormon have to take any SSM advocate seriously?
Post a Comment