Asks Andrew Sullivan, noting that Hillary Clinton only came out for marriage equality in 2013.
Was she then a bigot? On what conceivable grounds can the Democratic party support a candidate who until only a year ago was, according to the latest orthodoxy, the equivalent of a segregationist, and whose administration enacted more anti-gay laws and measures than any in American history?As I said in "What accounts for this sudden and shocking spike in bigotry?," opposition to same-sex marriage became bigotry, for purposes of the American political culture, in the year 2013. At that point, all the politicos who'd crafted some other position in order to get through a difficult transition got the message that now was the time to say yes to gay marriage, and this was the big opportunity for every politician who had secretly supported marriage equality or who didn't mind it enough to miss out on getting in good with the sector of our society that had come to believe in the righteousness of marriage equality. 2013 was the political amnesty year, and Hillary took that amnesty. Anyone who didn't jump at that point looks very different moving forward.
Now, Sullivan opposes the hounding of Brendan Eich, so understand his question that context. And I have no idea whether Eich still opposes marriage equality. His contribution of $1,000 to the Prop 8 cause came in 2008, 5 years before what I'm calling the amnesty year. Another key difference is that Hillary didn't make contributions to the anti-marriage-equality cause. She merely staked out the same safe, practical political position that other politicians used at the time. And she was a politician, so she needed to have something to say on this topic. Eich was a businessman, so he didn't need any position. He wanted to take a position.
I do think it's a bit ridiculous that there was a year when everyone was supposed to "evolve" on the subject. Obama said he'd evolved, and so everyone was supposed to be evolved alongside him. But Obama and plenty of other politicians were already fine with same-sex marriage. All that had evolved was the interest in saying so.
Posts
87 comments:
"All that had evolved was the interest in saying so." Nail on the head.
When I went to bed we were at war with Eurasia. I woke up and the internet screamed that we were at war with East Asia and had always had peaceful relations with Eurasia. I've evolved comfortably into the New Truth. Why fight it? Who needs the hassle?
Actually, Biden "evolved" Obama.
The Mozilla Board did not pay enough attention to Chick fil A. Firefox has been losing share and there are plenty of new browsers out now. I have learned about several and reinstalled Opera, which I had not been using.
"“Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.”
Eric Hoffer.
How do you really know what politicians think?
By what they say? By their legislative histories? Policies? The people they choose to be around them?
opposition to same-sex marriage became bigotry, for purposes of that portion of the American political culture which is in the habit of mistaking itself for the whole of the American political culture, in the year 2013.
Hypocrisy Uber Alles!
Try as I might, I cannot understand how a same sex marriage diminishes a heterosexual marriage. Even raised in a practicing Catholic home, I am just unable to wrap my head around the logic.
The only thing of which I am sure is that I absolutely do not care who sleeps with whom, who gets married, or who gets divorced. As long as consenting adults are involved it is none of my damn business.
How anyone else feels about the issue, provided no one is assaulted and/or no laws are broken, is even less my business.
marriage equality.
The issue wasn't marriage equity. Before gay marriage was imposed on us by the courts, everyone had exactly the same marriage rights. Everyone was free to marry a member of the opposite sex. No one told gay people they couldn't get married...and many did marry amember of the opposite sex.
The issue was expanding gay rights so that now people could marry members of the same sex.
If we are now moving on to "marriage equity" (kind of like global warming became climate change?) it must mean the next battle, polygamy, is being prepared.
The feminists already tolerate Hillary's views on sexual discrimination, harassment, and assault.
Ah, so everyone knew Obama was secretly fine with same sex marriage? Obama really was a blank canvas for people to project their hopes and dreams on.
A word from Hillary has a lot more sway on the opinion of voters than a $1000 contribution can buy.
What would have been the outcome of Prop 8 if Hillary would've had the courage of her convictions? Prop 8 didn't win by a huge margin. What was it? 52%?
"marriage “has a historic, religious and moral context that goes back to the beginning of time. And I think a marriage has always been between a man and a woman.” "
If this was true in 2000 then why isn't it still true? How is it that truth is so malleable?
Is it too much to ask to have leaders who believe what they say, or do we have to settle (and demand) ones that will say whatever helps them now?
Prof. Althouse - you said: "But Obama and plenty of other politicians were already fine with same-sex marriage. All that had evolved was the interest in saying so."
And yet, in 2008, regardless of politicians feelings, over 2/3rd of California voters refused to make Same-Sex Marriage protected in their State Constitution.
In 2012, North Carolina said the same thing and added, for emphasis, and "no Civil Unions" either.
I realize that there is a time when politicians are supposed to get in front and LEAD, but,OTOH, is there not a time when the voters of individual States have a right to get in front and LEAD?
BTW, I AM in favor of same-sex marriages, but wonder about the role of politicians in these situations.
And I have no idea whether Eich still opposes marriage equality. His contribution of $1,000 to the Prop 8 cause came in 2008, 5 years before what I'm calling the amnesty year.
He had the opportunity to say, "I have evolved on the issue and would not have made the contribution now." He didn't. He was also a supporter of Pat Buchanan, who is an apologist for Hitler, and anti-Semite and a racist (Pat Buchanan is basically Cedarford with a much larger soapbox).
Ann can stay with this "equality" bullshit all she wants however, it remains BS.
There is nothing fair, consistent or principled about the Left. The Left has not one problem with Obama, Clinton or Clinton on gay marriage. The Left do not care about Democratic politicians' hypocrisy or their campaign lies about gay marriage. Take your pick. Democrats will continue to attack their political enemies for being against gay marriage while simultaneously ignoring the same positions voiced by Democrats.
If we had a media even marginally concerned about our long term political freedom there would much more questioning of where this sort of suppression of political speech will take us.
There's currently an asshole on FNC's Media Buzz who is doing much more damage than good to the gay rights movement. His is the perfect illustration of the the intolerant Left.
"In Washington, the evidence of intimidation and harassment was unimpressive. The plaintiffs’ attorneys had access to the names and addresses of all those who signed the petition, and all those who contributed funds to the drive, but produced no evidence beyond that pertaining to a FEW VERY HIGH-PROFILE INDIVIDUALS." (caps mine)
http://www.volokh.com/2011/10/19/intimidation-of-ssm-opponents-in-washington-state/
This is about a rferendum in Washington State to roll back a SSM bill passed by the legislature.
This is after the voters had adopted a civil union initiative previously-- dubbed the "everything but marriage act" by gays.
The question is whether the public at large considers you a bigot to oppose SSM or just the homosexual lobby, since just a few years ago you were a homophobe just to object to homosexuality as a lifestyle.
Ms. Althouse certainly contributed to the current environment-- which has progressed to being a bigot or worse for objecting to SSM, which is not the same position as opposing homosexuality in general.
I object to labeling homosexual unions as marriage, since the typical gay marriage means something completely different in nature than what society should be holding as an ideal for marriage.
A typical homosexual marriage-- as characterized by gays themselves means multiple partners or open marriage.
That is not good for society or for the partners in marriage--the institution of marriage should mean a level of faithfulness that eschews affairs. I don't think gays would even label multiple sexual encounters as affairs.
I think many that opposed this direction we are heading as merely the tip of the iceberg for what the homosexual lobby intends for us.
It reminds me of the SNL skit from the early '80's, where a bunch of good liberals are replaced by Reagan-supporting pod people. "We built it, we paid for it, it's ours!"
Suddenly, on a dime, a mainstream position – held for millenia by most of the world's population – became rankest, vilest bigotry. I'm surprised doctors haven't been dealing with a huge spike in whiplash cases.
It's unique in my political experience. As a lukewarm supporter of gay marriage, while generally supportive of the original goals, I am appalled by the means being used.
When did Eich support Buchanan?
"Public records show that between 1991 and 1992, Eich donated a total of $1,000 to Pat Buchanan, then a rightwing Republican presidential candidate. In 1996 and 1998, Eich donated a total of $2,500 to Ron Paul, a maverick Republican congressman for Texas's 14th district.... The Guardian asked Mozilla if Brendan Eich wished to make any remark on his donation to Buchanan, or if he had any comment on the candidate’s views on homosexuality and same-sex marriage. Eich declined to comment... Eich has repeatedly refused to discuss his donation to the Proposition 8 campaign....."
So... Eich was 30 years old when he donated to Buchanan, and later he supported Ron Paul. What does that say about him?
What did Buchanan, the candidate in the 1992 presidential race, stand for?
"In 1992, Buchanan explained his reasons for challenging the incumbent, President George H.W. Bush: 'If the country wants to go in a liberal direction, if the country wants to go in the direction of [Democrats] George Mitchell and Tom Foley, it doesn't bother me as long as I've made the best case I can. What I can't stand are the back-room deals. They're all in on it, the insider game, the establishment game—this is what we're running against.' He ran on a platform of immigration reduction and social conservatism, including opposition to multiculturalism, abortion, and gay rights."
What part of that appealed to Eich when he was 30, and what should that mean 22 years later?
"He was also a supporter of Pat Buchanan, who is an apologist for Hitler"
You know this how ?
Would you help us here by listing those political beliefs that are not allowable in master programmers and other technology people so we can purge our technology sector of those who are not acceptable.
We have an excess of STEM experts so we don't need their contributions. U assume that you would agree with excluding Oppenheimer from the Manhattan Project.
I guess ordinary people who want to rise in their careers should resist giving anybody money. I know if you checked my record of political donations, you'll be able to mark me a left-winger, since I succumbed to direct pressure to give money to Russ Feingold (and to his erstwhile brother-in-law). Why did I do it? Because it was too hard not to do it. I guess I was about 30 years old at the time.
by the way, I've seen it reported that 60% of Intel employees supported Prop 8.
Go ahead OKcupid, release the hounds NOW
Since that long-ago succumbing, I've never given any candidate money (except perhaps one local govt person who was just a friend of a friend, and someone to whom it was socially inconvenient to say no).
"How do you really know what politicians think?"
You mean that Obama may have only said that he evolved in order to get votes from a constituency that was feeling neglected?
1. Political donations, like ballots, should be private
2. The government can have the word "marriage." They can do with it what they wish.
3. The union of men and women in a promised life-long relationship should be renamed.
Problems solved.
"How do you really know what politicians think?"
I reject the premise of that question.
by the way, I've seen it reported that 60% of Intel employees supported Prop 8.
Go ahead OKcupid, release the hounds NOW
I a society where our mainstream political speech from years ago, is used to remove a person from their job and livelihood, do we actually have freedom of speech?
" As a lukewarm supporter of gay marriage, while generally supportive of the original goals, I am appalled by the means being used."
Thanks Paco
I can accept a relationship between two men, but I find is odd asking me to reference as matrimony.
A few years ago, in conversations I broke it down to call everything civil unions, but don't mess with a person's birth certificate. Ban third party sperm/egg usage for everyone. The wants of adults ends at the needs of children. Stating that children have a right to identity and know kinship, that children are to be loved by their mother and father and if parents are unfit be raised by a relative doesn't equate to hate.
I can accept homosexuality, I can't accept the intentional and planned loss of a parent for the purposes of making the couple happy. If we didn't have sperm/egg donation, we would of never had the the redefining of marriage.
dbp,
"marriage “has a historic, religious and moral context that goes back to the beginning of time. And I think a marriage has always been between a man and a woman.” "
If this was true in 2000 then why isn't it still true? How is it that truth is so malleable?
Exactly. The gist is that "truth" has changed in the last few years, that's all. Which is why Hillary Clinton is still the all-but-inevitable DNC nominee in 2016.
I love this quote from Mozilla: "We Believe In Openness & That No One Should Be Persecuted For The Beliefs They Hold, No Matter What They Are."
Self awareness must not be a quality in demand of the Left in this country.
RecChief,
There was a 60/40 split of those who contributed either for or against.
IOW, if Intel has 20,000 employess and 100 of those contributed either way, 60 were for Prop. 8 and 40 against.
Michelle,
Truth isn't the issue. People believe in truth, that is why Paternity Court is a popular show.
It's trust. Trust is a lost value.
Marriage is based on trust, but so are friendships. And friendships don't seem to as trustful as they were before either.
If we didn't have sperm/egg donation, we would of never had the the redefining of marriage.
Previously, I would have disagreed with you, but I have now changed my mind.
I have a lesbian friend who has a child and a partner. They have a civil union in our State. They are upset that they both can't just be put on the birth certificate and that the woman who did not give birth is not granted automatic guardianship. In my mind, that seems like a given. But apparently., if a heterosexual couple has a sperm or egg donation, the "not parent" is slapped right on the BC like it was no big deal. Perhaps it takes the context like two women on a Birth Cert, but I would hope most of society would understand the benefits of really knowing where you come from. No one should be able to just slap any old name on a BC. If you're embarrassed you're infertile, get over it or don't "have children."
Here's a suggestion for the gay mafia. How about instead of attacking middle aged White men....how about you go after Muslims who literally kill homosexuals, or American Blacks who are generally anti-gay rights?
" I've never given any candidate money"
That is the point, to shut down the opposition. Hand in hand with using the IRS to leak tax information and to damage the political opposition.
Gleichschaltung. There you have it.
"marriage “has a historic, religious and moral context that goes back to the beginning of time. And I think a marriage has always been between a man and a woman.”
This is politician speak. Hillary is not taking a position here. She's stating undeniable facts, trying to sound profound, but its totally equivocal.
The issue isn't when a critical mass of politicians changed their views, for reasons of conviction or, just as often, political expediency.
It's when support for gay marriage went from an issue of public policy on which each side tried to convince the other to a litmus test necessary to define onesself as "unbigoted."
In the minds of gay marriage supporters -- at least the vocal ones -- reasonable people cannot disagree on this any longer. Opponents of gay marriage are now defined as bigots, whose viewpoints have no more legitimacy than the KKK.
On the to-do list: I'm curious how prominent supporters of the Susan B Anthony List (the pro-life equivalent of EMILY's List) are treated; whether they are likewise officially or unofficially blacklisted.
http://janetheactuary.blogspot.com/2014/04/mozilla-and-reasonable-people.html
To clarify my previous post, going after a "few high profile individuals" negates the need to go after everybody.
Set an example-- "this is what will happen to you if you oppose us".
I think that's what we are seeing. Eliminate a "few high profile individuals" and everyone else will fall in line. Keep their mouths shut, keep their heads down, keep their thoughts to themselves.
This is bigger than this particular individual or this particular situation.
Think of recent comments by AGW proponents that those opposed to their agenda should be jailed.
The left is showing its hand.
Here's a suggestion for the gay mafia. How about instead of attacking middle aged White men....how about you go after Muslims who literally kill homosexuals, or American Blacks who are generally anti-gay rights?
Because Muslims who kill gay people in places like Afghanistan don't have political power here so they aren't relevant to US politics. But they do get criticized by pro-gay rights Americans when to topic comes up. And American blacks who publicly oppose gay rights are criticized. Just ask Alan Keyes. They just aren't criticized for being black and for that matter Eich isn't being criticized for being a middle aged white guy. I know that last sentence is hard for certain people to grasp. Saying "what about Muslims in Saudi Arabia" or something like that is the "look, a squirrel!" for anti-gay people.
What part of that appealed to Eich when he was 30, and what should that mean 22 years later?
People change over decades. For example, in 1992, I was a very active College Republican and supported Bush 41 strongly. And on that note, I can say two things. One, it's perfectly legitimate for me to be asked what changed if I'm active in Democratic politics. Your past isn't beyond questioning. And two, most people supporting Pat Buchanan in 1992 were doing it for reasons worth asking about. It wasn't a mainstream GOP position and often was done to make some sort of point that most Republicans (at least of that era) would find disconcerting. I saw that first-hand.
@Birches
Yes, Assumption of paternity for married women, husbands are automatically the legal father without the need to a notarized affidavit at the hospital.
In Massachusetts they make a huge deal about men signing off on their affidavits and the importance of children knowing their father.
It gets complicated when a woman gives birth to another man's child but is not yet divorced from her husband. Her husband has to sign an affidavit of non-paternity, before the father can sign his affidavit of paternity.
Their is no drink so bitter as the vindictiveness of the righteous victor.
If it wasn't a useful club to beat the opposition, Obama would never have evolved on it.
"...He had the opportunity to say, "I have evolved on the issue and would not have made the contribution now." He didn't. ..."
What we need now is the equivalent of Soviet show trials or Maoist struggle sessions where those not of the progressive line get up and confess their political deviations.
Probably for the same reason Andrew supported Obama. Everybody knew Hillary and Obama were insincere in their recent non-support. Opportunism/Realism being another issue altogether.
"evolve or die" it just may come to that...
"If it is unconscionable to support a company whose CEO once donated to the cause against marriage equality..."
"... why is it not unconscionable to support a candidate who opposed marriage equality as recently as 2008, and who was an integral part of an administration that embraced the Defense Of Marriage Act, signed into law by Bill Clinton?"
Because information storage and dissemination technology has become too complex for the ol' "memory hole" technique to be effective any more. But I'm sure they're working on it.
The Professor said:
So... Eich was 30 years old when he donated to Buchanan, and later he supported Ron Paul. What does that say about him?
Saint Barry the Magnificent associated himself with the following men when he was 30 year old and older: Bill Ayers, Pastor GD America, Tony Rezko and Rashid Khalidi! What does that say about him?
It told me to vote for the war hero, John McCain!
I forgot, Barry was playing golf on the days that Pastor Jeremy said all those mean thing about Jews and America.
Fundamentally Transformed!
Bigotry is sanctimonious hypocrisy. Opponents of normalizing homosexual behavior are not bigots. They were never confused about dysfunctional behaviors, with respect to a common morality, or a natural order; and, they never offered to normalize those behaviors, only tolerate individuals who exhibited their predisposition. However, the homosexual advocates and activists are bigots.
Still, they are a far cry from the pro-murder/abortion bigots. Especially the ones who seek to sooth their conscience in human and civil rights campaigns.
With the normalization of murder/abortion, and now homosexual behavior, there are virtually no defensible limits, only selective exclusions. The advocates and activists need to reconcile the moral hazard they have created.
The truth is that nobody is "evolving" on the subject of gay marriage. There has been no tremendously illuminating discovery, no new scientific fact, that would change anyone's mind.
What people call "evolution" on the subject is merely adjustment to a shift in political power. This either allows them to express what they've always believed anyway or it teaches them to keep their mouths shut. Either outcome is perfectly fine for the winners. They don't seek accommodation, they seek superiority.
You know this how ?
By reading Buchanan's own words.
"Because Muslims who kill gay people in places like Afghanistan don't have political power here so they aren't relevant to US politics"
Maybe. Or maybe you think that because the media has silenced reporting on Muslim attacks on gay people.
Did you know that here in Seattle we have a very popular gay club that was almost burned down this past new years eve with 600 people inside? The stairway heading up to the second floor, packed with people, was doused with gasoline. Fortunately two soldiers happened to see what was going on and stopped the religious but before he was able to complete his task.
Had it been a Christian religious nut, you'd have heard about it.
If they are willing to murder homosexuals, surely they are willing to vote against legislation that benefits them.
And if they are driven to murder homosexuals, who is driving them to it?
Christians and Muslims have more in common than they think. If they can ever get together politically, I'd be worried if I were a Democrat.
Amnesty year.
Is opposition to SSM now illegal?
"marriage “has a historic, religious and moral context that goes back to the beginning of time. And I think a marriage has always been between a man and a woman.” "
And a man, a woman and a woman, too. Going way back and still to this day.
Try as I might, I cannot understand how a same sex marriage diminishes a heterosexual marriage. Even raised in a practicing Catholic home, I am just unable to wrap my head around the logic.
This says more about your lack of imagination than it does whether or not there are rational arguments supporting the position that SSM threatens traditional marriage. Many have difficulty understanding the law of supply and demand; that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
How do you really know what politicians think?
Why would anyone want to know, except out of idle curiosity? The only important things are their voting history, their positions on various issues and their consistency in expressing those.
Everyone was free to marry a member of the opposite sex.
Whew!!
"marriage “has a historic, religious and moral context that goes back to the beginning of time. And I think a marriage has always been between a man and a woman.” "
And a man, a woman and a woman, too. Going way back and still to this day.
And the polygamists are already making the argument in court now that the flood gates are open.
Is opposition to SSM now illegal?
Not quite yet, but it is verboten.
Freder Frederson: He was also a supporter of Pat Buchanan, who is an apologist for Hitler...
Michael K: You know this how ?
FF: By reading Buchanan's own words.
Sure, Freder, just like all the America Firsters were "apologists for Hitler", and just like anybody who was against the Iraq war was an apologist for Saddam Hussein, and just like any opponent of Clinton's Balkan stupidities was an apologist for Milosevic (or whatever other convenient baddie there we were supposed to consider more evil than any of the other baddies there), and just like any non-interventionist anywhere at any time is an "apologist" for whomever the war party of the time happens to think merits the blood of American men.
Right, left, this bullshit never ends. Don't think a war I'm all hot for is a good idea, conclude that our entering a war in the past was imprudent and against our national interests? Apologist!
no one expects the LGBT Inquisition!
So Hillary is another one of the March Violets
Ann says here, and highlights in a post slightly later, that she rejects the premise of the question: "who knows what politicians think?"
Is it THE, or merely ONE, premise of that question that politicians are in fact capable of any thought whatever?
If you're good with same sex marriage, you'd better be just as good with polygamy and incest, because there is literally no intellectual difference in the principles. Oh, forgot bestiality.
Remember when Buchanan called Nazi death camp guard John Demjanjuk the "American Dreyfus"? And then went on to say:
"The spirit behind this un-American persecution has never been that of justice tempered by mercy. It is the same satanic brew of hate and revenge that drove another innocent Man up Calvary that first Good Friday 2,000 years ago."
Just, wow.
Fixed link for that Buchanan piece on Demjanjuk.
The premise that supporting the traditional understanding of marriage is "anti-gay" by definition is a problem in itself. It all goes back to what one thinks the purpose of marriage is.
The purpose of traditional marriage is pro-child. I don't think it's irrational for society to support wanting children to be raised in a stable home by their natural parents. Since raising a kid takes a good 18-25 years these days, society would want to develop a structure that would keep the father and mother together, discourage having children outside of that structure, and possibly incentivize people to enter into that structure. In other words, something a lot like what marriage was before the age of easy divorce.
I don't think it's bigoted to insist on this definition, and I don't think marriage has to be synonymous with love, however appealing it is for gay marriage supporters to make the connection, since who wants to be seen opposing love?
However, I will say that support of divorce undermines the argument against gay marriage. The indissolubility of the bond is indispensable to the traditional understanding, and is in fact one of the two essential elements in the Catholic understanding of marriage (monogamy is the other). Many nowadays seem to have forgotten this, which is why we have often seen tortured definitions these last 10 or so years that have focused solely on the genders involved rather than on the purpose of marriage.
As to the Pat Buchanan thing, I too voted for Buchanan in 1992, though no donation. It was more of a protest vote against Bush over the whole wishy-washy "read my lips" surrender on taxes, plus by the time the primary got to my state the presidential nomination had already been decided so it didn't matter anyway. At the time I considered Pat to be to the right of Bush the Elder, which I considered to be a good thing, and within the confines of mainstream views albeit towards the right edge. If he was making apologies for tyrants and being a general racist that would have been news to me. My sense of things is he got more bitter and more extreme as he got older, the 1992 edition of Pat Buchanan a different animal than the current incarnation. Maybe he was always that bad and I didn’t really understand the man, but that’s how I remember it.
In any case, I don’t see how a political donation to a mainstream candidate from 20 years ago is the least bit relevant to current employment. Maybe if the job was in politics it would matter, though given how pols and operatives are allowed to change their fundamental principles whenever and immediately get praised for their “courage,” I find that doubtful.
Althouse can call it "marriage equality" all she wants to. The Left promotes it because the Left wants to destroy the social primacy and even the legitimacy of the biological family. The underlying message the Left intends to promote is that any collection of unrelated individuals, one or more of whom are children, is as much a family as any actual biological family. It appears that Althouse is pushing this absurd lie out of loyalty to her son. I suppose she is hoping for grandchildren.
BTW, Opera works great.
The purpose of traditional marriage is pro-child. I don't think it's irrational for society to support wanting children to be raised in a stable home by their natural parents. Since raising a kid takes a good 18-25 years these days, society would want to develop a structure that would keep the father and mother together, discourage having children outside of that structure, and possibly incentivize people to enter into that structure. In other words, something a lot like what marriage was before the age of easy divorce.
I don't think it's bigoted to insist on this definition, and I don't think marriage has to be synonymous with love, however appealing it is for gay marriage supporters to make the connection, since who wants to be seen opposing love?
My basic problem with Gay marriage is that they try to rewrite nature with wishful thinking. The problem is that children need parents of both (actual) sexes in their upbringing. It is well established that single mothers statistically do poorly raising their children without their fathers. But recently, a study came out that showed Lesbian couples doing even worse than single mothers as to the statistical outcomes of the children they raised - possibly because some of the single mothers probably had some paternal input from the childrens' fathers, or maybe even from other males in the household, and that was the one thing most often missing from Lesbian headed households - males operating in a father mode.
Heterosexual marriage is the traditional norm throughout the world for one simple reason - it works better than any of the alternatives in terms of parenting outcomes. Often, much better.
I think one of the more worrisome things about the comments above concerned the Lesbians trying to replace fathers with second (non-biological) mothers on birth certificates. This is plainly evident self-gratification on their parts, with little, if any, regard, for the welfare of their children. They should be begging for the fathering input of their sperm donors, and not fighting to eliminate it.
And, BTW, male homosexual parents don't seem to do nearly as badly as Lesbians, or probably even single unwed mothers in terms of outcomes. But, that may be because maybe fewer male homosexuals want to settle down and raise children with their partners than do female homosexuals (and, maybe are less likely to settle down with one partner in the first place), and so the ones who do, tend to be very dedicated to it. Being sexist in this area, my complaint is with Lesbians raising children in a "marriage", and not really with male homosexuals - but you can't really separate the issue here because of equal protection.
I think that Mozilla will find that this was their Chick-fil-A moment, and they blew it big time - maybe as badly as the data protection company that caved into the protests against Rush. The problem is that gay marriage is not nearly as popular nationwide as the proponents would have you think. Rather, it was craven surrender to the proponents, resulting living in somewhat of a progressive bubble. And, making things worse in a global economy, outside of Europe, gay marriage is far less popular outside this country than in it.
The result, I suspect, is that Mozilla will lose far more people this way, by caving in so quickly to blackmail, than they would have if they had just said that what someone does in their own life outside work is their own business, and none of theirs. They weren't going to lose millions of users that way, but are likely to as a result of the way that they handled this.
Michael @ 10:33am,
"Problems solved."
Goodness gracious but you're naive.
For all the talk on this subject here, I have yet heard anyone reference the fact that half the board of Mozilla quit because of the appointment of Eich.
It's fun to blame his resignation on the gay mafia, but a deeper look at Mozilla itself explains a whole lot more than OkCupid and Twitter do about what really happened in the executive suite.
Also, ignoring the open source nature of the Mozilla community and the necessary role of Mozillas President has in fostering positive relations with this volunteer workforce is naive. Just not as naive as ignoring the fact that half the board of directors left over the appointment of this long term employee.
What a straw man conservatives have created here, he'll its a whole straw mafia.
"I guess ordinary people who want to rise in their careers should resist giving anybody money. "
You are incredibly naive if you think these people are going to continue to accept those who didn't actively donate to the right causes in the past.
You're a fool if you think Mr. Eich is "ordinary."
" I have no idea whether Eich still opposes marriage equality."
Or whether he thinks we have always been at war with Eastasia...
re: "Try as I might, I cannot understand how a same sex marriage diminishes a heterosexual marriage."
Back in 2004 when Massachusetts was wrestling with this, black ministers argued that if marriage became re-branded as a "gay thing" that persuading young black men to marry the mothers of their children would become even more difficult. As a middle-aged suburban white guy I lack the personal experience to confirm or dispute that.
Others have pointed out to me that letting we should not let our social policy be driven by the homophobia of young black men. So maybe that is a reason for black ministers to oppose gay marriage, but it need not be mine.
But on the third hand, if this is yet another feel-good progressive social experiment that has, as an 'unexpected' yet utterly predictable and predicted consequence, a grim impact amongst the urban poor, well, what else is new?
Many evolved the day they realized there would be gay fatwas.
It's like BC/AD. The year before Obama came out in favor of gay marriage was the year where you could hold one position and not be evil. And then when Obama supported gay marriage if you held a position other than Obama's position you are evil and fired.
The dems are not evil because they held the evil position before it was unacceptable. But now they don't. And conveniently it's suddenly evil. And you're evil if you still hold yesterday's position. Simply because the libs say so
There is no memo that goes out telling you how u have to feel. And liberals do not dictate what the right position is simply because they hold it.
I guess ordinary people who want to rise in their careers should resist giving anybody money.
That's the precise reaction the fascist Left intends. Shut up or we will ruin you. America is supposed to be about participating in the political process, which is what makes attacks on people like Eich or the Koch brothers all the more insidious.
i think Eich's downfall was in the way he chose to defend himself. He should have argued that was 2008 but has now come to see he is wrong, if he wanted to keep his job.
@JustOneMinute: Is there any possibility that black ministers supported the biblical definition of marriage? Are you simply accusing them of being "driven by the homophobia of young black men"?
This is where Althouse gets in trouble because she's been pushing this as an absolute civil right. She's on the side pushing CEO's to toe the line or else.
While I totally agree with Sullivan's idea that it's a facist and unconscionable assualt on all manner of truths we assume to be true, by the same token, what did he (and Althouse) expect to happen.
This is what they wanted. And this is the outcome of the policies they are pushing. So, if it sounds like facism maybe it is. But it has always been.
This is where Althouse gets in trouble because she's been pushing this as an absolute civil right. She's on the side pushing CEO's to toe the line or else.
While I totally agree with Sullivan's idea that it's a facist and unconscionable assualt on all manner of truths we assume to be true, by the same token, what did he (and Althouse) expect to happen.
This is what they wanted. And this is the outcome of the policies they are pushing. So, if it sounds like facism maybe it is. But it has always been.
When anyone says "marriage equality," they assume the answer without asking the question. The question has always been whether gays can marry, not whether they may marry.
Just like the idiots claiming that gay marriage is no different than inter-racial marriage. Even though biologists will insist that "race" is not biologically significant but just a cluster of characteristics we choose to call different races. We are, after all, all the same species.
But no biologist will claim that sex is not biologically significant.
To look at it another way, we know that all cultures have had some form of marriage- and the reason for that is because heterosexual sex tends to produce children- not always, but often enough that some provision must be made for the children. As they say, "it's momma's baby, popa's maybe." Marriage erases the "maybe"- if they're married and she gives birth, it's his responsibility.
Marriage is inherently a heterosexual institution that is centered about reproduction. Why, just look at all those old paintings of weddings- they are invariably full of symbols of fertility.
Of course, not every marriage will produce children. But it's often not known which these will be at the time of marriage. And it would be intolerably intrusive for the state to demand medical records.
So, if a time comes when technology makes it possible for a gay couple to reproduce then I will favor gay marriage. Until then, it remains gay "marriage." A union that at best amounts to playing at the real thing.
Once marriage is unmoored from its roots in reproduction, what's to stop gay sibling marriage, or parent-to-son or daughter marriage? On what basis could courts refuse to insist such "marriages" be recognized? And (of course) various forms of polyamory. Who are we to say anything is not “marriage”?
Marriage “equality,” they say. Not recognizing that the real question is not whether gays may marry, but whether gays can marry.
Post a Comment