Laurel Patrick, a spokeswoman for the governor, confirmed Thursday that Walker's son was present for the event for the lesbian couple.... "Shelli Marquardt is the first lady's cousin," Patrick said in a statement. "She is a part of the Walker family who they dearly love."... Patrick did not say whether the governor or first lady attended the same-sex wedding last month. Alex Walker did not respond to emails on Thursday.ADDED: This post is just another post in my year-plus effort to convey the message to you old-not-young conservatives: It's over.
"Just heard the fabulous news from tonette," one relative recently wrote on Facebook... "We are thrilled for you both. Congrats and much love from the Tarantino Gang in Az.!!" Tarantino is the first lady's maiden name....
IN THE COMMENTS: TCom, talking about me, says "As a gay man, I find her pompous stance on this issue to be more than a little annoying," and I say: "LOL. What a concept. Of course, I'm committed to the opposite" with a link to this, from over a year ago:
[EMBEDDED VIDEO REMOVED]
पोस्ट्स
१५८ टिप्पण्या:
That's nice for him. Kind of an intrusive news (I use that term loosely) story.
Another plus for Walker--consider what this story signals. His own son, who is presumed to be at least somewhat influenced by the father, is comfortable enough to assist in a gay wedding. It cuts against the stereotype the Burke campaign would rather sell to moderates, which is that Walker is in the hands of anti-gay extremists and the "Christian lobby."
As more Republicans accept gay marriage (or are at least okay with it being legalized) this issue will fade away, no longer able to serve as a marker for the Democrats to tag the GOP as a party of intolerant extremists and scare away moderates who might otherwise be turned off by the Democrats' own repugnance.
"This post is just another post in my year-plus effort to convey the message to you old-not-young conservatives: It's over."
=========
When I was twenty and filled to the brim with propaganda I never thought to question, I would have acted as witness in a same-sex marriage ceremony, too.
Now that I'm old-not-young, I would not.
Don't presume that the things we do when we're young necessarily predicate what we do when we're older.
"Predict," that is, not "predicate."
Ann, this old conservative understands that it's over. Do I have your permission to remain bothered about how the change was brought about? This issue, like abortion, should have been left up to our democratic institutions to resolve. When the democratic process is interfered with by the courts, it bothers me -- even when, as in this case, I don't mind the actual outcome. I'm not a social conservative. I just want each branch of our government to respect it's role and to have a healthy respect for the roles of the other branches.
Ann, this old conservative understands that it's over. Do I have your permission to remain bothered about how the change was brought about?
Clearly not, bigot.
So Kensington. You won't watch the marriage. But would you watch the sex?
If you could of course.
Ann is trolling people that disagree with her. This is new...?
Dow down 300.
"It's over."
Moose said...
Ann is trolling people that disagree with her. This is new...?
I've only ever seen her do it on this issue. It's weirdly compelling to see her lose her cool and resort to this sort of petty crap. I love her but this is embarrassing stuff.
Is it really OVER? OVER? Oh My! Oh My! I'm breathless! I didn't see this coming! Whatever will we do? I really should have had more faith in the clairvoyance of the Lady Prof. You know old people. Set in their ways. Hard-headed! Oh My!
Meh, I don't believe in divorce either; and that has been legal for centuries at this point. I'm generally in favor of letting people mess up their own lives if that's what they want to do. It's not my business. I guess what bothers me is that the next phase will be the inevitable activists pushing to have churches forced to recognize gay weddings too. It's already happened in Denmark.
Don't presume that the things we do when we're young necessarily predicate what we do when we're older.
That's a fair point. However, in the case of gay marriage it does not appear that people are turning against it as they age.
In 1996, these were the levels of support for gay marriage, by age group:
18-29: 41%
30-49: 30%
50-64: 15%
65+: 14%
In 2014, 18 years later it is this:
18-29: 78%
30-49: 54%
50-64: 48%
65+: 42%
It is quite obvious that, on average, Americans have been becoming *more* in favor of gay marriage as they age. Not less. Look at that "age 65+" cohort -- 42% in favor, even though it is almost entirely composed of people who were only 14% to 15% in favor of it back in 1996.
Opposition to gay marriage is cultural, not rational. As the culture changes, the reason to oppose it disappears.
I wouldn't expect this to really help Walker avoid being tarred as a radical social reactionary in the national media.
Dick Cheney has a lesbian daughter and openly supported civil unions twenty years ago, when that was a radical thing for a Republican politician to support. How much credit did he get for any of that?
It's over.
Typical fucking Lefty....
I finally won, using dirty tricks...so now the issue is settled for all time.
Justice Taney thought it was over when he wrote the Dred Scott decision.......
I'm just curious why you think that's your job?
I've only ever seen her do it on this issue.
Althouse knows her tenants.
Over? Did you say over? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!
55 minutes of pure brilliance, that Professor Althouse will loathe:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YWIhZ5xJJaQ
"Ann is trolling people that disagree with her. This is new...?"
I've only ever seen her do it on this issue.
Allowing Crack to continually harass us with his racist rants is another form of her trolling her readers.
Hate to say it, but ever since The Meltdown, its obvious that she has contempt for us.
Shut up, she explained.
Over? Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?
Over? Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?
This issue, like abortion, should have been left up to our democratic institutions to resolve.
It isn't appropriate that the courts are making these decisions, no.
On the other hand, many of these cases involve overturning constitutional amendments that gay marriage opponents passed, while they were still in the majority, to make it harder for future majorities to allow gay marriage.
Were opponents of gay marriage actually concerned about keeping the courts out of the issue, they would have focused their efforts on amendments that limited judicial review of marriages, instead.
It's not over. It's just beginning. This was never just about normalizing homosexual behavior. It's not even just about GLBT. It's about creating moral hazards through selective exclusion. Normalization of homosexual behavior has created an irreconcilable outcome. It probably isn't an issue for "pro-choice" people, but it will be. Yet another moral hazard left for future generations to cope with. Thanks, "Mom".
And it is not "legalized" unless permitted by a state statute.
From a young-not-old American, I think you're mistaken.
As a gay man, I find her pompous stance on this issue to be more than a little annoying.
Listen, Althouse, just because you have a gay son doesn't mean you get to speak up for all gay people, as if it makes you the mother of all gay sons.
I am more of a fan of civil unions then marriage, precisely because I think it is damned arrogant to redefine a 2000+ year old word.
I also don't think that "love" is reason enough to give special tax breaks and incentives out to couples.
Gay marriage failed in referendum pretty much every single time it was tried, did it not? But the courts have decided, so "it's over."
How unbelievably arrogant. You want some harsh truth, Althouse? Many gay men pretty much cannot stand women, and a lot of it is precisely this holier than thou, I know better than you, elitist "I'm more compassionate than you" rhetoric.
You don't speak for all gay men. We don't need your worthless, emotionally driven cheerleading.
You probably don't even realize that you aren't doing anyone any good. By shoving it in people's faces like this, all you are doing is increasing animosity.
In conclusion, shut your damn mouth. You aren't helping.
Walker's son? Oh My. Really? You know, I heard sumpin bout Dick Cheney's daughter being lesbian and getting married. That was a few years ago, but I didn't pay it no never mind. I think that was about 10 years back, but I thought, Oh Hell No, that ain't a gonna take hold. Even when Daddy Cheney said let them states decide on who gets hitch, I didn't believe nothing would come of it. The Hell You Say!
Then Swaggy came along and he was agin it, so I thought, There Ain't No Way! Course, I did hear bout SloJo pushing Swaggy into surrender, but still....! I didn't vote for Swaggy anyways.
SCOTT WALKER'S SON? I'll be damned!
Well Hell Yeah, It's Over.
Yeah, but if most young people think marriage is obsolete.... A wedding (gay or straight) is just a good time with loved ones.
I've been to enough straight weddings, which are now sadden with divorce.
Blame the wedding industry.
Yeah, it may be over.
But nothing new was created.
"The Meltdown,"
What meltdown?
DKWalser:
Abortion was legalized under a "penumbra" of personal faith. The privacy aspect covers the practice of a sincerely held faith (i.e. spontaneous conception) protected by the First Amendment. That's why it was handled by the USSC and not by the States or lesser courts. It really was a federal issue. Only the federal government has the coercive power and influence to grant an exclusive right to woman to abort or contract for abortion of wholly innocent human lives.
Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?
It was for the Germans.
When the Colorado bakery was prosecuted for refusing to bake a gay wedding wedding cake, why were they refusing?
They do business with gays.
They're saying, it's not a wedding.
Marriage doesn't mean that.
It's a civil union. Get a civil union cake and you'd be fine.
Somebody had something to say about the word marriage.
Is that over? You can prosecute the holdouts, is all. Stamp out the opposition, it's the PC way.
Next thing you know, Cats will be a laying down with Dogs.
What isn't mentioned at all is how close Walker actually is to his son and the rest of his family.
Best known secret in Wisconsin is how much time him and Tonette spend in different households. Anyone care to guess the last time Scott and his son were actually in the same room together?
"madisonfella said...
What isn't mentioned at all is how close Walker actually is to his son and the rest of his family.
Best known secret in Wisconsin is how much time him and Tonette spend in different households. Anyone care to guess the last time Scott and his son were actually in the same room together? "
I'll give you a score of 6.9 on that one. It took some creativity to find a way to attack Scott Walker when the story really has nothing to do with him. Points were deducted for being a hack, and also for deciding to inject something that has nothing to do with Althouse's post. The topic is gay marriage and the fact that it's the law of the land, whether opponents want to admit it or not.
Keep trying though.
Mass hysteria!
(jacksonjay, that's an awesome movie)
It's never over. The fact that you have to say that makes it clear.
I'm sure you were thinking the same thing after the Roe V Wade decision. As we in the pro life movement have shown, it's clearly not over.
As to this particular story. It's surreal to think people are celebrating such pain. It's like everyone throwing a party for a heroin addict. Look how happy she is, all high on heroin. We should celebrate that.
Encouraging mental disorder and addiction is a bad way to go for our country.
I can completely understand the Professor's need to support gay marriage. Any reasonable mother will do nearly anything to secure any possible advantage for her son. What I can neither understand nor accept is the need for "othering" people who don't accept that gay marriage is a great advance for our civilization. She "othered" Ted Cruz in a post a couple of days ago with the statement that he couldn't be President of "all the people". I am pressed to think a single more fatuous statement in this blog. By that standard, the current occupant of the White House shouldn't have been allowed near the place, and it is hard to jump in the wayback machine and quickly find someone who has met that standard.
"Support for gay marriage is cultural, not rational. As the culture degrades, the reason to support it disappears."
Corrected.
www.youtube.com/watch?v
Game over, man!
Golly, remember how much political credit Dick Cheney received for his open and accepting attitude towards homosexual relationships/rights? I'm sure the Left will extend that same generosity and good feeling towards others on the Right who adopt and espouse the Left's preferred opinions on gay marriage, etc.
When you say it's over, you mean the country right?
Yes, I've decline straight marriages on moral reasoning. I just said I couldn't get a babysitter.
It will probably more obvious, if I had to decline a gay marriage of a loved one, especially if it was a strong and healthy relationship. I accept the relationship, but not the premise that homosexual behavior carries the weight of obligation heterosexual behavior does.
I would stop by the house with a housewarming gift.
I find it hilariously ironic that I am most reminded why I am lucky not to have to put up with the female gender when she is bloviating about gay marriage.
With friends like her, who needs enemies?
It took some creativity to find a way to attack Scott Walker when the story really has nothing to do with him
"Scott Walker" is one of the tags.
And rightfully so, because the reason the story got any attention at all is because the main thrust is that the son of Scott Walker, role model for conservatives everywhere, took part in a gay marriage ceremony. If it was the son of Joe Blow then it wouldn't have been a story at all.
The smart thing for the professor to do would be to cash in her winnings since they come from court diktat rather then popular will, but she just doesn't know when to shut up.
Here's a little pro tip about life: it's never over. Oh, it might be over for you one day, but the debate will continue on.
Saying "it's over" just exposes you as having short time preferences. Not very flattering.
So, quick question:
Any concern from the "It's over crowd" that not only do a majority of the world's nations consider homosexuality a capital offense, but:
1. They are considerably outbreeding Caucasians in general and liberals in particular.
2. Our national policy is to import as many of these people as possible and give them the right to vote.
I think you would do better to spend less effort rubbing it in white conservatives faces who are light-years more progressive than the rest of the world, and think about how you're actually going to hold the ground you think you've gained... or mitigate the inevitable retreat. Because the evidence suggests you've outrun your logistics.
Though I'm probably just a bitter bible-clinger. You should just ignore this.
But if we're playing this game, can we at the very least have the left admit that it's over in regards to gun control? How about affirmative action? Amnesty? Sovereignty handed off to supranational organizations?
Yeah, didn't think so.
OK. OK. Let me know when his son attends an abortion to save the woman, not the baby.
The War on gays is over. Next war looms.
"ADDED: This post is just another post in my year-plus effort to convey the message to you old-not-young conservatives: It's over."
Ann-splaining.
"This post is just another post in my year-plus effort to convey the message to you old-not-young conservatives: It's over."
Cool. And this post is an addition to my effort to convey how wrong you are that these court decisions haven't opened a door to polygamy.
I'm also curious why when a group of unelected (primarily) white people hand out a diktat it's all well and good and obviously should be accepted by all, but when an unelected Libyan or Syrian or Iraqi or Caliph hands out a diktat, we gotta drop the bombs in the name of freedom.
"him and Tonette?" And you presume to speak in public? Or are you aping the conservative troglodyte etched into your mental map? Like "Where can Ah get me a huntin' license" Kerry?
What's sad is that the story is from months ago.
People like the professor are telling conservatives they're on the wrong side of history. To paraphrase Malcolm Reynolds: They know they're on the losing side, but they don't believe they're on the wrong side.
The losing side of many a cultural issue in the last 40 years has turned out to be the right one.
(Slight disclaimer: I'm not against gay marriage any more than I'm against hetero marriage. I'm not-old but also not-young.)
"Ann, this old conservative understands that it's over. Do I have your permission to remain bothered about how the change was brought about? This issue, like abortion, should have been left up to our democratic institutions to resolve. When the democratic process is interfered with by the courts, it bothers me -- even when, as in this case, I don't mind the actual outcome. I'm not a social conservative. I just want each branch of our government to respect it's role and to have a healthy respect for the roles of the other branches."
When the ban fell in Wisconsin, the standard applied was nothing more that the requirement that applies to ALL laws, that they have a rational relationship to a LEGITIMATE government interest.
The government came up empty. If you support arbitrary laws that burden people for no reason at all, then you could oppose this kind of judicial interference.
This was not a case of applying strict scrutiny, but simply holding this law to the same standard that is always applied to any law. This isn't a pure majority-wins democracy we have here in America.
ADDED: This post is just another post in my year-plus effort to convey the message to you old-not-young conservatives: It's over.
So in your face, Ann! As I recall, this was exactly the tone that produced all the earlier consternation and the resulting Meltdown.
There's a reason why the NFL has an excessive celebration rule. Not only isn't it sporting behavior, it creates bad blood.
That's my principle objection to the gay marriage thing. I don't particularly care if some guy wants to bone another guy in the exit ramp...for as long as you both shall live. It's the in-your-face part of the program where the rest off us can't be permitted to merely just tolerate it; we must also celebrate and normalize it.
Yes, it certainly appears that the courts have, once again, intervened and trumped the vote on a contentious issue. The sporting behavior is to be quietly gracious in victory and forgo the endzone dance.
On another field of play, think Derek Jeter.
- Krumhorn
What Meltdown?
Maybe I was out of town.
Some of Althouse's posts are actually letters to her son. And some are letters to her ex-husband.
@Alex
Read up on the Synod in Rome, very interesting how the world sees the west.
"We are wooed by economic things. We are told, "If you limit your population, we're going to give you so much." And we tell them, "Who tells you that our population is overgrown?" In the first place, children die -- infant mortality -- we die in inter-tribal wars, and diseases of all kinds. And yet, you come with money to say, "Decrease your population; we will give you economic help."
Now you come to tell us about reproductive rights, and you give us condoms and artificial contraceptives. Those are not the things we want. We want food, we want education, we want good roads, regular light, and so on. Good health care."
http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/synod-africa-archbishop-frankly-criticizes-western-attitudes?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
And Pope Benedict was correct about condoms..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/legacy/ni/2009/03/aids_expert_who_defended_the_p.html
So as of today marriage should be required to receive benefits from a working partner employer. The state and UW will be making these changes.
Right?
RIGHT?
Althouse's son can marry some dude. And then next year he can marry some more dudes!
Krumhorn said...
ADDED: This post is just another post in my year-plus effort to convey the message to you old-not-young conservatives: It's over.
So in your face, Ann! As I recall, this was exactly the tone that produced all the earlier consternation and the resulting Meltdown.
There's a reason why the NFL has an excessive celebration rule. Not only isn't it sporting behavior, it creates bad blood.
That's my principle objection to the gay marriage thing. I don't particularly care if some guy wants to bone another guy in the exit ramp...for as long as you both shall live. It's the in-your-face part of the program where the rest off us can't be permitted to merely just tolerate it; we must also celebrate and normalize it.
Yes, it certainly appears that the courts have, once again, intervened and trumped the vote on a contentious issue. The sporting behavior is to be quietly gracious in victory and forgo the endzone dance.
On another field of play, think Derek Jeter.
- Krumhorn
Well said.
"madisonfella said...
Anyone care to guess the last time Scott and his son were actually in the same room together?"
Please tell us Penguin.
If your posts are getting deleted and you don't understand why, do not re-post. Email if you don't understand what the problem is.
Do not discuss deletions in the comments.
And Ann just drives on by, a straight white woman telling gay men what's best for them, ignoring the responses, and even "doing them a favor" by agitating the hell out of people who would otherwise be more inclined to leave me alone.
Thanks, "professor"! You so mature!
Now she blowed my mind agin. It ain't pure majority-wins democracy we have here in America? Dam! What in the Hell am I voting for?
I think I'ma havin one of them heart-palpitations.
It's the in-your-face part of the program where the rest off us can't be permitted to merely just tolerate it; we must also celebrate and normalize it.
Next time, just throw the invite away. No one is looking around the reception hall saying, "I sure wish Krumhorn was here to celebrate with."
If you really don't care, then don't care. It's really not so hard.
If you find you are getting continually deleted, that means you are an unwelcome commenter who will always be deleted. Go find something better to do with your time. The response here will never change.
If you respond to a commenter who is ALWAYS deleted, then I have to delete your comment too, so try to notice and don't take it personally if I take yours out too.
Krumhorn said it best. I'd copy and paste it, but it's already been done.
Hold on.....did the fat lady sing??
"ADDED: This post is just another post in my year-plus effort to convey the message to you old-not-young conservatives: It's over."
Good. Let's get on to the important issues.
I don't see the big deal in gay marriage, although I don't believe it is a constitutional right. The states where it is legal are not all crumbling apart. Thanks for being the test ground.
Now, if you religionists (to borrow a phrase) truly follow the Bible/Koran, homosexuality is clearly wrong and a sin. I don't reconcile homosexuality and religion, but I don't have to. Sorry, but there are lots of sins of the Bible that are quite legal. Get over it or just get used to it.
""Scott Walker" is one of the tags.
And rightfully so, because the reason the story got any attention at all is because the main thrust is that the son of Scott Walker, role model for conservatives everywhere, took part in a gay marriage ceremony."
So, now it is important because it's Scot Walker's son? Because earlier, it wasn't important because,"Anyone care to guess the last time Scott and his son were actually in the same room together?" Aside from the fact that you seem to be a product of school with a union contract, how do these two statements dovetail?
The only consistency I see is an unthinking need to spin it in such a way as to attack Walker depending on what your clearer thinking fellow commenters type. Even to the point of contradictory statements in the same thread.
Here's a question for you: since you've asserted before that Tea Partiers are religious bigots who hate gays and minorities, and Walker is as you say a darling of conservatives, does his son's participation in a gay wedding help Walker or hurt him with the voting public?
No one is looking around the reception hall saying, "I sure wish Krumhorn was here to celebrate with."
No..what they are saying is that Krumhorn has to let us use his reception hall, and better not utter a word critical of gay marriage.
So does this here mean, you know it bein over and all, that them homosexals will start acting like the rest of us. I for one am tired of givin all this attention.
I gotta lay down now. This is too much for one day.
If you support arbitrary laws that burden people for no reason at all, then you could oppose this kind of judicial interference.
Redefinition of marriage will further reduce the effectiveness of the institution as a foundation of social stability. The government has an interest in social stability, and in imposing reasonable burdens that promote stability.
This development is just another step into postmodern madness, where individual opinion trumps reality. It will lead only to more suffering and sadness.
So I am glad I am old.
"since you've asserted before that Tea Partiers are religious bigots who hate gays and minorities"
Link please
does his son's participation in a gay wedding help Walker or hurt him with the voting public?
This is old news. Nobody cares.
Next time, just throw the invite away. No one is looking around the reception hall saying, "I sure wish Krumhorn was here to celebrate with."
If you really don't care, then don't care. It's really not so hard.
I'm afraid that you have entirely missed the point. That is precisely the meaning of Ann's post. She looked around the hall and noticed that Krumhorn was not in attendance. The problem with the reception is that it's impossible to ignore the big floater in the punch bowl.
The old farts who have not gotten with the program are commanded to leave the trenches and yield up the sword in one of those humiliating surrender ceremonies.
-Krumhorn
ps...I don't understand why our fellow commenters cannot resist bringing our hostess' family into these discussions. It's an argumentum ad hominem that is disrespectful and without class.
Hmm... I wonder if in a few years, when gay marriage is totally destigmatized, we'll see\
"Start gay marriages" that later dissolve with parties contracting male-female marriages.
For a young professional who's starting out and rooming with a close friend, marriage could make a lot of sense in terms of ensuring someone is in charge if you get hospitalized, giving access to better benefits, tax breaks, etc.
Then, when you're ready to have kids/have a romatic relationship, you divorce spouse #1, and marry spouse #2.
Is there any reason why this would not be a good plan?
"The government has an interest in social stability, and in imposing reasonable burdens that promote stability."
But people do not want or care about stability.
I'm not sure what people want, anymore.
Professor, what do you have to say to those of us who believe in equal rights but are bothered by the use of the courts to change the definition of a word? And what argument was used to bring that about that couldn't also be applied to polygamy and polyandry?
Dick Cheney has a lesbian daughter and openly supported civil unions twenty years ago, when that was a radical thing for a Republican politician to support. How much credit did he get for any of that?
To be fair, neither the Republicans nor the Democrats were interested in calling attention to that fact. It didn't fit either party's narrative.
It would be nice if the news media covered things even when they didn't fit a major-party political narrative... but there you go.
"madisonfella said...
"since you've asserted before that Tea Partiers are religious bigots who hate gays and minorities"
Link please
"
Why would I do your work for you?
Renee- they want tax breaks, obviously.
Ann Althouse said...When the ban fell in Wisconsin, the standard applied was nothing more that the requirement that applies to ALL laws, that they have a rational relationship to a LEGITIMATE government interest. ...This was not a case of applying strict scrutiny, but simply holding this law to the same standard that is always applied to any law. This isn't a pure majority-wins democracy we have here in America.
Right, and how much extra tax money did the city wind up getting for those houses seized via eminent domain in City of New London (Kelo case)? I think the standard is that the gov. has to be able to say there is a legitimate interest (maybe with a straight [sorry!] face), not that it actually has one. That the gay marriage ban apparently failed even that test might say something, sure.
People, in the west anyway, are becoming more tolerant of different types of sexual behavior. The one exception is looking at naked pictures of Jennifer Lawrence. Society is evolving, and that will soon be looked upon as a sex crime.
@Deirdre
If we weren't messing with birth certificate as a result, there wouldn't be a concern.
But in states like Massachusetts, they were messing with birth certificates since the 80s, when paternity was assumed by a husband even if it was a sperm donor was used.
If a straight couple could lie to a child legally, why not a gay couple?
That's the basis of Goodridge.
http://www.irishcentral.com/roots/genealogy/New-Irish-legislation-rules-fathers-name-must-appear-on-childs-birth-certificate.html
“This is the first time this principle has been brought into legislation,” said minister of state at the department of social protection Kevin Humphreys. “This will underpin the rights of the child under EU legislation to have access to the details of his or her identity.”
“Put simply, that means knowing who their parents are,” Humphreys continued. “It will be a step toward ensuring full and accurate particulars are registered at the time of birth which will be of significant benefit both to the child and future generations.” He added that the other provisions of the bill...."
It's not unusual for a famous successful parent to have weak fey kids.
It's over
No it's not. Not by a long shot.
Marriage equality will not be reached until restrictions against polygamy, age and intrafamilial groupings are consigned to the dustbin of history.
As we enlightened moderns sneer at thousands of years of obvious benighted arraignments that privileged such benighted concepts as "mother" and "father", this is just the first step of many in securing a gender-free society where The State is our God/Parent/Spouse/Family.
The Junior Anti-Sex League is SOOO 1984.
I'm an old conservative and I say (in the parlance of my youth) - RIGHT ON!
Deidre,
It's a terrible plan for the man in such a group, because what is his guarantee that the woman won't demand more than the agreed upon shares? The courts will back her up. He has no legal recourse, no way to make the woman stand by the initial contract.
For the female, it's a fabulous idea... that already exists. See: starter husband.
"Krumhorn said...
ps...I don't understand why our fellow commenters cannot resist bringing our hostess' family into these discussions. It's an argumentum ad hominem that is disrespectful and without class."
She brought her son into this, and it's certainly the motivation for this and previous "in your face" posts.
NONO, Alexander-- the point is that the man marries his BUDDY as a started marriage, and only divorces and marries a girl if he wants to settle down and have kids.....
You can do that now... is it problematic?
I think we may see a shift towards the European arrangement, where church marriage and civil marriage are two totally different things.
they want tax breaks, obviously.
See, gay marriage is just another case of treating the symptom rather than the underlying problem.
So, quick question: Any concern from the "It's over crowd" that not only do a majority of the world's nations consider homosexuality a capital offense
Homosexuality is a capital offense in 10 of the 196 countries in the world.
1. They are considerably outbreeding Caucasians in general and liberals in particular.
The countries in which homosexuality is punishable by death contain 5.5% of the world's population.
2. Our national policy is to import as many of these people as possible and give them the right to vote.
In 2012, a total of 40,175 people from those counties were given permanent resident status in the US. That's less than 4% of the over 1 million people who were given permanent residency that year. Plus, of course, presumably at least some of those people left because they don't WANT to live under religious law.
The vast majority of immigrants to the United States come from China, India, Europe, and Latin America -- places where homosexuality is either legal or tolerated.
So, sorry, fantasies about future American gays being punished by hordes of dark-skinned Islamists make very little sense.
where church marriage and civil marriage are two totally different things.
What makes you believe that church marriages will be allowed if said church (temple, mosque) exclude what the government dictates is "marriage"?
No kidding Fen, she hates your guts.
nd rightfully so, because the reason the story got any attention at all is because the main thrust is that the son of Scott Walker, role model for conservatives everywhere, took part in a gay marriage ceremony
Only a Leftcultist who lives everyday by "the personal is the political" could attempt to spin some sort of hypocritical scandal here.
One can be loving and supportive of the people in one's life who are gay and still be opposed to the radical redefinition of marriage.
I am not a lawyer but I did take a class on American Government in high school. I remember that laws have to conform to the Constitution but I don't remember they need to meet a test of "legitimate government interest."
Did I miss something?
@Deidre
An amicable divorce is still a pain in a rear end.
Even if the marriage is at the clerk's office, the divorce will take time and energy.
Aha! I see what you're saying now.
Hmmm...
Course, give it a few years and we'll have the constitutional right (that turns out, was always there) to incest. Then you can marry your father and get around those pesky inheritance taxes!
No it's not. Not by a long shot
It's over in 30 states. Looking back it's amazing how quickly and how badly the anti-equality crowd lost. Fringe conservatives are the only group left that care.
There is a truism about human nature. We are, all of us, always looking out for our own best interests.
In a decade or less, we will realize that it's in our best interest to enter into marriage contracts with family, friends, acquaintances, etc.
One of the straw men arguments put forward by the opponents of traditional marriage is that this won't hurt your marriage.
And they are right. It isn't going to hurt my marriage at all.
However, it is going to hurt my children and their children. Because they will see marriage as a joke. A way to avoid the system. A way to avoid taxes, or receive extra benefits from the government, etc.
But we're not supposed to look at the logical conclusion of foolishness. Someone might say slippery slope.
Unknown said...
"No kidding Fen, she hates your guts."
Don't flatter him.
Professor, what do you have to say to those of us who believe in equal rights but are bothered by the use of the courts to change the definition of a word? And what argument was used to bring that about that couldn't also be applied to polygamy and polyandry?
"Fuck you, it's over" would be my guess.
I can see why Ann would want to support her openly gay son, her closeted gay son, her openly gay husband, and her closeted gay husband, but like TCom has mentioned this may not be the best way to do it.
"So, sorry, fantasies about future American gays being punished by hordes of dark-skinned Islamists make very little sense."
Maybe it makes little sense, but it makes a terrific movie.
Brad Pitt stars as a gay border control officer. Kate Beckinsale stars as the woman who loves him. Don Cheadle plays the leader of an Islamist horde crossing the Rio Grande to breed heterosexual supermen who will overpower our weakened, gay populace.
@eric
At what point did it become a joke?
I don't believe same-sex relationships are a joke, even though I disagree on gay marriage.
Do I dare say marriage became a joke, when sex was divorced from being procreative in nature?
Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?
Germans?
Sarcasm works better when you get your facts correct.
No..what they are saying is that Krumhorn has to let us use his reception hall, and better not utter a word critical of gay marriage.
[Althouse] looked around the hall and noticed that Krumhorn was not in attendance....The old farts who have not gotten with the program are commanded to leave the trenches and yield up the sword in one of those humiliating surrender ceremonies.
Dudes! You're commenting in the comments section of someone else's blog!
I do get a kick out of the character named Krumhorn who is mandated by the courts to say hurrah at every wedding, and sure enough, here he is, Krumhorn, in Krampus clothing, all annoyed at having to pretend to be happy for no good reason.
I suppose the complaint is allegorical; the great vessel of the law is being forced to take on extra passengers, the Mayflower overrun by hoards of coupled-up Vikings, but this is a huge abstraction in relation to the complaint that "I can't live my life without gay people crashing my parties."
It's over.
Probably not, but homosexual marriage has to be the most completely trivial issue of the day.
Why would I do your work for you?
My work? You were the one who made the baseless claim.
But I went ahead and did the "work" for you anyways
http://bit.ly/1v8arD3
and as usual, you're just making crap up.
Joe. Here: Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?
Sarcasm works better when you get your facts correct.
Classic movie lines work better when everyone has seen the classic movie.
http://youtu.be/V8lT1o0sDwI
and yes, it IS a classic
"At what point did it become a joke?
I don't believe same-sex relationships are a joke, even though I disagree on gay marriage.
Do I dare say marriage became a joke, when sex was divorced from being procreative in nature?
"
I don't know. Perhaps it was a long series of tiny cuts that killed it. Ending traditional marriage and allowing an abomination called gay marriage is just a symptom of a problem we've had for some time now. The Hollywood celebrities, the movie directors and producers, the lawyers and the progressives all did their best to destroy marriage through no fault divorce and whatever other laws they could drum up to undermine traditional marriage.
This isn't the end, as Althouse claims though. It's just another lose in a long series of loses for traditional marriage.
It's the second law of thermodynamics applied to society. Eventually, it'll break down. Marriage is a great place to work on that breaking down. Anyone with an ounce of wisdom can see it coming.
But to continue the metaphor, out of the big bang will come a new creation. Unfortunately for the progressives of the world, this new creation will start to the far right and it'll take a few generations, again, to move it back to the far left, where it'll be destroyed, again.
Rinse, wash, repeat, until Kingdom Come.
What makes you believe that church marriages will be allowed if said church (temple, mosque) exclude what the government dictates is "marriage"?
Because churches have been allowed to exclude what the government dictates is "marriage" since the country was founded.
For example, the government recognizes second marriages by divorced Catholics. The Catholic church doesn't.
"since the country was founded."
Yeah, that'll sell it.
eric:
Don't forget the political or ideological entanglement principle. The far right, or anarchy, is coupled and, in fact, serves the interests of the far left.
If it was trivial, then why did half of my Facebook friends change their profile to the equal sign last June.
it seemed very important.
I was expecting more social media buzz, but didn't see it at all.
It will be over when you've beheaded all those who think it's not over.
ADDED: This post is just another post in my year-plus effort to convey the message to you old-not-young conservatives: It's over.
Is Althouse referring to democracy?
It's not "over," Professor, because it has never been just about gay marriage.
I haven't read the opinions. Did the C/As order God to sanctify and bless these comical "marriages," or will the Gayists need SCOTUS for that?
Dudes! You're commenting in the comments section of someone else's blog!
I do get a kick out of the character named Krumhorn who is mandated by the courts to say hurrah at every wedding, and sure enough, here he is, Krumhorn, in Krampus clothing, all annoyed at having to pretend to be happy for no good reason.
I suppose the complaint is allegorical; the great vessel of the law is being forced to take on extra passengers, the Mayflower overrun by hoards of coupled-up Vikings, but this is a huge abstraction in relation to the complaint that "I can't live my life without gay people crashing my parties."
I guess that it's only to be expected that you are belligerently determined to miss the point.
Our hostess has made clear that resistance is futile. We will be assimilated...and like it.
It's over!
While she may be correct, I don't have to attend the reception and be all à votre santé about it.
You lefties can't seem to grasp the notion that folks actually have the temerity to disagree with you. It's my view that two guys plugging away at each other are performing an exceptionally unnatural act, and it shouldn't be dignified by calling it luv and marriage. That said, the Mayflower can tolerate providing passage to the sodomites so long as they don't shove it into my face and equating it to boy-girl stuff in a marriage.
- Krumhorn
No, its NEVER over for us wedding curmudgeons. I'll know its over when weddings in general cease to garner any attention in the press. What has any couple getting married really accomplished besides event planning, self absorption, and displaying how much money they can spend?
Weddings should be low key, boring affairs. If I ran the world, the anniversary party would the thing. Have a big blow out, invite your friends and family, to celebrate the fact you've STAYED TOGETHER, and BUILT something.
GETTING married is no big deal. STAYING married is.
"I am more of a fan of civil unions then marriage, precisely because I think it is damned arrogant to redefine a 2000+ year old word. "
2000 year old word? Modern English itself hasn't been around even a quarter of that time. But fine. You go first — now give us back the word "gay".
"Listen, Althouse, just because you have a gay son doesn't mean you get to speak up for all gay people, as if it makes you the mother of all gay sons."
LOL. What a concept. Of course, I'm committed to the opposite.
Gay guys have the same right to marry a woman as straight guys.
That's what a marriage is. m/f
They can fail, too, for reasons well established for m/f.
Civil union is what they want, not marriage. Then you can have same sex.
There was a doonesbury cartoon in the 70s, too controversial for some newspapers to print, where a romance not going anywhere is explained by the guy telling the girl he's "gay." It took her a couple of frames to understand it as other than happy.
"What meltdown?"
The one where she attacked her commenters and then closed comments for several months.
Then Meade went over and trolled the site the *loyalists* had gathered on. Never understood that.
I assume it's marriage and its translations that are 2000 years old, or whatever the age of the institution is.
It didn't include same sex.
Marriage did include polygamy. That's m/f too so can be a marriage, whether legal or illegal as the case may be.
Instead of using "marriage," I suggest calling same sex "the African American plan."
I think they went back to "black" so the other term is now available.
Then you get in on the civil rights thing.
I think the meltdown was over stooge splooge not same sex but I may have forgotten the semantics.
Meade: '2000 year old word? Modern English itself hasn't been around even a quarter of that time. But fine. You go first — now give us back the word "gay"'
And, of course no word for the union of a man and woman, under God, ever existed before "Modern English," did it? Never mind that "man, woman, children" has been accepted as the Judeo/Christian exemplar of traditional marriage for three milennia.
The Gayists and the federal courts are now shoving their values down our throats while pretending that we have been doing the same for 3000 years and that "equal protection" purports to protect gay marriage (but not polygamy, incestuous marriage, etc.).
We shall see what the pompous hypocrites on the Circuits come up with when they hit the slippery slopes.
When the ban fell in Wisconsin, the standard applied was nothing more that the requirement that applies to ALL laws, that they have a rational relationship to a LEGITIMATE government interest.
The government came up empty. If you support arbitrary laws that burden people for no reason at all, then you could oppose this kind of judicial interference.
Professor, I'm not familiar with the case out of Wisconsin. I am more than passingly familiar with the case that overturned Prop. 8 in California. There, the trial court refused to accept as experts the defense's social scientists, economists, and others who had prepared reports on the mal-effects of SSM on society. Having prevented the defense from entering anything into evidence, the court had no difficulty in concluding that there was no reason other than bigotry for denying same sex couples the ability to marry. The appellate court also found no evidence in the record that would support a legitimate government interest in preventing SSM. Funny how that works, right? Deny someone the ability to introduce evidence and then fault them for a lack of evidence.
Usually, I'm a big supporter of the trial judge's role as gate-keeper to prevent junk science from being presented in a court room. Here, however, I think the trial court was wrong for at least two reasons: First, these were well respected professionals who have done significant research into the affects of SSM on society. (One of their findings, based on a study of European countries that had legalized SSM, was a statistically significant reduction in the rate of marriage and a delay in the average age of marriage.) The evidence that they would have offered does not fall into the category of junk science. You may not accept their conclusions (I question many of their conclusions), but this is not the type of work that generally is or should be excluded from the court room.
Second, even if the work did fall into the category of junk science, it still should have been accepted by the court. Because the question before the court was NOT are the fears of social conservatives about SSM correct, the question was whether it was "reasonable" for the people (those voting for Prop. 8) to believe that SSM would harm society. Such a belief need not be accurate for the law to be upheld. Instead, the belief merely needs to be based on something other than bigotry for the law to be sustained.
Studies have shown a correlation between the legalization of SSM and both a reduction in the rate of marriage and an increase in the average age when couples marry. We all understand that correlation is not the same thing as causation. So, these studies do not prove that legalizing SSM will have these effects. However, the question the court should have answered is, is it reasonable to believe that SSM might have these effects? If such a belief were reasonable, then the law might be a bad law, but it should have been held a valid law.
Of course, the court rejected any evidence about the possible effects of SSM on society as unreliable, so it didn't have any evidence to consider in judging whether or not Prop. 8 represented a reasonable response to the legitimate governmental interest of protecting the institution of marriage.
Alexander @ 12:28 PM,
Indeed. I'd transcribe some of the things about homosexuality that my Kenyan and Ugandan friend have said, except they would get me banned for sure.
Joe @ 3:22 PM:
Nice to encounter someone who's even more out of touch with popular culture than I am!
See:
http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=was+it+over+when+the+germans+bombed+pearl+harbor.
For some reason conservatives always picture two dudes having sex when the topic of same sex marriage comes. Like women don't exist.
"Opposition to gay marriage is cultural, not rational. As the culture disappears, the reason to oppose it disappears."
FIFY
"How unbelievably arrogant. You want some harsh truth, Althouse? Many gay men pretty much cannot stand women, and a lot of it is precisely this holier than thou, I know better than you, elitist "I'm more compassionate than you" rhetoric."
I know gay men who think the marriage thing is bullshit. Civil Unions would have accomplished the purpose and avoided the nastiness that has ensued.
garage,
I don't think lesbians are having all that much sex. Maybe you ought to try changing porn channels.
"It's over."
Yes, the Long March through our institutions is nearly complete. Just a few more election cycles and they can disarm us.
Yes, you have freely given away your morality, and you don't even recognize the loss. You feel better off. It's all working out as planned.
Well done, Sister Suffragette!
US Supreme Court blocks Wisconsin Voter ID Law!
This post is just another post in my year-plus effort to convey the message to you old-not-young conservatives: It's over.
Then you must not really believe it's over. Nobody goes to a year-plus effort to convince Internet strangers of a truth that she genuinely believes is obvious and inevitable.
If some segment of the great public were to express a belief that the Sun rises in the West or water can be made to flow uphill, would you expend any effort at all to convince them otherwise? Nope. You'd just laugh and watch for their inevitable discovery of the truth.
Apparently this is not how you feel. Which is curious: from where comes your interior anxiety that it's not over, not unless certain people can be convinced to down tools and give up? Why so worried?
Moderation is turned off.
Modern English was formed in 1979.
"Opposition to gay marriage is cultural, not rational. As the culture disappears, the reason to oppose it disappears." FIFY
A person would have to be pretty damned ignorant to think a country's culture can "disappear".
The word you're grasping for is "change", doofus, and it isn't anything new. If you want to live in a country where the culture never changes, how about you eff off to Saudi Arabia? They still hate gay people there, too, so double bonus.
Unknown @ 8:48pm,
Does your exclamation point betray a little excitement?
Me... I feel another bit of consent-of-the-governed ebbing away, and shudder.
I am a true independent; not like the rest of you hacks.
I am voting for the pube for governor in Mass. Granted he would be considered a lib in most parts of the country. I mean, hello, he has ads with his gay bro loving the gay.
I would vote for Walker too. I work in an executive HR position, who would never work in a union environment, don't care for Wisconsin's big government vagina inspection though, but I don't have one.
Walker is the future of the GOP. So is Charlie Baker, from Mass.
The christianist republicans have no chance, whatsoever, of winning a general election. Primary def-nationally not def. None of them will win any more states than Romney-sorry that is the truth.
You have lost on fag marriage old fucks. Pursue other fights.
The young, and the future, including young pubes, don't hate the gays. Now swallow it beyotches.
2008 was totally cool hating gays, but that fucking ship has sailed. All these repubicans that have children in their 20's know it. Cruz has small children so they don't have a clue yet. But pubes like Walker and Portman (who immediately supported fag marriage as soon as his fag son came out) see the writing on the wall.
I am interested in the last state standing on fags getting married? Any bets? I see a Mississippi/Alabama/Texas governor going all Wallace and standing or....in his wheel chair at the door of the courthouse,forbiding gays from marrying. Great pics for the history books though.
Lastly, I was in DC all week with KOL's developing a five year strategy plan and it was exhausting. We had to do all this Six Sigma Lean shit. I am required to get a Black Belt-that was my "take away" after the meeting.
Washington DC is a city I dislike very much. It isn't nearly as southern as it used to be but is still smells somewhat south. I won't go any further south than DC. Because if I going any farther south than DC I turn into a pumpkin and wilt.
The DC/Bos United shuttle is very hot. The Bos/Was corridor does really run what happens in the country though. Suck it flyover things.
tits and keep reaching for the starts.
"The word you're grasping for is "change", doofus, and it isn't anything new. If you want to live in a country where the culture never changes, how about you eff off to Saudi Arabia? They still hate gay people there, too, so double bonus."
I didn't say "never changes." I said "disappears" and you have no idea. Doofus. The traditional culture will be gone but I won't have to live with that. If you are younger than I am, and I strongly detect naiveté, you will.
I don't "hate gay people." Some gay men I know agree that marriage was a fad and civil unions would have done what was needed. It was idiots like you (I suspect) who had to rub the dominant culture's nose in gay life. Now, like in the case of abortion which I also support, you have alienated a large number of people who would have been tolerant but are now angry at the need to punish those who don't agree.
I don't believe anal intercourse causes stupidity but I do wonder sometimes.
… the trial court refused to accept as experts the defense's social scientists, economists, and others who had prepared reports on the mal-effects of SSM on society … The evidence that they would have offered does not fall into the category of junk science.
About those "mal-effects": I assume they are culled by the "experts" from contemporary social science research. The problem with the research is that it cannot be trusted. Most social science research is tainted with the bias of the researchers. An interesting essay on the problem can be found at the URL below:
http://tinyurl.com/yk85sxj
Here's an excerpt from the summary:
Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias.
Social science research has been mainly biased bullshit since the sixties. I stopped giving it any credence years ago. Right-biased or liberal-slanted – it's all just crap, all just "junk science."
Studies have shown a correlation between the legalization of SSM and both a reduction in the rate of marriage and an increase in the average age when couples marry. We all understand that correlation is not the same thing as causation.
If the commentor understands that "correlation is not the same thing as causation," why does he/she cite these bogus relationships at all? It seems the commentor is bolstering his/her argument with something she/he admits is worthless. Here's a fun article on correlation and it's obvious pitfalls. It has a kind of game in which the reader can create their own irrelevant correlations:
http://www.tylervigen.com
Titus: "I would vote for Walker too. I work in an executive HR position, who would never work in a union environment, don't care for Wisconsin's big government vagina inspection though, but I don't have one."
Don't sell yourself short Titus.
You're a terrific vagina.
Titus: "2008 was totally cool hating gays, but that fucking ship has sailed."
Gee, I'm just being 2012 obama.
Is that wrong?
If you disagree with me, does that make you a racist?
How far back am I allowed to go in adopting obama's positions to avoid being called a H8ter/bigot?
LOL
"For some reason conservatives always picture two dudes having sex when the topic of same sex marriage comes. Like women don't exist."
I'm in favor of consenting gay adults having the same right to the contract of marriage as the rest of us, but if you don't understand why straight men find gay male sex repellent you've been lonely waaay too long. Ditch the Michael Moore drag and find a nice Leftist female to have a healthy relationship with. I'm pulling for you, garage. We're all in this together.
There's something really irritating about "LOL"
Phil 3:14 said...
There's something really irritating about "LOL"
"Well, gee Phil....."
I can't remember which movie that was from.
I, too, have been for gay equal rights since forever - you can't seriously be in the Civil Rights Movement and not be - but still think the battle was fought unethically and (still) feel a little shame about that:
The narcissism, inherent in the (white supremacist and post-Mettichine) gay and feminist segment of our movement, has dinged our credibility when it didn't have to, though - considering who we're talking about - I'll concede:
That was probably an unavoidable risk.
Now, if only they'd get their heads out of their own asses and give blacks the momentum we need to finish what the movement was always started for,....
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा