« The Party Of Fiscal Conservatism | Main | Pork And Domestic Violence »

September 22, 2005

Comments

In forwhats?

lousy spellchecker...it doesn't do the titles.

....intimacy is not a requirement for a marriage to be considered "valid" in this country.

Lack of intimacy, so to speak, is, of course, a commonly-accepted grounds for divorce. You might rethink this.

As always, best of luck arguing that non-formalized state recognition of your preferred lifestyle constitutes "second-class citizenship." You look like an equal participant in this polity to me.

Speaking of dumb, he's not talking about "lifestyle" but "marriage"....ie. formalized state recognition which grants, you know, not simply purity in the eyes of God, but godless legal benefits and status.

Lack of intimacy, so to speak, is, of course, a commonly-accepted grounds for divorce

Nice own goal.

I am reminded that the line between cryptic and incoherent is a thin one.

I'm looking for the person 2shoes is arguing with, and he doesn't seem to be around. Curious.

COme now, Tacitus. Let's not make this about me again.

You beat me to it on that count, kid.

"Hate....HATE...."

Shorter Tacitus: I have no actual argument, maybe chanting will help.

You look like an equal participant in this polity to me.

Indeed. Then why deny him an equal chance to share in its protections?

"HATE...."

Well, DP, he's not denied that at all. He's as free to marry as I am. That this hurts his feelings -- he wants to be free in a different way -- is not something that strikes me as a grounds for policy, to say nothing of a wholesale redefinition of the basic social unit.

Who are you quoting there Tacitus?

Hey, let's amend things so that people can only marry people of the gender they're not attracted to. Then we'll see if Tacitus enjoys the law's great concern for equality.

Thank g*d the country is outgrowing this bigotry as it outgrew the anti-miscegenation laws.

There's no need to read Tacitus' response past "your preferred lifestyle". If he believes that Edward chooses to act differently from the "norm" (read: those who have been granted the rights in question), then he will never feel that Edward has rights in this context. Debate will be fruitless.

Nice point, Opus, but may I suggest a shorter, more comprehensive version?

There's no need to read Tacitus' response.

This reminds me of Henry Ford's "you can buy the Model T in any colour you wanted as long as it is black".

Or the "free speech" under oppressive governements: "you can say anything youlike provided it's not critical of the president".

"That this hurts his feelings -- he wants to be free in a different way -- is not something that strikes me as a grounds for policy..."

The pursuit of happiness is inalienable, some say. I would not expect a Tory to agree.

I am also reminded of something that I feel like I read in Swift: the idea that Catholics are free to worship, but they cannot then expect to enjoy the full participation in the polity, which is based on a different social unit.

I had almost the opposite problem the other day. My (just) seven year old wanted to know why in some countries homosexuals couldn't marry, it seemed rather dumb to him. I didn't get any further than explaining that some people felt that their god didn't approve - to which he replied that those people didn't have to marry anyone they didn't want to. I said that some people felt that a man and a women belonged more together than a man and a man, or a women and a women. To which he replied that he thought that marriage was about love, and people were all different so they should decide whom they loved for themselves.

Though he understands that only a woman and a man can create children (I answer all his questions and when he was 5 he wanted to know all the logistics of sperm/egg transfer in great detail) he associates marriage more with love than with procreation. We have fertility challenged friends, unmarried couples with children, divorced couples with children, families with adopted children, homosexual couples with "own-birth" children - and his great grandmother married when she was 74.

Tacitus: He's as free to marry as I am.

Well, now we know Tacitus lives in Canada.

Thanks for this post, Edward. I had noticed that opponents of same-sex marriage consistently decry love in marriage as unimportant and irrelevant (and let's not even get into the inconsistency of their claims that procreation in marriage is all-important).

Ampersand at Alas a Blog makes the point, too, that many opponents of same-sex marriage "are opposed to the very concept of 'homophobia'; peel their rationalizations away, and it's clear that their real agenda is to erase the concept of 'prejudice against homosexuals' from the language". In the comments, QrazyQat explicates: "So they’re essentially wanting to make the concept “prejudice against homosexuals” an integral part of being? Just redefine it as “normal” so that under the definition of “normal” the entry includes “prejudice against homosexuals”?"

I had noticed that opponents of same-sex marriage consistently decry love in marriage as unimportant and irrelevant (and let's not even get into the inconsistency of their claims that procreation in marriage is all-important).

Jes, I don't think that these groups are the same set. I think some believe the first and some believe the second, but their fear at homosexuality binds them together. Opposition to homosexuality makes strange bedfellows...

I'm sure there's a third group will make whatever argument seems to stick, but strictly speaking this is not hypocrisy. The fact is that all three groups would jump on this type of subject with such alacrity strongly suggests that it is not that they are interested in discussing policy but that they have an existential fear of homosexuality. Some will slip and say that all social order will collapse if homosexuality is recognized as an acceptable lifestyle, but most realize that such a stance is really pulling away the mask.

As such, what is happening is not 'redefining'. I believe they have no question in their minds that what they think is what defines normality (there is probably a strong linkage here between this and a complete and total rejection of relativism in any form) be it advocating white marriages, or elevating procreation to be the only sufficient and necessary reason for getting married. Those who want homosexuals to avail themselves of the institution of marriage blanc desire it so as homosexuals will be out of sight and therefore out of mind. And if it surfaces that someone actually entered into such a contract, they can be attacked for being hypocrites. Sort of a heads we win, tails we lose. I think calling it an agenda gives it too much credit, like saying that a 6 year old who doesn't like green beans and takes every step to avoid them has an agenda. It is reactive subrational thinking that is then dressed up with whatever rationale is handy.

"As always, best of luck arguing that non-formalized state recognition of your preferred lifestyle constitutes "second-class citizenship." You look like an equal participant in this polity to me."

How exactly do you define a lifestyle choice here? It seems a vauge a derogatory phrase for an intimate relationship. Is heteorsexual marriage also simply a lifesytle choice? Why should the state support and give privlidges to one such lifesytle choice and not another? If the reason is moral, please state your moral objection in a manner accessable to those who do not share a specific set of sectarian beliefs which rely on the acceptance of a revelation not directly accessable to the human gifts of reason.

lj: I don't think that these groups are the same set.

Not identical, possibly, but certainly with a very large overlap between the sets.

What Opus said. Except in bold type. Tacitus does not, apparently, believe that Edward was born gay but rather that he chooses it, or at best that he chooses to indulge the sinful (or whatever the Catholic buzzword is. Misaligned?) nature he was born with; ergo, tough luck for Edward.

Nice own goal.

glad someone else noticed that.

My response to the "you can still marry the opposite sex" line has long been, "that same argument applies to interracial marriage." People who want to marry another race aren't being denied marriage rights because they can still marry their own race just like everyone else. I've never heard anyone explain why the argument doesn't apply to race but does apply to sexuality.

I've never heard anyone explain why the argument doesn't apply to race but does apply to sexuality.

Because being openly racist is far less socially acceptable these days than being openly homophobic.

I'm still mystified by Josh's comment above. He said, "[Edward_] is as free to marry as I am." But in his own initial post on the thread he had established that Edward_ is not free to marry, since attributes of a valid marriage include intimacy -- Edward_ cannot have a valid marriage with a woman, only with a man, which he is not allowed to do, so he is not "free to marry". Does Josh just mean Edward_ is free to establish an invalid marriage? That seems like a pretty weak point to me.

Edward: I really, really want to dance at your wedding.

Thanks Hilzoy, consider yourself invited in advance!

Does Josh just mean Edward_ is free to establish an invalid marriage? That seems like a pretty weak point to me.

One must conclude that's exactly what he means. It's sad really. I understand that there are issues larger than romance at stake here, but to be forced to downplay the role of intimacy as part of a marriage in order to have your argument not fall apart strikes me as tragic. Unless Josh is arguing that gays married to someone of the opposite sex are supposed to be intimate despite themselves, in which case, with all due respect, he's hopelessly uninformed.

It's not only sad, but it undercuts the notion that marriage is sacred (a notion I agree with). The argument that I'm free to marry a woman makes a mockery of the vows most customarily voiced in the weddings I attend (most of which have some variation on "to love and to cherish"). Anything that begins that fraudlently (or is supported by some as better than allowing two people of the same gender to marrry) cannot possibly be seen as "sacred" by any measure we normally assoicate with that word.

So they’re essentially wanting to make the concept “prejudice against homosexuals” an integral part of being? Just redefine it as “normal” so that under the definition of “normal” the entry includes “prejudice against homosexuals”?"

Things like this make he hope heaven exists. I want to be assigned to assist St. Peter and watch the faces of those who he tells they must take the down elevator because of anti-human nonsense like this. I know they'll be shocked. The question is how far must they be from their own humanity to get to that point though?

Hmmm...I just realized that wanting this revenge will probably ensure my own ride down as well...tricky all that, eh?

Edward: I want to be assigned to assist St. Peter and watch the faces of those who he tells they must take the down elevator because of anti-human nonsense like this.

No need to get that vindictive, Edward. Me, I want to see their faces when they get let into Heaven (because God's charity is infinite) and see John the Beloved Disciple and Jesus still together after two thousand years. :-)

But, no kidding: I think that for those who hate so much they want to believe God hates where they hate, to find that God sees their hatred as deserving of forgiveness, but love as deserving of celebration, would make, for them, a hell of heaven.

No need to get that vindictive, Edward.

I know. It's just how stubborn they are in thinking God would approve of their bias. Nothing Christ said while he walked the earth supports that assumption, and yet it remains. I have to believe that's Satan's influence.

Me, I want to see their faces when they get let into Heaven (because God's charity is infinite) and see John the Beloved Disciple and Jesus still together after two thousand years. :-)

That's delightful!

I hope in 50 years or so "marriage" is exclusively a sacrament and "civil unions" are what everybody, straight gay or undeclared, registers for with the State.

If you announced, on a blank slate, that the government was getting into the marriage business, would it clear the Establishment Clause?

Anderson: I hope in 50 years or so "marriage" is exclusively a sacrament and "civil unions" are what everybody, straight gay or undeclared, registers for with the State.

This is a fantasy, of course: abolishing marriage throughout the US and replacing every reference to marriage in every piece of legislation with "civil union" would be altogether too much work. It is infinitely simpler to declare that marriage, as a secular government-supported contract, is from now on open to same-sex couples as mixed-sex couples - and short of a really popular will to abolish marriage, that's what will happen.

Of course, if (living in the fantasy world for a minute) it ever did happen, that would provide any country that wanted to administer a snub to the US a perfect opportunity, as it would be up to nations round the world to decide if they would allow American "civil unions" to be equivalent to marriage.

It'll never happen, and for the life of me, I can't see why anyone would want it to. Religions with stricter rules on marriage than the state deal quite well with the fact that a couple who are not permitted access to a religious marriage (for example, a divorced Catholic) can make a secular marriage without benefit of the religion.

If you announced, on a blank slate, that the government was getting into the marriage business, would it clear the Establishment Clause?

Why wouldn't it? Surely you don't imagine that marriage is, or ever has been, the exclusively the province of religion?

I hope in 50 years or so "marriage" is exclusively a sacrament and "civil unions" are what everybody, straight gay or undeclared, registers for with the State.

I personally hope that it happens far sooner than that...

If you announced, on a blank slate, that the government was getting into the marriage business, would it clear the Establishment Clause?

Probably not, and rightfully so. That's what makes this whole debate so odd in the first place.

On the issue: The current benefits associated with marriage between a man and a woman that the State provides for (eg. tax breaks), appear to be an expression of a bias that the State has towards child producing future citizens. Therefore the assumption that more citizens are better for the State seems critical.

Isn't the question whether or not such a bias is legal/reasonable?

Isn't the question whether or not such a bias is legal/reasonable?

I'm not sure the bias is exactly the more citizens, the mo' better. More of a acknowledgement that many people do deeply enjoy starting a family and having children, and will do so irrespective of its possible benefits or detriments to the state, and the government may as well just cut them a break and garner more popularity for themselves at the polls.

Edward: I really, really want to dance at your wedding.

Edward: I wish to move in a spasmodic way that, looked at in the correct light and with the proper amount of alcohol, might be mistaken for moves from the fabled White Boy School of Dancing, at your wedding.

Anarch,

It's a wish. Reality doesn't need to enter into it.

What Anarch said, only more so. Actually, I wish for something more resembling dance, but what would most likely result is something even worse than what Anarch describes. Here, once again, my descriptive abilities are insufficient to the task.

Wow, the whole ObWi crew at Ed's wedding, poppin' and lockin'.

BSR stands for Big Shirtless Ron, trust me you don't want to se me dance, I got manboobs bigger than your head.

I don't dance. And I doubt I could afford the air fare. But on the day Edward gets married to his love, I'll be raising a glass and wishing them both long life and much happiness.

...and okay, thinking about the rest of the ObWing crew shaking their booties, and grinning.

Wow, the whole ObWi crew at Ed's wedding, poppin' and lockin'.

Sounds joyous...shirtless or otherwise, everyone dances!

Of course, my partner has threatened to claim he doesn't know me should I ever dance in public the way I do to his music at home, but really, how else does one dance to contemporary Turkish music??? and don't even get me started on the Russian Pop songs...not for the suqeamish. ;-)

Edward: I want to dance with hilzoy at your wedding...

Jes: " I think that for those who hate so much they want to believe God hates where they hate, to find that God sees their hatred as deserving of forgiveness, but love as deserving of celebration, would make, for them, a hell of heaven."

Beautifully put. Bears repeating.

Hell is other disembodied ectoplasms.

Check out this from Steve Clemons. Money quotes:

"I visited the Vatican in early August and met a person who is deeply "embedded" in the world of those who run Vatican City and who govern the global machinery of the Catholic Church.

According to this person's estimation, he guesses that a "conservative estimate" of those cardinals and senior church officials who are gay is about 50%. Practicing, as opposed to just flirtatious, homosexuals at the highest levels of the church are probably about 30%. (...)

I am generally opposed to "outing" those who are homosexual unless they are engaged in political activity that helps to repress others in society who are also gay.

I really do think that it is time to OUT specific cardinals and other senior church officials who contribute to this policy."

i too wish you all the best at your hypothetical wedding (though we californians are trying to make the hypothetical real) and my wife still holds out some hope for me to learn how not to embarrass myself on the dance floor.

this comment, though -- "best of luck arguing that non-formalized state recognition of your preferred lifestyle constitutes "second-class citizenship." You look like an equal participant in this polity to me." -- needs rebuttal.

actually, it doesn't; it's so obviously wrong that it's self-refuting. it's the classic argument of the majority refusing to recognize the rights of a minority. in tacitus's world, there's no need for a Fifth Amendment, because minority positions must always cede to the will of the majority.

Tacitus, why do you write "hate ... hate"? Do you believe you are hated here? Personally, I don't know you well enough to hate you.

So, are you engaging in that classic rhetorical trick known as poisoning the well? So you can argue that any comment about your style of debate just reflects the hatred of the author?

Your complaints of victimization (as reflected here and below) is another classic method of poisoning the well, for there is no effective response that you cannot then use to claim that your point has been proved.

feh. I honestly miss your banning; your debate style is contemptible.

"your debate style is contemptible."

Someone needs to chime in with something like, "Your crane style is no match for my poisonous mushroom style" - I don't watch enough kung fu movies.

'preferred lifestyle' so Josh thinks that attraction is a choice.

I'd like to congratulate him on his courage in coming out. It can't be easy being bi in conservative circles.

"and don't even get me started on the Russian Pop songs...not for the suqeamish. ;-)"

Well, if you're looking for music not for the squeamish, I'll lend you my CD of Dutch country music for your wedding. "En mein Truck ben ik glucklich..."*

*This line is based on my memory of the first line of a song. I take no responsibility for the accuracy of the Dutch.

"En mein Truck ben ik glucklich..."

Huh, I bet that's based on one of R.M. Rilke's obscurer poems, Lastwagengewichthebunggebaerde.

The crucial role of the dinggedicht in the development of American popular music is frequently overlooked.

I'll lend you my CD of Dutch country music for your wedding. "En mein Truck ben ik glucklich..."

Funny, my truck's been a bit glucklich lately, too.

"The crucial role of the dinggedicht in the development of American popular music is frequently overlooked."

Speaking only for myself: guilty guilty guilty... perhaps that's why my band never made it big. In the development of our songs, we just completly (and cavalierly) overlooked the dinggedicht.

*This line is based on my memory of the first line of a song. I take no responsibility for the accuracy of the Dutch.

Which is a good thing; you 'germanized' it a bit :) :)

I only know Ilse de Lange as a serious Dutch country singer, but I am not a great lover of the genre.

Like Jesurgislac I will raise my glass on the wedding, and think about the ObWi Dance Gang - and maybe about webcams ;)

I'm reminded of a line from the Tao: nothing comes so natural as contempt to the comtemptible.

I think it'd make a good line in a Dutch country song. (When I get home, I'll get it rendered into Saarlandish, which is, like Elsassisch, Luxemburgisch and, I suppose, Dutch, a descendant of old Lothringisch).

A bit OT but apropos:

School Expels Girl for Having Gay Parents
By Associated Press

Fri Sep 23, 4:05 AM
ONTARIO, Calif. - A 14-year-old student was expelled from a Christian school because her parents are lesbians, the school's superintendent said in a letter.

Shay Clark was expelled from Ontario Christian School on Thursday.

"Your family does not meet the policies of admission," Superintendent Leonard Stob wrote to Tina Clark, the girl's biological mother.

Stob wrote that school policy requires that at least one parent may not engage in practices "immoral or inconsistent with a positive Christian life style, such as cohabitating without marriage or in a homosexual relationship," The Los Angeles Times reported in Friday's edition.

Stob could not be reached for comment by the newspaper. Shay and her parents said they won't fight the ruling.

School administrators learned of the parents' relationship this week after Shay was reprimanded for talking to the crowd during a football game, Tina Clark said.

Clark and her partner have been together 22 years and have two other daughters, ages 9 and 19.

___________________________________________________>

Gotta love those good Christians.

Sigh.

As I write, I'm tapping my foot to the 'Kyrgyz Wisdom Song,' safer than my dancing at any wedding. Singer is Akil Sekebaev. Can't tell what the wisdom is, but it sounds pretty good.

CharleyCarp...where on earth did you come by that?

we just completly (and cavalierly) overlooked the dinggedicht.

Too bad--but with enough dialectical sprechstimme, you know, no one will ever notice the missing dinggedicht.

"In the development of our songs, we just completly (and cavalierly)"

Note that the Cavalier poets (Suckling, Carew, Lovelace et al.) wrote very settable lyrics.

Double CD from the Silk Road themed folklife festival a few years back. You can get it from the Smithsonian, I'm sure.

xanax: I could make a case for the dinggedichtiness of a few of your songs, actually. At least, I'd be willing to try, just for the fun of using the word 'dinggedichtiness'.

I think that's "Dinggedictity", actually, or "Dinggedictitude".

minus an "h" or two.

dinggedichtiness, Dinggedictity, Dinggedictitude

What fabulous words!

Note to self: look into "dinggedicht" immediately.

Also, as a band, I think we did have a fair amount of "dialectical sprechstimme". It was from the Chartreusse VEP we were drinking.

hilzoy: xanax: I could make a case for the dinggedichtiness of a few of your songs, actually. At least, I'd be willing to try...

Yeah, but will you dance with me at Edward's wedding (if we can finagle invitations)?

xanax: this, as noted here, was intended as a song lyric, in case you get your band back together.

Funny and actually kinda balanced post from The Editors about the Bush-is-back-drinking rumor.

rilkefan: I read the Morro Bay lyric on your blog a while ago and really liked. In fact, I've got my guitar right here... let's see what happens...

I think that's "Dinggedictity", actually, or "Dinggedictitude".

Does that make you a dinggedictidude?

Arrgh. Now a giant closing tag is going to haunt my nightmares.

Apparently some folks think that Anatole France's observation that "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread," is merely a correct statement of fairness and cannot see any criticism of the law in this statement.

freelunch, see this comment...

Well done, rilkefan. As you can guess, I hadn't hit your link before I had posted my comment, but in my defense, it is clear to me that some comments have to be made over and over and over to get certain folks to comprehend them.

BSR: "BSR stands for Big Shirtless Ron, trust me you don't want to se me dance, I got manboobs bigger than your head.

Duct tape. The really, really heavy-duty stuff that comes in wide rolls.

Of course, removal is best accomplished with *lots* of alcohol.

(interesting word) - manboobs: wink one eye, it's an oxymoron; wink the other, a redundancy. open both eyes & it's just plain ol' disgusting.

xanax: Are you telling me that the failure of your band is due to nichtdinggedicht?

Anarch: More like "nobodydigginit."

freelunch, my bad for insisting on an accurate (I think) but unfamiliar translation - style over communication.

slightly off topic, but this is the closest thread up top that it is related

I imagine this is
pushback
against the current policies set forth by Ratzinger.

A cardinal has broken his vow of secrecy and released his diary describing the conclave that elected Pope Benedict XVI, revealing in an exceedingly rare account that a cardinal from Argentina was the main challenger and almost blocked Benedict's election.

[snip]
The diary of the anonymous cardinal is also significant because it shows that Ratzinger didn't garner a huge margin -- he had 84 of the 115 votes in the final ballot, seven more than the required two-thirds majority.

His two immediate predecessors, Pope John Paul II and Pope John Paul I, are believed to have garnered 99 and 98 votes respectively, and that was when there were only 111 voting cardinals.

"It does seem that somebody wants to indicate that the conclave was a more complex process than was being depicted and that Benedict's mandate was not a slam dunk," said David Gibson, a former Vatican Radio journalist who is writing a biography of Benedict.

This depressing point also emerged

Finally, the diary includes a few surprises, including a vote in the final ballot for Cardinal Bernard Law, forced to resign as Boston archbishop because of the church sex abuse scandal.

Since it is an open thread...
London t-shirts...

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad