|
And another take on the same issue.
Blackmore is being represented by lawyer Blair Suffredine, a former member of Premier Gordon Campbell's Liberal government, who, while stating he is personally opposed to polygamy, says that Blackmore has "a very strong case" in light of Canada's legalization of homosexual "marriage."
"If (homosexuals) can marry, what is the reason that public policy says one person can't marry more than one person?" said Suffredine in an Associated Press report....Opponents of same-sex “marriage” have long observed that once homosexuals are permitted to “marry,” there is nothing holding polygamous marriages from being legally recognized as well. “It’s like this,” explained Stanley Kurtz in a 2006 National Review article. “The way to abolish marriage, without seeming to abolish it, is to redefine the institution out of existence. If everything can be marriage, pretty soon nothing will be marriage. Legalize gay marriage, followed by multi-partner marriage, and pretty soon the whole idea of marriage will be meaningless.”
While same-sex “marriage” advocates have strongly denied that such “marriage” would lead to polygamy, it appears that the warnings of pro-family advocates may now be coming to fruition in Canada.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Because of tradition,religion or whatever else reason I no longer have the rights as every other american especilly the right of "pursuit of happiness" and I find that wrong so I try to work within the system to change it. History shows us that seperate but equal never is.
Unrelated pet peeve: there is no right to the pursuit of happiness. The pursuit of happiness is part of the preamble to the Declaration of Independence, it is not in the Constitution, and certainly is not a protected right under U.S. law.
|
|
To me this is the best part of the whole piece.
When will it occur to supporters of same-sex marriage that they do their cause no good by characterizing those who disagree with them as haters, bigots, and ignorant homophobes? It may be emotionally satisfying to despise as moral cripples the majorities who oppose gay marriage. But after going 0 for 31 - after failing to make the case for same-sex marriage even in such liberal and largely gay-friendly states as California, Wisconsin, Oregon, and now Maine - isn’t it time to stop caricaturing their opponents as the equivalent of Jim Crow-era segregationists? Wouldn’t it make more sense to concede that thoughtful voters can have reasonable concerns about gay marriage, concerns that will not be allayed by describing those voters as contemptible troglodytes?
Like my Grandma used to say, you catch more flies with honey then you do with vinager.
|
Wedded to vitriol, backers of gay marriage stumble
It's what I've been saying all along.
And I like the Barney Frank quote at the end. For all the flack that man takes, his observations tend to be very astute.
|
|
Why one author does not believe that marriage is a "civil right."
The relevent segment:
In The New York Times last Sunday, cultural critic Frank Rich, quoting a "civil rights lawyer," beatified the gay and lesbian couples lining up to receive illegal marriage licenses from San Francisco's new mayor, Gavin Newsom:
"An act as unremarkable as getting a wedding license has been transformed by the people embracing it, much as the unremarkable act of sitting at a Formica lunch counter was transformed by an act of civil disobedience at a Woolworth's in North Carolina 44 years ago this month." Nearby, the Times ran a photograph of a smiling lesbian couple in matching wedding veils -- and an even larger photograph of a 1960 lunch counter sit-in.
Rich's essay -- "The Joy of Gay Marriage" -- went on to cast the supporters of traditional marriage as hateful zealots. They are "eager to foment the bloodiest culture war possible," he charged. "They are gladly donning the roles played by Lester Maddox and George Wallace in the civil rights era."
But it is the marriage radicals like Rich and Newsom who are doing their best to inflame a culture war. And as is so often the case in wartime, truth -- in this case, historical truth -- has been an early casualty.
For contrary to what Rich seems to believe, when Ezell Blair Jr., David Richmond, Joseph McNeil, and Franklin McCain approached the lunch counter of the Elm Street Woolworth's in Greensboro, N.C., on Feb. 1, 1960, all they asked for was a bite to eat. The four North Carolina Agricultural & Technical College students only wanted what any white customer might want, and on precisely the same terms -- the same food at the same counter at the same price.
Those first four sit-in strikers, like the thousands of others who would emulate them at lunch counters across the South, weren't demanding that Woolworth's prepare or serve their food in ways it had never been prepared or served before. They weren't trying to do something that had never been lawful in any state of the union. They weren't bent on forcing a revolutionary change upon a timeless social institution.
All they were seeking was what should already have been theirs under the law of the land. The 14th Amendment had declared that blacks no less than whites were entitled to equal protection of the law. The Civil Rights Act of 1875 had barred discrimination in public accommodations.
But the Supreme Court had gutted those protections with shameful decisions in 1883 and 1896. The court's betrayal of black Americans was the reason why, more than six decades later, segregation still polluted so much of the nation. To restore the 14th Amendment to its original purpose, to re-create the Civil Rights Act, to return to black citizens the equality that had been stolen from them -- that was the great cause of civil rights.
The marriage radicals, on the other hand, seek to restore nothing. They have not been deprived of the right to marry -- only of the right to insist that a single-sex union is a "marriage." They cloak their demands in the language of civil rights because it sounds so much better than the truth: They don't want to accept or reject marriage on the same terms that it is available to everyone else. They want it on entirely new terms. They want it to be given a meaning it has never before had, and they prefer that it be done undemocratically -- by judicial fiat, for example, or by mayors flouting the law. Whatever else that may be, it isn't civil rights. But dare to speak against it, and you are no better than Bull Connor.
|
|
Wedded to vitriol, backers of gay marriage stumbleIt's what I've been saying all along.
And I like the Barney Frank quote at the end. For all the flack that man takes, his observations tend to be very astute.
Congressman Frank said something else that I really liked, but I can't find the exact quote right now. Basically he said that tolerance is not about demanding that everyone agree with you, it's about understanding why they don't.
Jesus was not a traditionalist.
|
|
The Price of Prop. 8 After reading this I have to ask, who is really being treated the way that Civil Rights activists were treated in the 1950's and 60's.
|
|
The persecution of gay marriage opponents
Clearly Joel hasn't heard about the domestic terrorism investigation the FBI openned in response to the threats made against Traditional Marriage supporters as a result of Prop 8's passage. Read the report I linked to.
Supporters of Proposition 8 in California have been subjected to harassment, intimidation, vandalism, racial scapegoating, blacklisting, loss of employment, economic hardships, angry protests, violence, at least one death threat, and gross expressions of anti-religious bigotry....Anti-Mormon malice reached a new level when someone mailed packages containing suspicious white powder to Mormon temples in California and Utah. At least one of those incidents triggered a domestic terrorism investigation by the FBI. Meanwhile, in Colorado, perpetrators placed a Book of Mormon on the steps of a Mormon church and lit it on fire. Police reportedly investigated the incident as a "bias-motivated arson" related to the church's position on Prop 8.
That doesn't souund like just getting hurt feelings to me.
|
|
The Price of Prop. 8 After reading this I have to ask, who is really being treated the way that Civil Rights activists were treated in the 1950's and 60's.
Really?
Seriously?
The stuff in that article isn't okay by any stretch, but it seems to suggest that gay marriage supporters operate some type of tyranny from a position of safety. I'm sorry, I just don't see how they can play the "victim card".
Again, I'm not condoning the things described in that article, but when gays and lesbians are still being beaten, raped, and killed, I can't take any accusations of being the "oppressor" seriously.
Yes, the threats, vandalism, and violence are completely despicable, but I'm not buying the premise of this article.
Yes, the threats, vandalism, and violence are completely despicable, but I'm not buying the premise of this article.
No one wants to believe they are the evil ones.
And those poor British redcoats, when we got tired of taxation without representation, and booted them to hell back to England? Who's thinking about how mean we were to them, and the way we hurt their feelings?
I understand the point you're trying to make, but the way I see it, we've got one group asking for something that helps them, and doesn't hurt anyone else. And then we have another group -- a group that already has that thing -- saying, "You can't get it! Nanny-nanny-boo-boo!"
|
|
Yes, the threats, vandalism, and violence are completely despicable, but I'm not buying the premise of this article.No one wants to believe they are the evil ones.
Indeed.
But if I ever met someone who told me they did those things (sending threatening letters, vandalizing property, etc), they would get a string of invectives I probably didn't even know I have in me. I have no patience for people who do stupid, thoughtless things that set back their own valid cause just because it is immediately gratifying for them.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I understand the point you're trying to make, but the way I see it, we've got one group asking for something that helps them, and doesn't hurt anyone else. And then we have another group -- a group that already has that thing -- saying, "You can't get it! Nanny-nanny-boo-boo!"
I'm not particularly sympathetic to the victim card being played by anyone, since the card tends to be based on such a thick level of bias that it's generally hard for me to take seriously (this happens a lot in elections - for some reason people only seem to notice the voting irregularities that happened in the other party), but, that said, I'm not sure the above is a fair characterization of the arguments being put forward by those who oppose gay marriage, and I imagine many would argue that they are being hurt in some manner.
|
|
Nobody said anything about about oppression or tyranny. The point is that some people think, like in the article CF posted, that the only thing faced by opponents to gay marriage is peer pressure and maybe name calling.The Price of Prop. 8 After reading this I have to ask, who is really being treated the way that Civil Rights activists were treated in the 1950's and 60's.Really?
Seriously?
The stuff in that article isn't okay by any stretch, but it seems to suggest that gay marriage supporters operate some type of tyranny from a position of safety. I'm sorry, I just don't see how they can play the "victim card".
Again, I'm not condoning the things described in that article, but when gays and lesbians are still being beaten, raped, and killed, I can't take any accusations of being the "oppressor" seriously.
Yes, the threats, vandalism, and violence are completely despicable, but I'm not buying the premise of this article.
Understand: Opponents of gay marriage — though they’ve won every election where the issue was put to a statewide referendum — really believe they’re the victims in this debate. It doesn’t make any sense, really, unless those opponents feel like they need to claim the victim status in order to hold onto some kind of moral high ground.
But what evidence does the correspondent above present in support of his case that “defenders of traditional marriage” are treated poorly? That they have to face peer pressure? Well, boo hoo. Gay marriage opponents don’t want to just win the policy battle; they’d rather not get their feelings hurt by criticism. Oh, the oppression! This is what is known in politics as “having your cake and eating it, too.”
However, many people do face risks for standing up for their beliefs. And yes gay and lesbian people are often victims of violence, but they are also the benificiaries of laws that punish such actions as hate crimes. What laws exist to protect "the haters" when they are the victims of hatred?
But if I ever met someone who told me they did those things (sending threatening letters, vandalizing property, etc), they would get a string of invectives I probably didn't even know I have in me. I have no patience for people who do stupid, thoughtless things that set back their own valid cause just because it is immediately gratifying for them.
I was not condoning the actions. Merely trying to point out that both sides feel they are the righteous ones.
And therein lies my issue with doing violence for a righteous cause. One's cause is always righteous to oneself.
What laws exist to protect "the haters" when they are the victims of hatred?
Seriously, David? How about the same protections offered to everyone for starters?
|
|
However, many people do face risks for standing up for their beliefs. And yes gay and lesbian people are often victims of violence, but they are also the benificiaries of laws that punish such actions as hate crimes. What laws exist to protect "the haters" when they are the victims of hatred?
As of October 28th of this year, that is true. Although the hate crimes laws do not specify that they protect GLBT people, they punish crimes motivated by sexual orientation or gender identify. Specifically, crimes targeting heterosexual people fall under the same laws and can (and should) be prosecuted as hate crimes.
Edit: For clarity... The hate crimes laws do extend to crimes committed against people on account of their sexual orientation, including heterosexual. My statement above makes it look like any crime is a hate crime - under the law, sexual orientation must be a motivating factor to the crime.
|
|
I understand the point you're trying to make, but the way I see it, we've got one group asking for something that helps them, and doesn't hurt anyone else. And then we have another group -- a group that already has that thing -- saying, "You can't get it! Nanny-nanny-boo-boo!"
I see what you are saying here, but in many cases it's not entirely accurate. Take California for example. The way the laws are written in California homosexual couple are still entitled to all the same rights as any other couple, married or not. All Prop 8 did was take away access to the word "marriage," it did not deprive them of a single right associated with that word. Therfore, the outcry is entirely over the word marriage, not over any legal rights associated with it. In this case, marriage doesn't help them so if the only goal is access to the perks that come with being married, which they already have, then what is the big deal?
But if I ever met someone who told me they did those things (sending threatening letters, vandalizing property, etc), they would get a string of invectives I probably didn't even know I have in me. I have no patience for people who do stupid, thoughtless things that set back their own valid cause just because it is immediately gratifying for them.I was not condoning the actions. Merely trying to point out that both sides feel they are the righteous ones.
And therein lies my issue with doing violence for a righteous cause. One's cause is always righteous to oneself.
You might be interested to read this book. I keep thinking about it, long afterward.
|
|
What laws exist to protect "the haters" when they are the victims of hatred?Seriously, David? How about the same protections offered to everyone for starters?
Not to sound ignorant, but which part did I stutter on? Hate crimes punishes someone who "willingly injures, intimidates or interferes with another person, or attempts to do so, by force because of the other person's actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability." So someone who is taken out and beaten by gay rights activists because they are straight are protected, but if they take him out and beat the crap out of him because he opposes gay marriage, then he is not, by law, the victim of hate crime. Same as if I take a redneck out and beat him up for being white I commited a hate crime but if I beat him up because I hate members of the KKK and he is one, I just get assault charges, rather than having hate crimes tacked on.
Take California for example.
Right, but California is widely reviled as "ultraliberal" to begin with. To be fair, we should look at Texas, too, and then realize that for most people, the reality lies somewhere in between.
|
|
However, many people do face risks for standing up for their beliefs. And yes gay and lesbian people are often victims of violence, but they are also the benificiaries of laws that punish such actions as hate crimes. What laws exist to protect "the haters" when they are the victims of hatred?As of October 28th of this year, that is true. Although the hate crimes laws do not specify that they protect GLBT people, they punish crimes motivated by sexual orientation or gender identify. Specifically, crimes targeting heterosexual people fall under the same laws and can (and should) be prosecuted as hate crimes.
Edit: For clarity... The hate crimes laws do extend to crimes committed against people on account of their sexual orientation, including heterosexual. My statement above makes it look like any crime is a hate crime - under the law, sexual orientation must be a motivating factor to the crime.
But again, as I pointed out to CF, if that person is assaulted for opposition to gay marriage, like the man in Modesto who had to have 19 stitches and his eye socket rebuilt, or the Mayor of Fresno who recieved death threats, they are not protected by hate crimes legislation, because it does not extend to political beliefs.
|
|
Take California for example.Right, but California is widely reviled as "ultraliberal" to begin with. To be fair, we should look at Texas, too, and then realize that for most people, the reality lies somewhere in between.
True enough. However, I was using California as an example of a place where the debate is not over the perks you get, but over the ability to use the word Marriage.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Not to sound ignorant, but which part did I stutter on? Hate crimes punishes someone who "willingly injures, intimidates or interferes with another person, or attempts to do so, by force because of the other person's actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability." So someone who is taken out and beaten by gay rights activists because they are straight are protected, but if they take him out and beat the crap out of him because he opposes gay marriage, then he is not, by law, the victim of hate crime. Same as if I take a redneck out and beat him up for being white I commited a hate crime but if I beat him up because I hate members of the KKK and he is one, I just get assault charges, rather than having hate crimes tacked on.
That's a general argument against hate crimes. If that's the standard ("I commited the crime because I hate the victim/his views") then you've basically just converted hate crimes into an increased penalty for a certain level or type of intent. I believe the logic of hate crimes is that particular types of attacks against minority groups require additional deterrence because there is a risk that the attacker will escape justice or receive a reduced penalty due to being part of a majority group and attacking a member of a (typically discriminated against) minority group.
What you've described doesn't fit within that logic, it's just a crime with an elevated level of intent. Also, we generally don't want to provide increased deterrence to, say, attacks on white supremecists as compared with the general populace.
...I just get assault charges, rather than having hate crimes tacked on.
Yeah, that is getting off easy.
You might be interested to read this book. I keep thinking about it, long afterward.
Thanks. That does look very interesting.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
But again, as I pointed out to CF, if that person is assaulted for opposition to gay marriage, like the man in Modesto who had to have 19 stitches and his eye socket rebuilt, or the Mayor of Fresno who recieved death threats, they are not protected by hate crimes legislation, because it does not extend to political beliefs.
And with good reason. If crimes motivated by political motivation required additional punishment, that would do serious damage to our legal system. Every such punishment would bring into question the political leanings of the judge, the prosecutors, etc.
Hate crime laws are dangerous. I wouldn't recommend extending them at all, and in general, I think a great deal of care should be taken in crafting them. There's always the risk that they are a backdoor for prosecutions based on political ideology and that is a dangerous way for the judicial system to operate.
Depending on where I'm at I might get probation, or even a medal for beating up a white supremist. :)
Do you think slave owners were outraged when abolitionist essentially stole form them?
|
|
In other news. The Washington D.C. City Council has approved a gay marriage bill. The Mayor has promised to sign it. However all laws regarding D.C., even the area outside of the Federal District are subject to Congressional approval.
This will be a good test of Congressional support on the issue. ABC News story on the subject.
You might be interested to read this book. I keep thinking about it, long afterward.Thanks. That does look very interesting.
Hmmm... the interview made it look like a semantics argument. He's all in favor of morality, just not immorality that masquerades under the term "moral."
I do not know enough to about Hate Crime to really speak on them. Beating the snot out of someone is bad. The reason behind it, with maybe the exception of self defense or defending someone else, really does not matter to me. How do you prove intent anyway?
Thanks. That does look very interesting.Hmmm... the interview made it look like a semantics argument. He's all in favor of morality, just not immorality that masquerades under the term "moral."
I guess I did not read it closely enough...or I do not fully understand the meaning of 'moral'.
I guess I did not read it closely enough...or I do not fully understand the meaning of 'moral'.
Or I'm using it incorrectly, but to me oppression and hatred are not "moral," despite any claims to the contrary. On the flip side, protecting non-aggressive weaker groups from the tyranny of stronger, more aggressive ones is moral, even if you claim otherwise -- to me, at least.
|
|
Hmmm... the interview made it look like a semantics argument. He's all in favor of morality, just not immorality that masquerades under the term "moral."You might be interested to read this book. I keep thinking about it, long afterward.Thanks. That does look very interesting.
It reminds me a lot, from what I read of On the Geneology of Morals. In fact Nietzsche's first section of the book is on the concept and inherent "immorality" of the ideas of good and evil.
|
|
I guess I did not read it closely enough...or I do not fully understand the meaning of 'moral'.Or I'm using it incorrectly, but to me oppression and hatred are not "moral," despite any claims to the contrary. On the flip side, protecting non-aggressive weaker groups from the tyranny of stronger, more aggressive ones is moral, even if you claim otherwise -- to me, at least.
Here is how Nietzsche describes the origins of good and bad, in a nutshell.
"Nietzsche indicts the "English psychologists" for lacking historical sense. They seek to do moral genealogy by explaining altruism in terms of the utility of altruistic actions, which is subsequently forgotten as such actions become the norm. But the judgment "good", according to Nietzsche, originates not with the beneficiaries of altruistic actions. Rather, the good themselves (the powerful) coined the term "good". Further, Nietzsche contends that it is psychologically absurd to suggest that altruism derives from a utility which is forgotten: if it is useful, what is the incentive to forget it? Rather such a value-judgment gains currency by being increasingly burned into the consciousness.
"From the aristocratic mode of valuation another mode of valuation branches off which develops into its opposite: the priestly mode of valuation. Nietzsche suggests this process is encouraged through a confrontation between the priestly caste and the warrior caste where they are unable to settle. The priests, who are powerless in a situation of combat, develop a deep and poisonous hatred of the powerful. This is the origin of what Nietzsche calls the "slave revolt in morality", which according to him begins with Judaism, for its being the source of Christianity.
"Slave morality in feeling ressentiment does not seek redress for its grievances by taking revenge through action, as the noble would, but by setting up an imaginary revenge. It therefore needs enemies in order to sustain itself, unlike noble morality, which hardly takes enemies seriously and forgets about them instantly having dealt with them. The weak deceive themselves into thinking that the meek are blessed and will win everlasting life, thereby ultimately vanquishing the strong. They invent the term "evil" to apply to the strong, i.e. precisely to the "good" according to the noble valuation. These latter call their inferiors "bad"—in the sense of "worthless" and "ill-born"
Basically in this world veiw Morality is method by which the weak oppresse the strong.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I do not know enough to about Hate Crime to really speak on them. Beating the snot out of someone is bad. The reason behind it, with maybe the exception of self defense or defending someone else, really does not matter to me. How do you prove intent anyway?
It's been a long time since I've taken criminal law or criminal procedure, but proof of intent is a major part of a criminal prosecution. The various degrees of murder (1st degree, 2nd degree, manslaughter, etc) are differentiated largely by the intent involved. Malice aforethought is the magical word for the intent required for 1st degree murder, IIRC, which basically means that you made the decision to commit the crime knowing it was a crime and took steps to prepare for it. This is differentiated from crimes that occur in the heat of passion and these are both differentiated from crimes where you did something so grossly stupid that you should've known better and something bad happened.
As for how you prove intent, it's usually based on statements you made/actions you took at the time of the crime, any preparatory actions taken, etc.
Basically in this world veiw Morality is method by which the weak oppresse the strong.
I've read Nietzsche, and even agreed with him -- until I stopped being a teenager and started really empirically looking at which things actually are "utile" (despite his claims that they're not). A lot of his claims stand up beautifully in isolated instances, but not in an overall group dynamic -- but that's a matter for a different thread, I think!
|
|
Basically in this world veiw Morality is method by which the weak oppresse the strong.I've read Nietzsche, and even agreed with him -- until I stopped being a teenager and started really empirically looking at which things actually are "utile" (despite his claims that they're not). A lot of his claims stand up beautifully in isolated instances, but not in an overall group dynamic -- but that's a matter for a different thread, I think!
Absolutely. I have never believed Nietzche. Just saying when I read statements like " In short, I argue that a high degree of moral language and a highly moral mindset is not an indicator of the “health” of a person or a society, but, to the contrary, a worrisome symptom of tension and uneasiness," I hear Fred's voice speaking. Not to mention this in his closing paragraph. "Interestingly enough, there have always been a number of philosophers who were highly suspicious of ethics; Nietzsche and Wittgenstein, for example. I follow these thinkers rather than the likes of Kant or contemporary ethical theorists who believe that they are able to identify what is “really” good."
Thank you, Sebastian. Yes, I guess I do agree that pre-meditated murder is worse than getting angry and doing something you should not which may result in the death of someone else.
So I concede intent does matter. Beating the snot out of someone because I do not like them vs. beating the snot out of someone because I do not like them because they are gay seems murky at best.
I still contend anti-same-sex marriage proponents are offered protection against assault, harassment, ect. Is it the same as hate crime protection? No. Should it be? Maybe.
I still think they are wrong and believe the way to prove that to them is with reason. I still believe time will prove they are wrong as well.
...I just get assault charges, rather than having hate crimes tacked on.Yeah, that is getting off easy.
If it wasn't view as such, one would have to wonder why the need for hate crime legislation in the first place.
So I concede intent does matter.
I always seem to be the only one who thinks otherwise. ("The road to Hell is paved in good intentions?") I always look at the drunk driver who kills a family as worse than the disgruntled employee who assassinates his boss -- because of the amount of suffering inflicted, not because of whether he "meant" to do it.
In other news. The Washington D.C. City Council has approved a gay marriage bill. The Mayor has promised to sign it. However all laws regarding D.C., even the area outside of the Federal District are subject to Congressional approval.This will be a good test of Congressional support on the issue. ABC News story on the subject.
Doubtful. All congress has to do is ignore it and it becomes law. If you don't want to get involved, you just ignore it. Let the local community deal with it.