Now on ScienceBlogs: Oh, no! School wi-fi is making our kids sick! (2012 edition)
Thoughts From the Interface of Science, Religion, Law and Culture
Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of Michigan Citizens for Science and co-founder of The Panda's Thumb. He has written for such publications as The Bard, Skeptic and Reports of the National Center for Science Education, spoken in front of many organizations and conferences, and appeared on nationally syndicated radio shows and on C-SPAN. Ed is also a Fellow with the Center for Independent Media and the host of Declaring Independence, a one hour weekly political talk show on WPRR in Grand Rapids, Michigan.(static)
Ed Brayton also blogs at Positive Liberty and The Panda's Thumb
« Why Habeas Corpus Protections Matter | Main | Louisiana Creationism Bill Goes to Governor »
Posted on: June 18, 2008 9:23 AM, by Ed Brayton
Maybe a million. Here are some pictures from the first day of legal same-sex marriages, taken by Reuters and the AP earlier this week. Here's a picture of the first couple wed, Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, who have been together for 58 years.
Here's another couple, Shelly Bailes and Ellen Pontac, cheering when they are pronounced married:
And here's the other side, literally calling for gays to be thrown in prison:
And another:
Love and hate, perfectly juxtaposed.
PoliticsTim Lambert 02.01.2012
Orac 02.14.2012
ERV 11.26.2011
Orac 12.12.2011
Jason Rosenhouse 02.12.2012
Comments
That picture is an obvious fraud. Those two ladies look like nice grandmothers. I know for a fact that lesbians and have horns and carry pitchforks. James Dobson showed me a picture once.
Posted by: Skip | June 18, 2008 9:59 AM
Skip:
They're just like John Demjanyuk, that old Nazi camp guard. Just because they're wrinkled doesn't mean they didn't kill millions of je..., oh, I'm sorry, being gay isn't quite as bad a crime. Well, in any event they're well past child-bearing age so they won't be birthing thousands of homofascists into this world.
Posted by: democommie | June 18, 2008 10:04 AM
Ha, the two plugs in the last pic...at least this time they're good for a laugh while peddling anachronistic nonsense.
...and I think the guy in the foreground of the first pic is a protest protester, or he seriously mismade his sign.
As an aside, whenever I see women or African Americans on the side of bigotianity I have to wonder: Have they even read the bible?
I could never be a xtian, amongst other reasons, because of what it says about women and slavery.
How could anyone worship a book that tells you you're less than a full person?
Posted by: Jason Failes | June 18, 2008 10:07 AM
It would probably be good to say they're pictures from the first day of same sex marriage in California.
Here's a picture from the first day of same sex marriage in 1989.
Posted by: Gretchen | June 18, 2008 10:20 AM
Ok, I had to look up Matthew 19:5 to see where it says "FAGS CAN'T MARRY" there.
Of course, it doesn't. It just says, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." It says what heterosexual marriage is for, but does not prohibit homosexual marriage.
Interestingly enough, this is the chapter in which Jesus says that anybody who remarries is committing adultery. How come these folks don't seem to mind second marriages?
Posted by: Ahcuah | June 18, 2008 10:21 AM
Too cool.
oh, I'm sorry, being gay isn't quite as bad a crime.
Actually democommie, I've had a couple of religious folk tell me that there is no difference, sin is sin, therefore the "sodomites" will be burning in hell for all eternity right alongside the deathcamp guards. Apparently a very stoic approach to sin.
Posted by: dogmeatIB | June 18, 2008 10:42 AM
"How could anyone worship a book that tells you you're less than a full person?"
well as a start because most practicing Christians believe the trinity is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Not the Father, Son and Holy Scripture... of course, these American fundengelicals keep getting that one wrong*, so I can't say (if they're the ones whose message you hear) that it's your fault you have that one confused.
*Oh yeah, wrong as in I've been TOLD by more than one that the Bible is more important to Christianity than the Holy Spirit... and some KJVers have told me that I'll burn in hell for studying Greek or Hebrew to read the Bible in the original because there's only one real true version...
Posted by: kodiak | June 18, 2008 10:59 AM
Congrets to Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon and welcome to the next stage of legal uncertainty. Even if my partner and I could get married we probably wouldn't do it since without federal recognition it opens up a whole set of new legal issues.
Posted by: yoshi | June 18, 2008 10:59 AM
Two people who have been together, and presumably faithful to each other, for 58 years -- longer than my grandparents were together when they died? Nope, no sanctity there, nosireebob. Britney Spears' two-day drive-by -- oops, I mean drive-thru -- marriage was more sacred than that -- the Bible sez so, right?
Yeah, those two women with the electric-plug sign looked more holy than the old lezbos. (And the little playpen-like enclosure they were in symbolized "family values," right?)
And since those old lezbos just destroyed traditional marriage by getting married, I guess I'll just have to cancel my upcoming marriage and start shagging my hot married neighbor. WOO-HOO!
How could anyone worship a book that tells you you're less than a full person?
So worship the God instead of the book.
Posted by: Raging Bee | June 18, 2008 11:00 AM
And the image credit goes to . . . ? I'd like to post them myself, and I'd like to be able to attribute them properly.
Posted by: Jeff Darcy | June 18, 2008 11:14 AM
dogmeatIB wrote: "I've had a couple of religious folk tell me that there is no difference, sin is sin"
...which undermines their whole focus on teh gays. Christians should be berating themselves equally for not selling all their things and giving the money to the poor. In fact they should only berate themselves, because berating others means you have fallen into the sin of pride, no?
Raging Bee wrote: "So worship the God instead of the book."
What God? It doesn't seem to exist outside of books. If a woman or an African American wanted to just "worship the God" why wouldn't they go for any number of deistic or liberal-theistic options? Why would a woman or an African American ever, ever choose the kind of bible-literal religions that force them to condemn/enslave themselves nearly as much as teh hated gays?
Mmmm, i seem to be trying to apply logical consistency to religious beliefs. bad boy.
Posted by: Jason Failes | June 18, 2008 11:22 AM
Sweet.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | June 18, 2008 11:36 AM
If people are against gay marriage they have the right express their opinions. But holding up signs that come across as crude and hateful does absolutely nothing for their cause.
Posted by: Cheddar | June 18, 2008 11:37 AM
Cheddar, you are assuming (wrongly from all the conversations I've had on the issue) that the protesters have something other than crudeness and hatefulness fueling their cause. That's Ed's point isn't it? That they haven't been able to come up with a single good reason other than "I think it's icky" to prevent gay marriage.
Sadly, this *is* their A game.
Posted by: kodiak | June 18, 2008 11:40 AM
Is that some of Phelps' bunch in the second pic? Seems like their style of placard. I like how the crowd-control cops put them in their own little playpen, so everyone can point and laugh.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | June 18, 2008 11:49 AM
58 years.
Can you imagine being a lesbian couple in 1950?
Posted by: chancelikely | June 18, 2008 11:54 AM
Cheddar, do you really believe that people whose anti-gay bigotry would manifest itself into taking the time and effort to wield these public protests would not behave in a crude and hateful manner? It seems to me that a sizeable segment (if not a supermajority) of such people are motivated largely out of crudeness and hate combined with a sense of fundamentalist self-righteousness.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | June 18, 2008 12:18 PM
Hooray for love!
Boo to bigotry. Though I do find it somewhat heartening that in that last photo they couldn't even get enough people to hold all their signs. They're each holding two. One questions though, why is the one on the right wearing a gay pride flag as a skirt?
Posted by: Abby Normal | June 18, 2008 12:44 PM
Jason said:
Good point! That first picture is just beautiful. 58 years is longer than all but three male-female couples I personally know of.
Posted by: NoAstronomer | June 18, 2008 12:51 PM
Actually, there are a number of Fundies who do. Fred Phelp's group is one of them. The Roman Catholic church does too.
A number of my weddings are Roman Catholics who do not agree with the annulment process-or can't afford it. My way of handling premarriage counseling in these situations is talking about what went wrong in previous marriage(s) and discussing how the couple can make sure they don't make the same mistake again. I fully feel that God's intent for marriage is for a couple to be together until "death do they part," but I also understand the reasons why that "ideal" is not kept. And I don't believe that God intends for a woman or a man to remain in an abusive situation; although I do believe there are plenty of situations in which couples divorce for the "wrong" reasons (i.e. They are unwilling to work on their marriage).
My first mentor, when I was in seminary, was a female pastor who was divorced. She later on started to date, and later married a classmate of mine. She was widowed suddenly over a year ago when her husband suffered a massive heart attack in the pulpit. No, I don't think God smote him for marrying a divorcee! She is still a really close friend of mine.
Going back to the original picture-it reminds me of the wonder of true love that stands the test of time. Best wishes to them and all couples getting married in California.
Posted by: Rev. AJB | June 18, 2008 12:58 PM
You want cute pics? Set phasers for stunning!
Posted by: Kristine | June 18, 2008 12:58 PM
I've known a number of male/female couples in my churches that have reached that milestone and beyond. One couple, on their 65th anniversary, I kidded the husband that he was ready for "retirement." He did die a few months later-had emphysema. Their dear firends just reached their 65th last month. Another couple that reached 70+, when the wife died, at the graveside he said, "I'll see you soon dear." Less than a week later we were burying him-and he died of natural causes.
I've also known same-sex couples that have reached this milestone; however not publically. It was one of those deals where my folks would say, "Joe and Steve have been roommates for over 50 years."
Euphamisms-gotta love 'em!
Posted by: Rev. AJB | June 18, 2008 1:19 PM
Does anybody know if Fred Phelps and his demented congregants showed up at Russert's funeral as they had threated to do?
Posted by: democommie | June 18, 2008 1:20 PM
Phelp's website says the picket will start in about 35 minutes and last two hours-so no, it hasn't happened yet.
Posted by: Rev. AJB | June 18, 2008 1:23 PM
am i right in saying that the only Bible verses explicitly condemning homosexuality are in Leviticus and Deutoronomy, alongside laws forbidding the eating of shellfish or wearing "mixed fibres"? cos, y'know, some of those protestors look like they're wearing mixed clothing...
Posted by: alex | June 18, 2008 1:37 PM
Alex,
I Corinthians 6:9 (of all numbers!) is often used against homosexuals, despite extensive translation problems, as is Romans 1:26, although it actually seems to be saying that if you sin against God, he will make you gay, rather than saying that gay-ness is itself a sin.
Posted by: Jason Failes | June 18, 2008 1:47 PM
That's an American flag with the red and white stripes replaced by the gay pride rainbow. Flag desecration has become one of the Westboro Baptists' many shticks.
Posted by: Wes | June 18, 2008 2:17 PM
One picture is worth a thousand words, and typically takes of the space of the order of a hundred thousand words. (A word might be seven bytes, a picture 500,000 bytes.) This sounds like it favors the written word.
Posted by: John | June 18, 2008 2:28 PM
George and Brad! Now there's one happy couple! YAAAAAAAYYYY!
Look up a movie called Desert Hearts. It's heartbreaking.
Posted by: themadlolscientist | June 18, 2008 3:07 PM
No only were they lesbians in 1950, they were the founders of one of the first advocacy groups for lesbians, Daughters of Bilitis . See the link to the Wikipedia entry for a more complete outline of their lifetime of accomplishments, including taking on NOW in the 60s over the "lavender menace" of lesbianism. Those are two amazing people.
Posted by: usagi | June 18, 2008 3:18 PM
Love how Ed posts such an honest picture of both sides here. We have the warm and fuzzy side with two nice, sweet grandmothers getting married, and his picture of the other side is the angry people holding signs with the sodomy graphics. Hey Ed, why don't you show the nice people that oppose gay marriage? The everyday decent folks that go to work, have families, attend church on sunday, and aren't running around like nutcases? Why is it that you only pick the weirdos to characterize the opposition? And just to keep it honest, why don't you show some other elements of the gay movement just to make sure you cover all the bases? Like maybe some pictures of that transgender parade in Northampton, Massachussetts where people were running around mostly naked? Or maybe some pictures from a gay pride parade in New Orleans where people actually WERE naked and committing obscene acts in public? How about a little more integrity in your choice of characterizations and a little less one-sided propaganda?
Posted by: mroberts | June 18, 2008 3:30 PM
Hey Ed, why don't you show the nice people that oppose gay marriage?
Why don't you?
Like maybe some pictures of that transgender parade in Northampton, Massachussetts where people were running around mostly naked? Or maybe some pictures from a gay pride parade in New Orleans where people actually WERE naked and committing obscene acts in public?
What does that have to do with marriage?
Posted by: Raging Bee | June 18, 2008 3:34 PM
Seriously, what the hell is wrong with being naked? Are you not in very good shape and ashamed? There's nothing morally wrong with being naked. What is this, the 1800s? Is that even still a law, and if it is, why?
Sorry, mroberts, seeing transgender people doesn't offend me or most people here.
It seems Ed only posted pictures from the events in California. Everyday decent folks weren't there protesting marriages, so there's no photos of them. Additionally, I'd add that everyday decent folks is a contradiction to hatred of gay people.
Posted by: Dennis N | June 18, 2008 4:00 PM
You want cute? This is cute. And wonderful - as in, full of wonder...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/drosscameron/2586760768/
This is the first couple married by Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums on Monday evening. Their older daughter and my son went to preschool together.
Posted by: Lee | June 18, 2008 4:02 PM
>> Additionally, I'd add that everyday decent folks is a contradiction to hatred of gay people. >>
And I would say that is ample evidence of your own bigotry toward anybody that disagrees with you.
Posted by: mroberts | June 18, 2008 4:07 PM
No. How can you both be a decent person and hate an entire group of people for doing nothing wrong? You use a loaded word: bigot. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ. I am partial to rationality and logic, and bigoted against hatred and intolerance. I'd say there is evidence for that, yes.
Posted by: Dennis N | June 18, 2008 4:13 PM
Like maybe some pictures of that transgender parade in Northampton, Massachussetts where people were running around mostly naked? Or maybe some pictures from a gay pride parade in New Orleans where people actually WERE naked and committing obscene acts in public?
But then, to be fair, he'd have to include pictures of all the obscene and offensive things heterosexual people do, too -- in New Orleans, Massachusetts, and all over the world.
...and so on, and so on...
What do you want, a blog or an encyclopedia?
Posted by: Dave Munger | June 18, 2008 4:14 PM
Hey Ed, why don't you show the nice people that oppose gay marriage? The everyday decent folks that go to work, have families, attend church on sunday, and aren't running around like nutcases? Why is it that you only pick the weirdos to characterize the opposition?
Perhaps because the "nice" people don't show up at protests? What should he do, show pictures of random people grocery shopping?
Like maybe some pictures of that transgender parade in Northampton, Massachussetts where people were running around mostly naked? Or maybe some pictures from a gay pride parade in New Orleans where people actually WERE naked and committing obscene acts in public?
Perhaps because this story pertains to GL people getting married in CA? What relevance would some other people behaving badly in some other place have? (Unless of course, you're a bigot who sees all gays as the same).
Gotta love it, though: mroberts is so upset that this post/thread is one-sided (ie. making it look as if anti-gay-marriage folk are moronic bigots), that the first thing he does is show up and increase said "imbalance".
Posted by: Eamon Knight | June 18, 2008 4:17 PM
>> Gotta love it, though: mroberts is so upset that this post/thread is one-sided (ie. making it look as if anti-gay-marriage folk are moronic bigots), that the first thing he does is show up and increase said "imbalance". >>
That made zero sense.
Posted by: mroberts | June 18, 2008 4:29 PM
You mean along with the nice people who oppose interracial marriage, or womens' suffrage?
Posted by: Gretchen | June 18, 2008 4:33 PM
Made plenty of sense to me.
Might not to the prejudiced and narrow-minded, however.
As studies show, the younger elements of society are quite accepting of this. It's the older elements that aren't....
Posted by: gwangung | June 18, 2008 4:39 PM
You're rather slow, aren't you?
He's saying that, if anything, your moronic, bigoted behavior in this thread confirms the charge that the anti-gay crowd are moronic bigots. If Ed's post is "imbalanced" because it only shows the moronic bigots on the anti-gay side, you have increased that "imbalance" with your moronic, bigoted comments. Make sense now?
Posted by: Wes | June 18, 2008 4:39 PM
mroberts wrote:
Show me one of those people who doesn't believe the same thing the people in those pictures believes. Whether "nice" or not, those people still believe that gay people should be denied equality because the Bible says gays are bad. The only difference is that they aren't out there with a sign, they still believe the same nonsense. Show me someone who is opposed to same sex marriage who doesn't make idiotic arguments like "it's going to destroy the sanctity of marriage" and I'll be happy to write about them. The basis for this is bigotry, plain and simple. Some are more committed to their bigotry than others. Sometimes bigotry is based just upon ignorance and fear and once they get used to the idea they realize they were wrong and come around (that's why we've seen such a rapid shift already in public opinion, because some of the initial opposition was this kind of shallow, uncommitted bigotry). But serious opposition to it is based exclusively on serious bigotry against gays.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | June 18, 2008 4:53 PM
"Or maybe some pictures from a gay pride parade in New Orleans where people actually WERE naked and committing obscene acts in public?"
I'm getting a little sick of this misconception. There is no gay pride parade in New Orleans. It's a celebration called "Southern Decadence" and held in part of the French Quarter. No one is parading through the streets with a dick in his ass. That sort of thing does happen in public, but to see it, you have to know where it is happening and then go there!
Does this make public sex acts less illegal? Of course not. But they aren't the "threat" to the public you asshats are trying to get everyone to believe. No one is going to "accidentally" witness lewd acts. If you're there to see it, it's because you wanted to.
Posted by: bullet | June 18, 2008 5:25 PM
>> The basis for this is bigotry, plain and simple. Some are more committed to their bigotry than others. >>
When political correctness replaces open and frank debate, it is clear that reason has been abandoned and a nation is in decline. How dare anybody question the gay dogma. It doesn't matter how valid their point may be, it doesn't matter if what they speak is truth, it amounts to bigotry and must be silenced (CA legislators passed a law last year banning anything in school teaching that might portray homosexuality negatively, even if it is true). Persecution for belief is only a short step from PROSECUTION for belief, and look to universities (and maybe Canada) for proof. Universities went from simple disapproval of certain speech to political correctness (an unwritten speech code with penalty of social persecution), to outright prohibition of certain speech through speech codes. It is only a small leap to go from speech codes on campus to speech codes in federal law, ie hate speech laws. You guys are kidding yourselves if you think you are the arbiters of freedom. I can't think of anything more evident of tyranny than telling people how to think and what or what not to say. The freedom gays think they are getting will be at the expense of the freedom of others.
Posted by: mroberts | June 18, 2008 5:30 PM
If you (or any other opponent of gay marriage) had shown any evidence whatsoever to suggest that you would recognize truth and valid arguments on this issue if they bit you in the ass, statements like this might be less spit-take worthy.
Posted by: Gretchen | June 18, 2008 5:42 PM
Here's a good parady on you tube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rixkck8QnjY
Enjoy!
Posted by: Rev. AJB | June 18, 2008 5:56 PM
Lee wrote: "You want cute? This is cute. And wonderful - as in, full of wonder... http://www.flickr.com/photos/drosscameron/2586760768/"
I don't know, Lee. I'm all for same sex marriage, but don't you think the bride is a bit young? What is she, six?
;-)
Posted by: MH | June 18, 2008 6:12 PM
Mr Roberts blithered:
How dare anybody question the gay dogma
Well, given that it's 2008 and homosexuals still don't have full civil rights, I think it's fair to say that "gay dogma" (whatever the hell that nebulous term means) isn't that entrenched. On this planet at least. Maybe you reside on a different one.
Posted by: SteveF | June 18, 2008 6:14 PM
I'd be more inclined to be alarmed at that if every one of your unsourced claims hadn't turned out to be false, misleading, or irrelevant up to this point.
Err... are we talking about US federal law where the First Amendment applies?
Think and say whatever you want. You just don't get to enshrine your opinions into law unless you have a good reason to do so. As far as I can tell, your logic amounts to, "Black people shouldn't be given the right to vote, because then it's only a matter of time before the government enforces speech codes and jails people for racist opinions!" That's a pretty darned slippery slope you're trying to sell us--more of a cliff, really.
"Think" they're getting? I'd say that it's objectively the case that they're getting an additional freedom that they didn't have until now. Note the photographic evidence above.
As to what freedoms are lost in the process, I'll gladly sacrifice the majority's freedom to arbitrarily deny people marriage rights if it means allowing legitimate couples to get married. If we start with speech codes and thought crime laws, wake me up and I'll take your side.
Posted by: Troublesome Frog | June 18, 2008 6:26 PM
Whenever the "political correctness" trope replaces reasoned criticism of someone else's positions, reason has been abandoned. Tell me, mroberts, do you consider yourself one of those "nice" gay marriage opponents?
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | June 18, 2008 6:32 PM
Dude, I'm not going to pass judgment on your tastes in porn - although, personally, I'd prefer pictures of women running around mostly naked or straight couples committing obscene acts in public, both of which happen all the time in N'awlins during Mardis Gras, or so I'm told - but this isn't really the place for it. There are sites that exist for the sole purpose of providing that sort of thing.
Posted by: Seraph | June 18, 2008 6:47 PM
>> Think and say whatever you want. You just don't get to enshrine your opinions into law unless you have a good reason to do so. As far as I can tell, your logic amounts to, "Black people shouldn't be given the right to vote, because then it's only a matter of time before the government enforces speech codes and jails people for racist opinions!" That's a pretty darned slippery slope you're trying to sell us--more of a cliff, really. >>
Wow Frog, if that is what you concluded from my posts, then I think it is more a statement about your intellectual capacities than mine.
Posted by: mroberts | June 18, 2008 6:48 PM
RE:
Mroberts is hereby self-exposed as a fraud and hack. If he had read the actual WND story on this, he would have noted that instead of "people running around mostly naked," that according to WND what happened was:
So---- we have a few bearded men removing their shirts.
Yawn. More sloppy hate inducing ignorance.
Posted by: SharonB | June 18, 2008 7:13 PM
>> So---- we have a few bearded men removing their shirts.
Yawn. More sloppy hate inducing ignorance.
>>
LOL. Ignorance? Want to comment about the DNA and chromosomes those "men" had? Cutting off one's breasts does not make someone a man.
Posted by: mroberts | June 18, 2008 7:20 PM
So, you've done a DNA and chromosome test on them to refute whatever I could say, troll?
You view the actual pictures?
Burden on you.
Posted by: SharonB | June 18, 2008 7:26 PM
>> So, you've done a DNA and chromosome test on them to refute whatever I could say, troll?
You view the actual pictures?
Burden on you.
>>
Say what? Are they not "transgenders"? Am I missing something here? It was a TRANSGENDER parade, was it not?
Posted by: mroberts | June 18, 2008 7:30 PM
I guess next mr. roberts will be asking you to post some nice, happy pics of KKK members having a friendly barbecue, or hey, maybe one of those nice videos of Hitler having a cocktail party at Berchtesgaden. See? He wasn't such a bad guy, he drank martinis! He loved taking pictures! Totally makes up for the vile, dark-hearted murderous bigotry.
Why don't you find me a story of some gang of violent gay youths cracking a nice straight girl's head open on the sidewalk before raping her boyfriend with a broken whiskey bottle before you bring this kind of penny-anny complaint up on this issue as a pathetic smoke-screen for your own misplace loyalties? They may not commit such acts, but the "nice people" you're talking about have a quite smile and a happy cheer in their heart whenever they hear about them, and that makes them just as bad.
Posted by: Julian | June 18, 2008 7:36 PM
>> I guess next mr. roberts will be asking you to post some nice, happy pics of KKK members having a friendly barbecue, or hey, maybe one of those nice videos of Hitler having a cocktail party at Berchtesgaden. See? He wasn't such a bad guy, he drank martinis! He loved taking pictures! Totally makes up for the vile, dark-hearted murderous bigotry.
Why don't you find me a story of some gang of violent gay youths cracking a nice straight girl's head open on the sidewalk before raping her boyfriend with a broken whiskey bottle before you bring this kind of penny-anny complaint up on this issue as a pathetic smoke-screen for your own misplace loyalties? They may not commit such acts, but the "nice people" you're talking about have a quite smile and a happy cheer in their heart whenever they hear about them, and that makes them just as bad. >>
Wow Julian. Correct me if I am wrong, but are you actually equating the evil of Hitler with disagreement on gay marriage?
Posted by: mroberts | June 18, 2008 7:44 PM
Oh yes, and you also drag out and beat this old dead "gay dogma" and "politically correct" horse. So let me ask you, it's "gay dogma" to consider homosexuals human beings? Because that's why California granted them the right to marry; "Our Constitution grants human adults the right to marry, gays are human adults, therefore they can marry". That's basically the Court's argument, you can read it yourself. It's "politically correct" to protect their rights the same as is done for straights? So I guess its up to you honest, "politically incorrect" people, you true patriots, to do the good, legal thing and fight to deprive them of those rights. Truly, your struggle is magnificent; obviously the self-sacrifice that the anti-gay people show by selflessly giving in to their hatred and unreasoning anger in the name of a ~2000 year old, ill-written collection of fairy tales is to be applauded and held up as an example for everyone.
Look at how much they suffer by living their hate openly? Look at how they aren't nobly deprived of their jobs, how they aren't viciously beaten and driven from the public space when they express their opinion; Witness the true, patient virtue and moral perseverance they exhibit by not being gagged and hunted by the government as they aren't driven into an underground existence just for the chance to speak their righteous minds. In a just world, they wouldn't be listened to, instead of not being persecuted.
Posted by: Julian | June 18, 2008 7:51 PM
I'm vaguely curious why chromosomes matter at all when it comes to sex. Surely anatomy plays a rather larger role?
I mean, I suppose you could demand a test before you had sex with anyone, but I don't really know what the purpose of that would be.
Posted by: GDwarf | June 18, 2008 7:51 PM
No I'm not, Im equating your argument that we should look at the good side of bigots so as to find merit in thier arguments to be the same as those who argue that the Nazis couldn't have been that bad because they were all good Christian people, but, considering that you seem to lack the ability to think or argue rationally, I wouldn't expect you to pick up on that kind of subtlety.
Jerk.
Posted by: Julian | June 18, 2008 7:53 PM
Maybe that's blunt enough for you. Do you need me to put it in bold too, or maybe I can draw you a picture.
Posted by: Julian | June 18, 2008 7:54 PM
mroberts:
I have to learn never to make such pithy statements when dealing with you because you fixate on those in order to dodge the substance of the post. Are you or are you not suggesting that one of the core problems with gay marriage is that it is a slippery slope to speech codes and other thought crime? If not, what are you suggesting, exactly? What are your complaints about gay marriage that don't amount to ridiculous slippery slope paranoia?
A side note: If you're going to reference actual events as evidence, I strongly recommend posting a source. Your credibility on those sorts of things has dwindled to just about zero. If you're wondering why, bear in mind that the examples you've posted on this thread alone have turned out to not to stand up to scrutiny.
Posted by: Troublesome Frog | June 18, 2008 8:58 PM
Re Mroberts
Mr. Mroberts is obviously totally ignorant of genetics. For his information, there are people who have both two X chromosomes and a Y chromosome and are born with the sex organs of both sexes. Such an individual is ofter subjected to what is euphemistically referred to as gender reassignment surgery shortly after birth. However, removal of the male organs does not change the fact that such individuals have a Y chromosome and are just as much men as women.
Posted by: SLC | June 18, 2008 9:00 PM
Oh NO! Now, since those two women will be lying with each other instead of with men, they won't produce any nice little American babies, and we will be overrun with Homosexual Illegal Aliens!
What? you think just because they are in their 80s they can't produce nice little Christian Americans? Well Abraham made a baby with Sarah after they thought she couldn't. (it's always the woman's fault, BTW)
(If anything I have just said is any more ridiculous than the actual statements of the people I was parodying, I appologize.)
Posted by: BaldApe | June 18, 2008 9:52 PM
mroberts:
You are just a stupid, hateful dickhead. All of your arguments are as full of holes as a colander and your ignorance is only exceeded by your bigotry. Aren't there some nice KKKristian folks to spend time with you so you can quit coming here and whacking off while you comment?
Jesus, I hope that wasn't too rough.
Posted by: democommie | June 18, 2008 11:36 PM
In 1948, the California Supreme Court threw out the state's anti-miscegination laws. In 1967, the US Supreme COurt did the same for the rest of the country.
In 2008, the California Supreme Court threw out anti-gay bias in marriage laws in the state.
Any bets on how long it will be before the US Supreme Court follows for the rest of the country?
Posted by: W. H. Heydt | June 19, 2008 12:02 AM
So I was wondering Mrrobets, if a bunch of breast cancer survivors flashed thier mastectomies would that be Ok for you. I mean at lest they have two X chromosomes (as if you could tell be looking at them).
XXY - Is called Klinefelter's Syndrome. It is sometimes assocciated with gynomastia (growth of breasts in non females). If a Klinefelter's had mastectomies and flashed thier chests would that but OK. I mean they too have two X chromosomes (and a Y). - Curiously DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | June 19, 2008 3:25 AM
W. H. Heydt asked:
Well, actually it took 102 years after the adoption of the 13th Amendment, which would appear to clearly ban anti-miscegenation statutes. In any case, absent a new Amendment, sexual preference is not a protected class, so I don't see Federal action in the future.
The good news is that marriage is primarily a state-defined institution, and it is likely that a majority of the states will come around in the next decade or two. In forty years, opposition to SSM will seem as quaint as the notion today that Mildred Loving could not marry the man she loved.
Posted by: kehrsam | June 19, 2008 4:36 AM
Hang on. Is mrroberts trying to say that there are "nice" people who think that we should arrest people who are engaged in sodomy? I would argue pretty strongly that if you want to throw people in jail for something that harms nobody else, then you are not at all a nice person. In fact, you are a fucking jerk.
I would say that what is missing from the photo of the protestors is not the "nice" people who agree with the sentiments, but the lazy people who agree, but cant be bothered protesting.
Posted by: Donalbain | June 19, 2008 5:18 AM
The open and frank debate was concluded years ago, mroberts. Your side lost. There is quite simply not a single anti-gay-rights argument that stands up to scrutiny, and there haven't been any new ones for years. As they say, it's all over but the crying - and boy, do you bigots cry.
Posted by: DaveL | June 19, 2008 6:57 AM
DaveL-
The debate still goes on in many churches. I was at our denomination's national convention last August, and can proudly say that we had animated, Spirit-led, and loving debates with one another. I think both sides went away realizing that their voices had been heard. And the debates all centered on how/what the church should do/say about same sex relationships and did not once touch on what states are doing. The real "sticking-point" at our 2009 assembly will be what to do about clergy that are in committed same-sex relationships. We'll also be voting on a sexuality statement for the church. I'm a bit bummed this week because I couldn't be at our synod assembly and another pastor from my area was elected to go to the 2009 national assembly. I don't think he wants the same changes I do; but what I'm sure people looked at was his age and the fact he has much more "larger" church experience than I do. Plus maybe my more "liberal" views scare people in Indiana and Kentucky.
Posted by: Rev. AJB | June 19, 2008 11:07 AM
"Imagine a lesbian couple in 1950"
I don't have to imagine it, because I grew up with one, my parents. (In fact, 1950 was just about the mid-point of their 35+ years together that only ended when Claire -- my 'birth mother's' partner died in 1967, sadly just before Stonewall.) And while my main reason for supporting gay rights has always been simply because it was right, my second reason has always been in tribute to them -- and regret that they never had the chance to walk down Fifth Avenue hand in hand.)
And usagi understates it. I believe Daughters of Bilitis was the first gay advocacy group of any kind in the US.
With your indulence, I wrote a poem in their honor -- I'm a bit out of practice at poetry, but this required one:
It started with
Your love, but then it was
The 'love that dared not
Speak its name' -- until you dared
And spoke and gave the courage
To the others whose love
Was silent before you.
Bilitis first -- then Mattachine
Two groups so silly as to
Believe their courage made
A difference, made a seed
To grow beneath the wall
Of the white-shirted Time of Ike.
You went on, ignored, unheard,
As others began to win their
Civil rights -- you held a hope
And always held your love.
And then those drag queens
Hookers and their johns inside a
Bar saw police at the door
So many raids before they sat through
Silent -- this time "No more!"
They fought back, we saw the
Uniforms behind the leaves
Of trees they sought -- this time
The fear was theirs. And maybe
In their fight no rebel thought
Of you, whose seed at last began to grow
But grow it did, the cracks began to show.
And then the marches came -- we all
Announced our pride and anger as
We shared the courage they had
Shown and you had begun.
Your love and ours, no longer silent,
Dared and spoke aloud, and yes,
Fifteen, twenty years it had survived.
You saw each other with that love,
And as we saw it in your eyes and
Echoed it in our steps we knew
You had led the way as you led the march.
Time went on and even cities heard your cry
And answered -- even cops that once had
Shuddered in the trees, could share a GOAL.
Anita rose and fell -- orange fell to
Lavender and rainbows. Still you loved.
And Newt-led lizards lashed their
Tails and tried to use this love
To make their triumph safe.
Again they failed, and for so many
Struggle stripped away their
Fear to dare, to speak,
To say -- away from lights
Their own love was like yours
(In kind, of course, but not
In strength, in courage.)
But still there was that final
Step you could not take,
That final word beyond your grasp,
That final ceremony blocked to you.
(In fact the ceremony was still
There, but empty if not
echoed by the state.)
Then Massachusets' judges
Spoke aloud that just as
Loving's loving could not be stopped
From being ratified, the same was
True for you. But that was miles
Away, you waited
For your home to follow suit.
It did -- despite the protests of
The ones who asked why
A simple word could matter.
You knew that speaking
Words aloud could banish fear.
Today your march was
Down the aisle and
All of us were there --
No matter who we were
Born to love.
Five decades and a half
Of love and struggle had
Gone on. Now you're wed.
We raise a glass and toast
A love that SHOUTS its name.
[one minor footnote. GOAL = the Gay Officers Action League, the first organization of gay policemen, that was, officially, recruiting in the NYC gay community over two decades ago.]
Posted by: Prup aka Jim Benton | June 19, 2008 11:59 AM
Prup - I can feel for your mother's partner*. My mother's father's sister (my great aunt I guess, I never met her) was a seamstress. She made clothes for all sorts of people (including royalty no less). Noone seemed too interested that she lived with another women, in a one bedroom cottage!
This wasn't in the 1950's, but in the 1930's, of course the family knew. Then there was my great uncle who I always suspected was gay. Guess I know where it comes from then :)
*What a shame she never saw what greast changes her peers made! I hope your mother did. It's fitting you see it, and support it.
Posted by: DingoJack | June 19, 2008 12:25 PM
Sadly, Billie, my 'birth mother' also died a few years later and did not see any but the first changes.
Posted by: Prup aka Jim Benton | June 19, 2008 12:53 PM
Seriously Prup, sad to hear that, still she managed to see the glimmering of the dawn. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | June 19, 2008 1:00 PM
DaveL wrote:
Agreed. Perhaps I missed them, but I can't think of any objections to SSM that can't be reduced to religious objections. It's not very different than how Judge Jones described ID in his decision: religious ideas masquerading as science. In this case it isn't science, but it seems like pretty thinly veiled religious proscription to me.
So shouldn't we test SSM bans in the courts as establishment clause issues? Wait... have we?
Posted by: Leni | June 19, 2008 6:32 PM
Wes: "He's saying that, if anything, your moronic, bigoted behavior in this thread confirms the charge that the anti-gay crowd are moronic bigots."
I wish that the anti-gay crowd was moronic. Unfortunately, mroberts notwithstanding, we aren't so lucky.
Posted by: J. J. Ramsey | June 19, 2008 7:13 PM
Leni,
I like to illustrate the situation by extending DarkSyde's analogy. Imagine that the vast majority of your fellow countrymen firmly believe in Santa Claus, but the constitution clearly prohibits them from instituting laws based solely on their beliefs. "You have to provide a secular justification for your agenda," you tell them.
Promptly a bill is introduced making it a crime to light a fire in your fireplace between nightfall Dec 24th and daybreak Dec 25th. The newspapers, blogs, and television are awash with commentators crowing about the need to keep Santa Claus safe from potentially lethal burns and smoke inhalation. Yet when called on this blatant violation of the constitution, the bill's proponent's demure "Oh, this has nothing to do with Santa Claus! This measure is necessary to prevent chimney fires by reducing creosote buildup."
"But wait," you protest, "what's so special about Christmas eve when it comes to creosote? How does leaving the fireplace be for one night out of 365 help matters? Wouldn't it be more important to inspect and clean the chimney regularly?"
But they act as if they can't hear you. They may seem to listen briefly, but then go on and repeat the same nonsense as if you never said anything. Their hordes of supporters join in the chorus and bleat about the dangers of creosote, as if they really believed their leader's trumped-up rationalization. Maybe, just maybe if the bill's promoters get embarassed enough in public by the obvious transparency of that argument, you can get them to switch to another, equally transparent argument, like "this measure is necessary to reduce the risk of carbon monoxide poisoning."
This is what the Religious Right has done to public discourse on issues from the morning-after pill to science education.
Posted by: DaveL | June 19, 2008 8:08 PM
I want to thank Rev. AJB for correctly showing me how to post a parody video in the comments section.
;)
Posted by: Geoff | June 20, 2008 12:32 PM
I mean, come on people! Just look at that first picture, the one of Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon. Even a casual glance shows them to be a pair of decadent depraved trouble-makers hell-bent on undermining the sanctity of marriage. A closer look clearly reveals them to be in it for the raunch and to flaunt a 'relationship' which probably won't last more than another, what, 30 years tops? And isn't it disturbing at how cutely joyful they look? That's one of the problems - way too much happiness being shown by these same-sex couples. Why can't they be miserable like so many right-thinking hetero couples.
Posted by: Stephen Llewellyn | June 20, 2008 1:38 PM
DaveL
Well, some of them are lying douche bags to be sure, and that was exactly my point.
It's transparently false in this case just as it was in Kitzmiller. Using the government to suppress or discriminate against a group of people for religious reasons is a violation of the establishment clause, no? (So it shouldn't even matter if they are a protected class.)
It seems to me like it is. Just as it was when the judge in the Loving case said it was (to paraphrase) "God's will to keep the races apart". At least I think that was Loving. Anyway, this isn't harmless, feel good, ceremonial deism, it's institutionalized religious bigotry. Seems like a straightforward establishment violation to me.
So my question was less about why or how these people are lying douche bags, but why aren't we testing this in the courts? (Or maybe we are and I missed it because I don't follow legal cases. I'm just assuming I'd have heard about it.)
Posted by: Leni | June 20, 2008 6:25 PM