Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Card being Orson Scott Card, well known science fiction writer and purveyor of general stupidity. Over the last couple years he has embarrassed himself with uninformed blatherings about evolution and now he's ready to display his lack of reasoning ability by spouting off about gay marriage. And he appears to be channeling Mat Staver:
The first and greatest threat from court decisions in California and Massachusetts, giving legal recognition to "gay marriage," is that it marks the end of democracy in America.These judges are making new law without any democratic process; in fact, their decisions are striking down laws enacted by majority vote.
Imagine that. And what, pray tell, does Card think courts are supposed to do? We have written constitutions at the state and federal level for a reason. We empower courts to strike down legislation passed by majority vote that is contrary to the constitution for the very purpose of preventing majoritarian tyranny. This is hardly a mystery, it was explained in great detail by the men who wrote the constitution. Here's Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 78, explaining the importance of judicial review:
The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex-post-facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing.
Now you can certainly argue that any particular ruling is constitutionally dubious, but if you're going to argue against a ruling based on the mere fact that judges have overruled legislation passed by majority rule then the Supreme Court is being tyrannical every single time it engages in judicial review of legislation. And that's quite contrary to what the constitution says. And if judges overturning legislation is the "end of democracy in America" then America has never been a democracy and never will be.
From there, Card attempts to argue why this particular decision is constitutionally wrong, but he does so with general arguments once again:
The pretext is that state constitutions require it -- but it is absurd to claim that these constitutions require marriage to be defined in ways that were unthinkable through all of human history until the past 15 years. And it is offensive to expect us to believe this obvious fiction.
But would he make the same claim about, say, Loving v Virginia? In that unanimous ruling the Supreme Court struck down all state laws against interracial marriage. Every single argument Card makes applies just as logically to that ruling. Consider the facts:
1. Unelected judges struck down laws passed democratically by state legislatures
2. Those laws against miscegenation had been in place for centuries and had historical pedigrees going back eons in many cultures.
3. No court had ever found a "right" to interracial marriage in our entire history
4. The framers of the 14th amendment, upon whose equal protection clause the ruling was based, not only did not believe that this law would strike down laws against miscegenation, they explicitly campaigned in favor of the amendment by telling people that it would not do so.
Yet in 1967, a bunch of unelected judges suddenly "discovered" this "right" that no court had ever discovered and asserted their will to overturn the clearly expressed will of the people in 16 states based on a constitutional clause that had been passed by people who explicitly and specifically denied that it would lead to the conclusion they came to. But guess what? The court was right.
It would not, of course, surprise me to find out that Card would indeed agree that the Loving decision was wrong and that miscegenation is wrong. After all, he does follow a religion (Mormonism) whose most prominent founder (Brigham Young) declared that anyone who married someone of another race should be put to death:
"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so."
And Card, being a Mormon, presumably believes that Young was a prophet of God and spoke for God, just as they believe the church's leader does to this day. So if God told Young that those who engage in interracial mating should be put to death and that it would "always be so" it becomes a bit difficult to back away from that now. But first, Card has more silliness:
We already know where these decisions lead. We have seen it with the court decisions legalizing abortion. At first, it was only early abortions; within a few years, though, any abortion up to the killing of a viable baby in mid-birth was made legal.
And so....what's the point? Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage will lead to....what, exactly? Late term abortions?
Not only that, but the courts upheld obviously unconstitutional limitations on free speech and public assembly: It is now illegal even to kneel and pray in front of a clinic that performs abortions.
Utter nonsense. People gather outside of abortion clinics in every major city all around this country every single day. They pray and chant and hold signs and no one much bothers them. They can't go on private property to do it, of course, nor can they physically harass or intimidate anyone. But people kneel and pray in front of abortion clinics every single day.
Already in several states, there are textbooks for children in the earliest grades that show "gay marriages" as normal. How long do you think it will be before such textbooks become mandatory -- and parents have no way to opt out of having their children taught from them?
No they don't, they just portray gay relationships as real. And they are, whether you like it or not. Just like a textbook might show an interracial couple, thus portraying such relationships as "normal" despite the delusions of racist idiots. Does Card propose that we prohibit all pictures of interracial or interreligious couples from textbooks on the pretense that it might offend someone else or conflict with someone's racist teachings?
Well, maybe so. After all, he does belong to a church that for a century and a half taught that black people were cursed and didn't allow blacks to participate in any temple ordinances until 1978. Brigham Young explicitly taught the Hamitic theory of race, that blacks were cursed by the mark of Cain.
There's much more in the article, including his equally ignorant bleatings about biology. Well worth the read if you want a good laugh.
Politics
Comments
It is too bad he can be such an idiot on some topics because some of is books are quite good. I loved Enders Game and Pastwatch was also excellent.
Posted by: mess | August 2, 2008 9:45 AM
What nonsense is this? There is no medical indication for stopping the delivery of a viable, full-term fetus in order to kill it before proceeding. It doesn't happen. If a woman carrying a healthy full-term baby no longer wishes to be pregnant, they induce labour and deliver the baby.
Methinks Card is repeating the anti-choice myth about Dilation and Intact Extraction, known in their propaganda as "partial-birth abortion". They want people to believe it was invented as a legal loophole to turn a normal delivery into an abortion, when in reality it was developed as a safer alternative to Dilation and Evacuation, where the fetus is cut into pieces in-utero for removal.
Pro-life voters were tricked into supporting bans on "partial-birth abortion" believing it would force women to give live birth, when in reality it forces women to have their fetuses dismembered.
Oh well, I guess I should know better than to expect honesty from this lot.
Posted by: DaveL | August 2, 2008 9:53 AM
Is it really too much to ask that famous people have the same knowledge of say high school students on the topics they spout off about? Seriously, if I launched this kind of spiel in my 9th grade civics class, my teacher would have had a field day mocking my idiocy.
Posted by: I am so wise | August 2, 2008 10:12 AM
Urgh. This guy is such a crank sometimes. Here we have yet more screaming about "activist judges" which is really just a codeword for "I don't agree with this ruling -- no matter the facts!"
I'm wondering if he'd be so quick to direct his outrage at judges that ruled in his favor. Wait, why am I wondering at all?
Posted by: Spook | August 2, 2008 10:14 AM
The unfortunate thing about all this is that OSC is not a stupid man. I have the distinct impression that he suffers from a significant amount of cognitive dissonance surrounding the teachings of his church and chooses to over-identify with those teachings rather than go through the upsetting psychological exercise of admitting that those teachings are dubious at best.
You see, there is a principle in the Mormon church that if you don't have a testimony of the truth of the church or of some of its teachings, you should repeat as often as possible that you do believe them...actually, the traditional wording is that you "know" that they are true...in order to gain that belief. My personal feeling is that this is what he is doing when he comes up with these wildly silly things that he writes.
Posted by: Elaine | August 2, 2008 10:18 AM
"...that it marks the end of democracy in America"
I like how everything that happens that the wingnuts don't agree with always means the end of something.
(never read his books - never will)
Posted by: yoshi | August 2, 2008 10:21 AM
I first read Ender's Game before I knew anything about Card's politics, and enjoyed it thoroughly. I recently read it again. It's still a good read, but now that I know Card's politics (and support for the Iraq War in particular) Ender's Game definitly takes on a few sinister undertones.
Posted by: tacitus | August 2, 2008 10:23 AM
tacitus: I had the same experience - read it about ten years ago, then learned about the author, went back and read it again. Honestly, though, I think the sinister undertones give it some flavor.
Posted by: chancelikely | August 2, 2008 10:31 AM
This is a good time to point to Dahlia Lithwick's excellent article on the various "activist" factions in California, at http://www.slate.com/id/2191500/
A choice quote:
Posted by: Jeff Hebert | August 2, 2008 10:31 AM
And what happens if the ballot proposition to amend the constitution fails? Will Card suddenly declare that, since the "will of the people" has now been established that way too that gay marriage is no longer a problem, legally speaking?
Posted by: Jeff Hebert | August 2, 2008 10:39 AM
Mormonism presents a large scale experiment in cognitive dissonance. It acts as if Christianity is made more credible when the story of a modern con artist is layered on top.
Posted by: Russell | August 2, 2008 10:44 AM
From what I can remember, this is not the first spouting off of Cards homobigotry. IIRC, he also has a rather low regards towards women as well - I gather this is due to his religious beliefs - is he your run-of-the-mill mormon, or is he a member of one of the more extremist sects? I liked Enders Game, but the later books in the series I found too bizarre to enjoy. I haven't read any of his other works based on my dislike of most of what I read. I'm not surprised that he's degenerated further.
Hmm - does his being Mormon prevent him from writing in WorldNutDaily?
Posted by: Badger3k | August 2, 2008 10:50 AM
If I may plug myself, I just posted a refutation of the "it's just them damn judges" argument on my blog. If Card had been paying attention to what's going on in Massachusetts, he'd know that it's more than the judges supporting it there.
And how often do we have to put up with claims like "no branch of governement has the right to redefine marriage"? Is it so hard for them to see that whatever some alleged god means by marriage is wholly unaffected by what any human government says? That in U.S. or state law "marriage" is just a word that implies a collection of rights and duties, and that we can choose to extend those rights and duties to whomever we want, and that the "real" meaning of marriage that Card's god clings to in his judgements remains wholly unaffected?
Just what is so fucking hard about distinguishing between god and government?
Posted by: James Hanley | August 2, 2008 10:55 AM
By the way, it looks as though Russell and I should have read all of Ed's posts this morning before criticizing the Mormons. Russell, if the UN Human Rights Commission comes after you, you can hide out in my basement.
Posted by: James Hanley | August 2, 2008 10:58 AM
[/devil's advocate] Of course, as many have pointed out, they only get upset at "activist" rulings they disagree with.
Posted by: wscott | August 2, 2008 11:38 AM
Does this guy write for the Worldnutdaily? If not, he should.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | August 2, 2008 11:38 AM
James Hanley wrote:
And vice versa: what our human government means by marriage is, or should be, wholly unaffected by whatever some alleged god means by it.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | August 2, 2008 11:39 AM
I must have missed it somewhere, but I'm sure Orson Scott Card is on record as decrying the U.S. Supreme Court's intervention in the 2000 general election. After all, it's a stark miscarriage of justice when a federal court interferes with a state's right to determine its own electoral vote. Noted conservatives everywhere were certainly offended when a narrow state's-rights majority of Supreme Court Justices suddenly decided they should reverse their usual stance and abort Florida's review and recount of its own balloting. We all recall how high-minded strict constructionists rose above petty party politics and denounced the high court's betrayal of sacred philosophical principles.
Posted by: Zeno | August 2, 2008 11:50 AM
There's a third, underappreciated aspect of the first amendment: Yes, it keeps the government out of religions, and yes, it keeps the religions out of the government, but I should think the most important one from a religionist's perspective is that it keeps religion out of other religions. So the Mormons, for example, can't have their rights infringed by the let's-say-Episcopal Church that was established in the First Amendment of the Alternate Reality Constitution.
Posted by: chancelikely | August 2, 2008 11:53 AM
Zeno: Indeed, I had always thought Newt Gingrich a hack and Scalia a dangerous, cynical opportunist out to legitimize authoritarianism until that day.
On that same note, the Constitution states its the Congress' job to decide elections too close to call? If the Supremes had done their job right, they'd have thrown the case to the legislature for decision.
Posted by: Julian | August 2, 2008 12:06 PM
... There should be a "doesn't" in front of the Constitution...
*facepalm*
Posted by: Julian | August 2, 2008 12:11 PM
"is he your run-of-the-mill mormon, or is he a member of one of the more extremist sects?"
He is mainstream LDS. Of course, not being a fringe sect member doesn't mean he has even vaguely enlightened views on women or equality in general.
Posted by: jba | August 2, 2008 12:13 PM
There are over 300 comments on this at a blog thread by award-winning Science Fiction author John Scalzi.
On his blog
http://scalzi.com/whatever/
just scroll down to the thread entitled:
No Fair! You're Saying What the Amendment Does!
Posted by: Jonathan Vos Post | August 2, 2008 12:21 PM
Try reading some of the other crap he has put up there. Pretty standard anti-Obama boiler plate including a support piece for McCain claiming that he is a Democrat who voted for Obama, but MUST vote for McCain calling upon him to nominate an unnamed Evangelical Christian for his running mate (wonder who that could be...?) The underlying claim is that by doing so, and supporting McCain, he "knows" that...
Obama would appoint more dictator-judges; you would not
The guy is pandering to the uber-right wing fundie Christian vote right now, it isn't that he would not appoint "dictator-judges," it is simply that he would appoint judges with which Card would agree.
Total hypocritical babbling.
Posted by: dogmeatib | August 2, 2008 1:16 PM
Ed stated:
"And vice versa: what our human government means by marriage is, or should be, wholly unaffected by whatever some alleged god means by it."
I guess my question is: Who defines what marriage is? Why? I mean as far as by law.
Second comment would be that this guys position would change the second the "majority' voted gay marriage into existense. He would want some court to overule it then. We cease being a democracy when one's establishment of their views into the legal or legislative system destroy's anothers rights to freely exercise their own pursuit of happiness.
Finally, I do not know why the comparisons to race come up. This is not a race issue. This is a mutable characteristics issue. Gays need protection of their rights just the same as religious people. It is wholly distinct from race or gender issues and as long as it is presented as such will never win over the majority of people. This is not to say that Ed's analogy to the Loving decision is not a good one in this case.
Posted by: King of Ireland | August 2, 2008 1:36 PM
That's not accurate, but I'm not going to rehash the biological/genetic arguments in this thread. They've been discussed ad nauseam in other threads. That said, I think your opinions here are, for the most part, pretty reasonable, KOI.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | August 2, 2008 1:42 PM
I'd like to toss in my "fisking" of Card from a few days ago: Orson Scott Card is a homophobic bigot.
Unlike most people, apparently, I wasn't impressed with Ender's Game. Then I learned about his politics, and I wasn't impressed with him. He can't even stay on track in his rant; I read the whole thing, but gave up trying to respond after it just got too stupid.
Posted by: Open Threat | August 2, 2008 1:46 PM
I find this really disappointing because Card revealed himself to be very much a humanist in Pastwatch and even his other works reveal a real sense that social systems operate as systems, and have their own rules that sometimes affect behavior. That usually cuts against most right-wing stuff.
I also interviewed Card back in 1992 or 1993. (I never could sell the story :-(, oh well). Anyhow, at the time he said something interesting. Basically, that one of the problems in American society was demonizing the other side. He mentioned anti-abortion activists in particular and how they saw their opponents as "devils" and that a similar phenomenon happens on the pro-choice side.
It seems he's come a long way from that.
He also has a ton of Mormon analogies in his work. The Alvin Maker series in particular, and the Call of Earth. (He basically posits the destruction of a woman-centered society in favor of a very patriarchal one).
Something else that gets me. The courts are not elected for a reason. In any state with elected judges there are all kinds of conflicts of interest. Now, that doesn't mean you can't elect judges -- I might be happy with electing judges for life, perhaps. But judges kind of need to be free to decide their consciences as well as their interpretations of the law.
And people forget that judges are a conservative lot, who don't tend to be for radical change. The Supreme Court has been way behind the American people in every one of its landmark decisions. Brown v. Board of Ed was decided when there were already massive demonstrations going on, and black people were organizing to say "enough is enough." The Griswold case was decided some years after oral contraceptives became available, and the Roe case came in 1973, long after the "sexual revolution" (ye gods I hate that term) and third-wave feminism was well underway.
There's also a reason for the tiered law system we have, where Federal trumps state which trumps local. The 14th Amendment, for one, codified that principle. That way we no longer have things like segregation and slavery, though it took a long time for the reality to match the idea. As a result I can be pretty sure that the rights I have in one state will be largely the same in another, being part of the same country and all. If you are not white especially you really, really appreciate the idea that crossing the border into Mississippi or a sundown town is no longer life-threatening.
Posted by: Jesse | August 2, 2008 1:46 PM
Finally, I do not know why the comparisons to race come up. This is not a race issue.
The reason the comparison is made is due to the fact that the arguments against Gay marriage are virtually identical to those made 40-50 years ago against interracial marriage. Also, as Sadie points out, there is ample genetic/biological evidence to suggest that homosexuality isn't a "choice."
It is really quite simple, the 14th amendment guarantees equal protection. Denying a right to one group guaranteed to the rest of the population (especially based on the objections of another group) is a clear violation.
Posted by: dogmeatib | August 2, 2008 2:01 PM
Sadie
Send me an email about why you feel this way and I will respond. As far as the mutable and inmutable argument. kingofireland12@yahoo.com
Posted by: King of Ireland | August 2, 2008 2:05 PM
The writer of this Blog has shown that some people mistake Sophistry for intelectual argument.
Posted by: Richard Warmington | August 2, 2008 2:28 PM
From OSC -
Is this guy really suggesting a revolt against the US government over gay marriage? And he wonders why people call him a homophobe.Posted by: Taz | August 2, 2008 2:59 PM
dogmeatlb wrote- "The reason the comparison is made is due to the fact that the arguments against Gay marriage are virtually identical to those made 40-50 years ago against interracial marriage. Also, as Sadie points out, there is ample genetic/biological evidence to suggest that homosexuality isn't a "choice."
And more on point as to why interracial marriage is an excellent analogy- interracial marriage isn't about YOUR race, but the race of your beloved.
You can't choose your race, but you can certainly choose the race of your loved one. The Loving decision settled the question- you have the right to choose your marriage partner regardless of their race.
How is gender any different?
Posted by: Rick R | August 2, 2008 3:10 PM
Okay, a bit of background here:
I used to subscribe to the (now-defunct) review magazine Science Fiction Eye, and editor Stephen P. Brown and Card got into an extended brouhaha when Brown led off one issue with an editorial excoriating Card's work, Card replied with a letter excoriating Brown as a "merchant of hate" or somesuch (primarily because Brown mentioned something about Card's Mormonism) and Brown replied by bringing up Card's dreaded article "The Hypocrites of Homosexuality" (1) as further proof that some of Card's view were more than a little wackjob. Granted, this was years ago, SFE no longer exists, and it became one of those typical arguments in which an author's views get confused far too much with his work, but it's worth bringing up.
As to Card's perceived cognitive dissonance, his Wikipedia profile lists him as self-identifying as a Democrat despite his support for Bush's leadership style (!) and Fox News (again, !). Some of his views are equally contradictory, to say the least, if all of them are being reported accurately. So yeah, I think the term "cognitive dissonance" is in order.
(1) Brown sent me a xerox of "Hypocrites" to prove his point, but a link to that article (originally published in the LDS publication Sunstone) exists at http//www.nauvoo.com/library/card-hypocrites.html if you're so inclined.
Posted by: Chris Krolczyk | August 2, 2008 3:18 PM
Exactly right, Rick R. The question of whether homosexuality is a choice or not is completely irrelevant to the matter of whether people should be able to marry someone of the same sex. I have a choice to marry someone with dark hair or fair hair-- does that in any way justify legally preventing me from marrying the person with dark hair? Of course not.
Posted by: Gretchen | August 2, 2008 3:19 PM
I like how gay marriage is going to lead to more abortions...work that out you sane people. Ha ha
Posted by: Richard Eis | August 2, 2008 3:23 PM
The great irony of this article, and many of these comments, is that they both miss Card's points and do the very same thing to Card and his religion as they claim he's doing to evolution, and the issue of same gender marriage.
The cries of cognitive dissonance on the part of Card are made insanely funny in the light of what is required to hold and state the positions and views presented here by Ed Brayton and the vast array of commentators.
Posted by: HiveRadical | August 2, 2008 3:25 PM
HiveRadical,
Either explain and justify your claims, or don't bother to make them. If you're going to accuse someone of missing points or cognitive dissonance, it means nothing if you can't be bothered to say how or why.
Posted by: Gretchen | August 2, 2008 3:27 PM
HiveRadical- "The cries of cognitive dissonance on the part of Card are made insanely funny in the light of what is required to hold and state the positions and views presented here by Ed Brayton and the vast array of commentators."
Examples? Evidence?
Posted by: Rick R | August 2, 2008 3:31 PM
I think we should reclassify homosexuality as a religion, and have sodomy as a sacred rite. Then, it would be a matter of "freedom of religion" to classify oneself as gay. That would fuck up the Christian rights complaints against homosexuality - we could say 'its our religion', its our right to worship how we see fit. Of course, unlike the Mormons and polygamy, we wouldn't just roll over and accept censorship by the US government.
Posted by: Thomas Langham | August 2, 2008 4:13 PM
HiveRadical, I have to back up Gretchen and wonder what you are talking about. You make several claims, but you fail to back them up with any examples. How have Ed and the commenters done the same thing as Card? I don't even understand the point you are trying to make.
Card argued that the courts shouldn't overturn majority approved laws. Ed pointed out that is the very reason for judicial review by the courts. Ed also brings up the fact that interracial marriage was also made legal by judicial review, and wondered how Card felt about that. Would Card have been happy if interracial marriage was illegal in South Carolina until 1998, when it was taken out of the state constitution?
Posted by: penn | August 2, 2008 4:14 PM
This is a standard red herring.
Imagine, if you will, that scientists developed a pill that would turn black people white overnight. This pill would change all the secondary characteristics associated with African Americans into distinctly caucasian features. It would even strip out all memories of African American culture and inculcate the recipient with false memories of a suitably white-bread background.
In this case, would it become morally acceptable to re-instate anti-miscegenation laws, re-segregate schools, or perhaps bring back slavery?
I hope you would agree it would not. In fact, I have yet to meet anyone remotely normal who doesn't contemplate the idea of such a pill with horror. Why is that?
Because there's nothing wrong with being black. That is the reason that all the persecution they have suffered is wrong. It is not because "blackness" is some kind of offense that we excuse because it is, as you might put it, an immutable characteristic. It is not because society forgives black people for because they did not choose it and cannot change. Racial discrimination is wrong because it harms real people who have done nothing wrong. It is wrong because it denies the equal human dignity of black people.
Anti-miscegenation laws were wrong, and it has nothing to do with whether we can choose our race. Therefore the distinction you attempt to draw between them and bans on gay marriage is all smoke and mirrors. The argument of whether homosexuals choose their orientation is moot, a red herring meant to distract from the moral wrongness and real harm of homophobia.
Posted by: DaveL | August 2, 2008 4:20 PM
King of Ireland wrote:
No it isn't. Card didn't say anything about a mutable characteristic and it is his argument I was responding to. But the argument about mutable characteristics is irrelevant no matter who makes it. Religion is a mutable trait but no one would seriously argue that the government could constitutionally forbid inter-religious marriages.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | August 2, 2008 4:57 PM
@ Jeff Hebert: You said: "And what happens if the ballot proposition to amend the constitution fails? Will Card suddenly declare that, since the "will of the people" has now been established that way too that gay marriage is no longer a problem, legally speaking?"
OSC would simply protest that it STILL doesn't reflect the will of the people, since by the Constitution, a proposed ammendment must be passed by 2/3 of the congress, THEN by 3/4 of the state legislatures. Obviously, in a case as vital to the Democracy as this a simple 50%+1 vote must be enough. (We can always call Madison and the rest of the founding fathers "Activist Politicians" fo the time being)
Posted by: Blaidd Drwg | August 2, 2008 5:34 PM
@ Richard is, You wondered how gay marriage would lead to more abortions - Ed, I think you brought up that point as well.
Of course it wouldn't, OSC is using a well-worn logical fallacy (Sorry, I can't recall which one at the moment).
Basically, he's saying, "Abortion (which we oppose) used to be a rare thing, now abortions are given away 2-for-1 on Thursdays at al-Mart. Now imagine how terrible things will be if we allow gays to marry - why before long NORMAL marriage will be legislated against! You KNOW those fag libs are all for depopulating the planet - just look at that 'stonehenge' down in Georgia - God's own GEORGIA fer Pete's sake!"
Posted by: Blaidd Drwg | August 2, 2008 5:49 PM
KoI, what do you mean when you say "homosexuality?" Most people I know who use that term only refer to behavior, not identity.
Posted by: Bachalon | August 2, 2008 6:05 PM
Rick, penn, Gretchen, Ed and all,
An example of Ed's hypocrisy as found in his approach using the miscegenation topic.
Firstly, and a digression that I'm now coming to feel needs to be made, the error of his points.
Judicial review's function, as presented in the Federalist Papers quote, is limited to "certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority" There is no "certain specified exception" found, or pointed to, by the Judges who claimed to overturn the legislative authority that enacted of prop 22. Where in either the California State Constitution or the US Constitution does it give "certain specified exceptions to the...authority" of the people's voice? If we're going to cite the Federalist Papers then let's please acknowledge the whole of what they're saying when giving a reason--including the context in which the statements are operating.
Next his reference to Loving v Virginia and the four points he brings up he seems either ignorant of, or ignoring, the fact that these points of similarity do not sit in the same context on some crucial differences in strata. In this way his facts and points are completely true and correct, but completely screwing with the context. His logic doesn't hold up when you look at the whole picture.
1. Unelected judges struck down laws passed democratically by state legislatures
Yes. But the laws passed were not passed by the electorate that was living and in force at the time. And the laws could be found to be in explicit conflict with the US Constitution (remember that 'pesky' "certain and specified" part described there in the Federalist Papers?) Society was coming to the realization that skin color doesn't really differentiate humans. I don't know about you, but last I checked there were some significant differences in both genetic underpinning and in the biological, physiological manifestations of gender. And these have profound implications and roles in the perpetuation of human life and human civilization. You can have a family environment with every member being different in skin tone, eye color and hair color and if you have a father and a mother they symbiotic dynamic of those two will both be something that is the most optimal for raising kids (biological or otherwise) than you could ever get with it being limited to single gender parental set up. So the reference to this with miscegenation is wrong on this point because the democratic support that established it was dead AND there were, in the context of new realizations regarding skin color and it's irrelevancy, new realizations by society. You simply don't have that with gender because gender is massively different than race in the context of societal and biological, roles.
2. Those laws against miscegenation had been in place for centuries and had historical pedigrees going back eons in many cultures.
Again this ignores the fact that there had come to be, and is still held, the realization of the irrelevancy of skin color. The antiquity is irrelevant with skin color, but antiquity with regard to gender roles is vital--evolution should teach you that.
3. No court had ever found a "right" to interracial marriage in our entire history
Because the emergence of the right could be tied to the certain specified exceptions
4. The framers of the 14th amendment, upon whose equal protection clause the ruling was based, not only did not believe that this law would strike down laws against miscegenation, they explicitly campaigned in favor of the amendment by telling people that it would not do so.
It didn't need to because the framers of the 14th amendment were not operating in the same context of knowledge. And I, again, point out that race doesn't significantly effect the components and workings- biological, societal, or memetic of the environs in which we perpetuate humanity but gender does. A boy or girl that is limited to a single gender of direct parental influence is at a disadvantage, generally, to one that does have access to both.
Now on to the real meat of my accusations of hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance on Ed's part.
Ed's premise is that Card doesn't understand the topic, that's why he pulls out the Federalist Papers and then does a point by point on his perceived similarities between miscegenation and this issue of same gender marriage. But then, as an aside, he tries to invoke portions of Card's theological roots. And by so doing moves beyond merely not understanding the full context of what he's talking about in terms of Constitutional Law and History, but he does a full frontal exposure of his ignorance of Mormonism.
Let's look at the old anti-Mormon Brigham Young quote through which he tries to hint that Card may be secretly for the old miscegenation views-
"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so."
--Brigham Young
That's set up as a pretty straight forward view, and with just a few assumptions one would say that this is a "doctrinalized" miscegenation. But that's not the totality of what Young taught.
The concepts of the blood of the "chosen seed" and the blood of the "seed of Cain" are coming from a man who stated that the attributes that made one's seed "chosen" or of "Cain" were tied to personal choices. Brigham Young taught that in someway (doesn't need be detectable by humans at present) would change, literally in some way change, when one was baptized properly in the Church. And this component of their blood is not a reference to skin color.
Aside from his ill informed basis of implicating Card of supporting miscegenation he carries the implication further as he uses it in irrelevant responses to more of Card's other points. For example--
In response to Card's comments on the presence of gay couples in textbooks in schools under public mandate Ed says--
...they just portray gay relationships as real. And they are, whether you like it or not. Just like a textbook might show an interracial couple, thus portraying such relationships as "normal" despite the delusions of racist idiots. Does Card propose that we prohibit all pictures of interracial or interreligious couples from textbooks on the pretense that it might offend someone else or conflict with someone's racist teachings?
Card proposes no such thing because interracial and interreligious couples still provide both genders to the environment of raising children! So why did he bring this up? Why posit the question "Does Card propose that we prohibit all pictures of interracial or interreligious couples from textbooks..." unless you are trying to imply that he holds to views of miscegenation? The classic "When was the last time you beat your wife" set-up. It corresponds to no view or statement and is set up to try and get people to make the jump and ignore the difference between 'race'/ethnicity and gender. And by obfuscating and ignoring that line it seeks to paint Card, and his faith, as both stupid hateful when neither are-nor are they close to it.
Well, maybe so. After all, he does belong to a church that for a century and a half taught that black people were cursed and didn't allow blacks to participate in any temple ordinances until 1978. Brigham Young explicitly taught the Hamitic theory of race, that blacks were cursed by the mark of Cain.
The finality of this, as if there were a single "Hamitic theory of race" it's as stupid as when creationists will point to old and out dated components of evolutionary theory and seek to lump it all together, as if having holes, multiple views, or corrections makes something completely or in large part wrong, or a mistake or without value or merit.
The labeling of who is crazy, stupid or bigoted has always been given to the illogical common present consensus. "Crazy" Fritz with his assertions of Dark Matter/Energy. Attributing bigotry or evil or wrong doing to the practice of our Church of keeping a specific ethnic group from the priesthood or Temple worship (they were not denied membership) is as wrong headed as blaming the holocaust on Evolutionary Theory. There's nuance and far more to it than the uninformed or agenda driven critics acknowledge. If you're genuinely interested in the whole story then don't give sway to the volume of adherents or the quality of rhetoric, but the actual logical underpinnings in full context. If you've read Card at all you would have some idea of the integrity of his intelligence. How do you solve the cognitive dissonance? Do you you question your views? Question those of his critics? Or do you simply apply the claim of cognitive dissonance to the person that doesn't agree with what you either want or think?
Posted by: HiveRadical | August 2, 2008 6:47 PM
HiveRadical,
A number of points:
1. Last I checked, the ability to form an optimal family was not a pre-condition for granting a marriage license. If it were, then infertile couples should be legally prevented to marry.
2. Even disregarding point #1, there is no evidence that suggests that same-sex parents raise children who are less healthy, physically or mentally, than those with parents of different sexes. If you're going to claim that race is irrelevant but gender is not, you need to actually provide some kind of evidence for that statement.
3.
Then why, exactly, is skin color specified in the quote?
4.
Because it is equally ridiculous to complain about school textbooks portraying gay couples as it is to complain about them portraying mixed race or mixed religion couples, obviously. All such couples exist, therefore there is nothing wrong with depicting them in a class which presumes to teach children about the reality of modern society.
5.
Great, then please share for us exactly why the Mormon church would exclude specific races from the priesthood or temple worship without reference to racist thinking. I'm sure we all would be glad to hear it.
Posted by: Gretchen | August 2, 2008 6:59 PM
Some corrections to my comment. Apologies for not adequately proofing it.
This
"You can have a family environment with every member being different in skin tone, eye color and hair color and if you have a father and a mother they symbiotic dynamic of those two will both be something that is the most optimal for raising kids"
should be this "You can have a family environment with every member being different in skin tone, eye color and hair color and if you have a father and a mother the symbiotic dynamic of those two will both be something that is the most optimal for raising kids"
In the paragraph that starts "The concepts of the blood..." I failed to include the word "blood" in the sentence which should read "Brigham Young taught that in someway blood (doesn't need be detectable by humans at present) would change...
A summary of the above view is that Brigham Young also taught that the blood of a person would literally change from being the "seed" of one person or lineage to another at baptism.
Posted by: HiveRadical | August 2, 2008 7:01 PM
I read "Ender's Game" about 15 years ago, IIRC. I remember thinking at the time that the authors must have had a very fucked-up childhood. I suspected that he had been the victim of some serious sexual/psychological abuse.
Fast forward to about 4 months ago when I saw a piece about one of Card's diatribes. What a fucking looney.
Posted by: democommie | August 2, 2008 7:03 PM
Sigh...
You just couldn't resist, could you Mr. Brayton? Not enough to simply point out why you think Card is full of rubbish on constitutional grounds. You had to throw in the obligatory cheap-shot at Mormonism didn't you? Not really surprising I guess, a lot of otherwise intelligent people seem to lose all restraint or basic politeness whenever there's a chance to smack a Mormon. Why should you be any exception eh?
As for this quote from you:
"And Card, being a Mormon, presumably believes that Young was a prophet of God and spoke for God, just as they believe the church's leader does to this day."
No, there is no "presumption" here. I'm a believing Mormon. Have been all my life. And I happen to think that Brigham Young was full of it when he made that statement. Nothing says a prophet of God can't be as bigoted as anyone else in the neighborhood. I happen to think that statement caught Brigham at one of his less than shining moments. Regrettable, but it says absolutely zip about anything else in Mormonism as a religion or in the views held by its followers.
I'll thank you in the future to stick to the subject and refrain from cheap anti-Mormon tangents that really have little to do with your argument.
Posted by: Seth R. | August 2, 2008 7:14 PM
I post this because Jesse, being on your (the posters here in general) ideological side, points out something that accents the problem with the California decision.
Jesse says
And people forget that judges are a conservative lot, who don't tend to be for radical change. The Supreme Court has been way behind the American people in every one of its landmark decisions. Brown v. Board of Ed was decided when there were already massive demonstrations going on, and black people were organizing to say "enough is enough." The Griswold case was decided some years after oral contraceptives became available, and the Roe case came in 1973, long after the "sexual revolution" (ye gods I hate that term) and third-wave feminism was well underway.
I point this out because it demonstrates that these instances contrast with the California instance in that they changed in tandem with popular changes in understanding. That's not the case with this, not when Prop 22 passed in California with over 60 percent of the populace in favor of it. And that's just California.
Posted by: HiveRadical | August 2, 2008 7:16 PM
HiveRadical, you're very hard to take seriously. You claim it was ok for the Supreme Court to strike down anti-miscegenation laws because (a) the people who wrote those laws were no longer alive, and (b) society was coming to realzie how wrong the laws were.
Do you really think that the majority of voting citizens in Virginia, South Carolina, Alabama, and Georgia didn't wholeheartedly support anti-miscegenation laws? Because if they realized how wrong the laws were, why didn't they just repeal them? I have a hard time believing you're going to stand by this claim.
Second, if it's the popular will you're looking for, check out Massachusetts, where after two election cycles the legislature had still refused to pass a constitutional amendment reversing the state supreme court's ruling, and where they just voted to extend the benefit of same-sex marriage to out-of-state couples. If they're willing to do that three months before an election, they must think the public is on their side.
P.S. you still haven't explained why BY felt the need to specify "Africans." Are you seriously claiming Young was an early advocate of integration? I guess that would explain why Utah still has such a large African-American population.
Posted by: James Hanley | August 2, 2008 7:18 PM
What a shame. The Ender's game series is among the best science fiction I have ever read.
Posted by: Jeremy | August 2, 2008 7:41 PM
Seth R. said: "Nothing says a prophet of God can't be as bigoted as anyone else in the neighborhood. I happen to think that statement caught Brigham at one of his less than shining moments. Regrettable, but it says absolutely zip about anything else in Mormonism as a religion or in the views held by its followers."
Actually, you're wrong here. If there were an omnipotent, omniscient deity, and if he decided, for some bizarre reason, not to make his wishes known in some clear, unambiguous way to everyone at once, but instead to appoint prophets, I would expect that every single thing that came out a true prophet's mouth, especially when he was dictating doctrine, would be absolutely true and hold up to scutiny forever after. If Brigham Young was wrong about blacks, how do you decide what he was right about? What are the criteria for what counts as divine revelation, true throughout eternity, and what is just bigoted BS?
I might mention that my absolute best teacher in high school, the one that shaped much of my world-view even to this day, was a devout Mormon. But, even in high school I realized that he believed a lot of really stupid things and I that I had to filter those out from the stuff that was good and helpful. Of course, he wasn't claiming to be a prophet of God (in fact he left his religion totally out of the classroom, for which I respected him even more) like Young was. While I'm very happy that you seem to have set up a filter for yourself, I still wonder what the standards are when you are dealing with someone you believe to be divinely inspired.
Posted by: MS | August 2, 2008 7:53 PM
HiveRadical - Are you really proposing as a legal principle that courts can only overturn laws after society has come to realize the laws are wrong? How do you suggest the courts determine that - take a poll? And I hate to break it to you, but when it comes to gay marriage, "the times they are a-changin". And rapidly too, I might add.
Posted by: Taz | August 2, 2008 7:55 PM
Ed stated:
"No it isn't. Card didn't say anything about a mutable characteristic and it is his argument I was responding to. But the argument about mutable characteristics is irrelevant no matter who makes it. Religion is a mutable trait but no one would seriously argue that the government could constitutionally forbid inter-religious marriages."
I meant to say inmutable( I think). My point, and I think you agree, is that the issue of gays rights does not hinge on be able to prove the genetic issue. I do not personally think someone is born gay. But that does not stop me from realizing I am the worst hypocrite possible if I claim religious freedom and do not extend them their freedom to marry whoever they want. I think the argument has more weight if one stays away from the whole genetic issue. Even if they do think people are born gay.
But I ask again who decides what "marriage" is?
Posted by: King of Ireland | August 2, 2008 7:56 PM
Gretchen,
You said--
1. Last I checked, the ability to form an optimal family was not a pre-condition for granting a marriage license. If it were, then infertile couples should be legally prevented to marry.
The ability to insure something, or all aspects of something, is not a pretext for legislation. We outlaw murder and violence not because doing such will eliminate it. And it's inability to eliminate it is not a pretext for not implementing it as a law. A man and a woman in the case of adoption and foster care GENERALLY would be closer to the ideal because both genders would be represented in optimal proportion. This doesn't insure that situations will be optimal, but again the capacity to arrive at the optimal is not a requisite for giving, or having effective, law.
2. Even disregarding point #1, there is no evidence that suggests that same-sex parents raise children who are less healthy, physically or mentally, than those with parents of different sexes. If you're going to claim that race is irrelevant but gender is not, you need to actually provide some kind of evidence for that statement.
When you adjust for socioeconomic conditions and access to resources divorce and separation of parents also have no effect on the numbers and statistics tied to children that come out of such circumstances. Granted that's ignoring the fact that socio-economic condition is tied to the permanence, or lack thereof, of parental relations. But a great many things are not easily measured or fully measurable in any societal metrics we can contrive, children's happiness and satisfaction being some of the key ones. Even leaving that point on socio-economic ties to fidelity aside one needs but look at the variances in the genders. Look at fidelity studies and numbers between homosexual, lesbian and heterosexual companionship. The gender differences scream the divergence. Men with men have exceptional levels of infidelity compared with either Heterosexual or Lesbian companionships. Lesbian fidelity rates are higher but at a cost, high rates of complete abandonment of intimacy. You can cite the few numbers that exist one way or the other, but look at the underpinnings and honestly ask yourself if the variances in the genders that are emergent from our biological past and honestly ask yourself if the differences in the natures of men and women, even those with same gender attraction, are insignificant in the effect they have. It's as silly as saying that man in no way effects the environment when it comes to Global Warming.
3.
Brigham Young taught that in someway blood (inserting here to avoid confusion)(doesn't need be detectable by humans at present) would change, literally in some way change, when one was baptized properly in the Church. And this component of their blood is not a reference to skin color.
Then why, exactly, is skin color specified in the quote?
It's specified for those that are both "white" and of the "chosen seed," because there have been individuals, both white and black, considered to be of the "seed of Cain."
4.
Card proposes no such thing because interracial and interreligious couples still provide both genders to the environment of raising children! So why did he bring this up? Why posit the question "Does Card propose that we prohibit all pictures of interracial or interreligious couples from textbooks..." unless you are trying to imply that he holds to views of miscegenation?
Because it is equally ridiculous to complain about school textbooks portraying gay couples as it is to complain about them portraying mixed race or mixed religion couples, obviously. All such couples exist, therefore there is nothing wrong with depicting them in a class which presumes to teach children about the reality of modern society.
It's not obvious and we don't portray as normal many things that are real or the reality of our society. We don't give school field trips to fresh crime scenes or to police station debriefing rooms or to a great many other realities of our society. Porn, and many other things on the internet, are parts of the reality of modern society. The reality of Modern Society is only relevant in as much as exposure to it enhances the lives and abilities of Children. Showing kids how to construct IEDs or how to dispose of toxic waste from illicit drug manufacturing without getting taught is not something advisable, even though they are significant components of reality in the world we live in.
Gender has dynamic differences in society, to treat them as inconsequential or omni-interchangable is to misinform and corrupt.
5.
Attributing bigotry or evil or wrong doing to the practice of our Church of keeping a specific ethnic group from the priesthood or Temple worship (they were not denied membership) is as wrong headed as blaming the holocaust on Evolutionary Theory. There's nuance and far more to it than the uninformed or agenda driven critics acknowledge.
Great, then please share for us exactly why the Mormon church would exclude specific races from the priesthood or temple worship without reference to racist thinking. I'm sure we all would be glad to hear it.
That's an explanation that gets deeper into our theology, doctrine, memetics and the whole view taken together than I'm willing to do here. You can go to my YouTube page I've placed as my URL if you want to see my ongoing dialog and explanations of such.
Posted by: HiveRadical | August 2, 2008 8:03 PM
"And more on point as to why interracial marriage is an excellent analogy- interracial marriage isn't about YOUR race, but the race of your beloved.
You can't choose your race, but you can certainly choose the race of your loved one. The Loving decision settled the question- you have the right to choose your marriage partner regardless of their race.
How is gender any different?"
Well put and I agree. I think this is what I was trying to say. I say all this because if the point is to protect the rights one has to put forth the strongest case. A genetic position is not the strongest case. It also would push away many who would ultimately support gay rights.
If it is presented based on biological or genetic grounds that would make homosexuality an identity and not a behavior choice you would lose me. The argument put forth in the quote above is what one me over. I had nothing to say and changed my view. It is the stronger argument. That is all I am saying. I stand corrected the Loving case is a good analogy based on the explanation of the quote above.
Posted by: King of Ireland | August 2, 2008 8:11 PM
I reread "Ender's Game" a few months ago, and i'm reading "Shatterday" by Harlan Ellison now. Sometimes, the whackjobs make the best writers.
Posted by: Jeff Conner | August 2, 2008 8:20 PM
That's an explanation that gets deeper into our theology, doctrine, memetics and the whole view taken together than I'm willing to do here. You can go to my YouTube page I've placed as my URL if you want to see my ongoing dialog and explanations of such.
Note: The above "explanation" can also be used for why the Earth is only 6,000 years old, Bush is a Reptoid Alien, or how a Communion Wafer Really And Truly Becomes the Body and Blood of Christ (Even Though You Can't See It). Just swap the urls, YouTube page, and cognitive dissonance and voila.
[Rolls Eyes]
Posted by: Jody | August 2, 2008 8:27 PM
Nothing says a prophet of God can't be as bigoted as anyone else in the neighborhood.
Yeah but he said it was the law of God. I guess Brigham messed up, but God forgot to correct him on that point. Like maybe God could have given him a prophesy that was, oh, completely the freakin exact opposite or something like that.
Are there any other things that Brigham says are the laws of God?
I happen to think that statement caught Brigham at one of his less than shining moments.
Yeah, prophets of God: they're prophets of God, but sometimes you can't believe them though. Sometimes they might be making stuff up, or sometimes it might be the complete exact freakin opposite of what it's supposed to be.
Regrettable, but it says absolutely zip about anything else in Mormonism as a religion or in the views held by its followers.
Yeah, it says absolutely zip about anything else in Mormonism as a religion or in the views held by its followers.
Posted by: 386sx | August 2, 2008 8:29 PM
HiveRadical,
Sorry, but I am not going to assume for your sake that homosexual marriage is anything like a crime scene, construction of IEDs, or toxic waste. It is your job to explain why it is like any of the above.
Do not take for granted that your ideal is the same as other people's. Unless you can present actual evidence for why anyone should maintain that a family with one biological mother and one biological father who are married and the collective parents of any children involved is the ideal, do not assume that others can or should share your ideals. My ideal for a family is a collection of people who love each other, have a commitment to sharing their lives, property, and time together, and are prepared to sacrifice for each other. This does not require any particular gender or biological relationship among the members of that group. Care to explain exactly what is wrong with this ideal?
Exactly what does "complete abandonment of intimacy" mean, and how exactly do you discern a pattern of such among lesbians? I would love to know. Personally, it sounds like a gobbdely-gook effort to dismiss the fact that lesbians have been demonstrated to have higher levels of fidelity and lower levels of STD transmission than any other relationship, while maintaining the standard prejudice against gay marriage....because of course allowing lesbians to marry but not gay men would be transparently unjust, so in order to argue on grounds of fidelity we must pretend that all homosexuals are men, or find some other way to discount lesbians in the equation. Never mind that the issue at stake is marriage, a right which is both emotionally and financially costly to both enter and leave, and therefore presumably should not be attractive to capricious people of any gender or sexual orientation.
Posted by: Gretchen | August 2, 2008 9:03 PM
Re Seth R
Gee, Mr. Seth R is offended by what he considers to be Mr. Braytons'negative comments about Momonism. Too fucking bad. If Mr. Seth R doesn't like it, I suggest he vote with his feet.
Re HiveRadical
Although Mr. HiveRadical is rather vague on the subject of adoption by same sex couples, I would gather that he is opposed to such a practice, based on the totality of his comments. But if same sex couples are ipso facto to be barred from adoption purely on the basis of their being the same sex, then shouldn't natural children born to one member of a same sex couple be taken away from them? In other words, should Vice President Cheneys' daughter have her natural child taken away because she is in a same sex situation?
Posted by: SLC | August 2, 2008 9:10 PM
HiveRadical -
So let's do everything in our power to keep it that way? I wonder what the affect would be on the fidelity of straight couples if you outlawed heterosexual marriage.Posted by: Taz | August 2, 2008 9:14 PM
Certainly doesn't surprise me, as I got banned from roleplaying in Virtual Battle School, complete with a letter from Card himself, for playing two gay characters, because it was a game for young people. At the time, I was 16, but apparently I didn't count. If I hadn't already been safely enrolled in the most liberal high school in the state of North Carolina, a good, long way away from my tiny Appalachian hometown, it probably would've been damaging to my gay teenage psyche.
The incident did NOT, however, ruin Ender's Game for me, and it remains my favorite fiction book of all time.
Posted by: Cassidy | August 2, 2008 9:19 PM
Then why, exactly, is skin color specified in the quote?
It's specified for those that are both "white" and of the "chosen seed," because there have been individuals, both white and black, considered to be of the "seed of Cain."
"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so."
Oh okay, the reason skin color is specified in the quote is because skin color is not specified. Okay. Can you tell us the reason death on the spot is specified too?
Probably something also the complete frakin exact opposite of what the quote says too, probably. That's assuming I understand what the hell you're saying. (Which I don't.) Thanks.
Posted by: 386sx | August 2, 2008 9:19 PM
HiveRadical: Its funny when people distort things to proves that other people are distorting.
1). The specified exceptions to legislative authority include instances in which laws violate Constitutional rights, not that any of this matters considering that the California Supreme Court decided the case on the content of their Constitution, not the one the Founders wrote. The Constitution of California is pretty clear, it guarantees all of tis citizens the right to marry, and it does it in about that many words. The Court merely said that gays, being citizens, get that right too. However, as I pointed out above, the Supreme Court does have the right to intervene when the laws of the Legislative Branch violate the Constitution or those Tenets of our nation laid out in the Declaration(why does everyone forget this is a legal document?). Under the Declaration we have a right to Happiness. Marriage increases my happiness without decreasing another persons, ergo, I have a right to marry, and that holds true for me as well as it does for a Homosexual. You are a silly head for not grasping this very simple concept.
2) As has been pointed out before, this argument about the views of Southerners at the time of the ruling is ridiculous. I'm a Texan and the majority of the people I grew up around here STILL believe that miscegenation is a blight upon our nation. Georgia and Virgina were places of greater racial tension than Texas, but I don't have to assume from that historical fact that things are worse there, I can rely on documented racial crimes from the time, and statements made by their elected representatives. Honestly, do you believe this argument or are you just trying to be disingenuous?
3) Except that Card is argument a "from time immemorial" argument too. I can use your same argument to argue that your point is pointless, so assume I just did.
4) This statement makes no sense. What are you trying to say by bringing up the exception thing again? Bonkers.
5) And your argument doesn't change the fact that the 14th Amendments specific purpose is to maintain a person's individual rights in the face of legislative discrimination. If it were used to extend to gay citizens their right to marry each other, it would still be fulfilling this purpose. You aren't biologically designed to live in a house and yet you're right to own one is defended by the Government, isn't it? So we all agree biology doesn't matter to the law, this was a dumb argument for you to include. Dummy.
And just as an aside, state's didn't start passing laws mandating marriage to be XX/XY until very recently, and yet they did refuse marriage rights to homosexuals. So technically, the states have been breaking their own laws since their inceptions. Just throwing that out there seeing as you want to be all literalist.
6) On the issue of Card. Ed isn't saying he doesn't understand the topic. Ed is saying that Card is allowing his personal bigotry deaden his native intellectual curiosity on this topic, and that as a result, Card is reading his opinions into the laws of reality and man to demonize the opinion he opposes. That sounds impressive, but it really isn't; its a common human act, like calling a German a Hun, or saying Black people are lazy. However, Ed is also making this claim on the basis of his past knowledge of Card, and, that not only includes hist authorship of a number of a anti-gay screeds, but also his openly, naturally racist works within the Ender's Game series. Perhaps you don't think that arguing that the Chinese and Japanese are all alike and good at math because they are all OCD cases is racist, Card obviously doesn't because thats what he claims in his entire Xenocide book, but some of us do. Perhaps you don't find statements like "all white males are raised to be liars" to be racist, Card obviously doesn't because he wrote it into Children of the Mind, but some of us do. His books are filled with such filth (as well as just plain lazy, sloppy writing, but that's not the issue here).
You're right to be offended that Ed took a shot at your religion as a whole, but think about this; this is a freethinkers', progressive blog. Do you think it will be a place where Young, a man who outside of the Mormon community has a questionable reputation at best(akin to that of L. Ron Hubbard), will be forgiven for stating that race-purity is ordained by god? That in itself, btw, is a shot at Young, not Mormons, though his following comments are somewhat snide. Its par for the course. Look at his posts and the comments from a week ago and you'll see just as much snide directed at Catholics. When people do stupid things on a national scale, they get made fun of here, and so do their belief systems, particularly when those systems seem to be related somehow to their idiocy. Like yours is with your post. As someone demanding that people see past emotion to the underlying logic, you should probably not write a post to defend a fellow religionist out of anger at religious insults.
Posted by: Julian | August 2, 2008 9:31 PM
I find this to actually be the most disturbing part of the article. That's pretty darn extremist there.
Posted by: Hume's Ghost | August 2, 2008 9:38 PM
I like a lot of Card's scifi writing, but I think he is over-stretching things when he claims any authority on morality
But surely this being "The End of Democracy" thing sounds like a great opportunity for one of those "End Of The World is Nigh" themed parties? Maybe on referendum night - so all the history books can record how like passengers on the Titanic we partied oblivious to the muslim terrorists and aetheist baby-eaters tearing down god-given democracy. Those evil gay florists and window dressers!!!!
Posted by: Peter McKellar | August 2, 2008 9:41 PM
Since I'm out of town and several readers have responded adequately to the inane bullshit spewed here by HiveRadical, I won't bother with that. I am amused, however, by Seth's feigned outrage at me pointing out some of the absurdities of Mormonism. Sorry, if you don't want to have your beliefs called stupid, don't have such stupid beliefs.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | August 2, 2008 10:35 PM
Check this out: http://www.angelfire.com/ms/seanie/mormon/lds_racism.html.
In earlier editions of the Book of Mormon when a Native American becomes a Mormon his/her skin will become "white and delightsome." I think newer editions now say "pure and delightsome."
I also think that defending marriage as between one man and one woman coming from someone who believes that polygamy is a divine commandment, even though it's been suspended, whatever that means, is pure hypocrisy.
Posted by: wrpd | August 2, 2008 10:37 PM
I posted another comment, but since it has links it got sent to moderation, and since Ed is out of town, I'll just add that I also mentioned that Card is popular with pseudo-libertarians like Neal Boortz and Instapundit.
Boortz likes Card because he is a Democrat who believes that James Hansen is part of a global warming fraud conspiracy.
Posted by: Hume's Ghost | August 2, 2008 10:38 PM
Ed said "Sorry, if you don't want to have your beliefs called stupid, don't have such stupid beliefs."
That would make a great T-Shirt.
A few years back the Calgary Herald did an article about the "white and delightsome" change after it was no longer official doctrine - they had no trouble finding Mormons who claimed they had seen it happen.
Brigham Young was a grifter - no doubt about it.
Posted by: Militant Agnostic | August 2, 2008 11:34 PM
This letter was written by a friend of mine, briefly touching upon what it's like to be gay in the mormon church. In private, he has gone into much more detail, and to an ordinary heathen like me, to call it vile is being kind.
Mormonism. Feel the love.
http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/101942
Posted by: Rick R | August 3, 2008 12:15 AM
KoI wrote- "Well put and I agree. I think this is what I was trying to say. I say all this because if the point is to protect the rights one has to put forth the strongest case. A genetic position is not the strongest case. It also would push away many who would ultimately support gay rights."
I agree. And DaveL specified exactly why arguing a genetic basis for homosexuality (and the notion of immutability) is arguing from a position of weakness. Ultimately, it's irrelevant to the question of civil rights. Here is his post-
"Imagine, if you will, that scientists developed a pill that would turn black people white overnight. This pill would change all the secondary characteristics associated with African Americans into distinctly caucasian features. It would even strip out all memories of African American culture and inculcate the recipient with false memories of a suitably white-bread background.
In this case, would it become morally acceptable to re-instate anti-miscegenation laws, re-segregate schools, or perhaps bring back slavery?
I hope you would agree it would not. In fact, I have yet to meet anyone remotely normal who doesn't contemplate the idea of such a pill with horror. Why is that?
Because there's nothing wrong with being black. That is the reason that all the persecution they have suffered is wrong. It is not because "blackness" is some kind of offense that we excuse because it is, as you might put it, an immutable characteristic. It is not because society forgives black people for because they did not choose it and cannot change. Racial discrimination is wrong because it harms real people who have done nothing wrong. It is wrong because it denies the equal human dignity of black people.
Anti-miscegenation laws were wrong, and it has nothing to do with whether we can choose our race. Therefore the distinction you attempt to draw between them and bans on gay marriage is all smoke and mirrors. The argument of whether homosexuals choose their orientation is moot, a red herring meant to distract from the moral wrongness and real harm of homophobia."
Posted by: Rick R | August 3, 2008 12:22 AM
Mormons who object to gay marriage because it somehow infringes on their rights should--if they don't wish to be guilty of grade-A hypocrisy--rise up against their Church's intrusive, insulting practice of Baptism for the Dead.
Imagine the outcry if some religious group proposed performing Gay Marriage for the Dead. You'd be able to hear the screams of outrage from Neptune.
Posted by: Prof. Bleen | August 3, 2008 12:37 AM
HiveRadical wrote:
Ideal according to whom? Optimal based upon what evidence? Because it is natural? Nonsense, balderdash, poppycock, horse hockey - your "ideal" is nothing less than the imposition of a moral prohibition on others without any evidence of harm or even any logical reason to believe harm may derive from their behavior. Laws that discriminate against homosexuals are nothing more than an attempt to institutionalize bigotry. The arguments made against gay marriage are universally logically-bankrupt and nearly universally based in scripture and a culturally-imposed revulsion for gay sex. Ed's comparison with anti-miscegenation laws is spot on. Many white people used to feel revulsion (and probably many still do) at the thought of black and white couples having sex, particularly black men with white women. Likewise, many people are revolted at the thought of same sex couples copulating. And that, the sex act itself, is the only thing with which gay marriage opponents concern themselves. I really doubt Card is any different or any more thoughtful about it. Neither the US government nor those of the individual states are there to reinforce someone's squeamishness, regardless of how common that squeamishness may be.
Posted by: c-serpent | August 3, 2008 1:40 AM
"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so."
I happen to think that statement caught Brigham at one of his less than shining moments.
Hey, let's say for the sake of argument that there's a law of God that you actually agree with for once. Is there any way for people to know if it's really a law of God, or if it's just a law made up by people who mistakenly claim that it's a law of God?
If there is a way for people to know if laws are people laws, or if laws are God laws that they just happen to agree with, make sure you let Brigham Young know!
Regrettable, but it says absolutely zip about anything else in Mormonism as a religion or in the views held by its followers.
Yeeaaahhhhh connect the dots please. Thanks.
Posted by: 386sx | August 3, 2008 2:42 AM
Sadly, each and every one of us is likely to posthumously become Mormons, whether we like it or not (and I personally can't stomach the idea).
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | August 3, 2008 2:43 AM
Sadie Morrison:
Yeah, that's a wholesome practice--can't get enough live converts, let's go for a few dead ones. Is there a time limit on this, or do the Latter Day Shitheads not subscribe to the notion that the body and soul part company at corporeal death?
Posted by: democommie | August 3, 2008 8:24 AM
I can't get too worked up about baptism for the dead, since they don't actually dig up the dead corpses and baptize them - they have proxies that go through the ritual for them. Friend of mine said that on one day she was proxy for about 30 dead people. Peculiar, odd, queer way of looking at God. I am amused by Mormons who backpedal old Brigham Young - he was a product of his time and was as racist as you'll get. In 1950s, Mormons did not backpedal, only when it became too unpopular. And authoritarian churches like to say that they don't bend to popular will! Wait a few decades and gay marriage will be okay with these same religionists because it would be too unpopular with our society to continue to oppose it. Seth: problem is, there are many of your coreligionists who agree with Brigham Young.
Posted by: BC | August 3, 2008 11:14 AM
And to think, this guy is seen as a rebel by the Mormons and has been threatened with excommunication more than once
Mormons are simply Scientology 1835, it was time to arrest them 100 years ago. How much longer do we allow the infection to spread before we amputate?
Posted by: Bickle | August 3, 2008 11:29 AM
How much longer do we allow the infection to spread before we amputate?
Being a free country means people are free to be stupid, as long as it only harms themselves and doesn't impose disproportionate societal costs (eg. refusing to use seatbelts in moving cars).
The main difficulty here is the parent -> child indoctrination. There are no easy answers here but I do think forced socialization into the mainstream via a neutral public school system is the best choice.
Then again perhaps people who aren't intelligent enough to escape the mindf- that is mormonism and other fundamentalist belief systems deserve their lot.
Posted by: Troy | August 3, 2008 12:50 PM
James Hanley,
You said-
...you're very hard to take seriously. You claim it was ok for the Supreme Court to strike down anti-miscegenation laws because (a) the people who wrote those laws were no longer alive, and (b) society was coming to realzie how wrong the laws were.
How is that hard to take seriously? New paradigms call for another look. I've pointed out what Jesse commented here regarding the modus operandi of the Supreme Court thus far on these cases. They change their views after society is well in the process of doing so.
Do you really think that the majority of voting citizens in Virginia, South Carolina, Alabama, and Georgia didn't wholeheartedly support anti-miscegenation laws?
Yes.
Because if they realized how wrong the laws were, why didn't they just repeal them?
A law loosing support for it's underlying paradigm/world view does not equate with gaining support and momentum to go in reverse. The Union did not start the fight with the Confederacy because of the fact that they almost all felt slavery was a relic of barbarism. Majority perception of the untenable foundation of an ideology doesn't mean the majority is going to quickly move to actively fight prevailing legal norms.
Second, if it's the popular will you're looking for, check out Massachusetts, where after two election cycles the legislature had still refused to pass a constitutional amendment reversing the state supreme court's ruling, and where they just voted to extend the benefit of same-sex marriage to out-of-state couples. If they're willing to do that three months before an election, they must think the public is on their side.
The support of a few states is irrelevant to the constitutionality OR the overall support.
P.S. you still haven't explained why BY felt the need to specify "Africans."
There have been white Africans that, under the ban on holding the priesthood, were not allowed to hold the priesthood.
Are you seriously claiming Young was an early advocate of integration? I guess that would explain why Utah still has such a large African-American population.
Africa actually is one of the fastest growing areas of the world in terms of LDS converts. Young certainly had, as did Lincoln and all whites in western society, racist perceptions that were emergent from his background. Such flaws do not diminish his position as prophet nor are they excused as less than flaws.
Posted by: HiveRadical | August 3, 2008 3:16 PM
Posted by: Taz | August 3, 2008 3:25 PM
Taz asked
Are you really proposing as a legal principle that courts can only overturn laws after society has come to realize the laws are wrong? How do you suggest the courts determine that - take a poll?
Yes. As I've pointed out several places now, and corresponding to the point Jesse made, the SC has only ever made these sweeping changes long after the movement had already gained support from a majority of Americans. It is there modus operandi thus far.
And I hate to break it to you, but when it comes to gay marriage, "the times they are a-changin". And rapidly too, I might add.
And the capacity of anything, an institution or society, is tied to it's capacity to sufficiently perpetuate itself in the face of changing environments. Those societies that endorse and accept same-gender relationships as being equally advantageous society as traditional marriage will find themselves less capable to perpetuate themselves. Demographics and the realities of memetics are not forgiving and societies that distort, disregard or abandon the traditional family will fall as did Greece, Sparta, and a great many other of Humanity's once potent civilizations.
Posted by: HiveRadical | August 3, 2008 3:27 PM
Taz said in regard to my comments about men's relative rates of infidelity.
So let's do everything in our power to keep it that way? I wonder what the affect would be on the fidelity of straight couples if you outlawed heterosexual marriage.
Taz, your making a mistake, nothing in the numbers suggests that the rate of likely infidelity relative to other circumstances will change significantly with marriage. Last I checked it was a rate of about 90 percent of homosexual relationships would experience infidelity. If marriage improved the likelihood of fidelity at the same rate it does in heterosexual relationships you'd still be well north 60 percent, if not over 70 percent. And there's simply nothing to indicate that marriage would change it more than marriage alters heterosexual fidelity rates.
Posted by: HiveRadical | August 3, 2008 3:36 PM
Jody said regarding the deferment of one of my answers to videos (videos I personally made, wrote, and read--not some uploaded prepackaged stuff, my own thoughts and arguments)
Note: The above "explanation" can also be used for why the Earth is only 6,000 years old, Bush is a Reptoid Alien, or how a Communion Wafer Really And Truly Becomes the Body and Blood of Christ (Even Though You Can't See It). Just swap the urls, YouTube page, and cognitive dissonance and voila.
Your response is disgustingly full of presumption. It is true that the question was akin to some all encompassing question a creationist may give regarding evolutionary theory, is it wrong in such a case to refer them to a site that is able to address such a massive topic or to go off on some tangent and spend the next three months filling up the comment section here with the same material--only in a format that's more difficult to follow due to the inherent limitations of presentation a comment thread?
Posted by: HiveRadical | August 3, 2008 3:42 PM
HiveRadical says:
First, you don't have to view something as advantageous to society in order to believe people have the right to do it. Society is not benefited by the sentiments of racist people, however it is benefited by having a constitutional amendment which protects peoples' right to be racist.
Second, it is to the advantage of a society to view homosexuals as people with the same rights as heterosexuals-- that does not equate to somehow trying to make sure that there are as many married gay people as straight people, as you seem to be suggesting.
Posted by: Gretchen | August 3, 2008 3:47 PM
Sadly, each and every one of us is likely to posthumously become Mormons, whether we like it or not (and I personally can't stomach the idea).
Aside from being a misrepresentation of our practice and beliefs (our theology holds only that such ordinances are made available to those who were unable to obtain such in this life, not that it's forced upon them NOR that they automatically become Mormons posthumously) it's funny to see someone in the "scienceblogs" talk about not stomaching the idea of postthumously becoming Mormon when rationality rather dictates that if you don't believe there's any way it could be true then it's irrelevant what some religious group does with your name when you're dead.
Posted by: HiveRadical | August 3, 2008 3:50 PM
You mean they choose to be baptized in the Mormon faith... after they're dead?
Posted by: DaveL | August 3, 2008 3:54 PM
SLC said
Re HiveRadical
Although Mr. HiveRadical is rather vague on the subject of adoption by same sex couples, I would gather that he is opposed to such a practice, based on the totality of his comments. But if same sex couples are ipso facto to be barred from adoption purely on the basis of their being the same sex, then shouldn't natural children born to one member of a same sex couple be taken away from them? In other words, should Vice President Cheneys' daughter have her natural child taken away because she is in a same sex situation?
Just as society does not generally force those born to single mothers to be taken away (there are always cases of neglect and state intervention in cases of neglect or abuse, as it should be) it should not take children away from mothers against their will. So I would not be for the forfeiture of a child from a mother soley because she had a woman as a sexual partner, but I would not see as viable any companionship of men taking custody and guardianship of a child.
Posted by: HiveRadical | August 3, 2008 3:58 PM
HiveRadical said:
Do you enjoy the thought of somebody saying after you're dead that you were a child molester? After all, it's not true....why should it matter?
Posted by: Gretchen | August 3, 2008 3:59 PM
HiveRadical, I fail to see why the fidelity rate is relevant. For many couples - gay and straight - the concept of an open relationship is a healthy one. Monogamy is not necessarily the mark of a happy couple.
Posted by: Cassidy | August 3, 2008 3:59 PM
In other words, for all your talk of raising children in the optimal environment, you'd favour an orphanage over adoption by a gay couple. All that 'think of the children' noise turns out to be a smokescreen to distract from the underlying issue, which is nothing more than good, old-fashioned bigotry.
What a shocking, completely unexpected turn of events.
Posted by: MartinM | August 3, 2008 4:06 PM
HiveRadical -
I don't buy that. What about prayer in public schools? I have a feeling others posters here will be able to come up with quite a few counterexamples.You're going to have to come up with something to justify those numbers, or I'll assume you pulled them out of your ass. And your rate that marriage "improved the likelihood of fidelity at the same rate it does in heterosexual relationships" doesn't fly anyway. You're comparing rates between couples who choose to get married vs those who choose not to. I was talking about outlawing marriage, so there is no choice. The way it is for same sex couples.Posted by: Taz | August 3, 2008 4:23 PM
Gretchen said
Sorry, but I am not going to assume for your sake that homosexual marriage is anything like a crime scene, construction of IEDs, or toxic waste. It is your job to explain why it is like any of the above.
When you redefine what constitutes, and what society will hold to as it's ideal, unit for perpetuating it's memetic paradigms, it's civilization, it's humanity, then you are engaged in something more dangerous than cavalier genetic alterations, the promulgation of access to dangerous weaponry or the commission of crimes. This is not about constitutionality or equal rights, it's the redefining of the foundational unit of society under the false guise of equality and 'constitutionality.'
I said "A man and a woman in the case of adoption and foster care GENERALLY would be closer to the ideal because both genders would be represented in optimal proportion."
To which Gretchen responded-
Do not take for granted that your ideal is the same as other people's. Unless you can present actual evidence for why anyone should maintain that a family with one biological mother and one biological father who are married and the collective parents of any children involved is the ideal, do not assume that others can or should share your ideals. My ideal for a family is a collection of people who love each other, have a commitment to sharing their lives, property, and time together, and are prepared to sacrifice for each other. This does not require any particular gender or biological relationship among the members of that group. Care to explain exactly what is wrong with this ideal?
Because it is not demonstrated as fit. That is it is not the archetype that has been demonstrated to perpetuate itself with indefinite continuity. I can clip a rose and do all sorts of things to make it cosmetically wonderful and make it last for as long as that single rose would have lasted on the bush. But it doesn't change the fact that I've halted it's capacity to perpetuate itself. How many roses that are sold by the dozen do you know to have become their own rose bush(s)?
I said-- "Look at fidelity studies and numbers between homosexual, lesbian and heterosexual companionship. The gender differences scream the divergence. Men with men have exceptional levels of infidelity compared with either Heterosexual or Lesbian companionships. Lesbian fidelity rates are higher but at a cost, high rates of complete abandonment of intimacy."
To which you reply--
Exactly what does "complete abandonment of intimacy" mean,
They cease with any sexual/intimate relations.
and how exactly do you discern a pattern of such among lesbians? I would love to know.
My psychology professor, at a very liberal state run University, pointed this out to everyone in our course of study on human attachments. This was just a few years back, I still have the text book and notes, it may take me a while but I know there had been found a phenomena 'mongst lesbian couples wherein a significant portion of them, at some point, ceased entirely in any sexual relations. Any time you have a couple do that the results of the loss of intimacy WILL in some way effect their relationship with the children.
Posted by: HiveRadical | August 3, 2008 4:40 PM
James Hanley: P.S. you still haven't explained why BY felt the need to specify "Africans."
HiveRadical: There have been white Africans that, under the ban on holding the priesthood, were not allowed to hold the priesthood.
HiveRadical, what are you talking about? Are you saying that, according to Young, if white Africans mix with the chosen people they should get "death on the spot" just as well as black Africans should? And where is it talking about the priesthood?
This is the quote: "Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so."
Here have another Brigham Young quote: "Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin."
The flat nose and black skin is the "mark" of the seed of Cain, fundamentalist bigot person who makes no sense!
Posted by: 386sx | August 3, 2008 4:49 PM
it's funny to see someone in the "scienceblogs" talk about not stomaching the idea of postthumously becoming Mormon when rationality rather dictates that if you don't believe there's any way it could be true then it's irrelevant what some religious group does with your name when you're dead.
HiveRadical, do you think that there are no people at scienceblogs who have religious beliefs? Bigot person!
Posted by: 386sx | August 3, 2008 5:02 PM
HiveRadical:
Are you suggesting that we're going to see a dangerous drop in fertility rates as a result of gay marriage?
Posted by: Troublesom Frog | August 3, 2008 5:11 PM
HiveRadical:
To elaborate on troublesom frog's question, do you believe that if same sex marriage is legalized that:
A) Heterosexual couples will have fewer children or
B) People who would otherwise have entered heterosexual marriage will opt for gay marriage instead?
If B do you think sad farces like Larry Craig's marriage are preferable to those people seeking relationships that match their orientations?
Posted by: tresmal | August 3, 2008 5:43 PM
HiveRadical said:
Kindly present some evidence that heterosexual marriage, to the exclusion of homosexual marriage, is the ideal unit for perpetuaing America's memetic paradigms, civilization, and humanity. No doubt there are endless conservatives bleating about how legalizing gay marriage will mean the end of morality and civilization, but I haven't seen the slightest bit of evidence that they are the majority, let alone that they are anywhere close to correct in their allegations.
I said:
By what standard? You're making the mistake, again, of making incredibly contentious claims without a shred of evidence to support you. Sorry to be blunt, but put up or shut up. If you can demonstrate that the so-called nuclear family (married opposite gender parents, biological children) is superior to all other family permutations (adopted children, single parent, gay married parents, gay unmarried parents, grandparent involvement, etc.), then please do so. Otherwise, please drop this stupid claim.
Even if this is true (and I will need evidence that it is), kindly explain why continued sexual relations are required for people to be good parents. Should we conduct surveys of how often parents have sex, and take their children away if it's not often enough?
Posted by: Gretchen | August 3, 2008 5:54 PM
Re HiveRadical
1. Mr. Hive Radical dodges my question concerning adoption of children by same sex couples. I am assuming that he is opposed to such a practice. But if it is considered inappropriate for a same sex couple to adopt and raise children, how is it appropriate for a same sex couple to raise children which are the natural progeny of one of them?
2. Mr. HiveRadical considers it inappropriate for a male same sex couple to raise children. Suppose one of them is the natural father of a child and the mother has either run off or died. Would Mr. HiveRadical prevent the natural father from raising the child with his partner?
Posted by: SLC | August 3, 2008 6:27 PM
HiveRadical -
This proves it - you're a hack. When you start reducing the complex issues that make up the decline of any civilization to your pet political stance, you've lost all credibility. This theory of history is as inaccurate as your legal theory that courts must uphold all laws that the populace agrees with, no matter how unconstitutional.Posted by: Taz | August 3, 2008 7:02 PM
Yikes! Anyone else getting a little tired of HiveRadical's illogical, unsupported claims?
Seeing how 50% of heterosexual marriages end in divorce (usually within the first 2 years), I'm not so sure the man/woman model is necessarily the best arrangement for children. If heteros can't even save their own marriage, they clearly are in no position to say gay marriage is bad for children.
You want to "save" marriage? Get rid of divorce, infidelity, domestic violence, and those quickie Vegas marriages people like Britney Spears are having....instead of trying to prevent those who WANT to get married from marrying. Silly bigots.
Consider this...
The American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the World Health Organization, the American Counseling Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the Council on Child and Adolescent Health, the American Academy of Pediatrics and even the health ministries in Russia and China ALL say homosexuality is not a mental disorder, isn't a choice, can't be changed and trying to change it is harmful.
Did I mention these are EDUCATED people/scientists who actually STUDY these issues?
The American Psychological Association, the American Psychoanalytical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Anthropological Association ALL support gay marriage and submitted amicus briefs to the CA SUP CT in support of gay marriage there.
Truth is: the vast majority of the educated people of society (from legal scholars to social scientists) SUPPORT gay marriage/adoption. Below is an excerpt from a academic article written by Lynn Wardle, law professor at BYU...
--------
39 STXLR 735
South Texas Law Review
LEGAL CLAIMS FOR SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: EFFORTS TO LEGITIMATE A RETREAT
June, 1998 (Approx. 27 pages)
"...American law review literature has been inundated with articles advocating, supporting, and expressing sympathy for the legalization of same-sex marriage. [FN48] Between January 1990 and December 1995, seventy-two articles, notes, comments, and essays that significantly discussed same-sex marriage were published in law journals in the United States. Only one of those pieces opposed same-sex marriage and defended traditional heterosexual marriage; sixty-seven of those publications clearly advocated, supported or were sympathetic to legalization of same-sex marriage. [FN49] Likewise, a recent review of ninety law review articles, notes, comments and essays published in the past six years that discuss whether homosexual behavior of a parent or prospective parent should affect adoption, custody, visitation, and assisted procreation reveals that all of the law review pieces support homosexual parenting, and generally oppose any consideration by courts of homosexual behavior as a factor in parenting decisions; none are significantly critical or question the potential risks of homosexual parenting. [FN50] In the social sciences, the pro-same-sex-family-relations bias in the literature about equally pronounced. [FN51] Thus, the academic and professional literature thoroughly favors same-sex marriage and family initiatives..."
------
Any questions?
Didn't think so.
NEXT!
Posted by: redvanilla | August 3, 2008 7:04 PM
He's buggered off!
I think 386sx got him that flat nose and black skin bit. Kinda hard to dance around that. Good catch by the way.
Posted by: tresmal | August 3, 2008 7:51 PM
Of all the hypocrisy. Conservatives sue immediately when there's a law they don't happen to like.
Posted by: Paul Murray | August 3, 2008 9:01 PM
That "mark of Cain" thing has always puzzled me because, according to Genesis, humans experienced a 'population bottleneck'--i.e., a universal flood that wiped out everybody except Noah and his sons. So everybody is descended from Noah, and Noah is descended not from Cain but from Seth, Adam's third son. Of course, that still leaves the Africans-are-descended-from-Ham school of racism--Ham the youngest son of Noah who was cursed because he stumbled upon his father passed out drunk and naked and didn't cover him up but instead told his two brothers that their nude father was out cold in the vineyard . The two older sons covered their father, carefully backing into the vineyard so they wouldn't see him naked. When Noah came to, he cursed Ham and said his descendants would be his brother's servants. And there you have it: justification for the enslavement of the African descendants of Ham. (I've been reading the Bible with my teenage daughter, at her request. We've made it through Chapter 13 of Genesis, and she is agog. Today's question: Mom, the genealogies just list the men. Why don't they list the women? Cue discussion of 'patriarchy'. He he! The more we read, the greater her disbelief!)
Posted by: Elf Eye | August 3, 2008 11:35 PM
Re: Brigham Young's statement about interracial marriage: If, as hiveradical says, the mark of Cain cannot be determined by humans, how do you know who to kill?
I still think it's funny for someone who believes in polygamy to lecture anyone about family life.
Posted by: wrpd | August 4, 2008 2:24 AM
Not really surprising I guess, a lot of otherwise intelligent people seem to lose all restraint or basic politeness whenever there's a chance to smack a Mormon.
Seth, if you read Ed's blog with any consistency, you'd know full well that he's not singling out Mormons; he -- and the rest of us -- smack people of just about every other religion as well as Mormonism. Cut the self-pity and face the facts: like nearly all other religions, including mine, yours has beliefs a lot of outsiders find silly, if not evil, sometimes with good reason.
Posted by: Raging Bee | August 4, 2008 2:30 PM
I dunno if this has been mentioned-- I kinda zoned out when the thread veered off into talking about racism and mormonism-- but Orson Scott Card's crazy op-eds about gay marriage actually predate his crazy op-eds about evolution, with a column he wrote on gay marriage in 2004 right after the Massachusetts court decision kind of causing a firestorm in the blogosphere of the time and serving as for a lot of people (including me) a first exposure to Card's little op-ed side career and the extent of his right-wing views.
(Card apparently still writes op-eds on that same site and has an entry from May in which he claims Barack Obama's religion is neither Christianity nor Islam, but rather "environmentalism".)
Posted by: Coin | August 4, 2008 4:32 PM
Elf Eye, that's precious. I can't wait to hear her reaction to Lot's story. Please do keep us posted!
Posted by: Abby Normal | August 4, 2008 4:54 PM