Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
I somehow missed this line when I posted about Orson Scott Card's astonishingly idiotic screed about gay marriage, but Andrew Sullivan noticed it.
How long before married people answer the dictators thus: Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn.
First of all, you absolutely have to love the pseudo-macho bluster. The government is his "mortal enemy" and he'll "act to destroy that government." No you won't. You'll whine and cry and piss and moan and you'll write more idiotic articles in Mormon rags to call the faithful to battle and that's all you'll do. He might as well have said, "Don't make me mad; you wouldn't like me when I'm mad." I've got news for you - we don't like you now.
Second, the reasoning here is absolutely moronic. How in the world does allowing gays to marry affect whether Card's children "will expect to marry in their turn"? Actually, it makes it even more likely that his children can expect to marry because, as much as this will make Card cringe, one or more of his children just might turn out to be gay. It seems to happen a lot to anti-gay bigots, just ask Phyllis Schlafly, Randall Terry, Alan Keyes and many others.
But regardless, allowing gays to get married has no effect whatsoever on whether other people can or will get married. Card seems to have no critical thinking skills whatsoever.
Politics
Comments
I've long avoided buying or reading any of Card's science fiction novels or comic books, despite his significant popularity, because of Card's conservative Morman beliefs and the fact that he tithes faithfully. (Yes, folks, I admit that I do in fact discriminate in my purchases of reading material on the basis of religion--which is why I also won't read C.S. Lewis or James P. Hogan or, now, Anne Rice.)I consider Card's recent screeds to be nothing more than examples of how religious faith can ruin a perfectly good mind.
Posted by: gary l. day | August 21, 2008 9:54 AM
There's considerable irony in a Mormon campaigning in defense of "traditional" marriage. What does Card think of his ancestors (and some splinter groups to this day) whose definition of marriage differed from those of the society aroound them? Who does he think was/is right?
Posted by: Eamon Knight | August 21, 2008 10:17 AM
"act to destroy that government". Sounds like he's Gitmo material to me.
Posted by: I am so wise | August 21, 2008 10:21 AM
Card does address that point somewhere around the millionth line of his essay:
Basically he's demanding veto power over any gay marriages or sex-out-of-wedlock or no-fault divorces that his (grown) children might ever want to engage in. I think he also wants veto power over his children's use of contraception...he doesn't ask for it but it's a natural consequence of his argument.
Posted by: chaos_engineer | August 21, 2008 10:24 AM
That's why we have libraries. You don't have to dodge some entertaining light sci-fi in order to not line Card's pockets. Stay away from C.S. Lewis, though...that trope is flat-out unreadable.
Posted by: Shygetz | August 21, 2008 10:26 AM
Well, in all fairness, the Mormon version technically is more traditionally Biblical...
Posted by: Dunc | August 21, 2008 10:34 AM
> I've long avoided buying or reading any of Card's science
> fiction novels or comic books, despite his significant
> popularity, because of Card's conservative Morman beliefs
> and the fact that he tithes faithfully.
Which is a shame for you since some of his writing is very very good indeed (Ender's Game is one of my absolute all time favorite books). Okay, a lot of his stuff is rubbish too. :-)
Still, it pays to be able to separate people's real world view from what they write. This is why it is called 'fiction'.
Posted by: David Durant | August 21, 2008 10:42 AM
He may be gay himself. He clearly has an obsessive interest in gay marriage, like every other right-wing religious lunatic. If he had a loving wife, and family, he wouldn't have any interest vested in this. In "To Kill A Mocking Bird," the old lady, told Atticus's children, while sitting on her front porch, "[sometimes, the bible in the hands of a man is worse than a bottle of gin]." Mr. Scott uses his religion like a straight jacket from keeping him from doing something illegal. This is the essence of right-wing Christianity. It's a colon twisting, cult, and the right-wing lunatics love it.
Posted by: Flex | August 21, 2008 10:43 AM
Great rallying cries of revolutionary movements:
"Give me liberty, or give me death!"
"Arise, ye wretched of the earth!"
"Our offspring must grow up in circumstances that will maximize their reproductive opportunities!"
Posted by: Jeffrey Kramer | August 21, 2008 10:47 AM
What's Card's stance on middle-aged men taking multiple underaged girls and calling it "marriage?" Will he "act to destroy and bring down" communities in which this sort of child-rape -- oops, I mean "celestial marriage" -- is practiced?
Come to think of it, has Card said ANYTHING even half this harsh about such communities?
Posted by: Raging Bee | August 21, 2008 10:57 AM
@gary
Writers (and actors) have all sorts of nutty opinions so I have a hard time seeing how someone won't buy or see something because they choose to express an opinion in some public way. I usually just ignore them (sean penn comes to mind).
I am amused that Rice ends up on your list. She is a christian and her latest fictional endeavors involve her refound interest in her religion. So what? Is she penning editorials on worldnetdaily saying the world is 6000 years old? No. Is she penning hit pieces on democrats? Nope. Has she disowned her gay son and his gay themed novels? Nope - as far as I can tell has quite a bit of love for her son and she has talked about collaborating on future books. I think 'boycotting' her strictly because of religion is just plain silly.
Posted by: yoshi | August 21, 2008 10:59 AM
"Still, it pays to be able to separate people's real world view from what they write. This is why it is called 'fiction'"
For me, that depends. I try to be diligent (within the bounds of reason) not to support those who seek the suppression, even destruction, of my community. Card and the Mormon church do. This is why, in the past, I wouldn't drink Coors beer until the company distanced itself from its founder and became a strong supporter of the gay community. And that's also why I do still patronize McDonald's (on occasion) and Disney, because they, as corporate entities, support us and are standing up to the religious right.
But in terms of reading material, I have no problem with authors whose point of view is different from mine--Tolkien, for instance, was very religious. What he WASN'T was an advocate for destructive beliefs and policies. James P. Hogan, another talented SF writer, for example, has been a supporter of Velikovsky (believe it or not), a figure of great unreason. I can't support that. And Anne Rice's recent (re)conversion into traditional Catholicism is an example to the pious about how the "sinful" can return to the fold (at least Rice hasn't gone all rabidly anti-gay and disowned her son, but still...). It's just my personal sense of responsibility, as much as possible, for where my money eventually ends up and what it ultimately supports.
Posted by: gary l. day | August 21, 2008 11:06 AM
"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."
I would point out that a better candidate would be a court decision in which actual votes were ignored (recount of Florida)...
And the judges are doing exactly what they *should* be doing - striking down laws is a part of the American judicial process. It helps prevent the 'tyranny of the majority'. It's a feature, not a bug. (Although, I think that in future years we will see laws allowing gay marriage - should those be struck down to satisfy Mr. Card, even if they were democratically put into place?)
cheers
Posted by: Eric | August 21, 2008 11:13 AM
According to Time, Hallmark has now added same-sex wedding cards to its retail line.
Perhaps this new line should be given its own name. Orson Scott Hallmark Cards, perhaps? Too generic? How about Orson Scott Gender Bender Ender Cards?
Let the snark begin...
Posted by: The Pondonome | August 21, 2008 11:23 AM
BTW, there are people who are heterosexual who don't want to get married and/or have children.
I suppose they don't exist in his world.
Posted by: khan | August 21, 2008 11:32 AM
So Card's kids are gonna get the message that while gay sex is unforgivably bad, violence is fine (even good) as long as it's against anyone who doesn't hate gay sex. Sex bad, violence good.
He's just so fucking moral, I can't even stand it.
Posted by: pough | August 21, 2008 11:33 AM
...one or more of his children just might turn out to be gay. It seems to happen a lot to anti-gay bigots, just ask Phyllis Schlafly, Randall Terry, Alan Keyes and many others.
If only refusing to disown his lesbian daughter were the greatest crime against the next generation for which Dick Cheney seemingly will never be held responsible.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | August 21, 2008 11:53 AM
Well, Card has also gone on record as being of the opinion that anyone who has not married and had children is not really an adult and should not be treated as such on the theory that anyone who is not married and a parent hasn't ever had any responsibility. So, you know, he's not just out there on same-sex marriage.
Posted by: Elaine | August 21, 2008 12:08 PM
Really? I thought that was what we evil Humanists and Darwinists were supposed to think life was about. I thought the religious had some sort of "higher" purpose in life than just reproducing. Huh.
Posted by: Matthew L. | August 21, 2008 12:09 PM
That's what all life is about. It's not enough just to spawn -- your offspring must grow up in circumstances that will maximize their reproductive opportunities.
Those circumstances don't seem to include the Card household, where 40% of offspring have died before reproducing. ...what, was that a low blow? I'm sorry, but we must apply the cold logic of fitness, and the odds are better with two daddies.
Posted by: windy | August 21, 2008 1:11 PM
Gary Day:
"I've long avoided buying or reading any of Card's science fiction novels or comic books, despite his significant popularity, because of Card's conservative Morman beliefs and the fact that he tithes faithfully."
I, on the other hand, avoid his fiction, because it sucks.
Posted by: democommie | August 21, 2008 1:27 PM
Haha, +1 to democommie.
You're right, it DOES suck.
Posted by: Julian | August 21, 2008 1:48 PM
"I somehow missed this line when I posted about Orson Scott Card's astonishingly idiotic screed about gay marriage..."
I pointed that out in that comment thread ... I'd already been primed by seeing it quoted at another blog.
Posted by: Hume's Ghost | August 21, 2008 2:05 PM
David Durant -
Still, it pays to be able to separate people's real world view from what they write. This is why it is called 'fiction'.
Like Gary, I tend to think that this really depends on the author(or any other artist).
First (like Gary) I refuse to support artists who in turn support socially destructive agendas. And getting it from the library is supporting the author, just not as much as actually buying the book. With "most checked out" lists and replacement copies for worn out volumes it is still support.
Second, Card uses some of his fiction to present his POV in a positive light. Inane and vile as many of his notions are, Card is a pretty bright guy and a talented wordsmith - capable of making aspects of his agenda appear to be reasonable.
Finally, I just can't stomach reading (or enjoying the art of) people who are just that far afield from my own values. Whether their work is indicative of their values or not, if I know (for example) that an artist is particularly anti-gay rights, I am incapable of viewing their work without that tainting the experience. At best I just feel sorrow that such a talented artist can be such a vile wad of shit.
Posted by: DuWayne | August 21, 2008 2:24 PM
Ed,
You should read Empire. Card pretty much completely reveals himself to be a full-on, anti-intellectual culture warrior. It's a horrendous 'literary work', but it's relatively short and gives plenty of insight into the way Card's mind (mal)functions.
Posted by: Peter | August 21, 2008 2:34 PM
Some of his books are quite good, wouldn't buy them though. Get an ebook-reader, download them, try and enjoy.
Separating the author from the literature is hard but in this case, well lets just say most people who just read his popular books do not realize that he is a raging homophobe.
In any case, just think that you aren't helping line his coffers any.
Posted by: Jon | August 21, 2008 4:17 PM
Wow, you must hand-make all of your goods yourself directly from natural products you forage. Because otherwise, you know, you might buy something from a company that has shares of a mutual fund that includes another company that employs a racist, and you don't want to support racists do you?
Posted by: Shygetz | August 21, 2008 4:56 PM
I stopped reading Card's works when he put out that idiotic book "Empire," about how America's left staged a coup and it was only thanks to the daring work of conservative military officers from Oklahoma who were able to save the day... as I never actually read the book, I couldn't tell you any more about it. I will buy another copy of Ender's Game when my current one wears out, but if he's into writing cheap, liberal-bashing fiction (guest-starring Bill O'Reilly, voice of the good guys!), well, I'll stay away from that.
Posted by: Kit Smith | August 21, 2008 5:59 PM
gary l. day: I felt the same way about Mel Gibson; not only did I avoid Passion of the Christ like the plague, but I no longer enjoyed his previous movies like Lethal Weapon or Tequila Sunrise (despite the totally smoking hot tub scene with Michelle Pfeiffer) the way I used to. The Patriot was a good indicator, though, that he was starting to really get off on violence. I guess I don't compartmentalize well.
Also, with authors, I have issues when their prosletyzing bleeds into their writing. Dean Koontz must have gone through some sort of religious conversion, because several of his books sucked a couple of years ago (one was about the rapture). He seems to have gotten back to writing horror fiction with general themes of good and evil, PTL.
Shygetz: you so funny!
Posted by: ildi | August 21, 2008 6:05 PM
Wow Shygetz, your a first class asshole.
Within the realms of reason, I do my best to do business with companies that (whatever their motivations) support things that I find important. I am not however, neurotic about it.
I am, OTOH, neurotic about supporting artists who's views and values I find as repugnant as those of OSC. While my checking his books out at the library may not provide much in the way of support it's still something. I happen to find his world view vile and repugnant enough that I will not even support him that tiny little bit. The same is true of any artist that I find repugnant.
I am well aware that by providing them my business, there are many companies with shareholders who I would find repugnant getting that tiny bit richer because of my purchase. I doubt there is a company in the world that one could buy things from who isn't going to enrich someone I find distasteful. Fact is that I need things from those companies. I do not however, need to read anything by OSC. Nor do I need to provide even the most cursory support to any other artist whom I find repugnant.
I should note that I have also chosen not to work for people who have certain values. On three occasions over the years I have chosen not to work for new clients when I became aware of their nasty values. With one it was a desire to see a return to pre-OSHA days, when one measure of major construction jobs was a body count. I quote; "well you liberals are the ones whining about unemployment - fatalities mean more jobs." The other two were just flat out bigoted fucking morons.
Posted by: DuWayne | August 21, 2008 6:07 PM
I won't link to Card's vile coven of a website, but there's an essay there about "Smartland vs Heartland," in which he basically said the 9/11 victims got what they deserved because they're effete urban gay-friendly pinheads who don't pray enough.
Posted by: TTT | August 21, 2008 6:14 PM
I don't think Shygetz was impugning your character, DuWayne-- just pointing out how hard it can be to make sure that you only do business with people whose ideas and/or practices you want to support. Most people like to think they care about such things, and some are actually really good about it, but being an ethical consumer can certainly be an expensive, time-consuming enterprise.
Posted by: Gretchen | August 21, 2008 7:04 PM
TTT wrote:
I won't link to Card's vile coven of a website, but there's an essay there about "Smartland vs Heartland," in which he basically said the 9/11 victims got what they deserved because they're effete urban gay-friendly pinheads who don't pray enough.
WTF? The Falwell/Robertson Blame the Victims meme again?
Y'know, the more mopes like these (Card, or whoever wrote that essay) attempt to prove their lack of resemblance to Al Qaeda and the like, the more they prove that the only differences are matters of sect and a willingness to actually take the next step of violence.
Posted by: Chris Krolczyk | August 21, 2008 7:29 PM
gary l. day wrote:
(Yes, folks, I admit that I do in fact discriminate in my purchases of reading material on the basis of religion--which is why I also won't read C.S. Lewis or James P. Hogan or, now, Anne Rice.)
Funny you should mention Hogan; I'm not sure what his religious views are per se, but I do know that there was a thread on talk.origins which touched on the fact that he was backing the ID movement with moral support (he apparently buys into Velikovsky hook, line and sinker as well), and according to Matt Silberstein he also had a link to - get this, it's a lulu - the Institute for Historic Review web site to boot, at least back in 2004.
As of now, his web site is hawking books (on the "Heretics" page) ranging from Duesberg on AIDS to Velikovsky, ID tracts like Dembski's No Free Lunch, global warming denialism, anti-environmentalism, astronomy quackery and even a few that deserve a special place reserved for the stupid (including books claiming that asbestos concerns are hysteria and that low-level radiation may be - wait for it - good for you [harmless by certain definitions of "low level, yeah. But good for you?]). There's even a book that I own (Eric Lerner's The Big Bang Never Happened, which doesn't seem nearly as quacktacular as all the other pseudo-astromomical screeds on his hit list), which leads me to the following: is Hogan trying to make a reputation as a particularly intense contrarian, or has he been thoroughly chewed up and spat out by the Brain Eater like Card?
Posted by: Chris Krolczyk | August 21, 2008 7:59 PM
Gay marriage actually increased the rate of straight marriage and lowered the divorce rate in Scandinavia.
But they're all atheists so they don't count, I guess.
Posted by: The Ridger | August 21, 2008 9:13 PM
Ridger:
Check out the story on the swedish "cowboy Jesus" church. It's over at "God is for Suckers" blog http://gods4suckers.net/
Posted by: democommie | August 21, 2008 9:41 PM
Cards books are creepfests.
Posted by: democommie | August 21, 2008 9:43 PM
From some of the comments here I get the sense that a lot of people have not read a lot of Card's fiction over time.
I read the Alvin Maker series, a chunk of the Ender books (not all of them), Pastwatch, Lost Boys, and any number of his short stories published in Asimov's over the last twenty years.
Here's the deal: The big criticism of Ender's Game is that it seems to be an apologia for dictators and other unsavory folks, in part because Ender is so blameless. At the same time his later Ender books show a more humanistic streak. He's obviously done his research into Thai culture, for example, for Ender's Shadow
In his earlier works -- Pastwatch was written in the 90s, I believe -- he seems very much the humanist, and comes out in favor of things like the rights of women and freedom of conscience. Pastwatch is the best example, as he explores how Columbus' contact with the Americas could have been better.
But as his work has progressed I get a sense that he's sort of crept into right wing moralizing land. This gets more acute in the later Alvin Maker books, and even more so in the series that began with The Call of Earth, which is basically a retelling of the Joseph Smith story. But in those books it's clear Card doesn't think much of women in power. (Part of the premise is that a society run in a matriarchal-like fashion will get stomped on by manly men, so they need other manly men to help them out).
I'm not sure what happened. When I spoke to him back in 1992 he seemed pretty sane. But when he complains of demonizing the other side, it's like he's fallen into that very same trap.
That said, I found this essay very helpful:
http://www.gurus.org/dougdeb/politics/209.html
This might explain to everyone here (including you, Ed) why people like Card feel so threatened by gay marriage and women's rights, to name two things.
For those who don't want to go to the link, the short(er) version is that many of the social changes that liberals generally support are made necessary by market capitalism. But most people didn't live under that system for thousands of years, and it doesn't lend itself well to certain family structures. The old system where kids lived at home until they were married (or sometimes even after) was actually pretty common until the 1920s, and it's still prevalent in many rural areas today.
But that way of life gets threatened when change becomes necessary. For example, when land starts to change hands and moves from farming to residential use in a suburb. And when people feel threatened, they become more fundamentalist. In fact, fundamentalism was originally an urban movement for that reason -- people who moved to the cities were from rural areas and brought their life-ways with them. (This is why new migrants to cities have big families for a generation before the birth rate falls off. As an example, Catholic families in New York in the first half of this century had bigger families than everyone else but now they have kids at the same rate as average).
Anyhow, I found it useful in understanding where and why people like Card start behaving the way they do. As to Card, I'm not sure why he changed, but I suspect the dynamic I mentioned above is related to it.
Posted by: Jesse | August 22, 2008 7:46 AM
By the way, I don't want to sound like I don't think people here read anything, just that I didn't see a lot of mention of his other works besides Ender's Game and Empire, so if you are one of those who has read a lot of his stuff for years please don't be offended, I wasn't speaking of you. I'm one of those people who gets to an author he likes and reads a lot of their stuff. I'm an obsessive completist nerd.
Posted by: Jesse | August 22, 2008 7:50 AM
Before this thread peters out, I'd like to recommend that people go visit Card's website. I just googled him to find it. The discussion forums there are illuminating and amusing (in an entirely predictable red/blue contrarian sort of way).
Posted by: gary l. day | August 22, 2008 9:47 AM
This quote could almost as easily come from Sullivan, if the "one definition" of marriage was along the lines of "two adults who love and are committed to one another".
Posted by: Citizen Z | August 22, 2008 12:10 PM
Posted by: llewelly | August 22, 2008 12:33 PM
Gretchen -
I get very cranky when people give me shit for trying my damndest to be conscientious about who and what I am willing to support. I never give others crap about it when they make consumer choices that I disagree with and appreciate the same consideration. So when people get snarky with me about this sort of thing it pisses me off.
Posted by: DuWayne | August 22, 2008 1:54 PM
Jesse:
I don't think I'm buying that argument about market capitlalism. Card could have always chosen to stay "down on the farm". Like many a fundie, he takes what he likes from the smorgasbord of eeeeevul and criticizes others for doing the same thing.
Posted by: democommie | August 22, 2008 11:15 PM
Thus, in Card's world, polygamy was right from they day Joesph Smith Jr. began practicing it, until Woodrow Wilson rescinded official public support in the 1890 manifesto.
Checking Google, apparently you mean Wilford Woodruff.
...you had me REALLY confused for a moment there
Posted by: Coin | August 23, 2008 4:11 AM
"Ender's Game" is common in high school English programs. I arrived in a large, prestigious suburban public high school in 1990 to find it on my tenth grade gifted/talented curriculum. I'd read it high school and found it groovy, like Heinlein, but when I revisited it (too late--I'd already assigned it like a good teacher) I found it light, spacy, derivative, and uninteresting on a sentence or paragraph level. When I said so I got flak from my dept. chair and another teacher, who had added other Card work to the syllabus in their courses. That's when I found out that they were Mormons, and lousy teachers too. The next year I substituted "Les Miserables" and "The Once and Future King". Enrollment in my sections dropped, and in their sections rose--temporarily. Parents spoke to the principal, and by the next year Card was off the syllabus and I was seeing almost none of the large number of Mormons in the school in my class.
ice
Posted by: ice9 | August 23, 2008 10:33 AM
I happen to have read a good deal of C.S.Lewis. I've also read Lord or the Rings. I tried to read some of Anne Rice's vampire books, but I never really cared for them, though she's a fine writer, and I don't really care, one way or another, if she now wants to write a Life of Jesus. I know precisely nothing about James P. Hogan. But I absolutely will not read anything more coming from Orson Scott Card. I really don't think he's all that good as a writer, for one thing(from what I've read of him). I had no idea he was a strict Mormon when I decided this, but finding this out, plus his idiotic views on gays and same-sex marriage, didn't help things any. Quite frankly, I don't even care that he's a Mormon. I happen to consider myself Christian, but I would never, ever endorse such idiotic beliefs. Oddly enough, Jesus didn't, either. Read the Gospels and you will see this(and no, I'm not preaching or trying to convert anybody; there just isn't anything in the Gospels about gays or gay marriage. The people writing them were concerned about other things that were far more important to them at the time).
Anne G
Posted by: Anne Gilbert | August 23, 2008 6:52 PM