Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Bill Buckingham, you may recall, was the Dover school board member who denied under oath, both in depositions and on the witness standing during the trial, that he had never, ever used the term 'creationist' at any time when discussing his desire to use a supplemental textbook in science classrooms in the Dover schools. Then the courtroom was showed videotape of him telling a reporter that the textbook used was "laced with Darwinism" and that it had to be "balanced with something, like creationism."
Rick Warren is having a similar moment. Rachel Maddow just showed video from the Saddleback church website of a message Warren recorded for his congregation on Sunday night where he denies completely that he has ever compared gay marriages to incest or pedophilia. And here comes his Bill Buckingham moment:
And he's flat out lying, as Buckingham did. He does in fact compare gay marriages quite explicitly to incest and pedophilia and when asked directly if he thinks those relationships are the equivalent of gay relationships he replies, "Oh I do." Game, set, match.
Politics
Comments
He was tricked! It was the woman what made him do it!
Posted by: Invigilator | December 24, 2008 10:11 AM
A classic text-book case to consider given the two statements do not reconcile and are were made in a relatively small period of time, leaving no wiggle room. Was Warren lying in the video to his church or is he delusional? "Forgetting" seems to be an unreasonable excuse given the time frame. I lean towards delusion given my observation of the pervasiveness of social conservatives displaying this trait repeatedly with even worse a higher rate of such incidences as time advances rather than improved honesty.
It'll also be interesting to see whether and how Warren responds to the false assertion he last made given the clear evidence. An honest undelusional person would not just apologize, but adapt their approach to thinking to insure they're improving their intellectual honesty. I think nearly all of us in this forum would be skeptical this will happen with Warren.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 24, 2008 10:33 AM
The sad part is that there probably isn't a better Christian pastor out there that Obama could have chosen. The stuff Warren is saying is standard Christian boilerplate at this point: homosexuals are deviants, homosexuals can't be Christians, homosexuality is equivalent to pedophilia and incest, abortion is murder, etc. It would have been close to impossible for Obama to find a Christian leader that doesn't say those things.
Posted by: Iason Ouabache | December 24, 2008 10:36 AM
This has NOT been a good year for 'preachers' And 'pastors.' Wright, Hagee, Parsley, and now "Pastor Rick" have all come under the sort of media scrutiny that a minister, in past years, never got unless they were first found 'inappropriately naked.' People are suddenly ignoring the music of their voices, the stagecraft of their settings, and actually listening to the words. And the poor 'religious leaders' aren't getting the respect they think they deserve, and hate is being stripped of its psuedo-Biblical costume and being seen for what it is.
Deeelightful yes it is.
(Hmmm, as far as Warren goes, I can't help wondering if this was an accident, a blunder, or payback by Obama for the 'isolation booth' scam during the 'joint meeting at Saddleback.' I'll admit I've seen no evidence of his mind working that way, but a shrewd and subtle observer could have predicted this would happen -- Obama is shrewd, but hasn't shown much subtlety. This way Obama will get 'church cred' for picking Warren in the first place, Warren's opinions have come under scrutiny, which gives him a black eye, and the controversy almost forces Obama to make a major pro-gay move -- which he was likely to do anyway.
And, to carry the discussion over from yesterday's thread, Obama is doing something a lot more important, symbolically and in real terms, than the Warren pick. There are very strong reports that the next Secretary of the Navy will be an openly gay man, William White. A gay man as head of one of the services says a lot more than whoever does the 'god talk' at the ceremony.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | December 24, 2008 10:38 AM
He quite clearly is comparing them as marriage relationships, and yes, views them all as inappropriate forms of marriage. This says nothing about whether bestiality is the equivalent of homosexual behavior in other ways. Since the election, Rachel Madow has sure gone all Fox Newsy in a hurry, hasn't she?
Posted by: kehrsam | December 24, 2008 10:42 AM
there are lots of "better Christian pastors that Obama could have chosen"...are you delusional to think otherwise?
this belief that it is okay to compare pedophilia etc...say that gays are the reason that proves evoilution does not exist...etc...that you can compare women who have had an abortion to Nazi's... ugh whoever left that comment
how about a pastor that doesn't take the type of recognition Obama just gave him and try and leverage their beleifs from thir pulpit into legislation.
yeah there are lots of better Christian pastors for lots and lots and lots of reasons...
Posted by: dl | December 24, 2008 10:45 AM
Geez-I have made statements in the past that I no longer believe. In some cases they were statements made under fear of what others would say; like with homosexuality. (My first call was with a senior pastor who is a homophobe.) Even as a solo pastor I have to strive for the best way to get my people to expand their horizons while not making them more homophobic; which would happen if I laid all my "cards" on the table at once.)
I have also held beliefs that have changed in the past 25 or so years; abortion being one of them.
With that in mind; all he had to say was that after meeting with LGBT people, further study, prayer, and the power of the Holy Spirit-I have come to realize that my statement equating homosexual behavior to incest was wrong.
I don't refute the views I've had in the past. I don't refute that I spoke words I'm not proud of today.
He's trying too hard to be like Bush and rewrite history.
Posted by: Rev. AJB | December 24, 2008 10:48 AM
Like a deer, err..., hippo in the headlights.
Posted by: mark | December 24, 2008 10:50 AM
dl: Ok, name me one major Christian pastor that would have been better for Obama to pick. One that accepts evolution, doesn't preach that homosexuality is a sin, and is pro-choice. Are there any out there at all?
I'm not being facetious either. I honestly don't know.
Posted by: Iason Ouabache | December 24, 2008 10:50 AM
Present company excepted, of course, Rev. AJB.
Posted by: Iason Ouabache | December 24, 2008 10:54 AM
I'm beginning to suspect that Rick Warren is too stupid to understand that marrying your sister implies incest and an adult marrying a child implies pedophilia.
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/12/is-obama-real-change.html
Will soon add that Rachel Maddow to my own blog.
Posted by: Norman Doering | December 24, 2008 10:56 AM
That's quite alright! One of the major reasons I have no desires to be a "major" player-you have to pander too much to the riff-raff;-)
Posted by: Rev. AJB | December 24, 2008 11:01 AM
I find it pretty amazing that a highly publicized preacher like Warren would tell such an egregious lie when contrary evidence is so easy to come by. Warren has to be either a complete idiot, insane, or under the impression that we're all idiots.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | December 24, 2008 11:08 AM
Gene Robinson.
Or do you subscribe to the no-true-Scotsman definition of "Christian"?
Posted by: noncarborundum | December 24, 2008 11:11 AM
Iason Ouabache,
Well, I guess some people might not consider him Christian, but would John Shelby Spong, retired Episcopalian bishop, do?
Posted by: nicole | December 24, 2008 11:11 AM
So, Warren lied, and that's against the top ten on the rules list in the Bible. Seems like there is room for sinning and forgiveness in the Christianity business for certain sins.
I bet there wasn't a webpage on his congregational website saying unrepentant liars can't become a member of his church, like he did about homosexuals until this weekend.
Posted by: MomTFH | December 24, 2008 11:15 AM
There are plenty of liberal evangelicals out there -- though they are much more commin in Europe than here.
(For a very good intellectual and frequently very witty example, check out Chrisendom if I finally got making a link right.)
Of course, there would have some other picks that would have provoked delightful 'firestorms' from the right. Mel White, ex-speechwriter for Jerry Falwell until he came out. Or Frank Schaefer, who was, with his father, a key figure in building the Religious Right, and has spent years 'taking it back.'
Then there's Troy Perry, the founder of the first gay Church, the MCC. It wouldn't have been really possible to pick him, but I can't help imagine the mental fuse-blowing it would have caused. Not just for who he is. I've heard him preach once on the radio -- it may be a gay church, but it is still a church -- and the 'music' of his presentation, the voice, the style, the emphasis, is an exact copy of his mentor's. Until you hear the words, you think you ARE hearing his teacher -- Billy Graham.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | December 24, 2008 11:18 AM
Prup (aka Jim Benton), acrobatics of your logic is truly impressive and demonstrates the great lengths Obama's supporters will go to explain away Obama's inconsistencies.
As for a gay man becoming Secretary of the Navy, I won't hold my breath given it appears to be an idea promoted outside of Obama's circle and Obama's unwillingness to address DATD.
Who knows, maybe Obama has a sense of humor and is a big fan of the Village People?
Posted by: JED | December 24, 2008 11:19 AM
Iason Ouabache,
Rev. Jim Wallis would have been an excellent choice. And while either would probably been seen as too "lefty," I would have welcomed Rev. C. Welton Gaddy or Rev. Barry W. Lynn, presidents of the Interfaith Alliance and Americans United for Separation of Church and State, respectively.
Posted by: James F | December 24, 2008 11:31 AM
If you have to have a fundie type, Jay Bakker seems surprisingly accepting of gays and lesbians in his ministry. Not bad for Jim and Tammy's kid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Bakker
Posted by: Romeo Vitelli | December 24, 2008 11:47 AM
kehrsam said:
Err, when did bestiality come into this? Maddow didn't say anything about it, and neither did Warren.
Posted by: Gretchen | December 24, 2008 11:48 AM
kersham - please excuse my cluelessness, but exactly how is Maddow going Fox News after the election? I see Maddow as a TV version of Ed Brayton fisking the absurdity of arguments made by those looking to divide us, like she did with Rick Warren in this segment.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 24, 2008 12:11 PM
Or just Cognitive Dissonance. I find it easier to believe that he was able to convince himself that what he said was true, rather than believing he would intentionally lie when the likelihood of getting caught was so high.
Posted by: Greg Esres | December 24, 2008 12:20 PM
Gretchen: Sorry, my inner Rick Santorum got the better of me. It doesn't change my point.
M.H.: How many times does she use the word "scandal" in the piece? How many scandals is she covering in the piece?
There is no scandal: She just doesn't like Rev. Warren.
Posted by: kehrsam | December 24, 2008 12:30 PM
"I find it easier to believe that he was able to convince himself that what he said was true, rather than believing he would intentionally lie when the likelihood of getting caught was so high"
When you consider that he most likely realizes the only ones who will care about a lie like this one are those who don't contribute to him, it is very easy to conclude that he was telling a major lie and knew nothing would come of it.
Posted by: dean | December 24, 2008 12:31 PM
I'll give Iason two names: Tony Campolo and Jim Wallis. Both are pro-choice, both pro-gay rights and both prominent evangelicals.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 24, 2008 12:36 PM
Iason Ouabache -
You mention one in your third post. Not that Rev. AJB is as well known as other possibilities, but he is far from alone and there are plenty like him who would suffice. Indeed the two that James mention would be perfect.
nicole -
Quite honestly, I agree with a lot of the things that Spong says about the bible, the divinity of Christ and revealed religion. Oh, and I really don't consider myself a Christian because of that. Yeah, I could make a case, based on following a lot of things that Christ had to say, but honestly I am as much as atheist as I am Christian. I.e. an argument could be made for both, but only by a very broad definition of either.
Posted by: DuWayne | December 24, 2008 12:39 PM
kehrsam said:
What is your point, exactly? As far as I can tell, you think it's dishonest to say that Warren was comparing homosexuality to incest and pedophilia because he was compared giving people in incestuous and pedophilic (is that the right word?) relationships the right to marry to giving gays the right to marry, but I don't really see why that's a considerable difference. For Warren, the right to marry is an implicit approval of people's relationships and he was equally condemning all of three relationships mentioned.
If "scandal" = "a lot of pissed off people," then yes I would say there's a scandal over Warren being chosen for the inauguration.
Posted by: Gretchen | December 24, 2008 12:39 PM
That doesn't make sense. It seems clear that his opposition to gay marriage stems from a belief that homosexuality itself is wrong. Forty years ago, were he a racist bigot as well, he would likely oppose miscegenation out of a belief that interracial relationships are something to be shunned.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | December 24, 2008 12:47 PM
@Michael Heath
Good lord - how can you say that? Jon Stewert frisks the stupidity of arguments. Maddow repeats democratic talking points. Her rant on the auto bailout a week ago was so naive I was frankly shocked. I've been finding her as painful to watch as I do Hannity.
Posted by: yoshi | December 24, 2008 1:11 PM
Ed Brayton wrote:
Can Tony Campolo or Jim Wallis sell a tenth as many books as Rick Warren?
And just how prominent is "prominent"? I see the loony-tune fundagelicals on the news all the time -- where have these more reasonable evangelicals been all this time? Are you sure you're not making the same mistake I was making with Rick Warren? Warren got some semi-endorsements from a few people (including Dan Dennett) and Warren seemed to say a few reasonable things making me think he wasn't that bad.
I was wrong. Maybe Tony Campolo and Jim Wallis will surprise you in the same way. How well do you know them?
Posted by: Norman Doering | December 24, 2008 1:28 PM
Norman said:
Can you explain why that matters?
Posted by: Gretchen | December 24, 2008 1:41 PM
Iason wrote:
Ed Brayton wrote:
Tony Campolo on Evolution:
http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/2005/11/Stages-Of-Creation.aspx
Posted by: Norman Doering | December 24, 2008 1:43 PM
The reason book sales matter, Gretchen, is because this is Obama reaching out to the right-wing evangelicals. It is a political move. I don't buy the idea that it must be non-political. To choose a known liberal evangelical who is already alienated from the right-wing would not reach them.
The only question I ask is whether it's a smart political move.
Posted by: Norman Doering | December 24, 2008 1:49 PM
Norman,
The whole reason why choosing Warren was such a mistake in the first place is because it's idiotic for Obama to reach out to right-wing evangelicals-- period. It doesn't matter if he chooses a famous evangelical minister or an obscure one; he looks like a betrayer to the left and transparently pandering to the right regardless. I think Ed's only point is that if Obama is going try to be bipartisan in his choice of minister for the inauguration, he should've chosen one who is not so blatantly opposed to everything Obama supposedly stands for.
Posted by: Gretchen | December 24, 2008 1:55 PM
Gretchen: I'm not going to go all dictionary on you because I hate it when people do that, but I believe the word, "Scandal" implies that at least a whiff of something improper has occurred.
As to his "lie," yes, he sees those various classes of marriage as invalid. But there is no evidence that Warren equates homosexuality and, say, pedophilia in terms of illegality, or that gays are by nature also pedophiles. Things may be alike in one way yet differ in others. There is scarcely a contradiction here, much less a "Buckingham Moment." I repeat: There is no scandal here.
Posted by: kehrsam | December 24, 2008 2:03 PM
Gretchen wrote:
But Warren isn't blatantly opposed to everything Obama supposedly stands for. They both share a history of activism on behalf of the disadvantaged and the downtrodden. They both focus on the poor and Warren lead the evangelical movement in addressing the global HIV/AIDS in Africa.
Warren does good things on occasion, he's just also a stupid bigot.
Posted by: Norman Doering | December 24, 2008 2:07 PM
I don't think it unreasonable to believe that Obama's administration should aim higher than that for any person they choose to do anything.
Posted by: Gretchen | December 24, 2008 2:13 PM
Rick Warren LOVES gay people. He just thinks they should know their place.
Posted by: Taz | December 24, 2008 2:51 PM
It's just like that old Richard Pryor line: "Who ya gonna believe, me, or your lyin' eyes?"
Posted by: Raymond Minton | December 24, 2008 3:02 PM
Kersham - point taken on the use of the word scandal, though I wouldn't go so far as say it's meets the standards of Fox News.
yoshi - we've had this dialouge before regarding Maddow's worthiness for our consideration. I will certainly listen more critically to her given your prior input and kersham's, but my limited experience watching her (a few hours cumulatively) has me liking the structure of the segments I've watched. I read the Wall Street Journal daily and have no idea why anyone would listen to a TV News pundit when it came to complex economic issues unless she had a guest on with real power, I probably fast-forwarded right through those segments.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 24, 2008 3:17 PM
Sorry Ed, but I think you and Maddow have missed on this.
Despite what you state, he does *not* say in the recorded message that he never "compared" them; he instead said that he never "equated" them, and that is an important distinction.
The "equivalent" comment was in the context of listing all those things together (brother/sister, man/child, polygamy, and gay partnerships) as relationships that he would oppose calling a "marraige". That is not that same as saying that all of these are equivalent in *all* respects. Maybe he does feel this way, but the two clips are not a smoking gun.
Posted by: Divalent | December 24, 2008 3:31 PM
Divalent, your post reminds me of a line from "Love and Death":
Woody Allen: "Aren't you scared of dying?"
Diane Keaton: "Scared is the wrong word. I'm frightened of it..."
Woody: "Interesting distinction."
About Jim Wallis, I've never been a fan. True, he disagrees vehemently with the religious right. But from what I've read, he disagrees with their issues, but doesn't necessarily support (or understand?) the separation of church and state. He doesn't seem to get that a liberal christian theocracy is no more attractive than a conservative one.
Posted by: Rick R | December 24, 2008 4:11 PM
Sadly enough Rachel quote mined the video. In fact you will see that he does address the interview in which he stated why he opposed gay marriage for much the same reasons he opposes the term to refer to marriage between a man and multiple women, a man and a young child or between a brother and sister.
I am a big Rachel Maddow fan but her portrayal of what Warren said in the video is just plainly misleading.
Posted by: PvM | December 24, 2008 4:36 PM
Thank you to everyone for the preacher suggestions. I'll admit that I know next to nothing about liberal Christianity. You've made a pretty impressive list.
Posted by: Iason Ouabache | December 24, 2008 5:01 PM
Now, you know, this is more of that there "Gotcha" journalism, making him say things that he obviously didn't say. I can see that there is the whole "meaning of is is" comments as well. Slick Rick is a master scam artist, and I'm sure he will be able to appease those who like him, and do his best to worm his way out of this, so long as he doesn't have to make anything like an apology - that will say that he did compare the two.
Look up equate in Thesaurus.com :
Main Entry: equate
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: balance; think of together
Synonyms: agree, assimilate, associate, average, be commensurate, compare, consider, correspond to, correspond with, equalize, even, hold, level, liken, make equal, match, offset, pair, paragon, parallel, regard, relate, represent, similize, square, tally, treat
Antonyms: disagree, imbalance, unliken
Oddly, if you look up compare, you do not see equate, but you do see equal.
Posted by: Badger3k | December 24, 2008 6:06 PM
PvM, Warren said that the reason he opposes gay marriage is because of "historical" reasons. That's not the reason he opposes gay marriage. Warren said that the reason he supported Proposition 8 was because of a "free speech issue". That's not the reason he supported Proposition 8.
PvM, doesn't it seem kind of funny that he's not guilty of hate speech, but everybody else is? Doesn't it seem kind of funny that he's not a "homophobe", but everybody else is a "Christophobe"?
Posted by: mangerboy386sx | December 24, 2008 6:08 PM
He opposes gay marriage for the same reason Obama and many others do namely the belief that marriage is between a man and a woman.
What do you think?
Again you seem to be misrepresenting what Warren really said. He did not accuse everybody else of hate speech, nor that everone else is a Christophobe.
So far it seems unclear to me that he is a homophobe, in fact his own words and actions suggest otherwise. I understand that others may believe otherwise but I believe that much of it is based on unfamiliarity with Warren's position.
So do you approve or disapprove of Maddow's "quote mine"?
Note: Although I am a Christian, I do not support Warren's position on many issues. I do not believe that humans roamed the earth with dinosaurs, I do not believe that abortion or euthanasia are necessarily evil, I believe that anyone has the right to be treated equally under law.
Perhaps a better solution is to follow the Dutch approach where marriage is always a civil construct and a church marriage is optional.
The State thus guarantees all the rights equally while still maintaining a sensitivity to different religious faiths.
Posted by: {PvM | December 24, 2008 6:23 PM
Gretchen: I don't think it unreasonable to believe that Obama's administration should aim higher than that for any person they choose to do anything.
Why? Can we not walk hand in hand even if we do not see eye to eye? In fact, we may all be guilty of some form of 'bigotry' by the definition used to describe Warren and others.
Obama is indeed aiming higher than excluding people just because they believe in something with which we disagree. Unity instead of divisiveness. It's about time.
Posted by: PvM | December 24, 2008 6:27 PM
May I make a suggestion? How about divorcing religion from political offices? You could call it, oh, I don't know, "separation of church and state"?
Posted by: John S. Wilkins | December 24, 2008 6:35 PM
PvM, Warren said that the reason he supported Proposition 8 was because of a free speech issue. Because, according to him, if it did not pass, then any pastor could be considered doing hate speech if a pastor shared his views that homosexuality was not the most natural way for relationships.
Quite obviously, Mr. Warren is pulling things out of the air to avoid saying that he is a fundamentalist who wants to impose Bible stuff on people. (Let's not forget that Proposition 8 removed a right that people already had.)
He opposes gay marriage for the same reason Obama and many others do namely the belief that marriage is between a man and a woman.
What do you think?
Well, when Warren says that there is a "five thousand year definition of marriage", then that pretty much says it all, doesn't it?
So do you approve or disapprove of Maddow's "quote mine"?
I disapprove of it because Warren was referring to marriage, but Maddow is making it seem as though Warren was talking about gayness per se.
Posted by: santareindeer386sx | December 24, 2008 7:20 PM
John S. Wilkins wrote:
May I make a suggestion? How about divorcing religion from political offices? You could call it, oh, I don't know, "separation of church and state"?
This would never work in America. In fact, it has hardly worked since the beginning. Too many wacko religionists think they own the country.
Posted by: tomh | December 24, 2008 7:36 PM
He opposes gay marriage for the same reason Obama and many others do namely the belief that marriage is between a man and a woman.
I don't know if I necessarily believe everything that Obama says either. He is after all a politician, you know!
Posted by: sleighbells386sx | December 24, 2008 7:39 PM
I think Warren's argument is even more idiotic than I bothered to state. Why would you list a relationship between a grown man and a child as a relationship you just wouldn't want to see called a marriage? That's a relationship no one should want no matter what you call it. And he says he never equated them, yet when he was specifically asked if he thought incest and pedophilia were "equivalent" to gay marriage, he says "Oh I do." If "equate" and "equivalent" don't mean the same thing, let's just burn all the dictionaries.
And I didn't even bother to mention the stupidity of him complaining about people who think if you say something you don't like, you're engaging in hate speech - and then calling criticism of HIM hate speech. Warren is digging himself in deeper and deeper.
I recognize that, by religious right standards, Warren is fairly moderate. I respect the fact that he has raised a great deal of money for AIDS research and tried to bring attention to that issue, and that he has called for action on global warming and for greater attention to be paid to the poor. Those are all good things. But the fact is that he has compared gay marriages directly to incest and pedophilia and he's now lying when he says he hasn't.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 24, 2008 7:40 PM
Rick Warren wasn't being mean when he supported Proposition 8. He was just supporting the free speech for pastors to say that homosexuality is not natural. Everybody should have free speech, right? Even pastors too!
Posted by: reindeer386sx | December 24, 2008 8:32 PM
Rick Warren wasn't being mean when he supported Proposition 8. He was just supporting the free speech for pastors to say that homosexuality is not natural. Everybody should have free speech, right? Even pastors too!
By that reasoning, people should outlaw pastors, because if they don't outlaw them, then other people would be accused of hate speech if they say they don't like pastors! Or something!
Posted by: santaboy386sx | December 24, 2008 8:37 PM
The US should probably junk having an invocation/benediction
at the ceremony; it only started in 1933. Failing removing it, returning it to a time when it wasn't just two protestant clergymen (or one speaking twice) would be nice. It is probably time for a rabbi again (I would also say a Muslim for the first time but I don't think that was ever likely).
Other possibilities:
Peter Gomes - been through the ceremony before under Reagan
Katharine Jefferts Schori - presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church and has a PhD in Oceanography from Oregon State
Note that besides the actual ceremony. Obama will also be attending a prayer service at the National Cathedral (Episcopalian though the service will probably be interdenominational) after so that will presumably have more ministers and those may actually have longer speeches.
Posted by: Erp | December 24, 2008 8:43 PM
Posted by: Taz | December 24, 2008 8:56 PM
PvM said:
I will "walk hand in hand" with stupid bigots (at least metaphorically, but not literally) in pursuit of common interests, but I will not support those people in or representing government and if Obama had any integrity he wouldn't either.
Posted by: Gretchen | December 24, 2008 9:04 PM
Rick Warren is a bad person, and Obama made a bad decision.
I don't think, as some people have said in their comments, that Mr. Warren is representative of all Christians. While I am an atheist, I don't necessarily think most Christians are bad people, and it's not fair for us to assume all are like Warren. President-Elect Obama needs to change his mind before he's off to a bad, bad, bad, start.
Posted by: Alison Robin | December 24, 2008 9:15 PM
PvM wrote:
Adult siblings could be a man and a woman, so I guess what you mean is that they think "marriage is between a man and a woman", except when it's not.
Posted by: Leni | December 24, 2008 9:19 PM
Gretchen said:
But Obama doesn't see it that way. In his opinion, he's the President of everyone in America, not just the people who voted for him. It would be just as easy for Warren to refuse to give the invocation because Obama's a baby-killer as it is for Obama to refuse to invite Warren for being anti-gay, but both of these guys have made it a point throughout their history of not shutting out the opposition just because they find some of their positions repugnant.
Even a casual perusal of Obama's history should show you that he believes in working with people where there is common ground, not excluding them over what is disputed.
I'd rather he chose a more liberal Christian minister than Warren, but the guy's one of the country's most popular figures. It's a strong statement that Obama intends to govern as President the way he has in every other office he's held: as inclusively as possible.
That's going to piss off the people on the Left who want a President to be for them what Bush was for the Right: A President who's only President for them, and the rest of the bastards who didn't vote for him can go screw themselves.
But that's not the guy they voted for. And they ought to know that.
Posted by: Jeff Hebert | December 24, 2008 11:07 PM
Iason: Not sure if he qualifies or not, because I couldn't find where he stands on evolution - but I'm surprised that nobody's said anything about Rev. C. Welton Gaddy of the Interfaith Alliance. I don't know where he stands, but he would have been a great man to choose for the job, in my opinion.
Posted by: TheEngima32 | December 24, 2008 11:11 PM
TheEngima32,
*points up* I mentioned him! I'm happy to add that he and Rev. Barry Lynn are both among the 11,800 Christian clergy who have signed the pro-evolution Clergy Letter Project. Rev. Gaddy had one of the best lines in the First Freedom First movie, too. I have to find the exact quote but it was basically, the problem with theocracy is you get a bunch of people trying to decide who gets to be Theo.
One more personal favorite I'd like to add to the list: Rev. Carlton Pearson, once a protege of Oral Roberts and a rising star who was literally declared a heretic for challenging traditional teachings about Hell. His New Dimensions Church recently merged with All Souls Unitarian Chruch in Tulsa, OK.
Posted by: James F | December 24, 2008 11:39 PM
Jeff Hebert,
Ask yourself the same question I asked kehrsam earlier in this thread-- would you be saying the same thing if this were 1966 and Obama invited a rabid opponent of miscegenation to speak at his inauguration? If Obama being president of everyone is a good enough reason to have a homophobic bigot speak at his ceremony, then he might as well go the whole hog and invite Fred Phelps. After all, he's Phelps' president too!
Posted by: Gretchen | December 24, 2008 11:42 PM
I'm not really all that opposed to having Warren deliver the invocation. I don't think anyone should be delivering one, of course, but if there's going to be one and if Obama is going to use the opportunity to reach out to the other side, Warren is hardly the worst possible choice. I still think it's a bad move politically for Obama because I don't think he gets any benefit out of it while getting a fair amount of negative from it. But the point of this post is that Warren really is lying when he claims he never compared gay marriages to incest and pedophilia.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 25, 2008 12:03 AM
In my temple we've just been reading the story of Jacob, who was married to at least two women and possibly four, since the children of Rachel and Leah's maidservants were equally entitled to inherit and at one point the maidservants ARE explicitly referred to as his wives.
Does this mean that Warren doesn't believe that the patriarch Jacob was married to Rachel, Leah, Bilhah and Zilpah? What about David, Abigail, Bathsheba, and Michal, to say nothing of Solomon's alleged 300 wives and however many concubines? Don't forget - the argument is that marriage has ALWAYS been defined as ONE man and ONE woman.
I also really wish that someone would bring up with these people the fact that King James was almost certainly homosexual, or technically bisexual since he did have to produce heirs to the throne. (And yes, I know he didn't DO the translation, but he certainly did commission it, and it's considered by a lot of Christians to be as inspired as the original manuscripts.
Posted by: Leslie | December 25, 2008 12:41 AM
I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say here. Ultimately, if Warren didn't want to compare homosexuality to pedophilia or incest, he wouldn't have brought up pedophilia or incest when looking for things to which homosexuality could be compared. His argument is pretty straight forward: he is against gay marriage because homosexual relationships are, in his opinion, morally repugnant. In the same way, he's opposed to adult/children marriages and sibling marriages -- because they're morally wrong. He is comparing gay marriage to pedophilia and incest, and he is not doing so to make gay marriage sound like a GOOD idea.
But of course, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a platypus doing impressions, right?
Posted by: Dan L. | December 25, 2008 12:41 AM
Indeed, he opposes these for the same reason he opposes gay marriage.
Posted by: PvM | December 25, 2008 1:18 AM
I do not think that Obama has done that by inviting Watrren to speak. Of course to call Warren a stupid bigot shows a sense of bigotry as well.
Perhaps in some form or manner we are all a sort of bigot?
Posted by: Pvm | December 25, 2008 1:21 AM
ut the point of this post is that Warren really is lying when he claims he never compared gay marriages to incest and pedophilia.
And if you had listened to what he did say then you would have realized that he was talking about his sermons to Saddleback and that he explained why he understands why people may believe this because of a BeliefNet interview.
But you would not get this from Rachel Maddow's quote mine.
You have been had Ed and I hope you will listen to Warren's video before jumping on Maddow's bandwagon.
Quote mining is ugly and it should be a concern when 'our side' abuses such fallacies to make their point.
Have you even seen the full context of Warren's video?
I doubt it because once you listen to it, you would be as outraged as I am about Rachel.
And I love Rachel Maddow for her humor, her cynicism and her contributions to progressive policies but that does not mean that I should remain quiet when she behaves in such an inappropriate manner.
Listen to the context and let me know if you will still support Rachel's interpretation and spin.
Posted by: {v< | December 25, 2008 1:35 AM
He is comparing gay marriage to pedophilia and incest, and he is not doing so to make gay marriage sound like a GOOD idea.
Almost correct. He is stating that his opposition to extending marriage to gays is the same as why he opposing extending it to brothers and sisters, an older man and a younger child and polygamy.
A small but important distinction lost on many it seems
Posted by: PvM | December 25, 2008 1:37 AM
he's the President of everyone in America, not just the people who voted for him.
I bet you guys really loved the "We are the ones we've been waiting for" line too. WTF people, can't you recognize bullshit when you hear it? Next, you'll be singing Kum Ba Ya by the campfire...
Make sure you listen to the entire story below.
Obama Win Causes Obsessive Supporters To Realize How Empty Their Lives Are
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/obama_win_causes_obsessive
Posted by: JED | December 25, 2008 1:38 AM
PvM wrote:
Well, in the post just before this you said his reason for opposing gay marriage was:
Does he oppose incestuous marriages because they are not marriages between a man and a woman?
Calling Rick Warren a bigot is emphatically not the same thing as advocating that all self-proclaimed Rick Warren-like people not be able to marry the consenting adult of their choice.
Besides, even if we are all bigots it doesn't make Warren's refusal to accept gay peoples' equality under the law any more justifiable.
Posted by: Leni | December 25, 2008 2:20 AM
Why don't you save us all the pain of listening to that snake oil salesmen for however long it would take, and tell us the context? I don't care to waste my time.
Posted by: JED | December 25, 2008 2:37 AM
Regarding Bill Buckingham: Do creationists always refer to the theory of evolution as "Darwinism"? It seems like a lot of Christians are unable (or perhaps unwilling) to conceive of an impersonal universe.
Posted by: Blue Nine | December 25, 2008 3:02 AM
Wouldn't making life uncomfortable for Obama be good for Warren? Seems like it would give him a lot of cred w/ the religious right.
Posted by: tincture | December 25, 2008 6:05 AM
Gretchen, I don't think it's accurate or helpful to call Warren "rabid". He's reasonable and calm and a figure of warmth to a lot -- a LOT -- of Americans who Barack Obama is going to have to govern. Those people already fear him. If having a guy stand up and give a meaningless prayer helps reassure those people and makes them a little less fearful, then fine.
I am much less concerned with how this LOOKS than on how Obama actually GOVERNS. And his past has shown that he is perfectly happy to associate with less-than-optimum people so long as it advances his core agenda. Which, let us not forget, is quite progressive.
From my perspective Ed's right, and this doesn't really buy anything politically for Obama from the perspective of his liberal constituents. But I think it does buy him some breathing room from those middle-of-the-road Christians who might attend Warren's church or like his core messages, but who are ultimately persuadable that Obama is not the Anti-Christ.
It wasn't that long ago we were having this exact same conversation about Obama's actual pastor, Rev. Wright. Just because you sit in a congregation or even have a person speak on your behalf doesn't mean you endorse or believe in everything they say.
I repeat, Obama will govern now, as he always has, from common ground and not from areas of contention. He's Ali, ducking and weaving and trying not to let the other guy have a clear target. That's going to infuriate the people who are more interested in being righteous than in getting things done, but that's the guy they voted for.
If you're looking for ideological purity and someone who's going to punch the other guy in the nose over any slight (real or perceived) then get used to being sorely disappointed.
Finally, Ed's right, Warren clearly was inaccurate when he said he never compared homosexuality and incest, even if it was just in the context of how they relate to marriage. That's still a comparison.
Posted by: Jeff Hebert | December 25, 2008 9:23 AM
I don't like the Warren choice because it promotes the idea of "celebrity-ministers". Ministers (and priests, rabbis, etc.) are supposed to "minister" to their flock. These huge evangelical congregations are the antithesis of what I consider worthwhile about religion.
Posted by: Taz | December 25, 2008 2:29 PM
Does he oppose incestuous marriages because they are not marriages between a man and a woman?
No, he opposes them for much the same reason he rejects polygamy and allowing marriage between older man and young child, as seems customary in some variations of religious beliefs, including Christianity I believe.
Is it bigoted to disallow marriage between brother and sister?
Posted by: PvM | December 25, 2008 5:24 PM
"It would have been close to impossible for Obama to find a Christian leader that doesn't say those things.'
Katherine Schori, Primate of the episcopalian Church of America.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katharine_Jefferts_Schori
"Jefferts Schori voted to consent to the election of Gene Robinson, an openly gay and partnered man, as Bishop of New Hampshire in 2003, to which some conservative Episcopalians have objected strenuously. As not all churches in the Anglican Communion uphold the ordination of women, the election of a female bishop as primate has also proved controversial in other provinces."
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/3577_76173_ENG_HTM.htm
About creationism and evolution, she said: "Evolution most definitely should be taught in school. It's a well-tested premise and the best model that fits the data available. Creationism can't make that claim. I believe in the creeds. They say God created the world, but they don't say how."
About homosexuality, she said: "I believe that God welcomes all to his table, those who agree and those who disagree. The Episcopal Church always has been a strong voice for including a variety of opinions; the marginalized are welcomed at the table."
Posted by: Ian Gould | December 25, 2008 7:44 PM
"Quite obviously, Mr. Warren is pulling things out of the air to avoid saying that he is a fundamentalist who wants to impose Bible stuff on people."
Personally I think he's an opportunistic huckster who sees a market opening to the left of the mainstream evangelical movement.
He deliberately equivocates on issues like gay rights to avoid alienating the more bigoted of his followers while remaining acceptable to his more moderate followers.
Posted by: Ian Gould | December 25, 2008 7:59 PM
PvM wrote:
The reason given was that it's not a marriage between a man and a woman.
Except in the case of incest it very well could be a marriage between a man and a woman. Obviously, that principle doesn't apply here. So what's the real reason?
Maybe.
It would depend on the reasons given. If the reason is "because I don't like", then yes. I would think it was bigoted.
Posted by: Leni | December 25, 2008 8:29 PM
PvM- "Almost correct. He is stating that his opposition to extending marriage to gays is the same as why he opposing extending it to brothers and sisters, an older man and a younger child and polygamy.
A small but important distinction lost on many it seems."
Pim, we went round and round on this at PT- what's your fucking point? These exact same arguments were dredged up 40 years ago when interracial marriage emerged as an issue with Loving v. Virginia. The SAME arguments. What was the motivation then?
Go on, think about it.
Posted by: Rick R | December 26, 2008 5:52 AM
"Since the election, Rachel Madow has sure gone all Fox Newsy in a hurry, hasn't she?"
Rachel runs a news-slash- entertainment show, heavy on the snark. She always has. The only thing that's changed now is that Rick Warren has become really, really entertaining and really, really susceptible to snark.
I think Rachel saw the possibility of being framed as a pure LGBT advocate: "our gay reporter Trisha Takanawa." She escaped that frame brilliantly.
Posted by: Rev. Bob | December 26, 2008 8:03 AM
Anyone else here getting the idea that perhaps President-Elect Barack Obama, who could not have failed to notice that Sarah Palin's full-mouth scene-chewing remarks helped him immeasurably, selected Warren precisely so that the "gun and bible clingers" would make such fools of themselves? I'm beginning to wonder if the guy is that sly. At any rate, Obama will get over this; Warren will not.
Posted by: Kristine | December 26, 2008 3:45 PM
Here is a point in Rachel Maddow's favor: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKN7iQrvq8Q&eurl=http://politicalirony.com/&feature=player_embedded
My respect for her continues to grow. Her guest supposedly earns $350K/yr. serving on Morgan Stanley's Board, and owns 79,000 shares of their stock. Morgan Stanley has received $10 billion in taxpayer funds through TARP (they may have rec'd more through the Fed).
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 26, 2008 4:46 PM
Posted by: PvM | December 27, 2008 1:54 AM
PvM wrote:
I'm assuming this is you talking here, not RickR.
I don't think we need to necessarily "reject" (meaning outright ban, not just "dislike") relationships of close relatives. If we do, there should be a better reason than "ick".
Does such a reason exist? If so, what is it?
Happens all the time. Not my cup of tea, but as long as the younger partner is an adult who willingly consents to the marriage (as opposed to a minor or near minor who is forced or coerced into it) there isn't much to be done about it.
Bad marriages happen for all kinds of reasons, this is may be just one of many. And it may not even necessarily be a bad marriage. (Assuming both partners are adults and no coercion is involved.)
Or multiple husbands? Again, happens all the time. As long as we are talking about consenting adults who are not forced or coerced into the marriage, I don't see why adults shouldn't make these decisions for themselves.
If we are talking about consenting adults, then the reasons for rejecting SSM fail for the same reasons the others do. Consenting adults will, can and should be able to make these intimate decisions for themselves. They don't need or want our help.
That you notice that marriage is an institution which has sometimes exacted a terrible price from (especially) women and girls is nice, but it has nothing to do with modern gay adult relationships (in the general sense) any more than it has to do with straight adult relationships.
You simply are not justified in equating an abusive and/or coercive situation to gay marriage.
Posted by: Leni | December 27, 2008 2:57 AM
PvM- "I understand that you want to invoke a similarity between homosexuality and race and I can appreciate your desperation but I fail to see how the two are logically equivalent. Invoking race is yet another dead ringer for a lost argument."
That high whining sound you heard was my point sailing right over your head, Pim. My reason for bringing up the Loving decision wasn't to equivocate race with sexual orientation (or more appropriately, gender, since that is really the basis for marriage discrimination against gays), but to illustrate that the legal war to keep out all those "unacceptable" relationships you keep equating with gay marriage (incest, polygamy etc.) was LOST with Loving over 40 years ago. Opponents of gay marriage trying to keep a secular face on their arguments like to invoke the slippery slope argument. "Why, if we 'redefine' marriage to include gay partners, what's next? Why not incest? Or men marrying horses?"
The problem is, if that slippery slope was in fact so slippery, those marriages would all be legal BECAUSE of Loving. Same argument.
Posted by: Rick R | December 27, 2008 3:32 PM
Continued- So why aren't they all legal? Because we factor in other things besides gender when we look at the legal institution of marriage. Age. Relatedness. Even species.
All of these aspects have clear legal arguments as to why they should be excluded from legal marriage. Leni's comments about coersion and consent fit here.
The fact that opponents of gay marriage consistently lump gay people into these categories are missing the point (and exposing their own desperation) that two gay adults are "of age" and consenting. So what is the legal reason to deny them equal marriage rights?
I'm still waiting to hear the reason.
Posted by: Rick R | December 27, 2008 3:40 PM
Although some have somewhat foolishly invoked Loving v Virginia in their arguments, it is notable to mention that the Supreme Court explicitly rejected such an analogy
Rick, unfamiliar with the legacy of Loving claims
The problem is, if that slippery slope was in fact so slippery, those marriages would all be legal BECAUSE of Loving. Same argument.
Seems that it is time to revise the claims founded on an appeal to Loving until at least the time the Supreme Court revises or revisits its ruling.
The same as the legal reason to deny marriage rights to polygamists? The idea that there exist equal marriage rights to same sex couples is one which is under discussion. While I would like to argue that the judicial history would be favorable to such a position, the reality shows that arguing that same sex people have a right to marry is hard to support.
Therefore, the Court finds that the right to marry a person of the same sex is not a fundamental right under the Constitution.
Source: Wilson v. Ake (2005)
The courts seem to be bound by the legal precedent of Baker v Nelson where the SC "dismissed the appeal "for want of [a] substantial federal question"
Coersion and consent fit it to a certain extent but do not apply to polygamy and adult "incestuous" relationships. So once we accept that the state and the federal government can define marriage to include particular groups, the issue of whether or not denying marriage to same sex couples violates constitutional rules.
So far DOMA which defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman, for instance has seen some constitutional challenges, all of which seem to have failed. The challenges include due process challenges and equal protection challenges as well as a few more esoteric challenges.
There are some who envision the 1st amendment protection of redress of grievances will be DOMA's downfall. So far we have some indication from the Nebraska SC that this will fail as well
Posted by: PvM | December 27, 2008 6:20 PM
As you said it yourself, such relationships need not be abusive and thus your argument fails. I am simply observing that we have rejected the term marriage to consenting adults for other reasons. And those relationships do involve typically a man/woman/women relationships which at least may be seen to be protected by Loving which addressed the concept of marriage and cites some supporting cases which do not help your argument
Source: "Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson (No. 782) 189 Okla. 235, 115 P.2d 123, reversed."and
Source: Maynard v Hill 1888In other words, the legislature has historically been controlling the interpretation of marriage, and thus the issue of same sex marriage may very well be one determined by the legislature, unless one can point to a constitutional violation.
I do not necessary like the idea but when discussing these issues, one has to accept the history and precedents that guide the law of this country.
Invoking Loving when it comes to loving same sex relationships seems ill considered at best.
Posted by: PvM | December 27, 2008 6:31 PM
From a personal perspective I see nothing different between rejecting marriage based on race or on gender. However, the point is not what I believe or not believe but rather how we aim to achieve what I/we believe to be 'fundamental rights'. However, what we wish and how the US judicial system interprets the Constitution are often at odds. Understanding that Loving does not provide a legal argument in favor of same sex marriage will help us understand why our claim that marriage is a fundamental constitutional right to all is presently hard to support with existing case law.
Posted by: PvM | December 27, 2008 6:49 PM
This is exasperating. PvM: you keep claiming that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry for the same reason that pedophiles and close relatives should not be allowed to marry. But you have yet to state WHAT THAT REASON IS! What is the reason?
Incidentally, can you come up with a moral justification for denying the right to plural marriage or incestuous marriage? It is legal for first cousins to marry in an awful lot of the country, just to throw that out there, and plural and incestuous marriages were the norm throughout most of human history (so much for the "tradition" argument, as if it wasn't bankrupt to begin with).
By the way, just because SCOTUS makes a decision doesn't mean it's the RIGHT decision morally. You'll need to do better than "Scalia says it's OK!" if you want to convince anyone that it's moral to deny the right to same sex marriage.
Posted by: Dan L. | December 27, 2008 9:23 PM
I understand your frustration, Dan L, but all PvM appears to be arguing is: 1. Marriage is a state issue, in that; 2. Sexual orientation is not a protected Federal class the way race or gender are; therefore, 3. supporters of SSM need to win their battle in the individual state legislatures.
This basic argument is sound, which is why I advocate a legislative, rather than judicial strategy. He is also correct when he claims Baker is a controlling decision for lower Federal Courts, although since all the current suits are in state Courts, it is not clear why this should matter. Congress can easily add jurisdiction to the Supremes if it wishes, and repeal of DOMA would raise numerous Federal questions.
Posted by: kehrsam | December 27, 2008 10:35 PM
Dan L: This is exasperating. PvM: you keep claiming that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry for the same reason that pedophiles and close relatives should not be allowed to marry. But you have yet to state WHAT THAT REASON IS! What is the reason?
Note that I am not claiming that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry. In fact, I hold the opposite opinion. I am attempting to represent reasons why reasonable people may believe that there is no reason to extend the term marriage to include same sex couples and that in fact we have already restricted marriage by excluding various forms of relationships. The reason is that contrary to the beliefs of some, there is no universal right to marry, at least not established through judicial precedent (for instance Loving)
Plural marriage seems to be rejected mostly because it seems to contradict out cultural beliefs. Is there a moral justification for doing so? Some may believe there is, I do not really believe that there is much of a moral reason but I also accept that the legislature has the right to implement the details of marriage. Incestuous marriages may have some problems: 1) genetic and 2) discrepancy of power. However, if a father/daughter etc relationship between consenting adults exists, I am not sure if we can withhold marriage to them. Given the jurisprudence, I would say that for man/woman relationships of consenting adults, it will be hard to reject access to marriage.
I am not sure that plural and incestuous marriages were the norm throughout much of human history, that suggests another exaggeration ala Warren who seems to claim exactly the opposite. I am presently reading up on marriage through the ages and cultures so I will let you know what I find, although I believe that your claim is as wrong as Warrens.
Scalia does not make the Supreme Court and the issue of whether something it the right decision is irrelevant to the fact that the Supreme Court sets the law of this land. I am not really interested in the concept of morality since that opens up a whole new can of worms. To many Christians, it would be immoral to open up marriage to same sex. What I am instead pursuing is whether or not there exists a universal right to marriage based on jurisprudence, and contrary to what I have some heard arguing, Loving makes for a poor precedent given the later clarification by the Supreme Court.
Posted by: PvM | December 27, 2008 11:34 PM
Because if the argument is that due process or equal protection is violated because there exists a universal right to marriage then the state courts will be forced to look at federal case law and indeed, state courts have done so.
Posted by: PvM | December 27, 2008 11:36 PM
An example is the NY Court of appeals who observed
and
So yes, I think that state courts, depending on the arguments raised will have to look at federal rulings but I am not a lawyer.
And to make sure that noone misunderstands my position:
1. I am in favor of extending the same rights to gay people are as extended to non gay people when it comes to the concept of secular marriage.
2. I believe that at the federal level the precedent set by Loving and the later clarification in Baker have failed to establish same sex marriage as a fundamental constitutional right.
3. Thus I object to the claim that Proposition 8 was unfair, or anti-democratic (especially when based on the fallacious claim that there is a universal right to marriage that extends to same sex couples) or that those who reject extending the term marriage to include same sex couples are somehow bigoted.
4. Understanding the arguments of our opponents may help us establish some common ground. For instance, if Warren is sincere about his statement that he is in favor of equal rights for all, then there may be an opportunity to extend the concept of civil unions to all and reserve the concept of marriage for religious institutions, allowing us more effectively to separate Church and State.
Posted by: PvM | December 27, 2008 11:56 PM
kehrsam wrote:
What about DOMA?
Posted by: Leni | December 28, 2008 2:01 AM
DOMA has two provisions
One which protects states from having to recognize same sex marriages performed in other states. The other one which prohibits the federal government from treating same-sex relationships as marriage.
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.
followed by a definition of marriage and spouse
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.
So, to use your question, what about DOMA?
Posted by: PvM | December 28, 2008 3:17 AM
PvM/kehrsam:
What you seem to be claiming is that because sexual orientation is not specifically protected (whether or not it SHOULD be) that same sex marriage should not be guaranteed, but rather decided at the state level. Fine. But then, why is it unfair to call Warren a bigot? If I believe that it SHOULD be protected and he can't offer a moral justification why it shouldn't be, then it seems that such an accusation is justified.
Incidentally, I think it's reprehensible that a legal loophole would be used to deny same sex couples the right to marriage. The fact that the both of you are complacent with that notion suggests to me that both of you are also bigots. I'd only be too happy for either of you to prove me wrong.
Posted by: Dan L. | December 28, 2008 3:34 AM
Sure, there are no standards to calling someone a bigot, and as I have argued, calling Warren a bigot may indicate that the term has lost most of its traditional meaning and is now meant to refer to someone with whom we disagree
You need to differentiate between two separate concepts. One is the concept of a legal loophole (as you inappropriately call it) for which I do not carry any responsibility and then there is the usage of said loop hole to deny same sex couples to marry which is sadly enough known as legal precedent and thus indicates that your quarrel is more with the judicial system, the constitution than with me or Warren. Finally, may I remind you that I am in favor of gay marriage but I also recognize that there are legal constraints which we need to accept as binding.
The reason why I call your terminology "legal loophole" inappropriate is because this has nothing to do with loophole but all with established case law and the constitution, which forms the foundation of our judicial system.
And no I am not even stating that since sexual orientation is not protected same sex marriage should not be. I am stating that the constitutional right to marry is one based on the concept of one man and one woman, even though some have misinterpreted Loving to state otherwise and because the Supreme Court has dismissed Baker "for want of [a] substantial federal question". Indicating that they do not believe that same sex marriage is a constitutionally protected right.
But given your meaningless definition of bigot, I am sure that I deserve such a designation and will wear it with pride as it has lost its once negative connotation and has become an indication of disagreement. In fact, it may very well be that the level of intensity with which someone is called a bigot is positively related to one's inability to deal or refute said person's position.
Of course, if one wants to maintain the original meaning of the word, then I am not sure that Warren or I would qualify as a bigot.
And finally, I hope that you are not confusing my understanding and appreciation of legal reality with bigotry against homosexuals. In fact, once again, I will stress that I have always been and will always be an advocate of equal rights for all and in this case I fully support the concept of equality when it comes to designating a loving and consenting relationship between two (or more?) consenting adults. However, I do also realize that there may be valid state and federal interests which will guide the details, such as age, etc.
The strongest case we could make is by linking the inequality in access to benefits etc which are often uniquely granted as part of the concept of marriage as a more compelling reason than what has been attempted so far.
But as I said, I am not a lawyer, just someone interested in the discussion, and willing to familiarize myself sufficiently with the prevailing thoughts, opinions, legal landscape etc before jumping to judgments. I have often found that I learn more from those with whom I disagree than from those with whom I agree and this case is not different.
I could for instance have accepted Rick R's interpretation of Loving which would have left me fully uninformed as to its correct legal interpretation. I may even have used it as a compelling argument, only to find out the hard way, how wrong I was in my claims.
Posted by: PvM | December 28, 2008 3:59 AM
I stated:
Although I had so far not considered this to be my argument or at least the position of the legal jurisprudence, it does seem to represent the reason why Loving cannot be used to validate same sex marriages. That raises the bar even more for a route via the Federal courts. In other words, the hard work at every single state level may be what is needed to get legislation in place, or preferably a constitutional amendment which extends marriage to include same sex couples.
Of course, given the present climate in the US, I also see this as the least likely one to succeed given the requirements for constitutional amendments.
Getting sexual orientation recognized at the federal level would be the quickest but may quickly run afoul of the Supreme Court.
Posted by: PvM | December 28, 2008 4:18 AM
PvM wrote (on DOMA):
My point was that this is still a problem if gay marriage is legal only at the state marriage and only in some places. This means allowing gay marriage at the state level will not be sufficient, however necessary it may be.
Except you've never bothered to explain what those other reasons are.
Thus, I pointed out that the man/woman fails in one of your cases, that old man/young woman isn't even illegal so long as the younger partner is of the age of consent (Donal Trump anyone?), and that there are ostensibly no reasons besides "ick" to ban incestuous marriages.
The best example you gave was of polygamy, but even that fails. The two most prominent arguments against it that I am aware of are A) religious in nature and B) because it is often associated with underage or coerced marriages and that adversely effects women and unmarried men.
The first case is not an argument the government has any business making and the second is not a justifiable comparison to SSM in any general way. So no, my argument doesn't fail. It undermines one of the two justifications for banning SSM. If there are other reasons against it you'll have to tell me what they are, because I have yet to hear them.
Posted by: Leni | December 28, 2008 12:40 PM
Leni: The first case is not an argument the government has any business making and the second is not a justifiable comparison to SSM in any general way. So no, my argument doesn't fail. It undermines one of the two justifications for banning SSM.
Let me try this again:
1. Marriage has been traditionally defined as between a man and a woman.
2. Legislature has the right to determine the constraints for marriage as we have seen in case of incestuous relationships, polygamy and age restrictions.
Under 1, there is not even a right for gay couples to get married, under 2 government is justified to regulate marriage.
In most cases, the argument has been an issue of procreation and the raising of children. I am not too familiar with reasons against polygamy marriage, but incestuous marriage has at least two problems, one of which is the risk of genetic defects.
Again Wikipedia
Posted by: PvM | December 28, 2008 1:29 PM
Indeed, this would logically mean that all states will have to change their position, not an easy feat given the present day situation. The alternative seems not much better really now that several states have anti same sex measures in place and the Federal Government may not have a legal interest in forcing the states to reject their laws.
It's a messy situation legally speaking.
Posted by: PvM | December 28, 2008 1:37 PM
PvM wrote:
These are not reasons why SSM should be banned. Pointing out that the government has the ability to set limits is not a justification for why it should in this case.
And yet we don't prevent people who can not reproduce from marrying, nor do we prevent people with heritable diseases from reproducing, much less marrying. Further, this is not an issue relevant to SSM. Even if it were justifiable in the case of incestuous marriages, it would be irrelevant with respect to SSM.
So, what gives?
Posted by: Leni | December 28, 2008 1:44 PM
From the Reynolds ruling
Posted by: PvM | December 28, 2008 1:45 PM
OK, PvM, I've gone through my copy of the constitution and don't see a single reference to the institution of marriage. So what are you babbling about a "constitutional right to marriage"? (Not quoted, but somewhere in your posts above.)
Marriage has been traditionally defined as between a man and a woman in what context? In medieval Europe? In western society? Why should that have an impact on a nation with religious freedoms and, for example, no national language? Plural marriage is relatively common in many middle eastern and African nations. And again, the antipathy towards incest is, I'm fairly certain, a recent historical development even in western society.
For number 2, legislature HAS constrained marriage, but I hardly see how that necessarily means they have a RIGHT to do so.
You see, age restrictions have a real moral basis. If a person is not sexually or emotionally mature enough to be able to consent to a physical relationship, then clearly it's wrong to marry that person, and a law against it makes sense. Otherwise, legislatures are arbitrarily offering "perqs" to a subset of the population without any moral justification (here I'm assuming that offering something that one can't use is as good as offering that person nothing, vis allowing gays to marry those of the opposite sex).
The genetic deficiency argument regarding incestuous marriage is bullshit for the same reason the "child rearing" argument falls flat for SSM: infertile hetero couples can marry, and fertile hetero couples who are married have no obligation to have or raise children. It's perfectly legal to marry someone for the tax benefits and never see that person until you get together to file your tax returns -- as long as that person is the opposite sex.
Incidentally,
bigot:
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
If comparing loving same sex couples to sexual predators (and not in a favorable way) doesn't constitute intolerance, then I guess I really don't know how to apply the word "bigot." Please enlighten me how this term DOESN'T apply to Warren.
I think it's great that you have such a hard-on for legal precedent, but as far as I'm concerned, this is a moral issue first and a legal issue second. States should either allow marriage unless it is clearly immoral (in a secular sense) to do so, or they should not offer marriage benefits at all. The argument that this isn't how things work now has no bearing on whether or not the way things work now is right.
Posted by: Dan L. | December 28, 2008 1:54 PM
That is correct but it is a basic necessity before we address the governmental justification which in most cases has been to guarantee procreation and the raising of children.
You do understand that there may not be a legitimate reason for government to involve itself in these matters?
In fact, while people have suggested reasons to suggest that since we do not prevent people who cannot reproduce to marry, the argument is flawed. While this may seem superficially to be a good argument, it quickly falls apart at a legal level.
In The Procreative Argument for Proscribing Same-Sex Marriage by Douglas W. Kmiec in Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly, Vol. 32, No. 1, 2004, the author writes:
Yes we do see a lot of procreation amongst same sex couples. Although the recent medical technology has been changing the landscape, the argument so far still remains a powerful precedent in law.
You and I may disagree about the logic, the motivations, the morality but in the end, there remains the simple fact that our outrage cannot change the legal history of the term marriage, and the legal precedents that govern this topic.
Posted by: PvM | December 28, 2008 1:57 PM
Even if they did, the federal government would not still not recognize SSMs.
Yet in principle, one's rights should not depend on where one lives.
Now, I know to some extent they do. For example, age of consent laws. But that is the difference between waiting a year or two and never having the option at all. And with something as fundamental and personal as marriage, I think there is sufficient rationale to support federal action, just as there was for Loving.
In part because DOMA is such a piece of shit legislation.
From the NY ruling you posted earlier:
The problem with this is that the court does not need to "conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted" in order to legalize SSM. They simple need to recognize that such a ban has the effect of denying a certain group of Americans the same rights other adults have, just as is it did with the case of inter-racial marriage. And that the reasons for doing so do not outweigh the harm of continuing SSM bans.
Posted by: Leni | December 28, 2008 2:05 PM
Leni: There is only one decent argument that I am aware of. That argument runs something like this. 1. There is no absolute right to marriage; the state could choose to treat every person individually. 2. The state chooses to treat a subset of the population (man-woman pairs who apply for the status) favorably, because this results in benefits for the society at large. 3. The state can, at any time, contract or expand the definition of the favored class; they might, for instance, restrict the franchise to couples raising minor children. Since marriage is a good deal for the state (in that the overall societal gain outweighs the costs of the rights granted), a rational state will seek to expand the franchise.
The argument against SSM following this framework is essentially that the definition as it currently stands is best for society, i.e., that either there is little benefit to extending marriage to same sex partners, or that the costs of doing so are too high. A number of the anti-SSM arguments can be fit into this framework as more or less legitimate.
My point in all of this is that there is nothing normative here at all: A right is nothing more than that which the society permits. In our case, we have chosen to define a number of "rights" by stating them in a Constitution. It does not address marriage directly, and so marriage cases in Federal Courts get dismissed. Loving is distinguished because the 13-15th Amendments do address racial matters: It is not really a case about marriage, but rather, "Badges and incidents of slavery."
Personally, I think marriage is a good thing for societies, and that more marriages are also a good deal as families are the chief organizing institution in our culture; stabilizing families thus stabilizes culture. Oddly enough given current politics, SSM is profoundly conservative in its impact. As that becomes clearer to the voting public, things will change.
As for Federal DOMA, let's stop pretending that it was ever anything than an election gimmick. There was no need for it in the first place (since marriage is not a Federal issue and states already have the right to not recognize marriages that are against public policy). Just junk it.
Posted by: kehrsam | December 28, 2008 2:09 PM
I stand corrected, I meant to use "fundamental" not "constitutional".
Since our country lends its foundation from common law in England, the courts have historically focused on this precedent, noting like you that plural marriage is common in asian and eastern countries.
The fact that they constrained marriage and did so without constitutional or legal challenge would explain why they have the right. In fact, I believe that the ability of the legislature to define and regulate marriage has been challenged and has been rejected under the argument that marriage is a civil contract which can be regulated. The extent of the regulations of course need to pass constitutional tests.
That is a weak argument. Infertility is quite an invasive determination, one to which the state has no compelling rights. In fact, just because there are some couples who will remain infertile (something which cannot be tested easily), the state may still have a legal interest in legislating. These arguments are not really that new and have indeed been attempted and rejected by the courts.
You do point out a more fertile path, namely that same sex couples are not given access to same treatment for benefits. This seems to be a much more legally defensible path to take.
Because Warren did not compare them to sexual preditors but rather stated that he rejects marriage to same sex couples for the same reason he (and the state) rejects marriage to polygamists, incestuous relationships and age related marriages.
Your moral argument may make you feel better about yourself but it provides no useful guidance to change the legal landscape. Ignoring the fact that legal precedent guides the laws in this country will reap its consequences as we have seen in several instances now.
We are not not just facing the fact that states have rejected marriage to same sex couples but now laws or constitutional amendments have been passed which will make extending marriage to all even more legally problematic.
I understand and appreciate your moral beliefs, which are not much different from mine. I am merely pointing out that moral beliefs are not sufficient to change the laws of this country, unless we can gather sufficient people who believe the same (and given the recent successes in California, I am somewhat somber about these immediate prospects) or we find a willing legislature to do our bidding, with the risk of running into Prop 8 like responses.
Posted by: PvM | December 28, 2008 2:22 PM
I said the genetic argument against incestuous marriages, even if defensible (which I do not think it is), does not apply to SSM because there is no significant risk with heritable disease simply because one is homosexual.
Unless of course you are implying that homosexuality is the genetic risk. Which would not only be incredibly creepy, but a worthless argument since genetic risk to potential offspring is not a sufficient (or even good) reason to ban marriage for certain individuals.
But it has in several states already and it's moving in that direction despite recent setbacks. That laws exist does not mean they can not change. In this case, the moral arguments for SSM are far stronger than the ones against it, so it's only a matter of time.
Posted by: Leni | December 28, 2008 2:25 PM
True but same sex marriages would be legal.
And yet the governmental system of the US does allow for states to regulate that which is not regulated by the federal government.
There is nothing wrong with supporting federal action but States may still pass laws and constitutions rejecting federal involvement and the constitutional challenge will likely fail for the federal government because of legal precedent.
In part because DOMA is such a piece of shit legislation.
Our beliefs about DOMA have no legal relevance sadly enough.
That was tried and rejected based on legal precedent. There is no denial of rights based on gender and sexual orientation is not a protected right. Race is a protected right. Which is why comparing same sex marriage to Loving is doomed to fail.
Of course that is a compelling moral argument but not a compelling legal argument.
Posted by: PvM | December 28, 2008 2:29 PM
You and I may disagree about the logic, the motivations, the morality but in the end, there remains the simple fact that our outrage cannot change the legal history of the term marriage, and the legal precedents that govern this topic.---
But it has in several states already and it's moving in that direction despite recent setbacks. That laws exist does not mean they can not change. In this case, the moral arguments for SSM are far stronger than the ones against it, so it's only a matter of time.
Which is why I suggested going the state route. True, laws can be changed, at the federal level however, there is significant precedent which may make the issue likely to fail. At the state level, as Kehrsaw points out there is more flexibility but again, changing the interpretation of laws which have had some limited success, were quickly countered by legislative actions. It may indeed be a matter of time until the country achieve a majority of voters who are supporting same sex marriage.
I believe that one of the early mistakes has been to use the term marriage for same sex couples given its historical and religious history. If the issue was equality under the law then a lot of the mess could have been avoided by pursuing a secular contract between two consenting adults for all and avoid the loaded term marriage.
Posted by: PvM | December 28, 2008 2:38 PM
I said the genetic argument against incestuous marriages, even if defensible (which I do not think it is), does not apply to SSM because there is no significant risk with heritable disease simply because one is homosexual.
That is correct, the genetic argument is one against incestuous marriages and shows that the government does have the right to regulate marriage, which is a civil contract. Since the stated reason for regulating marriage is to regulate procreation and child rearing, marriage has been limited to man and woman, although as I have stated, recent technological advances have changed the landscape. Could the legal reason to regulate marriage be extended to include same sex couples? Of course, the question is how, when and where.
Posted by: PvM | December 28, 2008 2:43 PM
kehrsam wrote:
Thank you for the clarification.
Still, calling it "decent" might be an overstatement.
First, the argument that there is little benefit is problematic because there is no reason to presume that a SSM would be any less beneficial to individuals or society than other marriages. As you say, if it is a good thing in general, there is no reason to assume it would not be a good thing for gay people. If there is a social benefit to having happier, healthier, married citizens, then there is no reason to deny it in this case.
Second, the costs of doing it are too high? What are the costs? Higher dental bills from the gnashing of many teeth?
It's like it has a veneer of rationality, but underneath it all it still looks like code for "ick".
Posted by: Leni | December 28, 2008 2:43 PM
Under the definition of marriage which regulates procreation, there appears to be limited support to extend it to include SSM. However, if marriage can be extended to include loving and caring relationships which benefit our society, then a stronger case can be made. I believe this is what Kehrsaw is arguing.
Extending benefits to all partners I presume.
Such is the problem of morality.
Posted by: PvM | December 28, 2008 2:57 PM
PvM wrote:
The issue is equality under the law no matter what we call it.
Is there some law preventing the marriage of people with known heritable disease that I'm not aware of? Aside from those regarding incest, of course?
Further, if we are going to argue that Loving is not a legally applicable principal with regard to SSM, then I do not see any reason for arguing that the other, even less similar, examples you gave should be.
Posted by: Leni | December 28, 2008 3:07 PM
Leni: Once again, I support SSM, because when I run this analysis, society gains. The fact that same-sex couples also gain is an additional benefit. I am suggesting, rather, that an opponent of SSM could come to the opposite conclusion. She might, for instance, argue that extending marriage benefits to SS couples would benefit the raising of relatively few children; just as the existence of traditional marriages without children does not negate the overall benefits gained by granting opposite-sex couples marriage rights, she might argue that denying marriage to SS couples is okay because relatively few of them have children.
Mind, I'm not endorsing that conclusion. But this and other threads concerning SSM contain a lot of claims along the lines of, "Opponents of SSM have no valid arguments and are just religious bigots." No doubt some of them are. But at the heart of all the name-calling there happens to be an old-fashioned debate over pubic policy. I believe that that is the discussion we should be having.
Posted by: kehrsam | December 28, 2008 3:13 PM
Except that we do extend it to include non-procreative relationships because we recognize that loving and caring relationships are beneficial for society independent of the procreative element. In fact, we extend it even those relationships might (or even definitely will) result in disabled children that are ultimately a drain on society.
It's a risk we have already accepted.
This is a cost we as a society have already deemed to be outweighed by the benefit.
The back-pedaling with regard to SSM is nothing but a red herring.
Posted by: Leni | December 28, 2008 3:19 PM
And under law, there is no protected right for sexual preference only gender, race etc. Thus equality under law is hard to extend to same sex marriage unless we can add for instance economic motive such as access to healthcare etc.
Some states have blood tests for some common STD's. But there are few if any that test for known heritable diseases.
Loving refers to marriage being a basic right under the concept of procreation and child rearing. Loving also notices (IIRC) that marriage is a civil contract under legislative regulation. Thus any constraints or regulations need to pass constitutional muster. Arguing under due process or equal protection clauses in favor of SSM is problematic because the response has been that sexual orientation is not a protected class and that there is no discriminating behavior because of gender since man and woman are treated equally. Sure, the latter one may sound unfair but law is not necessarily about fairness.
The examples I gave show that despite marriage being define to be between a man and a woman, the state can impose constraints such based on age, based on genetic concerns (incestuous relationships) and based on common law (polygamy). While one could extend this to cover genetic issues, this appears to be more intrusive than the law would reasonably allow for and issues of privacy may overwhelm state or federal interests.
Posted by: PvM | December 28, 2008 3:36 PM
kehrsam wrote:
I know you do. I was just responding with the reasons why I still don't think it's a "decent" argument. I didn't mean to imply that I thought that was your position.
If it were their marriages I suspect they'd be singing a different tune, which makes me think this argument is still little more than a smokescreen for bigotry. That's why I refrained from calling it a "decent" argument.
Primarily for the reason that someone (not you, obviously) would argue that certain people, especially children, are expendable for such a flimsy reason as this. Their families aren't important enough to consider granting legal protections to. Their families count less than others'. What's at the heart of that?
I don't see any way around simple discrimination, and I don't see how cloaking it in a reasonable sounding debate about simple public policy changes or improves that core message.
I guess I disagree with you about that. I think bigotry is essentially at the heart of it. There were old-fashioned policy debates about miscegenation laws, wasn't there?
The reasons for miscegenation laws were so specious that even when they bothered to make reasonable sounding or principled arguments, they still rested on the fact that some people simply did not deserve equal protection under the law.
Posted by: Leni | December 28, 2008 3:40 PM
Your argument, however persuasive, lacks judicial realism unless one furthers this through legislative action at the state level. However, the precedent is still mostly based on common law, and the procreation argument and thus in order to extend marriage to SSM, we need to extend the definition under which the state regulates marriage to include the recognition of the value of marriage, regardless it being SSM or otherwise.
The problem is to overcome the situation that a majority of people or voters disagrees with this position and thus we may lack legislative approaches. The alternatives are judicial approaches which are easily overcome through legislative action.
It's a mess really.
Posted by: PvM | December 28, 2008 3:41 PM
Indeed and since the constitution was amended to make race a protected category, Loving resulted in knocking down these debates. Since however sexual orientation has not been recognized as a protected right under the constitution, regulating marriage has remained at the state level. Of course just because something is legal or illegal does not necessary make it just or moral or unjust or immoral.
Which means that we have a variety of choices from a legal perspective
1. Amend the constitution to add sexual orientation as a protected class. Guaranteed to fail since it requires significant public support to amend the constitution and it may in fact open up marriage to a constitutional amendment to limit it to same sex couples
2. Change the definition of marriage at the state level through legislative process. Simplest procedurally, most likely to fail due to prevailing beliefs about marriage being a union between a man and a woman
3. Constitutional challenge under equal protection or due process Already attempted and failed. As long as there exists the judicial precedent at the Supreme Court level that sexual orientation is not a federal concern, there is little we can do here immediately.
4. Challenge under equal access to benefits related to marriage. Attempted and counteracted through legislative action
Hence my suggestion that we provide for civil unions for all as a secular "marriage" which extends common benefits to all couples. And leaving "marriage" to be defined as part of religious rituals with no secular benefits or regulations.
Some have argued that this would be granting too much to religious people and yet, these religious people form a majority of our country meaning that some form of compromise is needed to be successful. My approach also has the additional benefit that it even more clearly separates State and Church, which may be an additional legal argument in support of such an approach.
Is this approach perfect? Not really, but given the realities of our current legal precedents and given the realities that a majority of people still seems to oppose using the term marriage for anything but one man and one woman, we need some compromise to further this cause, even if it means small steps.
What alternatives do you propose?
Posted by: PvM | December 28, 2008 3:55 PM
And what about states where civil unions have already been ruled out? My state has already passed a constitutional amendment that says in part, "A marriage between one man and one woman is the only lawful domestic union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This State and its political subdivisions shall not create a legal status, right, or claim respecting any other domestic union, however denominated."
It seems to me that in this case, the only possible route is to go for a purely business contract that allows any two competent adults to set up a legal household together much as they would set up a legal partnership to open a shoe store together.
The argument, I suppose, would have to be that the contract is not any form of marriage or union because it does not recognize or condone a romantic/sexual relationship and cannot be broken on the basis that one of the couple refuses sex to the other. Such a contract would be justified entirely by the benefits to the state of financially secure households where the participants accept a large amount of legal and financial responsibility for each other's welfare as a means of reducing the liklihood that either would require public tax support/welfare.
I think you are quite right about the need for a different approach, but it is not simply the term "marriage" that is being disputed. What fundamentalists object to is the idea that in marriage and civil union alike the government is "condoning" sexual activity between people of the same sex. What the "civil union" terminology so far has succeeded in doing with many of the people who think this way is to make them extremely suspicious of any kind of arrangment that allows financial and legal benefits because they now see all that as code terms for "have sex."
I suspect that the only hope in the next several decades for states like mine is to focus on trying to create household establishment contracts that would aid non-romantic couples (such as two widows, grieving the deaths of their husbands in the military and wishing to form a joint household to provide protection and stability to their children). At that point, we would have government "marriage" that differs from household contracts only in that the marriage continues to assume what we assume now: a personal, romantic, loving, possibly or likely sexual, relationship - a union of minds, emotions, and bodies.
Call it what you will, any relationship that is perceived to assume that sex between the participants is acceptable is probably going to be all but impossible to achieve in many states for a very long time to come.
Posted by: JuliaL | December 28, 2008 5:18 PM
This is a problem which would require most likely a constitutional amendment repeal.
Some do, some don't. Warren for instance supports equal right partnerships for gays so it is through alliances we can defeat those who will reject gay sexual activities under any and all circumstances.
Posted by: PvM | December 28, 2008 6:02 PM
I fear that you are right.
Posted by: PvM | December 28, 2008 6:07 PM
Kurt -
But at the heart of all the name-calling there happens to be an old-fashioned debate over pubic policy.
And I for one, am in favor of nuevo pubic policy - shave it baby!!! Anyone who says otherwise is a anti-smooth, christo-fascist bigot. (even if they happen to be an atheist:)
Posted by: DuWayne | December 28, 2008 9:58 PM