pageok
pageok
pageok
If You Speak Swedish, and Want to Do a Translation That Many People Will Read,

here's the Swedish Supreme Court's decision from today holding that Ake Green, a minister, couldn't be punished for his anti-homosexuality sermon. Green had been sentenced to a month in prison; an appellate court set that punishment aside, and now the Swedish Supreme Court has affirmed the appellate court's decision. If anyone can translate this into English, I'd be delighted to post it, and I'm sure many people will be very interested in it. (Naturally, if you know of an existing English translation, I'd be glad to see it, too.)

Splunge (mail):
It says:

"Ake Green, a minister[1] may not be punished for his anti-homosexuality sermon.

[1] A minister in Sweden[2].

[2] Have you ever considered a holiday in Sweden[3]?

[3] See the lovely lakes[4]!

[4] Attention! The Swedish Supreme Court[5] wishes to inform you that the persons responsible for the footnotes to this decision have just been sacked. There will be no more silliness in this most serious matter.

[5] A minister[6] bit my sister once...

[6] ATTENTION! The Swedish Supreme Court wishes to inform the august readership of the Volokh Conspiracy that the persons responsible for sacking the persons who were responsible for the footnotes to this decision, have just been sacked. We're very sorry."
11.29.2005 6:41pm
Justin Kee (mail):
If the decision is posted on a Web page, you could try Google's machine language translation technology. Then again, I wonder how badly the legal reasoning would be mangled....
11.29.2005 6:49pm
anonymous22:
How dare he challenge liberal orthodoxy on homosexuality! Shame, shame! Sweden puts its dogmas in the safe hands of the law, where trangressors and dissenters can be safely punished before they pollute public discourse further.

God, what an outrageous prosecution, and a disturbing proof of Prof. Volokh's slippery slope theorem. Public toleration of homosexuality leads seamlessly into official orthodoxy and punishment of dissenters.
11.29.2005 7:00pm
roy (mail) (www):
As a rule, translation software is especially awful at jargon-heavy language such as you'd find in a legal document.
11.29.2005 7:01pm
Fred Vincy (www):
anonymous22 -- I would think liberal orthodoxy would reject a government's suppression of unpoular speech.
11.29.2005 7:06pm
unhyphenatedconservative (mail):
Fred,
You haven't been on a college campus lately, have you?
11.29.2005 7:17pm
Justin (mail):
unhyphen,

You haven't looked up the difference in the definitions between "protest" and "government ban" lately, have you?
11.29.2005 7:20pm
Stephen Aslett (mail):
Maybe you should ask this guy for a translation?
11.29.2005 7:24pm
Master Shake:

God, what an outrageous prosecution, and a disturbing proof of Prof. Volokh's slippery slope theorem. Public toleration of homosexuality leads seamlessly into official orthodoxy and punishment of dissenters.

Uh, so let me get this straight - the root problem here is public toleration of homosexuality? The solution to which, of course. is to get rid of public toleration of homosexuality? Which would of course require an official orthodoxy against toleration of homosexuality, the corollary of which is the punishment of dissenters to that policy? Well thought out.
11.29.2005 7:28pm
Dennis (mail) (www):
Basically, the supreme court says that he would have been sentenced where it not for the fact that the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms is incorporated into the Swedish law. They argued, refering to the cases below (and some other case I couldn't find), that the European Court of Human Rights would overrule the verdict if Åke Green got sentenced. Obviously, the convention allows more than the law that prohibits agitation against ethnic groups and homosexuals.

Manoussakis vs. Greece
Kokkinakis vs. Greece
Handyside vs. United Kingdom
Murphy vs. Ireland
11.29.2005 7:39pm
JB:
I think anonymous was joking.

And Justin, colleges are pretty happy to ban all kinds of stuff these days.
11.29.2005 7:40pm
Eric Muller (www):
Splunge, that was hilarious!
11.29.2005 8:13pm
Anonymous coward:
Splunge, excellent use of a classic Monty Python bit (now showing, in a slightly revised version, on Broadway in Spamalot.
11.29.2005 8:36pm
Master Shake:

I think anonymous was joking.

He was joking in his first paragraph, not his second. The two are at cross-purposes.

And yes, cheers to Splunge.
11.29.2005 8:49pm
anonymous22:

Uh, so let me get this straight - the root problem here is public toleration of homosexuality? The solution to which, of course. is to get rid of public toleration of homosexuality? Which would of course require an official orthodoxy against toleration of homosexuality, the corollary of which is the punishment of dissenters to that policy? Well thought out.


Any policy, to sustain its legitimacy, must be backed up by a battery of propaganda. And when the propoganda proves insufficient, force must be utilized.

Master Shake is wrong in interpreting my post as giving a solution to the problem. The problem is humanity, and there is no solution. We are all flawed beings.
11.29.2005 9:32pm
anonymous22:
Apropos my previous post: as Winston Churchill said, "In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be
attended by a bodyguard of lies." Take that, J.S. Mill!
11.29.2005 9:33pm
Dave Hardy (mail) (www):
Any policy, to sustain its legitimacy, must be backed up by a battery of propaganda. And when the propoganda proves insufficient, force must be utilized.

As a former Federal bureaucrat, I can assure you we usually skipped the propaganda and went right to the force. If that proved insufficient, we might try propaganda. Otherwise, why bother? Esp. since propaganda requires imagination, something only rarely found in government.
11.29.2005 10:00pm
adfh (mail):
11.29.2005 10:03pm
ANM (mail):
"Public toleration of homosexuality leads seamlessly into official orthodoxy and punishment of dissenters."
You fail to distinguish between toleration and something stronger, like advocacy. Toleration, per dictionary.com, 2nd definition: "Official recognition of the rights of individuals and groups to hold dissenting opinions, especially on religion."
This definition accords with policy in the United States.
The state should not seek to protect the "civil rights" of any or all homosexuals or heterosexuals, just as it should not with race or sex (I refer mainly to antidiscrimination law).

You express your disapproval through the freedoms enumerated by the first amendment, especially speech and association.
11.29.2005 10:10pm
Master Shake:

Master Shake is wrong in interpreting my post as giving a solution to the problem. The problem is humanity, and there is no solution. We are all flawed beings.

I don't interpret your post as giving a solution. You made the unbelievable statement, "Public toleration of homosexuality leads seamlessly into official orthodoxy and punishment of dissenters." Clearly you consider "official orthodoxy and punishment of dissenters" a problem (as well you should). However, to get rid of this specific problem vis-a-vis its seamlessly resulting from public toleration of homosexuality, THEN YOU MUST NECESSARILY BELIEVE that the solution is to get rid of public toleration of homosexuality. That in turn necessarily would result in official orthodoxy and punishment of dissenters on the other side of the issue.

Trust me, I don't consider you to have actually offered any solutions. And seriously, what's that claptrap about humanity and flawed human beings?
11.29.2005 10:14pm
countertop (mail):
Hey,

I just emailed it to my cousin in Stockholm and his daughter who is here in the states attending college. I am sure one of your readers will get a translation faster, but if not, I will post it when they are done.
11.29.2005 10:37pm
anonymous22:
I am compelled to respond because Master Shake is accusing me of being against toleration of homosexuals.

There are two options: toleration or non-toleration. Both involve suppression of speech. It used to be apostasy to say you were in favor of or indifferent to homosexuality; now it is apostasy to say you are against homosexuality.
11.29.2005 10:51pm
anonymous22:
Master Shake envisages a perfect world where we can enact policies but don't have to justify them. In a democratic country the policy exists through consent. Consent is created in large part by social pressure and sometimes by official pressure. Consent doesn't create itself; it is not that we all woke up one morning and agreed that homosexuality was okay.
11.29.2005 10:56pm
Master Shake:

I am compelled to respond because Master Shake is accusing me of being against toleration of homosexuals.

There are two options: toleration or non-toleration. Both involve suppression of speech.

Riiiiiiiiight.
11.29.2005 10:57pm
frankcross (mail):
Anonymous, the court ruled that there could be no punishment for such speech. That would seem to disprove the slippery slope, more than prove it.
11.29.2005 11:11pm
Just John:
I'm a bit confused... I tried to translate the decision, but it seems instead to be a recipe for converting muffins into donuts using something called a "boom-boom". And what exactly is a "bork-bork-bork" anyway?
11.30.2005 2:43am
Jonathan M (mail) (www):
Mr. Volokh. Here is an English case (via a tribunal), in BC, Canada, that was just decided today involving a clash of homosexual rights and a religious group. It is very, very interesting.
11.30.2005 4:17am
Frank Drackmann (mail):
In german, the difference between "Homosexual" and "Hot,humid,sticky" is only an umlaut(the 2 litle dots over a vowel).One is "Schwul" the other "Schwul" with the 2 dots. I can never keep them straight since Ive never been to germany when its hot and humid.
11.30.2005 6:53am
Public_Defender:
Both sides in the gay rights want to impose penalties on the other. Conservatives want to be able to deny jobs (even if that means national security is harmed because there aren't enough Arabic translators), public facilities, the right to adopt, and many other private and public services to people who say they are gay.

Yet conservatives balk when the same thing gets thrown back at them.

Andrewsullivan.com provides a link to the following statement which was "approved by the Vatican's secretariat of state":
During these past years, homosexuality has become a phenomenon that is always increasingly worrying and in many countries is considered a quality that is normal. . . .

It (homosexuality) does not represent a social value and even less so a moral virtue that could add to the civilization of sexuality. . . . It could even be seen as a destabilizing reality for people and for society.
To see how intolerant and repugnant that statement is, just change one word:
During these past years, homosexualityCatholicism has become a phenomenon that is always increasingly worrying and in many countries is considered a quality that is normal. . . .

It (homosexualityCatholicism) does not represent a social value and even less so a moral virtue that could add to the civilization of sexuality. . . . It could even be seen as a destabilizing reality for people and for society.
If conservatives want to lower the temperature of the "culture war," they need to start by looking at their own rhetoric.
11.30.2005 8:01am
Erik Voeten (mail):
Dennis' point on the ECHR is very important. The ECHR is increasingly developing into a body of judicial review that guarantees basic rights, such as freedom of speech. Even though the Swedish Supreme court is formally not bound by the cited ECHR rulings on other countries and circumstances, national courts tend to anticipate how the ECHR will rule and use its interpretation of convention rights (which are, as Dennis points out, incorporated into Swedish law).
11.30.2005 8:30am
Daniel Chapman (mail):
"Conservatives want to be able to deny jobs (even if that means national security is harmed because there aren't enough Arabic translators), public facilities, the right to adopt, and many other private and public services to people who say they are gay.

Yet conservatives balk when the same thing gets thrown back at them."

The same thing? I thought we were talking about being thrown in speach for speaking... in a church no less!

If a gay person didn't want to hire this minister or rent a room to him, I'd support that decision fully. If the government wanted to throw a speaker at a gay rights rally in prison for being in favor of homosexuality, I'd oppose that as well.
11.30.2005 9:03am
Daniel Chapman (mail):
"Conservatives want to be able to deny jobs (even if that means national security is harmed because there aren't enough Arabic translators), public facilities, the right to adopt, and many other private and public services to people who say they are gay.

Yet conservatives balk when the same thing gets thrown back at them."

The same thing? I thought we were talking about being thrown in prison for speaking... in a church no less!

If a gay person didn't want to hire this minister or rent a room to him, I'd support that decision fully. If the government wanted to throw a speaker at a gay rights rally in prison for being in favor of homosexuality, I'd oppose that as well.
11.30.2005 9:03am
Public_Defender:
Actually, many conservatives wanted to throw people in prison for being gay, but the Supreme Court stopped that. That decision is still widely deplored in many conservative circles.

Clarence Thomas called laws that imprisoned people for being gay "silly." Maybe that's what we should call laws that imprison anti-gay people. Those laws aren't repulsive to democracy. They're just "silly."
11.30.2005 9:28am
Scipio (mail) (www):
P_D:

Silliness is a prime determinant of what makes a stupid law. To a first approximation if one can look at a law and examine it carefully and only conclude that it is silly, it is a bad law.
11.30.2005 9:59am
Public_Defender:
So Jim Crow laws were just "silly"?
11.30.2005 10:06am
Cornellian (mail):
Mr. Volokh. Here is an English case (via a tribunal), in BC, Canada, that was just decided today involving a clash of homosexual rights and a religious group. It is very, very interesting.

Presumably you mean "case in English" not "English case" since the case in Canadian, not English. I believe that's the case of the lesbian couple that rented a hall from the Knights of Columbus for their wedding.

In a zany, sitcom style mixup, the lesbian couple didn't realize the KoC were a Catholic religious organization, and the KoC didn't realize the women who rented the hall were marrying each other. Many laughs and pratfalls ensued, eventually culminating with the KoC backing out of the rental contract. The couple went off to the BC humans rights tribunal, which ruled that the KoC was entitled to refuse to rent to them, but awarded some damages based on the way in which the KoC backed out of the contract. I'm not sure of the details of the latter, and whether it involved backing out of the contract per se, or something else.

P.S. Love the Python reference in the first post. This place should have more of them.
11.30.2005 10:42am
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):
Master Shake writes:

Uh, so let me get this straight - the root problem here is public toleration of homosexuality? The solution to which, of course. is to get rid of public toleration of homosexuality? Which would of course require an official orthodoxy against toleration of homosexuality, the corollary of which is the punishment of dissenters to that policy? Well thought out.
I think his point is that homosexuality doesn't tolerate disapproval. It seems that the choices are governmental suppression of homosexuality, or governmental suppression of those who disapprove of homosexuality. I wish it were different, but I am beginning to think that toleration of both points of view isn't possible, except as a short-term matter.

Public_Defender writes:
Actually, many conservatives wanted to throw people in prison for being gay, but the Supreme Court stopped that. That decision is still widely deplored in many conservative circles.
I think you would have trouble finding more than a handful of conservatives who want to throw homosexuals in prison for private adult consensual sex. What we objected to in Lawrence was the falsification of history and the denial of legislative supremacy. (Of course, how else would liberals achieve their goals? Persuade the masses?)

What made the Texas statute "silly" (in Thomas's paraphrase of the dissent in Griswold) was that unless you were insisting on having homosexual sex in a public place (as many homosexuals do), there was little or no chance of being prosecuted for consensual adult homosexuality.
11.30.2005 11:47am
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):
Public_Defender writes:

If conservatives want to lower the temperature of the "culture war," they need to start by looking at their own rhetoric.
If homosexuals want to be left alone by the government, they need to start by looking at their totalitarian tendencies: ordering a print shop to print gay wedding announcements; trying to send someone to prison for speaking against homosexuality; trying to force private organizations to accept homosexuals; trying to make sex with children legal (Limon); trying to force same-sex marriage onto the states; the vigorous efforts by homosexual activists to suppress dissenting opinions by threats of violence, obscene phone calls to my children, and all the rest of what constitutes homosexual activism.

I used to have a very liberal attitude about homosexuality. As homosexuals have come to control the legal system, and showed their totalitarian wishes, I have become far less liberal about it. There was a time when I would have regarded the Vatican's recent pronouncement about homosexuality and social order as bizarre. Now it makes perfect sense to me.
11.30.2005 11:58am
Xander (mail):
Clayton E. Cramer,

What disturbs me by your rhetoric is its monolithic treatment of homosexuals as a group out to get you. For the record, how many gay Americans actually decided the cases you are so angry about? To me your problem is with a judicially philosophy that often supplants elective authority and presumes to hold a holy book of human ethics beneath its robes.

Your views have targeted the beneficiaries of some these decisions for disdain. Just like those who target minorities for Affirmative Action, when it was white politicians that enacted the laws, and majority white judiciaries that have upheld them. Frankly every homosexual agreeing and binding together, which hasn’t happened and likely never will, wouldn’t hold enough power to be the threat you’ve outlined.
Frankly I don’t see, “ordering a print shop to print gay wedding announcements,” as overbearing. Private companies should be able to refuse service, though why you would I don’t know.

Describing gay’s as a group with totalitarian tendencies is heavy handed. As far as European problems, I’m glad we don’t have them over here, and hopefully never will. They’ve had more restrictions on free-speech than we ever have, or will I hope.
I’m not sure where you hale from but in my state the things you speak of are foreign to me. While I don’t doubt that there are cruel, uncivilized, forceful people of all ilk out there you have shown a disturbing side of this issue: When people stop seeing people. I’d be glad to be wrong though.
11.30.2005 12:30pm
Public_Defender:
I used to have a very liberal attitude about homosexuality. As homosexuals have come to control the legal system, and showed their totalitarian wishes, I have become far less liberal about it.
Where have I read rhetoric like this? Oh, yeah, by replacing one word, I remember:
I used to have a very liberal attitude about homosexualsJews. As homosexualsJews have come to control the legal system, and showed their totalitarian wishes, I have become far less liberal about it.
But yes, making obscene phone calls to children, whether heterosexual or homosexual, can be punished. So can sex with children (as long as the same rules apply to both hetero and homosexual sex). But, based on my case load, the problem appears to be far greater with heterosexuals.

Threats of violence can be punished, too. But again, the problem is more on the anti-gay side. At my local gay pride parades, there are always signs quoting the Bible calling for gay people to be killed.

This is an interesting problem. One group of Americans wants to sanction gay behavior (and sometimes speech). Another wants to sanction anti-gay behavior (and sometimes speech). Perhaps that's why the subject keeps popping up here.
11.30.2005 12:47pm
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):
Xander writes:
What disturbs me by your rhetoric is its monolithic treatment of homosexuals as a group out to get you.
What disturbs me is threats of violence, obscene phone calls, etc. by homosexual activists who decided that ideas that they didn't like needed to be suppressed.
For the record, how many gay Americans actually decided the cases you are so angry about?
Read what I wrote. It isn't that homosexuals occupy all the judgeships--they clearly aren't even a large minority--but their dominance over the court system.
To me your problem is with a judicially philosophy that often supplants elective authority and presumes to hold a holy book of human ethics beneath its robes.
I'm not even sure what you are trying to say.

Your views have targeted the beneficiaries of some these decisions for disdain. Just like those who target minorities for Affirmative Action, when it was white politicians that enacted the laws, and majority white judiciaries that have upheld them.
Actually, the disdain associated with Affirmative Action isn't disdain for minorities, but for the liberals (overwhelmingly white) who insist that racial discrimination is the best solution to the problems of inadequate public schools.

Frankly every homosexual agreeing and binding together, which hasn’t happened and likely never will, wouldn’t hold enough power to be the threat you’ve outlined.
You notice that I used the phrase "homosexual activists"? There's a reason. There are a lot of homosexuals who are interested in being left alone, and leaving others alone. The activists aren't.

Frankly I don’t see, “ordering a print shop to print gay wedding announcements,” as overbearing. Private companies should be able to refuse service, though why you would I don’t know.
You don't see this as overbearing? How about if the government ordered homosexual men to not share a dwelling with other men? What makes one overbearing and the other not?

Describing gay’s as a group with totalitarian tendencies is heavy handed.
Does the name Ernest Roehm ring any bells?
As far as European problems, I’m glad we don’t have them over here, and hopefully never will. They’ve had more restrictions on free-speech than we ever have, or will I hope.
And yet increasingly the Supreme Court believes that European precedents are more important than our own--as in Lawrence.
I’m not sure where you hale from but in my state the things you speak of are foreign to me. While I don’t doubt that there are cruel, uncivilized, forceful people of all ilk out there you have shown a disturbing side of this issue: When people stop seeing people. I’d be glad to be wrong though.
I lived in the San Francisco Bay Area for 17 years--one of those places where homosexual activists exercise enormous power.
11.30.2005 1:04pm
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):
Public_Defender writes:
Where have I read rhetoric like this? Oh, yeah, by replacing one word, I remember:

I used to have a very liberal attitude about homosexualsJews. As homosexualsJews have come to control the legal system, and showed their totalitarian wishes, I have become far less liberal about it.
Oddly enough, of all the controversial statements that I have made, no other group has engaged in threats of violence, harrassing phone calls, obscene phone calls to my kids. Not gun control activists. Not socialists. Not supporters of affirmative action. Not atheists. Just one group feels it appropriate to engage in these actions.


Threats of violence can be punished, too.
But in practice, never are, until an overt action happens.
But again, the problem is more on the anti-gay side. At my local gay pride parades, there are always signs quoting the Bible calling for gay people to be killed.

I find this completely impossible to believe, unless you are referring to Rev. Fred Phelps--who is so crazy that he pickets Focus on the Family because they encourage homosexuals to become straight. (Phelps wants homosexuals to die in sin.)
11.30.2005 1:11pm
Law_student:
I don't think that anyone has pointed out that the Swedish Supreme Court does not really engage in judicial review of statutes like the U.S. Supreme court does. Its powers are far more limited. Thus, if the Swedish Parliament adopts a law that requires punishment of people who incite hatred towards homosexual population, the courts are almost bound to enforce the law. I said "almost" because here the European Convention of Human Rights comes into play, so that the Swedish court refrained from enforcing the law. Otherwise, the democratic process (the will of the Swedish people through their parliament) would have prevailed. Thus, this was a sort of judicial activism going on here.
11.30.2005 1:41pm
Justin (mail):
What disturbs me is threats of violence, obscene phone calls, etc. by homosexual activists who decided that ideas that they didn't like needed to be suppressed.

Yes, clearly to the degree theres a problem of violence in the gay/straight arena, its heterophobic violence by gay people. ::rolls eyes::
11.30.2005 3:24pm
Justin (mail):
Law Student, oddly enough the Swedish Supreme Court DID engage in US-styled judicial review, tho acting more like a circuit court than the supreme court. What it said is that European precedent would prevent the law from acting in the way it is being applied, and thus Sweden was prevented from applying as such. The judiciary, not the legislature or administrative branch, was doing the limiting here.
11.30.2005 3:27pm
TM Lutas (mail) (www):
Justin - Do you realize that you're dismissing the personal life experience of somebody who has received actual threats because you think that they're not statistically significant? That's cold, wrong, and I hope an unthinking moment of bad judgment.

They man has family, has had his kids verbally assaulted and been threatened with violence. Do you really think that rolling your eyes is the appropriate response?

For the record, it's not homophobe/heterophobe that is the real dynamic. That's just a convenient false mirror image to confuse the issue.

Homosexual threats of violence aren't done because homosexuals are afraid of heteros. They're doing it in order to silence the opposition. That's totalitarian on the part of the activists and shameful on the part of those who tolerate the totalitarians in their midst.

Can we get a unanimous round of condemnation that going after a guy's kids is out of bounds? How about obscene phone calls and threats of violence? And can we do it without a "but the other side is worse" rationalization fest?
11.30.2005 4:12pm
Krizz (mail) (www):
If you would like to read a short comment to the Court’s decision by a Swedish lawyer, please, check my blog post here

Unfortunately, the decision covers 16 pages in Swedish legal language.
11.30.2005 4:23pm
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):
Justin writes:

Yes, clearly to the degree theres a problem of violence in the gay/straight arena, its heterophobic violence by gay people. ::rolls eyes::
Violence and harrassment of any sort is unacceptable. That's part of why I oppose laws that criminalize homosexuality (even though they are clearly Constitutional) and that prohibit responsible adults from defending themselves.

Everyone has different experiences, and that's part of why we all tend to have slightly different viewpoints on public policy issues. I've talked to homosexuals who have been victims of gay-bashing; I've talked to straights who were victims of sexual abuse by gay men; I've talked to more people than I can count who have been raped or beaten, just because they were convenient targets of someone's rage or greed.

You seem to be implying that because there are a lot of gay men who get brutalized that somehow it is okay for homosexual activists to engage in harrassment and threats of violence. Most sensible people recognize what a morally bankrupt position that is.
11.30.2005 4:56pm
Public_Defender:
Homosexual threats of violence aren't done because homosexuals are afraid of heteros. They're doing it in order to silence the opposition. That's totalitarian on the part of the activists and shameful on the part of those who tolerate the totalitarians in their midst.
It's a good thing heterosexuals never use violence or threats of violence! All of the murderers, wife-beaters and daughter-rapers on my docket must be gay.

The real totalitarians are the conservatives who wanted the State to imprison gay people until the Supreme Court put a stop to it.

The real totalitarians are the conservatives who want to use the State to strip gay parents of their children.

The real totalitarians are the conservatives who want to force sick children to bounce around foster care rather than be adopted by a stable gay family.

The real totalitarians are the conservatives who would rather have people die from a terrorist attack than let a gay person translate an Arabic document for the government.

And, as I said above, there are always people with signs calling for the death of gays at any of my local gay pride parades. Nice people.
11.30.2005 5:17pm
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):

The real totalitarians are the conservatives who wanted the State to imprison gay people until the Supreme Court put a stop to it.
Just out of curiosity: when was the last time that a homosexual was imprisoned or fined by a state government (that excludes convictions under the Uniform Code of Military Justice) for consensual, private, adult sex? I don't doubt that it occasionally has happened, but I would guess pretty rarely, simply because these aren't situations that have a victim calling the police.

The arrest that led to the Bowers case resulted in no criminal charges; it was because the homosexual that was arrested chose to make a case of it that it went through the courts. The arrest that led to the Lawrence case started out as an incorrect report of forced entry--and I can't imagine that the case that followed was anything but an attempt by the prosecutor to get the law struck down.

Call these laws silly, stupid, unfair, but totalitarian? That demeans the word.
11.30.2005 5:25pm
Justin (mail):
I find the desire to subjugate others for the sole purpose of moral superiority cold. I find the fact that someone who tries to claim moral superiority in the most vile of ways finds out that he actually pisses people off, and that a tiny, tiny fraction of those people he viciously slanders go too far in their response pretty much expected.

If Clayton Cramer wants to not be verbally abused by a few individuals, maybe he should try to start by becoming a better (even mildly decent?) human being, rather than demonizing an entire class of people.
11.30.2005 8:30pm
Justin (mail):
BTW, to Cramer and friends,

If you read the previous post (which I posed as a hypothetical though believe every single word I said) and wished bad things to happen to me, I think I've proven my point.
11.30.2005 8:33pm
Xander (mail):
Clayton Cramer,

“Read what I wrote. It isn't that homosexuals occupy all the judgeships--they clearly aren't even a large minority--but their dominance over the court system.”

I did and responded. As I wrote homosexuals do not wield judicial power, which is what you’re implying by claiming their “dominance.” My point was simple: homosexuals don’t control the legal system. You seem to have a problem with rulings by primarily straight judges, who I doubt are being led around by devious homosexual activist.

While I sympathize with anyone who is the victim of persecution I doubt the problem is homosexuals, but rather problem of people acting in uncivilized manners. This phenomena transcends sexual orientation, race, creed, etc. You can therefore not expect me to accept your reasoning that because some members of a group have upset you and been abusive that group is universally a threat to order.

“Actually, the disdain associated with Affirmative Action isn't disdain for minorities, but for the liberals (overwhelmingly white) who insist that racial discrimination is the best solution to the problems of inadequate public schools.”

Being on a college campus I’ve seen this issue played out and white liberals aren’t the people who become scapegoats. Much rhetoric is about who isn’t qualified to be here, not merely who is supporting the measures. While I won’t claim some only target one group or the other, I think my example holds.

“You notice that I used the phrase "homosexual activists"? There's a reason. There are a lot of homosexuals who are interested in being left alone, and leaving others alone. The activists aren't.”

Here you are again lumping people into concrete categories based upon…I personal antidotes and vast experience I guess. Yet, you seem to miss the point, I know some “activist” myself and they only interact in the most respectful of ways. They open dialogue and lobby aggressively but never do they threaten or harass.

Last I checked we are all entitled to our opinions and can use our influence as we wish. As to the “print shop” situation. I don’t know of any private business being forced to print anything. Enlighten me otherwise. If this happened it’s wrong. I think I was confused by your statement because it looked as if you were saying homosexuals ordered the shop, and I assumed you were referring to placing an order. Yet, it seems like you meant they forced the shop to print the invites. I wasn’t aware that private citizens could legally force other private individuals to act, outside the legal system. Again without specifics is seems as if you are implying that homosexuals are our government, or in someway at the head of the legal and political entities which enact and enforce law.
11.30.2005 9:39pm
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):
Justin writes:

I find the desire to subjugate others for the sole purpose of moral superiority cold. I find the fact that someone who tries to claim moral superiority in the most vile of ways finds out that he actually pisses people off, and that a tiny, tiny fraction of those people he viciously slanders go too far in their response pretty much expected.

If Clayton Cramer wants to not be verbally abused by a few individuals, maybe he should try to start by becoming a better (even mildly decent?) human being, rather than demonizing an entire class of people.
An entire class of people (homosexual activists) that couldn't quite decide whether NAMBLA was a legitimate part of their movement or not, until they discovered--shock of shocks--that the vast majority of Americans (and even most homosexuals) disapprove of molesting children.


If you read the previous post (which I posed as a hypothetical though believe every single word I said) and wished bad things to happen to me, I think I've proven my point.
Actually, I didn't wish anything bad to happen to you. The psychological term that you are describing when you assume this is "projection."
11.30.2005 10:31pm
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):

“Actually, the disdain associated with Affirmative Action isn't disdain for minorities, but for the liberals (overwhelmingly white) who insist that racial discrimination is the best solution to the problems of inadequate public schools.”

Being on a college campus I’ve seen this issue played out and white liberals aren’t the people who become scapegoats. Much rhetoric is about who isn’t qualified to be here, not merely who is supporting the measures. While I won’t claim some only target one group or the other, I think my example holds.
Oddly enough, I've never seen anyone who opposes AA expressing disdain for minorities. EVER.


Here you are again lumping people into concrete categories based upon…I personal antidotes and vast experience I guess. Yet, you seem to miss the point, I know some “activist” myself and they only interact in the most respectful of ways. They open dialogue and lobby aggressively but never do they threaten or harass.
My experience is that the same crowd that thinks that NAMBLA is a perfectly legitimate part of the gay movement is prepared to use whatever tactics they think will get them a victory. Hey, maybe my experience in the San Francisco Bay Area (where homosexuals are more accepted than just about anywhere in America) is atypical. But I'm impressed how many other people I run into that have had similar experiences.


I don’t know of any private business being forced to print anything. Enlighten me otherwise. If this happened it’s wrong. I think I was confused by your statement because it looked as if you were saying homosexuals ordered the shop, and I assumed you were referring to placing an order. Yet, it seems like you meant they forced the shop to print the invites. I wasn’t aware that private citizens could legally force other private individuals to act, outside the legal system.
That's a very ingenuous argument. You know full well that this was done through a city anti-discrimination ordinance. Clearly, you approve of government using its power to force others to do what the majority wants--as long as the majority agrees with you.
11.30.2005 10:36pm
Wince and Nod (mail) (www):
If Clayton Cramer wants to not be verbally abused by a few individuals, maybe he should try to start by becoming a better (even mildly decent?) human being, rather than demonizing an entire class of people.


Sorry, Justin, some homosexual activists can be very, very nasty and extraordinarily intolerant just like Fred Phelps is. And just like Fred Phelps, they often radicalize moderate people, directly compromising their own political goals. Thus the homosexual activists turn possible sympathizers into enemies, just like Fred Phelps make everyone else have more sympathy for homosexuals. That's right. Fred Phelps is a godsend for homosexuals, and you know it. And homosexual activists like the ones who terrorized Clayton are a godsend to Fred Phelps. Your statement, above, because it neglected to take into consideration this important psychological fact, actually benefitted Fred Phelps, more than homosexuals.

Yours,
Wince
12.1.2005 12:31am
Public_Defender:
Wince,

Anti-gay activists can be even nastier. Remember, majorities in Texas and other states kept laws on the books that criminalized normal sexual relations between even monogamous gay people. It took the undemocratic US Supreme Court to stop the bigots.

That means huge numbers of anti-gay people wanted to put people in prison simply for being gay. Other than physically assaulting or murdering gay people, how much more hostile can you get?
12.1.2005 8:43am
Public_Defender:
I forgot to say above, Splunge's Python reference was funny.
12.1.2005 10:31am
Xander (mail):
Clayton E. Cramer,

"That's a very ingenuous argument. You know full well that this was done through a city anti-discrimination ordinance. Clearly, you approve of government using its power to force others to do what the majority wants--as long as the majority agrees with you."

Wow, I'm glad you know what's in my mind. As you may have read I wrote that I do not support such action. You may want to stop looking through the crystal ball and respond in good faith as I have. I don't make it a point to follow every battle in the "culture" war. Such silly laws are a waste of the paper they're on. But I do admit freedom dies a little with each one.

The truth is that you have shown what happens when people let their political goals rule their actions rather then living through principals, i.e. runnaway activist. However, my views from the other side, living in a fairly conservative and sometimes hostile anti-gay environment, see the same things in reverse. The difference is that I don't condem all those in the majority here.

Let me thank you for making your last response more specific. We come from two very different places and I've found that sometimes people fail to see that when coming into an exchange of ideas. Please realize that here in Virginia things aren't seen the same by the "majority" as you've seen them in San Fran. I'm not discounting what you see and live, but I won't rush to say that either vision is representative of the hearts and minds of a large diverse group.
12.1.2005 12:44pm
TM Lutas (mail) (www):
Public_Defender - Why yes, heterosexuals who use criminal violence or threat of violence to get their way are reprehensible and should be punished appropriately by the criminal justice system. I have no sympathy for them, end of point, stop.

Thank you for providing a real-life example that people do actually rationalize away homosexual threats of violence and political suppression tactics. It was educational.

A small note. There is no upper limit on the number of bad guys in a situation. If someone is a totalitarian, the totalitarian status of somebody else is completely independent. Saying things like "the real totalitarians are" anybody means that moral evil is on a relative scale and is graded on a curve. Sorry, it just isn't so. My family has personal experience in the 20th century that there can be multiple, equally condemnable, evil forces out there impacting society.

Justin - I'm astonished:

I find the fact that someone who tries to claim moral superiority in the most vile of ways finds out that he actually pisses people off, and that a tiny, tiny fraction of those people he viciously slanders go too far in their response pretty much expected.

If Clayton Cramer wants to not be verbally abused by a few individuals, maybe he should try to start by becoming a better (even mildly decent?) human being, rather than demonizing an entire class of people.

Essentially, I read that as the moral equivalent of "the woman deserved to get raped, walking where she was/dressed as she was." But this isn't just about Clayton Cramer. This is also about his kids, who were abused as well. What rationalization is there for lashing out against them, blood guilt? I thought that sort of thing was constitutionally limited.
12.1.2005 6:09pm
Public_Defender:
There is no justification for threats of violence in the gay rights fight. The people who threatened Cramer and his family are criminals and should be treated as such.

My point is that violence, threats of violence, and "totalitarian" tendancies (to use a word that another poster used) are weapons that have been used against gays for centuries, including this one. Anyone who believed that the State should put gay people in prison (like the people who supported the Texas law that was struck down) are at least as violent as the people who threatened Cramer.
12.2.2005 4:42am
TM Lutas (mail) (www):
Public_Defender - Gays, if they are to be successful in achieving societal protection over the long haul, have to graduate from special pleading for their group to forging a pro-civilization coalition.

The violence of the state is not an appropriate method for dealing with the moral challenge of homosexual activity in my opinion. The police shouldn't have been there at all in Lawrence, entering only because they were lied to, not because they were on some moral crusade agains the homosexuals. The prosecutor should never have prosecuted. It puzzles me as to his motivation.
12.2.2005 1:00pm
Felix Bronstein (mail):
The best I could find was an English language amicus brief submitted in this case by The Alliance
Defense Fund, Christian Legal Fellowship (Canada), the Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, and the Jubilee Campaign USA
12.2.2005 2:39pm