The Sacramento Bee reports:
Scott Eckern, artistic director for the California Musical Theatre, resigned Wednesday as a growing number of artists threatened to boycott the organization because of his $1,000 donation to the campaign to ban gay marriage in California....
Los Angeles-based and Tony Award-winning composer Marc Shaiman ("Hairspray") wrote a blog saying he would never allow any of his shows to again be licensed or performed by California Musical Theatre while Eckern was employed there....
Speech calling for such boycotts is itself constitutionally protected. It neither is nor, in my view, should be illegal for people to refuse to patronize a theater because of the artistic director's political views. It likewise isn't illegal, and shouldn't be illegal for copyright owners to refuse to license their works for such reasons. I don't think there's a constitutional right to refuse to license the work under such circumstances, but I wouldn't support a ban on such refusals.
California law does bar employers from firing their employees for the employees' political activity, which would surely include contributions to political campaigns, and it doesn't seem to have an exception for situations where the employees' activity has caused boycotts or other losses to the employer. (See Cal. Labor Code §§ 1101-02, which has been read fairly broadly.) But it appears that Eckern resigned without being forced to do so by his employer.
Still, it seems to me that this story helps provide a counterpoint to the criticism of people and organizations who boycotted the Dixie Chicks for their statements. For more on the general topic of boycotts for speech, see my Deterring Speech: When Is It “McCarthyism”? When Is It Proper? (PDF pp. 11-30).
UPDATE: More thoughts on this from Adam B at DailyKos.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Proposition 8 Donor Maps,
- Campaign Contribution Disclosure and Technological Change:
- Disclosure of Contributors to Ballot Measures:
- Boycott Threats Lead to Resignation of Theater Artistic Director Who Contributed to Anti-Same-Sex-Marriage Initiative:
Boycotting a business for what one of its employees did punishes the business for something that it could not forsee and in this case is legally not allowed to do anything about. Blacklisting the artistic director would seem more appropriate (even though I am against most political blacklisting for employment).
We already know the answer to that. There's probably been several hundred thousand movies made and books written condemning the "blacklist" of the Hollywood ten (so far), even though I believe every one of them has admitted to being card-carrying members of the communist party long ago. McCarthyite is still a term of endearment used constantly for all those to the right of Josef.
Although I do believe it has finally been overtaken by "racist".
Look, it's a concern troll.
How adorable!
Well, when you have both epithets accurately embodied by the same figurehead, it's hard to measure. Still, like "homophobe," these are efforts to simplify discourse with hyperbole into something emotional (unthinking).
Is this an issue if the resignation is voluntary? Do we need to quantify how voluntary? Rather: how acceptable a practice is shunning? And shouldn't it be explained?
Anecdotally, I've seen the voluntary act of shunning denigrated as an immoral exercise of power over others while the same person seeks less-voluntary measures of "social justice," so to speak. In the case in which this was articulated as such, the speaker was young, but I see the same sentiment creeping over the political landscape.
As I recall, the LDS church made public a statement that they will take notice of anyone who supports No on Prop. 8 financially and will be held accountable.
They can hardly complain when opponents of Prop 8 decide to do the same thing. Were you as concerned about this issue back then, or is your concern only one way?
But I thought discrimination is wrong.
I mean, some of my friends and I have boycotted gay bars for years.
But then Joe and his never seen list made people afraid, and with fear there is strength. Strength to judge people by their friends and strength to spy on one's neighbors.
Till the Communists beat him through "Journalism" and "exposure."
Also, I think we should boycott Obama, somehow.
See: Saiman email. Try as I may, I could not find in his email the "threat" reported by the Sacramento Bee.
I suspect that next time contributions in the amount of $999.99 will be the norm.
He was the artistic director for The California Muscial Theater for 25 years.
As with any musical theater, you can bank upon a few things:
1. Most of the men onstage are gay.
2. Virtually all of the good actors and singers are gay.
3. Many of the stage hands and adminstrative staffers are gay. (The carpenters and electricians, if women, are almost certainly lesbians).
4. The audience and subscribers have a large percentage of gays.
5. The donors have a large percentage of gays.
6. There are probably several Board members who are gay.
7. Most of the musicals that would be produced were written by gay men, or at least the rights are owned by gay men.
And this guy goes and makes a public donation to an anti-gay proposition! What the heck was he thinking? If the guy were working for a church that was made up almost entirely of anti-abortion believers and he makes a contribution to a pro-choice organization, I'm quite sure the church would make quick work of him, don't you think?
(I know, I know, I'm boasting here. But I really DO think that musical theater is one of the major benefits of being gay.)
There are a very cases where the institution has an ideological agenda where I think this sort of firing might be appropriate.
If the guy wanted to hold onto his job, I would support him, and I'd be very upset if the theater had fired him for his speech. Resigning was probably the smart move for him however. Maybe he can get a job doing Christian theater.
But my problem with boycotting the Dixie Chicks was never that it was improper. It was that the Chicks were right and their stupid ex-fans were wrong.
Well that explains some things. You redefine all your thoughts, behaviors, and choices as innate facets of your being -- "accepting one's self" -- and all criticism becomes ad hominem.
Brilliant, actually; though, if I had thought of it I wouldn't have imagined anybody'd be daft enough to fall for it.
I still don't see what the problem is in the actions of either party in this particular instance. Ideally, discrimination for any reason would be an individual decision. Shunning goes both ways, no pun intended.
That's exactly right. Speech is only free when the person speaking is correct. Otherwise, they should shut up. Dissent is not patriotic.
But they didn't. He resigned.
I'm not really in favor of firing people based on their politican or social views. If they can do the job well, that should be the only criteria. But part of any major player within a non-profit organization has to raise money, and how is he going to be able to raise money with a hostile public? So at this point, he really *can't* do his job well.
Do you really think that if he worked for a anti-abortion church and he donated to a pro-choice organization, and it became public, that they would have spent two minutes thinking before they fired him? I don't believe so. If anything, the theater was generous in letting him resign.
As a related issue, churches have long argued that sexual orientation discrimination laws shouldn't apply to them, because they cannot have a gay person on their staff if they are an anti-gay church. All gay organizations have agreed that they should be exempt for that reason. Let me ask you: would it be okay to allow any church to deny employment or fire a black person, or a pregnant woman, someone who is over 50, someone disabled, simply because their such things go against their religion? There would be quite an outcry. But we gays have agreed to not press the issue, and have agreed that anti-gay churches can carry out discriminatory pratices against gay people.
Not so fast, Richard. Sexual orientation is innate. We didn't choose to be gay any more than you chose to be straight. Orientation refers only to desire, which means that I only desire men sexually and romantically, just as you (presumably) desire only women sexually and romantically. ( If you disagree, please inform us under what circumstances you would happily have a sexual and romantic relationship with a man. I love to hear, because there are always a few straight men that I dream about!)
Regarding behavior, however, that is something completely different. I can choose to hit you or not, and you can fully criticize me for doing so.
Get the diff? Criticizing me for being gay: Not okay. Criticizing me for doing something stupid: perfectly okay.
It's really not that hard, and most people are able to do so. I hope you can as well.
That is simply untrue.
I disciminate against people all the time; judgement is one of our hard-wired self-defense mechanisms. Why the government, at the behest of a loud, but small, minority, wants to force us to hire, retain, rent to, or otherwise associate with people we don't care to be around, is beyond comprehension
What is "who they are" and what is "engaging in harmful conduct"? You act as if that is a self-obvious distinction, and it is most certainly is not. There is no law which says "don't be gay."
Randy R.
But Prop 8 doesn't discriminate against people for "being gay." It discriminates against them for "wanting to enter into a particular relationship." Unless you insist that 'entering into a gay marriage' is an essential characteristic of 'being gay,' then there is a very clear act versus status distinction between the two.
(Same note I always bring up on this point: The act/status distinction for gays was still recognized by SCOTUS after Romer v Evans, but was rejected by Lawrence v Texas).
I disciminate against people all the time; judgement is one of our hard-wired self-defense mechanisms. Why the government, at the behest of a loud, but small, minority, wants to force us to hire, retain, rent to, or otherwise associate with people we don't care to be around, is beyond comprehension."
I agree. If I operate a restaurand, I should be free to disciminate against blacks, or the disabled, and not serve them or hire them. It's the American way!
Those uppity blacks can do what they've always done -- patronize their own restaurants. Why should I be forced to serve them?
Nope, you've got it backwards. Let's go step by step:
1. I'm gay
2. The only person I would want to marry is another man, a gay man.
3. If I were straight, I would want to marry a woman. Which I can because all striaght can marry whom they choose to marry.
4. As I am gay, I cannot marry the one person that I choose to marry. therefore, I am not able to marry because I'm gay. Again, if I were straight, I could get married (see No. 3)
Only gay people are harmed by this prop 8. If we were not gay, then there would be no harm. Therefore, we are harmed because we are gay.
I find it disturbing that an individual's political activity, performed during his/her private time, can be considered as grounds for dismissal from an employer.
There are, I am sure, quite a few individuals who become active in politics based on their perceived moral or ethical values. The potential of dismissal merely based on one's legal and personal behavior -- which is (as I see it) part of the guaranteed freedom of speech -- should be considered a violation of one's civil liberties.
Am I off-base on my opinion in this? Has the Patriot Act stripped us of more than habeas corpus? Has it stripped us of a fundamental right to engage in legal political activities?
Good point, just like laws that banned blacks from sitting in the front of the bus wasn't discrimination against people for "being black". After all, "wanting to sit in the front of the bus" isn't an essential characteristic of "being black".
Smokey?
Nobody's criticizing you for your desires, everyone desires to do illegal and immoral things at some point. We're only criticizing you for acting on those desires such as marrying or having sex with other men.
that has simply not been proven. fwiw, i am against 8, and for gay marriage. but i am also against anti-scientific crap that claims to know that sexual orientation is innate.
this has been discussed ad nauseum here.
the bulk of scientific evidence at this point supports that the majority component of orientation for most people is genetic.
that is hardly the same thing as what you are saying.
personally, i really don't CARE to what extent oritentation is or isn't innate. it really wouldn't affect my political beliefs about gay rights..
but science matters. and science has not proven that orientation is (solely) innate.
It's very simple: If everyone was restricted from sitting in the front of the bus it wouldn't be discrimination. Equivalently, since no one, not even straight people, can marry someone of their own gender (or objects, or animals) it's not discrimination.
If people think that SSM protesters are acting unfairly, let them exercise their own speech in retaliation. And then I'll ridicule them if they couch that retaliation in terms of "Oh halp my rights are infringed," which is my exercise of speech. Then they'll call me a fascist homo-supporter or something, which is their speech again. And so on.
no, they can't. many straights want to marry a person related to them (by blood or marriage). in most cases they can't. in fact, even having sex with such a person is a serious criminal act.
iow, both straights and gays are restricted in whom they can legally marry. there are other restrictions. i just mentioned one
again, notwithstanding above, that's correct.
again, i support gay marriage, but i think MOST gay marriage proponents are dishonest (or deluding themselves) when they fail to recognize that gay marriage changes what marriage is.
men and women have significant and immutable (save metric a**loads of surgery and hormones) differences.
vive la difference and all that.
these differences do not exist between (for example), the races.
they are distinct and have existed throughout all recorded time.
and marriage, throughout all history (with very recent history being an exception) has been one or more of men marrying one or more of women. two distinct creatures.
changing marriage (Which i am FOR) to include two or more men together or two or more women together is a redefinition of marriage.
you can use the rights argument all you want, as long as you recognize that it is a radical redefinition of marriage.
In the McDonalds type case the donation has no real effect on the job. In the church or theatre it is possilby relevant depending on the situation and how they deal with it such as in this case. In the political group it is directly related to the job.
The law may be well intended, but seems to be hard to enforce reasonably. The ethics of firing someone for their political beliefs and practices may be too situational to be remedied through the law.
Sounds very unlike the LDS Church. Got a cite for that?
You are proably right, and I use "Innate" as a shorthand. Not good science, I agree, and I shouldn't do it. But it is difficult enough to get people to understand that being gay isn't a choice.
Pragmatist: " Equivalently, since no one, not even straight people, can marry someone of their own gender (or objects, or animals) it's not discrimination."
And back before 1968, if you were black and wanted to marry a white person, you were prohibited from doing so, but you believe that is okay, since the prohibition on interracial marriage applied to everyone, even those who just wanted to marry within their race?
Please -- even children aren't THAT stupid.
There is a rational reason to prevent incest (genetic effects on children). There is no rational reason to prevent homosexual sex (other than pure animosity).
"Make a donation of a like amount to ProtectMarriage.com which will help us correct this error," reads the letter. "Were you to elect not to donate comparably, it would be a clear indication that you are in opposition to traditional marriage. ... The names of any companies and organizations that choose not to donate in like manner to ProtectMarriage.com but have given to Equality California will be published."
The letter was signed by four members of the group's executive committee: campaign chairman Ron Prentice; Edward Dolejsi, executive director of the California Catholic Conference; Mark Jansson, a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; and Andrew Pugno, the lawyer for ProtectMarriage.com. A donation form was attached. The letter did not say where the names would be published."
I mentioned this in a related threat, but I'd love to hear your opinion on this: to what extent can a copyright holder exercise a boycott on a commercial producer, supplier, or consumer of his copyrighted products without running the risk of incurring antitrust liability? It is one thing to boycott particular end-consumers (such as a political campaign) but it is quite a different matter when the target of your boycott is one of your commercial customers. To be sure, copyright creates a special exception to the antitrust laws, but there are still limits to the exception.
Moreover, in the increasingly polarized society that we have, I would not be surprised if this sort of thing happens more often. Eckern holds quite reasonable views (at least if reasonable is defined as "widely shared") in the context of our general society, but views that are heretical within the context of his social circle. Are we really vindicating free speech values (Sarah Palin would call them "First Amendment rights") if Eckern gets to keep his job, but every day must face protesters outside, boycotts from clients, and snide remarks from coworkers, all of which is protected under your view of the First Amendment?
To ask whether I'm "okay" with it is rather vague. I think such laws are constitutional and non-discriminatory. I also disagree morally with such laws.
Er, the word is "thread".
On what principled basis can you prefer the "free speech values" promoted by Eckern's contribution over the "free speech values" promoted by people who want to express their view of his contribution?
Perhaps you should start a campaign to that effect. Get the Supreme Court to reconsider Loving. Maybe you can convince Justice Thomas to write the majority opinion.
Absolutely. As long as there are no property rights violations or physical harm done to Eckern we are free to sneer at, protest, and boycott, or congratulate, praise, and donate to him all we want. The moment the government takes one step down the path of preventing or filtering such speech will be a loss of liberty many times larger than the right to marry.
Majority opinion can't be the deciding factor because at one time, that would have disallowed boycotts and blacklisting of pro-slavery groups.
I'd love to, but I'm more concerned with Kelo, Roe, and the other poor decision that have a greater impact my life.
Consider a couple of other examples. If everyone was forbidden to speak Spanish, it wouldn't be discrimination, because the ban would apply to English speakers as well as Spanish speakers. If everyone was forbidden to have an abortion, it wouldn't be discrimination, because the ban would apply to men as well as women. If everyone was forbidden to wear a head shawl, it wouldn't be discrimination, because the ban would apply to Christians as well as Muslims. If everyone was forbidden to attend Mass, it wouldn't be discrimination, because the ban would apply to Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and atheists, as well as Catholics. Do you see how illogical it is to say that forbidding every one to marry a person of the same sex isn't discrimination, because it applies to heterosexuals as well as homosexuals?
Not the LDS Church, but there was a group (Yes on 8 or one of its other institutional sponsors) that sourced some donations to the No campaign and started talking up a boycott of those anti-Christian businesses. Finding a link about this is difficult in the post-election swamp about Prop 8, but I read it in 2 sources.
So you think it is God's will that certain people should spend their lives without companionship and love? Or do you believe that gays should marry opposite sex partners and become pathological liars?
"Thank" you very much for the 2 completely crummy options that you have determined are appropriate for my life.
I am currently employed by (and personally advocate) at-will employment. The States can make additional laws restricting employment if they wish, and I don't know California's so will not comment on them.
neither of which is relevant.
i've already debunked the genetic argument before. as mentioned many times, we also criminalize SAME SEX incest and opposite sex (complementary sex, actually :) ) incest even where one or both of the persons is sterile and thus cannot have the genetic issues.
so, the genetic issue is NOT the reason. the reason is morality (whether we want to admit it or not).
and no law I am aware of (especially post lawrence v. texas) criminalizes homosexual sex.
whether or not it is "rational" to do so.
No, and none of what you described is discriminatory (except possibly the banning the attendance of a Catholic Mass, which would depend on how the ban was worded).
I'm not God's mouthpiece and I have no intention of passing off my opinion as His will. What I do know is that a great many people go through their life miserable and alone, some of them even while married. Whether you lie or not and whether you marry or not is up to you, but just because you desire something doesn't make it right and doesn't obligate others to accept it.
Why does it seem like a month ago, heck, even a week ago, we were over gay marriage and abortion being top-tier political issues? Was that just a lie to get people on-board with gay marriage?
this is a dumb analogy. (i support gay marriage fwiw).
laws against interracial marriage were CONTRARY to traditional marriage. interracial marriage was practiced in countless societies for centuries.
the thing that few gay marriage proponents will admit (but I will, despite the fact that I support gay marriage) is that the gay marriage ~ interracial marriage argument is ridiculous.
men and women are fundamentally different. that difference is immutable (save metric #$($#($loads of surgery and hormones) and quite profound.
"traditional marriage" is between two different (and arguably complementary) types of human beings - men and women.
the difference between the races is not comparable. they are quite mutable (over generations through marriage) and are entirely environmental in origin. they are simply a minor variation due to differences in environment (climate etc.).
it is not comparable to the difference between the sexes. this is a fact of biology, not morality.
i support gay marriage, but i recognize that it REDEFINES marriage to do so. interracial marriage does not redefine marriage. it simply returned marriage to the traditional definition
And the mask slips...
on a related note, thanks for shooting down the argument that marriage has anything at all to do with children.
I don't think a per se rule of "no government interference unless an act causes physical injury to others" would be widely regarded as a pragmatic rule. More like libertarianism extremis. Not necessarily the wrong rule, but its rigidity seems to me the opposite of "pragmatic."
I am also not understanding your distinction between state and federal restrictions. There is, of course, a federalism debate on this as all things; but I would leave aside incorporation and commerce clause power here since that is water under the bridge. Given that, is there any difference between whether it is a California state law or a Federal law that bars firing employees for their political expression in their own time?
And if your distinction is between a legislature made law and a constitutional right, I am not advocating that you have a constitutional right to be free from boycotts. I am only point out that there are values at stake that are similar to values that are reflected in the First Amendment.
this is not true. links have been posted on this site previously showing that there was same sex marriage in various societies in the past.
I won't repeat the arguments about polygamy and incest--what I am talking about goes much further.
How could we really justify denying the rights of marriage to any couple or group (of a reasonable size) b/t people who have some sort of economic co-dependency among themselves? Children--as Bowers v. Harwick said, there is no requirement that marriage result in procreation.
I've asked this question on other blogs--but nobody really answers this question. Fact is--I heard this argument in a note in my family law book last year.
So why is it surprising that when a person attacks the marriage of thousands, including people he works with and for, they want to put his job at risk? Who has performed the greater evil? The destroyer of marriages or the destroyer of a job?
no problem. i'm for gay marriage, and haven't used that argument myself.
i do think marriage evolved as an institution to best foster the raising of children. but in modern society has clearly gone beyond that.
You don't fight harder than when your family is at stake. You also tend to justify measures you wouldn't justify for lesser matters.
cmon dood. be realistic. the exception proves the rule.
that would be like saying horses are part of the traditional definition of consuls, since caligula appointed his.
"it happened once. so it's traditional!"
keeerist.
prior to very recent history, same sex marriage has been ALMOST completely nonexistent in western society (of which we are part, and of which our marriage tradition evolved).
anybody who claimed that same sex marriage NEVER existed in the past is an ignoramus. but clearly it has not been part of traditional marriage when it made up .000~1% of marriages.
Adam J,
You know why the bus discrimination was wrong? Because it set one rule for blacks, and a different one for whites. You could not sit in at the front while black. In contrast, Prop8 makes no distinction in its applicability to heterosexuals versus homosexuals. The law is not "everyone can marry whoever they love, except for gay people, who aren't allowed to marry at all." Everyone is restricted equally, as it simply defines marriage as between one man and one woman. Surely you don't contend that all married men are straight?
If a law was passed which said "Nobody wearing a FUBU shirt can sit in the front of the bus," it would disproportionately affect black people, and would almost certainly be motivated out of animosity towards black people. But it would not be a violation of equal protection laws, as wearing the shirt is a behavior independent of race.
I voted against Prop8. But I'm not about to believe that there is some "right" to gay marriage, unless someone can articulate where that right is located.
Please clarify what you mean by this. If you mean that this allows us to understand and analyze why the boycotters and protesters are doing what they are doing, I agree. What I don't agree is if you mean that we should take the protesters side on this for that reason.
The 9/11 terrorists believed that they were defending their homeland and saving their souls. For some people, there is nothing that they fight harder for than that. That doesn't make it right.
"Minor" participants get a pass? At what level of participation would you permit a boycott. Also, $1000 is quite a sizable donation, at least for someone earning a public defender's pay.
This guy helped destroy the marriages of thousands, and then people whine that he loses a job?
And my later point remains--if you attack someone's family, expect that person to fight back hard. If you attack the families of thousands, expect lots of people to fight back hard.
Pluribus,
All of the points you raise above.... are governed by specific rights other than equal protection. Why not add: "if all guns were banned, it wouldn't be discrimination." Do you not see that all of your points are logically irrelevant? (unless you are claiming SSM is protected by the first amendment!)
Incidentally, there is a kind of important distinction between discrimination, which is pretty much every decision you make in your life, and unconstitutional discrimination.
This is nonsense. Proposition 8 applies only to homosexuals. Heterosexuals don't need a legal ban to prevent them from marrying members of their own sex. They have no desire to do so, and wouldn't even if it was legal. Only homosexuals are affected by the legal ban.
??
prior to very recent history, same sex marriage has been ALMOST completely nonexistent in western society (of which we are part, and of which our marriage tradition evolved).
the same can be said for interracial or interreligous or inter-society level (a rich prince would not marry a serf) or any other kind of "inter-" you can think of. all of these almost never happened until very recently. and yet they are all defined as part of "traditional" marriage. gee, i wonder why that is? it couldn't be because of animosity towards gays or anything like that...
This doesn't seem that hard to me--if the Protectmarriage.com letter was a threatening letter then that was the wrong thing to do and they should be condemned. And so would be blacklisting someone for their political views. And it was wrong when there were efforts to get ahold of the names of NAACP supporters in the 1960s so that racists could go and intimidate them. And it was wrong to try to get Communists blacklisted from Hollywood just because they were Communists.
And if the guy actually acted in a manner at work that offended employees or other constituents, then that's a problem. But from all appearances, no one even knew this guy had donated to the pro-8 cause until they did a dragnet search of donors.
There seems to be a presumption that being in favor of Prop 8 is per se bigotry or a per se demonstration of anti-gay views. Whatever one thinks of it, it is simply not tenable to characterize it as per se bigotry--perhaps some supporters are anti-gay, but I find it hard to believe that the 5 million Californians who voted against it are all bigots or are too stupid to understand the arguments of the anti-8 side.
People can do whatever they want--it is a free country. But it doesn't seem like that controversial of a position to say that I'd just prefer that people's livelihoods wouldn't be threatened just because some others don't like their political views, whether Communist, gay rights, pro-life, environmentalist, or anti-war. I'd just prefer to live in a society based on principles of toleration and "live and let live" on political views and not have people's livelihoods threatened just because they hold unpopular political views, unless they are obnoxious about them or how they pursue them.
Obviously this is a big issue to some. But Communism was also a big issue--Communist ideas are responsible for the murder of millions and millions of people around the world and the enslavement of billions of others. And there are many pro-life supporters who believe that abortion is murder and to support abortion is to be complicit in the mass murder of a million defenseless babies a year (I'm not saying it necessarily is correct, I'm just saying it is their position). They are perfectly in their rights to boycott anyone company they want to, say because the company contributes to Planned Parenthood. But do I really think society would be better off if these people spent their time "outing" those who contribute to abortion rights groups and trying to get them fired? Or would it be better to tell that person, "Look, I know you feel strongly about this, but I really think it crosses the line to try to get someone fired (or intimidate them into resigning) just because you don't like their political views."
People have the righ to do whatever they want, but I just think that we'd all be better off if we maintained a recognition that politics is not everything and that people should be allowed to hold and express views that we find obnoxious without threatening them, vandalizing their property, or threatening their livelihood. It's not a profound philosophical proposition--it is simply a proposition about the type of society I'd prefer to live in as opposed to the alternative.
false.
interracial marriage has been relatively common throughout history, in western (and other) societies. of course it was more common in cases where societies were multiracial, or came into contact with other races frequently.
heck, in some societies, interracial marriage was MANDATED in certain cases.
again, i hate being on the same side of people who can't accept the simple logical difference between RACES and the two sexes.
marriage between people of the opposite sex is a pairing of VERY distinct and biologically different entities.
it is simply not analogous to the interracial marriage issues in the past.
do you understand that men and women are substantially DIFFERENT? for example, men have some organs that women don't have, and vice versa. and a completely different hormonal milieu.
the onyl reason we have races is because people evolved in different climates/environments. given sufficient time, intermarriage, etc. races wouldn't even exist.
the same cannot be said for the two sexes. they are fundamentally different.
i hate to get all pedantic, but these differences are pretty clear.
marriage has been a meeting of these two very different creatures, so to speak.
gay marriage CHANGES marriage.
i am personally FOR it, but i'm not going to stick my head in the sand like you, ignore biology (and endocrinology and...) and pretend that there is not something fundamentally between a pairing of man/woman vs. a pairing of man/man and woman/woman.
it just astounds me that people are so intellectually dishonest that they will not admit this distinction.
actually, it doesn't really astound me. it's typical when people discuss issues which they are heavily emotionally involved.
or a law against murder.
it is facially neutral, but it disparately impacts men. last i checked by a factor of about 10:1
Few rules are absolutely rigid, for example serious death threats and unsubstantiated accusations of crimes are likely exceptions, but as a general rule I think it's both pragmatic and desirable.
I believe there's a world of difference between a state and the federal government enacting these kinds of laws. Again putting aside incorporation issues, each has to enact laws in accordance with their own constitution. While it could be argued that federal employment laws might not violate the federal constitution I don't see how any preventing the citizen harassment you don't like could be acceptable.
I am interested in what values you feel are at stake, being able to express your opinion without reproach or just to be generally free of harassment?
The value that I think is at stake is the ability to express your opinion freely. Your move is to ask me to put more content on "freely"; and force me to define it more specifically (e.g. without fear of reproach from anyone) and show that it leads to unacceptable conclusions at the bottom of the slippery slope. This is known as a "level of abstractions" move. But I will resist that move by pointing out that this is the difference between a First Amendment value (which can be somewhat abstract) and a First Amendment rule (which cannot).
Thanks for reminding me. Actually, we took up Con Law in the second year, if I recall correctly. The example of rich and poor people sleeping under bridges (and rich and poor people stealing bread--thanks Victor Hugo) is the best of all.
I'm wondering how Roe has an impact on your life?
What legal force does (or should) a First Amendment Value have as opposed to a First Amendment Rule?
ChrisIowa,
I have no desire to pursue this line of discussion here, but I will say that my girlfriend having the sole legal authority to murder my unborn child has a very real and immediate impact on my life.
Where this strategy will fail for advocates of same-sex marriage is when people realize that their jobs and livelihoods are at risk because they have politically incorrect opinions. Every time an employee outside the entertainment industry resigns as a result of opposition to same-sex marriage, another two or three people are likely to vote against same-sex marriage. Protests against Mormon and Catholic churches and racial epithets against Black Americans don't help either.
People have the right to protest or boycott anything they want. But be careful what you wish for.
Are you claiming wanting to marry a member of the same sex is behavior independent of being homosexual? Isn't that as mind-bogglingly obviously idiotic as saying that wanting to pray to Christ is independent of being Christian?
That would not be discriminatory, although it would still be wrong because it violates the first amendment freedom of religion.
We're not saying they're independant, we're saying it doesn't matter that only some group wants to do some illegal activity, so long as it's enforced againt everyone it's not discrimination.
Hate to point out the obvious. But so are religious.
So you are a male, and you have not discussed the situation with your girlfriend, but you are not willing to cede to her the disposition of your seed should your seed happen to succeed in reaching it's conventional goal.
So we can ban praying to Christ so long as the ban applies equally to Christians and non-Christians alike? Of course not, freedom to worship according to the dictates of your conscience is not a right that can be taken away period.
Also, case law about man-seed has pretty clearly stated that in cases of consensual sex, the male relinquishes all rights to said seed.
Because anti-gay marriage folks in California forced it on the ballot. Otherwise, it'd be a settled issue.
So would a prohibition on inter-racial marriage even be discriminatory in your book? After all, it prohibits members of all races equally.
How about a requirement that all people who wish to testify swear to god? Or that all public employees be sworn in on a Christian Bible. That treats members of all religions and atheists precisely the same.
Heck, even a requirement that a person be a member in good standing of a state-approved Christian church wouldn't discriminate. Since both Jews, Christians, and atheists would equally be required to attend Christian churches.
How about only having men's restrooms in State buildings. That doesn't discriminate against women, right? It doesn't say women can't do anything men can do.
It's hard to believe you're serious. You would simply redefine "discrimination" until it doesn't mean anything.
Sorry, neither you nor your unborn children can contract for the use of another person's body should they wish to cease to offer it. The intimate use of another person's body is always at their discretion.
simply stating this does not make it true.
interracial marriage has been relatively common throughout history, in western (and other) societies. of course it was more common in cases where societies were multiracial, or came into contact with other races frequently.
i mentioned more than just race. the fact is that throughout history marriage was only acceptable between two relatively similar people. people were shunned for marrying (assuming they were legally allowed to do so) others outside of their caste, religion, ethnicity or whatever. that is the traditional marriage. we've blown past all of those and the anti side keeps redefining "traditional" marriage into whatever it is they want.
heck, in some societies, interracial marriage was MANDATED in certain cases.
what were those words you used? oh yeah, the exception proves the rule.
again, i hate being on the same side of people who can't accept the simple logical difference between RACES and the two sexes.
i hate being on the same side as arrogant jerks...and yet, here we are.
you keep claiming
and what you are doing is different how?
it is simply not analogous to the interracial marriage issues in the past.
when the arguments used are the same, it is that simple.
do you understand that men and women are substantially DIFFERENT?
do you not understand that this is the same argument that was used to prevent interracial marriage? that the races are "substantially DIFFERENT"
gay marriage CHANGES marriage.
depends on your definition of marriage. it only changes marriage if you assume it has something to do with reproduction...but we already agreed that it does not.
i am personally FOR it, but i'm not going to stick my head in the sand like you
for someone who claims this you sure are doing such a good job of it.
it just astounds me that people are so intellectually dishonest that they will not admit this distinction.
nice strawman you got there. i've never said the sexes are the same. and you call me intellectually dishonest? talk about arrogant...
Basically, you are making a plea for civility. I think it's a good one, but unfortunately, sometimes things go beyond civility by necessity. As you mention Communism was deadly serious to some people. So is religion. So is abortion. And often supporters and/or opponents have, throughout history, resorted to violence to get their way, or because they believed that they were backed in to a corner.
The problem is that gay marriage isn't a life or death issue. It's much more important to those who want it (gay people) than to those who oppose it. why? Because those who oppose it, their lives will not change one bit whether gay marriage is passed or not. Dont' believe me? Ask your average person in Massachusetts, Canada, Belgium, Norway and so on, and they will tell you that their lives haven't changed at all.
There is an exception: There are people who are so hateful towards gays that it becomes their life. They believe that they must discriminate against gays, and if they don't have that ability, then their 'rights' are trampled on, and isn't that terrible.
Worse, there are those who are so afraid homosexuality that they mistakenly believe that straights might somehow 'choose' to be gay if it's look glamorus enough. Of course, all the scientific evidence points to that fact that being gay isn't a choice, so there is really nothing to worry about. If your kid isn't gay, there is nothing I can do to convert them.
But by refusing to believe the truth, it opens them up this huge fear that anyone might become gay, and isn't that terrible!
Most anti-gay cites will say that gays are only about 3% of the population. If that's true, why all the resources devoted to demonizing and destroying such a small percentage of the population. Only a small fraction of gays actually get married, so the percentage of gays who get married is vanishingly small. It's important to gays, but as an impact upon society? Zero.
Think of the CEO of Ford driving a Toyota, and I think you'll get the idea.
Sometimes it's an asset.
I don't find it appropriate for this thread, but since others also want to talk about it I'll proceed anyway.
Assume what you want about my gender and relationship, it has no bearing on this discussion. I don't care about the disposition of my seed, I care about the disposition of any humans it creates.
Really? So if I were to catch you falling off a cliff I can suddenly decide that I want to cease allowing you to use my body to survive and drop you to your death? In most circumstances we are legally obliged to take reasonable action to save human life, except for the unborn whom we can murder in a few hours with impunity.
Of course not, due to the freedom of religion, not because it would be discriminatory.
It seems “discrimination” has become a catch-all for anything people don't like. What it really means is treating some group categorically different from others. So yes, by definition most of those examples are not discrimination, although some violate the freedom of religion. The one exception is male/female bathrooms, all of which constitute sex discrimination (which the courts have determined is acceptable).
Prop. 8 constitutes discrimination against gays? Thought it was just meant to amend the California constitution. The people who voted for Prop. 8 did so with the intent to discriminate? They weren't just indicating their belief that marriage should be restricted to marriage between a man and a woman? How did an expression for this preference get turned into discrimination?
except in that case it was a false argument provable by science.
if you don't understand biology, endocrinology, etc. (iow, if you are ignorant), then you can take your position
if you actually understand biology (as you clearly don't), then your position is laughable. typical of the anti-scientific emotional appeal
let me make this simple for you. mammals, which homo sapiens are, have two genders.
these genders are different.
in the case of human beings, females and males have several different organs and internal structures, hormonal milieu, and all sorts of other stuff.
these differences are not "socially constructed" and cannot be diluted by intermarrying. (since two women can't give birth to a different variation, two men can't... etc.)
there are very minor biological differences between the races (and some ethnic groups), which manifest (for example) in susceptibility to certain diseases (tay-sachs, sickle cell anemia, etc.) but there is still more individual variation amongst individuals than there is difference between races (which have fuzzy borders, anyways)
that is not true of the two sexes.
if you cannot grok this qualitatitve difference, then go back to biology class
it saddens me to be on the same "side" as somebody who is so willfully ignorant, but it wouldn't be the first time.
intellectual honesty is desirable. many pro-prop 8 advocates were intellectually dishonest (as has been frequently pointed out), but many (such as you) on the other side are equally dishonest.
barack obama is multiracial. that's a product of his parents being of different races.
that's relatively easy to achieve and quite common
genders don't work that way.
men have completely different organs that affect the hormonal milieu, brain development, etc. from women.
it is a robust difference. it is NOT comparable to racial differences. racial differences ARE primarily "skin deep" as trite as that sounds.
there is a heck of a lot UNDEr the skin (ovaries, hormones, testes, uteri, etc.) that differentiate men from women otoh.
i support gay marriage. i don't support ignorant arguments for gay marriage. like the one that analogizes racial differences with the differences between the sexes
(1) It's okay for someone who believes in legalizing gay marriage to refuse to sell his goods/services (in this case, a license to produce his plays) to this theater because its manager supports making gay marriage illegal.
(2) Presumably, then, it would be okay for someone who's against legalization of gay marriage to refuse to sell his goods/services to a theater because its manager supports legalization.
(3) [I think] there's precedent that it's not okay for someone to refuse to sell his goods/services to a theater just because the manager is gay, even if their religious beliefs are that homosexuality is wrong (I'm thinking of the wedding photographer case).
(4) But (1) and (2) seem to imply that the converse of (3) isn't true; although religious belief is not enough to allow denial of service based on homosexuality, homosexuals could deny service to someone based on that person's beliefs (including religious beliefs).
Or does the law make a different distinction, between goods (e.g., a play) and services (e.g., photography)? Or does it make some other distinction I'm missing?
I'm not trying to make a point one way or the other; I'm just looking for clarification.
1. Randy R says [paraphrasing] dang near everybody in the theater trade is homosexual. Is this a good thing?
2. The personal is now political. It's now OK to terrorize and punish our fellow citizens without qualms, based on their reasoned political choices. Really, Eckern had 1 vote and contributed $1000, which means he by himself had infinitesimal effect on the outcome, and yet he's a monster to be driven from society. Are you sure this is how you want it? A respectable, upstanding, hardworking asset to the community is to be destroyed for one reasoned vote? What makes you so sure?
3. Eric Rudolph was an evil domestic terrorist, but apparently the person who just sent mysterious white powder to the Mormon Temple is a noble defender of his/her family, driven to extreme acts by the violence of the will of the people. Are you sure this is where you want to go?
And finally, the irony. A group of people, who We The People choose not to provide additional legal protection for the right they have always had, are now terrorizing another minority group who have been forcibly denied the selfsame right for over a hundred years.
Refusing to go to his plays is "terrorizing" him? Wow, I've been inadvertently terrorizing live theater all my life.
Defending one's family has a higher place in Western tradition and law (and I understand many other traditions and laws). Often, you are allowed to use force to protect a family member when you would not be allowed to use force to protect others. A spouses have very specific legal duties to each other. Parents (gay parents included) have very specific and extensive legal duties to their children.
When you attack someone's family (and all Proposition 8 supporters attacked thousands of families), you can expect a fierce response. And that response would be far more justified than if it were about, say, whether a certain tax rate should go up or down.
One may wish to have all the marriage benefits (I am actually not from California, so I am unaware if the homosexual [are there also heterosexual?] civil unions give ALL benefits) and to share those benefits with one of the same sex, but have no desire for sexual relations; in other words, it’s an economic proposition.
I understand that one objection may be that “an asexual person doesn’t have to marry a homosexual but may marry on of the other sex,” but why would that matter? If one has a so-called right to marry (for I cannot recall if the right has been deemed fundamental), then ought one be able to marry whomever that person desires? I would also use this rejoinder if another objection is that “there are not many asexuals so the impact will not be as great as on homosexuals.” In fact, I do believe that this retort is of the same spirit as the homosexual claim.
How does this constitutional change (for there is debate on whether it’s an amendment or a revision) not affect asexuals as well? And, I am sorry if the letter of my post is incorrect, but if there is an objection, then respond to the spirit of it (I argue out of ignorance).
Thank you for, if any, response.
Why would you even ask such a question?
If it weren't for gays, musical theater, regular theater and opera in America simply wouldn't exist. They all rely upon us for its continued vitality in terms of instruction, production and raising money.
Another side: :Sorry, but I really don't understand your post. If a person is asexual, then they are not in a relationship with anyone, in which case they have to interest in getting married. So this whole issue doens't matter to them one way or another.
To be concrete, suppose someone objects to the politics of Danny Glover or the religious views of Mel Gibson. If that person decides to boycott Lethal Weapon movies, fine, I can still watch them. If he wants to organize groups to boycott Lethal Weapon movies, fine, I can stil;l watch them. If enough people boycott Lethal Weapon movies so that making them is an uneconomical proposition, and nobody makes them anymore, that's just something I have to live with. What upsets me is when a radio station owner or a group of movie producers decide to boycott [fill in the blank] even though enough of us want to hear or see [fill in the blank] to make it a paying proposition. I'd be hard-pressed to come up with a legal rule separating the two types of conduct, and maybe there isn't one, but I still think there's a difference between boycotts by consumers and boycotss by producers or transmitters.
As Yogi Berra said, "If the fans don't come out to the ball park, you can't stop them."
First, I am sorry for being unclear in my previous post.
Second, I fail to see why an asexual person could not be in a relationship with anyone; I think that you are presupposing that all close relationships have an aspect of being sexual in nature. Do you doubt a case where two persons of the same sex, one being asexual, wish to marry for the economic benefits of the marriage, but are denied that option because they are a same-sex couple? If so, then are you rejecting the notion that Proposition 8 applied only to homosexuals?
You may enquire as to why this trivial point matters, but I just want person who are homosexual or who are sympathetic to homosexual rights to understand that it doesn’t ONLY affect you.
OK, so an asexual person can't marry a person of the same sex either. Why would he/she want to? I guess it's also true that a heterosexual person can't marry a person of the same sex. Why would he/she want to? Why would anybody like this want to make the world think they are homosexuals, and thus subject to the opprobrium, the epithets, the snickers, the religious condemnation, the occasional hate crimes, the legal discrimination that homosexuals are now subject to? It just doesn't make sense. Are you looking at the substance of this debate, or merely trying to trivialize it? If there is an asexual person who wants to marry a person of the same sex, I've never heard of him/her, but would agree that his/her choice is denied by the current law. There are many, many millions of gays in this country and around the world whose choice is denied by the current law.
Wrong. A law only discriminates if it treats one group differently than another. By your logic laws against theft discriminate against thieves and laws against speeding discriminate against vehicle owners.
the definition of a "traditional" marriage has changed significantly since marriage as been invented. picking the definition of marriage that has really only recently been developed and calling it traditional seems to based on little other than animosity towards gays. few if any anti-SSM are proposing to return to a marriage where one can only marry someone of the same whatever. why aren't people advocating returning to the "traditional" marriage where the woman becomes the mans property? or how about the "traditional" form of marriage where the man is always older and taller than the woman? or the "traditional" marriage where it is arranged? or the "traditional" marriage where it is used primarily to increase social status or as a form of division of labor? and on and on and on.
if you actually understand biology (as you clearly don't), then your position is laughable. typical of the anti-scientific emotional appeal
you better hope then that you never need my services as a physician. but since i'm not making the argument you think i'm making, the jokes on you...and it is a funny one
it saddens me to be on the same "side" as somebody who is so willfully ignorant, but it wouldn't be the first time.
it saddens me to be on the same "side" as somebody with the logical abilities of a 3yr old, but it wouldn't be the first time.
great job fighting a strawman though! you showed your figment of your imagination who is boss! now why don't you sit down, crack open a cold beer and work at graduating elementary school.
I thought that I was clear when I wrote, "wish to marry for the economic benefits of the marriage". And, I happen to think that it, at least, may make sense (I personally think that it DOES make sense).
pluribus also wrote: "Are you looking at the substance of this debate, or merely trying to trivialize it? "
I am sorry if my (writing?) demeanor does not appear appropriate to you; that was NOT my intention. On the other hand, I am hurt that you are (at least, appearing to be) condescending to my post.
pluribus also wrote: "If there is an asexual person who wants to marry a person of the same sex, I've never heard of him/her, but would agree that his/her choice is denied by the current law. There are many, many millions of gays in this country and around the world whose choice is denied by the current law."
I am glad that you accept, I believe, the notion that Proposition 8 doesn't only affect homosexuals.
Aside, does the number of persons "denied by current law" really matter (in other words, isn't that statement a red herring)? I am of the understanding that if ONE person is denied a "fundamental" right, then "the current law" has problems.
Had the pro-gay marriage folks (up to and including the California Supreme Court) left Prop 22 alone, this wouldn't have been an issue. I was willing to accept either outcome, but now that Prop 8 passed, we're being subject to their hurt feelings in the media. It seems like HuffPo runs a story about this daily.
Creating a law that kills off Alaskans just because you don't like their governor is rather cold hearted, but at least it's not discriminatory.
I'm sorry, but people here are frank, and thin skins are a disadvantage. I thought your point was trivial, and still do.
Yes, denial of the right of one person is wrong. Denial of the rights of millions of people is many times wronger.
If I pick up the paper and find that one person has been killed, I am sorry. If I find that 30 have been killed, I am thirty times as sorry. If I find that 3,000 have died in the World Trade Center, I am agahst. If I find that 4,000 have been killed in Iraq, I am sorry, aghast, and irate. It's just a matter of putting things in perspective.
Do you ever wonder why American asexuals (both of them) aren't complaining about the current law? Demonstrating in the streets? Why courts haven't made decisions that their fundamental rights are being denied. I wonder why not?
That's a double whammy for him. Not only is he a supporter of Prop 8, but a Mormon supporter of Prop 8.
I think this is comparing apples and oranges, professor, and your simply being provocative (perhaps like the Dixie Chickens, but certainly not like someone giving financial support to an actual ballot initiative that effects the rights of real people). The Dixie Chicks simply made a public statement. I do not know how their opinion could affect anyone in a more than de minimis fashion.
Nevertheless, boycotts are an effective political tool, and might even have a place as a means of "voicing one's opinion". Mass public burnings of a CD makes only one kind of statement and it has nothing to do with politics.
For a conservative leaning libertarian law site, I am surprised how much moral relativism is practiced here.
Is there like a section on the bar exam about that?
Don't get your feelings hurt again, Another, but I don't follow your logic. If a person wants to marry for the "economic benefits," why must the marriage be to a member of the same sex? You can get the same benefits by marrying a person of the opposite sex. If sex isn't an issue, if romantic love doesn't enter into the choice, what difference does it make? Or is it just a whim? I recognize that there are lots of marriages for economic benefits. But, except for jurisdictions where gay marriage is now permitted, all marriages for economic benefits are now between people of the opposite sex. Money is non-sexual (or you might prefer to say asexual).
That's probably not a very good policy to advocate. Suppose I think homosexual conduct harms traditional M/F marriage? I sure don't need to ask anyone for permission to hold that belief. Nor do I have to defend or publicize it. In fact, many advocates of gay marriage tell me I am free to hate gays as much as I choose. So, I go through life discriminating against gays because I think they harm people.
More energetic folks who agree with me might think it best to publish the names of these harmful people so we can all discriminate against them.
As long as the justification for discrimination is a personal belief, that invites discrimination. Decide who we think is harmful, and discriminate.
And, yet pluribus wrote: "If a person wants to marry for the 'economic benefits,' why must the marriage be to a member of the same sex? You can get the same benefits by marrying a person of the opposite sex. If sex isn't an issue, if romantic love doesn't enter into the choice, what difference does it make? Or is it just a whim?
I have never asserted that the marriage MUST be same-sex. But, if an asexual person happens to have a close friend who is of the same sex and wishes to marry that person (again, there are benefits for marriage), then why should they marry someone else (even if someone else is of the opposite sex) if that person doesn't want to? Why are you limiting an asexual person's options to marriage? And, I honestly fail to understand what romantic love means to you (is it sex?). "Logically," isn't marriage a contract? If so, does a contract NEED to have emotions tied to it.
Aside, I really am at a lost why you think that Prop. 8 only affects homosexuals.
Another aside, have you actually meet an asexual person (as opposed to a chaste person)?
I say we boycott Randy R. comments until he stops spreading false rumors.
What happened was that the Yes On 8 campaign sent a letter to businesses that had donated in excess of $10,000 to No On 8, and threatened to make their names public if they did not donate an equal sum to Yes On 8. One of the four signatories to that letter happened to be a Mormon.
This seems to be a new meme propagated by the anti-gay marriage forces and seems clearly designed to deny the analogy between gay marriage and the Supreme Court's decision in Loving v. Virginia.
However, I'm skeptical about the factual basis of that historical claim, which is clearly true or false and not a matter of interpretation. If there was such a history, one wonders why Loving was hailed as the end of civilization by so many racists.
Additionally, I would think transportation issues would have made it difficult for this to be a centuries-old practice - until the Twentieth Century, the vast majority of people lived and died in the same small area. A 17th century Russian peasant probably had few opportunities to make a love match with a Subsaharan African. I doubt that there were very many Aborigine-Japanese couples in the 15th century.
The only historical example I can think that even comes close to the "widespread historical interracial marriage" model is the way that Spanish Conquistadores took "wives" from the Native American population. But that example doesn't work because the marriages and the progeny of those marriages were seen as inferior to "regular" marriage - and the distinctions between the Mestizo offspring and pure Spaniards are even echoed today in Latin American society."
There was frequent cohabitation between French trappers and Native Americans but those relationships were not sanctioned by the French legal code and were sometimes based on ownership - I believe the Charbanneau/Sacajawea relationship was along those lines.
This isn't snark and I'm asking genuinely: If you are against gay marriage and believe that meme, please name a few societies were interracial marriage was practiced and legally sanctioned. Note that I'm not asking for "countless" examples - just a few so I can think about the validity of your claim.
Please do not lump all Christians in with the anti-gay marriage forces.
Let me make a confession.
Hi, my name is Smallholder.
I'm a Christian.
I support gay marriage.
From a social standpoint, I'm horrified by folks who claim that the majority has the ability to deny rights to a minority. (But watch what happens when a majority does vote to allow gays to get married. The trend lines show that this will happen. Then the "majorities trump tyrannical black-robed judges" argument will be cast aside and other arguments will be made.
From a logical standpoint, I'm horrified when people claim that there is a distinction between anti-miscegenation laws and anti-gay marriage laws. I'm horrified when people make the silly slippery-slope argument that gay marriage = incest = polygamy = pedophilia = bestiality. Those illogical beliefs are so dumb they'd be laughable if they weren't so offensive.
From a historical viewpoint, I'm horrified that people make claims that are simply not true - interracial marriage was practiced in the past? Divorce rates in European countries went through the roof AFTER gay marriage became legal?
From a Christian standpoint, I'm horrified that my religion, which at it's heart is about loving God and our neighbors, is being portrayed as a hateful, vindictive, oppressive movement. The Sermon on the Mount enjoins us to proselytize our neighbors. When self-identified Christians go on television and talk radio lying and spewing hate, it becomes more difficult to convince our neighbors that Christianity is good.
Now, don't get me wrong. I don't think the anti-gay demagogues are going to destroy Christianity. God is mighty.
Perhaps some of my co-religionists don't have a similar belief about the omnipotence of God - they seem to think that gay marriage and/or evolution will weaken God in some way. Dude, it is you or God who feels threatened?
We live in a boisterous sea of liberty. Contra Palin, your First Amendment rights to speak do are not violated when other criticize that speech.
When the Dixie Chicks criticized Bush, their speech was protected from government oppression.
When private citizens stopped buying their albums, those individual consumers were not violating the Dixie Chicks' First Amendment rights in any shape or fashion - particularly because the First Amendment limits the government, not citizens.
When the Mormon Church spoke out against gay marriage and worked/paid to pass Proposition 8, their speech and action was protected by the First Amendment.
By the same token, it is entirely fair for gay activists to criticize/protest the Mormon Church.
Note that I did not say it was okay to vandalize Mormon Churches. Those whose zeal leads them to commit property damage ought to be prosecuted. Those activists who cause property damage are actually hurting the movement - all they do is give the Mormon Church the chance to play the victim, shift discussion away from their support of discrimination, and to lump all gay marriage supporters into the category of "unruly mob."
I beg your pardon, I am not limiting anybody's options. It is the opponents of gay marriage who are limiting the options.
What it means to me personally is irrelevant. What it means to people who fall in love and want to spend the rest of their lives in a permanent relationship with the person they love does matter. A marriage contract is a little different than a contract for the delivery of soybeans.
Because homosexuals are by definition the only people who fall in love with people of the same sex and want to celebrate their love, not just with physical intimacy (or "sex," as you call it), but also with marriage. I am not talking about somebody marrying for money (the "economics of marriage," as you put it), but somebody who falls in love with a member of the same sex and wants to spend the rest of his/her life in a physically intimate and loving relationship with that person.
What does this have to do with anything? I have met people who have never married and who seem to have no interest in sex. I do not know what is in their hearts. (I am excepting here members of religious orders who take vows of chastity for religious reasons.) To be honest, I suspect any such person is a closeted homosexual and that if society were more open and accepting they would express their love, probably for a member of the same sex. But I respect their right to make their own decisions, and do not inquire into it. There is no legal or social inhibition against heterosexual relationships or marriage. If such a person wanted to have a heterosexual relationship, he/she not only could, but would be encouraged to do so, by religion, by social pressures, and not the least by the law. But there are powerful inhibitions against homosexual relationships and marriage, though these are now breaking down (no thanks to Proposition 8).
1. I'm gay
2. The only person I would want to marry is another man, a gay man.
3. If I were straight, I would want to marry a woman. Which I can because all striaght can marry whom they choose to marry.
4. As I am gay, I cannot marry the one person that I choose to marry. therefore, I am not able to marry because I'm gay. Again, if I were straight, I could get married (see No. 3)
</blockquote>
1. I am a pedophile (pedosexual?) My status is as innate as being gay - except they still try to "cure" me like they used to try to cure gays
2. The only person I want to marry is a child bride.
3. If I weren't a pedophile, I would want to marry an adult. Which I could, because all adults can marry other adults
4. As I am a pedophile, I cannot marry the one person that I choose to marry. Therefore, I am not able to marry because I'm a pedophile.
Oh darn, we're discriminating against the pedophiles, too.
This turns out not to be the case. What the Church actually said was (link):
This doesn't exactly sound like a call to excommunicate LDS who supported No on Proposition 8.
I could respond that way, but then I would answer my own question by observing that the standard for hiring is not mine; it is given to me as an agent of my employer. So, regardless of my personal belief, I am accepting my employer's standard.
However, when I am responsble for setting the standard myself, as I am if I freely choose to consider homosexuals to be harmful, then it's up to me to discriminate as I choose based on my own judgement of harm. I set the standard, nobody else.
Some folks thing those who vote one way on P8 are harmful, so we set off on a path of righteous discrimination.
Your effort to draw an analogy between gays and pedophiles is nonsense. Since you are into invalid analogies, why don't you draw an analogy to rapists? The answer, of course, is that minors can't consent to sexual relations (with members of the same or different sexes, I might add)and victims of rape are, by definition, non-consenting. I hope you realize that the vast numbers of pedophiles (and rapists, too) are thoroughly heterosexual, yet that is no obstacle to heterosexual marriage.
Do I recall correctly that the upper management of a corporation can be held personally liable for certain illegal acts taken by the corporation?
If I am at least in the right ballpark here, would "Art Director" of a theater not qualify?
At any rate, as an independent contractor, which most artists are, I would not sign a contract with someone who was publicly hostile to what I perceive to be my civil rights. You may call that a "boycott" whereas I call it "self preservation."
Back in the 80s I boycotted Carl's Jr restaurants because the profits from my patronage would be used to fund anti-gay and anti-abortion activities. It was not my goal to have Carl's Jr declare bankruptcy; I just didn't want fund my own undoing.
I fully support any art director's right to political speech. I also support the rights of the artists to their own speech. I believe this is how our system is supposed to work.
Well there is an assertion that is contrary to eons of history and legend...
But really, even though Felix and Oscar keep on dating women, why shouldn't they get married. It would simplify their record keeping, they could provide each other health benefits...
I come from long lived stock. It is entirely possible that my brother and I may outlive our prospective wives by a decade or more. Why shouldne we marry in opur '80s? Why shouldnt my state pension then apply to my younger brother, as well?
I like how people equate rights to "whatever I want." There simply is no right to marry the person of one's choice, regardless of gender. If we had a right to "marry the only person I want to marry" then I'd be married to Jessica Alba. But there is no such right.
Marriage is a privilege and not a right. The State says we like these types of relationships for various reasons and want to elevate them over other relationships. It is similar to the way the state privileges attorney-client relationships and doctor-patient relationships. It isn't "discriminating" against other types of relationships by privileging those. If you want to have a privileged relationship, then you have to fit within the bounds of what the relationship is. Marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman, so if you want to be married, that's how you have to do it. If you don't want to be married to a person of the opposite sex because it doesn't suit your lifestyle choice, then you don't have to, but your relationship won't get the privileges that belong to married people.
Good question. Why don't you ask the proponents of Proposition 8? Of course, you'd also have to overcome the impediment of consanguinity. Since we're now in fantasy land, however, let's get really fantastic and say you can do it. You refer to your "prospective" wives. Do you mean "respective?" If the latter, your first marriage preferences must have been heterosexual, not asexual, right?
Sure is. Have you ever noticed how the folks who have the privileges get real upset when others want some of the same privileges as they have? Nope. It's my privilege, not yours, and I aim to keep it that way. That's the way society should be organized. Privileges for the privileged, not the unprivileged. I mean, this is America, isn't it?
I have a quick question for you. I have seen you shoot down many arguments for Gay Marriage, yet you support Gay Marriage. What is the argument you would use to support Gay Marriage?
Also....
As someone who lives in CA, is a subscribing member of CMT, has season tickets, has met Mr. Eckern, and is gay, I am very glad for the way this worked it self out. I was one of the many supporters of CMT that at once outraged and at the same time filled with pity for Mr. Eckern, who should have known what would happen. Maybe he was betting on Prop 8. failing. Maybe he didn't realize that his contribution would be discovered. Regardless it was a massively stupid move.
Perhaps one could argue that marriage should be a privilege and not a right, if the constitution were interpreted as one likes. But it's not a correct statement under current law, either as a matter of federal constitutional law or cases interpreting the California constitution.
Loving v. Virginia (SCOTUS, 1967):
How can you be so bigoted? We should all have the ability to marry whomever and whatever we want! Who is the government to place silly restrictions on drivers licenses such as being able to see? All privileges should be afforded to everyone blindly!
This reminds me of the response SSM proponents give to polygamy advocates. SSM proponents want to extend civil marriage to same sex couples. Then they want to slam the door on anyone else who wants to further extend the privilege. Like you said, "Privileges for the privileged."
However, what you may not do is attempt to codify your discriminatory beliefs into law. It is right at that point that you trample on the rights of others.
If you want believe that homosexual marriage harms traditional marriage, you can. If you want to believe all black people are untrustworthy thieves, knock yourself out.
But as soon as you *vote* on that basis, and try to take away those people's equal rights on the basis of your discriminatory beliefs, that's precisely when it stops being okay. You have the right to discriminate with your own assets. The majority, however, has no right to use the mechanism of Democracy to enact its discriminatory beliefs into law.
But my observation is really a question about what/who I like manipulating my genitals has to do with the conversation. I know more than a few heterosexual couples where one partner has a deeper / more lasting / more satisfactory relationhsip (non sexual) with the family dog than with their partner. I also know many more for whom it appears that their spouse is the only person they can never be happy with. Many many men claim that they have been surprised to be in an asexual relatiohsip for some years...once the woman has had as many children as she wishes. Many women have observed that their husband seems interested in any woman other than their them. None of these observations horrify or surprise anyone. Nor are they in fantasy land.
In each case, they may or may not consider themselves happily married - so marriage does not seem to be defined by "who makes one happy" or "who one is attracted to".
I added these is as part of the "asexual" meme on this thread, one I had not previously rolled around. I am a system guy, so I ttend to obsess on minutiae rather than big picture and this minutiae interested me.
I hadn't noticed that SSM advocates were leading the ban on polygamy. Is it your position that they were doing that back in the 19th century, when the Republican Party platform identified slavery and polygamy as "twin relics of barbarism." So it was the gays who got the Mormons to stop taking multiple wives way back in 1890? Interesting. And it was just revenge when the Mormons called out the troops for yes on Prop 8? Even more interesting. Rubbish, of course--but interesting. I hope you do know that polygamy is a thoroughly heterosexual practice--not gay at all--and that the arguments against are based primarily on uits exploitative nature.
Are you proposing that we deny marriage licenses to those who are blind? Would you deny them to heterosexuals who are blind as well as homosexuals? You nut-case jobs are so inventive--always thinking up new and innovative bans to make life miserable for other people.
Randy R's quote above.
I fully agree. I also expect that the economic life of such a restaurant would be quite limited. Government intervention is no longer needed in this situation to protect anyone's interests; economics of the free market would quickly correct the situation back to nominal.
No, neither of those proposals were written about or advocated. I said that if privileges can't have restrictions then blind people can get a drivers licenses. Thanks for calling me a "nut-case job[]", though, it shows that you've run out of any intellectual arguments and have resorted to name calling.
My pardon is granted. Earlier you wrote, "If a person wants to marry for the 'economic benefits,' why must the marriage be to a member of the same sex? You can get the same benefits by marrying a person of the opposite sex."
My retort is why does it matter if I choose to marry one of the same sex? If you are questioning me, then I am of the opinion that you are implying that I ought not to take that option (or, do you disagree with this statement?) thus "limiting [my] options." A REAL example: My best friend is a male (I am also a male), and we have a great non-sexual relationship. But, he has a child from a previous relationship; we want to get better "economic incentives" for his child and so we wish to marry on that accord. We still would live like bachelors (or, as you wrote "closeted homosexual[s]") with different houses, etc., but now we can both help out a child with the "economic benefits" of marriage.
pluribus also wrote: "What [a marriage contract] means to me personally is irrelevant. What it means to people who fall in love and want to spend the rest of their lives in a permanent relationship with the person they love does matter."
So it appears that a marriage contract does need emotions (love); or I am missing the point of this quote? It seems odd to assert that because the next sentence you wrote was:
"A marriage contract is a little different than a contract for the delivery of soybeans." So does that mean then that emotions don't matter? In other words, your response seems contradictory.
pluribus also wrote: "Because homosexuals are by definition the only people who fall in love with people of the same sex and want to celebrate their love, not just with physical intimacy (or "sex," as you call it), but also with marriage. I am not talking about somebody marrying for money (the "economics of marriage," as you put it), but somebody who falls in love with a member of the same sex and wants to spend the rest of his/her life in a physically intimate and loving relationship with that person."
I still believe that you hold a narrow view of love. There are other forms of love (think philia, storge, and agape) that may be expressed in marriage and even in other relationships in life (family, friends, etc.). The love that I would have for my best friend would be philia. So, with all due respect, "homosexuals are [not] by definition the only people who fall in love with people of the same sex [...]"
pluribus also wrote: "What does this have to do with anything? I have met people who have never married and who seem to have no interest in sex. I do not know what is in their hearts. (I am excepting here members of religious orders who take vows of chastity for religious reasons.) To be honest, I suspect any such person is a closeted homosexual and that if society were more open and accepting they would express their love, probably for a member of the same sex. But I respect their right to make their own decisions, and do not inquire into it."
So, to clarify, because you have not enquired the people you know "who have never married and who seem to have no interest in sex," you have never known an asexual person? I am deeply troubled (I guess I have, as you may write, "thin skins"), though I respect your candor, that you write "any such person is a closeted homosexual." Again, I believe that you take too narrow a view on relationships and types of love.
An example: I have been in a relationship with a lady to offer her emotional support. She wanted to assert that she was still "beautiful" thus she asked to have sexual intercourse with me. I acquiesced, for her sake, even though I abhor that relationship (I even loathe touching people); would you still assert that I am "a closeted homosexual?" I have never thought of being in that same relationship with a male, N. B.
Aside, you may not believe it, BUT I am for same-sex marriage. However, to blithely assert that same-sex marriage equal homosexual marriage, to me, misses the breath and beauty of other (maybe alleged to you) sexual ordinations and practices (or lack thereof).
Since you do not appear to take serious merit in my posts, I will stop. My posts have been too much of a tangent to the author's post.
Of course I may. We can see proof that I can in the vote on Prop 8. It just happened. Millions of people just codified their discriminatory beliefs into law. They did it.
I agree it is rubbish to say gays opposed the Mormons in 1890. I'd also agree it's rubbish to think Mormon action on Prop 8 is revenge. So those are certainly not my positions. Where did you get those ideas? Interesting.
Nor have I noticed the SSM advocates to be leaders in the fight against polymagy. I'm really not sure if we can say anyone is a leader in that regard. But, I have noticed SSM advocates saying they want SSM, but oppose polygamy. And I have noticed them saying civil marriage should not be extended to polygamists.
Privileges for the privileged. It's an equal opportunity game.
Eh? I don't understand your point... just because it happened doesn't make it just.
"We told you that you may not stay out after 11."
"Well, I got home a 11:30, therefore I may stay out after 11."
Thank you for again proving my point that you have no interest in addressing the substance of my arguments.
I didn't say it was just. I pointed out to DS that I could do it. He said I couldn't.
"Elliot123: That's an inventive argument. Because you were capable of doing something, it follow that you are permitted to do it. How well did that work on your parents?"
I'll leave your curfew discussion to others, but I will note I am permitted to vote against Prop 8 if I choose. Millions just demonstrated they were permitted.
Sorry. That's not what I said. I said SSM advocates oppose polygamy and oppose opening up civil marriage to polygamists.
Of the people that aren't allowed to marry, the largest categories are polygamy, incest, bestiality, pedophilia, and homosexuality. Bestiality and pedophilia are easily set aside because they involve one party who is not legally competent to enter into a marriage. The remaining three share many of the same arguments for and against, so if you have some bright line that makes gay marriage acceptable while incest and polygamy are not, please enlighten us.
I'm sure they were responding to the slippery slope. And they responded by saying once they have the privilege, they oppose extending it to anybody else..
I was expanding on Pluribus' point that the privileged tend to deny privileges to others. He observed "how the folks who have the privileges get real upset when others want some of the same privileges as they have?"
Now, I haven't obseved SSM advocates getting real upset, but I have observed them supporting the denial of civil marriage privileges to polygamists.
Ok, consent matters. Now make an argument why "of the opposite sex" shouldn't matter. Or why "who isn't already married" shouldn't matter. Or why "who isn't closely related to you" shouldn't matter.
There is no rational argument that "of the opposite sex" shouldn't be a marriage requirement and yet any of these other restrictions should.
Incest creates genetic defects you say? Ok, so I guess then a homosexual man should be allowed to marry his brother or father then, right?
There we go. If you can convince me why it wouldn't be discriminatory to allow gay brothers to marry but not a brother and sister, I'll concede the argument.
Well, shame on Pluribus for introducing such a pointless argument for SSM.
Since these are the only actual justifications in your post, I will address them. The exploitation in the vast majority of today's polygamy is due to the marriage of minors, which is illegal by itself. If you have any evidence that adult polygamous marriage is or would likely be any more exploitative than monogamous marriage please present it.
The possible danger of birth defects from incest is a poor reason for the denial of a right (especially if strict scrutiny applies). Other environmental factors can cause high rates of birth defects, yet people exposed to them are not banned from marrying or having children. People with genetic conditions such as sickle-cell anemia, Aicardi Syndrome, etc. put their children at higher risks of health problems and yet are allowed to marry and have children.
While I disagree with the view that there is a constitutional right to marry any consenting adult, I still don't see how anyone can espouse such a view for gays while denying it to those who prefer incest or polygamy
That's what I've been asking for: How are those freedoms different and what legal justifications make gay marriage acceptable while incest and polygamy are not?
Although I find the legal justification of "icky" could have potential, I fear many would attribute it to gay marriage as well.
I wish you weren't. Your arguments are so convoluted; you are so willing to twist opposing arguments; and your command of logic is so defective, that I would rather you were an opponent. With friends like you who needs enemies? Please, just come out and say you are against it! (Did I hurt your feelings again?)
I was wondering how long it would take for the pedophiles = gays argumment to surface. Thanks Fanstasia! You held off until today.
I would has responded to about a dozen of the many stupid arguments that are made to deny gays the right to marry. And stupid they are, because they are just made up to mask the one thing that only a few are willing to admit, which is that they are threatened by gays.
Oh, they'll deny it. But that's the bottom line. You would only deny rights to people who you are afraid of. And what are they afraid of? That they will turn gay themselves? That their children will all turn out gay?
Nope. It's much simpler than that. Studies in Britain confirm what every gay man learns at an early age. There are some kids in school who endlessly torment gays, but most kids just ignore the gay kids. So what makes the bullies pick on the gay ones? It's a feeling of insecurity regarding their OWN sexuality. Turns out that the kids that are most secure in their sexuality -- as a man -- really don't care about gay kids. They are too busy getting laid. It's the other guys who aren't getting laid, or are not feeling as mascualine as the jocks they so adore, who are the ones picking on the gays.
So that's what we have here. Listen to their arguments against SSM: That it will destroy marraige! That gays don't have a right to marriage! That gays are really pedophiles, sick and perverted! There are all just the cries of weak men who need to feel better by keeping certain priviledges for themselves just to bolster a feeling of superior that they would otherwise lack.
And before all you anti-gay people start screaming at me that I don't know you and I don't know what I'm talking about, let me just remind you that you are the ones who refuse to believe that being gay is not a choice. If you won't believe what I have to say about myself, and make up crap to justify your beliefs, why would you think I can't do the same?
At least my theory has some basis in personal experience and a few studies.
Got it? If you think you know me better than I do, then I can know you better than you do.
I predict that approach would give the advantage to the anti-SSM forces when the arena is the ballot box.
"If the guy were working for a church that was made up almost entirely of anti-abortion believers and he makes a contribution to a pro-choice organization, I'm quite sure the church would make quick work of him, don't you think?"
Not in my experience. Note that that experience includes being the only straight man in a wonderful all-male cast of this show.
Yes, I believe homosexuality is morally wrong. I don't think the government should outlaw it, nor should it encourage it, much like lying or alcoholism. Homosexuals may or may not have a genetic predisposition or even have no choice at all, much like some pathological liers or alcoholics.
Additionally, there is no constitutional right to marry any other consenting adult. While I do think Loving was wrongly decided, it still only holds that marriage cannot be restricted by race and has no binding precedent on other factors such as gender.
I saw the RSC perform in Los Angeles, I'm guessing, around 15 years ago. Was one of them you?
That's a feature, not a bug. If you really want to be told what to believe, perhaps you might want to visit the Daily Kos.
I'm small time all the way. I thought using my own name here would be a dead giveaway.
Funny thing about that show: we were painfully unfunny in rehearsal until we figured out we had to play it dead straight. Then, it was so ridiculous the most challenging thing was keeping a straight face. Just spectacular comic writing. Cervantes would have approved.
look, i support gay marriage, but this is rubbish. i have plenty of friends who are against it, and it has nothing to do with whether being gay is a choice.
most of the people i know who are against gay marriage for religious reasons (and not all that oppose gay marriage do so for religious reasons. heck, some are even atheists), think that the choice issue is irrelevant.
that may be hard for you to grok. there is a belief among many in the proSSM crowd who believe that if orientation is not a choice, then ipso facto - gay marriage must be allowed.
i'm all for gay marriage, but that's a silly argument. it also discounts (as mentioned) the many people who think it's not a choice, but that gay marriage should still not be allowed
but how are you harmed (to reference your incest example) if two sisters want to have sex?
i know I'm not.
people claim "you can't legislate morality" but we DO.
and laws against incest and bestiality are two excellent examples.
a person performing fellatio on a dog does NOT harm the dog, or anybody else - but we outlaw it.
two sisters having sex. ditto.
why do we outlaw these? because they are icky and immoral.
i am not against gay marriage, but i'm not going to pretend that we don't have laws banning immoral sex acts. i've listed two examples above that we do ban because they are believed to be immoral.
New York had such laws, in my adult lifetime. They were, however, badly written. NY, like many states, defined prohibited sexual acts (among unmarried persons, which would, of course, leave same-sex couples out of luck) by forbidding contact between specified body parts, e.g., penis and anus, or mouth and vulva. Certain types of body-part contact, e.g., mouth-mouth, and penis-vulva, were not outlawed, meant to be lawful,and, therefore, OK. Some appeared to common understanding to lack sexual meaning, and, therefore, were not outlawed for lack of necessity. (For reasons that will appear, I will not provide examples.) But either because of lack of sexual imagination on the part of the legislature, or because of a canny legislator with unusual tastes that he wanted to protect, some types of body-part contact with sexual meaning were left legal, e.g. analingus and vulva-vulva grinding. So adult women could have some types of sex, but not others. And only the less common, and, by definition, "kinkier" types.
Aside from the abortion example (I think it should be illegal), the flaw here is that speaking Spanish, wearing a shawl and attending Mass are not considered to be morally repugnant &sexually deviant. I agree that the gay marriage ban is discrimination but for defensible reasons.