Asymmetrical Information

Of course, there are plenty in ours too, even, ironically, in the subject post. I do not hold Kevin responsible.

Why not? That's not that far removed from the kind of garbage he writes and he does seem to play to that sort of audience.

Necessary clarification - I'm not suggesting that Kevin Drum be held responsible for every specific post on his site. However I do think it fair to say that he bears some responsibility for encouraging such comments as he seems to play to that sort of crowd on his own blog.

Hey there--You're being a little unfair here. What was the post that started all of this? The outpourings of hysteria on the right caused by Hillary using the phrase "for the common good"--Hillary states a basic fact of taxation (that some money is taken from some people and used by the government for the good of all) and Sullivan, Tacitus, etc. go nuts and they are the moderate righties. Why is anyone surprised when lefties respond in kind? And while tarring all conservatives with these attacks is certainly wrong, the comments seem to characterize the attitudes of those who have criticized Hillary's speech fairly well.

Cordelia - is that 'they did it first'?

I hope not, only because that thread is the black hole of the blogosphere, sucking up all rational discourse. Please don't encourage it.

When Hillary made that statement it was like reading a passage from ATLAS SHRUGGED, It makes surfing here all the more appropriate.

I'm not denying that a civilized society should help the less fortunate, hell, it's in my cold-hearted best interests to make sure that down-and-outers get some help.

Wherer I break from Hillary and the Left in general is how to provide that help. Government is horribly ineffient with money. If the government takes 100 dollars from me to help "the poor", about 12 bucks will actually get to "the poor". The rest gets lost in administrative costs and red tape.
Oprah found that out. She set aside a bundle of money for a charity, and after the trustees paid them selves, hired staff, re-decorated the offices there was no money left. Sorry, but I'm not impressed by that.

Is it my imagination or do Drum's commenters just sound tired?. There were a couple of similar posts (one on James Lileks' column about the Kerry supporter, one about Hillary's latest outburst) over at Donald Sensing's blog One Hand Clapping, and I made the comment that the subject of taxation is basically trench warfare at this point: pro- and anti- forces have basically fought each other to a standstill, and we're now shedding blood over a couple of hundred yards of no-man's-land that hasn't moved much in years. And you know what? I'm perfectly happy with that. Raise my rates one percent this year and, if I live to be a hundred and fifty I'll be wanting that one percent back. For the Left's part, I know I could be living on ramen & water and it still wouldn't satisfy. I'm not going anywhere. They're not going anywhere either. Drum's people seem to take it way personally, as if they genuinely think they'd win the argument if people would just see.

I fail to see anything inaccurate or offensive about the excerpts posted. If you don't like what we think about you, behave better.

Couldn't care less what you think about me, and I'm behaving just fine, but thanks for the offer!

Orbitron - apparently we could fill one of our gun-stocked mcmansions with the things you 'fail to see'.

I'm puzzled. In two posts now you seem to be making the points that a) you (plural) are essentially levelheaded voices of reason, b) you are dismayed at the polarization of discourse, and c) you have all these examples of the ways liberals manifest this polarization. Something's not consistent.

I mean you can't even go to a gathering of liberals and remark that you support conservative positions (not that you're a conservative, hence my puzzlement) without the liberals reeling back in shock. (I know I'm shocked at their reactions.) May I assume that you've also gone to an NRA meeting, expressed liberal sentiment, and been pleased with the equanimity of the response ? Just to be evenhanded, of course.

Go to tacitus and copy some of the comments there. Go to Daniel Drezner and do the same. Acknowleging the integrity of the hosts, you can find plenty of polarizing commentary coming from the right. (Heck, at Drezner you can always rely on David Thomson to post a winner.) Or how about that favorite of the right, James Lileks, and his touching ode to Michael Moore, "I don’t hate Michael Moore, I pity him - he’s going to die in 15 years of a massive coronary on a cold tiled bathroom floor, awash in the blasts of his emptied bowels . . ." This sunny quote comes from a post equating Osama bin Laden, Hitler, Stalin with - wait for it - Chuck Barris.

C'mon Mindles. If you want to complain about polarization (and I would agree with you if you did) and play the thinking moderate card (which is inherently attractive to me), you can't focus on talking down liberals and retain credibility.

Cheers,

Rofe wrote:

I mean you can't even go to a gathering of liberals and remark that you support conservative positions (not that you're a conservative, hence my puzzlement) without the liberals reeling back in shock. (I know I'm shocked at their reactions.) May I assume that you've also gone to an NRA meeting, expressed liberal sentiment, and been pleased with the equanimity of the response ? Just to be evenhanded, of course.

Actually yes I have (not the NRA specifically but to other groups that promote conservative causes) attended a number of meetings by conservative groups that were open to the public on issues such as school choice, Social Security reform (e.g. privatization), Medical Savings Accounts, concealed carry reform, etc. in which people have come expressing “liberal” sentiments. They have often had guests there expressing more “liberal” sentiments and the reaction has generally been civil as conservative groups (having been in the minority in Minnesota politics until recently) have had to work harder at trying to persuade people (a lot of their members tend to be converts to the cause). In contrast, a few weeks ago when I attended a seminar on health care reform, the speaker from the MN AG’s office began by demonizing the pharmaceutical industry (and hence the employees in the audience) as the “Axis of Evil” and made a number of factual errors (I’m being generous) and was rather shocked when he was actually challenged on.

Go to tacitus and copy some of the comments there.

I’m a guest blogger at Tacitus, do you have a specific complaint in mind? Tac tends to have a rather light touch when it comes to moderating but generally our posters tend to be some of the more civil I’ve seen particularly compared to sites like Brad DeLong, Cal Pundit, Crooked Timber, Kos, etc.

The most interesting facet of these fulminating posts is the insistence that we live in the 1930s, with the poor struggling valiantly to escape starvation.

You wouldn't know from reading this stuff that the average poor person in the U.S. lives in a very adequate domicile, can and often does eat to obesity and has a decent car at his or her disposal. (Before you go nuts, I'm old enough to remember real poverty and actually experienced it in my youth.)

What we are not fighting over in this society is not survival, but how to cut a very large cake.

I departed the left as I understood that the bitter complaints are actually personal, not political. At its extreme, the left now blames Republicans, evangelicals, et al. for the failure of love and sex in leftist communities. (And that community is largely failing at love and sex. When you throw away all the rules, known as gender roles, you are left with confusion, clumsiness and a structural inability to connect with others.) I often hear a litany of complaints that can actually be summarized thusly: "If only it weren't for those awful Republicans, I'd have a great sex life."

The absurdity of this is obvious. The left cannot leave behind its obsession with overthrowing Daddy, as if juvenile rebellion were the answer to everything. When the rebellion doesn't work, the result is tantrum.

Stephen:

Bravo. US poverty statistics have been overstated for years because benefits in kind (e.g., housing subsidies, utility subsidies, foodstamps, et al) are not included in calculating "income". My guess is that, if in kind benefits were included, the poverty rate in this country would be less than 5%, and maybe closer to 2%.

I've personally seen folks buy snacks with cash (and maybe beer as well) - then buy the rest of their groceries with foodstamps and drive off in a new (or nearly new) Chrystler convertable. Living in poverty? I don't think so.

And no, the folks I speak of weren't a member of any minority group.

Hmmm. This will be, ahem, challenging.

In response to Thorley Winston's comment above, I trotted over to tacitus' site, sure that I'd be able to find a raft of juicy examples in no time. Alas (for my ego, but a tribute to the commentors there), I essentially came up empty. Plenty of spirited back and forth, a few mildly questionable comments (in fact, more left than right) but no examples of the uncivility I cited. After 20 minutes of re-reading this week's posts, I realized that even if I could find the odd quote, I was already proven wrong - what I was sure I would find just wasn't there.

Therefore, my apologies to tacitus and his commentors. I'm not convinced my original complaint is baseless, but I'm more than a bit humbled - and now curious whether my dog hunts.

Drat.

Rofe is correct.

You decry polarization and irrational comments on both sides, but all your examples are one-sided. (Yes, I see the token admission at the end, but no quotes)

That doesn't do much for your case, Mindles. Could you really not find any examples that begin with "all liberals are.." followed by some absurd caricature?

As for the incivility in communication, I would point to George Lakoff's book: Moral Politics to point out why cons and libs are unable talk to each other (only past each other). The two tribes are speaking different languages - which is why they can't communicate.

Rofe,

I appreciate your willingness, upon receiving new information, to change your opinion about Tacitus. Thank you.

Might I suggest that you also check out the other sites I mentioned (Brad DeLong, Cal Pundit, Crooked Timber, and Kos) and do a comparison to see if your overall thesis still holds? I think you’ll find that while there are certainly examples of uncivil individuals on both sides, it tends to be more lopsided that you might initially think.

Just my $0.02.

Bernard Yomtov wrote:

You decry polarization and irrational comments on both sides, but all your examples are one-sided. (Yes, I see the token admission at the end, but no quotes)

That doesn't do much for your case, Mindles. Could you really not find any examples that begin with "all liberals are.." followed by some absurd caricature?

Thorley,

Actually I'm quite familiar with all the blogs you mentioned. In fact, I've been reading CalPundit since he was CalPundit (and I reject your characterization of his writing), though with his broadened exposure his comment section has gotten much more partisan and far less enjoyable.

After an intense five-month project, my past two weeks have been relatively light and I've been catching up in blogdom, which is why the polarization that Mindles discussed struck home. Maybe it was simply blog overload.

I'm not convinced that your thesis holds (after all, somebody's comments from the right have gotten my dander up and I'm not talking about LGF), but since I've weathered one chastening today I'll do my best to keep an open mind.

Cheers,

Thorley,

PS - Just read your latest, and it jibed with something that occurred to me as I wrote mine. However, what conservative site would you put on par with CalPundit ? The conversation might be instructive.

I was tempted toward Instapundit, but no comments section there.

Gotta run. Days over over here.

Cheers,

Peter : slightly off topic, and let me emphasize that I'm not upset with you, but your post did hit one of my (mildly) hot buttons. I do not believe either that we speak different languages, or that we belong to different tribes. I do believe that by and large the people who post and comment and scream and argue all belong to the same tribe, the tribe of the Politicals: that is, the tribe that types and talks for a living, and that thereby acquires a great and abiding faith in the Magical Power of Words. I also believe we understand one another's arguments just fine, or at least well enough; and that those arguments are, in the main, not irrational on either side. I remember a political slogan from ten years ago or so : "they just don't get it!" That's hooey. We (both left and right) do get it, but just because we get it doesn't mean we gotta buy it.

Rofe wrote:

PS - Just read your latest, and it jibed with something that occurred to me as I wrote mine. However, what conservative site would you put on par with CalPundit ? The conversation might be instructive.

Good question, would you be willing to consider Citizen Smash a.k.a. IndePundit as a fair comparison?

Mindles Dreck:

Cordelia - is that 'they did it first'?

No, it's more like: Conservatives who go nuts shouldn't be very surprised when the liberal response is a bit exaggerated.

Of course, we can rely on Mindles Dreck to ignore the conservative nuttery and focus instead on the liberal response. The enemy of my enemy, etc.

Setting invective aside, my personal experience leads me to believe that the liberals distort facts much more than the conservatives do. Note that I'm not denying that both sides distort the facts, but only claiming that my observation is that liberals do so more than conservatives.

Another factor complicating communication between liberals and conservatives is that liberals TEND to gather together in cities while conservatives TEND to stay outside the big cities. Liberals TEND to believe in group/social responsibility while conservatives TEND to believe in individual responsibility.

What frosts me about Hilary's comments and many of the Liberal comments quoted is the implicit assumption that if I have more money than someone else, it's somehow unfair, while my viewpoint is that I have worked hard, denied myself creature comforts, spent many long years in school, and now that I can and do earn a decent living, people who haven't done so view the benefits of my hard work as belonging to poor people rather than me. Sorry, I just don't buy that.

Thorley,

I doubt we'd agree on where various blogs fall on the left/right axis. I consider both Tacitus and this blog to further to the right than Drum is to the left. No doubt you disagree.

Without extensive digging, I find, on Tacitus, Bird Dog, praising some over-the-top criticism of Carter, writing,

"gloomy defeatist incompetetent appeasing liberalism in all of its painful glory."

A typical effort by your fellow poster.

Here I've been told that my thinking is based on nothing but my hatred of Republicans.

Look just in this comments section.

Joe shropshire tells us that

"For the Left's part, I know I could be living on ramen & water and it still wouldn't satisfy."

Stephen informs us that

"At its extreme, the left now blames Republicans, evangelicals, et al. for the failure of love and sex in leftist communities."

Do you think it would be hard to find more, and worse? It wouldn't.

It is in fact routine to read that liberals don't understand this and that, hate success, etc.

Bernard, I work and live in New York City and Woodstock, New York, two of the most liberal communities in the U.S.

My statement is entirely precise and true. The statement you've objected to is the result of listening to literally dozens of friends and associates who complain that some sort of repressive apparatus constructed by Republicans is the cause of the failure of their sex and love lives. Since I know these people personally, I know that the cause of this failure is their own sins and weaknesses.

The reason the left has gone so crazy is that the left has demanded that government make people "happy" and "validated." Thus, when people aren't happy and validated, government is to blame.

Every day, I hear these complaints. Leftist men and women who have not been able to constuct a useful relationship in their lives routinely tell me this is because of some sort of nebulous "repression."

Yes, Bernard, the left has become completely crazy, vengeful and ridiculous because it is blaming others for the personal failure of individuals. Politics for the left has become an exerice in personal excuse mongering.

Attend any leftist function and you will invariably hear this statement: "[Such and such a policy] has the effect of blaming you for your problems. They're trying to tell you that you are to blame. You've got to reject that and see through to the deeper truth of (take your pick) oppression, repression, racism, etc."

Well, people are to blame for their standing in this life. It's called individual responsibility.

Those of us on the right took Hillary Clinton's remark as an attack-- as it was. The major difference between the Left and Right is not simply between the desire for the common good and self interest as in the following quote.

"I''m at a loss to name a Repub who believes in the common good, general welfare, public interest, etc. Only self interest is real."

The right would have no complaint If the left confined itself to taxing themselves for the common good. The problem is that the Left wants to tax the people who disagree with an issue. This policy is inherently divisive; the Left wins but their opponents pay. The top 50 percent of income earners pay 94 percent of the taxes, and that is not enough for the Left.

The real issue between the Left and the Right is, "Who decides what is in the common good?" The people themselves individually or the Left collectively.

All in good fun, Bernard. Why so testy? By the way, welcome aboard : I've seen you comment on econlog but I don't think I've seen you here.

Stephen,

I live in Cambridge, which is surely at least as liberal as New York and Woodstock. I have NEVER heard anyone make these complaints about their love lives or the obligation of government to make them happy. You are hearing what you want to hear, what fits your stereotype. and you provide yet another example of what Thorley was asking for.

"the left has become completely crazy, vengeful and ridiculous"

What nonsense.

Well, Bernard, you are now simply not telling the truth because I spend some time in Cambridge.

Cambridge has vocal gay and feminist contingencies that speak and write precisely as I have said. You cannot go into a cafe in Cambridge without hearing some gay or feminist advocate voicing their insistence that they are being prevented from carrying out their sexual lives according to their desires by the evil Republicans.

Your ears must be clogged with wax.

Really, at least, you should strive to be minimally believable.

And, just for fun, I'll tell you why I am against gay marriage. It's not for theological or political reasons. I'm just tired of being hustled by the gay activist movement.

35 years ago I lived in San Francisco, during the days when gays first started to come out of the closet. The sex clubs and bath houses were in full (you'll pardon the expression) swing. In those days, the gay activists told us that if you had any objections to the clubs and bath houses, you were, of course, one of the oppressors who prevented gays from fully expressing themselves. And, of course, if you disagreed, you were a bigot. 35 years later, gays activists are telling us that we're bigots if we oppose gay marriage.

During those 35 years, the definition of what we must think and accept to avoid being called bigots has shifted almost yearly. I know a hustle when I see one.

Ever heard the term "drama queen?" I don't even believe that the controversy over gay marriage is about gay marriage. It's about drama queens who want and demand attention and who scream invective when they don't get what they want.

Cambridge, Woodstock, the West Village... it's all the same crap. It's about spoiled brats, Bernard, and spoiled brats like attention, enjoy picturing themselves as victims and doubly enjoy screaming invective against anybody who calls them on their game.

I'm tired of being hustled by scam artists. And that's what the left is now composed of... scam artists trying to cadge goodies and sympathy by pretending to be among the "oppressed."

You must be in on the scam if you're buying it.

I live in Ithaca which has diversity of opinion ranging from the Greens on the left to the Democrats on the far right. I am a social moderate but a fiscal conservative, and I am viewed as being part of the far-right fringe. Although I have never seen the liberals here blame their lousy sex lives on the right, they blame everything else that is wrong on the right.

The day after the elections in 2000, a fellow Rotarian asked me while we stood in the buffet line, "How long do you think it will be until Bush takes away all our civil liberties?" She was unaware of my political leanings; the assumption is that all reasonable people are anti-Bush. You can see it in the papers and letters to the editors, you can hear it on the local talk radio show, you can hear it if you talk to the local politicians, and on, and on, and on. Dare to disagree and you are immediately labeled a facist or worse. There are also a lot of racists in the community, both white liberal and black, who have their own definition of racism that BY DEFINITION excludes black people from being racist. Huh? Racism is racism.

And the ill motives attributed to the right wing or Republicans (which I am not--I have serious gripes against both parties) continue to astound me. Challenge high taxes and you are in favor of starving the poor, etc.

What the majority of liberals don't understand is that conservatives share most of the same goals as the liberals but differ radically on the means to achieve those goals. Give a man to fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. Liberals believe in the former while conservative believe in the latter. From my perspective and what I know to be the Democrats' platform of ideas, it sure seems to me that the Democrats intentionally promote dependence on government programs in their constituency in order to remain in power. I don't think that this can actually be the case, but how else can I explain the ludicrous policies that the Democrats establish and continue? The safety net for "unfortunate" people (euphemism for someone who is handicapped or injured or etc. who realistically needs government assistance, whether temporarily or permanently) should be a hammock instead of a feather bed.

"What frosts me about Hilary's comments and many of the Liberal comments quoted is the implicit assumption that if I have more money than someone else, it's somehow unfair, while my viewpoint is that I have worked hard, denied myself creature comforts, spent many long years in school, and now that I can and do earn a decent living, people who haven't done so view the benefits of my hard work as belonging to poor people rather than me. Sorry, I just don't buy that."

Rex, you are 100% correct. I would add that people like Hillary also think they know what is best for everyone and that people need the government to make decisions for them. People like Hilary (and liberals in general) make the founders of this country spin in their graves.

Rex:

I share your opinion regarding policies advocated by the Democratic party. They do seem to encourage dependency.

I could be uncharitable towards the "donkey party" and say something along the lines of "encouraging dependency ensures future votes." I'm not sure that's a conscious strategy on their part. I do wonder sometimes, though.

A rather libertine writer once noted that democracy works until the masses notice that they can vote themselves bread and circuses. I didn't believe that when I was younger. Now, I'm beginning to fear he was correct.

Stephen that's awful.

Some people use the sometimes nasty tactics of political correctness to achieve their ends or denigrate their opponenets.

You've put it the other way around - the ends of all are for the means of a few. Are you saying what you seem to be saying?

I'm speechless.

No, I'm dead serious.

I'm tired of being scammed.

I do not believe that there is any goodwill or sincerity on the party of those who advocate gay marriage.

And I believe, based on experience, that next year the gay activist agenda will be something else, and that anybody who opposes it will once again be a bigot. Creating and defaming bigots has become sort of an industry.

It's a tired scam engineered by spoiled children.

Mr. Dreck, I'll elaborate further by saying that just about everybody who touches this subject is talking about it in the ideal. I'm talking about it through the reality of my experience.

I used to have a busload of gay man friends my age (and I'm straight). They're all dead of AIDS, except for one who is currently dying of AIDS. They are dead of AIDS as a result of their own behavior.

Year by year, I have been told by my gay male friends that this pathology was the result of societal disapproval, prejudice, etc. And every year I was offered a different "final solution" that would solve the problem of this pathology. (The pathology also invariably included the inability to sustain relationship.) My living friend has finally dropped this facade, by the way, and now accepts personal responsibility.

Gay marriage is the latest of about a thousand panaceas I've been offered as the solution to the pathology of the male gay community. Some years ago, I stopped buying into this excuse mongering and concluded that the pathology is part of the male gay community, not something enforced from outside.

The real solution to this pathology is personal responsibility, something a whole lot of my friends refused to understand. They died as a consequence. In some ways, the advocates of gay marriage -- and in particular Andrew Sullivan -- quite openly espouse gay marriage as a way to save gay men from themselves and the pathology of their community. I sincerely doubt that this will work.

The solution must come from within the individual. Waving a magic wand and proclaiming gays married is not going to solve the dilemma of the self-destructive male gay community.

Here is a short quote which I think is relevant to Mindles's post:

Disagree with someone on the right and he is likely to think you obtuse, wrong, foolish, a dope. Disagree with someone on the left and he is more likely to think you selfish, a sell-out, insensitive, possibly evil.

-- Joseph Epstein, New York Times Magazine, November 24, 1985, p.95
quoted in Thomas Sowell, The Vision of the Anointed, p.4

And I believe, based on experience, that next year the gay activist agenda will be something else, and that anybody who opposes it will once again be a bigot. Creating and defaming bigots has become sort of an industry.

I think that Stephen makes a valid point.

With the exception of challenging some archaic sodomy laws the identity politics movement has largely been about putting restrictions on other people’s freedom such as freedom of association (e.g. the BSA and that fellow who was being sued by the ACLU) and property rights. Having failed to persuade a plurality of citizens that their relationships are just as deserving of the privileges and societal approval granted to married couples, they’ve resorted to playing the “victim” card or suing to force others to grant them that which they did not earn.

Stephen,

You don't know me, as I rarely post here, but I am gay and planning to marry my partner of eight years in October. We are fortunate to live in Massachusetts.
I can assure you that my reasons for getting married are the same as those of most opposite-sex couples. We've built a life together and wish to celebrate that with our family and friends as we move forward, hopefully for another 50 years. For us, a civil ceremony is a way to take our place as full and equal members of the Commonwealth, with all responsibilities that entails. We're also different religions so it avoids the question of whether one should kneel while the other smashes a glass and none of that purple-robe UU nonsense.
I can assure you that I am not spending an obscene amount of money and time because I have nothing better to do but to try to get the attention of strangers or because I feel sorry for myself. Frankly, "victim" is the opposite of how I plan to feel on my wedding day. I hope you'll be able to join me in not feeling like a victim too.

Thorley,

The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts grants all citizens the right to marry a partner of their choosing free of discrimination by sex. The government failed to carry out the dictates of the Constitution (which were quite indisputable) so the courts ordered the government to comply. I have no issues with the courts holding the government to constitutional principles, and I would hope that you wouldn't disagree with that, either.
Now my state may still succeed in amending the Constitution, and I'll just have to live with that. I will fight it as I can in order to "earn" the right not to be divorced by the state in two years.
In the meantime, I have to wonder if you would have been making these arguments about the importance of majority rule and the disgrace associated with the court system back in the days before Loving v. Virginia.

Brittain, you completely discredited you argument by trying to equate the black civil rights movement with the gay marriage movement. This isn't just dishonesty... it's a travesty. This is what I mean when I speak of spoiled brats. Your comment is so undignified that no sane person should breathe it.

Being gay is about behavior and behavior is always about choice.

There is no such right in the constitution of Massachusetts. The court exceeded its authority and should probably be impeached.

There is no such thing as "discrimination by sex" in this regard. You just like the sound of it.

I'll bet you are a college educated, white woman. And you're trying to take on the mantle of a black in the Jim Crow south. Shame on you.

Nobody is impeding your freedom in any way. You are one of the scam artists.

What a ghastly spoiled brat thing to do.

"The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts grants all citizens the right to marry a partner of their choosing free of discrimination by sex. The government failed to carry out the dictates of the Constitution (which were quite indisputable) so the courts ordered the government to comply. I have no issues with the courts holding the government to constitutional principles, and I would hope that you wouldn't disagree with that, either."

Brittain33, are you sure you are reading the correct constitution? I have read the correct one and it makes no mention of homosexual marriage anywhere in it.

The Mass. Supreme Court's decision can basically be summed up in that the Constitution doesn't specifically outlaw gay marriage, therefore it must be legal. Using that logic a number of activities the state outlaws should also be legalizied.

I also live in MA, and I find it interesting that the liberals in this state were so opposed to people being able to vote on gay marriage but at the same time they want to change state laws to require a vote should Kerry leave the Senate mid-term even though the law very specifically gives the power to name a replacement to the Governor. How inconvienent for liberals!

It is just more proof that liberals seek to cram their agenda down the average citizen's throat. And another thing, in MA, if you are not a socialist people treat you like you are Hitler reincarnate.

Brittain, you completely discredited you argument by trying to equate the black civil rights movement with the gay marriage movement.




No, I didn't equate them at all. They're two separate beasts.




I was pointing out that Thorley's arguments would have served the anti-Loving side very well, because at that point mixed-race couples were disapproved of by 90% of Americans and could not earn the right to marry through their legislatures. They had to achieve their right by "judicial fiat."




I would argue that those couples had the constitutional right to marry. The Supreme Court agreed with me then. Today, most Americans (but not all) agree still. Thorley, meanwhile, would still be complaining about their underhanded tactics in circumventing the majority.




You obviously haven't read the decision in Goodridge v. Massachusetts. The constitutional right to marriage is spelled out quite clearly, as is the state's earlier violation of that right. I encourage you to learn more about the case before misrepresenting it. I'm sorry if that sounds patronizing but I don't know what else I can say.




If you're interested in discussing these issues, we can do so. If you want to call me a scam artist and a brat, you are welcome to feel like a victim. I won't join you.

The state constitution outlaws discrimination by gender and does not define or restrict marriage to "a man and a woman." 1 + 1 = ____?

"The constitutional right to marriage is spelled out quite clearly, as is the state's earlier violation of that right. I encourage you to learn more about the case before misrepresenting it."

The constitutional right to marriage is spelled out, but GAY marriage is not spelled out. The State Supreme Court ordering the state legislature to allow GAY marriage is a violation of the seperation of powers and should not be allowed to stand. Impeachment seems a good solution.

If the state constitution doesn't restrict it to a man and a woman it is because the writters never even dreamt about a man wanting to marry a man. Otherwise they would have specified. The state constitution doesn't specify an age of consent for marriage nor does it state that a marriage cannot take place between me and my dog. Yet the state outlaws both. Should the law be over ruled? I guess we will have to wait until the dogs march down Boylston Street in their annual "Dog Pride Parade" demanding to be given equal rights? And Brittain, don't say it isn't the same thing because it is, it is taking your arguement to its logical conclusion. The real solution is to allow the people to vote. If the majority of people are in favor of gay marriage so be it, but for non-elected and unaccountable judges to decide for millions is wrong.

Well, Thorley, you've thrown in your lot with Stephen, have you? I think you both have helped me to make my point, as has wtf.

But just a couple of questions:

1. If the sodomy laws were archaic, etc., why was the lovely state of Texas, and before that Georgia, so keen to enforce them?

2. How does gay marriage limit anyone's freedom of asscoiation?

Incidentally, I'm not gay and I'm not in on any scam. I don't even understand what the alleged "scam" is. How does Brittain33's impending marriage harm you in any way?

By the way, I would cool it on the "activist judges imposing this and that," etc. rhetoric. Public opinion in MA is pretty divided on gay marriage. For an amendment to be adopted, it has to be approved by the voters after being passed in two legislative sessions, so we'll have a chance to see what the public thinks. I'm guessing the amendment fails, if it even gets out of the legislature next year.

I'll bet you are a college educated, white woman.


Ha ha.


Let loose some of your stereotypes about gay men and you won't lose the bet next time.

I apologize to everyone for the obnoxious paragraph formatting. I am trying to find something that works consistently and all I've learned is that HTML tags are NOT the way to go.

I find it interesting that the liberals in this state were so opposed to people being able to vote on gay marriage but at the same time they want to change state laws to require a vote should Kerry leave the Senate mid-term

I think it's easy enough. Elections should be determined by, well, elections, while rights are guaranteed by the Constitution.

Of course it's a power grab by the Democrats. Republicans did the same thing in Alaska two years ago when their Senator ran for Governor and threatened to open the door to a Democratic appointee. They changed the laws. However, I don't understand why it's an either/or situation. Do you really think logical constituency requires everything under the sun from elections to civil rights to be determined EITHER by vote OR by the legal process? Are you a hypocrite for wanting people to vote on marriage but not on whether you, personally, should pay 100% taxes?

As interesting as the topic of gay marriage surely is, I thought this comment thread was much more interesting when it was more closely focused on the subject of Mindles's post.

wtf,

The state has a compelling interest in limiting marriage on the basis of age and species. They tried to make one on the basis of sex, and failed miserably. I feel bad for the state because they faced an impossible task. How do you say marriage is ONLY for prospective parents when couples like the Goodridges have children, and are excluded from marriage, while infertile 60 year-old heterosexuals can get married after a single date?

Again, if you haven't read Goodridge, I recommend you do so. All of these arguments have been hashed out a million times before and it's a waste of both our time to do it again here.

Bernard Yomtov wrote:

Well, Thorley, you've thrown in your lot with Stephen, have you?

I think that Stephen made a valid point with regards to the corrosive and/or totalitarian nature of identity politics. I have said nothing to indicate whether I agree with him or not on any other point.

1. If the sodomy laws were archaic, etc., why was the lovely state of Texas, and before that Georgia, so keen to enforce them?

Someone needs to explain to Bernard Yomtov that there is nothing mutually exclusive about a law being archaic and still carrying the force of law.

2. How does gay marriage limit anyone's freedom of asscoiation?

Please show me where I or anyone else suggested that it did. Unless you confused my reference to the BSA case with the “gay marriage” issue.

Stephen, one of your earlier comments reminds me of the quote that the peace and love crowd can't get past hating their parents...

Brittain33: they do vote on taxation, through their representatives in their state legislatures and Congress; and if persuaded, legislatures and Congress can do basically whatever they want with what we own. We are all in the minority, in that each of us is completely vulnerable to the State. Congratulations, by the way.

Joe,

It wasn't the best example, but what I had in mind was something that any supporter of democracy would clearly find intolerable--a referendum targeting one individual. A better example would have been voting on the guilt or innocence of alleged criminals.
And thanks!

Uh, Brittain33 . . .

I believe juries do generally vote when determining guilt or innocence of criminals.

And, in some jurisdictions, statewide votes are in fact held regarding the conduct of single individuals. Just ask Gray Davis.

Brittain33 writes:

"I can assure you that my reasons for getting married are the same as those of most opposite-sex couples."

You seek to uphold ancient morals and traditions, bond with the opposite sex, take responsibility for raising childern in a stable nuclear family, and promote the continuation of society by acting as a proper role-model for the next generation of impressionable young children and adults to follow?

Seems to me your quest for a same-sex marriage is going about things @$$-backwards if that's the case.

Actually, Brittain33, I believe the "referendum on one person" is addressed by the Constitution, at least at the Federal level. It's called a Bill of Attainder, and it's covered in Article I section 9. Here's one link :

Bill of Attainder

Hondo, you've completely missed the point. Keep reading. (Jane and Mindles, if you're reading, I apologize for any non sequiturial gotchas! I may have flung at you in the past. Good lord, they're tiresome.)

Joe, I'm familiar with the idea of the Bill of Attainder. And you're reinforcing my point--is it hypocritical to think Bills of Attainder are wrong, but that elections for governor are ok? Is it hypocritical to assign some decisions to the ballot box and some to the court system?

Here's the problem: people seem to think that saying "no, because some decisions you may assign to the court system can also be decided by elections" is a counterargument. It isn't.

James, you've written a definition of marriage that many people would find incomplete, others would find mostly accurate for themselves, and still others would find totally superfluous. Surely I don't need to point out that there are plenty of opposite-sex couples who meet some but not all of your values, or who value things you don't. (For example, why didn't you say "of the same religion"? Until recently, it was unthinkable to exclude that! How dare you disrespect 4,000 years of Jewish tradition!)

What's more, you won't find that definition in the Massachusetts constitution or our state laws. The State tried to present some of those arguments to the courts but they got laughed out because they bear no resemblance to how marriage law is actually enforced in the U.S. today. When DeBenedettistan wins independence, you are free to write that exact definition into laws and exclude all the infertile, amoral, and irreligious heterosexual couples you like from the institution. In the meantime--speak for yourself.

But for the record...


take responsibility for raising childern in a stable nuclear family, and promote the continuation of society by acting as a proper role-model for the next generation of impressionable young children and adults to follow?


Most certainly.

"I'm at a loss to name a Repub who believes in the common good, general welfare, public interest, etc. Only self interest is real."

Isn't this James Buchanan in a nutshell? If so, I agree with him and would add "that's not a bug, it's a feature!"

I've often thought that the main difference between left and right is epistemological. Left thinks collective concepts like Government, Society, Public Good, are real existing things. Right thinks these are just words. The old realism versus nominalism debate. Or is it realism versus moderate realism? My epistemology's a bit rusty.

Brittain,

Congratulations on your upcoming nuptials. I'm not sure what is going on with Stephen, but I'm happy to see homosexuals getting married just like I am happy to see heterosexuals getting married.

I do agree with Stephen that government has no right to create rules for voluntary associations -- if someone wants to be a narrowminded bigot, they should be laughed at and humiliated but not compelled to act in an unbigoted manner. The state, however, must certainly act in an unbigoted manner, especially in a vital matter such as marriage.

I also agree with Stephen that ultimately the members of minority communities are responsible for their own lives and choices, and the "blame straight whitey" schtick is self-defeating and getting long in the tooth. But I strongly disagree with his characterization of all gay men as self-destructive.

Brittany33 writes:

For example, why didn't you say "of the same religion"?

Because, unlike opposite-sex unions, that is frequently not a requirement of marriage (eg, the republics of both Rome and the United States).

How dare you disrespect 4,000 years of Jewish tradition!

Because I'm not Jewish.

What's more, you won't find that definition in the Massachusetts constitution or our state laws. The State tried to present some of those arguments to the courts but they got laughed out because they bear no resemblance to how marriage law is actually enforced in the U.S. today.

More's the pity. The US Constitution doesn't require the President to enforce Supreme Court decisions either, but it's unfortunate when people exploit loopholes to void long-standing legal traditions.

When DeBenedettistan wins independence, you are free to write that exact definition into laws and exclude all the infertile, amoral, and irreligious heterosexual couples you like from the institution. In the meantime--speak for yourself.

There's no need to declare independence or speak for myself. It's sufficient to join with the 61% of my fellow Californians (and similar margins in other states) who oppose same-sex marriage.

James De:

There's no need to declare independence or speak for myself. It's sufficient to join with the 61% of my fellow Californians (and similar margins in other states) who oppose same-sex marriage.

You might want to consider the fact that that margin has been dropping for a long time and every indication is that it will continue to drop. You're likely to wake up one day soon to find that that 61% has dropped to 49% or less. Then what are you going to do?

Thorley Winston:

With the exception of challenging some archaic sodomy laws the identity politics movement has largely been about putting restrictions on other people’s freedom such as freedom of association (e.g. the BSA and that fellow who was being sued by the ACLU) and property rights.

So was the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. Are you against that, too?

Having failed to persuade a plurality of citizens that their relationships are just as deserving of the privileges and societal approval granted to married couples,

We haven't "failed." We're still working on it. And we won't stop until we've won. Don't you realize that? And in case you haven't noticed, we're making steady progress, not only in the United States, but throughout the industrialized world. Too bad for you.

they’ve resorted to playing the “victim” card

What exactly does that mean, "playing the 'victim' card?" Perhaps you mean lobbying for a change in laws and attitudes that we believe to be unjust. That's the American way. If you don't like it, you can always emigrate, if any other country will take you.

Whator suing to force others to grant them that which they did not earn.

Suing who? Granting what that we did not earn?

Bernard,

Why do you think Texas was "keen to enforce" the sodomy laws? As I read the court decision, the underlying fact pattern made it quite clear that if these two guys hadn't been at the wrong end of an improbable set of circumstances, they never would have been discovered in the act and prosecuted.

Being keen to enforce a law brings to mind police who set radar traps, narcotics squads targeting drug offenders, DWI checkpoints, etc., none of which has an equivalent police presence to enforce the sodomy laws. There is no "peeking in the window" squad in Texas. These two guys just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. Or do you think that prosecutorial discretion should have been invoked, and that the absence of invoking the discretion not to prosecute indicates being keen to enforce the sodomy laws?

What a strange viewpoint.

James De:

Because, unlike opposite-sex unions, that is frequently not a requirement of marriage (eg, the republics of both Rome and the United States).

But your reasons for marriage included "uphold[ing] ancient morals and traditions." Ancient traditions and morals certainly exclude interfaith marriages, which were virtually unknown before the modern era. They also exclude any definition of marriage in which the wife is the social and legal equal of the husband. That is also a very modern reform. In the vast majority of human societies, including our own until just a few decades ago, wives were subordinate to their husbands. In most human societies today, wives are still socially and legally subordinate to husbands. Before about 100 years ago, wives were effectively the slaves or property of their husbands even in America. Until the 1960s, in some U.S. states a husband could not even be prosecuted for raping his wife, because the law did not recognize that as a possible crime.

So since you attach so much importance to "upholding ancient morals and traditions," why aren't you attacking these newfangled, radical redefinitions of marriage like interracial marriage, and interfaith marriage, and second marriages following divorce (not just "no fault" divorce, but any divorce), and equal legal status for wives, and so on?

Rex:

States were in general not keen to enforce sodomy laws. Aggressive enforcement would likely have provoked a public backlash and led to their earlier repeal. They were a kind of stealth weapon that could be activated selectively to target particular individuals or groups. They also made gay men into presumptive criminals, which made other kinds of anti-gay legal action easier. For example, Scalia cited the presence of sodomy laws in support of his dissent in Romer vs. Evans. States sometimes cited sodomy laws in support of their efforts to deny gay men custody of their children. Things like that.

But now we're finally rid of them, thank God.

Don, I think polls about same-sex marriages are distorted by people giving politically correct (ie, non-confrontational) answers rather than their true opinion. If same-sex marriage ever did cross from the realm of theory into reality however, I believe you'd see a constitutional amendment banning the practice within 5 years.

Unlike the gay lobby though, if a majority of the population did vote in favor of same-sex marriages, I'd live with the result. Heck, I'd probably even feel obligated to support more traditional forms of marriage which aren't currently recognized by the state (polygamy, incest, etc.) out of a sense of fairness.

James De:

Don, I think polls about same-sex marriages are distorted by people giving politically correct (ie, non-confrontational) answers rather than their true opinion.

I see no evidence of that. The evidence from voting behavior and other indicators is consistent with the polls: opposition to gay marriage is declining, support for gay rights causes in general is rising. The pace of change also seems to be accelerating. Younger voters are the most likely to support gay marriage. Older ones are the least likely to support it. As time passes, the older voters die off and younger ones replace them. If past trends continue, gay marriage will soon enjoy majority support. And in some jurisdictions courts will probably legalize it even before it gets a majority, anyway. Every indication is that your side is going to lose. The only real question is how long it will take.

If same-sex marriage ever did cross from the realm of theory into reality however,

It already has, in Massachusetts, in Canada, and in several European nations. Vermont has gay civil unions, which are marriage in all but name. Many other European nations have enacted or are in the process of enacting civil unions.

I believe you'd see a constitutional amendment banning the practice within 5 years.

There's no evidence of that, either. In fact, various conservative Christian writers have been penning articles recently lamenting the notable lack of support and enthusiasm for the FMA amoung what they thought were their allies.

... if a majority of the population did vote in favor of same-sex marriages, I'd live with the result.

Well, of course you would. The law's the law. But your lack of passion and enthusiaism for your side of the issue is I think pretty representative. Even most opponents of gay marriage don't really care about the issue enough to put up much of a fight, which is another reason to suppose that they'll lose sooner rather than later.

1. If the sodomy laws were archaic, etc., why was the lovely state of Texas, and before that Georgia, so keen to enforce them?

Someone needs to explain to Bernard Yomtov that there is nothing mutually exclusive about a law being archaic and still carrying the force of law.

Well, Thorley, I actually understood that. I mistakenly thought that when you referred to them as "archaic" you meant they were largely unenforced. I guess not. That you and your pals want them enforced is all the more reason that eliminating them is a legitimate objective.

2. How does gay marriage limit anyone's freedom of asscoiation?

Please show me where I or anyone else suggested that it did. Unless you confused my reference to the BSA case with the “gay marriage” issue.

OK. You wrote:

With the exception of challenging some archaic sodomy laws the identity politics movement has largely been about putting restrictions on other people’s freedom such as freedom of association (e.g. the BSA and that fellow who was being sued by the ACLU) and property rights.

I didn't confuse a damn thing. You're just trying to scramble away from your own words.

There seems to be some confusion about sodomy laws. In America, they no longer exist. The Supreme Court struck down all the remaining ones last year. Gone. Finito. Over.

I spit on their corpses and dance on their graves.

Too bad. This was such an interesting thread before it became a discussion of gay marriage. The subject of gay marriage is interesting, but it is discussed all over the place by many well-informed people. The topic Mindles brought up is less explored and deserves much more discussion. Oh well. I am disappointed.

No it doesn't. The topic Dreck brought up is utterly boring and substanceless. It's just an endless slanging match.

"Your rhetoric is worse than ours."
"No it isn't, yours is worse."
"No, yours is."

And so on, ad infinitum.

The political blogosphere is filled with this kind of nonsense.

Don, I'm not aware of any valid same-sex marriages that have taken place in America. Foreign countries don't really matter to me (especially demographically imploding ones like those in Europe).

I'm not aware of interfaith marriages being a significant problem for ancient Greeks, Romans, Celts, American Indians, etc. The tradition of marriage encompasses a great many more beliefs than Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, but I'm not aware of a single one that condoned same-sex marriages (including those where homosexual activity was a widely accepted public practice).

I'm not aware of any society that provided unmarried women with freedoms equivalent to men, only to take them away at marriage. Cultures which treated women poorly after marriage tended to treat them poorly before marriage as well. The subject of women's equality appears to be a red herring in this discussion.

As for the opinions of the young, when I was young and focused on getting laid, I had no problems with gay marriage either. After two kids and nine years of marriage however, I'm a bit wiser, and find the theory that marriage should be founded on the sexual desires of two adults rather than the raising of children to be, quite frankly, repulsive.

Most of the divorces I've seen were a result of "boredom" on the part of one or both parties, and the remainder were because the husband refused to work. Given that, I'm beginning to agree that no-fault divorces are part of the problem rather than the solution, and the traditional role-model of the male bread-winner is preferable to one where the focus of marriage is the pursuit of sexual fulfillment.

You're right that I'm not too worried about the subject however. Thanks to the wonders of natural selection, I feel time is on my side and any reversals will be quickly overturned.

James De:

Don, I'm not aware of any valid same-sex marriages that have taken place in America.

I guess you must have been asleep when couples started to get married in Massachusetts earlier this year, then. I'm talking about civil, legal marriage, with a marriage license.

Foreign countries don't really matter to me (especially demographically imploding ones like those in Europe).

Why not? By the way, the U.S. is also "demographically imploding." It's just doing it more slowly than Europe. The demographic transition is a problem for all rich countries, including this one.

I'm not aware of interfaith marriages being a significant problem for ancient Greeks, Romans, Celts, American Indians, etc.

No, it wasn't a significant problem, because it was unthinkable. Interfaith marriage was unheard of before the modern era, as I said. So was interracial marriage, and the other kinds of marriage I listed. As recently as the 1970s, a majority of Americans still opposed interracial marriage.

The tradition of marriage encompasses a great many more beliefs than Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, but I'm not aware of a single one that condoned same-sex marriages (including those where homosexual activity was a widely accepted public practice).

Not a single one of them condoned marriage as a partnership of equals, either, until very recently. The wife was subordinate to her husband. That was the tradition in all three of those religions, and in every other human society. If the absence of gay marriage in the Christian, Jewish and Islamic traditions argues against gay marriage, why doesn't the absence of marriage as a partnership of equals in those traditions argue against that modern redefinition of marriage, too?

I'm not aware of any society that provided unmarried women with freedoms equivalent to men, only to take them away at marriage. Cultures which treated women poorly after marriage tended to treat them poorly before marriage as well.

But that fact doesn't help your case, it implies that you should oppose equal status for women before marriage as well as after. Remember, you claim to be upholding ancient morals and traditions. If those morals and traditions subordinated women outside of marriage as well as within marriage (as they did), then to uphold those traditions you should too. So do you want to uphold them or don't you?

As for the opinions of the young, when I was young and focused on getting laid, I had no problems with gay marriage either. After two kids and nine years of marriage however, I'm a bit wiser, and find the theory that marriage should be founded on the sexual desires of two adults rather than the raising of children to be, quite frankly, repulsive.

This is the claim that attitudes towards gay marriage and other gay issues are a function of age rather than cohort. You're suggesting that today's young people will become more anti-gay as they age. Unfortunately for you, extensive polling data indicates that this suggestion is false. Attitudes towards homosexuality are basically generational. Each generation carries its beliefs forward as it ages. And each new generation is more pro-gay than the previous one. That is why we see a steady increase in pro-gay attitudes in society as a whole.

You're right that I'm not too worried about the subject however. Thanks to the wonders of natural selection, I feel time is on my side and any reversals will be quickly overturned.

What does natural selection have to do with it? Are you suggesting that there is a gay gene that will be selected out of the population because gay couples cannot biologically reproduce? (If so, I need to educate you about that bizarre notion, too.) Or what?

James De:

Given that, I'm beginning to agree that no-fault divorces are part of the problem rather than the solution,

Why just no-fault divorce rather than divorce in general, or all divorce? Do you know why we have no-fault divorce? It's because when divorce laws required one or both spouses to be at fault, millions of couples seeking a divorce simply lied about it. They either concocted a story together, or one of them falsely accused the other one of adultery or cruelty or whatever in order to qualify for a divorce. It created a mockery of the law, encouraged an adversarial relationship between the divorcing parties, and was even harder on the children ("Johnny, tell the man that you saw daddy kissing that other lady.") Do you really think it would be better to return to that? What changes do you propose to make in divorce laws?

and the traditional role-model of the male bread-winner is preferable to one where the focus of marriage is the pursuit of sexual fulfillment.

I don't understand this. How are those two characteristics in conflict? Why can't a man be both the breadwinner in a marriage, and focused on pursuing sexual fulfillment. Why can't either or both partners be a breadwinner and pursue sexual fulfillment? In fact, in most marriages today, both spouses work, and presumably both seek sexual fulfillment. What's wrong with that?

...is it hypocritical to think Bills of Attainder are wrong, but that elections for governor are ok? Is it hypocritical to assign some decisions to the ballot box and some to the court system?

No, it's not hypocritical at all. That some decisions (for example, who gets into office) are assigned directly to the ballot box; other decisons (what sort of laws get passed) are assigned indirectly to the ballot box; and yet other decisons (who gets convicted, or acquitted, under the law; which laws are upheld, or overturned) are assigned to the courts, is a normal and necessary feature of our checked-and-balanced system of government. The provisions against Bills of Attainder and ex post facto in Article I, Section 9 are examples of check, in that they close off two avenues by which the legislative branch can attack the judicial and executive branches, or the people: by back-dating the law ( ex post facto) so as to second-guess the other branches or the people, or by targeting a law (Bill of Attainder) so as to decide a case, harangue the executive, or persecute an individual. In other words, this part of the Constitution provides for some predictability in the body of law that the legislative branch produces,that the other branches have to dispose of, and that the people suffer.

Another bright and sunny day here in demographically imploding Old Europe. In fact, I saw a small implosion on my way to work this morning.

Looks like I'm way off topic now, but I wanted to address something Thorley brought up (12:53 pm): Citizen Smash a.k.a. IndePundit vis-a-vis CalPundit.

I'm not familiar with Smash, but I'll take a look. Don't know how/when you and I would be able to compare notes, however. I assume I can find you over at Tacitus.

And since I'm all rested and feeling frisky, I'd suggest to Stephen that he might want to put the brakes on extrapolating from personal experience to universal truths. Maybe, just maybe, 'two of the most liberal communities in the U.S.' represent self-selection of sorts, and maybe the liberals he disdains choose to live there in droves - though I'm reluctant to grant, even hypothetically, his premise about their behavior. There are plenty of us out there who don't come close to the caricature.

Cheers,

Bernard Yomtov wrote:

Well, Thorley, I actually understood that. I mistakenly thought that when you referred to them as "archaic" you meant they were largely unenforced. I guess not. That you and your pals want them enforced is all the more reason that eliminating them is a legitimate objective.

I of course said no such thing. There is a world of difference between saying that (a) sodomy laws are a good thing to have on the books and should be enforced, (b) sodomy laws may or may not be a good thing but removing them isn’t a high priority compared to other more pressing issues since they are rarely enforced, and (c) sodomy laws may be bad, but the decision to remove them ought be left at the State rather than federal level. I tend to lean towards (c) myself. Neither position incidentally disqualifies the laws from being “archaic” and they still were “largely unenforced” as Rex correctly pointed out. The rest of your passage about me and my supposed “pals” is simply you setting up a straw man.

I wrote (emphasis added):

With the exception of challenging some archaic sodomy laws the identity politics movement has largely been about putting restrictions on other people’s freedom such as freedom of association (e.g. the BSA and that fellow who was being sued by the ACLU) and property rights.

Note that nowhere is marriage even referenced the in relevant passage. Not that is stopped Bernard Yomtov from trying to come back with:

I didn't confuse a damn thing. You're just trying to scramble away from your own words.

Thorley Winston:

and (c) sodomy laws may be bad, but the decision to remove them ought be left at the State rather than federal level. I tend to lean towards (c) myself.

The Court found that sodomy laws violate the federal Constitution. Federal law always overrides state law. The judiciary has not only the power but the duty to strike down state laws that violate federal law.

... they still were “largely unenforced” as Rex correctly pointed out.

The fact that they were largely unenforced is largely irrelevant. The primary harm caused by those laws was not their direct enforcement, but their indirect effects on the legal and social status of gay people more broadly. I explained this in an earlier post.

Thorley Winston:

Nope, I stand by my words particularly since the ones in question were in reference to assault by the identity politics movement on freedom of association and private property rights such as in the BSA case.

Why are civil rights for gays an "identitity politics movement" and an "assault" on "freedom of association and private property rights," but not civil rights for racial minorities or religious minorities? Or are you also opposed to the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s? You think racial segregation in the South should still be legal, do you?

Thorley,

I set up no straw man.

You're being dishonest about what you said. You claim the "identity rights" movement was mostly concerned with interfering with freedom of association. The fact is that gay marriage, which interferes with no one's rights of association, has been a big part of the "identity rights" movement's agenda.

That means your statement is simply false. The movement's agenda was NOT mostly concerned with limiting freedom of association.

That YOU chose not to mention gay marriage just means that you are willing to ignore the obvious if it doesn't support your point of view.

This is plain dishonesty.

Bernard Yomtov wrote:

I set up no straw man.

You're being dishonest about what you said.

No, I’m not. I’ve just stood by what I have actually written rather than trying to defend your misreading and distortion of my original post.

You claim the "identity rights" movement was mostly concerned with interfering with freedom of association.

Yes, I did and I provided two examples of them interfering with freedom of association and private property rights – the BSA case and the case of the ACLU threatening to sue a fellow for refusing to rent a room to a homosexual “couple.”

The fact is that gay marriage, which interferes with no one's rights of association, has been a big part of the "identity rights" movement's agenda.

That means your statement is simply false. The movement's agenda was NOT mostly concerned with limiting freedom of association.

That YOU chose not to mention gay marriage just means that you are willing to ignore the obvious if it doesn't support your point of view.

This is plain dishonesty.

So, someone like Instapundit is simon-pure? Or Sully? Or many other conservative bloggers I could name?
Puhhleeze.

Has it occured to anyone else that the failure to come to a consensus conclusion of what "liberals" do versus what "conservatives" do is a result of the fact that we are trying to attribute general behavior to ridiculously large groups?

If 100 million people identify with a group, many of whom have completely divergent viewpoints about any numbers of issues, how can we speak in general about the group? I find the whole discussion of whether or not liberals or conservatives post inappropriate comments more often to be patently absurd.

Take, for example, the poster who stated that, in his considered opinion, liberals tend to distort the truth more often than conservatives. Does anyone, for a moment, consider this to be a scientific or reasoned reaction? This statement, while undoubtedly true - the poster does hold that opinion - doesn't comment on objective reality, since there are any number of liberals who would gladly advocate the opposite view.

Look, there are jackasses and reasonable people among republicans and democrats. If we're after reasoned, rational discourse, isn't it prudent to ignore the jackasses and engage the reasonable people?

Just a thought...
Sam

Well, in the words of the Vice President, "go fuck yourself."

How pathetic is your mewling! These comments are nothing to be offended by.
Complaining about a COMMENTS section? Get real. There will always be someone, on the left, right or middle, who will try to provoke and offend (although these examples you point out are nothing like that).
Stiffen your spine, inhale, exhale. It's O.K.

Comments are Closed.