Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

October 26, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

TOO FAST?....Mickey Kaus objects to Andrew Sullivan's claim that New Jersey's Supreme Court "had no logical option but to apply its equal protection clause to everybody" when it unanimously decided that the state couldn't deny gay couples the same benefits that it gives to everyone else:

[T]he breathtaking speed with which this sort of radical cultural change has gone from being unmentioned to being a litmus test for all "logical" people is one of the things that worries ordinary voters and turns them into cultural conservatives.

I dunno. The Stonewall riots happened in 1969. Domestic partnership laws started springing up in the 70s and 80s. Sullivan wrote "Here Comes the Groom," an article for the New Republic that defended gay marriage, in 1989. The Hawaii Supreme Court ruled in 1993 that the state needed to show a "compelling state interest" in order to continue denying gay people the right to marry. Vermont passed a civil union law in 2000. Currently, we're in the year 2006.

Is this "breathtaking speed"? It doesn't seem like it to me, unless you want to make the case that broad social changes literally shouldn't happen until every generation that objects to them has died off. But where would that leave the Feiler Faster Thesis?

Kevin Drum 10:16 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (105)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

If you can't accept that the other side's view that it is "breathtaking speed", then why should cultural conservatives accept anything you feel?

No common ground.

Posted by: Guy Banister on October 26, 2006 at 10:21 PM | PERMALINK

For what it's worth, I didn't expect to see gay marriage in North America until the 2020s; I was wrong.

Posted by: Linus on October 26, 2006 at 10:23 PM | PERMALINK

poor little Kaus, standing astride the railroad tracks of progress, imploring the train to stop.

Posted by: cleek on October 26, 2006 at 10:24 PM | PERMALINK

Our beloved institution of slavery was taken from us with breathtaking speed as well, God rest its memory.

Posted by: Colonel Beauregard on October 26, 2006 at 10:26 PM | PERMALINK

Mickey, remember what Everett Dirksen said about "an idea whose time has come?"

Posted by: BroD on October 26, 2006 at 10:29 PM | PERMALINK

I'm pretty much absolutely sure that the only people in the world that read Mickey Kaus are you and that guy from Lawyers, Guns and Money.

Posted by: norbizness on October 26, 2006 at 10:30 PM | PERMALINK

We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct-action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant 'Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."

-Martin Luther King Jr.
"Letter from Birmingham Jail"

Posted by: Old Hat on October 26, 2006 at 10:34 PM | PERMALINK

Mickey Kaus objects!? Because he speaks for ordianry voters!!? Well, if he has a problem with it, it must be a good idea!!! And I know, because I'm a conservative!!!!

Posted by: Culture of Truth on October 26, 2006 at 10:35 PM | PERMALINK

Mickey's editor seems to read his columns occasionally.

Posted by: coldhotel on October 26, 2006 at 10:36 PM | PERMALINK

"But where would that leave the Feiler Faster Thesis?"

Awesome. Mickey should like that one.

Posted by: Jim E. on October 26, 2006 at 10:36 PM | PERMALINK

What's breathtaking is that anyone notes, much less care, what that poser Mickey Kaus says about anything.

He practices spaghetti punditry. He just throws shit against the wall hoping something sticks.

Posted by: Keith G on October 26, 2006 at 10:47 PM | PERMALINK

Taking the anthropological long view, the span of human history when the marriage of two males or two females has seemed a proper matter for discussion in mixed company has been relatively short.

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on October 26, 2006 at 10:48 PM | PERMALINK

This and issues like it go to the role Christianity will assume in our political life in this century. It is an epic battle, particularly highly pitched right now because it has just been loosed beyond our own shores.

Three decades is only the beginning...

Posted by: Irfo on October 26, 2006 at 10:55 PM | PERMALINK

What's the problem?
Here it is:
Mickey
Thinks it's icky.

Posted by: Susie from Philly on October 26, 2006 at 10:56 PM | PERMALINK

Don't respond to Mickey, it just encourages him.

Posted by: keptsimple on October 26, 2006 at 11:00 PM | PERMALINK

Kaus wrote an illogical post at odds with reality? Has the world gone topsy-turvy? Next thing you know, he'll be sitting around all day thinking up ways to criticize Democrats.

Posted by: Kiril on October 26, 2006 at 11:09 PM | PERMALINK

Personally, I don't see any reason why the state should distinguish between heterosexual and homosexual couples. I also don't see a reason why the state shouldn't give legal recognition to larger groups. Perhaps that's because I view marriage as a contract and little more, thanks to spending the past eight years in an environment where casual sex is the norm, and couples cohabitate well before marriage, and religion is ignored. Perhaps it's the result of reading too much Heinlein. And for certain it's the result of our ridiculous divorce rate.

I don't, however, view marriage as a "right", any more than I view employer-provided health care as a "right". The state isn't telling same-sex couples that they can't go to a (Unitarian, etc.) church and get married; it's telling them "we don't care." Legal recognition of marriage is a privilege, and employee partner health benefits are a privilege. The meaning of "rights" has been twisted to the point where the right to an abortion means that the state has to help pay for it (or so said the CA supreme court). You've basically made the term meaningless. Hell, the majority of the country thinks abortion should be (mostly) legal, but they're still not comfortable with it as an absolute inviolable right, as the feminists assert.

I think it's stupid to talk about rights, because there are so many better arguments for gay marriage that might actually work on moderates. Like, say, the value of long-term emotional committment, the importance of a family for raising children, the economic benefit that comes with offering benefits to same-sex partners (the business community likes that one). Pitch it as a way to integrate gays into the rest of the community, as Andrew Sullivan has for years. The average moderate voters may think gay marriage is a weird idea, but if you point out that the nice young doctor and his boyfriend who live down the street are already de facto married, they might change their minds.

There's an Onion headline from a few years back that said something like "Gay Pride Parade Sets Back Gay Rights By A Decade." This is pretty much the same deal.

Posted by: Nat on October 26, 2006 at 11:27 PM | PERMALINK

If you can't accept that the other side's view that it is "breathtaking speed", then why should cultural conservatives accept anything you feel?


If they can't accept that this isn't all that fast why shouldn't we say cultural conservatism is a medical disorder?

Posted by: cld on October 26, 2006 at 11:35 PM | PERMALINK

The reason the change is happening with "breathtaking speed" is because the American people themselves -- on this issue -- are turning AWAY from being cultural conservatives, for the simple reason that there is an absolutely gigantic difference in opinion between different age groups on this issue (tremendously greater than the age-group difference on any other known political issue in America), and the old farts who oppose gay marriage and/or civil unions are now dying off. As I speak, I'm looking at a 2003 Washington Post poll showing that people over 65 oppose gay marriage by 80-20, while those under 30 support it by 64-36.

Posted by: Bruce Moomaw on October 26, 2006 at 11:36 PM | PERMALINK

they might change their minds.

They might indeed. But then there is the influence of the various churches and as long as a significant number of my country men can be convinced that they are the servants of a homophobic sky god, the road ahead remains bumpy.

Posted by: Keith G on October 26, 2006 at 11:38 PM | PERMALINK

Thank God for defenders of marriage, and hence of the civilization and indeed the humanity, like Rush and Bush, without whose moral leadership the humanity will be quickly reduced to the rubbleheap of history.

Posted by: gregor on October 26, 2006 at 11:49 PM | PERMALINK

Kaus uses this argument to cover up the fact that he's a HUGE Erasure fan.

This is more common than people think.

Posted by: DonkeyKong on October 26, 2006 at 11:52 PM | PERMALINK

Mickey's editor seems to read his columns occasionally.

Then why doesn't he edit the goddam drivel? Oh yeah, I forgot, it's Slate.

Anyway, the real question here is, does Kaus really want to begin another neurosis-baring episode like his "Brokeback Mountain" obsession? He came out of that jihad looking even more pathetic and broken down than he already did.

Posted by: sglover on October 26, 2006 at 11:53 PM | PERMALINK

Nat wrote: " don't, however, view marriage as a 'right'"

You'll have to take that up with the U.S. Supreme Court, then, Nat, because they have ruled more than once that that is precisely what marriage is.

Posted by: PaulB on October 27, 2006 at 12:07 AM | PERMALINK

And Nat, when we're talking about a case before court, of course we talk about fundamental rights. Why wouldn't we? That does not preclude also talking about the other things you mention in other situations and in other forums.

Posted by: PaulB on October 27, 2006 at 12:09 AM | PERMALINK

Rumsfeld melts down!

And we are discussing this?

Posted by: gregor on October 27, 2006 at 12:17 AM | PERMALINK

Slate? I'm sorry. Whenever they present themselves, they seem to be immature and not to have subjected themselves to either self-criticism or outside criticism. It's all pretty weak.

Separation of church and state. We have social laws against poligamy or under-age marriage, etc. Beyond this the constitution says "all (wo)men are created equal".

Any church can marry who they like. Roman Catholic France has had civil marriage on the same legal level as church marriage since when? The churches act on behalf of the state in marrying people. It would be more legalistic to have all marry under the state, then marry at church if couples felt that was needed. Church marriage is a designated state privilege to churches, not the other way around.

So, if any two people want to get married within the laws and contracts of this country, yeah, let them. If any church wants to refuse them, that's fine too.

I just don't understand the "christian" --accepting, forgiving, non-judgemental -- fuss.

Posted by: notthere on October 27, 2006 at 12:28 AM | PERMALINK

The reason the change is happening with "breathtaking speed" is because the American people themselves -- on this issue -- are turning AWAY from being cultural conservatives, for the simple reason that there is an absolutely gigantic difference in opinion between different age groups on this issue

I think that you're forgetting that there is a countervailing migration from liberalism to conservatism as an age cohort matures. As people age we see transformations on a number of political issues. It would be interesting to see a longitudinal study on attitudes towards gay marriage as the subjects mature and go through various life changes. Will their liberal attitudes hold?

Posted by: TangoMan on October 27, 2006 at 12:36 AM | PERMALINK

...Thank God for defenders of marriage, and hence of the civilization and indeed the humanity, like Rush and Bush, without whose moral leadership the humanity will be quickly reduced to the rubbleheap of history.

Posted by: gregor on October 26, 2006 at 11:49 PM | PERMALINK

You know, homosexuality has been around since..? when, exactly. Thinking this is some modern undermining of society is pure crap. So, given that society has survived despite and, sometimes, because of homosexuality renders this "fear" argument valueless.

WHAT Are You Frightened Of?

Posted by: notthere on October 27, 2006 at 12:38 AM | PERMALINK

gregor wrote: "Thank God for defenders of marriage, and hence of the civilization and indeed the humanity, like Rush and Bush, without whose moral leadership the humanity will be quickly reduced to the rubbleheap of history."

LOL... Great parody.

Posted by: PaulB on October 27, 2006 at 12:42 AM | PERMALINK

There's only one puzzle here: why does Kevin continue to read Mickey Kaus?

I stopped around September 2004, when I decided that Kaus' attacks on Kerry were utterly partisan and stupid.

Posted by: Amit Joshi on October 27, 2006 at 12:44 AM | PERMALINK

notthere, given gregor's previous posts here at PA, I am thinking that the quote you are focusing on was sarcastic in origin.

Posted by: Keith G on October 27, 2006 at 12:44 AM | PERMALINK

Mickey Kaus has the same disease Andrew Sullivan is only slowly recovering from: contrarianism. Take a broadly intuitive idea - like decency to minorties - and throw cold water on it. You get to appear fresh and non-pc, and prove to conservatives that you're hip in the way they like.

Posted by: walt on October 27, 2006 at 1:04 AM | PERMALINK

Who is this Mickey Kaus non-entity of whom you speak?

Really, who gives a flying fuck what Mickey Kaus thinks. i forget he even exists until I am reminded of that unpleasant fact on this blog every now and then.

Posted by: Global Citizen on October 27, 2006 at 1:06 AM | PERMALINK

I don't normally agree with anything Kaus has to say but on this he is right. The whole gay marriage think has come out of left field these last two years and its a HUGE deal to the majority of americans not in the beltway or the green rooms of the country.

Posted by: patience on October 27, 2006 at 1:09 AM | PERMALINK

I'll defend Kevin. Not that Mickey Kaus isn't a juvenile, irritating, duplicitous troll. He is. But it's appropriate and welcome to put those people up so you can dissect and eviscerate their arguments.

Kevin did a good job of that logically. My only complaint would be: don't link to Kaus. Just quote him, or link to someone else who links to him. Make him an example, but don't feed him traffic.

Posted by: glasnost on October 27, 2006 at 1:13 AM | PERMALINK

notthere, given gregor's previous posts here at PA, I am thinking that the quote you are focusing on was sarcastic in origin.

Posted by: Keith G on October 27, 2006 at 12:44 AM | PERMALINK

Yeah, probably so. Just get sucked in by that rightwing rhetoric and fotget to sarcasm check.

Even so, I just don't see the argument. And I'm not gay although some of my best friends . . . .

What's with the fear. And what is not right about 2 people entering a marriage contract. If a church doesn't want to "marry" them, that's their choice.

This whole thing argument is crap. Just like birth control, abortion, evolution, etc. It's fundamentalist religious goofs telling other people, and their own kids, how life is not!

Posted by: notthere on October 27, 2006 at 1:28 AM | PERMALINK

What is not right about a brother and sister entering a marriage contract? If a church doesn't want to "marry" them, that's their choice. This whole incest argument is crap!

Posted by: NAMBLA Next! on October 27, 2006 at 1:37 AM | PERMALINK

This whole thing argument is crap. Just like birth control, abortion, evolution, etc. It's fundamentalist religious goofs telling other people, and their own kids, how life is not!

You are absolutely right. What's worse in when you stand up to these... err...wonderful folk, you get accused of attacking god and being mean to those poor 'lil christians.

Posted by: Keith G on October 27, 2006 at 1:39 AM | PERMALINK

I just want to state, for the record, that I don't give a flying fuck what Mickey Kaus thinks.

Posted by: Tom DC/VA on October 27, 2006 at 1:43 AM | PERMALINK

I'm actually glad this battle is won. I just hope this doesn't hurt the Democrats' chances of taking back Congress. We should definitely target "age of consent" laws are next!

Posted by: NAMBLA Next! on October 27, 2006 at 1:44 AM | PERMALINK

Kaus is making a political argument, not a moral or legal or sociological one. The title and subtitle of his article are:

Why Fear Gay Marriage?
Not because you fear gay marriages!

Kaus argues that gay marriage is an issue that will favor Republicans rather than Democrats. Republicans seem to agree: The New York Times reports today:

Wednesdays ruling, in which the New Jersey Supreme Court decided that gay couples are entitled to the same legal rights and financial benefits as heterosexual couples, had immediate ripple effects, especially in Senate races in some of the eight states where voters are considering constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage.

President Bush put a spotlight on the issue while campaigning in Iowa, which does not have a proposal on the ballot. With the Republican House candidate, Jeff Lamberti, by his side, Mr. Bush who has not been talking about gay marriage in recent weeks took pains to insert a reference into his stump speech warning that Democrats would raise taxes and make America less safe...

Oh, and the polls seem to be saying that the US public is 60% to 35% against gay marriage.

Posted by: JS on October 27, 2006 at 1:55 AM | PERMALINK

It doesn't make sense that Micky Kaus is against gay marriage. He has dated Ann Coulter in the past.

Posted by: gregor on October 27, 2006 at 1:56 AM | PERMALINK

That NYTimes quote should have included this part:

Yesterday in New Jersey, we had another activist court issue a ruling that raises doubts about the institution of marriage, Mr. Bush said...
Posted by: JS on October 27, 2006 at 2:01 AM | PERMALINK

...This whole incest argument is crap!

Posted by: NAMBLA Next! on October 27, 2006 at 1:37 AM | PERMALINK

I guess you didn't read what I said at 12:28 a.m.

We have laws that make sense. Like poligamy, under-age sex, and, yes, genetic relational sex.

If the last made no difference to effective procreation, I dare say religion and society would have not come up with laws against it. However it does and they have.

Idiot!

Posted by: notthere on October 27, 2006 at 2:04 AM | PERMALINK

I support gay marriage.

So do fully 35 % of the electorate.

Thus, I hope that every state passes very quickly an anti-gay marriage amendment, and this issue is taken off the table.

I blame the gay marriage wackos. Instead of working slowly, they decided in 2002-2003 to go for broke. 3000-4000 were illegally married in SF by Gavin Newsome.

You could hear people in my area (midwest) freaking out.

SO, gay marriage wackos are entirely reponsible for the current problems of the issue.

No moderation anymore.

Posted by: POed Lib on October 27, 2006 at 2:10 AM | PERMALINK

...No moderation anymore.

Posted by: POed Lib on October 27, 2006 at 2:10 AM | PERMALINK

I don't know how old you are, or others that have posted similarly, but this has been coming at least since the 1970s.

Like Martin Luther King said, paraphrasing, "How slowly you want to go?"

It's only the antis who think it goes too fast!

Posted by: notthere on October 27, 2006 at 2:35 AM | PERMALINK

Honestly, homosexuality revolts me. But my personal feelings are irrelevant. Homosexuals are U.S. citizens and are entitled to equal protection under the law. End of story.

Posted by: trublu on October 27, 2006 at 5:10 AM | PERMALINK

Let me not to the marriage of true minds
Admit impediments; love is not love
Which alters when it alteration finds,
Or bends with the remover to remove:
O, no, it is an ever-fixd mark,
That looks on tempests and is never shaken;
It is the star to every wand'ring bark,
Whose worth's unknown, although his heighth be taken.
Love's not Time's fool, though rosy lips and cheeks
Within his bending sickle's compass come;
Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks,
But bears it out even to the edge of doom.
If this be error and upon me proved,
I never writ, nor no man ever loved.

Posted by: Wm. Shakespeare on October 27, 2006 at 6:47 AM | PERMALINK

Posted by: Old Hat on October 26, 2006 at 10:34 PM | PERMALINK

WOW! Now THAT was an apposite post. You rock.

Posted by: brooksfoe on October 27, 2006 at 7:16 AM | PERMALINK

What is not right about a brother and sister entering a marriage contract?

I'm so fucking sick of this toddler-level "argument". If these shitheads actually think such an argument is likely to be upheld by a court somewhere, why don't they fucking bring a case and see what happens? The court will uphold the incest laws and strike down the anti-gay-marriage laws, and that'll be that.

Posted by: brooksfoe on October 27, 2006 at 7:23 AM | PERMALINK

the old farts who oppose gay marriage and/or civil unions are now dying off. As I speak, I'm looking at a 2003 Washington Post poll showing that people over 65 oppose gay marriage by 80-20, while those under 30 support it by 64-36.

Unfortunately, Bruce, that over-65 cohort is now likely, due to improved health care technology, to continue consuming oxygen and voting against gay marriage for decades.

Posted by: brooksfoe on October 27, 2006 at 7:26 AM | PERMALINK

I'm actually glad this battle is won. I just hope this doesn't hurt the Democrats' chances of taking back Congress. We should definitely target "age of consent" laws are next!

Personally, I think we should legalize forced sterilization.

Posted by: Ack Ack Ack Ack on October 27, 2006 at 7:27 AM | PERMALINK

The change has seemed pretty fast to me. If memory serves, When Bush Sr. was running for President, he fired a staffer for being gay (and hence in violation of his policies) and no one even blinked. A mere four years later, in the Dole campaign, a gay staffer was was made a huge issue of, and Dole had to make an actual announcement that he wouldn't be fired. Maybe I'm misremembering, but that seemed really big: to go in four years from homophobia being a matter of course to being something that could actually hurt your Presidential chances.

Posted by: Cowboy Dave on October 27, 2006 at 7:29 AM | PERMALINK

And thanks for that beautiful Shakespeare, rea. Brought a tear to my eye.

This issue really *really* bugs me, because it's causing an internal war. My political tactician self is *furious* at the NJSC for dropping this bombshell less than two weeks before the election, when it easily could've waited until after the term. My civil libertarian self is mildly annoyed at the majority for opting for "separate but equal" and taking marriage off the table.

And the compromise isn't very satisfying -- because the right wing is going to demagogue the shit out of it as more work from "activist judges" even while the decision merely directed the legislature to find whatever way was politically palatable to foster equal rights.

What do we do? This is doubtless going to energize some wingnuts and counter the Foley Effect. Also, anti-gay marriage voters are especially easy to microtarget for GOTV.

I honestly don't know how this is going to change the dynamic at this point ... but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't worried.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on October 27, 2006 at 7:33 AM | PERMALINK

AIDS has been a driving force in all this. When thousands of gay people began dying every year from AIDS it was no longer possible to pretend that homosexuality doesn't exist. And the "Long Time Companions" of those dying from AIDS quickly discovered that they had no spousal rights regarding medical treatment or even visitation and no spousal survivor rights to pensions and social security. It was at that point that the idea of gay marriage became a necessity.

Posted by: beb on October 27, 2006 at 8:47 AM | PERMALINK

Kaus puts the "men" in menopause.

Posted by: Fred on October 27, 2006 at 8:53 AM | PERMALINK

"AIDS has been a driving force in all this. When thousands of gay people began dying every year from AIDS it was no longer possible to pretend that homosexuality doesn't exist. And the "Long Time Companions" of those dying from AIDS quickly discovered that they had no spousal rights regarding medical treatment or even visitation and no spousal survivor rights to pensions and social security. It was at that point that the idea of gay marriage became a necessity."


Thank you, beb, for pointing out one of the often-missed arguments about this issue. I personally don't care if they call it marriage or civil unions. There is a legal necessity for giving committed couples some legal rights including those regarding children, illnesses, and insurance needs. Let the religious people continue to believe what they want about marriage and sin. As long as we don't live in a theocracy, they have a right to their beliefs, they just can't impose them on the rest of us.

Posted by: lce on October 27, 2006 at 9:24 AM | PERMALINK

Kaus is, as usual, a jackass. "Radical cultural change"? To allow a few other people to marry, who had not been permitted to marry before? How is that "radical"?

Posted by: raj on October 27, 2006 at 9:27 AM | PERMALINK

Honestly, trublu, you revolt me. I'm glad you agree I'm a citizen though.

Posted by: Neil on October 27, 2006 at 9:37 AM | PERMALINK

Mickey, let me tell you about breathtaking speed: when I was young, around 1976, all the old war movies said the way we knew we were the good guys was that we adhered to the Geneva Convention. When Iron Eagle was made, in 1986, the way you knew the unspecified Middle Eastern tyrant, played by David Suchet, was evil was that he had his guards slap the captured American pilot around a bit. If I had told you and other "cultural conservatives" as late as 1996, that you openly would sneer to each other about the Geneva Convention, vote to torture prisoners, and vote for a Congress to pass a law making it all retroactively legal, you'd have accused me of being a hysterical lefty who believed in straw-man horror stories of conservative evil. That you would never do that.

And now it's 2006, and you did it all in less than five years. That's breathtaking speed.

Posted by: derek on October 27, 2006 at 10:17 AM | PERMALINK

Is this "breathtaking speed"? It doesn't seem like it to me, unless you want to make the case that broad social changes literally shouldn't happen until every generation that objects to them has died off. But where would that leave the Feiler Faster Thesis?

Well, it seems fast not necessarily because change shouldn't happen so quickly, but because it so frequently doesn't. Jim Crow laws took roughly 100 years to be overruled. A significant fraction of the country (a bare majority? Or just a plurality?) opposes evolution, almost 150 years after "The Origin of the Species" was published. Hell, in an admittedly less-serious but much longer-term example, didn't the Catholic Church only admit about 10 years ago that they handled that whole Galileo kerfluffle badly? So to go from vague and half-serious advocacy of gay marriage to full-fledged legal recognition in 30 years would be fast indeed. (Well, if we had gone that far already. Which we haven't.)

Posted by: Cyrus on October 27, 2006 at 10:45 AM | PERMALINK

The sooner all of us right thinking people stop paying attention (beyond a "know thy enemy" level) to what idiots like Kaus and Sullivan write about anything, the better off we'll all be.

Posted by: JeffII on October 27, 2006 at 11:13 AM | PERMALINK

Mickster-narcissist you are so I know you're reading these comments, therefore:

Remember the lovable village idiot on the old Andy Griffith show (Goober?)-that's you. Except for the lovable part.

Posted by: Martin on October 27, 2006 at 11:17 AM | PERMALINK

If you can't accept that the other side's view that it is "breathtaking speed", then why should cultural conservatives accept anything you feel?
No common ground. Posted by: Guy Banister

Duh. But explain to me beyond something like roasting babies alive for food, what "common ground" should I want to share with cultural conservatives? No mixed race marriages? Pat Boone? White socks with dark suits? Banning The Catcher in the Rye?

Posted by: JeffII on October 27, 2006 at 11:18 AM | PERMALINK

Nat: I don't, however, view marriage as a 'right'

PaulB: You'll have to take that up with the U.S. Supreme Court, then, Nat, because they have ruled more than once that that is precisely what marriage is.

Specifically in 1967's Loving v. Virginia, which ruled that anti-miscgenation laws were unconstitutional, partly on the basis that:

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law.

Posted by: Stefan on October 27, 2006 at 11:45 AM | PERMALINK

Gays don't get it... WE DONT WANT IT IN OUR FACES.

My god, the unconscious hysterical represssion in that sentence....I hesitate to ask where, since he doesn't want it in his face, he really does want it....

Posted by: Stefan on October 27, 2006 at 11:48 AM | PERMALINK

Bob wrote: "Dems are going to lose if they keep pushing the gay marriage act."

Bob, please show me the "Dems" who are "pushing the gay marriage act," because as far as I know, no such Democratic politician or pundit exists.

"THE MAINSTREAM is terrified of gay men preying on their children."

Oh, garbage. 50 years ago, you could say something like this; today, it's not even remotely true by any reasonable definition of "THE MAINSTREAM."

"Gays don't get it... WE DONT WANT IT IN OUR FACES."

Oh, we get it all right: you're an ignorant bigot.

"WE WANT IT IN THE CLOSET - and keep your fucking hands off our teenagers"

Q.E.D.

Posted by: PaulB on October 27, 2006 at 11:49 AM | PERMALINK

Lord, I hope that dear Bob is either a troll or a parody. I mean, what can you say to someone so deranged? You just have to shake your head and move on.

Posted by: PaulB on October 27, 2006 at 11:51 AM | PERMALINK

Well, I guess I'm an ignorant bigot as well. I have one toe in the democratic party, because I am virulently anti war and anti Israel. That toe will be withdrawn should the homosexual activists begin flexing their muscles.

Hmmm, an anti-Semite AND a homophobe. Yeah, you know, I really don't think the Democratic Party is the place for you. Enjoy the Republicans -- you'll fit right in.

That toe will be withdrawn should the homosexual activists begin flexing their muscles.

Oh dear. "Flexing their muscles"? Is it me, or are the most virulent homophobes always the most repressed queens? Can they ever write a sentence that doesn't unconsciously reek of the cheapest gay porn?

Posted by: Stefan on October 27, 2006 at 11:59 AM | PERMALINK

Bob, you are such an idiot that you don't realize the closet is exactly what creates and enables men like Foley. It's sad and pathetic.

Posted by: Neil on October 27, 2006 at 12:02 PM | PERMALINK

I'm a woman you fucking fag

Excuse me. I should have been able to tell from the grace and charm of your writing that you were indeed a lady.

Posted by: Stefan on October 27, 2006 at 12:06 PM | PERMALINK

This reminds me of a scene from a movie, The American President. At a party a large fat man from Georgia accosts the president (in a polite way) and asks if the president knows what's going on in Georgia. Then he says they are trying to let women play sports and they're cutting funding for the football team. The president says, isn't that the law. And the big fat cracker says, yes, but now they're trying to enforce it.

If change only happened at the pace a Southern Conservative could accept then we'd still have slavery.

That said, I don't care for the idea of 'marriage' being applied to a gay union.

So, what I wonder is, how many of those on the NJ bench who voted for this were Republicans and how many were Democrats and how many who voted against it were R or D?

If they viewed their final vote as cautiously conservative then were they all Conservative criminals who violated the textual meaning of their constitution?

I haven't heard anybody address the idea that this was 'settled' just before the election to have a major effect. Wasn't it just before the 2004 presidential election when we last heard from that court on this issue? Are they all Republicans on that bench?
.

Posted by: MarkH on October 27, 2006 at 12:13 PM | PERMALINK

tj wrote: "Well, I guess I'm an ignorant bigot as well."

Glad we got that out of the way. You certainly aren't going to get an argument from me.

"That toe will be withdrawn should the homosexual activists begin flexing their muscles."

I'm still waiting for examples of all of those Democratic candidates, pundits, and leaders who are pushing the "homosexual agenda," not to mention all of those "homosexual activists" "flexing their muscles."

"I agree with Bob. Keep your perversions private, and don't prey on our kids."

Yup. Ignorant bigot.

Posted by: PaulB on October 27, 2006 at 12:29 PM | PERMALINK

My, what brought the trolls and bigots to this thread?

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

Actually, the U.S. Supreme Court said that.

"[gays men don't reproduce with each other so how can this be fundamental to your existence?]"

Sorry to burst your bubble, but gay men and women reproduce all the time.

I'm not even going to bother addressing the lame "slippery slope" arguments, since the Supreme Court has already addressed those, as well.

Posted by: PaulB on October 27, 2006 at 12:34 PM | PERMALINK

clifford wrote: "Only ignorant bigots want their children protected from the Foley contingent?"

Only ignorant bigots automatically assume that all gay men and women form some sort of "Foley contingent."

"Nambla is a force within the homosexual movement."

Nope, not even close.

"They have a large presence in Pasedena's doodah parade."

And again, nope.

"Nobody on the left spurns their antics."

And again, nope.

Three false statements in a row. Nice.

"If we allow this to continue, the whole country will be reduced to shower room morals."

Allow what to continue? Loving, committed same-sex relationships? Since that is precisely the opposite of "shower room morals," whatever the hell those are, I'm afraid that you really do not have a case.

"You won't hold a majority without condemning the appetites of gay men."

What "appetities" are those, precisely, and why should I condemn them?

"And what I've seen, they are hungry indeed."

Only if you're an ignorant bigot.

Posted by: PaulB on October 27, 2006 at 12:37 PM | PERMALINK

charles wrote: "MarkH tips the hand of the whole party."

LOL.... Only if you're foolish enough to assume that a single blog commenter speaks for the entire Democratic Party.

"Cultural conservatives are all 'fat men from Georgia' in wrinkled suits."

Only if you cannot read. I suggest you take a course in reading comprehension.

"The contempt for middle american values drips from these threads."

Really? What "values" are those? And what "contempt" is being displayed?

"You won't hang on to the majority even if you wrest it from the gopers."

Political fortunes change all the time.

"Your membership has too much hatred for us regular people."

LOL... Since Democrats are themselves "regular people," I'm afraid that this is just another foolish statement to go along with all of the other foolish statements on this thread. Amusing as hell, though.

Posted by: PaulB on October 27, 2006 at 12:40 PM | PERMALINK

So what did bring out the troll brigade? Was this cross-posted somewhere? Or have we just been blessed with a new infestation?

Posted by: PaulB on October 27, 2006 at 12:42 PM | PERMALINK

"WAY TO GO DEMS... AMERICA NEEDS THIS LIKE ANOTHER MIDDLE EASTERN ALLY"

LOL... Yup, all of those Democratic politicians desperately pushing for transgendered rights. All of those dozens of speeches and commercials on their behalf. All of that time campaigning on this issue.... Oh, wait ... none of that has actually happened.

Sheesh... Can we get some smarter trolls, please?

Posted by: PaulB on October 27, 2006 at 12:44 PM | PERMALINK
Well, I guess I'm an ignorant bigot as well.

Correct.

That toe will be withdrawn should the homosexual activists begin flexing their muscles.

Maybe you shouldn't put your toe someplace where it is going to be affected by homosexual activists flexing their muscles?

Posted by: cmdicely on October 27, 2006 at 12:48 PM | PERMALINK
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. [gays men don't reproduce with each other so how can this be fundamental to your existence?]

Marriage is not necessary to reproduction, people can and do reproduce quite easily without marrying, or any other long-term mutual commitment.

Marriage is "fundamental to our very existence and survival" because long-term commitments of mutual support, of which pair-bonds are the most fundamental, are a fundamental building block of society and economy without which the human race, being social animals, would not survive, and marriage is just a name for state-recognized voluntary pair-bonds.

Posted by: cmdicely on October 27, 2006 at 12:55 PM | PERMALINK

How do homosexuals "reproduce", cmdicely?

Posted by: Chuck on October 27, 2006 at 3:46 PM | PERMALINK

The same way you do, Chuckles.

Posted by: PaulB on October 27, 2006 at 4:10 PM | PERMALINK

Marriage for lesbians is a little more realistic than marriage for gay men.

all the gay men I've known have locker room morality, and would fuck road kill if it was still warm.

Posted by: Charlie on October 27, 2006 at 4:41 PM | PERMALINK

tj has a point with that story about transgenders

I'm only visiting the Democratic party because I'm so mad at the neocons. Although I consider myself a libertarian, I don't want transgenders in my bathroom.

I don't want homosexuality any more visible than it is in Indianapolis.

Although I wouldn't put it as strongly as some on this board, I don't like gay morality either.

It's lascivious. And yes, so is that of a lot of straight men. But homosexuality has an ick factor that really turns me off. Especially when lipstick butch types pester straight women in clubs.

Posted by: Georgann on October 27, 2006 at 4:45 PM | PERMALINK
How do homosexuals "reproduce", cmdicely?

The same way that, e.g., heterosexuals in arranged marriages with no attraction for each other have throughout history.

Not, of course, that that's relevant to what I said about whether marriage is necessary to reproduction; so I'm not sure why the question is directed to me in particular.

Posted by: cmdicely on October 27, 2006 at 5:24 PM | PERMALINK
all the gay men I've known have locker room morality, and would fuck road kill if it was still warm.

Have you considered that "all the gay men you know" having that attitude may be a "birds of a feather" problem, and not a valid basis for generalization about gay men that, for instance, don't associate with you?

Posted by: cmdicely on October 27, 2006 at 5:25 PM | PERMALINK
Although I wouldn't put it as strongly as some on this board, I don't like gay morality either.

It's lascivious.

Have you considered that visible gay culture's apparent promiscuity is in large part a direct reaction from the exclusion of homosexuals from marriage, the centerpiece of recognized monogamous commitment in our culture?

Posted by: cmdicely on October 27, 2006 at 5:27 PM | PERMALINK

with less than half of US households consisting of a married man and a woman and half of those ending in divorce i'd say these people have no room to talk about the sanctity of marriage. to this day i have never heard a reasonable explanation as to why my partner and i wanting to participate fully in american society has any bearing whatsoever on someone elses marriage.

if they're so concerned about the institution of marriage then ban divorce and shut the fuck up.

Posted by: david on October 27, 2006 at 6:08 PM | PERMALINK

I would not mind banning divorce too.

Posted by: Chuck on October 27, 2006 at 6:38 PM | PERMALINK

Charlie, trolling for comments, writes: "all the gay men I've known have locker room morality, and would fuck road kill if it was still warm."

I think that says far more about you and the class of people you hang out with than it does about gay men.

Posted by: PaulB on October 27, 2006 at 8:16 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely wrote: "so I'm not sure why the question is directed to me in particular."

Because they think it's a great "gotcha" question and because of your second post on this thread. It never seems to occur to some people that we've seen all these arguments before, ad nauseam, so that of course we have answers for them.

Posted by: PaulB on October 27, 2006 at 8:21 PM | PERMALINK

Georgann wrote: "tj has a point with that story about transgenders"

No, actually, she doesn't, since that story has nothing to do with the Democratic Party, which is the supposed target of her ire.

"I'm only visiting the Democratic party because I'm so mad at the neocons. Although I consider myself a libertarian, I don't want transgenders in my bathroom."

What does thats have to do with the Democratic Party, which has no official position on the subject of transgenders in your bathroom? And if it's your bathroom, I'd say there's a simple solution -- don't let them in. If it's a public bathroom, there's an equally simple solution -- don't use it.

"I don't want homosexuality any more visible than it is in Indianapolis."

There is another simple solution: don't look. But let's take this a step further: why are you objecting to someone else having the same privileges and same "visibility" you enjoy?

"Although I wouldn't put it as strongly as some on this board, I don't like gay morality either."

Since there is no such thing as "gay morality," forgive me if I don't take this complaint seriously. If you mean that you don't like homosexuality, then say so, and proudly wear the title that goes with it.

"It's lascivious."

Oh, garbage. There are all sorts of gay men and women, just as there are all sorts of straight men and women. Some are lascivious, some decidedly are not.

"And yes, so is that of a lot of straight men."

Then what the hell is your point?

"But homosexuality has an ick factor that really turns me off."

LOL.... So that's your reason for wanting to discriminate and wanting to write this discrimination into law? Because you think it's "icky?" Do you really not see how silly that sounds?

"Especially when lipstick butch types pester straight women in clubs."

Oh my, yes, that just happens all the time, doesn't it? Why just look at all those news stories about those straight women accosted. And those hundreds of thousands of women in counseling to deal with the trauma this has caused.

Sheesh....

Posted by: PaulB on October 27, 2006 at 8:33 PM | PERMALINK

"I don't want transgenders in my bathroom.
I don't want homosexuality any more visible than it is in Indianapolis."

Georgann, my grandpa used to say the same thing about niggers. Loudly and frequently, as I recall.

Posted by: Phil on October 28, 2006 at 4:56 AM | PERMALINK

cmdicely,

My question was directed to you, in particular, because two married homosexuals cannot "reproduce" with each other.

Posted by: Chuck on October 28, 2006 at 11:20 AM | PERMALINK

Chuck wrote: "because two married homosexuals cannot 'reproduce' with each other."

Since cmdicely never claimed they could, I'm at a loss to understand why you asked. And even more at a loss since the issue of whether same-sex couples choose to have children, and how they do it if they so choose, is entirely irrelevant to the subject of whether they should be denied the fundamental right to get married.

Posted by: PaulB on October 28, 2006 at 12:41 PM | PERMALINK

I never said cmdicely claimed that. As notthere pointed out, however, we have laws that make sense. Like poligamy, under-age sex, and, yes, genetic relational sex. If the last made no difference to effective procreation, I dare say religion and society would have not come up with laws against it. However it does and they have.

(I will leave off the "Idiot!" part though)

Posted by: Chuck on October 29, 2006 at 8:47 AM | PERMALINK

Chuck wrote: "I never said cmdicely claimed that."

Then why direct the question at cmdicely? For that matter, you still have not bothered to explain just why the question is relevant to this discussion.

"As notthere pointed out, however, we have laws that make sense. Like poligamy, under-age sex, and, yes, genetic relational sex."

None of which have any relevance to the issue of same-sex marriage.

"If the last made no difference to effective procreation, I dare say religion and society would have not come up with laws against it. However it does and they have."

None of this has any relevance to the issue of same-sex marriage.

"(I will leave off the "Idiot!" part though)"

I won't. You're an idiot. You have no justification for your position and you can't even be bothered to try to come up with a position or argument that even remotely makes sense.

Posted by: PaulB on October 29, 2006 at 10:43 AM | PERMALINK

I thought I made it clear. If same-sex marriage made no difference to effective procreation, I dare say religion and society would have not come up with laws against it. However it does and they have.

Posted by: Chuck on October 29, 2006 at 1:08 PM | PERMALINK

Chuckles wrote: "If same-sex marriage made no difference to effective procreation, I dare say religion and society would have not come up with laws against it. However it does and they have."

LOL.... Like I said, you're an idiot. Procreation is not now, nor has it ever been (as far as I know), a requirement for marriage, same-sex or otherwise. Neither the civil nor the religious ceremony require it or even ask about it. Heterosexual couples are never asked whether they will, or even can, have children, and many couples are wed who cannot or will not.

Moreover, as already noted, same-sex couples can and do have and raise children now, and will continue to have and raise children in the future, regardless of whether they are granted the fundamental right of marriage or not, so your whole argument is moot.

In short, you have no case. I repeat: you have no justification for your position and you can't even be bothered to try to come up with a position or argument that even remotely makes sense.

Posted by: PaulB on October 29, 2006 at 5:07 PM | PERMALINK

You can repeat as often as you like.

Posted by: Chuck on October 29, 2006 at 5:18 PM | PERMALINK

性爱图片 十八电影网 美腿图片 强奸图片 祼体写真 美女写真 性感美女图片 做爱小电影 美少女自拍 日本av电影 明星裸照 黄色电影下载 免费色情电影 两性健康 性教育片 激情电影 黄色图片 成人性爱电影 性电影下载 成人电影下载 性爱视频 偷拍图片 泳装美女 性感内衣 性爱贴图 性生活图片 作爱图片 性交视频 做爱电影 性福联盟 人体摄影 裸女图片 乱伦图片 强暴电影 轮奸视频 迷奸图片 免费小电影 免费电影在线 免费影片 最新大片 免费电影下载 免费在线电影 看免费电影 免费电影网站 情色电影 激情视频下载 明星露点图片 激情写真 阴部图片 乳房图片 全裸美女 淫荡小说 淫乱小说 美女脱衣视频 裸体女人 女性手淫图片 波霸美女 美女淫水 阴户阴毛图片 美女图库 美女口交图片 韩国电影 性知识 最新电影 宽带电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 人体艺术 美女图片 美女走光 性教育电影 同志电影 舒淇写真 写真集 性虐待电影 淫书 人体写真 A片下载 毛片 偷窥图片 裸体视频聊天室 成人网站 成人论坛 性爱论坛 变态日本女生 淫女 女大学生 美女下阴图 女性生殖器 操逼操比操屄 激情论坛 三级片 性爱电影 联通铃声下载 联通炫铃 联通彩铃下载 联通手机铃声 中国联通炫铃 联通彩铃 中国联通铃声 联通免费铃声 联通用户铃声 联通cdma铃声 联通和弦铃声 联通mp3铃声 联通特效铃声 联通炫铃下载 联通炫铃网站 联通炫铃业务 联通cdma炫铃 联通手机图片 联通手机炫铃 中国联通彩铃 联通手机彩铃下载 联通彩铃业务 联通彩铃网站 联通免费彩铃 联通cdma彩铃 戴尔笔记本报价 戴尔笔记本电脑价格 戴尔双核笔记本 戴尔电脑网站 戴尔家用电脑 戴尔电脑官方网站 戴尔台式机 戴尔网上订购 戴尔笔记本电脑网上订购 戴尔双核笔记本 戴尔服务器 戴尔电脑公司 戴尔电脑价格 戴尔台式电脑 戴尔手提电脑 戴尔中国 戴尔网站 戴尔笔记本官方网站 戴尔笔记本 戴尔笔记本电脑 dell笔记本电脑 双核笔记本电脑 戴尔笔记本电脑报价 戴尔电脑网上订购 成人贴图 情趣内衣 性生活电影 作爱自拍 艳情图片 性交电影 做爱视频 性福电影 人体艺术 明星合成裸照 裸女贴图 黄色小说 成人小说 乱伦故事 性爱文学 偷拍走光 漂亮美眉 泳装写真 乳罩内裤 美女漏点 两性写真视频 美女阴部 少女乳房 自拍裸照 强奸视频 裸体美女 美女自拍 黄色电影下载 色情图片下载 激情图片 激情小电影 性感写真 淫荡妹妹 做爱小电影 裸露美少女 av美女 色情电影 同志图库 成人视频

Posted by: mmf铃声 on October 29, 2006 at 7:52 PM | PERMALINK

Chuckles, always good for a laugh, writes: "You can repeat as often as you like."

LOL... Is that really the best you can come up with? You cannot come up with a single rational argument and when challenged you come up with a lame response like that? And you expect us to take you seriously? Oh my....

Posted by: PaulB on October 29, 2006 at 8:52 PM | PERMALINK

I don't repeat my justifications, nor do I expect anything from you. You can repeat it is not rational or common sense all you like.

Posted by: Chuck on October 29, 2006 at 9:24 PM | PERMALINK

Winning Online Poker

Posted by: Poker on October 30, 2006 at 4:37 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly