Skip to main content

In 1954, the Supreme Court decided in Brown v. Board of Education that segregation of schools was not allowed. The decision stated, rather bluntly, "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal." Shortly after this victory for the American people, panic ensued. We just couldn't have integration, that's unheard of.

Starting almost immediately, people with institutional power decided there would be campaigns to limit desegregation, to stop its enforcement, to bully people, and everything else. Any tactic you could think of was used. State Democratic legislators passed a number of laws making it more difficult to integrate their schools. Virginia, for example, fought it by using a policy they called massive resistance.

Massive resistance was a policy declared by U.S. Senator Harry F. Byrd, Sr. on February 24, 1956 to unite other white politicians and leaders in Virginia in a campaign of new state laws and policies to prevent public school desegregation after the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision in 1954.[1] Although most of the laws created to implement Massive Resistance were negated by state and federal courts by January 1960, some policies and effects of the campaign against integrated public schools continued in Virginia for many more years.

The kneejerk reaction by Democrats was to avoid enforcement of this new constitutional policy. But it went further than that. One of the most clever tactics used was just shutting down public schools altogether. If there were no public schools, nobody would ever have to be integrated. Blacks could still be denied their full rights as Americans.

When faced with an order to integrate, Prince Edward County closed its entire school system in September 1959 rather than integrate. Prince Edward County was the only school district in the country to resort to such extreme measures. In 1963, schools were ordered to open, and when the Supreme Court agreed in 1964, the supervisors gave in rather than risk prison, and public schools were reopened.[3]

During the interruption in access to Prince Edward's public schools, white students were able to get educated at the Prince Edward Academy, which operated as the de facto school system, enrolling K-12 students at a number of facilities throughout the county. Even after the re-opening of the public schools, the Academy remained segregated, losing its tax-exempt status in 1978. In 1986, it accepted black students. Today it is known as Fuqua School.

Other counties, such as Surry County chose to close only their white schools. White students attended the Surry Academy, and blacks continued to attend the public schools.

99 Democrats in the US Congress signed the Southern Manifesto, saying such things as "The unwarranted decision of the Supreme Court in the public school cases is now bearing the fruit always produced when men substitute naked power for established law."

The document, written by Strom Thurmond (D-Racist) also said, "The original Constitution does not mention education. Neither does the 14th Amendment nor any other amendment. The debates preceding the submission of the 14th Amendment clearly show that there was no intent that it should affect the system of education maintained by the States."

Tactics such as shutting down public schools entirely were talked about for years, until integration was finally fully implemented, to the disdain of many elected officials and Americans, including Democrats.

--

In 1993, the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled in Baehr v. Lewin (also known as Baehr v. Miike) that the state has to show a compelling interest to prohibit the freedom to marry for same sex couples as well as opposite sex couples. This scared people on the left and right. They started to fear that Hawaii would enact same sex marriage and that other states, upon being forced to recognize Hawaii's marriages, would choose to do the same.

In a fit of panic, legislators on both sides of the aisle, people in a position of institutional power, wrote and passed the Defense of Marriage Act, by 1996 - for the purpose of keeping states from recognizing this newly and finally accepted right. The stated purpose of the act was to "amend... the U.S. Code to make explicit what has been understood under federal law for over 200 years; that a marriage is the legal union of a man and a woman as husband and wife, and a spouse is a husband or wife of the opposite sex." It was passed 85-14 in the Senate, 342-67 in the House. A majority of Democrats and Republicans teamed together to prevent gays from having access to the fundamental right to marry. Then Democratic President Bill Clinton reasserted his opinion that he "opposes same sex marriage," and he proceeded to sign the bill that passed with Democratic and Republican support.

This happened after, by the way, he ran in 1992 on what he would say was the most pro-gay candidacy we ever had for President.

The passage of DOMA eliminated any possibility that states would follow along and accept marriage rights for its LGBT citizens. It led to the destruction of that concept for over half a decade, but its proponents said that it preserved marriage.

--

In March 2010, a lesbian teenager named Constance McMillen wanted to attend her prom in Mississippi and bring her girlfriend along. She asked her school and the schoolboard for permission to do so, leading to some very irrational decisions.

McMillen claimed that she had first asked the school principal about bringing a same-sex date to the prom in December 2009, and that he said it was not allowed, due to a concern that pairs of same sex friends who were not in a relationship would buy less expensive couples tickets instead of individual tickets.[12] McMillen said she told him "you can't pretend like there's not gay people at our school, and if you tell people they can't bring a same-sex date, that is discrimination to them."

Two days after this request, in a fit of panic, in order to keep a gay person from attending their high school prom, school officials, people in institutional positions of power, canceled their prom. The school then decided to hold a private prom for students and then banned Constance from attending.

A judge had ruled that canceling the prom or not allowing her to attend it was a clear violation of her first amendment right of expression, but that since a private prom was already being planned, no action would be taken.

They then, under pressure, agreed to let her attend, but instead they held a fake prom in which no one but Constance showed up, and all the heterosexual couples had their own prom, without having to let Constance have her first amendment rights.

--

In August 2010, Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that since marriage is a fundamental right, it applies to gays and lesbians who wish to get married. Judge Walker wrote a 138 page opinion about the importance of the word marriage, its societal and familial effects and the necessity of gay couples to use the word in order to feel validated, socially accepted and stable. It noted that people in positions of institutional power can and do inflict harms upon those of us who are politically powerless and can't do anything about it.

It noted that marriage is so important and intrinsic to American society that taking it away from a group is drastically harmful to that group and that harm extends to their children and families. Judge Walker ruled that it is irrational to exclude gays from marriage.

Shortly after, liberal bloggers/analysts/law professors all over the place - Democratic party supporters in positions of gender and orientation privilege - raise the specter of using their institutional power against the powerless to eliminate marriages entirely, as always, when a gay rights victory is won.

Originally posted to indiemcemopants on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 09:01 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  this is a fantastic follow-up (13+ / 0-)

    to your last diary. Such a thorough and well-reasoned argument. Airtight, really. Reminds me almost of....Judge Walker. Logic, law, human rights are all on your side. As well as simple compassion and human decency.

    To keep our faces turned toward change, and behave as free spirits in the presence of fate, that is strength undefeatable--Helen Keller

    by kareylou on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 09:06:22 PM PDT

  •  The haters got nuthin'! (12+ / 0-)

    I just hear that allowing gays and lesbians to marry is wrong just because! The procreation thing is crap: Calamity Jean and I are childless by choice, but married for over 20 years. I wish the anti-marriage types would all be airlifted somewheres where they might feel more comfortable, and leave the rest of us in peace.

    Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight! Clean Coal Is A Clinker!

    by JeffW on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 09:14:58 PM PDT

  •  Hi -- (5+ / 0-)

    I think you made your point well, but I guess I have a bit of a disconnect here, because in the diary you linked to I see two links to other daily kos diaries.  Is this argument being made to eliminate marriage "all over the place" for real?  I mean, I have not seen it and I am not sure that a few dkos diaries prove that.

    Of course we should not eliminate Marriage to keep gay people from marrying, but how widespread is that actual argument?

    The anti marruage argument I have seen on TV and around the internet was that the judge was biased and the will of the people was overturned but I have not seen any calls for elimination of marriage.

    thanks

  •  hey indie -- don't tase me bro but (7+ / 0-)

    i remember reading an op-ed by Deroshwitcz eons ago that  made the case that the word  "marriage" should be reserved for religious ceremonies and civil unions should be the language appilied to all legal contractual arrangements between two people - straight or gay

    I agree with that -- that was my position before i even read the damn piece  (which I am too lazy to go find right now) nand it remains my position now

    Even before the debate on glbt marriage -- i thought i was a bluurinbg of the first amendment separation of church and atate to use the term marriage for ceremonies/contracts that could be either civil or religious

    you know i am for gay marriage but i do think that the term marriage is so mucked up in the ocntyext of our society that it provides clarity to abandon it

    and truth be told it was this murky double-meaning that gave the religious right all that traction to create unwarranted hysteria and drag the bible all over creation..

    it also creates the tight-rope act that m,any poltical figures  feel they must perform

    Losing the word is not about losing rights imho -- it may in fact be about clarifying rights as secular civil rights that are completely detatched from any religious connotations whatsoever

    my 2 cents

    "....while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." Eugene V. Debs

    by soothsayer99 on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 09:43:31 PM PDT

    •  ps tipped and reced (6+ / 0-)

      because i do totally agree with the tendencies to privatize rather than grant public rights that you mentioned in many examples

      plus i like you :)

      "....while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." Eugene V. Debs

      by soothsayer99 on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 09:45:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Far easier would be (13+ / 0-)

      to make every marriage a civil marriage -- completely separate the civil and religious aspects as is done in several other countries. You go to the proper governmental office and take out the paperwork, get it filled out with supporting documentation, then take it back and get the license. No need for anyone to "officiate" or such -- all the witnessing and such can be done right there. Once you have the license in hand, if you want to have a religious ceremony that's up to you.

      We've really muddied the waters and conflated the civil and religious aspects of marriage by allowing the two to be combined into one neat package. Only by separating the two functions will we be able to make sense of the whole thing.

      "When it gets harder to love, love harder" -- Van Jones, NN10, 7/23/10

      by Cali Scribe on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 10:04:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, every marriage is a civil marriage (6+ / 0-)

          but by allowing the two to be combined has allowed the religionists to conflate the two issues when it comes to marriage equality. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the same arguments were used against interracial marriage, especially with so many churches arguing that the races must remain separate and that sort of rot.

          "When it gets harder to love, love harder" -- Van Jones, NN10, 7/23/10

          by Cali Scribe on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 10:32:24 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I wikied Loving v Virginia last night... (5+ / 0-)

            ...to get the specific date of the case, and I read some of the stuff posted about the lead up to the case that I hadn't quite been aware of before.  Stuff like not only were the interracial couple unable to marry in Virginia because it was illegal, it was also illegal for them to go to another state to get married and come back.  The police apparently were waiting and busted in on them in their Virginia home in hopes of finding the couple having sex, which was also against the law.  The couple's marriage lisence from DC was actually used as evidence against them as it was apparently illegal for them to get married elswhere yet live as if married in Virginia.  They were sentenced to prison for it all.

            And yeah, there was a ton of humans speaking with assumed godly authority to say it was against God for them to be married.  I even read one such statement that said that since different races lived on different continents that we were supposed to understand that that was specifically because God didn't want the races to mix.

            Insane!

          •  I think the relevant phrase is... (3+ / 0-)

            "by the power vested in me by the state of ___, I now pronounce you ___ and ___." (I've included the last two blanks to cover those states that have marriage equality; after all, if a state is going invest said power in a member of the clergy AND provides for marriage equality, then by all means, have at it. I know my rabbi was quite happy to pronounce that phrase for the members of our mostly LGBT congregation while she could.)

            Unfortunately, this is one of those things that sounds like a great idea but for which there is simply NO political will at the moment. In addition there are some obvious ways by which it could be done badly. For instance, there would probably be an equal-protection issue if a state were to withdraw the power to solemnize marriages from members of the clergy and ONLY from members of the clergy. What would have to happen is that it would have to become mandatory to have one's marriage solemnized by a city or county official or by a justice of the peace (an elected or appointed official and therefore already an agent of civil authority) and NOBODY else. I honestly don't know whether there are require a marriage to be solemnized by a civil official, but I somehow doubt it. (If on the other hand, a state will ONLY deputize members of the clergy, then I assume there could be an Establishment Clause argument as that would provide for non-city hall/county seat marriages, but ONLY for those seeking a religious ceremony.)

            When marriage equality became the law in CA, back in May of 2008, Kern County (where Bakersfield is located), tried to make the argument that they didn't have enough staff to handle requests from both gay and straight couples. The county was smacked down rather handily by the State of California. If I remember correctly, they were told that if they had enough staff to perform SOME marriages then they had better do so for anyone who requested it, or else or else they'd better hire some temporary workers to handle the rush.

            As with disposing of civil marriage entirely,  changing the law to require a marriage to be solemnized only by a civil servant sounds great conceptually, but there will be far too much opposition to such a move for it to happen in the US; we're entirely too used to it.

      •  Blame the wedding planners. (0+ / 0-)

        It's high-time they start tweaking wedding ceremonies and put more emphasis on signing the marriage license. We're a nation of convenience so it will likely take a long time to decouple the theatricality and pageantry of the typical American wedding with the legal act of getting married. But if marriage is available to everybody then there really is no need because it will be up to the couple to decide how they want to celebrate their union.

        Oh, blow it out your tubenburbles!

        by jayden on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 01:20:35 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Well, we in the US must be a giant pile... (14+ / 0-)

      ...of stupid then.  Even heavily religious countries like Portugal understand the difference between marriage as a legal status overseen by the state and people's religions.  But here in the US, since we've been too stupid and let religious officials act on behalf of the government in the officiation of marriage lisences, we can't seem to get enough people to remember that there's a difference.

      The only time religion enters into it is when a couple privately include it themselves. I've said it so many times lately: You can stand in a church and "get married" every day for a year, but you won't actually be married until you sign a governmentally issued marriage lisence.  Marriage is not religious, despite our collective delusions to the contrary.

      •  agree absolutely.. n/t (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tnichlsn, Psyche, JeffW

        "....while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." Eugene V. Debs

        by soothsayer99 on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 10:06:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  You seem to confuse (0+ / 0-)

        the fact that Portugal is nominally monolithically Roman Catholic, with the Portuguese being "religious" it seems to me.

        •  The country... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          musing85, Calamity Jean

          ...can't be so predominantly Catholic unless the citizens of that country are religious because -- and I might be surprising you here -- Catholicism is a religion.

          •  When Argentina passed marriage equality (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            musing85, tnichlsn, vacantlook, blueoasis

            it was pointed out that the very fact that the citizens of a country were so overwhelmingly members of just one denomination may have actually made it easier to change the law. President Kirchner pointed out that until the 1880s, only Catholic priests were allowed to solemnize marriages, so the only marriage available there was a Catholic one. As a Jew it irks me not a little bit that the only country I'm aware of (possibly excepting some Islamic nations), which has NO civil marriage is Israel. Not only must you be married by a rabbi, you must be married by an Orthodox rabbi. Israel will recognized civil marriages performed in other countries so the destination of choice for the very large number of Israelis who either don't want a religious ceremony or who don't--or can't--be married by an Orthodox rabbi (and only Orthodoxy is recognized in Israel due to the power of the religious political parties) is Cyprus.

          •  I said (0+ / 0-)

            NOMINALLY Catholic,  not practicing ones! Do you understand the difference?

    •  I guess what scares me about that is (18+ / 0-)

      that is people KNOW marriage is significant. They KNOW that just having the word makes them superior. That's why they wanted to take it away from gays with Prop. 8. The thing is, people who know that the word is so important is not ever, EVER going to give up that word themselves - but they'll damn sure advocate for others to lose the word.

      But you, I mean I obviously know you're not trying to destroy marriage for gays. It's just that it's a very convenient way to do that and when it's people with the power to do that it scares me.

      'Normal' has always been collaborating with injustice. - Tim Wise

      by indiemcemopants on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 10:05:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  you are rigjht.. (7+ / 0-)

        i am just trying to say that there si legitmate argumnent for this that 1) exists independent of gay marriage and 2) is not rooted in homophobia

        but yes as you have said uphread, this issue does generally come up unless it is linked to the gay marriage debate

        "....while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." Eugene V. Debs

        by soothsayer99 on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 10:11:29 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  As I've pointed out several times, (7+ / 0-)

        this nasty trend you're protesting stands to hurt non-religious people, gay and straight, most of all. Disposing of the notion of civil marriage (which is what most of the comments and diaries you're objecting to suggest) renders marriage a religious institution alone--leaving all of us who are not religious out in the cold. So this fabulous "solution" actually does nothing but replace gays and lesbians with nonbelievers in the "not allowed to marry" club.

        In the end, you're standing up for my marriage. Thank you. I promise I'll keep on fighting for yours. (Or your right to get one, ATCMB.)

        •  why? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          soothsayer99

          if you are non-religious, you can create your own non-religious marriage all you want to with whatever traditions please you.

          There's no reason for the government to give you a tax break for it too.

          I wish more people were thoughtful and honest but being outraged is too much fun I suppose

          by Guinho on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 12:59:53 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Oh, really? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            banach tarski paradox

            if you are non-religious, you can create your own non-religious marriage all you want to with whatever traditions please you.

            And how, pray tell, do I do that?

            After the great Marriage Robbery of 2011, when we take the advice of certain commenters on this weblog and declare, hither and yon, that marriage is a religious institution, exactly how do you propose that we who are not religious "create" our own "non-religious marriage"? By the idiot proposal being pushed here, "non-religious marriage" will be an oxymoron.

            Back in reality, we non-religious people have marriages. Right now. Millions upon millions of them. We even have a constitutional right to them, as the U.S. Supreme Court has decided repeatedly. You will not take them away from us, because we won't let you.

            •  Gee that's tough (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              soothsayer99

              since thenarriage would purely be ceremonial. Make up a ceremony. For example my own marriage involved officiating by various members of the community that had susatained us as a couple with some extra bits. Some songs and cake eating and dancing and food.  Since the marriage only has cultural but not legal significance do whatever satisfies your ceremonial needs. Why would you outsource that to a religious guy in funny robes and hats I don't know. People do I know but it seems to be missing thebpoint to me

              I wish more people were thoughtful and honest but being outraged is too much fun I suppose

              by Guinho on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 09:34:12 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Obtuse and irrelevant. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                decca, banach tarski paradox

                The clueless Utopianism is thick on this thread. It's just too bad that actual human beings have to live in these hypothetical fantasy-lands of yours.

                since thenarriage would purely be ceremonial.

                No, it would not. Marriage means something in American society, regardless of utopian delusions. Again, it's nice that we have a federal court that has actually ruled on this, so that we're not limited to the airy hypothesizing of Kos commenters:

                Several experts testified that the State of California and California’s gay and lesbian population suffer because domestic partnerships are not equivalent to marriage. Badgett explained that gays and lesbians are less likely to enter domestic partnerships than to marry, meaning fewer gays and lesbians have the protection of a state-recognized relationship. Both Badgett and San Francisco economist Edmund Egan testified that states receive greater economic benefits from marriage than from domestic partnerships. Meyer testified that domestic partnerships actually stigmatize gays and lesbians even when enacted for the purpose of providing rights and benefits to same-sex couples. Cott explained that domestic partnerships cannot substitute for marriage because domestic partnerships do not have the same social and historical meaning as marriage and that much of the value of marriage comes from its social meaning. Peplau testified that little of the cultural esteem surrounding marriage adheres to domestic partnerships.

                The experts’ testimony on domestic partnerships is consistent with the testimony of plaintiffs, who explained that domestic partnerships do not satisfy their desire to marry. Stier, who has a registered domestic partnership with Perry, explained that “there is certainly nothing about domestic partnership * * * that indicates the love and commitment that are inherent in marriage.” Tr 171:8-11. Proponents did not challenge plaintiffs’ experts on the point that marriage is a socially superior status to domestic partnership; indeed, proponents stipulated that “[t]here is a significant symbolic disparity between domestic partnership and marriage.” Doc #159-2 at 6.

                [....]

                Domestic partnerships lack the social meaning associated with marriage, and marriage is widely regarded as the definitive expression of love and commitment in the United States.

                The availability of domestic partnership does not provide gays and lesbians with a status equivalent to marriage because the cultural meaning of marriage and its associated benefits are intentionally withheld from same-sex couples in domestic partnerships.

                Proposition 8 places the force of law behind stigmas against gays and lesbians, including: gays and lesbians do not have intimate relationships similar to heterosexual couples; gays and lesbians are not as good as heterosexuals; and gay and lesbian relationships do not deserve the full recognition of society.

                Proposition 8 reserves the most socially valued form of relationship (marriage) for opposite-sex couples.

                Proposition 8 singles out gays and lesbians and legitimates their unequal treatment. Proposition 8 perpetuates the stereotype that gays and lesbians are incapable of forming long-term loving relationships and that gays and lesbians are not good parents.

                Proposition 8 results in frequent reminders for gays and lesbians in committed long-term relationships that their relationships are not as highly valued as opposite-sex relationships.

                - Perry v. Schwarzenegger, No C 09-2292 VRW (D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2010), slip op. at 18-20, 80-103 & Findings of Fact 52, 54, 58, 60, 67, and 68.


                Giftwrapping the institution of marriage for religion would place irreligious people in precisely the same position gays and lesbians are in in Perry. Your yawning "[m]arriage would purely be ceremonial" is simply flattened by the sociological reality that Judge Walker recorded. "Ceremonial," my ass--it's widely regarded as the definitive expression of love and commitment in the United States.


                Make up a ceremony.

                Utterly pointless and irrelevant. Gay people "make up a ceremony" and call themselves "married" all the time; it does not change the reality of how their relationships are treated by society.

                Destroying marriage as a secular, civil institution renders atheist or otherwise irreligious "made-up ceremonies" just as ineffective as gay weddings (outside Massachusetts, Iowa, etc.) are right now. If marriage is a religious institution, then non-religious marriages are an oxymoron, and no "ceremony" can change that.


                Since the marriage only has cultural but not legal significance do whatever satisfies your ceremonial needs.

                Too bad you refuse to pay attention. My "ceremonial needs" have nothing to do with this. The cultural recognition of my marriage is precisely what your proposal destroys.


                Why would you outsource that to a religious guy in funny robes and hats I don't know.

                Hello? I wouldn't. And didn't. That's precisely why, under your own suggestion, it would no longer be a marriage. You are trying to destroy my marriage, and I (among millions of others) will not let you do that.

                •  Boy talking about not getting it (0+ / 0-)

                  if there were no civil marriage or unions married people would have the same rights and privileges and unmarried people.  The meaning of it would not be legal.  Thus in the smear that we are discussing namely the legal meaning of it, there would not be second class treatment of gays. Or of unmarried people either.  

                  Since my own relationship is neither sanctioned by church or state I guess I'm living in that utopia.  Frankly I'm not the least bit bothered by this.  

                  I wish more people were thoughtful and honest but being outraged is too much fun I suppose

                  by Guinho on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 11:20:22 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Good to see your bias is strong (0+ / 0-)

                  you just couldn't stand to see unmarriednpeople have equal rights could you?

                  I wish more people were thoughtful and honest but being outraged is too much fun I suppose

                  by Guinho on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 11:21:44 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

      •  no, in fact not (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        soothsayer99

        many people have argued that the word itself, with its connotation in the sexual trafficking of women as property, is inherently oppressive and should be abandoned.

        I don't particularly support this idea, but I am going to correct your perception that this is somehow a new idea in reaction to gay marriage.

        I wish more people were thoughtful and honest but being outraged is too much fun I suppose

        by Guinho on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 12:55:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Okay. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          decca, banach tarski paradox

          many people have argued that the word itself, with its connotation in the sexual trafficking of women as property, is inherently oppressive and should be abandoned.

          That's fine. "They" can make that argument, deal with the practical issues (such as the ones AndyS raises here), and explain how millions of us who are married can expect to maintain the benefits and responsibilities we have without that word.

          Taking "marriage" out of the law and giftwrapping it for religion would not lead to the word being "abandoned." It would merely render it the religious concept that the right wing screeches it now is.


          At a certain point, utopian idealism has to deal with facts, such as this one:

          Domestic partnerships lack the social meaning associated with marriage, and marriage is widely regarded as the definitive expression of love and commitment in the United States.

          - Perry v. Schwarzenegger, No C 09-2292 VRW (D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2010), slip op. at 80, Finding of Fact 52.

          The "eliminate civil marriage" faction around these parts is doing a notably poor job of dealing with facts like that one.

          •  That may be true (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            soothsayer99

            but it doesn't change the fact that the notion of abolishing marriage as a cultural and civil institution has been around for many many years.  It has it's roots in various strains of thought none of them about homophobia.  Indieciemopants myth that this is a homophobic plot does not stand up to scrutiny of the historical facts. Period

            I wish more people were thoughtful and honest but being outraged is too much fun I suppose

            by Guinho on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 09:37:17 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Strawman garbage. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              decca

              but it doesn't change the fact that the notion of abolishing marriage as a cultural and civil institution has been around for many many years.

              And I have asserted otherwise... when?

              I'm well aware that various feminist and gender-theorist figures have proposed abolishing civil marriage for some time. That has nothing to do with Perry.

              It so happens that that sort of abolishment, in the actual America we real people live in, would inevitably grant overwhelming power to reactionary religious figures and brutally harm nonbelievers. The provenance of the idea has very little to do with anything.


              Indieciemopants myth that this is a homophobic plot....

              Strawman crap. The diary speaks for itself, and it says nothing about a "homophobic plot."

              •  Ok (0+ / 0-)

                whatever.  He says people only think this in
                Reaction to gay marriage and I point out that isn't true and suddenly it's a strrawman?  I think you are right. The diary speaks for itself and this is what it says

                I wish more people were thoughtful and honest but being outraged is too much fun I suppose

                by Guinho on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 11:23:54 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  for example, since 1926 (0+ / 0-)

        Apparently atlantic monthly was covering it back then or in the US in 2003.  

        but I'm sure this was in response to gay marriage, yep.

        I wish more people were thoughtful and honest but being outraged is too much fun I suppose

        by Guinho on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 12:58:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The 1926 article doesn't mention civil unions... (0+ / 0-)

          ...and seems to be about russia, any way.

          The 2003 article is all about teh gays, so I'm not sure why you linked to it.

          The distruction of marriage is scorched earth politics.
          They can pry the wedding rings from our cold dead fingers.

          by banach tarski paradox on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 06:27:42 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Poor editing (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            soothsayer99

            in any event we can put this idea that somehow this is a new notion to bed now

            I wish more people were thoughtful and honest but being outraged is too much fun I suppose

            by Guinho on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 09:20:41 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Um...can't find a reference for "civil unions"... (0+ / 0-)

              ...prior to teh gays wanting to marry, and all of them that have been offered and linked to as examples are actually all about teh gays, so can we please just move on and pretend that we found one?

              The destruction of marriage is scorched earth politics.
              They can pry the wedding rings from our cold dead fingers.

              by banach tarski paradox on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 10:29:01 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  What do civil unions have to do with anything? (0+ / 0-)

                my point is that people have been proposing to abolish marriage since long before gay marriage was anywhere near an issue.   Thus much of the commentary suggesting this is not and cannot be a response to gay marriage.  Presumably those who feel marriage is an oppressive institution aren't going to fooled by the name change.  

                I wish more people were thoughtful and honest but being outraged is too much fun I suppose

                by Guinho on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 11:28:01 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Not something that I would presume, given that... (0+ / 0-)

                  ...most of the comments in question present something called Civil Unions as the solution to the problem of Civil Marriage.

                  Presumably those who feel marriage is an oppressive institution aren't going to fooled by the name change.  

                  While the "problem" may be old, the proposed "solution" is quite new indeed.

                  The destruction of marriage is scorched earth politics.
                  They can pry the wedding rings from our cold dead fingers.

                  by banach tarski paradox on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 01:02:01 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

    •  You are proposing (6+ / 0-)

      that marriage be ripped away from atheists.

      You badly need to read the decision in the Perry case. Judge Walker laid out in profuse detail what happens when you deny the title "marriage" to a whole despised class of people. Please stop and think: that is what you propose to do to all irreligious people, gay and straight, who wish to marry.

      As a married atheist, I'd ask you to please keep your hands off of my marriage.

      •  no i am not propsoing a two-tiered system of (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Psyche, indiemcemopants, joedemocrat

        legal inequality ala Proposition 8

        i am talking about a troublesome word

        "....while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." Eugene V. Debs

        by soothsayer99 on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 10:27:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Earth to Soothsayer: (7+ / 0-)

          Gays and lesbians have domestic partnerships in California. The only difference is a "troublesome word." As has been made very clear in the past few days, they are woefully insufficient.

          That is precisely the fate you are trying to force on all non-religious people.

          I told you to read the decision in the Perry case. Obviously you didn't, or you'd have learned the first thing about the brutal consequences of depriving a hated class of that "troublesome word."

          Please get this through your head: Marriage is not a religious institution. It is a secular institution, and it has been so for the entire breadth of American history. Changing that means destroying millions of nonbelievers' marriages.

          We will not let you do that.

          •  i've read the Perry decision (3+ / 0-)

            you should re-read my original post here

            i am not advocating a two-tierd legal system -- i am sugggesting all legal contracts be called somethibg oterh than "marriage" withthe same rights and responsibilities as presenting stated

            rail against me right here as you will -- i am not the enemy of you or your beliefs

            you are simoly denying the reality that for most in the USA marraige has come to have a muddied meaning that yes confuses legal contracts with religious ceremonies

            that is your real battle

            "....while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." Eugene V. Debs

            by soothsayer99 on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 10:50:04 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  And how do you intend to accomplish it, and (6+ / 0-)

              why are you telling gay people specifically about this?

              I mean, if you feel strongly about this, gay people who are fighting for this just want to get married, mostly, or have the option to.  Many straight people already ARE married.

              I understand that you and many people appear to have strong opinions about this, but what appears to be argued, in effect, is a waving of a magic wand, as it were, and poof!  It should be THIS way!

              I have heard and heard how marriage should be changed, or eliminated, or taken away from the government and replaced with something else, over and over again, but only seemingly in connection with marriage equality diaries.  

              There is no apparent place where the rubber meets the road and a specific suggestion, and what to do about those pesky 1100 specific federal issues regarding marriage, is made -- and yes I want to hear about how a contract or taking marriage away from the government, or whatever the suggestion is, covers every single one of those issues.  And I want to hear details.  Because these opinions are simply rendered, over and over again, in marriage equality diaries, with no apparent connecting point.

              So, what I am waiting for, is a specific suggestion, to gay people, since we are the ones who are always talked to about this, as to what you want to do, and how LGBT people specifically are included in your plan.

              You do have a plan for making what you wish come to pass, don't you?

              How can we help?  And, why should we?  And, since straight people are the only class of people, nationwide, who actually HAVE marriage, you know, the federally recognized kind, why are people talking to the gay people, who want it, but don't have it?

              Shouldn't one's attention be directed chiefly at the people who already partake in this apparently insufficiently defined condition and institution?

              "When in doubt, be ruthless" - Ferengi saying (-6.62, -6.26)

              by AndyS In Colorado on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 11:09:05 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  i am in full support of marriage equality. Period (4+ / 0-)

                i really do not care what these legal contracts are called

                i believe as stated above marriage is a term with muddied meaning in our society whatever narruages we are discussing -- straight or gay

                Hopefully if Perry procedes to the SCTOUS Keneedy will have a clear head as he did in Roner and Lawrence and DOMA nad a host of dscriminatory state constitutional amendments will be history.

                i was responding to indie's point re homophobia in his diary -- and yes i have seen plenty of it all over this site -- re the use of the language of civil unions versus marriage

                i am NOT arguing for some two-tiered legal system -- i am discussiong ( that's what we do here right???) language

                my point as stated in a comment above was this --
                and i repeat

                I am just trying to say that there is legitmate argumnent for this(this being the use of the term civil unions ot decribe all legal partnerships staright or gay ) that 1) exists independent of gay marriage and 2) is not rooted in homophobia

                "....while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." Eugene V. Debs

                by soothsayer99 on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 11:29:45 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Um, so how is this related, specifically, to gay (3+ / 0-)

                  people as opposed to ALL people?  I thank you for your support of marriage equality, but I still feel you haven't answered my question instead of evaded my question.

                  Marriage equality diaries are about marriage equality.  They aren't about the appropriateness of how marriage itself is administered, contracted, performed, or dissolved.

                  Now, if you want to make changes, I can't say I support or even care about that, because most of the changes I find and believe are usually rooted in misunderstandings about how things work, or they have sufficient vagueness about serious workability issues, but that's just my opinion.  I can't say I really care one way or another if someone wants to create a whole discussion just about the institution of marriage in general, which is what your observation seems to be about.

                  But I'm still wondering what on earth it has to do with LGBT people simply getting those rights that already exist?  

                  Because, it would seem to me, that would be a subject that would be quite adequately rendered a completely separate issue, and I have not yet received a single satisfactory answer as to why they must be brought up, discussed, or cared about in one iota in relation to simple marriage equality.

                  "When in doubt, be ruthless" - Ferengi saying (-6.62, -6.26)

                  by AndyS In Colorado on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 11:44:06 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Here in Iowa, we call it Civil Marriage. (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Rieux, decca, AndyS In Colorado

                  i really do not care what these legal contracts are called

                  Seemes safest just to use the same word that the US Supreme Court used.

                  "Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man."

                  The destruction of marriage is scorched earth politics.
                  They can pry the wedding rings from our cold dead fingers.

                  by banach tarski paradox on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 06:58:58 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Swell. (0+ / 0-)

                  i really do not care what these legal contracts are called

                  Well, several million of us who have entered into that "legal contract" do care what it's called, thank you. Your utter apathy about our interests--the lives of the millions of people whose marriages you propose to destroy--is grating.


                  i believe as stated above marriage is a term with muddied meaning in our society whatever narruages we are discussing -- straight or gay

                  Perhaps so. Deciding, on that basis, to eliminate the entire institution of civil marriage is an absurd "destroy this village in order to save it" strategy.


                  i am NOT arguing for some two-tiered legal system....

                  Yes, you are--you're just too blinkered and/or too unwilling to stop and think to see it. You are arguing that religious people should be allowed to enter into arrangements called "marriage," while non-religious people (or at least non-religious people who aren't willing to beg a church to let them get married) should not.

                  Those are precisely the two tiers that gay couples in civil union/domestic partnership jurisdictions face right now, and the two tiers Judge Walker exposed the injustice of in the opinion that you apparently read with your eyes closed.

                  You are advocating a system in which religious people can get married but irreligious people can't. That's disgustingly "two-tiered," regardless of the thickness of your denial.

                  •  I'm sorry to have to disagree with you, Rieux (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    joedemocrat, soothsayer99

                    but, in this case, I think you are letting your emotions cloud your intellect.

                    Soothsayer has not proposed unequal rights nor a two-tiered system with unequal access.

                    He or she has proposed that we separate the contractual process, to which legal rights and responsibility are attached, from the ceremonial process.

                    All adult members of society would be entitled to enter into a contractual union with another adult member of society, period - no discrimination based on gender,  sexual preference, skin color, religion, etc.

                    This contractual union would be of one uniform type for all, and would bestow the same rights, and subject its parties to the same responsibilities, regardless of the characteristics of the party - gender, sexual preference, skin color, religion, etc.

                    AND - here is where you seem to miss the point and respond to a straw man rather than a proposed argument - any people would be entitled to engage in whatever "marriage" ceremony or ritual they would like not just religious, but secular, atheistic, whatever. This ceremony, however, would have no force of law, contract or family, etc.

                    It is an elegant way to ensure that all members of a society enjoy equal rights - as well as an elegant way of eliminating the hold that religious institutions and cultures claim over "marriage".

                    Isn't that what both you and soothsayer want?

                    Where did he or she say that irreligious people could not get "married"? I missed that.

                    Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

                    by RandomActsOfReason on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 02:21:13 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  And, again, it appears you just didn't read (0+ / 0-)

                      the actual argument that I am responding to.

                      He or she has proposed that we separate the contractual process, to which legal rights and responsibility are attached, from the ceremonial process.

                      No. You're substituting your defensible idea for her awful one. I'm not going to stop calling the latter awful.


                      AND - here is where you seem to miss the point and respond to a straw man rather than a proposed argument - any people would be entitled to engage in whatever "marriage" ceremony or ritual they would like not just religious, but secular, atheistic, whatever.

                      Nope. That's not Soothsayer's argument. She has explicitly contended "that the word  'marriage' should be reserved for religious ceremonies." Among other nasty things that you haven't picked up on.


                      Where did he or she say that irreligious people could not get "married"? I missed that.

                      Yes, you did.


                      I recognize that your proposal lacks the brutal atheophobic effect of Soothsayer's, but I don't agree with yours either. For the government to surrender any interest in the term "marriage"--despite the fact that marriage has been a secular institution for the entirety of American history--would be a stunning retreat in the battle against homophobia, among other types of right-wing nastiness.

                      In the face of the slow but steady advance of GLBT rights, permanently ceding the marriage field doesn't make any long-term sense. The "equal rights" you cite are on the way, without the need for such concessions, because institutionalized homophobia is not long for this world. Why concede anything to it at all?

                      •  Because I prioritize achieving equality (0+ / 0-)

                        over scoring points.

                        There is no "concession", except a concession that religious priests are no longer automatically qualified to formalize contractual arrangements between two human beings - only state agents may do so, and priests can apply for the privilege just like anyone else, and be subject to the same requirements - which, in the case of state agents, includes a pledge not to discriminate based on beliefs.

                        That may lead some religious leaders to decide they don't choose to become certified state agents for the purpose of certifying a union between two people, but that is their choice - it is not something either required or denied them.

                        It is equality all around. What is the problem? Attachment to a term? We don't approve of people calling African Americans "nigger" anymore, either. Should we fight more for the word, or more for true equal rights?

                        My proposal does not constitute "ceding" the marriage field to anyone. It preserves the legal equality of all, and frees people to conduct ceremonies, separate from the legal part, however they wish.

                        Win-win.

                        Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

                        by RandomActsOfReason on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 04:29:55 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I'm not talking (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          decca

                          about "scoring points"!

                          The institution of marriage is a valuable thing; it's not a scoreboard "point." It's something that the state has considerable interest in holding onto, and as such it can't be abandoned without a very serious justification. I'm not seeing that.


                          There is no "concession", except a concession that religious priests are no longer automatically qualified to formalize contractual arrangements between two human beings - only state agents may do so, and priests can apply for the privilege just like anyone else, and be subject to the same requirements - which, in the case of state agents, includes a pledge not to discriminate based on beliefs.

                          I think all of that sounds swell--but if the state is giving up the word "marriage," I'm afraid that that is, in fact, a very large concession.

                          (Actually, I think an even better solution than the above would be to disqualify everyone other than judges, justices of the peace, and other similar state employees from adjudicating legally binding marriages. Then religious folks--and for that matter ceremony-inclined irreligious ones--can go off and perform a commemorative ritual of their choice. But it ain't a marriage in the eyes of the law until and unless the state agent says it is. No more "by the power vested in me by the state of..." stuff from clergy.)


                          Should we fight more for the word, or more for true equal rights?

                          What Perry shows, and what gays and lesbians have been arguing for a decade, is that equal rights are impossible without that word. Equal rights without the title "marriage" would require a cultural sea change in the way Americans conceptualize human relationships. Maybe that can happen over decades' time, but wild Internet hypothesizers like you and me have no right to just wish it into existence. Gays, lesbians, and atheists have to live in the real world.

                          •  I question your basic assumption (0+ / 0-)

                            the institution of marriage is a valuable thing; it's not a scoreboard "point." It's something that the state has considerable interest in holding onto, and as such it can't be abandoned without a very serious justification.

                            Why? Other than legal enforcement of the contract, and of the rights and responsibilities the state attaches to such a contract, why in the world is it the business of the state to get involved in personal decisions people make about their life-partners?

                            I think an even better solution than the above would be to disqualify everyone  other than judges, justices of the peace, and other similar state employees from adjudicating legally binding marriages. Then religious folks--and for that matter ceremony-inclined irreligious ones--can go off and perform a commemorative ritual of their choice. But it ain't a marriage in the eyes of the law until and unless the state agent says it is. No more "by the power vested in me by the state of..." stuff from clergy

                            Um, other than the unconstitutional, discriminatory disqualification of certain citizens from applying to a job based on their religious preference, the rest of that is EXACTLY what I and Soothsayer have both been advocating.

                            Exactly. I spelled it out multiple times.

                            Equal rights without the title "marriage" would require a cultural sea change in the way Americans conceptualize human relationships.

                            Huh? What "sea change"? Today, a marriage isn't a marriage unless a civil license, signed by both parties to the contract, is filled with the state.

                            And, it is not necessary or required for a religious representative to formalize a marriage - it can be done in a completely secular process, by appointment, in City Hall.

                            In point of fact, it is the confusion of "marriage" with religious ceremony that is the error that needs correction.

                            My proposal would be a win-win for both secular and religious interests.

                            - It would remind people that a contractual union between two people is a secular affair, that it is covered by secular law, including a prohibition on discrimination.

                            - It would not require churches to perform ceremonies they consider violations of their constitutionally protected beliefs and practices.

                            BTW, this is not a new proposal for me. I have been advocating this for a good 40 years, universally.

                            It is exactly the point Soothsayer repeatedly made, about separating the civic, secular, legal contract from the ceremonial aspect, and how confusing the two has led us to this sorry state.

                            What you present are emotional arguments, not realworld facts.  And, you are fighting against people who essentially agree with you, certainly about desired end results, and even mostly about means.

                            Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

                            by RandomActsOfReason on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 05:13:36 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Oh, come now. (0+ / 0-)

                            Why? Other than legal enforcement of the contract, and of the rights and responsibilities the state attaches to such a contract, why in the world is it the business of the state to get involved in personal decisions people make about their life-partners?

                            Come on. Courts (including Perry--"The state’s primary purpose in regulating marriage is to create stable households") have repeatedly recognized the legitimate state interests in regulating marriage. Are you seriously contesting that?


                            Um, other than the unconstitutional, discriminatory disqualification of certain citizens from applying to a job....

                            What? Where did I say anything about "applying to a job"? You've put an entirely unwarranted and very silly spin on what I wrote.

                            Anyone can apply to be a justice of the peace, based on criteria that already exist and are necessarily religiously neutral. My suggestion is just that such a state actor--in his/her capacity as a state actor--would be the necessary and dispositive participant in any legally binding marriage. I am merely suggesting ending the practice of granting temporary "state actor" status to clergy (or any private citizen) performing a marriage. There's nothing the slightest bit religiously discriminatory about that proposal.


                            the rest of that is EXACTLY what I and Soothsayer have both been advocating.

                            No, as I have pointed out continually, it is nothing like what Soothsayer has been advocating. What she actually wrote is there for anyone who's willing to read it.


                            Equal rights without the title "marriage" would require a cultural sea change in the way Americans conceptualize human relationships.

                            Huh? What "sea change"?

                            A sea change in the way "marriage" is conceptualized and understood as the sine qua non of legitimate long-term adult romantic relationships. If you'd like Americans to take such relationships seriously without giving them the title "marriage," a sea change is necessary.

                            Of course, your proposal doesn't appear to aim for "equal rights without the term 'marriage,'" so this is of little import to what you are arguing. You. In particular.


                            What you present are emotional arguments, not realworld facts.

                            Oh, please. I have presented plenty of rational argument and not a few "realworld facts" on this thread. As for emotions, I'm (rather justifiably, IMO) angry because of the horrendous things Soothsayer has actually argued, notwithstanding your refusal to address those actual arguments.

                            It's not often that the strawman fallacy is invoked to defend another's argument, but that's precisely what you're doing here. The Soothsayer you are defending is simply and demonstrably not the one who has posted on this thread.

              •  It would probably be best of folks... (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Rieux, decca

                ...pushing this start with straight interracial couples.

                why are you telling gay people specifically about this?

                We are the ones who have already won the right nationally to marry in a SCOTUS decision, and we are the most likely to object to the word that was used by SCOTUS in declaring our basic civil rights being taken away from us.

                It is straight interracial couples who really need to be convinced here, and to whome these arguements ought to be made most directly.

                So somebody please tell me.

                We won the right to marry nationwide in 1967. Why should we give up that right now in 2010?

                The destruction of marriage is scorched earth politics.
                They can pry the wedding rings from our cold dead fingers.

                by banach tarski paradox on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 06:55:23 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Right with you. (0+ / 0-)

                  Heterosexual in an interracial marriage here.

                  Soothsayer and his/her ilk will take away my marriage over my dead body.

                  •  same here (3+ / 0-)

                    Heterosexual in an interracial marriage here

                    so you can stop your hynerbolic "presuming" that "your interests" are any different from mine just about any time now

                    stop misconstruing my psoition here

                    reasonable people can disagree on the issue of language -- there is no disagreement with anyone here on the issue of rights

                    "....while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." Eugene V. Debs

                    by soothsayer99 on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 07:40:36 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Laughable. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      decca

                      you can stop your hynerbolic "presuming" that "your interests" are any different from mine just about any time now

                      I couldn't care less about your "interests." If, as you imply, your proposal would brutalize you just as badly as it would me, that is hardly cheery news to me. You can destroy your own marriage if you prefer, but leave mine (and millions of others') out of it.


                      reasonable people can disagree on the issue of language -- there is no disagreement with anyone here on the issue of rights

                      It's unbelievable lines like that one that make it incredibly hard to believe that you have read the Perry decision, or indeed that you have any experience with discussions of gay marriage whatsoever.

                      Disparate language leads to disparate rights. The entire history of "civil unions" demonstrates that. Judge Walker, in Perry, repeatedly demonstrated that. I have tried to shove his findings in your face. You either didn't read them or don't care. Well, I do care, so here they are again:

                      Several experts testified that the State of California and California’s gay and lesbian population suffer because domestic partnerships are not equivalent to marriage. Badgett explained that gays and lesbians are less likely to enter domestic partnerships than to marry, meaning fewer gays and lesbians have the protection of a state-recognized relationship. Both Badgett and San Francisco economist Edmund Egan testified that states receive greater economic benefits from marriage than from domestic partnerships. Meyer testified that domestic partnerships actually stigmatize gays and lesbians even when enacted for the purpose of providing rights and benefits to same-sex couples. Cott explained that domestic partnerships cannot substitute for marriage because domestic partnerships do not have the same social and historical meaning as marriage and that much of the value of marriage comes from its social meaning. Peplau testified that little of the cultural esteem surrounding marriage adheres to domestic partnerships.

                      The experts’ testimony on domestic partnerships is consistent with the testimony of plaintiffs, who explained that domestic partnerships do not satisfy their desire to marry. Stier, who has a registered domestic partnership with Perry, explained that “there is certainly nothing about domestic partnership * * * that indicates the love and commitment that are inherent in marriage.” Tr 171:8-11. Proponents did not challenge plaintiffs’ experts on the point that marriage is a socially superior status to domestic partnership; indeed, proponents stipulated that “[t]here is a significant symbolic disparity between domestic partnership and marriage.” Doc #159-2 at 6.

                      [....]

                      Domestic partnerships lack the social meaning associated with marriage, and marriage is widely regarded as the definitive expression of love and commitment in the United States.

                      The availability of domestic partnership does not provide gays and lesbians with a status equivalent to marriage because the cultural meaning of marriage and its associated benefits are intentionally withheld from same-sex couples in domestic partnerships.

                      Proposition 8 places the force of law behind stigmas against gays and lesbians, including: gays and lesbians do not have intimate relationships similar to heterosexual couples; gays and lesbians are not as good as heterosexuals; and gay and lesbian relationships do not deserve the full recognition of society.

                      Proposition 8 reserves the most socially valued form of relationship (marriage) for opposite-sex couples.

                      Proposition 8 singles out gays and lesbians and legitimates their unequal treatment. Proposition 8 perpetuates the stereotype that gays and lesbians are incapable of forming long-term loving relationships and that gays and lesbians are not good parents.

                      Proposition 8 results in frequent reminders for gays and lesbians in committed long-term relationships that their relationships are not as highly valued as opposite-sex relationships.

                      - Perry v. Schwarzenegger, No C 09-2292 VRW (D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2010), slip op. at 18-20, 80-103 & Findings of Fact 52, 54, 58, 60, 67, and 68.

                      So, please, get this through your head: when you take away the word "marriage"--whether it's from gay couples in California or non-religious couples across the United States--you take away rights.

                      You have demonstrated an ignorant and depressingly utopian notion that you can tinker with symbols and language however you please without having any effect on the people who rely on that language and its social meaning. The Perry decision, and indeed the entire history of "civil unions," proves that you're wrong. Language is not an arid abstraction; it exists in the real, human world, and it does not dance to whatever tune you want to play.

                      You are disagreeing with the diarist, and several others of us, about "rights." You're just blinding yourself to the reality of how language works in order to fool yourself into thinking you're only advocating a change in language.

                      Wake up. Changes in language have consequences. The consequences of your proposal would be devastating. That puts you solidly in the wrong.

                      •  your hostility is misplaced as (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        joedemocrat, Domino14

                        are your readings of my comment

                        "....while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." Eugene V. Debs

                        by soothsayer99 on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 08:05:40 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  Where is the "disparate language"? (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        joedemocrat, soothsayer99, Domino14

                        Soothsayer is simply separating the contractual part of a union from the ceremonial part, and saying all people should be guaranteed the right to the contractual part, required to enjoy certain rights and subject to certain responsibilities. Similarly, all people can choose to have a separate ceremony to suit whatever tradition or emotional need they have.

                        This does not exclude you or I, who might choose to have a secular ceremony or no ceremony at all, at our option, any more than it would exclude a church from deciding only to perform a ceremony on its grounds with its staff for only men or women, or only tall people, or whatever.

                        Since the contractual part that governs rights and responsibilities would be equally accessible to all, as it would be granted exclusively by a single, uniform, secular authority, there is no discrimination whatsoever.

                        That actually doesn't even require us to change much from today's process. All marriages must undergo a contractual process recognized by our legal authorities. The problem now is the entanglement of that process with religion.

                        That hurts both secular people and religious, because it not only denies some of us the right to secularly marry those whose union a church might oppose, but it forces churches to intrude into the secular realm in order to prevent them from being forced to conduct a ritual that violates their beliefs.

                        Civil union would be the only recognized contractual process. "Marriage" would be whatever you and your partner want it to be, but would have no bearing on the unrestricted legal process.

                        Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

                        by RandomActsOfReason on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 02:27:49 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Fundamentally misstates Soothsayer's position. (0+ / 0-)

                          Soothsayer made it clear that his/her position is entirely based on disparate language in his/her very first comment on this thread:

                          i remember reading an op-ed by Deroshwitcz eons ago that made the case that the word  "marriage" should be reserved for religious ceremonies and civil unions should be the language appilied to all legal contractual arrangements between two people - straight or gay

                          I agree with that -- that was my position before i even read the damn piece  (which I am too lazy to go find right now) nand it remains my position now

                          Even before the debate on glbt marriage -- i thought i was a bluurinbg of the first amendment separation of church and atate to use the term marriage for ceremonies/contracts that could be either civil or religious

                          you know i am for gay marriage but i do think that the term marriage is so mucked up in the ocntyext of our society that it provides clarity to abandon it

                          and truth be told it was this murky double-meaning that gave the religious right all that traction to create unwarranted hysteria and drag the bible all over creation..

                          it also creates the tight-rope act that m,any poltical figures  feel they must perform

                          Losing the word is not about losing rights imho -- it may in fact be about clarifying rights as secular civil rights that are completely detatched from any religious connotations whatsoever

                          (Underline added.)

                          That's about as abject of a "Give marriage to religion" position as I can imagine.

                          You have stated an entirely different argument; whereas Soothsayer writes:

                          the word  "marriage" should be reserved for religious ceremonies

                          ...you write:

                          "Marriage" would be whatever you and your partner want it to be....

                          ...and I, as you know well, am an atheist. Your argument directly contradicts his/hers.

                          Indeed, that very sentence of yours shows that you are arguing for an arrangement that Soothsayer is on the record being opposed to, because your proposal disposes of the precious "clarity" that comes from establishing, for all the world, that marriage is religious alone. You're simply maintaining that horrid "murky double meaning" and trafficking in terms that aren't "completely detatched from any religious connotations whatsoever." In simple terms, you are not advocating "losing the word"; Soothsayer is.

                          (Then, the sentence "Losing the word is not about losing rights imho" simply cannot have been written by anyone who read the Perry decision and paid the slightest bit of attention.)

                          The Perry court established that "marriage" is deeply embedded in society's understanding of valuable relationships. DKos advocates for jettisoning the word simply wish that reality away. That doesn't work; as the court held, there's no way to "lose the word" without "losing rights."


                          In so many words, Soothsayer argued that "marriage should be reserved for religious ceremonies." That's a disgusting and horrific proposal, and it doesn't deserve an (albeit mistakenly aimed) defense from you.

                          •  Soothsayer rec'd my comment, (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            soothsayer99

                            and repeatedly noted, in several comments, her opposition to a two-tiered system. She also said, repeatedly, that you are arguing a point she didn't make.

                            Insisting that you represent her position better than she does herself, regardless of what she says, is, frankly, ridiculous, and I can only conclude that you are letting your emotional, personal stake override your reason.

                            As for your broader point re: the Perry decision, I disagree with that particular logic - and, I believe you are misapplying it even as it stands.

                            The Perry decision didn't contemplate the type of proposal I made. As for "wishing away", on the contrary; insisting that we simply ignore the religious weight that religious believers give and have given for a very long time to the word "marriage", and to ignore the implications for a religious institution of being compelled to participate in a binding ceremony that is contrary to their beliefs, is impractical and naive "wishing away".

                            The system Soothsayer and I have proposed is actually already in place in terms of fundamentals - a  ceremony, religious or not, is not sufficient under US law to recognize a "marriage" - it must be performed by a sanctioned entity, and a license, signed by both parties must be filed with a government entity, in order for the couple to enjoy the rights and be subject to the responsibilities of being contractually joined.

                            What Soothsayer and I propose is simply to recognize that distinction more explicitly. It is already unconstitutional to deny two people from entering into a legal contract based on their gender or sexual preference, or their skin tone or religion.

                            By providing a uniform legal process by which all people are entitled to join into a life partnership, without discrimination - and then, separately, letting people carry out a ceremony or ritual of any type if they wish, on their own time with their own dime, we elegantly provide a win-win - no one is denied any rights or is in anyway subjected to a "separate-but-equal" category, AND religious institutions are free to continue to practice the prejudice and intolerance that makes them such anachronisms in this day and age, without being compelled by the state to violate those principles in their own domain.

                            It actually requires the least legislative, administrative and judicial change of any other proposal, and utterly takes away any claim religious organizations make over the domain of secular government - whilst simultaneously preserving their Constitutional right to practice whatever crap they wish to practice in their own churches.

                            Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

                            by RandomActsOfReason on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 04:24:39 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Well? (0+ / 0-)

                            She also said, repeatedly, that you are arguing a point she didn't make.

                            She's wrong. She might wish she hadn't argued that "the word 'marriage' should be reserved for religious ceremonies," but she did. And she hasn't done anything to retract it.


                            Insisting that you represent her position better than she does herself, regardless of what she says, is, frankly, ridiculous....

                            Forget "represent"ing her; I've just read her position. It's right there. She appears to be embarrassed by it--and perhaps you are too--but your-plural denials don't erase that first comment of hers.

                            C'mon, Random--I have repeatedly quoted the central assertion Soothsayer made on this thread. It directly contradicts the gloss you are putting on her argument. (Significantly, it does not directly contradict the "two tiered" gloss she has put on it.) Not only has she not addressed it, neither have you! What's up with that? I have produced direct evidence that you have misread her. "She says otherwise" is hardly a sufficient or convincing response, especially in light of the fact that she has obvious incentive to pretend she never advocated such a horrendous position.


                            The system Soothsayer and I have proposed....

                            No. There is no system Soothsayer and you have proposed. Her argument and yours are at radical divergence.


                            The Perry decision didn't contemplate the type of proposal I made.

                            I agree. Which is why I don't think Perry is a relevant cite in response to you. But very little of what I've said about marriage on this thread--and nothing I wrote in my 06:46:57 PM EDT comment--is a response to your proposal about marriage policy.

                            I am responding to the (unhappily common--note the Dershowitz cite) notion that "the word 'marriage' should be reserved for religious ceremonies." That's not your argument, but it is Soothsayer's. And I know that because she wrote it.

            •  So, you're saying NewSpeak is the solution (6+ / 0-)

              to all of our problems.

              We need to stop going halfway around the world to wage war on people who don't even change out of their jammies to fight us.

              by JesseCW on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 12:16:32 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  It's not a troublesome word. (9+ / 0-)

          Legal marriage belongs wholly to the state.  Only the state has the power to confer the legal status of marriage.  

          Religions have no power to marry anyone.  All a religion can do is conduct ceremonies, spectacles, rituals, sacraments, whatever they want to call their jumble of prayers and supplications -- all of which are meaningless in the eyes of the law.

          The ONLY thing that marks a legal marriage is a marriage license. And that comes from the state.

          In other words, religion is entirely superfluous to the legal status of marriage.  

          •  i am well aware of that -- the point is that (4+ / 0-)

            much of US public is really not or is easily distracted andswayed by ridiuclous arguments from the religious right

            the conflating of the legal and religous aspects of marriage have imho played a major role in the trajectory of the public debate and had an undue influence on many ballot measures

            "....while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." Eugene V. Debs

            by soothsayer99 on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 10:52:36 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yes! (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              soothsayer99, Domino14

              And moreover, I think all the hullaballoo and conflation and distraction were designed to do exactly what they did - leave a lot of folks totally confused.

              The less folks get confused, the more the arguments have shifted - most recently to "clergy can be forced to perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples." I suspect what will become clear to most people relatively quickly is that by the time Walker, Boies, and Olsen got finished with them, the religious right had hit the bottom of their excuse barrel.

              The conventional view serves to protect us from the painful job of thinking. John Kenneth Galbraith

              by Psyche on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 11:14:03 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  And so.... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              decca

              the conflating of the legal and religous aspects of marriage have imho played a major role in the trajectory of the public debate and had an undue influence on many ballot measures

              And so you advocate destroying civil marriage entirely, because right-wing religion has succeeded in confusing Americans about what marriage does and does not mean.

              Does the phrase "cutting off your nose to spite your face" mean anything to you?


              Anyway, the idea is a non-starter. Too many million non-religious people have marriages for you to be able to take them away without outright war.


              Perhaps you should read Walker's Finding of Fact 52 over and over again until it penetrates your skull:

              Domestic partnerships lack the social meaning associated with marriage, and marriage is widely regarded as the definitive expression of love and commitment in the United States.

              •  you are arguing against a point i did not make (3+ / 0-)

                "....while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." Eugene V. Debs

                by soothsayer99 on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 07:48:07 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  "Take them away"? (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                joedemocrat, soothsayer99, Domino14

                Did soothsayer say, whatever straw man change you attribute to him, that prior marriages under the current system would be annulled?

                Please, Rieux, take a breath, stop talking, and try to listen. Soothsayer is not saying what you insist he or she is saying. Listen to what he or she IS saying, and you might find you are pretty much violently agreeing.

                Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

                by RandomActsOfReason on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 02:29:55 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  thank you (3+ / 0-)

                  i am "her" :) but than you nonetheless

                  "....while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." Eugene V. Debs

                  by soothsayer99 on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 02:40:43 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Sorry, but you've missed what she's saying. (0+ / 0-)

                  It's right in her first comment on this thread:

                  i remember reading an op-ed by Deroshwitcz eons ago that  made the case that the word  "marriage" should be reserved for religious ceremonies and civil unions should be the language appilied to all legal contractual arrangements between two people - straight or gay

                  I agree with that -- that was my position before i even read the damn piece  (which I am too lazy to go find right now) nand it remains my position now

                  (Underline added.)

                  That has been Soothsayer's position, and she has never backed down from it. It isn't a "straw man"; you just missed her actual argument.


                  Did soothsayer say ... that prior marriages under the current system would be annulled?

                  That would seem to be the most natural reading of the statement "the word  'marriage' should be reserved for religious ceremonies," yes. Though I suppose "retitled" is a more appropriate verb than "annulled."

                  As the Perry decision makes clear, that's a severe blow to every irreligious person's marriage.


                  Soothsayer is not saying what you insist he or she is saying.

                  Actually, she's not saying what you think she is. (Or at least she hasn't thus far; at this point one effect of your entry here is that she's getting cover to beat a "never mind what I said earlier" retreat, which may not be such a bad thing.)

                  •  Is it possible you made an assumption (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    soothsayer99

                    that is not justified by her words? She has made it pretty clear, from the very beginning, that she is not acvocating a two-tier system.

                    Would it not have been wiser to ask here if she meant what you assumed she meant?

                    Why assume ill intent on someone's part? Why no just ask them to clarify?

                    You and I face this all the time - people assuming we are trolls just seeking to cause trouble, because we rationally question people's assumptions and beliefs.

                    Let's both try not to be guilt of that ourselves.

                    I've read Soothsayer state, repeatedly and directly, that she is not in favor of a two-tiered system, and most directly and specifically  - even in that very first comment that you quote from - that

                    "all legal contractual arrangements between two people - straight or gay" should be treated equally, using the same contractual process and terminology. That religious ceremony (or any "marriage" ceremony) should have ritualistic or symbolic significance only, in whatever way the participants want to imbue it with meaning, but that this ceremony would have no contractual significance.

                    In point of fact, when I stated that that was her intent, she rec'd my comment.

                    Why insist that someone means what they specifically say they do not mean, rather than reflect on the possibility you may have jumped to an unwarranted conclusions and made an error?

                    Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

                    by RandomActsOfReason on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 04:13:31 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Clarity? (0+ / 0-)

                      The sentence "the word 'marriage' should be reserved for religious ceremonies" seems extremely clear to me, actually--and it directly contradicts the reading you have been working hard to put on Soothsayer's assertions.

                      Various hand-waving about "a two-tiered system of legal inequality," by contrast, is heavily ambiguous. Please note that the winning side in Plessy v. Ferguson and the losing one in Brown v. Board of Education also asserted that they didn't favor "a two-tiered system of legal inequality." (The same goes for "civil union" proponents throughout the history of that concept.) That's where the "equal" in "separate but equal" came from. It just doesn't take much examination to demonstrate that all of the above actually are advocating "legal inequality," no matter how hurriedly they deny it.

                      Soothsayer's case has been entirely consistent--consistently awful. She has never hinted that her central point--"'marriage' should be reserved for religious ceremonies"--was mis-worded, misspoken, mistaken. She has never backtracked from it. Plessy-compatible fog about "two-tiered systems" does not do the job.


                      I've read Soothsayer state ... most directly and specifically  - even in that very first comment that you quote from - that "all legal contractual arrangements between two people - straight or gay" should be treated equally, using the same contractual process and terminology.

                      "Terminology"? No. She never said that; you're misrepresenting her statements. (She said the exact opposite.)

                      And "treated equally" is just Plessy and the losers in Brown. I keep harping on Perry because Judge Walker showed that the very same difference in terminology that Soothsayer has advocated--"marriage" for the religious majority, no "marriage" for the minority that the religious majority hates--inevitably results in horrendous inequality. Soothsayer has entirely failed to address this problem.


                      In point of fact, when I stated that that was her intent, she rec'd my comment.

                      Yes, I saw that, through rolling eyes. You've built a bulwark that she's now scurrying to hide underneath. That your argument is fundamentally different from hers seems to be something that she either (1) hasn't noticed or (2) is willing to ignore for purposes of expediency. It would be a bit more honest for her to just withdraw the statements from her first comment here, but I doubt that's going to happen.


                      Why insist that someone means what they specifically say they do not mean ... ?

                      Soothsayer has never said that she did "not mean" anything she wrote in her initial comment. Her "specific" attempts to walk problems back are entirely ineffective, because she hasn't actually walked any back. "I don't favor a two-tiered system" is not, in fact, a retreat to a defensible position: even the proponents of Proposition 8 assert that they don't support "a two-tiered system," because California has "legally equivalent" institutions of (1) marriage and (2) domestic partnership.

                      The setup Soothsayer advocated in her first comment is, in reality, a "two-tiered system." Her attempts to pretend it isn't are just as unconvincing as the Prop 8 supporters' attempts to pretend exactly the same thing.


                      you may have jumped to an unwarranted conclusions and made an error?

                      I submit that it's you, Random, who have jumped way over the actual point in contention--Soothsayer's assertion that "the word 'marriage' should be reserved for religious ceremonies"--and mounted a defense that is in error.

                      •  Really? (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        soothsayer99

                        From the very outset, soothsayer explicitly expressed opposition to  a two-tiered legal system, and explicitly talked about separating the legal and the ceremonial aspects of life-partnership.

                        i am not advocating a two-tierd legal system -- i am sugggesting all legal contracts be called somethibg oterh than "marriage" withthe same rights and responsibilities as presenting stated

                        rail against me right here as you will -- i am not the enemy of you or your beliefs

                        you are simoly denying the reality that for most in the USA marraige has come to have a muddied meaning that yes confuses legal contracts with religious ceremonies

                        that is your real battle

                        no i am not propsoing a two-tiered system of legal inequality ala Proposition 8

                        i am in full support of marriage equality. Period

                        i am NOT arguing for some two-tiered legal system -- i am discussiong ( that's what we do here right???) language

                        I am just trying to say that there is legitmate argumnent for this(this being the use of the term civil unions ot decribe all legal partnerships staright or gay ) that 1) exists independent of gay marriage and 2) is not rooted in homophobia

                        same here
                           Heterosexual in an interracial marriage here

                        so you can stop your hynerbolic "presuming" that "your interests" are any different from mine just about any time now

                        stop misconstruing my psoition here

                        reasonable people can disagree on the issue of language -- there is no disagreement with anyone here on the issue of rights

                        your hostility is misplaced as

                        are your readings of my comment

                        the conflating of the legal and religous aspects of marriage have imho played a major role in the trajectory of the public debate and had an undue influence on many ballot measures

                        you are arguing against a point i did not make

                        I know you read many of these comments, because you posted responses to them.

                        Unfortunately, all of your responses we of the nature of refusing to respect her further clarification of her position, insisting instead on continually referring to her initial quote of a Dershowitz phrase which she continually stated, in response to criticism, that she didn’t' mean to support what you insist she supports.

                        I find no evidence anywhere, to support the notion that Soothsayer supports a two-tiered "separate but equal" system - let alone that she seeks to delegitimize existing marriages of any kind, religious or civil.

                        You are simply, unconditionally wrong here, and the sooner you step back and reflect rationally about it, the sooner you will see that all your personal attacks on her were utterly uncalled for (and ad hominem, which is logically fallacious in the first place).

                        In point of fact, she has been extraordinarily patient given the torrent of shit you launched at her.

                        Clearly, this hit some kind of emotional hot button for you. But that doesn't mean you can't now look back and apologize, and, at the very very least, stop insisting that someone is saying the opposite of what they keep saying.

                        Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

                        by RandomActsOfReason on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 05:03:51 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Oy. (0+ / 0-)

                          Unfortunately, all of your responses we of the nature of refusing to respect her further clarification of her position....

                          Because they're not "clarifications." They're obfuscations. They're attempts to distract attention from the ugly things she actually had argued. And they appear to have been effective, on you.


                          This is getting a little tiring. You have responded to me several times here, denying that Soothsayer has taken any kind of objectionable position, and entirely failed to address the central assertion she made at the beginning of this thread.

                          Here is her assertion, from this comment:

                          [T]he word  "marriage" should be reserved for religious ceremonies[.]

                          I simply see no way to reconcile that statement with your position, or with the position you claim is Soothsayer's.

                          I would like you to explain what the above-quoted sentence means.

                          •  You are imputing bad intent (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            soothsayer99

                            when you call her comments "obfuscations".

                            Have you never, ever, ever had to clarify your intent when you said something that was interpreted by others in a way you did not mean?

                            It is pretty clear to me that, as she repeatedly stated, the intent was to separate the legal contract from the ceremony, to ensure utter equality and inclusion in the legal contract, and to let people, if they choose, have a ceremony they can call "fish" if they want, or "marriage" or "shfoom".

                            It is actually like that already, we just let the churches confuse things, to the point we forget that a "license", which is really a signed contract, must be filed with the state before a "marriage" is recognized, no matter what ceremony occurred in what church.

                            Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

                            by RandomActsOfReason on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 05:22:10 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No. (0+ / 0-)

                            I am not imputing bad intent. I am simply noting that her "clarifications" did not actually clarify her earlier statements; they were tangential, irrelevant points that addressed issues other than the ones she stirred up in her first comment. Moreover, those "clarifications" were entirely compatible with the plan and ugly meaning of her earlier statements. One can desire to destroy irreligious marriage while still seeing oneself as opposing "two-tiered systems of legal inequality," and all of the other irrelevant later comments of hers you quoted (and I brushed aside, for this very reason). Which means she clarified nothing.


                            It is pretty clear to me that, as she repeatedly stated, the intent was to separate the legal contract from the ceremony, to ensure utter equality and inclusion in the legal contract, and to let people, if they choose, have a ceremony they can call "fish" if they want, or "marriage" or "shfoom".

                            But that contradicts what she said. "[T]he word  'marriage' should be reserved for religious ceremonies" is fundamentally incompatible with "people, if they choose, [should be allowed to] have a ceremony they can call 'fish' if they want, or 'marriage' or 'shfoom'." You have "interpreted" her statement to mean the opposite of what it says.


                            I find it surprising that you are so rigid and insensitive and unwilling to consider error in this case.

                            I would be happy to "consider error in this case" if Soothsayer ever said she made an error. She hasn't. I don't think she did. I don't think you have substantive grounds to believe that she did; you haven't presented any. (Her comments on separate issues, such as "two-tiered systems," are not substantive grounds.)

                            I think Soothsayer meant what she said (especially because she reinforced it more than once in that initial comment): she wanted "marriage" to become a solely religious institution. She has never said a single word incompatible with that plain-language interpretation of her central thesis. And it's not at all a rare position; it's just a bad one.

                          •  BTW, if you think this is tiring, (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            soothsayer99

                            imagine how it must feel to Soothsayer, who you have been personally assaulting and insulting incessantly.

                            Given that I was just subjected to the same exact thing multiple times yesterday, by people far less rational than you usually are - who continually insisted I meant something completely different from what I meant, despite repeatedly attempting to clarify and making simple points over and over, only to be utterly ignored in favor of the original interpretation - I find it surprising that you are so rigid and insensitive and unwilling to consider error in this case.

                            You know I like you, a lot. I really think you should back away, take a deep breath, and reconsider.

                            As I noted in the other comment where you proposed something virtually identical to what I propose and what Soothsayer endorsed explicitly, we really are in violent agreement.

                            Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

                            by RandomActsOfReason on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 05:26:20 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Sigh. (0+ / 0-)

                            I like you too, Random. I just think your interpretation of Soothsayer's subsequent comments empties her initial and central thesis--"[T]he word  'marriage' should be reserved for religious ceremonies"--of its plain-language meaning.

                            I don't buy that. Over and over again, I don't think you're interpreting her correctly. (I entirely disagree that Soothsayer has "endorsed explicitly" the proposals you and I have sketched out.) I gave her several chances--boy, did I ever give her chances--to backtrack and say she didn't mean what she said in that first comment. She never did. She has never admitted any error in any of those statements. Nor has she ever actually said that nonreligious people should be able to use the word "marriage," notwithstanding your (I think unfounded) attempts to interpret her later statements that way.

                            As a result, I am taking her at her word. What she asserted is a terrible, discriminatory idea, and I have explained that clearly. I don't regret responding harshly to the clearly expressed notion that people like you and me should be deprived of the term "marriage."

                          •  I'm not interpreting anything (0+ / 0-)

                            I'm taking her at her word.

                            You are, despite your claim, doing exactly the opposite. You are ignoring all her subsequent comments, because you wrote her off and hounded her mercilessly. You never tried to engage her in constructive dialog, you never asked her for a clarification, if what she meant is what you insisted. You even ignored her repeatedly telling you that it was NOT what she meant. You also ignore her agreeing with my interpretation, claiming that she was being dishonest and didn't mean what she now claimed. Do you not see the contradiction between claiming she never corrected the error, and claiming that when she did, it was not sincere?

                            Really, you've just perpetrated exactly the kind of assault you and I have struggled against so often here. It is disappointing.

                            Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

                            by RandomActsOfReason on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 09:30:00 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Sorry, that last was a little over the top (0+ / 0-)

                            I'm just frustrated. We'll never make progress this way.

                            Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

                            by RandomActsOfReason on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 09:33:57 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Still sigh. (0+ / 0-)

                            I don't understand how you can contend you're taking her at her word, and I'm not, when she wrote "[T]he word  'marriage' should be reserved for religious ceremonies"--and I am accepting that as what she meant, and you're not.

                            I haven't ignored her subsequent comments; I've just observed that they do nothing to contradict or walk back what she said in her first comment. She has never, ever said that she supports non-religious people being able to retain the word "marriage." She simply hasn't said that. You are acting as if she has.


                            Okay. I hope you can agree that you and I are in direct disagreement about what Soothsayer's comments do and do not mean. You think it's extremely evident that she agrees with your ideas about marriage, and that she is willing to accept that "marriage" should continue to exist outside of religion. You don't see Soothsayer's direct statements in her first comment as conclusive evidence that you're mistaken. (I think they are, but never mind; that piece of evidence hasn't brought us to agreement.) Well, there's another data point to dig up: in that first comment, she cites an article by Alan Dershowitz as describing the idea she supports:

                            i remember reading an op-ed by Deroshwitcz eons ago that  made the case that the word  "marriage" should be reserved for religious ceremonies and civil unions should be the language appilied to all legal contractual arrangements between two people - straight or gay

                            I agree with that -- that was my position before i even read the damn piece  (which I am too lazy to go find right now) nand it remains my position now

                            So she says she agrees with Dershowitz. That her position is the same as his.

                            Okay. Here's Dershowitz. Here's what he argues:

                            Those who oppose gay marriage believe deeply that marriage is sacreda divine, a blessed sacrament between man and woman as ordained in the Bible. If they are right, then the entire concept of marriage has no place in our civil society, which recognizes the separation between the sacred and the secular, between church and state.

                            [....]

                            The solution is to unlink the religious institution of marriage — as distinguished from the secular institution of civil union — from the state. Under this proposal, any couple could register for civil union, recognized by the state, with all its rights and responsibilities.

                            Religious couples could then go to the church, synagogue, mosque or other sacred institution of their choice in order to be married. These religious institutions would have total decision-making authority over which marriages to recognize. Catholic churches would not recognize gay marriages. Orthodox Jewish synagogues would not recognize a marriage between a Jew and a non-Jew who did not wish to convert to Judaism. And those religious institutions that chose to recognize gay marriages could do so. It would be entirely a religious decision beyond the scope of the state.

                            [....]

                            Not only would this solution be good for gays and for those who oppose gay marriage on religious grounds, it would also strengthen the wall of separation between church and state by placing a sacred institution entirely in the hands of the church while placing a secular institution under state control.

                            [....]

                            All that would be different would be the name we give the secular agreement. The word "marriage" would be reserved for those who chose the religious sacrament.

                            [....]

                            So let each couple decide whether they want to receive the sacrament of marriage or the secular status of civil union. And let the state get out of the business of determining who should receive holy sacraments.

                            (Underline added.)

                            There you go: over and over again, in every underlined passage above, Dershowitz confirms my reading of Soothsayer's argument and contradicts yours. Like her, he puts it in black-and-white, repeatedly: "The word 'marriage' would be reserved for those who chose the religious sacrament"; marriage would become nothing more than a "religious institution" to be placed "entirely in the hands of the church," and so on.

                            Dershowitz, like Soothsayer, has not a single word to say that even hints that a secular "marriage" involving secular people would even be possible. To the contrary, he directly declares that marriage minus religion equals "civil union." ("The solution is to unlink the religious institution of marriage — as distinguished from the secular institution of civil union — from the state.")


                            So I'm sorry, but I think the evidence that you have misinterpreted Soothsayer is overwhelming at this point. The plain terms of her proposal involve destroying the very notion of a secular marriage, and the opinion article she cited argues exactly that: "The word 'marriage' would be reserved for those who chose the religious sacrament."

                            It's a fairly simple point we're differing on here. I just think that the evidence clearly supports my interpretation.

                          •  Why don't you try, politely, asking her? (0+ / 0-)

                            Directly asking her if, in fact, she supports a system where only religious people could be "married", and where a previously married atheists would find their marriage suddenly annulled.

                            Why don't you simply ask her what she believes, instead of assuming and attacking?

                            What is accomplished by such an approach?

                            I suggest that dialog may be a better approach, that assumptions are dangerous, and that the rational response to someone who says, "that is NOT what I mean" or "that is NOT what I'm saying" or "you are arguing something I did not say", is to ask them, respectfully, to clarify their intent.

                            I cannot find a single comment where you asked her to explain what she meant, in the light of her repeatedly telling you that she did not mean what you assumed.

                            Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

                            by RandomActsOfReason on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 09:37:04 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I'm sorry, but reading is not "assuming." (0+ / 0-)

                            As I've pointed out to you repeatedly, Soothsayer made it very clear what her position is. My only "assumption" has been that she meant what she said. (Which includes agreeing with Dershowitz.) You, by contrast, have assumed that she didn't mean what she said.


                            I cannot find a single comment where you asked her to explain what she meant....

                            I don't see the point in asking a commenter to clarify a comment that isn't the slightest bit ambiguous. "[T]he word  'marriage' should be reserved for religious ceremonies" is simply a clear statement of her position. She could have retracted it, but she never has.

                            I just don't think it's an objectionable "assumption" to take a commenter at his or her word. Which is all that I've done here.


                            What is accomplished by such an approach?

                            I daresay that Soothsayer has learned that heedless notions about handing marriage over to religious authorities are not appreciated. Her decision to hide behind you--who have never asserted anything close to "the word  'marriage' should be reserved for religious ceremonies"--suggests to me that she's learned something about the acceptability of the idea she expressed. That's not a bad outcome.

                          •  She repeatedly said that she did not mean (0+ / 0-)

                            what you claimed she meant. In turn, she agreed with my interpretation. Is it not possible that your interpretation was different than hers?

                            You haven't taken a commenter at their word. You have trapped them in your initial assumption, and refused to take them at their word that they did not intend what you claim they intend. You even dismiss their endorsement of an alternative interpretation as disingenuous.

                            You are, essentially claiming to speak for a person better than they can speak for themselves, even after they repeatedly noted that you were not speaking for them correctly. That is profoundly disrespectful, and it is profoundly irrational, and it is profoundly counterproductive.

                            What she learned is that an effort to engage you in rational dialog, without insults and disrespect, was a futile exercise, and she withdrew from the conversation.

                            Don't mistake withdrawal for assent. I used to do that all the time. I've learned that I didn't change anyone's mind, I simply battered them into giving up on the effort to have a conversation.

                            I try to catch myself when I start doing the same thing these days. I don't try to defend it when it happens.

                            It would be as if someone would insist that, as an atheist, you hate religious people - and, no matter how many times you said that wasn't true, and no matter how many times you tried to distinguish between criticizing religious ideas, and attacking the person, they kept insisting that, no, what you say you mean isn't true, that, in fact, you mean what THEY say you mean.

                            Sound familiar? We encounter this attitude all the time here. Let's not be guilty of it ourselves. I urge you to think about this.

                            Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

                            by RandomActsOfReason on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 02:34:40 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Loggerheads. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Prof Haley

                            She repeatedly said that she did not mean what you claimed she meant.

                            Yes, that's a very common response from people who make a terrible proposal and are then confronted with the consequences of what they have suggested. Soothsayer is understandably reluctant to accept that her proposal visits horrible consequences on innocent people--that's not what she meant--but unfortunately, it is what she proposed. Soothsayer's refusal to come to grips with the consequences of her (and Dershowitz's) idea is not evidence that she didn't have that idea!


                            You have trapped them in your initial assumption....

                            For the nth time, her words are not my assumption. I have now produced the Dershowitz article, which proves beyond any reasonable doubt that she really did mean what she said, and what I interpreted her to be saying. My conclusion was not an assumption, and it was demonstrably correct. All of the direct evidence--the Dershowitz article prominent among it--simply shows that you're mistaken.


                            You are, essentially claiming to speak for a person better than they can speak for themselves....

                            No. I just held up a mirror to her proposal. That she didn't like what she saw doesn't change what her proposal always has been.


                            Don't mistake withdrawal for assent.

                            Oh, I'm not. I don't think she agrees with me. (And, for the reasons I've stated, I'm very confident that her proposal doesn't agree with you, either.) However, I think she's learned a thing or two about the social acceptability of her "give marriage to religion" idea. That, as I said, is not a bad outcome.


                            You even dismiss their endorsement of an alternative interpretation as disingenuous.

                            As I have explained, I think you are vastly overreading her "endorsement" of your comment. She saw a guy taking her side against mean ol' Rieux and pushed a button indicating approval of you. To see that single act as some kind of broad agreement with your platform seems to me severely unwarranted.


                            Look--at this point I'm afraid we're at simple loggerheads. I believe there is, and I believe I have produced, overwhelming evidence that Soothsayer very much intended to propose that marriage be given over entirely to religious institutions, to the serious detriment (not that it appears she ever considered that) of atheists. Her plain words, and her direct endorsement of the Dershowitz article, make that intent entirely clear. At your urging, I've "thought" about this plenty; but I'm afraid that I cannot in good conscience budge from a position that I think is thoroughly grounded in indisputable evidence. (Moreover, taking it as given that I interpreted her comment correctly, I am similarly confident that the way I responded to her in this thread was proper and justifiable.)

                            Meanwhile, I gather that you are not likely to change your mind about what you think Soothsayer did and did not mean. I have presented you with what I think is a very large quantity of evidence indicating that you are mistaken, but that has not moved you.

                            As a result, I'm not sure that there is much constructive purpose in continuing this. I don't think that either one of us is likely to change his mind. I don't see any ending to this story other than agreeing to disagree.

        •  SCOTUS didn't find the word troubling. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Rieux, decca

          "Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man."

          And they were willing to use that word in a case where the religious arguement against interracial marriage was explicitly made.

          Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

          Given a choice between using the word used by SCOTUS with it's explicit guarentee, and some newfangled and awkward phrase like "Civil Unions" coined to prevent teh gays from obtaining that same basic civil right, I'll choose the former.

          It's the one with the official US Supreme Court stamp of approval.

          That's the one that I want for my marriage.

          The distruction of marriage is scorched earth politics.
          They can pry the wedding rings from our cold dead fingers.

          by banach tarski paradox on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 06:40:12 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  "Basic civil rights of man" (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            joedemocrat, soothsayer99, Domino14

            is a troublingly religious phrase.

            I think you are fighting a straw man that was not proposed here.

            As I understand it, the idea is not that only gay people would have "civil union", while hetero people would have "marriage".

            The idea is to separate the secular, contractual, legal process of forming a union between two adult members of a society - a process which would be the right of any partners, regardless of the gender, sexual preference, skin tone, religion, etc of the parties - from a purely ceremonial, optional process, which anyone could partake in as well in their own way with their own community, and which would have no legal status.

            Thus, I could enter into a contractual union, recognized by the state, with any man, woman,  transsexual, hemaphrodite or whatever, of my choice -  and we would both enjoy the same legal rights, and be subject to the same legal responsibilities, as any other combination.

            If we desire, we could have a ceremony of some sort - whether a secular celebration, a satanic bacchanal, a reverent dedication to a god, an atheist party, whatever. That is in the realm of free speech, conscience and association, and would have no legal significance.

            Clearly, all current "marriages" would be recognized as legally valid - but we'd have removed all barriers and inequalities.

            What exactly is the problem with that scheme?

            Churches would be free to "marry" whoever they'd like, and everyone would be free to have a legal partner of their choice.

            Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

            by RandomActsOfReason on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 02:39:29 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  i think part of the trouble -- and i agree (3+ / 0-)

              with this -- is that scheme has conveniently come again as it becomes inevitable that gay  "marriage" will be a recognozed constutitional right

              And yes that is suspect -- even though some of us have held this position for eons, others may be using this as the diarist suggests to "destroy rights" in prder to protect them

              "....while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." Eugene V. Debs

              by soothsayer99 on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 02:45:42 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  The scheme of opponents of equal rights (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                joedemocrat, soothsayer99, Domino14

                is to create a genuine two-tiered system, where marriage would still be a legal construct, but gays would be denied it and only allowed "civil unions", a separate-but-equal process to marriage.

                Your proposal, one that I support, would create true equality for all, without separation or stigma, and remove religious intrusion into the realm of contract law, family law and other laws that fall into the realm of secular government.

                Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

                by RandomActsOfReason on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 02:50:33 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  That's pretty much how we do things here in Iowa (0+ / 0-)

              Except for the change the name thingie.

              What exactly is the problem with that scheme?

              We got the governmental thing. (We call it civil marriage.)

              We also got that religion thing, too. (the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony.)

              What exactly is the problem with this scheme?

              Or do you just have a solution in search of a problem?

              The destruction of marriage is scorched earth politics.
              They can pry the wedding rings from our cold dead fingers.

              by banach tarski paradox on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 01:26:31 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  Just wondering. When your straight friends (5+ / 0-)

      tell you they just decided to get married - do you wax eloquent about the religious and civil history of marriage and whether they should object to a religious wedding and that they should just have a contract?

      Or do you wish them well in their married lives?

      I guess my question is -- what is the point?  Or, maybe more accurately, what is the exact suggestion?  Or is it just an opinion, made a thousand times by a thousand people, to nobody in particular, to the air as it were, but strangely, only showing up when LGBT people are working for their inclusion?

      Maybe we should just all drop this nonsense about same sex marriage and all form this massive union to root marriage out of civil society once and for all and replace everybody's marriages with a contract?

      Or what would be the actual suggestion about what to DO about this arrangement of marriage in society that so many people find askew?  I'm just not clear on it -- that is, you know, the doing part.

      I remember, when we were arguing for inclusion of gay people in hate crimes laws, people were all over opining on the appropriateness of hate crimes laws in general.  Strangely, I haven't heard a single word about it since.  Funny, since before the Matthew Shepard Act, many different classes of people were named in federal hate crimes statutes, and still are.

      So I wonder where all those people went.  It seems their expressed distaste for hate crimes laws just sort of vanished when the battle to include the gay was over.

      Funny, that.

      "When in doubt, be ruthless" - Ferengi saying (-6.62, -6.26)

      by AndyS In Colorado on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 10:41:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  asdf (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        soothsayer99

        Who are you arguing with? I don't think the guy said that.

        I mean, you basically accused him of being some kind of bigot because he's generally opposed to the institution of marriage which, secular or not at present, is, the way it's done in our country at least, a legacy of the Puritan culture that is arguably part of the same beast that rears so much hate against gays.

        I personally don't agree or see that ever happening. I think marriage is an important institution. I think creating families is an important practice. I also think it should be open to everyone, and should be practiced by those who can and facilitated by the government.

        Again, I don't know who you are talking about. There is actually still plenty of chatter about the hate crimes laws, and it cranks up every time it is invoked no matter who it is against. Maybe you just aren't listening.

        And just to top off my point, people against the institution of marriage being run by the state aren't just showing up now and to the extent they are it's largely because they see it being used as a bludgeon against people.

        Sigh.

        All I've got is an orange blog, three paragraphs, and the truth.

        by Attorney at Arms on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 11:05:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I described what is going on here. (5+ / 0-)

          I didn't call anyone a bigot, I asked questions.

          If what is being done looks bad, or looks strange and interestingly and strangely focused, that is not my problem.

          What the movement for marriage equality is about is inclusion in marriage.  Contrary to what the religious right is saying, the movement as a whole is not at all about CHANGING marriage.

          Now, anyone who wants to change marriage, I may not care, but I have no problem whatsoever with them doing that.

          So, cool ... what is their plan?  And how does the drive to change marriage as it operates in the United States specifically have anything to do with LGBT people, per se?

          I'm wondering why is gay rights somehow related, in any way, to changing marriage, or eliminating it from the government, or making it religious, or changing contract, have to do with peoples' desire simply to be included and to get access to the 1100 things that straight people already get?

          Moreover, it would seem rational, and logical, that if people were very interested in modifying marriage as it operates in the United States, this would be an issue of sufficient interest to stand on its own, as, you know, an independent issue, independently pursued, without any particular need to conflate it with gay rights.

          So, why is it so associated?  You tell me.  Because I only see it with relation to the drive for LGBT advocates to get inclusion.  I am simply asking what is the point, here, because we do not have universally recognized marriage in this country -- we should seemingly be the last ones to approach about changing the entire institution itself, one we do not have access to at all on a national level and only in a couple of states.  It is straight people who mostly partake (because they can) in this apparently flawed institution.

          "When in doubt, be ruthless" - Ferengi saying (-6.62, -6.26)

          by AndyS In Colorado on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 11:19:53 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Right. (0+ / 0-)

            It was a rhetorical question and now you're backing off it because you got called on it.

            I repeat: the vast majority of people who are raising this issue are doing so because they are trying to help.

            But go ahead and attack them for being bigots. It's very helpful.

            All I've got is an orange blog, three paragraphs, and the truth.

            by Attorney at Arms on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 01:52:16 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  p.s. (0+ / 0-)

            You are basically making the Abe Foxman ADL argument: it might hurt your feelings if someone posted an idea in this context, so don't.

            wtf

            All I've got is an orange blog, three paragraphs, and the truth.

            by Attorney at Arms on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 01:54:13 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  And, about the appropriateness or wisdom of hate (5+ / 0-)

          crimes, really?

          Because I haven't seen it.  I haven't seen one diary, one article, one anything, on the rec list here, or anywhere else, since the Matthew Shepard Act passed.

          It would also have seemed, that, were it such a pressing issue, that not only would it be discussed, but interest about the wisdom of having hate crimes statutes would have survived as a pressing issue of national importance, after that.

          That it might be discussed in some corners, I have no doubt.  But, strangely, it has not appeared in any wide ranging and popularly discussed topics, since.

          "When in doubt, be ruthless" - Ferengi saying (-6.62, -6.26)

          by AndyS In Colorado on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 11:27:30 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Who are YOU arguing with? (4+ / 0-)

          You invent this out of whole cloth and then argue against it:

          I mean, you basically accused him of being some kind of bigot

          So "basically" you're arguing against yourself, since you invented the strawman.

          I suspect it is your defensiveness over President Obama being on the wrong side of this that has motivated you to act out in this way. If so, that's sort of pathetic.

        •  Most of us here know how to type the word. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          AndyS In Colorado

          I mean, you basically accused him of being some kind of bigot

          I won't speak for anybody else, but if I want to call somebody a bigot, there'll be no mistaking it. You won't need to read it into any of my comments. It'll be right there (quite possibly in bold) for you to quote directly.

          The destruction of marriage is scorched earth politics.
          They can pry the wedding rings from our cold dead fingers.

          by banach tarski paradox on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 07:19:11 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  The problem is (6+ / 0-)

      if there's a bunch of sudden converts to this "no more marriage" idea from the ranks of Democrats against gay marriage, who now find themselves about to be on the wrong side of history.  (not you.)

    •  That Derschowitz article (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rieux, decca, Alec82, soothsayer99

      (Isn't he the "torture warrent" guy?, btw?)

      i remember reading an op-ed by Deroshwitcz eons ago that  made the case that the word  "marriage" should be reserved for religious ceremonies and civil unions should be the language appilied to all legal contractual arrangements between two people - straight or gay

      From wikipedia:

      Marriage privatization received attention from the legal scholar Alan Dershowitz in 2003 when Dershowitz wrote a Los Angeles Times editorial titled "To Fix Gay Dilemma, Government Should Quit the Marriage Business."

      http://en.wikipedia.org/...

      Derschowitz was aparently responding to the Goodridge decision in MA.

      But there was no "gay dilema" in need of solution. They had already won the right to marry.

      The distruction of marriage is scorched earth politics.
      They can pry the wedding rings from our cold dead fingers.

      by banach tarski paradox on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 06:13:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  You're on a roll. (10+ / 0-)

    Three great posts in a row.  Nicely done.

    Oba-MA bumaye! Oba-MA bumaye!

    by fou on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 10:04:02 PM PDT

  •  I rec your diaries on sight (7+ / 0-)

    Then I read them...you never let me down.

    Living kidney donor needed; type B, O, or incompatible (with paired donation). Drop me a note (see profile).

    by Kitsap River on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 10:11:29 PM PDT

    •  Thanks I really appreciate (7+ / 0-)

      that.

      You've been out of town so you might have missed a lot of what this is about, but I'm sure you figured it out from the diaries.

      There's just been a lot of people saying, all over the blogosphere "let's get rid of marriage completely" and it started within hours of the Prop. 8 decision coming out (the first diary I saw here was five or so hours after it) and it has continued unabated here and elsewhere. Today Angry Mouse posted a front page story about the Prop. 8 case and even in her post, a lot of people argued for the same thing.

      'Normal' has always been collaborating with injustice. - Tim Wise

      by indiemcemopants on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 10:17:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's nuts. (5+ / 0-)

        "Let's get rid of marriage entirely" is so Teh Gayz still won't have any? Oh, please. Separate but Equal wasn't equal in education any more than it is when it comes to marriage. Marriage ought to endure and same-sex couples ought to be able to benefit from it, just as opposite-sex couples can.

        If the gay couple next door being allowed to marry threatens your marriage, something is wrong with your marriage, not with theirs. No gay weddings can threaten my marriage to my beloved Charles, who is my partner (not my husband) until the day when every couple in Washington state can get married if they want to. This I swore long ago and I have abided by that promise. The Supremes here threw it back on the Legislature, which has declined to do a damn thing about it. Marriage equality is a civil rights issue, as you so rightly point out in diary after diary. You are right. The deniers are wrong. But I'd missed all  the hue and cry about getting rid of marriage entirely. That's just ludicrous. Thanks for filling me in.

        Living kidney donor needed; type B, O, or incompatible (with paired donation). Drop me a note (see profile).

        by Kitsap River on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 10:31:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's been awesome (6+ / 0-)

          in a way. Some commenters will say "you're being extreme, I have not seen many examples of this" and then front page diaries will have many examples.

          But that's all part of the denial that goes on here. Don't get me wrong. I love Dkos. But there are problems here. There are many people who, when confronted about bigotry, say "that doesn't happen here." People say that nobody here ever threatens to withdraw support from GLBT people when we get angry, but just today 3-4 comments in a single diary threatened to do just that.

          It's one thing to say and do all those things but it's another to, in the next breath, pretend that they never happen here and gays are just "emotional" and "whiny" for mentioning it.

          'Normal' has always been collaborating with injustice. - Tim Wise

          by indiemcemopants on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 10:38:50 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  We're back to Alice in Wonderland (3+ / 0-)

          As the Queen of Hearts said "First sentence, trial later", old Lewis Carroll was a wise man indeed!

          So much hatred.

          Peace

          Some people make you want to change species

          by ulookarmless on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 10:42:05 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  lol (0+ / 0-)

        It did not start with the Prop 8 decision. People were making this point during the Loving case in the 60s for fuck sake. It did not start on this site with the Prop 8 decision. It was made when the idea of no-fault divorce laws came about (i.e. that religious mores about what grounds for divorce should or shouldn't be should not control)

        Are there homophobes on this site? Sure. But your deduction that people making this argument are is just bizarre. I think you're missing their point: this institution is being used as a bludgeon against gays. Now that victory is in sight, that argument is weakened because all might be well.

        I totally disagree with that idea, but what is the point of attacking the people who are proponing it?  Is it at least fun or something?

        By the way, Google "covenant marriage." There are people actively trying to change marriage to reflect a "Bible" based view of it. Basically, no divorce. Have to do what the man says. Etc.

        I guess if you're ok with that (as long as there is gay bible marriage) then fine. Personally, I'd like the goddamn Bible freaks to get the fuck out of my government.

        All I've got is an orange blog, three paragraphs, and the truth.

        by Attorney at Arms on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 11:11:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  As usual you go straight to the heart (6+ / 0-)

    of their vacuous and hate filled arguments and tear them down mercilessly.

    You are a fearless advocate my friend. Take no prisoners!

    Peace

    CJ

    Some people make you want to change species

    by ulookarmless on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 10:24:34 PM PDT

  •  Wow. (0+ / 0-)

    Your first diary linked to two other diaries with a total of zero tips between them.

    This dairy links to... your first diary.

    Your evidence that this is "all over the place" is underwhelming.

    The question is not whether the chickens needed replacing, the question is whether the fox should have been guarding them in the first place.

    by happymisanthropy on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 10:29:07 PM PDT

    •  I didn't know I had (13+ / 0-)

      to provide mounds of evidence. I thought that any evidence of homophobia on a progressive site would lead people to say "that's enough" but I guess not.

      Also if you want to see a ton more examples, read the comments in Angry Mouse's front page post. It has all the evidence you could want.

      I don't understand comments like these. As I said, number one they seem to require gays to provide a whole bunch of evidence before people ever believe us and number two they seem to dismiss the complaints that we have just because.

      'Normal' has always been collaborating with injustice. - Tim Wise

      by indiemcemopants on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 10:41:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Indy, I'm with you (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        indiemcemopants, Predictor

        what a very weird thing to say.

        Seems to have no grounding in the reality of your diary.

        Peace

        Some people make you want to change species

        by ulookarmless on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 10:46:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  asdf (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Psyche

        You don't have to provide "mounds." Just something to convince people you aren't just picking the lowest possible hanging fruit for rhetorical flourish.

        Most of the people here care deeply about gay rights and your implication they do not is slanderous.

        All I've got is an orange blog, three paragraphs, and the truth.

        by Attorney at Arms on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 11:14:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  You didn't? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        hyperbolic pants explosion

        You claim there are people all over the place of 'raising the spectar of using their institutional power against the powerless to eliminate marriages entirely, as always, when a gay rights victory is won' and don't think that is a serious enough accusation to provide mound of evidence?

        It's not much different than Bill O'Reilly saying "Dailykos is anti-semetic" and using as evidence a couple of comments from here that accuse Israel of war crimes.  

        I'm sure many people have told you already, but you have too much tunnel vision and too many people supporting you in this nonexistent display of nonexistent disrespect...but nobody raised such a specter.  You're reading far too much into those diaries to be worked into such a frothy lather about.

    •  Go read Angry Mouse's FP story from today. (13+ / 0-)

      Pay close attention to the comments.  Then come back and tell indie that the evidence is underwhelming.

      Maladie d'Amour, Où l'on meurt d'Aimer, Seul et sans Amour, Sid'abandonné

      by FogCityJohn on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 10:46:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Honestly, my hope is that (6+ / 0-)

        the comments in her post will be a learning experience for the admins of this blog.

        'Normal' has always been collaborating with injustice. - Tim Wise

        by indiemcemopants on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 10:51:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Today there's been (8+ / 0-)

        a crop of diaries popping up about gay issues alleging that "some of the community" are trying to shut down debate here. Someone alleged that in my diary last night, but I think a lot of that sentiment is because of my diary plus AM's front page - they were both being read and commented on all day.

        They think that when we start to get bold and call out the BS for what it is that it's the same as trying to shut down debate - as if, like I said to the commenter in my last diary, one gay crippled guy who writes blog posts on one website on the internet has the kind of power to ever shut down debate of anything, anywhere.

        But the other thing that really disturbs the fuck out of me about the whole "let's have a reasonable calm debate over this!!!" is how it would look if it were any other issue. If someone said, hey let's have a calm, reasonable debate about women going back to coat hanger days. Why are you trying to shut the debate down, man, there's no harm! Let's debate on if Brown v. Board was correctly decided! There's no harm! Let's debate whether the holocaust happened! There's no harm!

        It's ridiculous. They paint US as irrational because we don't want to have that kind of debate because that time has passed. And they get away with it.

        'Normal' has always been collaborating with injustice. - Tim Wise

        by indiemcemopants on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 11:01:56 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  LGBT issues are just treated differently. (10+ / 0-)

          I have a lot of respect for Meteor Blades in general, but this is one where the site administration has completely fallen down.  No one would be allowed to make the kind of comments we see in LGBT diaries about any other minority.  No one would be allowed to accuse African-Americans of "whining" and demanding a "pony" if the issue were AA rights.  No one would be permitted to tell Jews just to "accept political reality" and wait for equal rights.  

          But LGBTs are treated differently, and I think the reason is that people don't truly view the LGBT struggle for equality as the equal (pardon the pun) of other similar struggles.  Lots of so-called progressives don't want to face up to the fact that when pressed, they don't really accept the importance of our struggle.  So members are allowed to spew all kinds of shit at gay folks, and it's considered A-OK.  It isn't right, but that's the way it is.  

          Maladie d'Amour, Où l'on meurt d'Aimer, Seul et sans Amour, Sid'abandonné

          by FogCityJohn on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 11:26:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  If you can show me where... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            joedemocrat, soothsayer99

            ...I have not viewed that LGBT struggle as equal to any other civil rights/human rights struggle, I would like to see it. Quite the contrary, I believe.

            Don't tell me what you believe. Tell me what you do and I'll tell you what you believe.

            by Meteor Blades on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 01:11:04 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I am referrring . . . (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              musing85, tnichlsn, Predictor, Alec82

              to the site administration's attitude toward the language that is used against LGBT members.  I am talking about how the site's rules on civility are enforced when the discussion concerns LGBT issues.  

              I hope I do not need to catalogue the instances in which members have called LGBTs "childish," or "hysterical," or "whining" for demanding equality.  Nor should I have to enumerate the instances in which our straight "allies" have told us to "grow up" if we criticize either the administration or the Democratic leadership in Congress.  This kind of infantalizing language is demeaning.  And calling gay people "hysterical" reflects a negative stereotype of gay men as overly emotional and effeminate.  In addition, I have personally reported to you at least one instance in which a member has repeatedly referred to gay sex as "buggery."  (I received no response, and I don't know whether any action was taken.)

              And before you respond that such comments aren't really that bad, I would just note that I know you're giving out warnings to (gay) people for saying another member is "nuts."  If that gets a warning, I think things like "hysterical" should be off limits too.

              Just my $0.02.    

              Maladie d'Amour, Où l'on meurt d'Aimer, Seul et sans Amour, Sid'abandonné

              by FogCityJohn on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 04:48:27 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Or rather, "not enforced" (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                tnichlsn, Predictor, Alec82, FogCityJohn

                I am talking about how the site's rules on civility are enforced when the discussion concerns LGBT issues.

                "Grow up"
                "Hysterical"
                "Drama queen"
                "Pony"
                "Whining"

                I've seen all of them more times than I can count. And I'd wager that none of the usual suspects who can be found trolling around LGBT diaries, uprating such comments, have never received a single warning.

              •  Given my public record... (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                tnichlsn, soothsayer99

                ...why would you even think suggest: "And before you respond that such comments aren't really that bad..."?

                I give out warnings to people for sexist, heterosexist, racist, anti-semitic, anti-Arab and anti-ablist comments all the time. A number of people in each of those categories have been banned.

                Don't tell me what you believe. Tell me what you do and I'll tell you what you believe.

                by Meteor Blades on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 06:23:20 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Because . . . (0+ / 0-)

                  I have seen comments of this nature on the site more times than I can count, and they persist.  As Michael correctly points out, the same people show up time after time and use the same language over and over again.  It's tiring, it's demeaning, and yes, it's homophobic.

                  I'm a 49-year-old gay guy with HIV, so trust me, I've been called my share of names in my time.  But even though I'm used to it, it remains unpleasant, and I simply did not expect to have to deal with this kind of thing so frequently on a "progressive" site.  

                  Perhaps it might serve everyone well if there were a story or diary devoted to this issue.  

                  Maladie d'Amour, Où l'on meurt d'Aimer, Seul et sans Amour, Sid'abandonné

                  by FogCityJohn on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 09:33:00 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Let's look at just one example: "Drama queen" (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Alec82, FogCityJohn

                I did a little digging in the archives, and here's some of what I found.

                In the past year, there have been 851 comments containing the words "drama queen" that received not a single troll-rating. In that same period of time, there were a grand total of 27 comments using that phrase that received at least one troll-rating (and 13 of those were from the same troll, bpender).

                The maximum number of recommends on a "drama queen" comment was 59, this past January, when Christin said It's what this place was before the drama queens invaded and the desperate need for mojo and recs that turned people into ....drama queens with a posse. Then there was another from February which got 30 recommends, when Lying eyes said Maybe if we get some form of HCR the drama queens can afford to see a professional and stop using DKos for therapy. Many of the usual suspects recommended that one. Perhaps the best example of people completely not getting the point came in the cluster-fuck that started with a comment from indie noting that using "drama queen" in the context of a gay Obama boycott was homophobic. A whole slew of several dozen comments followed wondering how anybody could possibly think that "drama queen" was in any way related to gay people. Second place in the clueless brigade goes to a Dr Marcos, who opined last October that "I have never seen any homophobic comments on DailyKos but obviously some drama queens like to cook up controversy when they can especially on a slow news day, which is kinda pathetic."

                Particularly offensive was this outburst from fou, who claims to be lesbian, and who, while in a typically heated exchange with anyone who does not agree with her that gay rights should not be at the top of anyone's list of things to get done anytime soon, said to you "...because unlike you and the rest of the pussy drama queens, I don't wet my panties whenever I feel someone in the world doesn't care about me." She got five recommends on that comment; I was the only person to drop a bagel on it, precisely, as I noted in my comment giving the reason, for "pussy drama queens." There were 653 comments on that diary, and it was on DADT, so it's not like it simply dropped off the list too quickly for anyone to have noticed.

                •  Hear, hear (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  musing85, Alec82

                  Thanks for all of the research, Michael.

                  And yes, fou is one of the worst offenders.  Although she says she's a lesbian, she has posted all kind of anti-gay comments.  She seems to have very stereotypical views of gay men.  

                  Maladie d'Amour, Où l'on meurt d'Aimer, Seul et sans Amour, Sid'abandonné

                  by FogCityJohn on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 09:36:34 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  He is not talking.. (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              musing85, tnichlsn, Predictor, FogCityJohn

              ...about your view, he is talking about the difference in treatment between, say, antisemitic comments, and homophobic ones.  It is broader than the site admin, and I think it just reflects a cultural tolerance for anti-gay discourse.

              "All along the watchtower, princes kept the view..."

              by Alec82 on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 05:46:30 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  It's not that you're not supportive of the (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              tnichlsn, Predictor, FogCityJohn

              struggle--we know you are, and we're grateful. However, for the most part (at least as far as anyone not able to see the administrative bits of the site is concerned), it does appear that we're more or less left hanging out to dry. If I had a nickel for every time someone came into an LGBT-related diary and started talking smack, I wouldn't need to buy lottery tickets. It took us the better part of two years to get to the point where people finally stopped making "Mann Coulter" jokes--until yesterday when another one popped up. But we're still routinely called "drama queens," "childish," "whiners," "hysterical," told to "grow up," "be realistic," and to stop asking for "ponies." We do our part to smack down that kind of nonsense, but we're frequently outnumbered by the crowd of usual suspects who uprate it. And I don't remember seeing much in the way of administrative support, despite the fact that I know many of the most egregious offenders have been reported.

              •  To offer just one example... (3+ / 0-)

                ...I have publicly (years before becoming director of community) and repeatedly attacked the Coulter-is-a-man comments (with all its implications). And I've given warnings for it as well.

                Comments that I consider to be heterosexist - like "drama queens" or "hysterical" - do get warnings (and more if repeated). I obviously don't see all of these, but when I do, I don't ignore them.

                However, comments like "be realistic," "grow up," and "whiners" are, in my view, not orientation specific. We ALL get those kind of remarks directed at us, on a variety of subjects.

                Don't tell me what you believe. Tell me what you do and I'll tell you what you believe.

                by Meteor Blades on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 06:30:50 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Would it be too much to ask, then, (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  tnichlsn, Alec82, FogCityJohn

                  for a little more strict scrutiny, to borrow a reasonably apposite phrase from the legal world? The most egregious of the offenders seem hell-bent on getting us to come around to their way of thinking, can be reliably counted on to show up in most gay- or lesbian-related diaries, and they don't pay much attention to us when we point out the site rules. It would be nice to get a little back-up now and then.

  •  14th amendment. (7+ / 0-)

    The document, written by Strom Thurmond (D-Racist) also said, "The original Constitution does not mention education. Neither does the 14th Amendment nor any other amendment. The debates preceding the submission of the 14th Amendment clearly show that there was no intent that it should affect the system of education maintained by the States."

    The 14th Amendment states "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

    The very fact that it doesn't single out this or that shows that Thurmond was wrong. If it specified some, but not others, he would have a point. The 14th Amendment in general rather than specific terms forbids states from abridging the privileges or immunities, guarantees due process, and forbids states from violating equal protections.

    The 14th amendment doesn't forbid some types of unequal protection, and allow others. If you followed the "reasoning" of people like Thurmond, freedom of religion would only apply to some types of approved religion, freedom of speech would only apply to the right types of speech, freedom of the press would only apply to certain types of press.

    That's exactly what the right does believe. They hate the 14th amendment with a passion. That is because they truly hate freedom. I'm not being snarky, either. They want freedom of religion, speech and the press to only apply to those that they approve of. Under such restrictions freedom does not exist. It's meaningless to say that you have the freedom to say the officially approved things, North Korea has that kind of "freedom".

    Opponents of marriage equality have little to base their position on. It always comes down to "it's against my religion". Fine, fine. You're church doesn't have to perform same sex marriages. No one is going to force you to. But let people get married in a civil ceremony if they wish. Or let those churches who would perform same sex marriages do so. An overlooked angle in all this is that opposition to same sex marriage is religious discrimination on those churches who accept same sex marriage.

    The wolfpack eats venison. The lone wolf eats mice.

    by A Citizen on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 10:29:28 PM PDT

  •  Great diary. T'd & R'd. (3+ / 0-)

    'democratic scaredy cats' is right.

    Fox news is ad hominem and ad populum ad nauseum.
    A Presidency among the Vuvuzelas.
    Only palin can sound like a vuvuzela while twittering.

    by amk for obama on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 10:36:25 PM PDT

  •  Once again, a well-written diary. n/t (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    indiemcemopants, sfbob
  •  sigh (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Psyche

    Deep thought: every diary is an I/P diary now.

    The intellectual dishonesty of equating the Democrats of today with the Dixiecrats of the 50s is astounding. The Dixiecrats had balls.

    All I've got is an orange blog, three paragraphs, and the truth.

    by Attorney at Arms on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 11:13:32 PM PDT

  •  Completely off topic, but I'm curious, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    musing85, indiemcemopants

    indiemcemopants, have you ever watched the webseries The Guild?

    •  I haven't heard of it. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      musing85, vacantlook

      What is it?

      'Normal' has always been collaborating with injustice. - Tim Wise

      by indiemcemopants on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 11:29:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Ooo! (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        musing85, indiemcemopants

        The Guild is a webseries written and staring Felicia Day, who played the potential slayer Vi in the final season of Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Mag in a couple episodes of Dollhouse, and Penny in Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog.  It was actually Felicia's having done The Guild that inspired Joss Whedon to do Dr. Horrible.

        Anyway, The Guild is initially released for viewing online and eventually sold on DVD.  I think they're currently doing the fourth season.  With it being a webseries, each episode is like 5-10 minutes long, so a whole season is like 90 minutes long.  I know the first season at least is on YouTube, not sure about the rest.  All of the episodes might be up on the show's website as far as I know -- www.watchtheguild.com

        The Guild is about a group of online World Of Warcraft-like RPG gamers who end up meeting when one of them uninvitedly shows up at Codex's (Felicia's character) house.  All of the characters on the show are pretty damn crazy.

        Anyway, I just the other day finally got the DVD of the third season, in which the characters are dealing with an antagonistic rival guild.  One of the antagonists is this acerbic gothic woman in a wheelchair who has no qualms about using her handicap to mess with people.  I was watching the extras on the DVD this morning and learned that the actress playing her actually is handicapped and in a wheelchair in real life, and listening to her in her behind the scenes interview talk about how she liked being able to play a villainous character because of how she tends to be type cast as the nice handicapped friend in the other acting work she's done.  It just kind of made me think of you and what life is like for handicapped folk.  It actually kind of made me happy that they used an actual handicapped actress for the role instead of just using whomever and had them sit in a chair for the role.

        I think I might just have to watch season three again right now, given that I'm all thinking about it and stuff.  It's pretty damn funny.

        •  ooh, new trend emerging (0+ / 0-)

          Independent film makers could create "TV series" and post them on the internet, in short-episode format (10 minutes).   That could be really interesting.   A typical 1/2 hour TV series installment is only actualy 20 minutes plus commercials, so going to 10 minutes seems viable.  

          The major advantage here is that the format works on the internet, and the installments can focus on characters & plot development rather than scenery.  

          It used to be said that TV was a portrait camera, and film for the theatre screen was a landscape camera.  Now that people have huge screens at home, the "small screen" is the 4" - 5" diagonal format of the internet.  

          The relationship has shifted such that conventional TV is now a landscape camera, and internet TV is now the portrait camera.  

          So, taking advantage of the format, one can focus on characters and plot, use whatever minimal special effects are needed for realism, and forget about all the expensive flashy stuff done with scenery & effects on conventional TV.  

          This is good.

          This opens up film-making to a potentially huge range of participants who are conventionally excluded due to the costs of producing film or conventional TV.   It also opens up acting positions to people who are highly talented amateurs, who might otherwise never have the chance for a role to be seen around the world.  

          It also opens up huge potential for interviews on-the-fly.  Go to a conference, find someone interesting to talk with, set up two cameras and a couple of wearable mics, chat for 15 minutes, and edit that down to 10.  

          I could even see it being used for conversations among friends who have something significant to say.  Call it "Public Brainstorm" or something along those lines.  For example imagine a couple of astrophysicists at a conference, chatting together about the latest peer-reviewed findings about the composition of gas giant planets or whatever.  Hmm!  That's almost enough to get me looking for a decent pair of video cameras and tripods!  (As if I don't already have too much to do!)

          No doubt this medium will produce its share of dreck, but it will also produce a major increase in video that has artistic merit.  

  •  another great diary indie (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dharmafarmer

    tipped and rec'd as usual.

    You're watching Fox News. OH MY GOD--LOOK OUT BEHIND YOU

    by rexymeteorite on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 11:34:51 PM PDT

  •  Already diaries. (0+ / 0-)

    Seriously, isn't there some sort of rule against this?  This diary adds nothing.  

    I still don't see all these people two diarists who got zero traction in diaries meant to be thinking exercises is not 'liberal bloggers/analysts/law professors all over the place.'

    Fur fucks sake you need at least six links to make this claim, 2 liberal bloggers, 2 analysts, and 2 law professors.  

    But even if you could find six links, you still have to do mental gymnastics to conclude they are trying to do what you are accusing them of doing.  

    This was a bs diary the first time.  Adding a prelude to it just to hatch the same pie fight makes it a complete and total failure.  

  •  Hey, I completely sympathize with the (4+ / 0-)

    frustration - although it's worth considering that one of the pushes against marriage equality came from... the LGBT movement.  The argument for dissolving marriage as an government-blessed institution, and as a parochial institution, has roots both in the history of the broader LGBT movement and still commonly in the radical queer side of our community.  There's no doubt we got a sudden surge of "eliminate marriage entirely"-type comments after the Walker decision, but be careful about painting too-wide a portrait of that opposition: one of the two diaries you linked was by a lesbian in a same-sex relationship, and some of the people you're frustrated by (see h.p.e.'s comment above) have been making this point for years.

    I'm certainly not saying you have to agree with them - I don't, as a matter of fact - but not all of the anti-marriage push has a subtext of homophobia.  Some of it does, no doubt, and maybe it's worth shining some light on the discussion to ferret out just how much of it is prompted by homophobia after all.

    Otherwise, take it all in stride.  The fact that people are questioning the most fundamental assumptions about marriage is a good thing, and the institution will survive just fine.  Rigorous reevaluation helps us understand why things are important, even if we don't all reach the same conclusions.

    (btw - did you get my email?)

    Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

    by pico on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 12:30:05 AM PDT

    •  Oh! Right! Your email! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      musing85, pico

      I got it but my Hotmail account has been preventing me from logging back in, so could you possibly forward it to lowly_anonymity@yahoo.com  ?

      That email seems to work. Dunno what the  problem is. But I wanted to reply and give you more information (I don't mind and I'm thrilled to have your offer of help.)

      But yeah, you're right in what you said in the post. I would honestly feel better if the sentiment were being expressed by LGBT people here or by well known Feminist blogs but it's not. It seems to be an attempt by Dems who don't really support marriage for gays to be able to oppose it "on principle."

      For instance there were a whole bunch of comments about it in Angry Mouse's front page post today - and a lot of the same people were also saying snotty and/or terrible shit about LGBT people in the same diary - and it's well known users, not trolls.

      And on top of that, if this is really a thing, if they really want to end marriage, then they could always start an end marriage movement. Do an end marriage community on Kos, I mean, anything really, but just mentioning it shortly after a gay victory creeps me the fuck out.

      But it's definitely time for me to try to pass out, g'night.

      'Normal' has always been collaborating with injustice. - Tim Wise

      by indiemcemopants on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 12:54:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yes, but it would seem that if you had (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      musing85, pico, banach tarski paradox

      a problem with the institution of marriage in general, whether it is just a LGBT person who thinks it is parochial, or a straight person trying to make an issue out of something, or get attention or whatever, one would not have an apparent need to say it over and over again to people who very obviously disagree with that position, or at least, are interested in marriage equality in preference to that?

      One can choose not to get married.  And one can choose to discuss the institution of marriage, independently of diaries that are about gay rights.

      (Using the phonetic "you" here).

      Does anyone object to people for example, writing their own diaries about how parochial and problematic an issue marriage is?

      So, why is an attempt to start fights about that in diaries not about that apparently acceptable?

      Why does the idea of diary hijacking apparently mean something everywhere else, but means nothing when this completely off topic subject appears in marriage equality diaries?

      Why should people have to argue this with these people, over and over, when it has nothing to do with the subject matter.  I don't even CARE about people who have a problem with marriage.  If they have an EverQuest mission to change marriage, as opposed to just including people who are excluded, dandy -- it's a fool's quest AFAIC, but why are we discussing it in these kinds of diaries, except to change the subject and start fights?  They never answer WHY.  They never explain what the fuck-all it has to do with gay people just wanting to get what other people have.

      Why are these posts not simply hide rated, as every other trollish attempt to diary hijack is?  Because, honestly, I think after this, they should be.

      "When in doubt, be ruthless" - Ferengi saying (-6.62, -6.26)

      by AndyS In Colorado on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 01:08:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  why are you publishing these gems at these weird (4+ / 0-)

    hours lately? trying to avoid us east coasters?

    Seems Judge Walker and our heroic Attorney Ted Olsen are good, old fashioned, socially progressive Republicans. You might not remember that political faction, they went extinct shortly after you were born. Wouldn't it be nice if they could get some of their glbt tolerant friends in the GOP to speak out more forcefully on our behalf?

    Anyway, race riots after the desegregation orders and court ordered busing were everywhere. I remember vividly the debate during the democratic national convention where Kennedy challenged Carter, the delegates were pretty much split down the middle on whether or not to support busing as a means to achieve desegregation of public schools. It was an extremely emotional debate, with those opposing busing going away from the convention livid and further opening the door for the Reagan Democrats to be born. They, like the teapartiers, had more than a fair sized helping of racism incorporated into their core beliefs. My two older sisters were ushered off to catholic school to avoid going to the "scary" integrated public high school. A couple years later, I went to the public school, since my parents couldn't afford tuition for a 3rd kid in catholic school. And with me surviving exposure to all the "scary" black kids that went to that high school, I gradually convinced all my neighborhood friends to join me there. This was in a smallish upstate NY city, not my current residence Boston, which had awful race riots at that same time.

    What do we want??? Equal rights! When do we want them??? Now!

    by tnichlsn on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 12:44:20 AM PDT

    •  Wow and I thought (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      musing85, tnichlsn

      I've lived through some weird times.

      Also, sorry about the late posts. 11pm central time is the cut off time, so that's always the earliest I can post. I can't post another diary til 11pm tonight, er, tomorrow, now.

      'Normal' has always been collaborating with injustice. - Tim Wise

      by indiemcemopants on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 12:56:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Didn't we just see this? (0+ / 0-)

    and again, just because you weren't paying attention over the many many years when feminists and others who do not see why married people should have special rights argued that legal marriage should not exist does not mean that these arguments you are newly aware of are homophobic.

    This was nonsense last time, and it still is.

    I wish more people were thoughtful and honest but being outraged is too much fun I suppose

    by Guinho on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 12:51:49 AM PDT

  •  In your (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dharmafarmer, soothsayer99

    last diary, I wrote the following comment
    "As one of the people who wanted (4+ / 0-)

    to call all "marriages" civil unions, I apologize for inadvertently making you feel that I want to take away your victory. I do not. I see your point.

    I do still feel that marriage has some sort of religious context in people's minds and that the government has no business legalizing a religious ceremony. However, since marriage is not really necessarily a religious word, perhaps you are right that advocating civil unions (with the proviso that they confer all the rights of "marriage" including all governmental benefits) is comparable to separate but equal. That is not acceptable to me.

    Thank you for your diary.

    by sewaneepat on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 07:12:28 AM CDT." (Can't get the block quote button to work)

    That marriage should be called civil union has been my thought for a long time because the intermingling of religion and government is, IMO, the single most threatening condition to our liberty. However, your previous diary made me see that in the present context, promoting civil unions is the equivalent to promoting separate but equal.

    I don't know the hearts of others, but I suspect that it is not homophobia, but  advocacy for separation of church and state, that has led some of us to advocate civil unions for all.

    I applaud you for continuing your educational diarying on this subject. However, I ask your readers not to assume that someone who advocates the term civil union is homophobic.

  •  Just say NO to scorched earth politics (nt) (0+ / 0-)

    The distruction of marriage is scorched earth politics.
    They can pry the wedding rings from our cold dead fingers.

    by banach tarski paradox on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 05:35:48 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site