Mr. Incredible: Sometimes I just wish the world would STAY SAVED… you know… for FIVE MINUTES! I feel like the maid. I just cleaned up this place…

Yeah, I’m sick of the political pendulum. After the Republicans drove the nation into Depression at the beginning of the 20th century, it took New Deal Dems to clean up America economically. Now the conservative movement, bostered by an anti-government lie, has created the largest, most corrupt and profligate government in American history. Who’s going to have to clean it up? We are.

5 years of Bushist conservatism has done incalculable damage to the world in terms of environmental damage, worker protections, broad prosperity and consumer protections. Who’s going to have to clean this mess up? We are.

It was liberals who fought for women’s sufferage and minority civil rights, now conservatives are going to change the consititution to take rights away from Gays. And who’s going to have to clean the mess up? We are.

Who told these people that fairness isn’t part of the promise of America? Who’s going to remind them? We are.

Posted by Josh Chernila on 20 January 02006 @ 10pm

Waldo, it’s disappointing to see someone I generally respect, if disagree with frequently, buy into the specious argument that fruit “marriage” is the same as interracial marriage. Race is an immutable characteristic; sex is a behavior of choice.

And nothing in the Marriage Amendment would adversely affect the right of private contract, unlike most Democrat economic legislation. It merely prohibits the judiciary from imposing state recognition of such illicit arrangements by fiat.

And Josh, Conservatives have spent the last twenty-five years cleaning up the mess left by your crypto-Socialist friends. The work is not finished, and to borrow a phrase, “the dream will never die.”

Posted by James Young on 20 January 02006 @ 11pm

Waldo, it’s disappointing to see someone I generally respect, if disagree with frequently, buy into the specious argument that fruit “marriage” is the same as interracial marriage. Race is an immutable characteristic; sex is a behavior of choice.

And there we disagree, and never the twain shall meet.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 20 January 02006 @ 11pm

Nice post.

But come on, Waldo – can’t you give me some credit for inspiring you???:)

Posted by Virginia Centrist on 20 January 02006 @ 11pm

I didn’t understand what you meant until I went to your site. Somehow I missed that post. But it’s just as well — it makes perfect sense that we would both independently come to this conclusion. The normalization of same-sex civil unions is just a big duh. An unstated one, I guess — but now we’ve gone and stated it.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 20 January 02006 @ 11pm

And nothing in the Marriage Amendment would adversely affect the right of private contract, unlike most Democrat economic legislation. It merely prohibits the judiciary from imposing state recognition of such illicit arrangements by fiat.

It occurs to me that I should correct this, lest people get the idea that there’s anything to it.

Two women who want to form a contract between them in which they agree to share their property, make medical decisions for one another, share children in joint custody, etc., would be barred from doing so under this constitutional amendment. That does, in fact, “adversely affect the right of private contract,” as Republic economic legislation.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 21 January 02006 @ 12am

Here’s what happens when some families don’t have the same legal treament as others:
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2005512310342

Posted by plunge on 21 January 02006 @ 4am

“Race is an immutable characteristic; sex is a behavior of choice.”

We’ll leave aside the latter statement, and note that while race is an immutable characteristic, choosing to marry outside of ones race is choice, not an immutable characteristic. So your argument, as it were, breaks down on that point alone.

Posted by plunge on 21 January 02006 @ 4am

James: Just curious, when exactly did you “choose” to be heterosexual? Do you remember how it happened? Perhaps, one day when you were 12 years old or so, you were pondering the choices on the menu of human sexuality – heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, asexuality, etc. – and you determined that the optimal path, in terms of personal happiness, prosperity, or whatever, lay in the “choice” of heterosexuality? Then, based upon rationality and logic (no doubt), you “chose” to be heterosexual? Is that how it happened? Please share your personal story with us!

P.S. I simply started noticing that I was attracted to girls; no “choices” necessary in that regard!

P.P.S. Gay (or as you so eloquently call them, “fruit”) friends of mine tell me that they simply started noticing that they were attracted to members of the same sex; again, no choices necessary (or possible)!

Posted by Lowell on 21 January 02006 @ 8am

And Josh, Conservatives have spent the last twenty-five years cleaning up the mess left by your crypto-Socialist friends.

Apparently the new year brings with it no new understanding of the world for the likes of James Young. Once a paranoid, always a paranoid.

Look out! COMMIES EVERYWHERE!

Ohh that’s a little red book, could be written by Mao or Marx…. oh, sorry it’s just Hawthorne.

Socialists everywhere. Commies everywhere. Oh, my god! the sky is falling… the sky is falling!

Ahem… Clinton filled up Reagan’s shovel-dug hole, and Bush brought in a backhoe. When Bush goes to congress this year to raise the $1.8 debt cieling so he can fulfill his giveaways to corporate lobbyists and their leashholders, then come and talk to me about socialism. You have kids, don’t you James. Doesn’t it make you sick that Bush and his corrupt, incompetent, cronies have given their future away in sweetheart deals to his contributors.

Who is really holding that leash?

Posted by Josh Chernila on 21 January 02006 @ 12pm

Ooookaaay….

Why don’t we all just step back and take a breath here? The nice thing about this situation is that, regardless if Waldo’s view of what is to come is right or wrong, events will play out. One way or the other… we’ll find out.

So why don’t we all just dial it back a little bit and talk about it, instead of having spit fly out of the corners of our mouths? Just a thought.

Posted by Valley Redneck on 21 January 02006 @ 8pm

No one can or will deny two people of whatever sexual persuasion from entering into whatever contract they’d like (beyond restrictions that having nothing to do with sexual identity). Go for it. More power to ya… we all hope you live long, monogamous lives.

Just stop with the silly attempts to force minority moral views onto the majority, particularly with regard to religious beliefs. As much as the left whines about the separation of church and state, they insist on using state power to regulate a religious institution.

The height of hypocrisy.

Posted by I.Publius on 21 January 02006 @ 10pm

Waldo wrote:

Likewise, government has no business whatsoever regulating the sacraments of religious institutions; the state can no more tell a church what two people can marry any more than they can dictate who takes communion or receives last rites.

I. Publius wrote:

As much as the left whines about the separation of church and state, they insist on using state power to regulate a religious institution.

Once again, you’ve responded to a blog entry after completely and utterly failing to read it. I don’t know why you bother.

I don’t know why I bother.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 21 January 02006 @ 10pm

Some highlights of the many hundreds of rights conveyed by states and the Feds triggered by CIVIL marriage (religious ceremonies have nothing to do with it, and are not required for CIVIL marriage):

http://www.buddybuddy.com/mar-list.html

Except in Massachusetts, where the availability of full same-gender marriage is under attack, and in Vermont and Connecticut where civil unions are possible, these rights are denied same-gender couples who want to make a CIVIL life commitment. Many states, including Virginia, want to enshrine discrimination into their Constitutions because they think it will forever end the debate and keep us gays “in our place.” It will certainly complicate and hurt the lives of gay couples in the meantime, but you are correct Waldo that this will need to be undone when the populace realizes what a foolish thing has been done.

Two generations from now most of the population will look upon today’s crusading anti-gay conservatives the same way most people today look at the proponents of Jim Crow. They will shake their heads in disbelief and ask what all the fuss was about. I wish I could live long enough to see it.

Posted by Skyline on 22 January 02006 @ 12am

“Just stop with the silly attempts to force minority moral views onto the majority, particularly with regard to religious beliefs. As much as the left whines about the separation of church and state, they insist on using state power to regulate a religious institution.”

Clueless to the end, no? Here’s a primer: legal marriage and religious marriage are two completely distinct things. The state cannot force churches to recognize gay marriages and no one has been advocating any laws or rulings that would force them too. And it works the other way too: many churches already choose to provide marriage ceremonies and rites to gay couples, regardless of whether the state recognizes these unions.

Just more paranoia from our friends under the bridge.

Posted by plunge on 22 January 02006 @ 6am

21st century Jim Crow proponents are alive and well.

And James “Fudgepack Mountain” Young is leading the charge.

Posted by willis on 22 January 02006 @ 11am

Willis, reasonable discussion of issues is great, but the nickname business is inappropriate. The Virginia blogosphere is better than that.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 22 January 02006 @ 12pm

Waldo,

I agree completely with your comment above. I believe, however, that Willis is calling attention to a comment made by Mr. Young (#54) on Commonwealth Conservative’s caption contest here: http://vaconservative.com/archives/2006/01/20/caption-contest-36/#comments

Name calling has no place in the blogosphere. Neither does bigotry. Say what you will about the pros and cons of gay relationships, morally, socially, politically, religiously – comments such as that of Mr. Young should be unacceptable to everyone.

Posted by J. Sarge on 22 January 02006 @ 12pm

http://vaconservative.com/archives/2006/01/20/caption-contest-36/#comments

“I’m gonna go see that new movie: Fudgepack Mountain.”

Comment by James Young — 1/20/2006 @ 11:33 pm

——————————————————————————–

Posted by Josh "Dere Ain't no Edjamacation Crisis" Chernila on 22 January 02006 @ 2pm

In response to Lowell (No. 9), I was wondering, too, Lowell, when you decided you weren’t interested in getting into the pants of underage girls? Or do you advocate legalizing that, too? You justify your political position on the fact that “Gay (or as you so eloquently call them, “fruit”) friends of mine tell me that they simply started noticing that they were attracted to members of the same sex.” By that reason, I suppose you would justify decriminalizing pedophilia and allowing mature (over 21) men to sleep with 12-year-old girls because “they simply started noticing that they were attracted to middle-school girls.” Or dead bodies or warm, furry animals, for that matter. Or twenty- or thirty-something female teachers providing oral favors to their middle school charges (c’mon, don’t tell me that you would’ve been envious of those “victims” when you were that age).

Sexual behavior (I stress the word “behavior”) is a choice, and the far Left wants to legitimate sexual behavior that is both unhealthy, and which has been rejected by 5000 years of civilized society.

You have no commitment to anything — even the language — beyond your interest in a government which is so powerful as to be able to change the language, as evidenced by your efforts to redefine the simple and understood word “marriage.”

This debate isn’t about “attraction.” It’s about choices. And once you say that well-established legal principles must yield to personal, perverse urges, then there is no basis for virtually any law left.

Posted by James Young on 22 January 02006 @ 5pm

I was wondering, too, Lowell, when you decided you weren’t interested in getting into the pants of underage girls? Or do you advocate legalizing that, too?

Lowell didn’t suggest that there’s any relationship between sexual orientation and the legality of that behavior. You’ve conflated two unrelated arguments.

Lowell’s point — and I think it’s a good one — is that the idea that sexual orientation is malleable is dubious, at best. If it were a choice, you would be able to state directly how you originally came to the conclusion to be straight, and how it is that you continue to favor having sex with women. Of course, you never did make that choice, no more than I or anybody else. Your sexuality is ingrained. You could no more choose to be homosexual than you could choose to be a black man.

To repeat Lowell’s question, would you care to explain the pros and cons of hetero- and homosexuality in your life — touching on what, specifically, attracts you to men, and how it is that you overcome that desire on a daily basis.

Of course you wouldn’t care to explain, because I assume that nothing attracts you to men. You’re heterosexual. You can’t change that. Anymore than a homosexual man can become heterosexual.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 22 January 02006 @ 5pm

You miss the point, possibly because you’re typing out of both sides of your keyboard. Those who simultaneously oppose legislation of this sort and claim that the state cannot dictate religious doctrine misunderstand the nature of marriage. It is inherently a religious institution — one that is supported by the secular state because it is good public policy. Government does this all the time. Public policy is the driving motivator for law.

When you attempt to use state power to redefine something that has historically been defined by religion, you cannot claim to support the separation of church and state. You are in fact attempting to put the church under state control.

Marriage is what it is — a union of a man and a woman. It is rooted in Judaism and Christianity, and every attempt to change the definition by way of government authority is an infringement of religious independence.

Posted by I. Publius on 22 January 02006 @ 6pm

“It is inherently a religious institution — one that is supported by the secular state because it is good public policy. Government does this all the time.”

I’m sorry, but you’re still wrong. Civil marriage and religious marriage can be and are distinct. Gay couples have been married by churches… but the state doesn’t recognize it. People have been married (and divorced) civily without particular churches recognizing it.

It’s clear that allowing gay people to marry civily would not affect churches. Since that was your claim, you’re just plain wrong.

“It is rooted in Judaism and Christianity, and every attempt to change the definition by way of government authority is an infringement of religious independence.”

Ah: so only Jews/Christians ever got married? Marriage is everywhere and always a religious matter? Then why does civil marriage exist at all? Why was I able to marry my wife without any religious ceremony at all? Why are their all sorts of automatic legal implications of marriage that have nothing to do with anyone’s religious beliefs? Does the Bible instruct on who should be given hospital visitation rights? The tax code?

Posted by plunge on 22 January 02006 @ 7pm

Mr. Pubis,

Have you ever noticed that there are other religions other than and older than Judaism and Christianity, that also have marriage ceremonies?

You must not get around very much.

Also, you must have never heard of using a Justice of the Peace, which can be a strictly secular and legal marriage arrangement. Which must be by your definition some how some sort of “far left” conspiracy to steal your Jesus.

I believe that our conservative friends don’t have much of a historical perspective.

When Mr. Young states that homosexuality has been rejected by over 5000 years of civilized society, he reveals that he doesn’t know much about the last 5000 years of “civilized” society. Or he missed the parts about the Romans the Greeks and Christian Crusaders like Richard the Lion-heart (who by the way was a fudge packer).

I am sorry but these guys are just ignorant dicks, they really are. Especially when they start citing the supposed slide into legalizing pedophile or bestiality.

Please, show me the victim, show me who gets hurt, when two consenting adults inter into a same-sex relationship.

Come on, give us your sad examples and me will knock them down one by one.

Posted by Jon on 22 January 02006 @ 7pm

Waldo, you said “Lowell’s point — and I think it’s a good one — is that the idea that sexual orientation is malleable is dubious, at best.” Where, oh where, did I ever say that “sexual orientation is malleable”? Read carefully, Waldo. You’ll note that I said that sexual behavior is malleable, i.e. “sex is a behavior of choice.” As a point of reference, our society decided about a century ago to set a minimum age for marriage and sexual consent. It has little to do with biology — it is quite clear that humans are capable of reproduction years earlier, and studies demonstrate that the age of sexual maturity may be regressing on average — yet we set a minimal age by legislative fiat, based upon society values. It is a value different from earlier periods in our history, when teenage brides were much more common. Yet you advocate discarding the considered wisdom of millenia of society as to homosexuality with much LESS support that you would have for lowering the age of consent. Let me make it clear that I advocate neither. But I am perfectly willing to accept the hard Left’s assertion that homosexuality “orientation” or “persuasion” is not a choice, and STILL defend marriage against an assault to redefine it and the hard Left desparate desire to legitimate perverse sexual behavior.

So Waldo’s “question” was not “legitimate;” it was an effort to embarass and to change the subject. On his changed subject, though, I asked a completely legitimate counter-question, one which Lowell (who may not yet have read it) has thus far declined to answer. To take a page from Al Franken, why don’t you inspire us with stories of your choice to eschew sex with little girls, and the ways in which you have conformed your behavior to societal norms?

The bottom line is that your policy is one that advocates no principle more complicated than “If it feels good, do it.” And if your standard is biological imperative (assuming arguendo that there is a biological imperative for homosexuality) then there is no principled basis upon which you can delegitimize the biological imperative of pedophiles and other perv… er, poor, discriminated-against sexual minorities.

And as to poor Josh and willis’ objections to my entry in Chad’s Caption Contest, it’s really too bad that there are incredibly earnest far Lefties who fail to recognize attempts at humor, however meager, when they see them. And who are also so wrapped upon in their sanctimony that they object to the reality of the policies that they advocate, and ignore the practices of those on whose behalf they advocate.

But I can understand willis’ efforts. It must indeed be flattering to garner so much attention. But, as John Wayne once said (“Big Jake”), “If you haven’t learned to respect your elders, then it’s about time you learned to respect your betters.”

Posted by James Young on 22 January 02006 @ 8pm

Who are the “dicks” in the OP?

Are they the 75 Delegates who voted for the amendment? The 30 Senators who will vote on it this week? Or the 70+% of Virginians who will approve it in the fall?

Posted by Addison on 22 January 02006 @ 8pm

James,

What on earth are you talking about! This talk of sex with underage girls must be a fantasy of yours because I can discern no relevance to the conversation.

This myth of “if it feels good, do it liberals” , is something you conservatives invented a long time ago. It shocks me that you actually believe it!

If liberals really believed this how did they take over the east, west coasts and the media!? I mean that would take some kind of work ethic and some sacrificing, wouldn’t it?

I bet you get all your news from talk radio, don’t you? come on tell the truth.

First of all having sex with a minor is a crime because, the minor is not mature enough to make potential life altering decisions, second because they are emotionally vulnerable. It is a crime because there is a victim and there is a perpetrator.

Excuse, me but who exactly is the victim and the perpetrator in a consensual relationship between adults?

“It is a value different from earlier periods in our history, when teenage brides were much more common”

Yes, and to out law that sort of a thing was an advancement from the “considered wisdom of millennia of society”, when it was considered a moral value to marry of your 12 year old daughter to your 40 year old neighbor.

Just like it will be it will be an advancement when in 10 to 20 years people look back at this silly conversation and wonder what on earth was the problem with letting two consenting adults live in peace.

Oh and as far as your “sense of humor”, I have this great joke about a polock, a black dude and this jew . . . oh wait a minute, that would be inappropriate, but you probably don’t think so.

Posted by Jon on 22 January 02006 @ 10pm

Where, oh where, did I ever say that “sexual orientation is malleable”? Read carefully, Waldo. You’ll note that I said that sexual behavior is malleable, i.e. “sex is a behavior of choice.”

I’m puzzled. Are you saying that people can choose to have sex with either men or women? Or that people can simply choose whether or not to have sex and that, consequently, gay people should simply choose not to have sex at all?

Who are the “dicks” in the OP?

Anybody who, knowing fully of the facts of the matter, choose to push this hateful agenda. It’s Lyle Lanley who pisses me off, not the residents of Springfield.

Miss Hoover: I hear those things are awfully loud…

Lyle Lanley: It glides as softly as a cloud.

Apu: Is there a chance the track could bend?

Lyle Lanley: Not on your life, my Hindu friend.

Barney: What about us brain-dead slobs?

Lyle Lanley: You’ll be given cushy jobs.

Abe: Were you sent here by the devil?

Lyle Lanley: No, good sir, I’m on the level.

Wiggum: The ring came off my pudding can.

Lyle Lanley: Take my pen knife, my good man.

I swear it’s Springfield’s only choice…
Throw up your hands and raise your voice!

All: Monorail!

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 22 January 02006 @ 10pm

Addison,

Well, I suppose it comes down to history: just like all the senators who voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Bill where “dicks” on the wrong side of history.

I would be embarrassed.

I don’t know if any of you have heard a the recordings of the white preachers from the 1950’s ranting about consiqences of fire and brimstone, if we let the “negro” be the white man’s equal. Its great stuff, I think you can find it at the National Archives.

They claimed all sorts of biblical authority for segrigration, claimed the same for slavery.

You people never learn do you.

Posted by Jon on 22 January 02006 @ 10pm

Why does someone always allege that only the “hard left” believe sexual orientation is not a choice? If that were true, I’m not sure the Log Cabin Republicans would have a robust membership.

Besides, opponents’ argument about forcing “minority” views upon the majority is flawed considering the foundation of our country; the United States would not exist were it not for a small group fighting suppression by the majority. Also, allowing same-sex marriage would not force private citizens to recognize such couples, only the government.

Why don’t we just toss governmental use of “marriage” all together? Instead, let the state license civil unions for all adult consenting couples and let churches and private citizens decide what they want to recognize as “marriage” (or not). Would there be objection to that?

(On a side note, it drives me crazy when others try to discredit another by alleging he is radical and far out of the mainstream. What is right is not always popular, and what is popular is not always right.)

Posted by Kat on 22 January 02006 @ 11pm

I guess Mr. Young is going to dodge the bullet on realizing that inter-racial marriage was 100% a choice that people made that went against traditional “values.” It felt good, and they did ita nd fought for it. Detestable!

The problem is, those values and traditions were bad ones: unjust and unwarranted.

When we seek to change institutions, it is not to throw out all values: exactly the opposite. It is to make those institutions reflect superior values, correcting the wrongs and injustices that they cause. Pedophilia, incest, bestiality: those are still bad values. And hence, the change of “it’s all about hedonism” is just more boring bigotry from someone with no legs left to stand on.

Posted by plunge on 23 January 02006 @ 4am

Just curious. All you people who believe that sexual behavior is a “lifestyle choice,” do you also believe that everyone is bisexual? Because, logically if everyone “chooses” whether to be straight or gay, that means the choice exists. It’s like saying, “I choose chocolate ice cream over vanilla.” That presupposes that both chocolate and vanilla are options. If not, then it’s not a “choice.”

Posted by Lowell on 23 January 02006 @ 6am

Lowell, we are naturally wired to have a tendency towards all kinds of bad choices. It’s up to us to overcome those tendencies and choose wisely. No doubt that some tendencies are much stronger in some people than in others. Some people can resist the tendency to be lazy easier than others; some can overcome greed and covetousness more easily. The same is true for a multitude of sins — adultery, slander, stealing, murder… you name it.

In then end, it’s still a choice to commit or to not commit whatever sin (or “unwise choice” if that’s more palatable to you) you’re talking about.

Posted by I.Publius on 23 January 02006 @ 8am

I Publius,

My sister-in-law got married in front of a judge in a courthouse. What’s religious about that? You may not like the fact that there can be marriage without a religious dimension, but it clearly happens every day. Do you think that athiests should be barred by law from marrying?

You’re ignoring a lot of very obvious facts in order to make your case. Why not just come clean and admit the truth? You are opposed to gay marriage because you are creeped out by gay people and you like the idea of discriminating against them. Myself, I’m creeped out by lumpy people in Walmart who shout across the store and can’t do basic math in the checkout line. But I would never suggest that they don’t deserve the same basic rights as you or I do.

Posted by ATA on 23 January 02006 @ 9am

Several same-sex friends were married at a Unitarian church. Since their union is recognized by a major religious institution, then presumably the state should recognize their marriage. I mean, if religious standards are to drive our legal standards, that must be so — right?

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 23 January 02006 @ 9am

Mr. Pubis,

Usually sin involves transgresion, that is harming someone. Please enlighten me on how Ken Mehlman or Mary Cheney are harming anyone?

It seems that you can’t resist the tendency to be a lazy thinker.

Posted by Jon on 23 January 02006 @ 9am

Jon, you’re priceless! “having sex with a minor is a crime because, the minor is not mature enough to make potential life altering decisions.” So, therefore, I can assume your support for parental consent laws for abortion? And vigorous enforcement of laws against statutory rape? No? If not, yours is a mere principle of convenience.

And those who voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were mostly Democrats. Indeed, the only Senator to vote against BOTH Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas for the Supreme Court was DEMOCRAT Senator Robert Byrd (KKK-WVa).

And BTW, that was a nice smear on Ken Mehlman. ‘Problem is, it’s simply part of a nasty Dem whisper campaign. Even if true, doesn’t it merely demonstrate that Republicans have no trouble with perverts who keep their perversions private, and don’t demand societal approval of them?

Posted by James Young on 23 January 02006 @ 10am

Legally recognized unions of one man and one woman, who remain bound throughout their lives, probably having and raising children, is good public policy. This has been found to be true by our society, and the law reflects it.

The institution was created by religion — and I’d love for the smart guy above to educate me about the religions that are older than Judaism — and have been adopted by secular society. I got married in front of a C’ville magistrate judge. That doesn’t change the fact that marriage is a religiouly founded institution.

Every adult person has the right to get married. But every adult person doesn’t have the right to tell society what good public policy is. You can’t marry your sister, or your mom, or your grandfather… or a person of the same sex.

.

ATA — thanks so much for telling me what I really think. That was very enlightening. You’re an idiot. And I can’t wait to show your post to one of my bosses and several of my friends, who will laugh their gay asses off at you.

Posted by I.Publius on 23 January 02006 @ 10am

Republicans have no trouble with perverts who keep their perversions private, and don’t demand societal approval of them?

I just want to make sure that I’m clear on this, James. You believe a) that sexual orientation is not a choice b) that private contracts between individuals must be permitted and protected and c) that religious institutions play an important role in governing our norms. (You haven’t stated C here, but I believe that’s your perspective.) I’m left feeling as if you’re only opposed to icky icky gay sex, but not to a contract binding two people of the same sex.

So on what basis do you oppose two women signing a contract providing them with the privileges of marriage and having that union recognized by their willing church? That is, which specific element of this do you oppose?

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 23 January 02006 @ 10am

Jon, sin involves transgression that harms the sinner and harms his or her relationship with God. Offenses against man are something else entirely.

Posted by I.Publius on 23 January 02006 @ 10am

Mr. Priceless.

Ha, the heights of Victorian Hypocrisy have been reached:

“Even if true, doesn’t it merely demonstrate that Republicans have no trouble with perverts who keep their perversions private, and don’t demand societal approval of them?”.

Absolute amazing, so what private perversions are you hiding from us? Is this like bilking lobbying clients for millions, its alright as long as it is kept in the dark?

And regarding Mr. Mehlaman, this supposed Dem whisper campaign, actually is a log cabin Republican whisper campaign. Do your research before you bark. The Log Cabin Republican’s are pissed at his exploitation of gay marriage amendments in Ohio.

It is pure hypocrisy that I am smearing, hypocrisy and opportunism, the ability to sell your own down the river for a little power and wealth. Now thats a sin.

And as for your other points:

Parental consent laws for abortion, of some sort make sense, if they make allowances for incest, which they don’t and they will never if written by winger’s like yourself. (because protecting the minor is not really the point is it?)

Also, in a fair world, these laws would make allowances for the fact that it is the minor that must live with the “decision” the rest of their lives, not the parents. Which is more salient to my point.

And like, Oh my god! I never heard of the dixicrats! thanks for lettin me know. Oh now I remember, yeah they all fled the Democratic Party, and helped the Republicans take over the south using white racism as their lever. But don’t believe me, lets quote the now famous Ken Mehlman, “Some Republicans gave up on winning the African-American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization.”

History repeats its self.

Posted by Jon on 23 January 02006 @ 10am

Legally recognized unions of one man and one woman, who remain bound throughout their lives, probably having and raising children, is good public policy.

You’re begging the question. Asked why it’s good public policy for only opposite-sex people to get married, you respond by saying it’s good public policy. Why is it better public policy than allowing same-sex unions? What harm is done to society by people of the same sex joining in a partnership for life?

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 23 January 02006 @ 10am

Despite Waldo’s admirable attempts to keep this a clean fight, it’s obviously degraded into a nasty little “I hate your ass face” spittin’ match.

The whole point of Waldo’s original post was that this contentious issue will resolve itself culturally over the course of the next few decades as the gay-haters die off and are replaced with new generations of better informed and less bigoted Americans.

I wonder how many decades it took for the dinosaurs to die off after the big asteroid hit. I’m sure lots of little fuzzy mammals got eaten by giant reptiles as they stomped, roared and chest-thumped their way to extinction.

They sure did leave us a nice fossil record to develop and test a fully functional evolutionary theory, and a lot of carcasses to run our cars on. That was nice of them.

Posted by Josh Chernila on 23 January 02006 @ 10am

I should point out that I altogether agree that American society has not historically tolerated same-sex marriage, and that this is an understandable yardstick for what to permit in the realm of such traditions. That is, in fact, my thesis — within a few years, society will come around as surely as it did post-Jim Crow. (The parallels are shockingly identical. “It’s just how we do things,” “it’s our tradition,” “the Bible says…”, etc.) Those whose opposition to civil unions is based solely on “it’s not a societal norm” will either have to capitulate or, more likely, claim an altogether new source of opposition.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 23 January 02006 @ 10am

I’d love for the smart guy above to educate me about the religions that are older than Judaism

Zoroastrianism, Jainism, Marduk, Dravidianism and Atenism.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 23 January 02006 @ 10am

Mr. Pubis,

Go to Asia, go to India. You will find all sorts of religions older than Judaism.

As far as sin:

Matthew 25 verse 31

“Then the righteous will answer, Lord when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink, and when was it we saw you a stranger and welcomed you or saw you naked and gave you clothing? And when was it we saw you sick or in prison and visited you? And the King will answer them, truly I tell you as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.

Then he will turn to those at his left hand. You who are accursed depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angles, because I was hungry and you gave me no food, thirsty and you gave me no drink. A stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and did not give me clothing, sick and in prison and did not visit me. And they will also answer, lord when was it that we saw you hungry, thirsty, a stranger, naked sick and in prison and did not take care of you? And truly I tell just as you did not do it to one of the least of these you didn’t not do it to me. And these will go into eternal punishment, and they, the righteous into eternal life.”

You been livin’ your life by your Bible?

Posted by Jon on 23 January 02006 @ 11am

And Jon, you assert that I’m an “ignorant dick” becuase I don’t “know much about the last 5000 years of “civilized” society” and “missed the parts about the Romans the Greeks and Christian Crusaders like Richard the Lion-heart (who by the way was a fudge packer).”

I didn’t miss those parts, but I guess I missed the part where those practices were accepted by society at large (with the possible exception of ancient Greece). So, while I long ago learned that Richard was a homosexual (one merely has to have seen “The Lion in Winter,” an excellent picture mainly about Henry II, to have learned it, though that bit of cinema history is believed to have been accurate), I wasn’t aware that he had “married” a man, that his perversion was widely known and approved of by English society of the age, or that he labored mightily and failed to change English mores. Few (and I am not one of them) dispute that homosexuality has been known throughout history. So has murder, pedophilia, incest, and other activities that we consider — like our forebears — wrong.

And why should “show [you]the victim, show [you] who gets hurt, when two consenting adults inter into a same-sex relationship”? I suppose I could reference the nasty diseases rampant in the homo community, but that really isn’t the point. I never argued that someone “gets hurt” in a “same-sex relationship.” As I’ve said elsewhere, I really don’t care what two consenting adults do behind closed doors, as long as they don’t scare the animals and the children. However, I affirmatively DO care when those individuals throw it up into my face, and demand that I and society affirm their perversion as “normal,” “healthy,” or “acceptable.” I’d personally prefer not to consider these issues or those individuals at all, just as I’d prefer not to consider pedophiles or murderers. Sadly, as Mona Charen has observed, what used to be the “Love that Dare Not Speak Its Name” has become the “Love that Will Not Shut Its Mouth.”

Posted by James Young on 23 January 02006 @ 11am

And why should “show [you]the victim, show [you] who gets hurt, when two consenting adults inter into a same-sex relationship”? I suppose I could reference the nasty diseases rampant in the homo community, but that really isn’t the point.

But, James, monogamy is the cure for the spread of STDs. Monogamy is the cure for all kinds of societal ills — why not broaden our scope of societal improvements?

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 23 January 02006 @ 11am

More to the point how bout the nasty diseases rampant in the hedro community?

And yes, you missed lots of parts of the “last 5000 years of civilized society”

Mostly how it really hasn’t been that civilized, and it is absolute silly and futile to use “the last 5000 years of civilized society” as any sort of president in this argument.

Especially if you want to try to dehumanize homosexuals (which you most certainly flirt with) because there are very prominent homosexuals in history, where our society would irrevocable different without their influence.

You also miss that the last couple of hundred years of social evolution have been about guaranteeing rights to people who have been under the boot heel of people like King Richard, and other kings and tyrants who thought that they knew how to run peoples lives. Because, it didn’t really mater what Richard did because he was king. It didn’t really matter what the Romans did in their Baths, because, well they where the Romans.

Royalty didn’t marry their male or female lovers, they married to have heirs and to pass on property.

But obviously you want to carry on with this charade, keep it all underground, where it is really is dangerous to society. Where gay men feel forced to try to led straight lives but seek sex outside their marriages (just like straight couples who are forced to marry early to someone they dont really love: check out the divorce rates and infidelity rates in the Moral Red States) and then they bring nasty things home to their unwitting wives and children.

And I know you will get all indigent about personal choices and consequences, but these personal choices have real and hard society wide consequences. And as Waldo says why not broaden our scope of societal improvements. Two people living their lives in peace harms no one, the alternative can harm everyone.

But whatever, how bout those nasty diseases rampant in the hedro community?

Posted by Jon on 23 January 02006 @ 12pm

Why is it better public policy than allowing same-sex unions?

This begs a similar question: Why is it better public policy than allowing bigamy?

The answer to both questions is the same — Because we were made to live as one man and one woman. Some see the evidence of this in their faith. For others, simple logic and natural science should make it plainly evident.

.

Zoroastrianism, Jainism, Marduk, Dravidianism and Atenism

And from which of those have we derived our country’s notion of marriage? Which of those had any impact whatsoever on the society we now live in?

Posted by I.Publius on 23 January 02006 @ 12pm

I know you will get all indigent

In that case, I hope you’ll recall Mt 25:31, and offer him assistance.

;-)

Posted by I.Publius on 23 January 02006 @ 12pm

This begs a similar question: Why is it better public policy than allowing bigamy?

You don’t seem to understand the definition of “begging the question.” Nobody’s talking about bigamy. It’s just as silly as talking about people marrying dogs.

And from which of those have we derived our country’s notion of marriage? Which of those had any impact whatsoever on the society we now live

You wanted to know about religions older than Judiaism. I told you.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 23 January 02006 @ 12pm

Maybe you didn’t like being asked, but the question pertained to public policy and to marriage (both of which are being discussed here), and why one type of union is allowed and another is not. I absolutely realize that those who support expanding the definition of marriage do not like having bigamy brought up, because it severely damages their arguments. But it is germane to the discussion, and not silly in the least.

Posted by I.Publius on 23 January 02006 @ 12pm

This is quite a thread. I wrote a post about it on my blog:
http://southarlington.blogspot.com/2006/01/on-gay-marriage.html

Posted by Mark. T. Blair on 23 January 02006 @ 12pm

Go have this discussion on C.R.’s site. It ain’t got nothin’ to do with same-sex civil unions.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 23 January 02006 @ 12pm

Thanks for the link to C.R. but just so you don’t think I was shamelessly trying to mooch off your traffic with an irrelevant link – half my post was dedicated to the question of whether gay marriage would lead to bigamy etc. – which is what people are talking about here and which applies to civil unions as well.

Posted by Mark. T. Blair on 23 January 02006 @ 1pm

I was responding to IP, Mark — I found your post very interesting.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 23 January 02006 @ 1pm

Oh, right, I missed that. Glad you liked the post.

Posted by Mark T. Blair on 23 January 02006 @ 1pm

“And from which of those have we derived our country’s notion of marriage? Which of those had any impact whatsoever on the society we now live in?”

And you think that our current notion of marriage has always been set in stone. No, it is an institution that has evolved and changed dramatical over the eons, even back to the religions that influenced Judasim and Christianity, which have then in-turned influenced our current society.

“I absolutely realize that those who support expanding the definition of marriage do not like having bigamy brought up, because it severely damages their arguments. But it is germane to the discussion, and not silly in the least.”

It is only germane to the discussion if you consider homosexuality to be some how againts nature or against god. It is only germane if you do not view homosexuals as equals or you view them as deviants, so extending them rights would be the same as extending rights to deviants or criminals.

First the nature argument: I Publius states “or others, simple logic and natural science should make it plainly evident.” Well as it has evidently been observed in studies of primates, there is quite a lot of hot man-monkey on man- monkey action going on our there. And there are plenty of more examples of homosexual activity in the natural world. There are many reasons (too many to go into here) why “nature” could have selected for homosexual traits.

The religious argument: Yes our country is deeply influenced by the judaic-chritian ethos, I would argue that is why we are what would be considered a liberal society. We have over the centuries, slowly but surly granted more and more rights and protections to minority groups than any country/nation state in history.

That being said, we do not run our country from the bible, we have a constitution and a bill of rights.

The core ethos of the the bible is wonderful, but as a book of law it is horrible: it is a collection of oral histories, told in Aramaic, translated and written in Greek, then translated into Latin (and thats just the gospels!).

This was all done, by the way, before most of the words that we are using right now even existed!

So, we get the whole mess of the thing passed down to us via illiterate scribes, then translated into the very nascent english language of King James’s time. The result is a book with so many counter -narratives, and compounded contradictions I dont think we will ever sort it out.

So, can you tell me what is God’s law? You all seem to know what God is thinking? I mean I dont think you can find a Christian theologian who will claim, like Muslims, that the Bible was written by God. The bible was written by error prone men, by proud men, by pious men. So there are mistakes, and there are things in the bible that are relics of the times that they where written in.

But there is messages that keep popping up like, love thy neighbor as thyself, check out 1st Corinthians, check out Leviticus 19:18

And denying the humanity of your neighbors, doesn’t seem like a good way to love thy neighbor.

Posted by Jon on 23 January 02006 @ 2pm

Waldo, I like your responses to two people discussing bigamy as it relates to the gay marriage issue.

To the person who disagreed with your position, you said:

“Nobody’s talking about bigamy” and “Go have this discussion on C.R.’s site. It ain’t got nothin’ to do with same-sex civil unions.”

And to the one who agreed with your position:

“I found your post very interesting.”

Funny stuff.

Posted by I.Publius on 23 January 02006 @ 4pm

Mark’s post is about civil unions and only has a brief tangent about bigamy. You’d know that if you read it. But you didn’t. You don’t read anything, because you can’t bear that three-minute delay to spouting off.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 23 January 02006 @ 4pm

“Because we were made to live as one man and one woman.”

IP, see, that’s just what you don’t seem to get. For those of us who were made to live with and love another man or another woman, that’s just not the case. You and the foul-mouthed Mr. Young, etc., are just so smug in your special “knowledge” of what God has in mind, aren’t you?

Tell me, on what authority do you understand better than I how I was created, and what God intended for me? You really should be embarrassed.

If you really believe that we are discussing a religious institution, then you have just made a startling admission about what you think of religious liberty. Are you sure you are in the right country? You will be very unhappy with the outcome of this issue, so you might start thinking about where you would prefer to live.

Posted by Daibheidh on 23 January 02006 @ 5pm

You and ATA sure are quite the omnipotent pair. Quite a talent y’all have going. Might want to work on it some, though. Between the two of you, you’re 0-for-2 on this thread.

I found Mark’s post quite fair. Wrong, of course… ;-) … but fair. You could learn a thing or three from him.

..

Daib — I’m sorry that my beliefs offend you so much. But the truth of what I said is self-evident. Just because something feels right doesn’t make it so. Right and wrong exist as absolutes beyond human feelings.

Posted by I.Publius on 24 January 02006 @ 10am

Waldo 39 (wait ’til you’re 39, and with kids; oh, how you’ll grow up!):
(a) I’ve made no comment at all on “sexual orientation,” and I’ll thank you if you’ll stop trying to put words in my mouth;
(b) That is correct; but you can’t make a contract about the sale of a car and say it’s a contract about a business partnership. I see no basis or reason to void any powers of attorney, joint ownerships, or other existing forms of contract made between homosexuals. Just don’t call it “marriage,” ’cause it’s not;
( c) You’re right; I’ve never said that. But I’d be a fool to argue with it.
As to your question about a church’s activities (I once visited a Unitarian Church’s website, and when I clicked on “What We Believe,” the page would never load; interesting), I don’t know how the State can interfere in that, and don’t hold that it should. But that doesn’t mean that the State has to affirm every silly so-called sacrament that any Church of If-It-Feels-Good-Do-It comes up with by changing ancient and well understood institutions.

And Waldo 48, you talk about the benefits of monogamy. Could you site a single study that suggests that homo “marriage” would result in such? The surveys are to the contrary, and suggest the true nihilism behind this campaign, insofar as few homos intend for their “marriage” to result in monogamy, or even a life-long commitment.

As to Jon 41, I would suggest a Tums, because you’re bile is showing. The websites that I saw were mostly Dem; that some so-called “Republican” group has joined the chorus merely demonstrates their true status. And hypocrisy is holding one value while practicing another. There are many reasons why one would oppose homo marriage; I merely speculate upon one that (assuming arguendo the smear is true) could justify Mehlman’s position.

And you still didn’t answer my question about abortion. Shall we assume that your refusal to do so is because it would demonstrate YOUR hypocrisy?

Posted by James Young on 24 January 02006 @ 11am

Mr. Young

You are calling me a hypocrite!? Are you kidding me, Mr. Scarlet Letter morality, sweep it under the rug, I don’t care if it goes on I just don’t want to see it, but goddamn I hate those “Homos”.

And:

“that some so-called “Republican” group has joined the chorus merely demonstrates their true status”

I suppose you are the type of “Republican”, that calls other Republicans RINOs because they don’t believe in the same crazy shit that you do.

Oh course you are, it only makes sense, because you seem to be willing to claim that denominations or individuals are not religious because they don’t believe in the same crazy shit that you do.

As far as your point on Ken Mehlman’s position, I must concede that you are correct, there are many reasons, why one would oppose “homo marriage”.

But then again we are talking about civil unions and a constitutional amendment out lawing same sex civil unions:” I see no basis or reason to void any powers of attorney, joint ownerships, or other existing forms of contract made between homosexuals.” huh!?

As far as the your question about abortion; go actually read Jon 41, you missed a paragraph or two.

And, there are many points and questions that I have posted that you have not responded to . . . hmmm, what does that make you . . . No, I wont say, I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that you didn’t read those either.

Posted by Jon on 24 January 02006 @ 1pm

I’ve made no comment at all on “sexual orientation,” and I’ll thank you if you’ll stop trying to put words in my mouth;

I’m totally baffled. You’re clearly drawing some kind of a line in the sand that I can’t discern. Could you explain?

As to your question about a church’s activities (I once visited a Unitarian Church’s website, and when I clicked on “What We Believe,” the page would never load; interesting), I don’t know how the State can interfere in that, and don’t hold that it should. But that doesn’t mean that the State has to affirm every silly so-called sacrament that any Church of If-It-Feels-Good-Do-It comes up with by changing ancient and well understood institutions.

So-called sacrament? “If-It-Feels-Good-Do-It”? We’re talking about marriage here, James. This is one of the highest sacraments. “If it feels good do it” (which, by the way, is a phrase right up there with “groovy, man” and “make love not war” — it dates you, and not in a good way) refers to sex, not marriage. People getting married are the antithesis of “if it feels good do it,” if I understand the 60s counter-counter-culture expression correctly.

And Waldo 48, you talk about the benefits of monogamy. Could you site a single study that suggests that homo “marriage” would result in such? The surveys are to the contrary, and suggest the true nihilism behind this campaign, insofar as few homos intend for their “marriage” to result in monogamy, or even a life-long committment.

I’m speechless. It’s almost as if you don’t know anybody who’s gay.

I’m curious, James — what, if any, is your threshold for being wrong? If the Southern Baptists endorse same-sex civil unions, then are they OK? The Catholic church? Episcopalians? Jews? Muslims? All of the above? What if our conservative Supreme Court rules that states must permit same-sex unions, then are you wrong? What’s the line? Under what hypothetical circumstances would you concede that your views are out of step with those of a modern, enlightened society?

I know cranky old folks who still complain about “uppity niggers” and who think that the country really started going to hell after “negroes stopped knowing their place.” These people don’t understand that progress long ago left them behind. I wonder how you’ll know or, one day, how I’ll know when my views are antiquated and, by modern standards, hateful.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 24 January 02006 @ 7pm

I would guess Mr. Waldo, now that he is more familiar with “fudgepack mountain” Young’s point of view, wouldn’t mind the nickname one bit.

I like it.

Posted by willis on 24 January 02006 @ 8pm

I mind the nickname very much, Willis. That sort of exchange is totally beneath the norms of how Virginia political bloggers relate to one another. You can give all the nicknames that you want to strangers or pop culture figures or whatever, but not to Virginia bloggers; at least, not on my blog. The daylight between my and James’ position in this matter is political, not personal, and in no way justifies such rhetoric.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 24 January 02006 @ 8pm

I’ll just have to avoid your blog then, or you’ll have to delete my posts.

Posted by willis on 24 January 02006 @ 10pm

I have every confidence, Willis, that you are capable of communicating without being rude.

Unless you’re posting from an asylum.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 24 January 02006 @ 11pm

James Young, the idea that someone with such poor and evasive reasoning is on the bar is just tragic.

Posted by plunge on 25 January 02006 @ 2am

As a gay person, can I just let the ignorami out there know that we experience love. And all love comes from God.

Thanks.

Posted by Doug in Mount Vernon on 25 January 02006 @ 1pm