More from Eric on the aftermath of Prop. 8:

By any standard, the conduct displayed by the bigoted gay demonstrators is outrageous, inexcusable, and indefensible. However, speaking as an individualist, I don't think it any more reflects on gays as a whole than it would reflect on blacks as a whole if some angry black demonstrators hurled epithets at gays or Jews. The people who do these things are the ones who do them. That they are in a crowd of demonstrators might reflect poorly on the other demonstrators, but the problem with extrapolating from angry demonstrators to the group they claim to "represent" is that they are rarely more than a small percentage of that population. So, if a half a dozen gay bigots use the N-word at a demonstration, it no more reflects on all gays than something shouted from a crowd at a McCain rally would reflect on all Republicans.

Yes. But it gives me a queasy feeling, like the black-Jewish schism, which has always struck me as so counter-historical, and so unnecessary. And so stupid. Of course, my species is not that bright; I must remember that.

Where I must disagree with Pam Spaulding is with her view that these awful incidents somehow constitute an "escalation of the 'blame the blacks' meme that has been swirling about the blogosphere and the MSM." She also refers to "the desire to scapegoat blacks for Prop 8's defeat" as "not-so-latent racism in our movement." Well, at least she said "in our movement." Because, at least in my case, I don't see how observations based on a statistics can constitute a "blame the blacks meme."

Statistics are not memes. Saying that 70% of blacks voted for Prop 8 is no more a meme than saying that 30% of gays voted Republican.

Yup. This next part is pivotal:

As far as blaming or scapegoating goes, while I'm against Prop 8, I'm more or less neutral where it comes to gay marriage, because I'm highly distrustful of government involvement in a minority lifestyle which, like it or not, goes to the heart of human privacy. Gay marriage advocacy is inextricably intertwined with forcing people out of what is called "the closet." The closet (as any regular reader of Andrew Sullivan knows) is said to be at the root of much evil. Therefore, closeted gays need to be liberated -- for their own good and for the good of society. Because of the nature of the hegemonic bureaucracy which surrounds family law, family courts, family services, once gay marriage is established it will inevitably have a spillover effect, and gays who want to live their lives in privacy will be unable to do so. Sure, there will continue to be sexual flings, but once lovers move in together, there will be no way to guarantee privacy, because the state will have created not merely a sense of entitlement, but legal rights of the same sort which customarily flow to heterosexuals thanks to the evolution of family law. There are many gays who want privacy and who live in the closet. While I realize that this is immoral to Andrew Sullivan's way of thinking, I think it's fair to ask, how would they opt out?

Perhaps by simply living together, as heterosexual couples do who don't want to make the ultimate commitment—or who have, themselves, mixed emotions about the institution of marriage?

But your larger point is well-taken: people have the right to privacy. There is a right not to wear one's love life on one's sleeve, and there is a middle ground between being quiet and discreet vs. the type of "living in the closet" one associates with the 1950s in America.

What are the implications to the right to simply to be left alone?

The closet being what it is, though, I don't think this concern is likely to be voiced. I mean, who's going to voice it other than a kooky libertarian theoretician? Angry, in-your-face, "in-the-closet-and-proud" activists. (What this means, of course, is that whatever the extent of the right to be "in the closet," it will remain largely undefended, no matter how many of its immorally discreet members are taking advantage of it. This leaves Andrew Sullivan and other activists are free to blame people who are in "the closet" for almost anything they can think of -- the latest being Prop 8.)

Game, set, and match.

But speaking of blame (and scapegoating), I noticed that in other posts, Pam Spaulding looks at Mormon and Catholic churches and sees them (unlike blacks or black churches) as proper targets of Prop 8 protests. While I don't know what she thinks of angry gay demonstrators chanting "Mormon scum!" (and I do not suggest that this compares to the use of the N-word), she does not hesitate to condemn the Mormons as bigoted:

The amount of hot air and vapid defensiveness from an institution that has a history of bigotry and oppression against black people has earned every second of this bad press brought on by this media exposure and demonstrations. That the Mormons have trained that bigotry onto gays and lesbians families only confirms that the LDS is what is erroneous and it is repeating that sorry history.

Both Catholics and Mormons are accused of calling for theocracy:

These extremist statements and positions are nothing less than a call to establish a theocracy. Americans, regardless of their sexual orientation, should be moved to name this behavior of these institutions for what it is -- and question the tax-exempt status of these institutions.

By that logic, taking a religious position against abortion is also a call to establish theocracy. That is not what the word "theocracy" means.
And if it is "theocracy" to invoke a religious argument against gay marriage, then why isn't Barack Obama a theocrat, as Glenn Reynolds suggested? [In ironic imitation of the left's standard.] I don't think Barack Obama is a theocrat, any more than the Mormons or the Catholics are theocrats. But you can't just draw a line and say that Mormons and Catholics who voice religious objections to gay marriage are theocrats, but Democratic United Church of Christ members who voice the same objections are not.

There's altogether too much bigotry for comfort and too many double standards for comfort.

Absolutely.

And, the clincher:

I can't help notice that completely left out of this debate are Muslims. While an LA Times article in April noted that "U.S. Muslims share friendship, similar values with Mormons" and that "the connection is based not on theology but on shared values and a sense of isolation from mainstream America." Can there be any doubt about the Muslim position on gay marriage? While there are no statistics on the Muslim vote, I would be flabbergasted if support for gay marriage mustered more than the single digits.

Yet Mormons have been singled out as bigots.

That's because it's wrong to bash Muslims, silly: even when they are enslaving women, carving away their genitals, and killing them more or less at whim. Don't you know anything?

The Pam Spaulding post we've been quoting is here.

I read Eric's post yesterday, of course—because he linked me—and considered responding, but was busy / too self-centered / tired. When Glenn Reynolds linked to it again today, though, it reminded me of what a bitchin' guy that Eric Scheie is.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 11:04 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 1239 words, total size 8 kb.

Ta Naehisi-Coates runs the numbers on California's Proposition 8:

Yesterday, I tried to outline a humanistic case against the whole "Teh blackz did us in!" argument. I also linked some math. Now we have better math. The basic idea is that you need black folks to have been about 10 percent of all votes cast on Prop 8 to make a difference. Black folks are one of the smallest minorities in California, making up about six percent of the total electorate, which numbers at about 17 million. At 6 percent, black folks are worth about a million or so votes. There were just over ten million votes cast on Prop. 8. For blacks to cast ten percent of those you would need a turnout of 90 percent in the black community. Lemme repeat that--90 percent. It's possible, I guess. I leave it to you to weigh the odds.

Obsidian Wings reads the stats slightly differently, speculating that black voters may well have reached that 90 percent turnout in the Golden State:

If the following standard analysis assumptions are true the answer is probably a very close ‘no’, but at least one of the assumptions seems very possibly false and with other fairly likely assumptions the answer looks like a ‘yes’.

My assumptions are:

1. that the vote among black people was as reported (69% Yes on .
2. that black people make up 6.7% of the CA population
3. that black people represented a share of the votes equal to their share of the population

I further assume that 8 passes with 52% which seems the likely number at this point.

Given each 1000 voters, black people in CA represent 67 of them.

There are 520 Yes votes and 480 No votes for each 1000.

At 69%, Black voters voted 46 Yes and 21 No for each 1000.

If they voted like White voters (55% No) they would have voted 31 Yes votes and 36 No votes.

That would make the final tally 505 Yes and 495 No votes. (50.5% to 49.5%). [numbers very slightly rounded]

But this analysis is VERY sensitive to assumption #3. It appears that black people in CA may have voted in a greater share than that of their representation of the population. Right around 10% of the vote.

That would mean that given each 1000 voters black people in CA represent 100 of them.

At 69% Yes on 8 that would be 69 Yes and 31 No for each 1000. If they had voted like White voters they would have voted 45 Yes and 55 No. That would make the final vote equal 496 Yes and 504 No (proposition loses 49.6% to 50.4%).

Interestingly, at the 10% vote share level, if a small majority of black people voted against the measure it would have lost (49% Yes, 51% No gives the measure a loss at 49.9%).

Basically, if the black voter share is 10% or higher, the black vote difference from the white vote made the difference so long as the final total is at or below 52%.

This, of course, makes my head hurt; I was an English major. But I do have a couple of suggestions:

1) If we truly want to achieve gay equality, we should be concentrating a lot more on eliminating "don't ask, don't tell" in the Armed Forces than we are on marriage. In fact, in a time of war that notion is likely to have much broader appeal than galloping toward gay marriage at a faster trot than the population at large is ready to do.

In one case, to the casual observer, you have a country so self-destructive that it fires Arabic translators (among many others) for being gay, and you have men and women who serve their country, but are susceptible to losing their jobs because someone might "read" what their orientation is.

I mean, I understand that this doesn't fit the conventional lefty template of treating the military as if it's composed of icky, warmongering spiders and snakes. One might have to treat those murderous soldiers, sailors, airmen/-women and Marines as if they were human beings. (Ick. I need a bath now.)

Seriously, fellow warmongers: if the badasses in the Israeli Army and in Britain's Special Forces can integrate gays, we can do the same thing in the States.

2) Quit trying to use the courts to get this done! Gay rights should be determined through legislative means, rather than handled by judicial fiat. Judges who legislate sensitive moral matters from the bench inevitably create resistance and resentment. It's worth taking a few more years, and doing this the right way.

Less backlash; steady progress.

3) Do something practical, for crying out loud: get a gun. Self-defense is the most basic right of all, and you may not feel like you're at the mercy of public sentiment if you join Pink Pistols, or Second Amendment Sisters. Or take a shooting course through the NRA. Or join Black Gun Owners.

Heinlein: "An armed society is a polite society." Yup. And right now we all need to mind our manners a bit more.

* * *

Previously, on "Gay Rights and Proposition 8"—

"How the Obama Campaign Assured the Passage of Propsition 8"

"On Racism and Homophobia"

Posted by: Attila Girl at 11:35 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 888 words, total size 6 kb.

Yes; we can all get along. But it will take some effort. There will be equality between gays and straights; let's try not to burn too many bridges on our way there.

Peace between the LGBT community and people of faith is on the way—but it requires each group to respect the other's right to exist, and a commitment to try to stay out of the other's face. Neither group has an exclusive claim upon the public square, and we are all Americans, with the right to live our own lives, free from harassment. I'm not making an argument for living in the an externally imposed closet,* or straightening one's hair for reasons other than personal preference: just that we all calm down a bit and stop trying to force others to live according to our own moral codes.

From Pam's House Blend:

It was like being at a klan rally except the klansmen were wearing Abercrombie polos and Birkenstocks. "YOU NIGGER, one man shouted at men. If your people want to call me a FAGGOT, I will call you a nigger." Someone else said same thing to me on the next block near the temple...me and my friend were walking, he is also gay but Korean, and a young WeHo clone said after last night the niggers better not come to West Hollywood if they knew what was BEST for them.

Via Prof. Reynolds, who remarks, "my goodness. All this hope, change and unity is getting kind of scary."

It is. We need to step back for a minute.

Let's see what I can do as a bisexual Christian, here. Back to fundamentals, so to speak: first of all, "all have sinned, and fallen short of the Glory of God." Or, as my relatively secular best guy friend puts it, "we all miss the mark; none of us are perfect."

The U.S.A. is committed to religious freedom, but one of the fears among Christians of many types is that "too much equality" of gays will create a situation in which freedom of speech and freedom of religion are compromised. In Canada, for instance, calling homosexuality a sin is regarded as a "hate crime." But Canada does not have a Bill of Rights, and does not guarantee freedom of speech or religion. (Just ask Mark Steyn, or the Free Speech Five [e.g., Kathy Shaidle, Ezra Levant.])

The bottom line is that it must be considered acceptable for any religious advisor to discuss sin. I had thought we were there: I've certainly listened to homilies from priests that discussed gluttony (one of the Seven Deadly Sins), and yet who appeared to be overweight; it was entirely possible that gluttony was a recurring problem for these priests. Or, perhaps, the condition was glandular. Or genetic.

It doesn't matter; we are equal in the eyes of God. And we are all sinners. So an exhortation to greater moral goodness will always open us up to charges of hypocrisy. Why not? "Everyone is a hypocrite, now and then."

We in the U.S. live under a Bill of Rights that allows us to explore, in our various religious sects, what constitutes "sin." Is smoking a sin? Eating junk food? Smoking marijuana? Those probably all are, if one's body is the temple of the Holy Spirit. But where do you draw that line? Is exercising too little a sign of sloth (another Deadly sin)? Is exercising too much a sign of vanity?

How about drinking? I was raised Methodist, and all four of my grandparents were teetotalers; the risk of alcoholism was considered too great to risk taking a drink. "Every social drinker," my grandmother once admonished, "is suscepible to alcoholism." Except that (1) stress takes a huge toll on human health; (2) there is the admonishment in the Bible to "take a little wine for your stomach's sake"; (3) small amounts of alcohol do clear cholesterol out of the arteries, reducing the risk of heart disease.

Yet as a civic matter, both my physical health and my spiritual well-being are my own, and not the business of the State. This is one reason for avoiding socialized medicine: once the government is paying for my health care, it has a stake in regulating my personal behavior and habits.

What does this have to do with the tension between black people and gay people?

Just this: Barack Obama's platform did not include gay marriage, and it may be that the country is not yet ready to apply that word to same-sex family arrangements. (You will recall that I don't think it's the state's business to label human relationships as "marriages" or not: that is a religious/social function. All any of us should ask is for civil unions.)

So, yes: demographically, black people trend more conservative on issues of human sexuality. But as with all demographic trends, one cannot extrapolate to individuals from that. When I was in Nevada and my friends in Clark County decried the way some of the freedoms in Las Vegas (and in Nevada itself) were being curtailed by the influx of Californians, were they talking about me? No. They were speaking in generalities, and for a variety of reasons Californians are not too popular in our neighboring states—partly because we "bid up housing prices," and partly because we tend to move into other states and then try to mold them into mini-Calis, while retaining whatever characteristics we liked them for in the first place.

(This is not a lot different than New Yorkers moving upstate—or to neighboring states—and then trying to get people in their new towns to stop hunting, or to stop burning leaves in the fall. That's no way to make friends. One should respect the culture one moves into, rather than trying to mold it closer to the heart's desire.)

Prejudice is built into human nature, but it quickly turns evil when it drives us (when it should and when it should not are explored in Malcolm Gladwell's Blink, by the way). I don't want to live in a society of either anti-gay or anti-black bigots, so we'd better damned well figure this whole thing out.

There are a lot of people who are opposed to gay marriage because they regard it as social engineering: an attempt to tinker with matters that are very fundamental to human society. It isn't a vice to go slowly in that regard, particularly given the huge gains that gays have made over the past generation. (I know I'm supposed to say "gays and lesbians," but I've never liked that phrasing: contrary to its stated intent, it feels to me like it deliberately makes women invisible—as if they don't exist, and need an extra word to ensure inclusion. Just one more division, if you ask me.)

It might be appropriate for the "LGBT" community to pause and count its blessings, and remind itself that it, too, will overcome. Slavery was a long time ago; the Stonewall riots, less so. These matters take time.

And there is definitely such a thing as a gay-marriage opponent who is not a gay-hater or homophobe, and I would admonish the Abercrombie & Fitch brownshirts that they have definitely become their own enemy. Socially conservative black people do not necessarily regard them as "faggots," and it is never acceptable to use the word "nigger" as an epithet (unless you've been dared to, or someone around you is trying to make it into a loaded, dreadful term with the power to hurt: in that case, we must remember that words are indeed just words, and recite all the worst terms that might be applied to us so they don't gain more power; some of my readers think I'm a slut, or a whore, or a skanky gash; isn't that cute?).

The choice we made as a society in this past election had to do with a lot of things, but included in that mix was a desire to shatter the race barrier, to get it over with, perhaps, and have a black person lead the free world. I'm glad that the barrier was shattered, though I would have picked a different person to do the shattering.

And at least in California, increased black turnout did indeed make the difference in passing Proposition 8. A paradox, perhaps: or a trade-off. A delay.

When black men were granted suffrage, female suffragettes were understandably angry. They were told by the lawmakers that "this is the Negro's hour," and it was decades before women were enfranchised.

Gays will not have to wait that long.

Now relax; stop the hating. The day will come. I've seen the mountaintop; I really have.

In the meantime, have a smoke. Or a glass of wine.

UPDATE: Insty has another mini-roundup on the gender orientation/race issue here; when "Andrew Sullivan . . . calls for people to chill," matters are definitely on the verge of spiralling out of control. (I won't click on the Sullivan link, of course, and you shouldn't, either; Sullivan has put himself outside the realm of respectable discourse in the past year—and most especially in the past few months, given his relentless attacks on Sarah Palin—on the most frivolous grounds.)

* * *

Other Entries on Proposition 8—

Previously:

"How the Obama Campaign Assured the Passage of Propsition 8"

Subsequently:

"More on the Putative Black/Gay Divide"

"Are Some Bigots More Bigoted Than Others?"

"And Yet More on Gay Marriage"

"Virginia v. Loving and Gay Marriage"

* Phrasing revised in light of Eric Scheie's argument that a voluntary "closet" is a perfectly legitimate choice (see "Are Some Bigots More Bigoted Than Others," above; I stand corrected. Certainly anyone is entitled to live a low-key life, and be discreet about one's love life, irrespective of sexual orientation. But many of those who will be attracted to marriage or civil union are, I suspect, either engaged in or contemplating parenthood (through step-parenting, artificial insemination, or surrogate motherhood—the last of which is, of course, increasingly popular among straights as well).

All of this presumably makes Mark Steyn happy, since he wants to see more babies raised with Western values. Wait . . . that might not follow. I'll have to check with him on that one.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 07:08 AM | Comments (32) | Add Comment
Post contains 1710 words, total size 11 kb.

1 Enjoyed your discussion, as always. I do agree with you that in a better country, "marriages" should be a matter for churches and the state should only offer "civil unions" to everyone, whether they're marrying someone of the same sex or the opposite. I don't think that's going to happen, though. Marriage is already written into too many of our laws and traditions. That being the case, civil marriage will sooner or later be offered to same-sex couples as well, at least in California. I'll be there with my bottle of California sparkling wine to celebrate on the day.

Posted by: Jan Steckel at November 08, 2008 09:34 AM (pKiEW)

2 As I keep saying, all this protesting will do is ostracize the gay community even further. The violence keeps escalating. If they kill someone, even one of their own, it will turn public sentiment against their cause in a way that hasn't been seen before.

Posted by: caltechgirl at November 08, 2008 09:49 AM (IfXtw)

3 We in the United States do not 'live under' a Bill of Rights, our rights vastly exceed those enumerated there in. It is the Federal Government that operates under the restrictions specified in the Bill of Rights. More specifically it is the Tenth Amendment that states those unenumerated rights are the province of the States or the People.

Posted by: ThomasD at November 08, 2008 11:31 AM (UK5R1)

4 Live by the collectivist sword, die by the collectivist sword. Prop 8 failed in large part because Leftists are simply not credible advocates for individual rights, as hostile as they are to that very concept. Gay marriage is an individual right. Prop 8, on the other hand, is DEMOCRACY IN ACTION, which the Left (at least the American version) loves to trumpet when it's any individual right they do not find politically expedient -- which is usually all of them. So what do we get? Instead of pulling the knife out of their backs and repudiating the Left and its collectivist BS, gays cling to it instead, and start putting knives in black backs instead. There isn't a right winger to be seen, and yet nothing but the N- word and the F- word all over the place in West Hollywood? Welcome to the Left's end-of-road.

Posted by: Seerak at November 08, 2008 11:35 AM (RJmST)

5 As long as the SSM advocates attack each and every person who questions the wisdom of redefining marriage as "haters" no compromise will be reached. There can be no dialogue as long as one party refuses to consider the other party as one discussing things in good faith. But for many, same-sex marriage is not an ends, but a means ... and the riots in West Hollywood and the anti-Mormon, anti-Catholic bigory confirm it.

Posted by: Darleen at November 08, 2008 12:11 PM (Hto/+)

6 test?

Posted by: Darleen at November 08, 2008 12:16 PM (Hto/+)

7 The anger being felt by the gay and transgender community not only over the passage of prop 8 but the comments of African-American "yes on 8" leaders is justifiable. One such leader had the balls to say "the people have spoken and THOSE people (emphasis mine) should just suck it up". WHat if in 1965 we had taken a vote of the people about whether or not we should continue to extend civivl rights to blacks? Do you really think the answer would have been yes? I don't I think the answer would have been a resounding NO! So if this had occured would these black leaders be satisfied if the white leaders of the NO on black civil rights measure just told Dr, King et al to just "suck it up"? Somehow I doubt it. Prop 8 is a civil rights issue which is unfortunately hung up on semantics. The conservatives don't want us to use the word marriage. So fine, I agree with Joy let's all have civil unions and leave marriage for the churches. But I deserve equal rights no matter what you choose to call it.

Posted by: Jack Watt at November 08, 2008 12:23 PM (QFWNO)

8 Jack, 1) It isn't a question of "those people." Some of these rioters/protesters are heaping abuse on gays who are black. 2) The underlying issue is one of Federalism: I know we have taken judicial "shortcuts" in the case of African-Americans, over and over. But gays [bisexuals, TSs, TVs] are not working their way up from slavery. Therefore, any of the extreme measures that have been necessary to achieve black liberation (from Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus to Brown v. Board of Education, and on and on) simply cannot be justified in the case of LGBTs. I'm afraid that the correct tactic is to use the legislative process, rather than have this decided by judicial fiat. 3) Why, why, why are we so concerned about this issue, rather than the egregious "don't ask, don't tell" policy?

Posted by: Attila Girl at November 08, 2008 12:44 PM (TpmQk)

9 Jack marriage is not a "right" when you can figure that out, get back to me and we can discuss contracts and institutions. one man/one woman marriage isn't an abbrogation of anyone's "right" anymore than age/physical ability requirments to join the military

Posted by: Darleen at November 08, 2008 12:53 PM (Hto/+)

10 In Mexico, those who want to be married in a church must go through two ceremonies, since the state does not recognize any marriage unless it is performed at city hall by a judge. Recognizing a ceremony performed by a priest or rabbi for legal matters in Mexico is not allowed since it would violate their separation of church and state. The Mexicans have it almost right. Their government should allow gay marriages (at city hall), and then the entire religious argument for/against gay marriage will be rendered IRRELEVANT, to the benefit of all.

Posted by: Jennifer E. at November 08, 2008 02:16 PM (qfl+A)

11 Right. Except that the ceremony at City Hall (or the paperwork that is processed for the legal/contractual side of things) should simply be called a civil union. Then the couple in question (gay or straight) can call it whatever they want, and tell their friends or not. This would actually deliver the legal benefits of marriage to straight couples who don't care for the word itself and do NOT want it applied to their relationships. (And, yes: they exist.)

Posted by: Attila Girl at November 08, 2008 02:30 PM (TpmQk)

12 You assume there were "bridges" in the first place. In the general population I find both racism and homophobic attitudes to be largely a function of socioeconomic status - regardless of one's skin color. Do you really expect to find tolerance for sexual preference in the inner city, any more than you do out in the boonies?

Posted by: Tim at November 08, 2008 02:39 PM (aPZ+Z)

13 As for the photo on the right of the page, it's LE Canada, merde!

Posted by: guy at November 08, 2008 03:30 PM (thcGd)

14 One is unable to choose one's sexual orientation. Everyone has the right to persue happiness. On the marriage issue, for me to acquiesce to same-sex marriage, I must refute important religious doctrine and belief. I must deny religious matters of faith, because marriage is, fundamentally, a religious institution. Hispanic voters, who said "YES!" to Mr. Obama, could not cast aside their religious obligation on the matter of same-sex marriage, as I cannot. It may be that some folks confuse a decision based on religious principles with intolerance of certain individual sexual orientations. I suspect that those folks are mistaken. I know they are in my case. Civil union is an option that I would have no objection to on the basis of my religious beliefs. It satisfies the need to achieve a legally recognized, committed and formal relationship with the one that you love. Of course, it also means that you get subjected to the tax penalty on married folks, but welcome to the community.

Posted by: B Dubya at November 09, 2008 04:59 AM (PRDtV)

15 Gaynpdx: I've seen it broken down both ways; where are you getting your stats? Of course, the truth of it doesn't matter: what matters is that anti-black bigotry is making inroads into the gay community, and this is troubling. It needs to stop.

Posted by: Attila Girl at November 09, 2008 09:07 AM (TpmQk)

16 jack Marriage is an institution. No one stops anyone from forming (just about) any personal, private arrangement they want (consenting adults). 2 men, 2 women, 1 man and 3 women, 1 woman and 2 men, platonic relationships, sexual relationships, relationships of convenience ... knock yourself out, no one is going to stop you. Then there is the PUBLIC institution of marriage, wherein the government gives a sanction to the ideal relationship. A "one of each", adult, not related to each other. You will not that no where in family law that defines marriage is "love" or "sexual orientation" ever defined as any requirement of marriage. Only number, sex and age. Gay people can, and do, marry. IE the idiot radio hack, Karel, (the one that wants Joe the Plumber dead) is a flaming gay who is married to a woman (convenience marriage). No one stops anyone from pursuing happiness in setting up their own living arrangements. Privacy, live-and-let-live is paramount. But as government has landlord/tenant laws in order to deal the rights and obligations of that kind of relationship, so it has marriage laws for another. Understand, you redefine the public institution of marriage based on "I have the right to marry because of LOVE" (something never in the law) then there is no logical barrier to "I have the right to marry as many as I want because of LOVE." Nor is there any logical barrier to adult siblings marrying each other. Just because not everyone can qualify for an ideal does that ideal become illegitimate. and again, SSM is not an end, but a means and it is quite evident from the violent threats against Mormons and Catholics.

Posted by: Darleen at November 09, 2008 09:42 AM (Hto/+)

17 There will be equality between gays and straights; let's try not to burn too many bridges on our way there. Oh really? Do tell! Last I saw, feces and eggs had some crucial differences. Maybe noticing that civilization springs from heterosexual unions in the form of children makes me some kind of bigot. I don't know, I always thought reproductive biology was kind of above that sort of thing. Anyway, great blog! Keep plugging! Maybe if you play your cards right, we can get government grants to research ways to make men pregnant.

Posted by: K T Cat at November 09, 2008 10:13 AM (J44gg)

18 Darleen: Which is more paramount in your reasoning?-- 1) the need for traditionally defined marriage for the protection of children who show up in the time-honored way (sometimes, of course, unexpectedly)? or 2) your conviction that gay marriage is a stepping stone to changing adoption laws and undermining orthodox religious institutions?

Posted by: Attila Girl at November 09, 2008 10:17 AM (TpmQk)

19 Attila girl, Why the slap down and why is it nutcase? Are feces and eggs the same? Where do children come from?

Posted by: K T Cat at November 09, 2008 10:44 AM (J44gg)

20 Allow me to revise and extend my remarks. You write about equality between gays and straights, but what you really mean is equality in terms of the government only. They will never be equal in reality no matter how hard everyone wishes. They are not the same, they are not equal. Reproductive biology says so. It's not a debatable point and it's not a meaningless one as all of humanity and all life owes itself to reproductive biology. When you try to make things equal that aren't, isn't that an act of pointless fantasy? Aren't there good reasons to differentiate things that are different? Why engage in verbally obscuring the profound differences between the two? As for this being off topic, well, you're the one that said that there was going to be equality, not me. There isn't ever going to be equality between gays and straights. Never. It has nothing to do with you or the gay rights movement or anything any of us want or say. They just aren't equal.

Posted by: K T Cat at November 09, 2008 11:12 AM (J44gg)

21 since when did one have to be heterosexual to procreate?

Posted by: Jack Watt at November 09, 2008 11:55 AM (QFWNO)

22 The issue wasn't who is equal to whom according to some arbitrary construct that defines human worth, but, as a civic matter, "equality in terms of the government only." I believe that is commonly referred to as "equality under the law." I see that you don't feel that couples whose congresses will not produce offspring are not equal to couples whose congresses might. Presumably, you feel the same way about women who have had hysterectomies, and men with low sperm counts. Fortunately, the law doesn't have to see it that way. And gay couples can have children: it just needs to be a deliberate, premeditated act. Of course, it often is for straights, no? Or we wouldn't have ovulation prediction kits available in the drugstores.

Posted by: Attila Girl at November 09, 2008 11:59 AM (TpmQk)

23 Darleen; Exactly whose ideal are you holding up? Certainly not mine.

Posted by: Jack Watt at November 09, 2008 12:02 PM (QFWNO)

24 Darleen; Actually, since I have a degree in psychology I can tell you that the ideal situation for raising a child is to have at least one loving caregiver of either gender/sexual orientation. Two is even better, but the research does not support the notion that somehow having a heterosexual male and female have any better effects on the child's self image or self esteem than any other configuration. What matters is having a secure attachment to those caregivers.

Posted by: Jack Watt at November 10, 2008 06:39 AM (QFWNO)

25 esearch does not support the notion that somehow having a heterosexual male and female have any better effects on the child's self image or self esteem than any other configuration Did I say it was all about "self- esteem"? Excuse me, but some of the most evil people in history also have the highest levels of self-esteem. Unless you believe there is absolutely no differences between the sexes, then you are in denial about children being raised in a home where they have an intimate relationship with both someone of the same sex and THE OTHER. Also the security that comes from an intact, committed relationship with parents. I work the judiciary beat, you can look at everyone from gangbangers to career criminals and you'll find overwhelmingly males raised without dads. Society has a vested interest in publically sanctioning one man/one woman marriage ... WHILE NOT INTERFERRING in the private arrangements of any other configuration. Civil union, domestic partnership are excellent pieces of legislation. But marriage should not be redefined on a PC whim.

Posted by: Darleen at November 10, 2008 06:47 AM (Hto/+)

26 The volumes of scientific research simply do not back your point of view. The reason that so many gangbangers have father issues is because they suffer from rejection by their biological fathers, not the actual absence of a father. This rejection creates an insecure attachment which leads to hostility and violence--most especially aimed at female intimates. An article in the Journal of Family Violence 12 (2) 211-228 by Kesner, et al discusses this in depth. Your arguements a re fraught with unchecked emotionality (equating homosexuals with eveil), and you never consider transgendered people in any of your arguments. Your underlying reliogiosity is clouding your logical judgment. Perhaps you should go to the library and read some of the academic research articles on this subject for yourself before you start challenging their veracity.

Posted by: Jack Watt at November 10, 2008 07:36 AM (QFWNO)

27 Jan-- A lot of European countries have a system like that. The only marriage that counts in France is the "Marriage Civile", which you must get at the court house. A couple may or may not choose to get married in the church (in a country of unabashed athiests, this is often based on how nice your local church would look in wedding photos), but the priest has no authority. You are not married unless you have the marriage civile. If only our states would adopt a similar model. I'm no lawyer, but it seems that it would provide a more secure foundation for the eventual recognition and protection of same-sex "marriages civiles".

Posted by: Daphne Nugent aka "Manhattan Moosette" at November 10, 2008 08:14 AM (Of/27)

28 Daphne: That buttresses the argument Jennifer and I were making, also (about halfway up the thread). If the state would back off from the marriage business altogether, it would save a lot of grief over an issue that may well boil down to semantics.

Posted by: Attila Girl at November 10, 2008 01:04 PM (TpmQk)

29 The reason that so many gangbangers have father issues is because they suffer from rejection by their biological fathers, not the actual absence of a father. This is interesting, Jack. You're saying that the entire concept of role models/father figures is invalid? That's quite a dramatic statement. This rejection creates an insecure attachment which leads to hostility and violence--most especially aimed at female intimates. An article in the Journal of Family Violence 12 (2) 211-228 by Kesner, et al discusses this in depth. Your arguements a re fraught with unchecked emotionality (equating homosexuals with eveil), Jack--where does Darleen express unchecked "emotionality," or describe homosexuals as evil? Are we reading the same posts, here?--because I don't see that in her comments. and you never consider transgendered people in any of your arguments. If you are going to bring up transgendered people, perhaps the onus is upon you to tell us how they underscore (or not) your own point of view; I'm not sure why it is Darleen's responsibility to throw TSs and TVs into the mix. Dar? Any thoughts?--Do any of your clients at Juvie have TS/TV parents, to your knowledge? Jack--how statistically significant is gender dysphoria? I had thought it was relatively rare, and that the underlying biological reasons for it were better-known than those for homosexuality (which appears to be mostly genetic in males, but very often due to other factors in females)? Your underlying reliogiosity is clouding your logical judgment. Hm. I'm afraid I also missed that, Jack: where has Darleen made a faith-based argument? Perhaps you should go to the library and read some of the academic research articles on this subject for yourself before you start challenging their veracity. I'll leave it to Darleen to tell us whether she's challenged the "veracity" of any of your citations, Jack. But you have only given us one, if I've been following this thread properly. Do you have any links for this material? I'm sure that those who are following the conversation would be more likely to read these papers if they were published online. (Most of my readers have day jobs.)

Posted by: Attila Girl at November 10, 2008 03:15 PM (TpmQk)

30 Darleen never directly made a faith based argument but the underlying assumptions in her arguments belie a Judeo/Christian view of homosexuality. That is: homosexuality is a sin, and to sin one must choose to behave in a certain way, therefore homosexuality is a choice. She makes an inference that having higher self-esteem leads one to be evil, and by association (since I was saying that a child with loving caregivers of any sexual orientation has a better chance at higher self-esteem) that those raised by homosexuals would have unduly high self-esteem and therefore run a higher risk of being evil. As to the transgender issue. Prop 8 affects transgender people of all sexual orientations as the law considers our marriages “same-sex” regardless of what our actual sexual orientation is—in the case of Female to Male transgenders they still consider us female even after a hysterectomy and double mastectomy AND hormone treatments, until we have had phalloplasty (an operation that is crude at best and aesthetically horrific at worst, and an operation that most cannot afford nor do they necessarily want). The academic articles on the subject of homosexual parenting may or may not be available on the internet. They are, however, available at your local library through EBSCO host. The following are some articles on point: Clarke, V., Kitzinger, C., & Potter, J. (2004). Kids are just cruel anyway: Lesbian and gay parents’ talk about homophobic bullying. The British Journal of Social Psychology; December 2004, 43, ProQuest Psychology Journals. Crawford, I., McLeod, A., Zamboni, B.D., & Jordan, M.B., (1999). Psychologists’ Attitudes Toward Gay and Lesbian Parenting. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 30, 4. 394-401. Latham, H.F., (2005). Desperately Clinging to the Cleavers: What Family Law Courts Are Doing About Homosexual Parents, and What Some Are Refusing to See. Law & Psychology Review. Tuscaloosa, Spring 2005, Vol. 29. 223-242. Meyer, H. H., (2003). Prejudice, Social Stress, and Mental Health in Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Populations: Conceptual Issues and Research Evidence. Psychological Bulletin. 129.5, 674-697. Patterson, C.J. (2007). Lesbian & Gay Parents. Retrieved from: www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/lgplgparents.html on January 23, 2007. Rooney, S.C. (2002). Examining Redding’s (2001) Claims About Lesbian and Gay Parenting. American Psychologist. April 2002. www.womedia.org/taf_statistics.htm , That’s a Family! Statistics on US Families. Retrieved from the world wide web on January 23, 2007. And no, Darleen has not directly challenged the veracity of my citation only indirectly by reiterating her point of view which is contrary to the evidence presented therein. I hope that the preceding citations prove useful to the debate.

Posted by: Jack Watt at November 10, 2008 03:55 PM (QFWNO)

31 This will be my last post on this topic. For the record Darleen I have offered 8 citations in support of my opinion. You have offered none. You only offer your opinion as evidence in support of your opinion. But nevertheless I give up. And as far as the TS thing being a red herring? Not in my world as I AM a FTM TS so the passage pf prop8 directly impacts my ability to marry even though I am not a homosexual. So, although only approximately 2% of the population can be said to have gender dysphoria, 2% of 6 Billion is still a sizeable number of people. But as I said. I give up. Uncle.

Posted by: Jack Watt at November 11, 2008 01:14 PM (QFWNO)

32 Hey, Attila, take your time. I read your blog during working hours. Thing is, I understand how powerful sexual urges are. Oh, yes, I do. And I would never have the intestinal fortitude to become a monk or Catholic priest. The vow of chastity would be a killer, even if I could remain celibate. I admit I cannot understand gay men. Especially those who are attracted to the macho type of man. I understand the attraction of the tasteful-makeup-wearing, swishy, willowy-type body, androgynous, lean and soft - well, let's just say that I get completely. Strangely enough, I also get muscular women (as you know, Attila ). Although, not Madonna-type. I don't wanna dig up old history, but you hear Guy describing her as a piece of gristle? Jeez, I've heard of messy divorces, but that one gotta be close to pretty bad. Not to say that I'd ever actually bone anyone other than a (hopefully) fertile woman. Because I get them all too well too. Heh. But when you're as close to omnisexual as I am (and really, I suspect most guys are), freedom of choice can also mean freedom from choice.

Posted by: Gregory at November 12, 2008 12:09 AM (cjwF0)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

displays her ignorance of:

• the fact that human beings are omnivorous mammals, and it is in our nature to kill;

• the fact that the Commandment about killing that is part of the Judeo-Christian ethic refers to murder—not mere homicide;

• the fact that children are not as stupid as she imagines;

• what white people think. (Blacks are "killers"? You've got to be kidding. There are vicious people in every demographic, but black men and women of every race are pretty underrepresented among mass murderers; in each case, one has to resort to dictators to create any real balance-of-evil for murder. Serial killers in the West are white men, almost without exception. The history in this country is of black people as victims of white violence. In the past few decades there has been some of the reverse, but that is dwarfed by black-on-black crime.)

• Islamo-fascists glorify not just murder, but suicide, and teach their children from birth that these are both wonderful things, as long as Westerners and Jews are dying along with you, and in greater numbers.

I dunno, Walker: why not suggest that Obama really dumb down the English language in expressing what needs to happen to Bin Ladin? Why not have him use pig Latin? "I will hunt down Bin Ladin, and ill-kay him."

Via Memeorandum.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 03:19 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 233 words, total size 2 kb.