Answering Peter Robinson on SCOTUS and Gay Marriage

 

Peter posed a question earlier today: If the Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage, how should we respond? I defer to Richard Epstein’s views on the comparison between Dred Scott, Lochner, and gay marriage. I think that Robert P. George rightly warns of the dangers of the use of the due process clause by judges to advance their personal policy preferences. There are surely similarities between the Court’s use of substantive due process in all three periods. I think that a decision imposing gay marriage on the nation incorrectly reads our constitutional structure, just as Dred Scott mistakenly interpreted the Constitution’s original understanding of federal and state control over slavery and freedom.

But there is an important difference here, one that shouldn’t affect their legal decision but will control the political response. A majority of Americans support gay marriage now, as opposed to 2008. There will be no groundswell of opposition to the Court on gay marriage in the way there was against Dred Scott.

The most there will be, I predict, will be opposition of the kind that arose in response to Roe v. Wade — gay marriage could become an important issue in debates about values and judicial appointments. But there won’t be widespread resistance and successful presidential candidates who promise to under-enforce the decision because the majority of Americans will agree with the outcome, even if they disagree with the way our society reached it.

Published in Law, Marriage
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 173 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Ricochet Contributor
    Ricochet
    @TitusTechera

    Jamie Lockett:

    Titus Techera:

    But libertarianism, as all political philosophy, has to give a full account of human nature, or else it is lies.

    Ummmm, no it doesn’t. This is the most absurd charactarization of Political Philosophy I have ever heard.

    Ok, we need to get clarity on this. A number of my interlocutors here before you seem to share your sentiments. I will repeat my objection as plainly as I can, because none of you have offered your own objections, just denunciation, & none have answered my objections!

    So far as I know, political philosophy is more or less the invention of Plato & Aristotle. They certainly looked at human nature as such, not only a mere part of it, whichever part. They certainly never said they will leave any part out or that only some parts matter.

    Then look at Hobbes & Locke: They tell you they know about man’s nature as such, what it is & how to make it into a successful polity. They do not say political philosophy is limited or that any part of human nature is off limits.

    Are these men not political philosophers? Were they somehow deluded? Where did you men learn that these men were deluded?

    • #61
  2. x Inactive
    x
    @CatoRand

    Titus Techera:

    Salvatore Padula:Titus: “But the fundamental things like family, faith, & country are not up for choice. nor can they ever be.” This is just nonsense. If you don’t have a choice about how you structure your family, what faith (if any) you believe, and how the polity in which you live should be structured what on earth do you think you should have choices in? Do you think that the most fundamental aspects of human life should be completely removed from the realm of human freedom?

    For you to structure your family, first you have to be born. You are born into a family–apparently you do not think it is yours & apparently you think one structures families, which might explain how you misunderstand what you quote accurately!–& that is not your choice. In fact, the family does not choose you either. It just happens that way. When you quote me saying, ‘family is not up for choice’ & you answer about ‘choice about how you structure family’, I begin to suspect that you are misreading on purpose–that you are lying about what I say. So also about polity: I did not say you do not get to choose rulers or institutions or anything like that–’structure’–I said the country itself is not up for choice. You are simply born into it. You are raised into the way of life of the people there without your choice, before you have anything like choice. That entire experience makes you a being capable of choice. I have said nothing about structuring families or polities. I said country & family you do not choose. I was born into a family & a country not of my choice. So was everyone I know. I assume, so were you. How is that hard to see? You might disagree that that is a very important fact. You might argue that the freedom to structure family or polity is more important than the fact I adduced. About all these things you may be right: But you are wrong about what I have said. You are not yet ready to call me ignorant-

    It’s actually easier to see now that you’ve used your words to explain at least part of what the heck you are talking about.   It was you, however, who failed to do that at the outset.  Now can you take us another step — in full sentences — explaining why freedom makes no sense?  I’ll spot you that we are all born into families and countries that we didn’t choose.

    • #62
  3. Ricochet Contributor
    Ricochet
    @TitusTechera

    Cato Rand:It’s actually easier to see now that you’ve used your words to explain at least part of what the heck you are talking about. It was you, however, who failed to do that at the outset. Now can you take us another step — in full sentences — explaining why freedom makes no sense? I’ll spot you that we are all born into families and countries that we didn’t choose.

    I have explained to the other fellow how he misinterprets crudely because he has an interest in structure, which, to be sure, is in itself laudable, but nothing to what I was saying.

    I also did not say that ‘freedom makes no sense’. I do not take people who are so little willing or able to see what I am saying up on insulting offers. I am not sure why you wish to talk to me, if you do not see sense. I advise you, if you do want to talk with me, to pay attention to what I say. If this matters to you, I will return to courtesy.

    • #63
  4. x Inactive
    x
    @CatoRand

    Titus Techera:

    Cato Rand:It’s actually easier to see now that you’ve used your words to explain at least part of what the heck you are talking about. It was you, however, who failed to do that at the outset. Now can you take us another step — in full sentences — explaining why freedom makes no sense? I’ll spot you that we are all born into families and countries that we didn’t choose.

    I have explained to the other fellow how he misinterprets crudely because he has an interest in structure, which, to be sure, is in itself laudable, but nothing to what I was saying.

    I also did not say that ‘freedom makes no sense’. I do not take people who are so little willing or able to see what I am saying up on insulting offers. I am not sure why you wish to talk to me, if you do not see sense. I advise you, if you do want to talk with me, to pay attention to what I say. If this matters to you, I will return to courtesy.

    Nevermind.  I think I’ll be ok without.

    • #64
  5. Ricochet Contributor
    Ricochet
    @TitusTechera

    Cato Rand:Nevermind. I think I’ll be ok without.

    Indeed. I regret the hubbub I seem to have caused.

    • #65
  6. Tom Meyer Contributor
    Tom Meyer
    @tommeyer

    Titus Techera:

    Then look at Hobbes & Locke: They tell you they know about man’s nature as such, what it is & how to make it into a successful polity. They do not say political philosophy is limited or that any part of human nature is off limits.

    If so, they were wrong on that point.

    There’s nothing weird or insulting to say that some political philosophers have over-expansive views of their subject’s applicability.

    • #66
  7. Ricochet Contributor
    Ricochet
    @TitusTechera

    Tom Meyer, Ed.:

    Titus Techera:

    Then look at Hobbes & Locke: They tell you they know about man’s nature as such, what it is & how to make it into a successful polity. They do not say political philosophy is limited or that any part of human nature is off limits.

    If so, they were wrong on that point.

    There’s nothing weird or insulting to say that some political philosophers have over-expansive views of their subject’s applicability.

    No, certainly not, probably each philosopher has at least some of what you kindly call over-expansive views: But every political philosopher up until recently said & proved by his work the same thing. How could they all be wrong without political philosophy having to be abandoned! Maybe it should be. But those who bring it up should face this fact.

    I understand that, following Locke, as best as I can see, libertarians would rather ignore as much as possible about the origins of the free adult whereof they speak. But let’s not call libertarianism a political philosophy if it is so limited. I am skeptical of the proposition that the answer to the extraordinary claims & ambitions of political philosophers is to abandon the ambitions.

    In this case, my reason is really as vulgar as I said: In reality, sex & family come before any of this freedom & put limits on it. Some other principle than individual autonomy is needed to reckon with nature. Maybe libertarians would like the walk back to smith & to Locke, who are sometimes acknowledged their progenitors, & who did put a lot of work into dealing with this problem. That it is not seen or readily admitted now strikes me as worrying. Political philosophers certainly got this part about common sense, at least the ones with which I am acquainted, whatever their shortcomings.

    • #67
  8. user_653084 Inactive
    user_653084
    @SalvatorePadula

    Titus: “If that is not moralism, I do not know what is.”

    Then you don’t know what is.

    • #68
  9. Ricochet Contributor
    Ricochet
    @TitusTechera

    Salvatore Padula:Titus: “If that is not moralism, I do not know what is.”

    Then you don’t know what is.

    Does it occur to you that you keep up with denials & denunciations & nothing else? Meanwhile, you have not shown the courtesy of admitting or correcting crass misinterpretations which seem to have led you to those denunciations. What do you think is a good word for that? Is it honesty or civility to make these denunciations & then refuse to acknowledge my answers?

    • #69
  10. MJBubba Inactive
    MJBubba
    @MJBubba

    Tom Meyer, Ed. (#15):

    MJBubba:

    Tom Meyer, Ed.:I have a suggestion:

    If the court rules against traditional marriage, seek to pass a

    constitutional amendment clarifying that marriage is between a

    man and woman. That the pro-SSM side did not seek that

    remedy speaks very badly of it, but that’s water under the

    bridge at this point.

    Us Social Conservatives who remember those days do not trust the Establishment Squish types. We don’t trust you Libertarians either; you obviously were not paying attention when that went down.

    Wait… pushing for a constitutional amendment that requires supermajorities of the states to ratify is less preferable than judicial imposition?

    I am I missing something?

    I think you are missing the whole history of the SSM quarrels that prefaced the first legal same-sex “marriages” in 2004.   Most of us Social Conservatives would be very happy to promote a marriage amendment.   We remember, however, how libertarian and Chamber-of-Commerce Republicans united to attack SoCons who tried to promote one in the 1990s.   I found it quite rich for a libertarian in 2015 to criticize SoCons for not pursuing a marriage amendment.

    I would like to point out that the most ardent of the Social Conservatives of the 1990s were ridiculed by libertarian and Establishment Republicans for predicting things that have come to pass in the past decade.

    • #70
  11. MJBubba Inactive
    MJBubba
    @MJBubba

    Cato Rand (#28):

    SoDakBoy:

    Cato Rand:

    “Outrage industry”? Can you seriously use this term as a disparagement against those on the anti-SSM side of the equation? Can you not see that the pro-SSM forces have largely won by strategically highlighting sob stories from your own tribe?

    The “outrage industry” as I used the term isn’t limited to anti-SSM forces. It’s become an indispensable part of our public discourse on just about everything. But the anti-SSM forces certainly have their hand in that pie, and their habit of trotting out the same stories over and over about the photographer in New Mexico and the baker in Oregon is an excellent example of the genre.

    And by the way, no, I can’t think of a comparable pro-SSM exemplar. The denial of the right to marry actually effects millions of people, not a handful, and I can’t think of anybody who’s been cherry picked as especially aggrieved and held up as a public example in anything like the way your photographer and your baker have been.

    You can’t think of a comparable pro-SSM exemplar?

    I think my local paper ran one about once every two months or so throughout the period from 1999 through 2008.   We were treated to dozens and dozens of sympathetic portrayals of gay couples and their happy families who just wanted to be able to live lives like their married neighbors.   These were about half local features and half were supplied by the Associated Press.

    • #71
  12. x Inactive
    x
    @CatoRand

    MJBubba:

    Cato Rand (#28):

    SoDakBoy:

    Cato Rand:

    “Outrage industry”? Can you seriously use this term as a disparagement against those on the anti-SSM side of the equation? Can you not see that the pro-SSM forces have largely won by strategically highlighting sob stories from your own tribe?

    The “outrage industry” as I used the term isn’t limited to anti-SSM forces. It’s become an indispensable part of our public discourse on just about everything. But the anti-SSM forces certainly have their hand in that pie, and their habit of trotting out the same stories over and over about the photographer in New Mexico and the baker in Oregon is an excellent example of the genre.

    And by the way, no, I can’t think of a comparable pro-SSM exemplar. The denial of the right to marry actually effects millions of people, not a handful, and I can’t think of anybody who’s been cherry picked as especially aggrieved and held up as a public example in anything like the way your photographer and your baker have been.

    You can’t think of a comparable pro-SSM exemplar?

    I think my local paper ran one about once every two months or so throughout the period from 1999 through 2008. We were treated to dozens and dozens of sympathetic portrayals of gay couples and their happy families who just wanted to be able to live lives like their married neighbors. These were about half local features and half were supplied by the Associated Press.

    MJ, where do you live?  I can hardly deny what appeared in your local paper, but I’ve never seen any such thing anywhere.   Let me add that if there were that many, you’ve sort of made my point — which is that the benefits of SSM are quite widespread, while the horror stories of abuses of religious service providers are about as common as fatal shark attacks.

    • #72
  13. iDad Inactive
    iDad
    @iDad

    [withdrawn]

    • #73
  14. Jojo Inactive
    Jojo
    @TheDowagerJojo

    Somewhere back on this thread Tom asked whether I was referring to Ricochet when I said some people support blurring gender distinctions.  I was not, but today I see that support is there.

    • #74
  15. MJBubba Inactive
    MJBubba
    @MJBubba

    Cato Rand:

    MJBubba:

    Cato Rand (#28):

    SoDakBoy:

    Cato Rand:

    And by the way, no, I can’t think of a comparable pro-SSM exemplar. The denial of the right to marry actually effects millions of people, not a handful, and I can’t think of anybody who’s been cherry picked as especially aggrieved and held up as a public example in anything like the way your photographer and your baker have been.

    You can’t think of a comparable pro-SSM exemplar?

    I think my local paper ran one about once every two months or so throughout the period from 1999 through 2008. We were treated to dozens and dozens of sympathetic portrayals of gay couples and their happy families who just wanted to be able to live lives like their married neighbors. These were about half local features and half were supplied by the Associated Press.

    MJ, where do you live? I can hardly deny what appeared in your local paper, but I’ve never seen any such thing anywhere. Let me add that if there were that many, you’ve sort of made my point — which is that the benefits of SSM are quite widespread, while the horror stories of abuses of religious service providers are about as common as fatal shark attacks.

    Cato, you must not read the papers at all.  Big Journalism has been promoting everything gay for three decades at least.   You can search any major market newspaper site for “gay couple” and find dozens of fawning puff pieces that promote gays as normal hardworking sweet-natured good neighbors who are being oppressed by awful old Christian hateful bigots.   I just did this search at the Nashville Tennessean and the St. Louis paper (because my Memphis paper has their articles behind a paywall).

    I think every gay couple in every city that could be covered has been, from the amount of coverage.  Leaving out, of course, any that could not be portrayed favorably.   Far outside their representative numbers in the population, even in big blue cities.

    I am not the only person who thinks this way.   Mollie used to be a regular at GetReligion, a media criticism blog.  The GetReligion bloggers are all journalists who are mostly social liberals but theologically-conservative Christians.   (Mollie is a libertarian, and not really a SoCon; they never had a true social conservative on their team.)   They wrote a number of blog posts criticizing journalists for using the style pages of newspapers to run cheerleading articles for gay marriage.   I searched there, and screened out posts about hard news from the culture war, but here are posts that focused on puff pieces from the “living” or “lifestyle” or “style” sections of newspapers, that were criticized at GetReligion for being one-sided to an extent that they represented bad journalism:

    http://www.getreligion.org/getreligion/2013/08/a-front-page-puff-piece-on-same-sex-marriage?rq=puff-piece-on-same-sex

     http://www.getreligion.org/getreligion/2012/09/sacrificing-journalism-on-altar-of-gay-advocacy?rq=style%20section

     http://www.getreligion.org/getreligion/2010/04/washington-post-fears-and-loathes-cultural-conservatives?rq=style%20section

     http://www.getreligion.org/getreligion/2009/09/not-just-wrong-but-crazy-too?rq=style%20section

     http://www.getreligion.org/getreligion/2009/04/generational-generalities?rq=style%20section

     http://www.getreligion.org/getreligion/2009/08/on-threesomes-and-marriage?rq=style%20section

     http://www.getreligion.org/getreligion/2004/02/primetime-family-news

     http://www.getreligion.org/getreligion/2008/11/everyone-has-a-story

    • #75
  16. x Inactive
    x
    @CatoRand

    MJBubba:

    Cato Rand:

    MJBubba:

    Cato Rand (#28):

    SoDakBoy:

    Cato Rand:

    And by the way, no, I can’t think of a comparable pro-SSM exemplar. The denial of the right to marry actually effects millions of people, not a handful, and I can’t think of anybody who’s been cherry picked as especially aggrieved and held up as a public example in anything like the way your photographer and your baker have been.

    You can’t think of a comparable pro-SSM exemplar?

    I think my local paper ran one about once every two months or so throughout the period from 1999 through 2008. We were treated to dozens and dozens of sympathetic portrayals of gay couples and their happy families who just wanted to be able to live lives like their married neighbors. These were about half local features and half were supplied by the Associated Press.

    MJ, where do you live? I can hardly deny what appeared in your local paper, but I’ve never seen any such thing anywhere. Let me add that if there were that many, you’ve sort of made my point — which is that the benefits of SSM are quite widespread, while the horror stories of abuses of religious service providers are about as common as fatal shark attacks.

    Cato, you must not read the papers at all. Big Journalism has been promoting everything gay for three decades at least. You can search any major market newspaper site for “gay couple” and find dozens of fawning puff pieces that promote gays as normal hardworking sweet-natured good neighbors who are being oppressed by awful old Christian hateful bigots. I just did this search at the Nashville Tennessean and the St. Louis paper (because my Memphis paper has their articles behind a paywall).

    I think every gay couple in every city that could be covered has been, from the amount of coverage. Leaving out, of course, any that could not be portrayed favorably. Far outside their representative numbers in the population, even in big blue cities.

    I am not the only person who thinks this way. Mollie used to be a regular at GetReligion, a media criticism blog. The GetReligion bloggers are all journalists who are mostly social liberals but theologically-conservative Christians. (Mollie is a libertarian, and not really a SoCon; they never had a true social conservative on their team.) They wrote a number of blog posts criticizing journalists for using the style pages of newspapers to run cheerleading articles for gay marriage. I searched there, and screened out posts about hard news from the culture war, but here are posts that focused on puff pieces from the “living” or “lifestyle” or “style” sections of newspapers, that were criticized at GetReligion for being one-sided to an extent that they represented bad journalism:

    http://www.getreligion.org/getreligion/2013/08/a-front-page-puff-piece-on-same-sex-marriage?rq=puff-piece-on-same-sex

    http://www.getreligion.org/getreligion/2012/09/sacrificing-journalism-on-altar-of-gay-advocacy?rq=style%20section

    http://www.getreligion.org/getreligion/2010/04/washington-post-fears-and-loathes-cultural-conservatives?rq=style%20section

    http://www.getreligion.org/getreligion/2009/09/not-just-wrong-but-crazy-too?rq=style%20section

    http://www.getreligion.org/getreligion/2009/04/generational-generalities?rq=style%20section

    http://www.getreligion.org/getreligion/2009/08/on-threesomes-and-marriage?rq=style%20section

    http://www.getreligion.org/getreligion/2004/02/primetime-family-news

    http://www.getreligion.org/getreligion/2008/11/everyone-has-a-story

    1) By “Molly” do you mean Molly Hemingway?  Because if so, I’m surprised to hear her described as a libertarian, and not surprised that she and you share a concern that gay people might be getting too much good press.  She is not someone I’d consider an honest broker.

    2) I just glanced through “Get Religion.”  It looks like Jennifer T’s “Posts I Have Started” list.  You suggested a couple of days ago that I shouldn’t expect you to find stories published by GLAAD credible, which is fine.  But do me a favor.  Return the courtesy.  It is a prime example of what I referred to earlier as the “Outrage Industry” and Get Religion is on the anti-gay side of that industry.  Gay people represent, I don’t know, but 3%, 5%, 7%, whatever, of the population.  Unless we’re terrorized into hiding in the closet, we’re going to produce the occasional positive story, and a website devoted to searching out each one of those and criticizing it, is going to find some material to work with.

    3) Did you find anything in either of the two mainstream papers you claim to have searched?

    • #76
  17. MJBubba Inactive
    MJBubba
    @MJBubba

    Cato Rand:

    MJBubba:

    Cato Rand:

    MJBubba:

    Cato Rand (#28):

    SoDakBoy:

    Cato Rand:

    1) By “Molly” do you mean Molly Hemingway? Because if so, I’m surprised to hear her described as a libertarian, and not surprised that she and you share a concern that gay people might be getting too much good press. She is not someone I’d consider an honest broker.

    Please address any errors of fact.   Her opinions are carefully acknowledged.  Her media criticism, and that of her colleagues, is based on faults in lamestream journalism.   Big Journalism is tilted in your favor.   Gay people are, in fact, getting good press, which is not necessarily a problem.  The problem is that gay people are getting uniformly good press while traditional believers are getting bad press, and neutral telling of events has disappeared from Big Journalism.   The GetReligion blog is a media criticism site.   And, as a theologically-conservative Christian, I am not surprised if you find both me and Mollie to be dishonest.   That seems to be part of your standard method.   But I can safely say that Mollie is a libertarian, and not a social conservative like me.

    2) I just glanced through “Get Religion.” It looks like Jennifer T’s “Posts I Have Started” list.

    No, it does not.   There is no advocacy there.   What there is, is criticism of journalists for mingling their pro-gay biases into straight news stories, mangling news with editorializing.  Try reading there again.

    You suggested a couple of days ago that I shouldn’t expect you to find stories published by GLAAD credible, which is fine. But do me a favor. Return the courtesy. It is a prime example of what I referred to earlier as the “Outrage Industry” and Get Religion is on the anti-gay side of that industry. Gay people represent, I don’t know, but 3%, 5%, 7%, whatever, of the population. Unless we’re terrorized into hiding in the closet, we’re going to produce the occasional positive story, and a website devoted to searching out each one of those and criticizing it, is going to find some material to work with.

    3) Did you find anything in either of the two mainstream papers you claim to have searched?

    Gay people represent less than 3.5 percent of the population.   Most Americans would answer polling, until just the past five years, with assumptions that gays were up to 20 percent of the population.   This was entirely due to the pro-gay advocacy position of Big Journalism.

    Yes, I found several positive stories about local gay households in those papers, and I did not have to look far.   You should take a look for yourself.   You would have to search very hard to find any criticism of gays in any major market newspaper, except for the quotes attributed to anti-gay activists.

    • #77
  18. x Inactive
    x
    @CatoRand

    If I’m reading you correctly MJ, it seems that I’m to accept that pro-gay advocacy is to be ruled in-credible and not worthy of consideration, but if I raise questions about anti-gay advocacy, I should expect to make you angry.  Am I over reading?  Your response seemed to have a tone I don’t usually associate with you.

    • #78
  19. Jojo Inactive
    Jojo
    @TheDowagerJojo

    If I may interject, because I always make things better, I think all the Mollie Hemingway stories were about media bias.  Media bias against supporters of traditional marriage.  I’m guessing the GLAAD stories were not about media bias against supporters of gay marriage.  I would like to read those.

    I followed one of the links to Mollie’s story, and it did contain some stuff that would be funny except that they get away with it.   It was an excerpt from a Washington Post friendly profile on a gay marriage opponent, and it went something like, “Sure most gay marriage opponents are slobbering evil cretins, but this guy is different.”

    • #79
  20. x Inactive
    x
    @CatoRand

    JoJo, GLAAD is an acronym for “Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation.”  It was founded for exactly the same purpose GetReligion claims — to combat media bias.  It has become much more pro-active and much more successful than the struggling anti-bias campaign I knew 20+ years ago when one of my colleagues, who was an early board member, started extracting tribute for it from me.  Calling attention to what it considers media bias, however, just as GetReligion purports to do, remains a core part of its mission and GLAAD is the principle gay advocacy group with that focus in the United States.  The real difference between them, for purposes of this conversation, is that the groups they defend against perceived bias are different.

    • #80
  21. Jojo Inactive
    Jojo
    @TheDowagerJojo

    Well I’ll take a peek.

    • #81
  22. Tom Meyer Contributor
    Tom Meyer
    @tommeyer

    MJBubba:

    Tom Meyer, Ed. (#15):

    MJBubba:

    Tom Meyer, Ed.:I have a suggestion:

    If the court rules against traditional marriage, seek to pass a

    constitutional amendment clarifying that marriage is between a man and woman. That the pro-SSM side did not seek that remedy speaks very badly of it, but that’s water under the bridge at this point.

    I think you are missing the whole history of the SSM quarrels that prefaced the first legal same-sex “marriages” in 2004. Most of us Social Conservatives would be very happy to promote a marriage amendment. We remember, however, how libertarian and Chamber-of-Commerce Republicans united to attack SoCons who tried to promote one in the 1990s. I found it quite rich for a libertarian in 2015 to criticize SoCons for not pursuing a marriage amendment.

    MJ, I believe you misread my comment at #4, which you excerpt from above. I said that not seeking a constitutional amendment speaks badly of the pro-SSM side (see above, emphasis added); i.e., of the majority of those who wished to change the definition of marriage; I was being self-critical of my own side. I’ve said as much ever since I favored expanding marriage to include homosexual couples; to my chagrin, the idea never caught on.

    I concede that I did not make this adequately clear before.

    • #82
  23. Tom Meyer Contributor
    Tom Meyer
    @tommeyer

    Jojo:Somewhere back on this thread Tom asked whether I was referring to Ricochet when I said some people support blurring gender distinctions. I was not, but today I see that support is there.

    ?

    Is there a specific comment you’re referring to?

    • #83
  24. MJBubba Inactive
    MJBubba
    @MJBubba

    Tom Meyer, Ed.:

    MJBubba:

    Tom Meyer, Ed. (#15):

    MJBubba:

    Tom Meyer, Ed.:

    …constitutional amendment  ….

    I think you are missing ….a marriage amendment. …libertarian ….  SoCons ….

    MJ, I believe you misread my comment at #4, which you excerpt from above. I said that not seeking a constitutional amendment speaks badly of the pro-SSM side (see above, emphasis added); i.e., of the majority of those who wished to change the definition of marriage; I was being self-critical of my own side. I’ve said as much ever since I favored expanding marriage to include homosexual couples; to my chagrin, the idea never caught on.

    I concede that I did not make this adequately clear before.

    Tom,  you are correct;  I did mis-read your comment.   Pardon me.

    • #84
  25. MJBubba Inactive
    MJBubba
    @MJBubba

    Cato Rand (#78):If I’m reading you correctly MJ, it seems that I’m to accept that pro-gay advocacy is to be ruled in-credible and not worthy of consideration, but if I raise questions about anti-gay advocacy, I should expect to make you angry. Am I over reading? Your response seemed to have a tone I don’t usually associate with you.

    Pro-gay advocacy is worthy of consideration as advocacy when it is rolled out by gays and pro-gay advocates.   I find fault with pro-gay advocacy when it is disguised as journalism.

    Your beef about anti-gay advocacy is with conservative niche media, who candidly admit that they are on one side of the issue.   It has only been in this decade that major lamestream media outlets (New York Times and Washington Post) have admitted that they believe that the traditional journalism ethic of neutrality only applies to politics and does not need to apply to culture war issues.   The rest of the lamestream are pretending to journalistic neutrality, and I highlighted the blog posts at GetReligion because they have links to many examples of Big Journalism hiding pro-gay advocacy in their style sections and news pages.

    Cato, you said:

    “I can’t think of anybody who’s been cherry picked as especially aggrieved and held up as a public example in anything like the way your photographer and your baker have been.”

    Which I thought was laughable, and disingenuous.   I have seen several dozens of stories about cherry-picked appealing gay households.   At GetReligion I have seen excerpts of dozens of others, and MRC and Breitbart have dozens more.   I have no doubt that the actual total runs to hundreds.   No single exemplar became a  big story  because the emphasis was always on how  normal  and  nice  they were.   But the issue is not about the individuals;  the issue is journalism.

    The reason for the outrage on my side is that the brewing collision between gay rights and the First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion is something that social conservatives have been talking about for three decades.   It is a topic that was almost never covered by pro-gay Big Journalism.   Even the Hobby Lobby case was only about contraception, until it was taken up by the Supreme Court, and then some lamestream media folk actually started to explain that there was another side to the story.

    The outrage is aimed at the journalists.

    • #85
  26. Jojo Inactive
    Jojo
    @TheDowagerJojo

    Tom Meyer, Ed.:

    Jojo:Somewhere back on this thread Tom asked whether I was referring to Ricochet when I said some people support blurring gender distinctions. I was not, but today I see that support is there.

    ?

    Is there a specific comment you’re referring to?

    There were lots of comments favoring the right of a man to use the women’s locker room, and his right to decide what gender he was.  The woman who wanted the privacy implicit in separate gender facilities was derided as a whiner.  When gender becomes what you think you are, not what you are, that’s a weakening of  distinctions.  If your body is one thing but you can “choose” to be the other, you could choose to be anywhere in between, too.

    • #86
  27. MJBubba Inactive
    MJBubba
    @MJBubba

    Tom Meyer, Ed. (#4):I have a suggestion:

    If the court rules against traditional marriage, seek to pass a constitutional amendment clarifying that marriage is between a man and woman. That the pro-SSM side did not seek that remedy speaks very badly of it, but that’s water under the bridge at this point.

    What the heck ever happened to constitutional amendments, anyway?

    Tom, now that I am un-tangled and properly read what you said here, I will repeat my apology.   This is a point that deserves further consideration.

    The pro-SSM side never ever thought of seeking a constitutional amendment.   Until last year it would have been a laughable proposition.   Even Obama had to pretend to oppose it to win his anointing.

    The pro-SSM side is owned by the Left.   The Progressives use SSM as a lever to continue their attack on traditional Christianity.   The Left never try to persuade people that they have a good case.   They just look at the words that present a problem for them, and go about the long task of changing the meaning of the words.   Their natural inclination is one of great patience, and they have had amazing success.   They have been at work since before the French Revolution, and the work of generations of the Leftists is bearing fruit.

    • #87
  28. Jojo Inactive
    Jojo
    @TheDowagerJojo

    Jojo:Well I’ll take a peek.

    Took a look at the GLAAD website.  What I saw did not seem to deal  with media bias against gays.  I searched “media bias” and got an article complaining about a traditional marriage advocate complaining about media bias in favor of gays.  Lots of articles about 6 or 7  year old trans-sexuals, though.   I can’t imagine why a child needs to be classified like that, seems like would do more harm than good.

    • #88
  29. MJBubba Inactive
    MJBubba
    @MJBubba

    Cato Rand (#28):

    SoDakBoy:

    Cato Rand:

    “Outrage industry”    …

    The “outrage industry” as I used the term isn’t limited to anti-SSM forces. It’s become an indispensable part of our public discourse on just about everything. But the anti-SSM forces certainly have their hand in that pie, and their habit of trotting out the same stories over and over about the photographer in New Mexico and the baker in Oregon is an excellent example of the genre.

    And by the way, no, I can’t think of a comparable pro-SSM exemplar. The denial of the right to marry actually effects millions of people, not a handful, and I can’t think of anybody who’s been cherry picked as especially aggrieved and held up as a public example in anything like the way your photographer and your baker have been.

    Further to the outrage:

    How many times has a Christian school been held up for public opprobrium, for the hateful bigoted practice of teaching traditional Christian morals?

    http://www.getreligion.org/getreligion/2015/3/13/catholic-school-teachers-blunt-facebook-post-turns-into-media-free-for-all

    http://www.getreligion.org/search?q=school%20gay

    • #89
  30. x Inactive
    x
    @CatoRand

    Traditional Christian morals:

    “See this is the agenda . . . one minute they argue that hey [sic] are born this way and it is not a choice to get  14th amendment rights equal protection . . . bologna . . . which was carved for permanent characteristics . . . unchangeable characteristics such as race and disability . . . but once they [sic] in the 14th amendment they will argue everyone should be able to choose they [sic] gay or lesbian lifestyle . . . in other words they want to reengineer western civ into a slow extinction.  We need healthy families with a mother and a father for the sake of humanity!!!!”

    • #90
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.