Orson Scott Card: Equality for Gays is the End for Democracy
One popular claim from anti-gay bigots is that it's anti-democratic when courts rule that gays should be treated as equals when voters and legislatures have decided to treat gays as inferior. A good example of this comes from Orson Scott Card, a Mormon who is most widely known as an author but who recently has been making his mark as a defender of traditional religious bigotry and falsehoods. In an attack on the institution of independent courts, he argues that it signals the end of democracy itself that courts strike down anti-gay laws.
The first and greatest threat from court decisions in California and Massachusetts, giving legal recognition to "gay marriage," is that it marks the end of democracy in America. These judges are making new law without any democratic process; in fact, their decisions are striking down laws enacted by majority vote.
The pretext is that state constitutions require it -- but it is absurd to claim that these constitutions require marriage to be defined in ways that were unthinkable through all of human history until the past 15 years. And it is offensive to expect us to believe this obvious fiction. It is such an obvious overreach by judges, far beyond any rational definition of their authority, that even those who support the outcome of the decisions should be horrified by the means.
Source: Mormon Times
I'm not sure where Orson Scott Card has been, but apparently no one has ever told him that striking down laws is part of what courts do and have always done in America. That's part of their constitutional role: they are a check on the power of the legislature by preventing the legislature from passing unconstitutional laws.
The Constitution describes many limits on the authority of the various branches of government and of government generally, but those limits are meaningless if there is no means of forcing the government to abide by them. If a majority of voters and/or representatives decide to pass a blatantly unconstitutional law, what's to stop them? A primary means of stopping them is filing suit in the courts and getting the courts to rule against the government.
Ed Brayton quotes Alexander Hamilton on the authority and role of the courts in a democratic republic:
The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex-post-facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing.
Can you think of any examples of where the courts have ruled against the government and struck down a democratically enacted law as unconstitutional? I'm sure you can — there are plenty of examples out there. Can Orson Scott Card name any examples? That's a very good question. If he does, then either he thinks that they were also the end of democracy (and so democracy has been ending since shortly after the Constitution was ratified) or he thinks that it's only the end of democracy when courts strike down particular kinds of laws: laws dealing with marriage, laws allowing gay marriage, etc.
The first is, quite frankly, ridiculous, so that leaves just one option which might not leave Orson Scott Card looking completely foolish: he only believes that it's the end of democracy when courts strike down laws on some particular subject, like marriage. Unfortunately, he doesn't actually argue this — his language is all very general and applies to judicial review of laws generally, not marriage laws in particular. I don't think it's reasonable to pretend that he only has marriage laws in mind. I think it's more likely that his language is general because he intended to take the general position that it's undemocratic for courts to review the constitutionality of laws.
However, let's be generous anyway and pretend that Card is only making an argument about marriage laws. Is it undemocratic for courts to strike down as unconstitutional any laws regulating the institution of marriage? As I said, he makes no specific argument for this and I can't think of any arguments in defense of such a position. If Card really does believe this, then once again we are not facing the first time that democracy has been ending because the Supreme Court did just this when it ruled that bans on interracial marriage was unconstitutional.
So, if we are as generous as possible and rule out the interpretations which would entail the most egregious foolishness on the author's part, we seem to be left with the conclusion that Card believes it was a sign of the end of democracy when the Supreme Court told states that they had to allow interracial couples marry. Is it possible that Orson Scott Card is as opposed to interracial marriage as he is to gay marriage? Mormonism does have a long history of racism and opposition to interracial marriage.
Let's ignore the history of Mormon racism, though, and try to continue being generous by assuming that Card supports the legalization of interracial marriage but just thinks that the courts shouldn't have forced legislatures to do it. So the best possible interpretation of his position seems to be that interracial couples should have accepted criminal bans on their unions until the individual states were less bigoted and voluntarily changed their laws without court interference.
How is this a recommendation for his way of thinking and his understanding of the law? Maybe someone should send him a primer on constitutional law so he can learn about the basic role of courts in the American system of government.
Please remember that for the mildest of comments critical of the political agenda of homosexual activists, I have been called a "homophobe" for years.
This is a term that was invented to describe people with a pathological fear of homosexuals -- the kind of people who engage in acts of violence against gays. But the term was immediately extended to apply to anyone who opposed the homosexual activist agenda in any way.
A term that has mental-health implications (homophobe) is now routinely applied to anyone who deviates from the politically correct line. How long before opposing gay marriage, or refusing to recognize it, gets you officially classified as "mentally ill"?
No, Orson Scott Card is called a homophobe because whenever he writes about the subject of homosexuality, he demonstrates significant anti-gay animosity. I don't think his understanding of English is any better than his understanding of the law, which is curious given that writing is his profession. Contrary to what he claims here, a "phobia" is not just a "pathological fear" but also a "strong dislike or aversion to" and "an intense fear or hatred of" something. When used in a clinical or medical setting, phobia is limited to pathological fears; outside of that specialized context, though, it has the broader meaning. Maybe someone should send him a dictionary, too.
He's also wrong to claim that "homophobia" is only supposed to refer to people who engage in violence against gays. That's like claiming that "racism" is only supposed to refer to people who burn crosses and lynch black people, or "misogyny" is only supposed to refer to people who beat women. All of that is ridiculous — those terms refer to a range of behaviors and attitudes, some worse and some not.
Aside from being absurd, there is one more thing that all of these arguments have in common: you'll pretty much only find religious believers offering them. There are atheists who are anti-gay bigots, but they are relatively rare. Religious believers dominate the bigots' side of the debate and they do so through arguments that are false, fallacious, absurd, ridiculous — and that's the best of them. I think that there are a couple of reasons for this.
First, many of these believers are already accustomed to such arguments when it comes to apologetics for their religion. Religious believers don't have a monopoly on bad arguments, but if you already accept uncritically a host of fallacious and absurd arguments in defense of belief in a god and the validity of one religion, why would similarly fallacious and absurd arguments in another context raise any red flags? This is, in fact, an important reason why religion can be such a bad idea: it can prepare the ground for many other false and irrational beliefs.
Second, I think that the real reason why most (if not all) of these believers oppose gay rights and gay marriage has nothing to do with the arguments they are trying to offer. Their anti-gay animus stems from religion, religious traditions, religious doctrines, and religious scripture. They cannot offer any of that in debates about secular law, though, so they are forced to rely on arguments which never convinced them in the first place.
This is not to say that the religious arguments would be any sounder or more convincing, but you can't count on doing a reliable job formulating arguments when the truth or falsehood of those arguments have no bearing on whether you accept your position or not. If you would continue holding a position even if it turned out that your argument were completely false and utter nonsense, then you aren't going to do a good job making sure that the argument is based on accurate evidence, sound reasoning, valid logic, etc.
That's just what we find with religious believers who oppose equal rights and marriage for gays because of religious tradition but who keep trying to offer legal arguments that are based on falsehoods, unsound reasoning, and invalid logic. Like Orson Scott Card here, they try to give us arguments that are completely false and utter nonsense. Even under the most generous interpretations, the person behind them comes out sounding like even more of a bigot; under less generous (and sometimes more reasonable) interpretations, they can just sound stupid.
None of that is necessary. It would be better to offer more sincere arguments that they honestly believe in — the arguments which convinces them, not shoddy arguments they threw together in the hopes of convincing someone else. Even if the arguments turn out to not be so great, and even if the arguments can't be used as a reason for changing secular law, they may not make the person behind them look so bad.
Comments
Austin, nice expose, my friend. Card’s argumentation is wholly fallacious.
I’m always surprised how stringent Mormons are regarding open forms of sexuality given their own past with it (polygamy, polyandry, or as they call it, “plural marriage”). Card also needs to study up on homosexuality through history – it’s been widespread for much longer than the past few decades.
Moreover, I was in California on vacation the week after courts started allowing for same-sex marriage, and I can report as a witness that the sky had not fallen and that most people continued their lives with little or no change. People like Card are perturbed by this only because they want to be, not because it actually affects them adversely.
Austin,
To follow up on some of your main points, our constitution explicitly places some issues outside of majority or legislative rule. One example involved objections to bible lessons in school (originally brought up by catholics who objected to a protestant version being taught exclusively. This is a view that I would suspect mormons like Mr. Card would be sympathetic to if their Book of Mormon was excluded but others included.).
Mr. Card might object that homosexual marriage is not guaranteed by the constitution. But the constitution does imply an area of individual rights not explicity enumerated and not subject to legislative restriction. That seemed to be the basis of decisions in the early 60s overturning the Comstock laws and allowing people (1st married couples, then others) access to birth control materials and information. Additionally, states, the entities that legally regulate marriage, each have different constitutions, some of which are written in ways that imply that gender restrictions in marriage are in violation of their state constitutions.
If Mr. Card wishes to make the case that gay marriage is destroying our democracy, he’ll have to do better than he has.
I used to think that gay marriage opponents, for instance, would cry “the sky is falling” for essentially rhetorical purposes. Lately, though, I have come to suspect more sinister motives.
If you consider the utterances of people like John Hagee, Jerry Falwell, Janet Folger et. al. to the effect that by tolerating homosexuality we are inviting the judgment of God, then opposing this becomes less like bigotry and more like self-defence. In other words, the more dire the “perceived” consequences of some piece of social policy or legislation, the more easily violence can be justified.
The anti-Jewish pogroms depended upon dehumanizing Jews. The first German concentration camp was preceded by years of rhetoric vilifying Jews. Odds are that people can be motivated to act in a more extreme fashion if it is a matter of the survival of democracy rather than just defending their prejudices.
I think Orson Scott Card has valid points in his critique of the California and Massachusetts court decisions. I have several problems with the way the legal precedents of gay marriage have been established. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsome short circuited the legislative process by taking it upon himself to issue licenses for Gay marriages when there was no established legal precedent. This bald-faced usurpation of power should have been punished with removal from office and possibly a jail term. The public should not have tolerated such a naked abuse of executive power and the abuse of the public trust. But because his actions were politically popular in the liberal city of San Francisco, a blind eye given to his Mayoral transgressions. Such unilateral actions only serve to weaken our democratic traditions. One could easily imagine such a process being abused to bypass contentious public discourse and create legal precedents without going through the proper legislative or initiative processes.
We can acknowledge that part of the functions of the judiciary is to strike down laws that are deemed unconstitutional. However the Constitution makes it clear that it is the Legislative branch that is responsible for the creation of Law. The danger of activist law is that such unilateral decision making authority can breed extremely divisive political issues that will ultimately polarize the public. Such heavy handed actions will only strengthen the perceptions that this country is deep in the midst of a culture war.
One example of activist courts creating law where none has previously existed can be found in Roe vs. Wade. The 1973 Supreme court decision acknowledges that the Constitution does not contain any language dealing with Abortion. However the resulting language the Supreme Court used in justifying abortion was that they examined the Constitution and by the “Shades and Shadows” of the founders intent on individual rights, they created a series of rights where none existed before. Am I saying that Roe vs. Wade be overturned? No. I do think that much good has come out of giving women the rights to abortions. However the problem is that we are still wrestling with the abortion issue 35 years later and it’s not going to go away. This is what happens when political consensus is not reached. One wishes the Supreme Court had invented more convincing opinions then the weak legal reasoning they had delivered in Roe vs. Wade. I can guarantee that we go down the path of activist law, the issue of Gay marriage will prove to be just as contentious in the future.
When I read Card’s arguments, I see him putting the supporters of Gay Marriage on notice and cautioning them about the dangers of relying upon the establishment of law created by an activist judiciary. It will serve to destroy the democratic traditions of polite and cordial political discourse in this country.
The implicit danger is that if we succumb to the temptation of pursuing precedent based upon activist judicial law instead of building political consensus, the legal foundations of activist law will be supported by the magician’s equivalent of smoke and mirrors. Shouldn’t the establishment of abortion rights, gay rights and other rights be built on a sturdier foundation of law then the ethereal “Shades and Shadows” of Constitutional interpretation?
Your error is that you are reading Card’s arguments through the lens of religious argument and gay bashing and you’ve managed to miss his points completely. No where does he make a religious appeal in opposing gay marriage and he correctly predicts that in this era of political correctness that any organized opposition to gay marriage is automatically condemned as homophobia. You do yourself and your cause a disservice in attacking arguments for religious justification and bigotry where there is none.
Well, I’ve explained where and how his arguments are both legally and logically invalid. Can you point to a single valid argument or point he offers?
Except that the courts didn’t create new law in Roe v. Wade; instead, the court struck down laws it found to be unconstitutional. If you think that the legal reasoning was wrong, explain how and why — and, in additional, please explain how and why the action of the court here was any worse than when the court struck down laws on access to contraception, segregation, school prayer, etc.
Of course it’s not going to go away. As long as there are people who object to equality for women, it won’t go away. There are still people who object to the decisions striking down school prayer, Bible reading, and desegregation.
When I read his column, I see no such argument being offered. However, if you think he is offering this argument, and you think it is a legitimate argument, then feel free to explain how and why gays shouldn’t strive to have anti-gay laws struck down just as other minorities have worked to have racist laws struck down by the courts.
Please explain how it is anti-democratic for independent courts striking down unconstitutional laws.
If you read my piece, you’ll notice that I in fact spend some time pointing this out. No, he doesn’t offer any religious arguments but that’s the root of the problem because his objections are ultimately religious. By offering arguments that weren’t originally convincing for him, he offers far worse arguments than he would otherwise.
Opposition to gay marriage has the potential of not being homophobic to the same degree that opposition to interracial marriage has the potential of not being racist.
I don’t actually address or attack any religious arguments against gay marriage. I explain why I raise the issue of religion; you do yourself an actual and serious disservice by ignoring that explanation. If you disagree with it, feel free to rebut it, but don’t pretend that it doesn’t exist and then criticize me for something I haven’t done.
What synoptix needs to be reminded of is that the *passage* of some laws (read: religiously oriented) is divisive, not their being struck down. I would include DOMA (the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act) in that category. It was passed by a Republican congress and mistakenly signed into law by President Clinton in that election year. He should have vetoed it. That law, once challenged, will hopefully be struck down. (If we get any more right-wingers on the high Court, they may mistakenly uphold it.)
Acts such as that awful faith-based initiatives instituted by Bush should also be struck down as a violation of church-state separation. God should come off the money and out of the Pledge (remember, it was not originally IN the Pledge but put there by a Republican congress and Republican president).
As long as legislatures keep passing unconstitional laws such as those which mix in religion too much to the law, it is up to the courts to strike them down. Thank goodness for the Warren Court which struck many of them down in the 1960s.
Using my own state as an example, laws banning gay marriage have been voted on and passed (overwhelmingly), so the precedent is out there to call court rulings ‘un-democratic’ when in fact the people have spoken. When I read Card’s remarks, that is how I take them. I’m not here to say he’s right or wrong, or for that matter whether the vote of the people of my state is right or wrong; just trying to point out the reason someone could say a judge ruling against the majority of the people of a state might be called ‘un-democratic’.
To follow up on Synoptix and Austin Cline on Roe v. Wade, I read the court’s decision years ago. While I found some of the language a little unclear the way it was written, I think I understand and agree with the underlying reasoning. The constitution gives certain limited powers to the federal government, enumerates some individual rights, then says that other rights not specifically mentioned are reserved for the states and individuals respectively. I think this means as appropriate. States can make laws and levy certain kinds of taxes, but it doesn’t make sense to talk of a state’s right to assemble or to avoid unwarranted searches. Similarly, individuals don’t levy taxes or enact laws (outside of a legislative body). But other individual rights are reserved for them.
The court in its halting, inconsistent way has seemed to say that if the state or federal government wants to regulate certain kinds of private behavior or aspects of private lives, it needs a compelling reason (e.g. major societal harm or protection of minors). And there are certain aspects of one’s private life that are so personal or central that state and federal governments have very little or perhaps no right to interfere. While I found some of the specific reasoning mentioned in the actual decision perhaps a little byzantine at best, I think the court got it more or less right with Roe v. Wade and had good constitutional reasons for doing what they did. A constitution like ours that has unenumerated rights that are strong but not always absolute is going to require the courts to make these kinds of judgement calls.
Well lets look at your arguments point by point shall we?:
” I don’t actually address or attack any religious arguments against gay marriage. I explain why I raise the issue of religion; you do yourself an actual and serious disservice by ignoring that explanation. If you disagree with it, feel free to rebut it, but don’t pretend that it doesn’t exist and then criticize me for something I haven’t done.”
Excellent idea! Let me start out by pointing out that you said initially in your blog: “It would be better to offer more sincere arguments that they honestly believe in — the arguments which convinces them, not shoddy arguments they threw together in the hopes of convincing someone else. Even if the arguments turn out to not be so great, and even if the arguments can’t be used as a reason for changing secular law, they may not make the person behind them look so bad.”
I couldn’t agree with you more. If we are a nation that believes in the separation of church and state, (and I am such a person) then we need to ground our arguments based on the rule of law. The point I’m making is that Card is not making some sort of Biblical or religious grounds. He’s making an appeal based upon the facts that the courts are taking the issue of Gay Marriage and Gay rights out of the hands of the public and deciding them for us. Thus Card’s assertion about the “End of Democracy”. Think about it. Merriam-Webster’s online defines Democracy as, 1) government by the people; especially rule of the majority 2): a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections In our Federal system of divided government there is a full 1/3 of the government (i.e. the Judiciary) that is NOT directly elected by the people. They are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate and once there they are there for LIFE. (Lets simplify the issue democratic representation and ignore the question of the Electoral college to focus our debate.) Now I can’t speak for California or Massachusetts Judges and if they’re elected by the people of their states, but the fact is that they are making a decision which not only affects their own states but mine as well. I didn’t vote for them and that makes the legal precedents they’re establishing taken out of the hands of the public of the other 48 states as well. It’s undemocratic. Small wonder when the average American voter expresses anger or apathy when they’ve been effectively disenfranchised by the system.
Yet you continue to shade Card’s arguments in a tainted light instead of taking it on the merits he’s brought forth, you get your digs into Card early by prefacing your attack by saying: “Orson Scott Card, a Mormon who is most widely known as an author but who recently has been making his mark as a defender of traditional religious bigotry and falsehoods. Where exactly is he using religion? Falsehoods? What did he lie about? You don’t really identify what he’s lying about and you attempt to taint him by pointing out his religious affiliations. I don’t even see where in his blog he’s defending religion. You might as well include yourself with the bigotry label, because one could easily transpose “faggot”, “queer” or “gay” with “Christian” or “Mormon” with the intent to discredit your opponent’s intellect. (Try reading the opening sentence with these other codewords inserted and see how the person is devalued or tainted by disagreeing with you. “Orson Scott Card, a [GAY] who is most widely known as an author but who recently has been making his mark as a defender of [HOMOSEXUAL RIGHTS] and falsehoods.”) You’re no better then the bigots you rant about. In fact you’re their mirror image!
Needless to say you’ve not impressed me with your opening rhetoric.
Then you say: “ Anti-gay bigots frequently make all sorts of dire predictions about the consequences of treating gays as if they were real human beings who are equal to heterosexuals. ”
Card anticipates this sort of attack by stating the following: “Please remember that for the mildest of comments critical of the political agenda of homosexual activists, I have been called a “homophobe” for years… This is a term that was invented to describe people with a pathological fear of homosexuals — the kind of people who engage in acts of violence against gays. But the term was immediately extended to apply to anyone who opposed the homosexual activist agenda in any way.”
Card is absolutely right. Just because Card and I might disagree with you, doesn’t make us out to be bigots. I don’t think you’re capable of conceiving that someone might have honest reasons to oppose the gay agenda because you state things in absolute terms: “Opposition to gay marriage has the potential of not being homophobic to the same degree that opposition to interracial marriage has the potential of not being racist.” Again you mirror the issues in the black and white paradigm with an (perhaps an almost religious?) zeal exhibited by the more extreme opponents of your position. Is your position so weak that you are unable to risk a vote by the people? Are you a “heterophobe”? Do you feel that Gay Marriage can only be won through Liberal Judicial Activism? The Homosexual political activists believe this because they seek to change the country by denying everyone a voice in the issue. (i.e. the erosion of Democracy / Liberal Judicial Activism) Rather then facing the majority in the Congress and Senate, the supporters of Gay Marriage seek a back door (no pun intended) of getting acceptance by the mainstream by circumventing the political dialog. This is heterophobia by homosexuals. The Gay Marriage / Gay Rights activists believe that their only hope towards universal acceptance is to short-circuit the political dialog through Judicial Activism. This premise is misguided because it does not take into account the resentment of this undemocratic action will only serve to reinforce the perception that this country is in a “Culture War”. You claim you wanted “more sincere arguments” but I feel that you cannot accept contrarian opinions because of your extreme political bias. Wouldn’t you rather see an open political dialog that builds understanding or are you so sure in your own mind that your opponents are as closed minded as yourself? Some see themselves fighting for this issue because they perceive theirs is a morally just and righteous cause, pretty much like you see yourself. You might not use the same exact language but the sentiments are just as strongly felt.
Then you continue to make an outrageous assertion that in denying Gay Marriage or Gay Rights that opponents are treating Gays as less then human. I’m not. I just happen to have a differing opinion about Gay Marriage, one that is based upon secular law which you so desire.
You also ask: Please explain how it is anti-democratic for independent courts striking down unconstitutional laws.
If you bother to read the definition of democracy I’ve pasted above, then you should able to take this simple leap of logic about the Courts striking down unconstitutional laws. If it’s clearly constitutional then it’s not a problem. However we got to this point because Judges that most Americans have not had the opportunity to vote (for, or against,) are justifying decisions with vague opinions and weak constitutional arguments, affecting all Americans using the tools of Judicial Activism.
“the courts didn’t create new law in Roe vs.. Wade; instead, the court struck down laws it found to be unconstitutional. If you think that the legal reasoning was wrong, explain how and why — and, in additional, please explain how and why the action of the court here was any worse than when the court struck down laws on access to contraception, segregation, school prayer, etc.”
Well everytime the Court speaks, one could argue it’s creating law. Do the Courts have the authority to decide how we live in a Democratic society? Well if one believes in the Constitution and the concept of legal precedents then the answer is an unequivocal Yes. What I have issue with is that there are times when the Court has a case and the Constitution is largely silent when it comes to the side where we should be coming down on. In Roe the Court says it can’t find any mention of abortion. It’s simply not there. Instead it relies on the language about the “shades and shadows” of the Constitution. While one can follow the chain of logic in Roe, it’s stated Constitutional basis is pretty thin, hence the continuing legal battles we’re facing to this day. I don’t hate the Courts and I don’t envy them. But the problem is when you have a major legal decision which rewrites the interpretations of the body of law when it comes to individual rights, someone is going to walk away unhappy. With Roe the rights of men have been trampled upon. But because the prevailing perception is that we are a nation ruled by white males there is an inclination in taking a blind eye towards eroding their Constitutional rights. Then there are the rights of the unborn. What could be more reprehensible about taking away the rights of the smallest and weakest human beings who are unable to speak for themselves? What does that say about our society that we are so sure that they are undeserving of the most basic rights to being human, that is the right to life? Perhaps the most eloquent defense of the unborn was made by Philip K. Dick. In his story “The Prepersons”, children could be “aborted” up until the age of 8 when they became regarded as fully human based upon their ability to do basic mathematics. Roe vs. Wade decision certainly doesn’t unborn children to be fully human. I’m sure when technology advances in creating artificial wombs we can be sure to see custody fights over fetuses. In fact in some cases it’s already happening now where we have legal fights over frozen embryos. While the decision in Roe might have been a “good” decision for women’s rights, it’s also a bad decision because it’s taken a politically controversial issue from the Legislative branch and it’s been festering ever since. As far as the differences in the decisions on segregation and school prayer, I think it’s pretty apparent that the Supreme Court based it decision upon more firm interpretation of the Constitution then the vagaries of Roe. Although these issues erupt from time to time it’s not been as bitterly fought over as the issues of Abortion. Unless the Supreme Court can ultimately decide Gay Marriage and Gay Rights in a solidly Constitutional opinion, I fear that this issue will spiral out of control and lead to other loose interpretations of what constitutes a legal marriage. Could marriage between minors and adults be the next thin edge of the wedge? One could certainly point towards historic justifications of such marriages. The big question is, should we? If we are to believe that we are a nation of laws then should we not let the legislators legislate upon our behalf? Or will we become a nation ruled by Unelected Judges with lifetime appointments? Maybe you’re quite comfortable with the idea as long as the Judges are Liberal. But I caution you because the pendulum of politics will eventually swing in the opposite direction and the Activism can cut both ways.
I’ll leave you with this thought: We haven’t seen the same recurring problem with the rights granted to racial minorities in this country, because we’ve managed to come together and write the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It was a long and bitter struggle but in the end it’s acceptance was assimilated by the American people. I don’t think the same can be said for Abortion rights. Or Gay rights if the democratic process is circumvented. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was one of the last and truly courageous decisions the Democratic party had made and it was pretty much the last time they showed any true backbone. No one is talking about taking away the voting rights of minorities.
More specifically, he’s claiming that it’s an end to democracy for the courts to rule that certain laws are unconstitutional. I’ve explained why this is false and even stupid. Would you care to address my arguments?
Are you really limiting yourself to an abridged dictionary for your understanding of democracy?
Prove it, but please do so on the basis of a deeper, more comprehensive understanding of the nature of democracy than what can be obtained through an abridged, online dictionary.
As a starting point, you might want to examine whether or not it was equally undemocratic for courts to strike down bans on interracial marriage, strike down racial segregation, strike down bans on selling contraception, etc.
In fact, let’s broaden the search and simply look at all court decisions on the constitutionality of all laws, ever. According to your standard, they were all and everywhere undemocratic. Ergo, the very principle of the judicial review of laws is undemocratic. Please support this position.
I’ve directly addressed his position at length. You haven’t addressed my arguments, nor have you offered any arguments in defense of your position.
I explain why religion is the basis of his posiiton.
I explained the numerous falsehoods in his column.
How is criticism of a person’s unambiguously awful arguments the same as homophobia?
And I directly respond to this. Feel free to actually address what I have written.
True. If either of you have a sincere and serious argument for your positions that doesn’t reflect bigotry, I’ll be happy to read it.
If you disagree with this, feel free to explain how and why it’s wrong. Simply objecting to the comparison is, well, useless.
For me, it’s a question of whether a ban on gay marriage is constitutionally legitimate or not. I find no more legitimacy in such a ban than there was in the ban on interracial marriage. Do you feel that the legal question can only be won through popular vote, rather than actually dealing with the constitutional issues directly?
Do you think interracial marriage was an issue that should have been decided by poplar vote, not by judges?
Well, I have explained why I think the arguments offered cannot be taken as sincere. Even under the best and most generous interpretation, they make the arguer look utterly stupid. Now, if you disagree with my analysis and think that my “political bias” has blinded me to how insightful, historically accurate, and erudite the arguments really are, why have you spent so much time not writing that explanation?
Well, that remains to be seen. You are more than welcome to justify that position if you think you can, though in the process you’ll have to explain why the experience of gays who feel like they are being treated as less than human by you should be discounted in favor of your interpretation.
It is a leap, but I wouldn’t call it a leap of logic. At any rate, if you really want to offer a sincere argument on this matter, you’ll have to demonstrate greater knowledge and understanding of the issue than what you’ve dug up in an abridged dictionary. A good starting point would be to demonstrate that you know what the arguments in defense of Judicial Review are and start offering some counter-arguments as to why it shouldn’t be allowed. You might also want to address at some point how it is that American democracy has managed to survive despite two centuries of Judicial Review.
It is “law” in the broad sense, because it becomes part of how legislation is administered. However, it is not “law” in the sense of legislation — the laws passed by legislatures.
In a democratic, constitutional republic, yes. There are detailed arguments about why this is so and, in fact, why it’s ultimately more democratic that way. Do you have any understanding of what they are?
Ummmmm…. the Constitution isn’t a recipe book that we should expect to find detailed instructions on where “come down on” any given issue. The Constitution is a set of limitations on government power. If in fact the Constitution is silent on a matter, then this generally means that it’s a matter that is outside proper government authority. Ergo, a government has a very high burden of proof in order to demonstrate that it has any business stepping in.
If it’s “thin,” then so is the basis for finding that the government has no constitutional authority to ban the sale of contraceptives and no constitutional authority to ban forced sterilization.
Tell me what rights a man has over the use of a woman’s uterus.
Tell me what “rights” a fetus has that justify forcing women to provide their bodies and their organs for the use of the fetus. Is this a general principle, such that the government can at any time force any adult to provide their organs and their body — against their will — for the use of any other person? Or is it just women who must bear this burden?
People who oppose those decisions think differently. Thus far, I’ve seen no indication that your position is any stronger than theirs.
So, what you’re saying is that bigotry towards gays will always be worse than bigotry towards blacks? I doubt it — acceptance of gays as equals and gay marriage is getting stronger and stronger with every succeeding generation, just as was the case for acceptance of blacks as equals and acceptance of interracial marriage. Did you know that opposition to interracial marriage is still about 30% among people over 65? Society changes more due to the bigots dying off than because bigots’ minds are changed.
i wholeheartedly support the idea that morality changes with each successive generation.
the issue and concern over gay marriage for those say, under 30 is much diminished than those in an older age bracket.
society continues to “move forward” in terms of equality and human rights. we cannot accomplish it all at once. sometimes moving forward may have a hand in creating other problems. (ie, some would say feminism and equality in the workplace etc has caused a breakdown in the family) but the point is that the inequality was there.
some would say allowing same-sex marriage will allow for further “dilution” of the law, such as marriage to pets and the like (that one does make me laugh). even if those eventualities came up, it gives no basis to treat someone in a biased manner in the first place.
the breakdown of the family is not worse because of feminism. if treating someone equally causes the current arrangements to have some shift in stability or causes problems, then the entire arrangement needs to be revisted.
there is no legitimate reason for groups of people to be treated as lesser. if that upsets the current order, so be it. if that makes my life harder, SO BE IT. that change needs to be made.
democracy was an important step in reverting power from a small few to the people. but if the majority of those people want to keep / create a biased, unfair law, i can’t agree with it.
creating a simplistic statement that because the majority of people would prefer that we treat a group of people unfairly, we should and that it’s un-democratic not to, is odd at best. and as Austin stated on numerous occasions in this post and comments alone, there are plenty of examples of a similar situations in which seem absurd now (segregation, interracial marriages, women’s rights etc) but only after the time it takes to realize that these things were necessary.
if your religion teaches or simply stands back and allows people to treat others unfairly, there is something wrong with that.
when i think of these things being illegal (ie. interracial marriage) or not already in place (ie. women’s rights) i feel exceptionally lucky to be living at this time, when these things are hardly questioned anymore. these things are the norm and personally, i’m exceptionally thankful for that. i look forward to more ground-breaking rulings that may advance the freedom and rights of everyone. if these rulings cause instability, it is up to me and everyone else to create stability by making the necessary changes and helping to make things equal.
I’ll address some of your points but because I have a real life and responsibilities, I don’t have the luxury of addressing every comment you’re making so I’ll try to stick with the ones that are most relevant.
I don’t feel that you really have addressed his arguments. You say:
You haven’t really explained why this ISN’T an end to democracy. I can’t speak for Card, but I’ll give you my reasons. What you’ve argued is that you think it’s unconstitutional. And you feel that because we have the Constitution to protect us that it’s all quite nice and kosher to make sweeping changes to and destroy legal precedent by using Judicial activism. What you don’t see is that there are really TWO issues here. One question is the use of Judicial activism undemocratic? In a pure definition of what a democracy is, yes. That is what Card is arguing about. You on the other hand attack Card’s position by claiming it’s “unconstitutional.” That’s not central to Card’s position. You’re more concerned with the constitutionality of the issue of Gay marriage and you want the courts to decide an issue that you feel you can’t win in the Congress. So Card is correct in his assertions. You don’t really want to be “democratic” when it comes to Gay Marriage.
Well I think it’s essential to define what a democracy is. Unless of course you’re trying to pervert the understanding of what democracies are or aren’t. The great thing about the US Constitution is that the idea is that we have a system of divided government so that the majority will not trampled upon the rights of the minority. One could easily argue that at the heart, such a system is “undemocratic” In countries such as Great Britain, Parliament is “king” so they can rewrite the laws and the public really has nothing to say about it, until the next election. In our system we can’t toss Judges out because the founders were leery of mob rule. The problem that Card is talking about is when Judges take it upon themselves to make sweeping rulings that break with legal precedent. If strident Liberal activists continue to abuse the Courts in creating rights where none had previously existed then we’re going to start seeing more hotly contested Presidential and Senate elections in an attempt to control Judicial appointments with an increasingly polarized electorate. I can easily imagine a situation where this will lead to a Constitutional crises and amendments made to directly elect Supreme Court Justices and maybe even federal judges. The Constitution originally had Senators being elected by state houses until the passing of the 17th amendment which made provisions towards the direct election of Senators by the people. Do you think that the majority will continue to accept abuses of Judicial Activism and NOT bring about a fundamental change in the Constitution? The result will be is that we will no longer have an independent judiciary. Is that worth the risk to destroy the independence of the Judiciary in order to cram change down everyone’s throat? It’d be a slippery slope to go down and not one that I’m comfortable with.
I don’t feel like you’ve addressed his position at all. He’s arguing it’s undemocratic. He’s right. You respond that it’s alright because his position is unconstitutional. That’s still an open question. In fact you try to blur the issue by attacking his position by tangentially claiming it’s alright to use the courts because his position is unconstitutional. Then you try to bolster your position by tainting his arguments as if he’s talking about this from a religious perspective. He’s not. Furthermore you haven’t convinced me that he’s somehow lying or distorting the issue. My defense of my position is in my previous paragraph.
Once the 14th Amendment was passed, then the issue of state laws banning interracial marriages became subject to the Constitution under the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause. The Supreme Court has used the 14th Amendment to throw out bans on interracial marriages. The ban on gay marriage has not passed that threshold yet. Whenever possible we should use the popular vote. It’s one of the strengths of our society. If we resort to Judges deciding everything, eventually we will have serious problems that will ultimately lead to anarchy. This is what Card is warning us about. Fortunately the question of interracial marriage has been resolved so it’s moot.
Well I hadn’t anticipated writing a very long entry and I really don’t have the time, but for you I’m going to make an exception. If only because your own biased language makes it sound like everyone who has an issue with gay marriage are somehow bigots, idiots or both. And it’s that sort of dismissive bigotry from the left which is what I find offensive that I would even bother writing these responses. The opponents to gay marriage have more then just religious rhetoric on their side, but you can’t see past your own bigoted perceptions to believe or even stomach the idea that someone can oppose Gay rights and still be reasonable and maybe even likeable people. it’d be far easier to dismiss the lot as religious kooks, intolerant bigots or at your most generous pretensions as misguided idiots.
I understand the desire for the Gay activists wanting constitutional protections. But the problem is that in using Judicial activism you’re not going to gain social acceptance of Gay marriage and in going this route you might actually create resistance to it’s acceptance. I think what gay activists are attempting to do is the same thing that the Civil rights movement did in the 60’s. But the Civil rights movement had a more substantial Constitutional ground to walk on (i.e. The 14th Amendments equal protection clause). Ever since the defeat of the Equal rights amendment, the path towards Gay rights has been much harder. The problem I have with your analysis is that you blatantly patronize your opponents and you rabble about their perceived religious biases against gay marriage. You asked for a sincere argument and I’m giving you one. You seem unable to accept it at face value.
If this is true and I think it is, why are you afraid to use Congress to pass laws protecting Gay marriage? Why go through the politically polarizing route of Judicial edict? My sense is that Gay activists are impatient. Offers to grant Civil Unions were rejected because they didn’t go far enough to suit gay activists. The danger is that in using Judicial activism we’re going to end up destroying the independence of the Judicial branch. There are two ways to change the Constitution. One is using ratification by the states. The other is a Constitutional convention. If acceptance of Gay rights is a sure path then feel free to use the ratification process. If you’re willing to risk everything the go to a Constitutional convention. The problem with a Constitutional convention is that there is no guarantee that the Constitution (as we know it today). won’t be scrapped, because a Constitutional convention is not legally bound to restrict itself on the issue of gay marriage. The problem I see is that by using the Courts to take the issue from the people we will create a society that is so abrasive and in-your-face that we risk losing the traditions of polite political discourse and may even lose the system of checks and balances that have served us so well. I don’t think it’s worth the risk.
Card is absolutely correct in his assertion that Judicial activism is undemocratic. You can’t argue with him on that point. That doesn’t make him wrong nor does it make him a homophobe. He’s stated a reason for opposing gay marriage should be taken at face value. Whether or not he’s got additional motives towards opposing gay marriage is not and should not be an issue because he’s not bringing it up as an issue. And your crass rhetoric only serves to demonize your opponents. Don’t you understand that in doing so you’re galvanizing and strengthening opposition towards gay marriage? Trust me, when it becomes an us vs. them you will easily drive your opponents together in political alliances you can’t even begin to anticipate. I don’t see why there is a pressing need to use Judicial Activism to cram the issue of Gay rights down everyone’s throats if gay acceptance is a sure thing. If you want gay rights to be universally accepted then what is the problem with taking time to do it through the Congress? Given time you could have Gay rights, democracy, universally acceptance, socially acceptance AND Constitutional protected rights. If you are right, eventually you will have the temporal democratic majority to make it happen.
Don’t make claims or stake out positions that you don’t have time to support and defend.
Yes, I have. Courts which strike down unconstitutional laws prevent majorities from voting to take away the rights of others. Democracy can’t exist when the rights of minorities are infringed upon by majorities who abuse their power against others. Put simply: democracy is about more than majoritarian voting.
Feel free to define what you mean by “Judicial activism,” because without a clear definition that accusation is meaningless.
1. Again, without a clear and specific definition of “Judicial activism,” that’s meaningless.
2. Who said we have a “pure” democracy? What is a “pure” democracy, and is it something desirable? If either Card or you believe this, then you simply don’t understand how the American government is set up.
I don’t believe I ever specifically said that his position is “unconstitutional.” However, insofar as he is attacking the principle of judicial review of laws, his position is in fact contrary to how the Constitution defines the role of the judiciary. He’s not so much “unconstitutional” as just plain wrong.
I’m concerned with the constitutionality of bans on gay marriage. If they are unconstitutional, then whether a majority like them or not is irrelevant. It is not, in fact, “democratic” for a majority to pass unconstitutional laws which infringe on the fundamental rights of minorities.
This assumes that we can have a “democracy” when the majority has the power to limit or take away fundamental rights from minorities. I deny this and challenge you to explain your position with more than a dictionary.
Of course it is. I never suggested otherwise. However, I recognize that democracy is a complex subject which can’t be captured in a few words in an abridged dictionary. I reiterate: Are you really limiting yourself to an abridged dictionary for your understanding of democracy? If so, then you simply don’t know enough about the subject to have an informed opinion or substantive conversation on the matter. If not, then quoting the dictionary is pointless unless it’s merely the starting point of a more detailed and substantive discussion about the nature of democracy and how judicial review is contrary to what democracy must be.
I didn’t see you try to do the latter.
Feel free to explain why “legal precedent” should stand if it is unconstitutional. I notice that you failed to explain how and why judicial review of laws is undemocratic.
Feel free to demonstrate that “strident Liberal activists…abuse the Courts.”
The Supreme Court relied on the argument that marriage is a “fundamental right” protected by the Constitution. So, once again: Do you think interracial marriage was an issue that should have been decided by poplar vote, not by judges? I don’t care if it is technically moot or not; I want to hear your opinion on how the matter should have originally gone. I want to know whether or not you apply your principles consistently. If you really do believe that courts should not review laws for constitutionality, then you must answer “yes” to that question.
It’s not bigotry to point out obvious flaws or bigotry in another’s position.
Any time you can think of something more than religious rhetoric, please be sure to post it.
You might want to go back and read that amendment again because you don’t seem to realize that it applies to everyone, guaranteeing all citizens equal protection. This includes gays. So, how is it that the 14th amendment is “more substantial Constitutional ground” for racial equality under the law, but not equality for gays?
You sincerely believe that the 14th amendment doesn’t provide the same protections to gays that it does to racial minorities?
I’m not, but if bans on gay marriage are unconstitutional then it is appropriate for courts to so rule. Do you agree or disagree?
Are you afraid of having the courts review bans on gay marriage? If you think they are constitutional, then you should welcome such review because the courts will reaffirm the status quo, thus forcing supports of equality for gays to use the legislatures to make changes. If, however, you think the bans are not constitutional, then you would want to avoid having them reviewed lest the courts recognize this and strike them down.
You’ll need a clear, consistent definition of “judicial activism” for that claim to have any meaning. In my experience, though, the people who complain about judicial activism don’t have any such definition. For them, “judicial activism” is simply any decision they dislike, regardless of how the decision was reached. Decisions reached the same way, but which they like, somehow don’t qualify as “judicial activism.” That’s why they apply it to decisions protecting gay marriage and abortion, but not to decisions protecting interracial marriage or stopping forced sterilization.
Feel free to prove me wrong on this, though, and provide some coherent substance to that term.
I do, and I do so on the same basis that I’ve argued in my responses to you: democracy cannot be reduced to simple majoritarian votes, our constitutional republic provides for judicial review of laws, no one can speak sensible or substantively about democracy if their understanding of it is limited to a short definition in an abridged dictionary, courts striking down laws banning gay marriage is no more undemocratic than courts striking down other laws, and so forth.
You have yet to respond to any of these points. You don’t explain why democracy should be limited to simply majoritarian votes. You don’t demonstrate any knowledge of democracy outside of an online dictionary. You don’t state honestly and directly whether you oppose judicial review overall, or only in cases where you dislike the decision. You don’t explain what’s so different about decisions in favor of gay marriage from the myriad of other court decisions striking down laws — you articulate nothing approaching a coherent, consistent legal philosophy which would justify opposing what you oppose but supporting what you support.
I don’t expect bigots who offer insincere arguments to suddenly “see the light” and support equality for gays simply because I stop pointing out their bigotry. Their bigotry precedes my criticism of it, after all.
If you replace “gay rights” with “civil rights,” this statement could easily have been made by a racist in the 1950s. Indeed, the same could be applied to every one of your comments. Does it bother you that your arguments and complaints could have been taken out of the playbooks of Christian segregationists from the mid-20th century?
That would be appropriate if treating gays as inferior were constitutional. If, however, it is unconstitutional then it’s appropriate to have the courts rule so.
Allow me to break down the failure of your argument:
1. Is it at all and ever proper for courts to review laws for their constitutionality and strike them down if they are unconstitutional?
2. If so, is it proper for courts to review marriage laws for their constitutionality and strike them down if they are unconstitutional?
3. If so, is it proper for courts to review bans on gay marriage for their constitutionality and strike them down if they are unconstitutional?
4. If so, why should supporters of equality for gays not go to the courts to challenge laws they believe infringe on equal rights for gay citizens?
These are all questions which must be addressed by anyone who opposes judicial review of bans on gay marriage, whether on the grounds of thinking such review is “undemocratic” or on some other grounds. Card did not address them, which is why I say that his position is ridiculous and insincere. I will say the same about yours, except that your case is worse because I’ve repeatedly brought up these issues and you have consistently avoided them.
So long as you continue to avoid them, then I will continue to refuse to accept at face value that you (and others like you) are not bigoted, have sincere secular arguments for your position, and are not just using obviously lousy secular and legal arguments as a mask for what is ultimately just faith-based bigotry.
Austin, your last comment (#13) was a thing of beauty. Every time I thought of something as I read synoptix’s last rant, you wrote it, from defining “judicial activism” to “judicial review”.
Well done!
Synoptrix,
You say
“The great thing about the US Constitution is that the idea is that we have a system of divided government so that the majority will not trampled upon the rights of the minority.”
Do you not see that this is exactly what is being done to gays and that one purpose of the courts is to remedy these situations?
You say that by using the courts in this manner we “may even lose the system of checks and balances that have served us so well.” So should we protect checks and balances by not using them? How well will they serve us when they’re not used?
It seems to me one of the central problems here is whether or not gay marriage is rightfully considered a constitutional right. Card and Synoptix seem convinced it isn’t. If they are right then the courts are out of bounds.
Austin seems convinced that it is. If he is right, then the courts have acted properly.
So the question would be, can either side make a case for or against the constitutionality of this issue?
It seems to me that if you can, you win.
Let’s revisit our society roughly 160 years or so ago and consider the status of Mormonism. Does Card accept that based on majority rule his own belief system should have been eradicated at its onset? Perhaps, the flight of Mormons to the frontier was in the end a great god(s)send for the faithful in terms of their own identity myths but I doubt that those (including its founder) enjoyed their martyrdoms. Why, I almost feel like asking whether society as we know it would end should the ban on plural marriage be lifted…
How many church leaders of all religions are secretly gay many I am sure.
In the south of england there is a priest who abused many and dealt in drugs. How many are hiding behind a religious cloak, and yet still condem those who they all say God created in his own image.
I don’t think either Synoptrix nor Austin caught the gist of Card’s article. The title, “State job is not to redefine marriage” and the conclusion at the end of his essay firmly establish his position that marriage is a constant that cannot be changed by popular vote or “judicial review.”
Card certainly goes off on one helluva tangent but it seems only to illustrate that the courts have no place in redefining human “nature.”
Uh, where does he “firmly establish” this? How is that even possible given the degree to which the nature of marriage has changed? Even just over the past couple of centuries in America alone, the government’s view of marriage has undergone drastic changes.
Feel free to demonstrate that there is a definition of marriage which is “constant” and defined by “human nature.”
I don’t think anyone is objecting to judicial review of anything. But judicial review is not lawlessness. Because there is no recourse except to the reversals of subsequent history, the principle of stare decisis is critical to the coherence and stability of the society which results from the decisions of the SCOTUS. Findings and precedents of law once made cannot be reversed on the preferences or personal theories of a judge, or we are subjects of a tyranny. Both instability and tyranny undermine democratic society. The correct way to extend the protections of the 14th amendment to homosexual unions is to amend the Constitution, no more and no less.
That’s not true. The Constitution can be amended.
Yet previous decisions can be and are reversed.
So you’d rather that they not review the constitutionality of laws at all?
Why? I see nothing in the 14th amendment which limits it to just heterosexuals.
Would you agree that the “correct way to extend the protections of the 1st amendment to Catholics is to amend the Constitution, no more and no less”? Why or why not?
I disagree with the California supreme court overriding the public will, but I don’t have a problem with gay marriage, there will be a referendum in November for a state constitutional amendment, as much as I deplore what the supreme court did, I can’t bring myself to enshrine exclusion of gays from marriage in the state constitution so I will vote no.
Why? Is it that you disagree with their reasoning that gay marriage is constitutionally protected? Do you disagree that the court should rule on marriage at all? Do you disagree that the courts should review any laws at all for constitutionality?
The founding fatheads wrote an incredible con job. Even the Bill of Rights is ignored in the breach and on a constant basis. As long as there is no equality, there will never be the balance of power, money, and status that is needed to keep anything worthwhile alive. Capitalism requires equality. Socialism requires equality. And, of course, rights demand equality.
Once again, as a WAY outsider, I bid my bucks worth.
Sure hope I never oppose Austin, don’t fancy going down in flames.
I’ll pre-empt my position by stating that I find, personally, the physical acts of homosexuality repugnant, but not Homosexuals.
This is of course no different to the attitudes of most homosexuals to heterosexuality.
I sincerely ask. WHAT IS THE OBJECTION TO LEGAL SAME SEX MARRIAGE? It really is only a piece of legalising paper.
Bear in mind that “Church” marriage in the western world was not the norm for Commoners
until relatively recent history, usually reserved for the “Landed” gentry, and for obvious reasons. Jumping the broomstick or its equivalent prevailed for the rest.
Early in the history of this country, and definitely early U S A, many families were “United” in official ceremonies many years after their original physical unification. This trend is seen today to be re-emerging.
Nope I have no barrow to push I was (legally) married,happily,to one woman for 46 years.
Can’t say she would say the same. Hope so.
tomedgar@halenet.com.au
Marriage was invented by males with land and power to ensure that his land and power went to HIS son. The idea was to make the law and therefore society recognize any male children coming out of his wife as his, and to give him legal recourse against his wife if it wasn’t his. It had nothing to do with love or religion. Religion came in later, back in the days when the church was effectively a parallel government. Marriage wasn’t about love until the past 100 years or so. But that’s mostly a Western thing. In many non-Western cultures it’s mostly about moving property around.
i wish Xians knew more about their own history.
‘i wish Xians knew more about their own history. ‘
Amen to that.
Humans have used about every count and configuration of people – about all possible combinations – and called it a “marriage”. Isn’t the purpose of marriage (or purposes) to protect childbearing and childbearing aged women, any children, the rights of parents with respect to each other and any children, and the rights of people who care for each other to give and leave whatever of themselves to whomever they wish? I’ve never quite understood why (aside from the convenience of insurance companies) a state should have any power to “regulate” such a thing. To recognize, perhaps, within limits (on the state ,that is), but little more.
Ian
You are a very ignorant person, although he may be looking at it from a religious point of view one thing YOU neglect to realize is that this country was founded on Christian beliefs and to dissolve those key morals from our constitution makes this country less and less of what our founding fathers meant it to be. Would they really be happy about this? If they would have don’t you think this problem wouldn’t exist in the first place? As a result of more ignorance you too would classify Card as a homophobe, I’m pretty sure he GAVE you a dictionary meaning of the word, Just because one is opposed to homosexuals getting married doesn’t mean they fear them, I’m pretty sure it just means they are christian. At least in Card’s case, your attacks on his reputation are futile and childish, and to insult his intelligence is just plain out stupid. He would crush you with his understanding of human nature, he would burn you with his understanding of the English language, and all your embarrasment and lack of intellect would wipe you away. Stop being offended by what he says, and try to understand the politics of the situation, yeah? It’s not an attack on homosexuality, which you claim is homophobia, it is a viewpoint and opinion in which every single person in this country is entitled to. So just because it is something that you don’t like, you don’t have to attack his persona, just grid your teeth and bare with the harsh reality of the subject.
Feel free to show how.
Feel free to show how.
Feel free to cite what “Christian morals” are in the Constitution.
About what — women and blacks voting?
For someone who started out their rant accusing me of ignorance, I find it ironic that you are ignorant of the fact that “homophobe” doesn’t mean just “fear of gays.” Some Christians lie about the root “phobia” in order to mislead people about what homophobia is, but any competent person can look in the dictionary and see that “phobia” means both “fear of” and “strong, irrational aversion to.” They can also look up “homophobia” to see that this also denotes “hatred of” gays.
I’m pretty sure you are ignorant of the fact that not all Christians oppose gay marriage.
Yet you cannot demonstrate that any point of my criticism is mistaken.
Not when a person demonstrates such low intelligence.
I think that I saw in his homophobic rants the best he is capable of and I’m not the least bit impressed with his understanding of human nature.
I’m sorry if people taking offense at hatred and bigotry bothers you, but that’s what moral and mature people do.
FYI, just because something is a “viewpoint” which one is “entitled to” doesn’t mean that one’s opinion isn’t bigoted, hateful, or an attack on homosexuality. On the contrary, every bigoted attack on homosexuality is necessarily a viewpoint which someone is entitled to have.
I think that when a person demonstrates themselves to be bigoted or hateful — and what’s more, to justify that bigotry or hated on such ignorant, false arguments — a criticism of their personal character is in order. If you have any sort of substantive disagreement with my arguments or critiques, why don’t you offer them?
I think I have, and it’s quite clear to me that you have no substantive basis for disagreeing with anything I’ve written.
I think it’s also worth commenting that toward the end of that particular screed, Card makes an argument for violent resistance should same-sex marriage be deemed legally acceptable.
You see how he’s the persecuted victim here.
I strongly disagree that *all* of the founding fathers wanted the US to be a Christian nation or that they thought that founding principles of our government were Christian (I sure some did, but others didn’t). But even if it were true then it still makes no sense following the wishes of some old dead white guys instead of abiding by our own sense of fairness and equality. If the founding fathers would have objected to equal rights for gays (or blacks or atheists or who ever) then screw them.
Card says “…decisions are striking down laws enacted by majority vote.” This has become an often-heard mantra sung by opponents of gay marriage. I predict they will suddenly and summarily reverse that position in the near future when the majority votes in favor of gay marriage.
I can’t WAIT to read the US Supreme Court decision declaring any law against gay marriage as unconstitutional. And that decision WILL be written soon. I predict that decision will contain at least one reference to Marbury vs. Madison, the 1803 landmark case that established the right of the US Supreme Court to strike down laws (state and federal) which are unconstitutional. M vs. M was the first case in my constitutional law textbook in law school and I would bet it’s the first case in virtually every other constitutional law textbook. Talk about stare decisis! This one’s been a rock for over 200 years. A quote from it is engraved on the United States Supreme Court building in Washington DC. It says, “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”
The US Supreme Court has repeatedly said that marriage is a Fundamental Right of the citizens of the United States. The 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection for all with these words: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”. As long as the state is issuing marriage licenses, everyone must have equal access to them.
I really do not understand how gay marriage is supposed to somehow diminish the value of other marriages.
How in the world could someone else’s marriage affect the quality of my marriage? Seriously, how is that supposed to work?
Has anyone made a cogent argument on this?
I understand that there is a generation gap here, that most younger people are open to gay rights, including marriage, while older citizens are not. I am a proud, straight, happily married, senior citizen who supports the right of gays to marry.
I have thought, for a long time, we might resolve the gay marriage issue by separating marriage from religion. All legal marriages would be civil unions.
If someone wanted to have a religious ceremony in addition to a civil one, to “sanctify” the union, then they could do that. Thus, religious organizations could deny marriage to anyone, but civil unions would be open to all equally. Religious marriages would not be “legal” in the eye of the state, unless accompanied by a civil union.
I believe this is how it is done in France, Brazil, and some other countries. Such an arrangement makes a lot of sense to me.
The problem with this is that it concedes to religious believers the idea that “marriage” is inherently religious, when it’s not.