In my posting on gay marriage yesterday, a few commenters questioned the sincerity of my belief in gay marriage, saying that subsuming it to public opinion gave me an “easy out.” That’s a valid question, and one I believe deserves a sincere answer.
My position is often stated in idealism — support for democracy — but is rooted in the deepest pragmatism.
The issue of gay marriage came up in Massachusetts several years ago, when the case that ultimately brought it about began wending its way through the court system. Many at the time saw just what a huge issue it would become, and tried to get the state Constitution amended to address it. Time and again the legislature used its power to block such moves. Even when the Supreme Judicial Court formally told them to “crap or get off the pot,” they evaded the issue. Many observers at that time strongly suspected which way the Court was going to come down saw that as a clear warning, but it was still ignored.
So the Court issued its landmark decision, and gay marriage became legal in Massachusetts.
And as predicted, the opponents of gay marriage were incredibly energized. They had just been handed a huge defeat. Four judges, with the complicit help of a few leaders in the legislature, had forever changed the nature of marriage in the Bay State. The pro-gay-marriage side had managed to change the law with the assistance of less than two dozen people (I’d estimate).
This was a tremendous victory for their side (the side I support), but it’s also incredibly shaky. The way the change came about was by four judges interpreting the state Constitution, and several lawmakers in key positions preventing the other side from fighting back. And opposing them are the three other judges on the Supreme Judicial Court, along with a tremendous number of ordinary citizens.
Citizens also known as “taxpayers” and “voters.”
They’ve been fighting back, and their weapon of choice is the ultimate “big gun” in state politics — a Constitutional amendment. If they can push through such an amendment, the court’s ruling will be struck down and the justices rendered powerless to rule otherwise. This would be a huge defeat for gay marriage, as it would set back decades of progress and be almost impossible to overrule.
The process to amending Massachusetts’ Constitution is spelled out here, but let me give you the relevant parts: any amendment proposed by petition has to receive the approval of at least 25% of the legislature in two consecutive sessions. The sole defense the pro-gay-marriage side has is to keep it from getting that vote, or preventing a vote entirely. And that depends on them keeping a leash on the legislative leaders — people that can be voted out of office quite easily. And if the leaders themselves can’t be kicked out of office, then they can at least be defeated in their leadership roles.
The people who oppose gay marriage know this, and they’re acting. They’re lining up opponents for the leaders in their races, and they’re working to get other legislators elected as leaders within the House and Senate. If they’re successful, then that Amendment will pass, and gay marriage will be dead in Massachusetts for the foreseeable future.
At the same time, they keep electing governors who oppose gay marriage. And it’s the governor who nominates judges to the Supreme Judicial Court.
So yeah, I support the democratic principle here, out of idealism. But also out of sheer practicality — the way the system works, if enough people are sufficiently pissed off about the way gay marriage was instituted in Massachusetts, they have the means to kill it now and for a long time to come. All they need is the proper motivation — and they’ve got that in spades.
Les:
First, I wanna congratulate you for posting the 100th comment on this thread!
I really don’t know the arguments against polygamy. I haven’t followed the issue, and I haven’t put more than 20 seconds of thought into it. If I were to devote some time, and perhaps do some reading, I might come up with some better arguments. Perhaps I wouldn’t. I don’t know and I really don’t care.
Since I have not taken a stand against polygamy, it’s hard to call my a hypocrite for supporting same-sex marriages. Although I concede to having been hypocritical about some things in my life (who hasn’t?), I don’ think its fair here.
Since not many have taken your bait, and I know you are in the midst of setting up a good argument, why don’t you just tell us precisely where you stand on gay marriage AND polygamy. I am genuinely curious.
WAKE UP EVERYONE
Don’t forget that the case gets decided based on the
“best interests of the state”…
FIND THAT IN THE CONSTITUTION…THINK SLAVERY MORONS
Re: Wake up everyone
Now that I’ve had a minute to re-consider my position
…it’s the same.
Both, the Declaration of Independence and the
Constitution allow us to be morons.
OUR CONSTITUTION PERMITTED SLAVERY…
…we are quite capable of denying gay marriage.
Mark,
Gay ‘marriage’ and polygamy? Against ’em.
Civil unions of some sort? Probably for ’em.
More than likely, it’ll all be moot in a few years as the geezers die off and the next generations take over. Then we will have gay ‘marriage’. And polygamy.
Re: wake up
…I see a past, (colored people, catholics, jews),
only to mention a few…denied full rights…
…based on fear and loathing…
…all denied the protection of the laws of this
country…why…because they weren’t liked…
…all are now part of the country, mostly,…
…except for the part that seems to love the constitution…
…I have asked my son to be aware of this
political witch hunt, be aware that the same forces
were against any change in our past…
…shame…shame…shame…
Hmmm.
@ Mark
“Finally, is procreation really the best state interest here? In the days of in vitro fertilization and adoption and overpopulation?”
Ok. Holy crap this is a huge thread. I haven’t read it all, and I might not even try. But I’d like to address this one point in isolation if it were.
Procreation is in the state’s interest.
Look at Europe today. Every single country in Europe is facing a population implosion and all of them are offering huge incentives for their citizens to have children. In less than 50 years it is entirely possible that one or more european countries will, culturally, cease to exist.
As for the excess population meme, this may not be correct. There are still a lot of very poor people but the idea that there’s a massive amount of excess population is only viable if you don’t look at current and future demographics. Looking at future demographics many countries are facing severe population implosion issues. Even China is facing severe demographic issues stemming from it’s cultural predisposition towards sons vs daughters and the long-term effects of the one child rule.
As an example in China the median age is 32. By 2025 China is expect to increase it’s populat to 1.4 billion, adding about 100 million, but the number of elderly 65 and older will be about 15%. By 2050 China may add another 100 million or so to 1.5 billion, but the number of elderly 65 and older will be about 21%.
I.e. about 315,000,000 senior citizens that will soon require extensive nursing care and geriatric support. Even if you assume you could get by with 1 nurse to take care of 10 elderly, i.e. 1 per shift for 30, that’ll be a need for 31.5 million nurses. The only problem of course is that there is still the one child policy in effect, which is continuing to skew demographics even further, and the continuing effects of the predisposition for sons vs daughters.
This last issue is so huge that in some industrial provinces the estimate is 148 boys for every 100 girls. And this discrepency is increasing due to the wide availability of ultrasound and the continuing export of baby girls to other nations.
Russia is expected to have it’s population cut in half within the next 30-40 years. Perhaps even more. The same with Italy, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, etc etc etc. Even the overall world average birth rate is continuing to fall as more nations become more prosperous. And as those prosperous nations lose more an more population *because* their citizens are indulging themselves rather than procreate, these nations will have to import/immigrate more people from poor nations to make up the difference.
So yes there might be an excess population now. But no there might not be in 25 or 50 years. And the decisions that are made today are the ones that won’t fully be felt until 25 or 50 years from now.
As always YMMV.
Hmmm.
@ John
“Jay and his defenders are for gay marriage. Except when a court agrees with them, then they are implacably against gay marriage and would sign onto any effort to amend the Constitution to ban it.”
It’s not that the courts “agree”. It’s that they have no business making such decisions in the first place.
If you can’t understand that, then who gives a rat’s ass.
“We have a new member of the homopobia poster-boys club: Synova!”
Oh, goodie. Thank you. I felt so unloved and left out.
Look, Mark has made very good arguments. Ultimately I believe that gays should be allowed to marry. What I *can’t* do, however, is see how that is fundamentally different from other domestic arrangements, if they involve sex or not. John apparently has problems with this.
The facts are that marriage is restricted in multiple ways, many of them arbitrary. The rules about who can marry whom aren’t standard over time or cultures. Can you marry a first cousin? In regency England you could. (And is it ever strange to read Georgette Heyer sometimes.) Can you marry your widowed or divorced step-parent? In some places and times the relationsihps formed by someone elses marriage were viewed as more restrictive than actual close blood relations.
There is nothing at all about a genuine attachment between two people that *demands* that it be recognized formally. Claiming so, doesn’t make it so. Neither is this proof the other direction. It’s arbitrary. The rules change.
The benefit to society of promoting stable domestic partnerships is long term stability for raising children (and that’s a bust, huh?) as well as promoting a situation where people have the expectation of having a personal support system for situations of sickness and age, the combining of resources and domestic division or sharing of labor. Someone to take care of things… the basic unit of social welfare. If two gay people provide that for each other it relieves some of the burden on the rest of us.
Hmmm.
@ Mark, re: polygamy
“… Thats an “undecided.” I haven’t spent any time noodling that one, except for a few private fantasies. But if pushed for an answer at this minute, let me say this: I can’t think of any insurmountable problems at the moment. …”
Then what about a Group Marriage or a Line Marriage? link
Hmmmm.
@ Synova
1. “There is nothing at all about a genuine attachment between two people that *demands* that it be recognized formally.”
Which means that instead of a Tyranny of a Minority there is a Concensus of the Majority. If the majority considers one, or more, arragements acceptable then it either is so or becomes so. If it is not acceptable to the majority then it is not acceptable and won’t be until the majority is altered in either viewpoint or composition.
I.e. such matters must be taken through the legislatures and not through the court systems otherwise all you’ll end up with is a fragile temporary victory that accomplishes nothing but aggravating the majority.
Hence my distaste for over-reliance on judicial activists.
I love this business about the tyranny of the minority. Someone please explain how this minority is tyrannical. What power do they have over you? How are they tyrants? What is being forced upon you and what are you being denied by this tyranny? There is no tyranny of the minority (except by certain government bodies, like the FCC), but there just may be a tyranny of the majority. I’m glad we don’t live in a true democracy or the majority would have destroyed this country long ago.
If the majority considers one, or more, arragements acceptable then it either is so or becomes so. If it is not acceptable to the majority then it is not acceptable and won’t be until the majority is altered in either viewpoint or composition.
Tell that to the slaves, ed.
Slavery is not the same situation as marriage. Marriage has always been subject to arbitrary limitations.
Our laws do change. That doesn’t mean that all changing things are the same in some fundamental way.
Here’s a somewhat related question: what do people think of Gonzales v Oregon, currently being argued in the Supreme Court? The state of Oregon ruled assisted suicide legal, by way of a voter referendum. In this case SCOTUS will decide whether the will of the people of Oregon will dictate the law of the land, or whether the federal government can override the state’s law.
I’m curious how far the people in this thread will carry their “will of the people” argument. Should the laws of Oregon, as voted on by the people be upheld, or should (activist?) judges be allowed to overrule?
Hmmm.
@ mantis
“Tell that to the slaves, ed.”
How were the slaves freed mantis? Were they freed by judicial fiat or by the will of the majority *after* a transformative event called the Civil War? An event that both changed the viewpoint and the composition of the majority.
Was it judicial fiat? Or the will of the, then, new majority?
How is that little quip of yours either a new point or a refutation of my entire line of argument? How is it anything but a confirmation of my already enumerated points?
Frankly I expect better of you.
Judges, Supreme Court judges in particular, can only confirm those rights that the majority already believes exist. If there is a dissonance or a disconnect then it is the courts that must adjust or they will be forcibly adjusted by the majority. Either by removal and/or replacement or by amending the Constitution.
However during that period of time after a disconnected judgement and prior to the adjustment by the majority, there is a long enough time for a great deal of mischief.
Do I have to repeat myself again mantis?
Hmmmm.
@ mantis
“I’m curious how far the people in this thread will carry their “will of the people” argument. Should the laws of Oregon, as voted on by the people be upheld, or should (activist?) judges be allowed to overrule?”
There is no basis for SCOTUS to overturn that law.
Frankly I don’t know if I like the law. Examples in the Netherlands are showing up where the supposed safeguards are almost completely non-existent. Doctors there are calmly and routinely killing infants, children, teenagers, adults and the elderly with sometimes no authorization or approval from anyone. A psychiatrist there has recently been killing off patients that he has deemed chronically depressed.
IMHO this tells me that no set of “safeguards” will really be a safeguard. From very painful personal experience I can assure you that a great many doctor’s already have a God complex. Give them the unrestricted, or restricted, privledge of killing people and you’ll get a lot more than you bargained for.
But I don’t think SCOTUS has any need or basis to overturn that law. I think the federal government’s argument is, at best, ridiculous.
Hmmmm.
On a lighter note. If anyone is in need of a good laugh:
Hall of Douchebags
One of my favorites:
Mount Douchemore
I might have posted this here before. Or everyone might already know about it. *shrug* YMMV.
ed:
“Judges, Supreme Court judges in particular, can only confirm those rights that the majority already believes exist. If there is a dissonance or a disconnect then it is the courts that must adjust or they will be forcibly adjusted by the majority. Either by removal and/or replacement or by amending the Constitution.”
Neither Plessy v. Ferguson, nor Brown v. Board of Education were supported by the majority. Do you disagree with either of those decisions?
I’ve been partying and I’m only operating on a couple cylinders, so I won’t try anything strenuous here. But there are a couple questions I’ve had since you revealed something about yourself. I find your views of the Constitution slightly ironic.
I know you’re of Korean descent, and I know you were adopted at an early age. You grew up in the States, and you must have been subjected to anti-asian prejudices. We’ve had WWII, the Korean War, and Vietnam. We’ve also had paranoia about trade imbalances with Asian nations. You live in a country of neanderthals who still, to this day, see slanted eyes and think, “cooley, nipper, slope, gook, chinaman”, etc.
I’m a WASP, but one of the most uncomfortable nights of my life was when I escorted a couple of extremely talented Japanese design engineers to Shreveport, LA in the mid-90’s. The locals received them as if they were three-headed monsters, and I was some evil being for leading them there. (That, and for making the mistake of trying to order beer on a Sunday night). I was astounded.
Surely you’ve been exposed to some of that. I am curious to know your age, and where you live, because that will tell me a little more about what you’ve endured. I’m thinking that could lead to some clues about your opinions on civil rights.
Heh, don’t ask me the story of my trip to Birmingham, AL with two other Japanese engineers and we were brave enough (drunk) to eat sushi at a roadside diner. Suffice it to say that 90’s Birmingham had no clue what was going on in Tokyo, Nagoya, LA or NYC with regard to raw fish. But I bet today they are still serving fish caught in the 90’s.
OK, obviously my attention span is shot. I’ll be back in the morning after coffee. Hasta!
Mark,
Yes, homosexuals do procreate, but not with their homosexual partners, and that’s the relationship the state is being asked to bestow marriage status on. There are always exceptions, but such laws need to be based on the typical rather than the extreme. There’s no environment that can’t raise a few kids into well adjusted adults, including documented cases of that happening in the death camps of WWII.. Lets not insert exceptions into this discussion.
You were concerned about siblings who might procreate, but what about two siblings of the same sex or who are past the age of reproduction? If homosexuals are allowed to marry, then by what principle will you deny the same benefits to such siblings? Once siblings can marry, what principle will stop three non-reproductive individuals from obtaining the same benefits. To use your question; what does it hurt?
My point is that once the fundamental principles of the traditional marriage are abandoned, there is are no other logical principles the state can use to limit marriage benefits. The cost will eventually result in the state having to reduce or eliminate marriage benefits.
Mac Lorry said:
“Lets not insert exceptions into this discussion.”
In the next sentence he said:
“…but what about two siblings of the same sex or who are past the age of reproduction?”
Then I thought to myself:
“Hmm.”
Re: exceptions
That’s the problem with this entire subject. The whole gay ‘marriage’ issue is about exceptions. A tiny percentage of society wanting the laws changed and social approval for their abnormal behavior.
How were the slaves freed mantis? Were they freed by judicial fiat or by the will of the majority *after* a transformative event called the Civil War? An event that both changed the viewpoint and the composition of the majority.
I’d rather we not have to go as far as war to resolve such issues. In any case, I somehow missed this part of your post:
I.e. such matters must be taken through the legislatures and not through the court systems otherwise…
and for this I apologize, my response was glib and wrong. I agree with you to a point that these matters should be resolved in the legislature by elected officials (and I wish they would resolve it. Where are the civil union bills?). However sometimes, as in Plessy and Brown, the legislature drags its feet (or passes unconstitutional laws) and the court has no choice but to alter the law.
Anyway, I’m impressed that you’re commitment to federalism and the people’s rule extends to laws you disagree with, as in the Oregon case. I imagine you’re a rarity in that, but I may be wrong.
So no, you don’t have to repeat yourself again, sorry for making you do it once.
Mark,
I understood as I was writing my prior post that it contained the seeds of an easy way out without addressing the fundamental questions. I was hoping that after days of your complaining that no one was offering rational arguments limiting marriage to traditional couples that you would take such arguments seriously when offered. Here’s your chance to do the right thing.
My point about not inserting exception into this argument was in reference to your use of a specific case where a child raised in a non-traditional family was well adjusted. As I pointed out, that claim could also be made for children raised in WWII death camps, and so it’s irrelevant. Historically, the best environment for child rearing is the traditional family. Of course there will be exceptions both ways, but should marriage laws be based on the exception or on the norm? If, however, you introduce the exception of homosexual marriage, then asking about other non-reproductive groups is fair game.
Assuming Massachusetts fails to pass a marriage amendment, what principle could be used to deny non-reproductive siblings the same marriage benefits as homosexuals? My assertion is that there are none, and if fact, once the underpinnings of traditional marriage are abandoned, the state will find it imposible to limit marriage benefit to any group. Because marriage benefits are costly to provide, the state will be forced to cut back or even eliminate such benefits for all. As a result, the state will no longer be able to promote the best environment for producing future generations of the good citizens that are absolutely vital to the survival of an orderly and productive society. Because of that, the state has a compelling interest in reserving marriage benefits to procreation couples, which is the natural family unit.
Mac,
Sorry for sidestepping you. I do appreciate your arguments, I think they are good ones, I think they are valid, and I take them seriously.
The truth is, I don’t have any sure-fire arguments against you and I would have to do some bonafide research into the whole gay marriage movement for ammunition. I’m too lazy to do that at the moment.
However, I’m not persuaded by the one argument you seem to emphasize most: The slippery slope. I don’t think the answer is, “we can’t let gays do it, because soon their siblings will engage in polygamy with goats.” I think we need to look at the marriage issue in terms of gays and straights only. If the goat threesome lobby rears its horny head, then lets address that when the time comes. That’s not just a cop out on my part, I genuinely believe that.
I also don’t buy into the fallacy of logic inherent in “incest is bad, therefore so is gay marriage.” Perhaps I’m wrong, but I thought I detected that theme through some of your arguments.
Procreation. You make a helluva good argument. (Are you Caltholic by any chance?) I suspect you’re correct in that State recognition of marriage is probably rooted, at least in part, in procreational interests. But are those interests as valid today as they were then? And don’t the myriad exceptions of today water down the importance of that concept? And is it that much of a stretch allow gays to join the club as just another exception to the procreation rule? And does it really make a difference that gays must still resort to the heterosexual technology of reproduction? My bottom line (at the moment) is this: I agree that the state has an arguably legitimate interest in promoting procreation, but I don’t see the banning of gay marriage as a rational means of protecting that interest–simply because gays often procreate, and the relationship between the ban and babies is not clear or direct.
Fiscal issues. I suppose the state loses money when people get married. But if yer gonna do it for breeders, why not homos? And really, has anyone ever researched the costs to the state of recognizing marriages? Can it be quantified?
Mac, without having researched any of these issues, and only operating off the same sets of hunches that have served me well for about 20 years, I think your arguments would get you into court and the judges would give them serious consideration. I hope you would lose, but that is far from clear. Thanks for playing along.
Mac: “Because marriage benefits are costly to provide, the state will be forced to cut back or even eliminate such benefits for all.”
Actually, they are costly *not* to provide.
There is a heavy lobby to eliminate marriage tax breaks or even child tax breaks… I don’t suppose it’s all that successful, but it’s there… on the theory that it’s unfair to penalize unmarried people and parents *chose* to have children, after all. Why should we give them extra money for a choice they made freely? It seems logical enough.
Yes, marriage is about making sure children are cared for, yet we adapt to widespread single parenthood because we must. Clearly, single parenthood costs society *more* than marriage benifits cost society. Not all the cost is cash up front, but broken families cost more money than intact families cost us. It is in our best interests to encourage people to stay married. On the secular side of things that means all of those “expensive” marriage benifits.
But it’s not just the need to support children. The family, nuclear, or even better, extended, is the basic unit of social welfare. I’ve got my husband to do for me and my kids, and me to do for them… my parents, my grandparents… my siblings… but primarily my husband. When I had surgery and needed the wound cleaned and packed (yes, more than anyone wanted to know, but I’ve got a point to this) daily and *I* couldn’t reach it, my husband did the job. For weeks. What if I’d been single? How much would have a nurse cost?
The family unit provides a huge amount of free labor. The contribution of uncounted childcare labor to society is something we couldn’t function without, true. But there is other caretaking labor that is entirely uncounted as well. When gays talk about marriage this is a central point… they want the legal *right* to take care of their partner.
There is no way that this *costs* us money.
Hmmmm.
@ Mark
*shrug* if you want a bio. Ok. Frankly I think it’s boring, but it’s your dime.
1. Brown vs. Board of Education wasn’t fought because most people accepted it. Do you really think the Civil Rights Movement was so isolated that it forced such views on everyone else? While not everyone marched. Not everyone travelled to discriminatory areas to force change. But a lot of people agreed with Brown vs. Board of Education.
If they didn’t, they’d have amended the Constitution. A prime example is Massachusetts. They’re not accepting gay marriage there so they are looking to amend the state constitution and perhaps even the federal Constitution.
2. “Surely you’ve been exposed to some of that. I am curious to know your age, and where you live, because that will tell me a little more about what you’ve endured. I’m thinking that could lead to some clues about your opinions on civil rights.”
Hmmm.
Born 1964 in Seoul, South Korea to a South Korean woman who spent a lot of her time with American soldiers. No idea what her profession was, but in general most good South Korean girls didn’t associate with American soldiers. My biological father is an American soldier so I’m technically an Amer-Asian. A rather bad thing to be in South Korea at any time, but most definitely in the post-WWII years.
If you think discrimination is bad here, try being an Amer-Asian.
At age 2 got shipped off to live with my very poor maternal grandparents because it was too difficult for her to take care of me. Until age 5 or so my maternal grandparents made ends meet by taking me to the Pearl S. Buck Foundation where they would get a regular stipend of rice.
Age 5 I brought back to live with my mother and then I got adopted by a very nice couple living in the same apartment building who were then moving to America. My adoptive mother was South Korean herself. My adoptive father is an American soldier, a W-3 in the US Army, who was retiring at that time to go home.
We relocated to Connecticut for a short time and then moved to a very very rural area of New Hampshire. I spent my summers with my aunt in a very small town with about 16 houses and a general store/post office/gas station.
I grew up living the very rural life in New Hampshire. We had a small house with a decent size property and a very large garden. Life was ok, but I wasn’t very happy a lot of times, but then again what teenager is happy about anything.
Didn’t graduate high school, *shrug* it bored the hell out me. Joined the US Marines. Spent some time as an infantryman in the absolutely shittiest posting the USMC. Got discharged, did some odd things and then decided to do computer programming as a profession.
Was there discrimination? Sure there was. I’ve experienced every kind of discrimination you can imagine from as early an age as you could ever imagine. I had my ass beat in South Korea because I was different. I had my ass beat in New Hampshire because I was different. I’ve had girls who would have sex with me, but wouldn’t go on a date with me in public. etc etc etc.
Frankly life is hard, so you have to suck it up and deal with it. Did I have issues growing up? Sure I did. Most people do. Then I got over them. Do I experience the occasional discrimination? Maybe. Do I care? Not really. Frankly I’ve found most discrimination is in someone’s mind. If someone has an issue, then it’s that person’s issue, not mine.
And if someone doesn’t want to hire me based on my race? *shrug* it’s their loss, their competitor is probably more than willing to hire me.
My view of the Constitution is simple. It’s a piece of paper. So by itself it’s worthless, meaningless. It’s only value is as an idea. A compact. A social contract as it were between citizens. As citizens we all sign onto the Constitution as the governing principles with which we all agree upon. If we don’t agree with it, then we change it. But that operative word is “we”. Not “I”. Not “You”. “We”.
*shrug* YMMV. I hope I didn’t bore anyone and I hope that answered your question Mark. Just one thing though, don’t do any psychological analysis based on this ok? Those things tend to really irritate me.
I do not think that the Oregon law should be overturned by SCOTUS. I think it’s a bad law but I don’t see how, without a whole lot of twisting and turning, that the issue could be considered to be addressed by the US Constitution. But it’s a dangerous law, no doubt about it. Those who think it can be on the books *safely* should step back just a moment and think about some of the stuff that “good” doctors and “loving” families have done out of the best intentions. One place to start is with all of the Native American teenaged girls checked into reservations hospitals to get their tonsils out, who ended up, unknowing, sterilized, because noble doctors *knew* that poverty and alcoholism were no way to bring up babies. Google it. Some NA groups are calling it attempted genocide. It’s not even that long ago that it was happening.
The seriousness of the Oregon measure does not make it the business of the Supreme Court, though.
Hmmmm.
@ mantis
“So no, you don’t have to repeat yourself again, sorry for making you do it once.”
And I apologise for being irritated. Sorry all, this whole Harriet Miers thing has my teeth on edge.
Mark,
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. You make some good points about the complexity of the current state of marriage. I’m sure we’ll continue to disagree on what points are strong and which are not, but that’s to be expected when diverse people share their ideas. To answer your question, I’m a Christian, but not Catholic.
Synova,
You also make some good points. I certainly understand the benefits of being part of a family and why people yearn to belong. I agree that good marriages, just like good schools actually pay back to society more than society invests in them. Prudent investment is the key.
Ed,
What can I say other than you are a brave man to reveal so much about yourself. Not that it’s worth anything to you, but you have my respect.
The Wizbang crowed is cool. This is the most civil discussion of this hot-button issue I have seen on the web in many years.
I seem to be having problems with the letter “e” I meant crowd.
Is it time for a big sloppy group hug? (Kidding)
ed, thanks for sharing. You won’t hear any psychobabble from me. You’ve led a very interesting life, at least it’s interesting to me.
Although I’m a WASP, I have an inkling of the types of discrimination you’ve endured, particularly among the Koreans. For years I ran the legal department for a Japanese-owned multinational product manufacture, and I saw the Japanese discriminate against their own far worse than the anti-asian paranoid whites would. Japanese-Americans were openly called “bananas” (yellow on the outside, white on the inside) (in Japanese, of course) and they were detested by those who worked here on visas. A female banana was about as low as one could be, except perhaps an interracial banana. These “traitors” were far worse than even us whiteys in their eyes. Of course, Japanese culture is much different from Korean, but I suspect there are also plenty of similarities.
Heh, NEVER make the mistake of taking a Japanese national to a sushi bar run by Koreans!
Hmmmm.
@ Mark
“Heh, NEVER make the mistake of taking a Japanese national to a sushi bar run by Koreans!”
Yeah. There’s 5,000 years of antagonism between Japanese, Koreans and the Chinese who spent all that time invading one another. The wierd thing is that it doesn’t seem like the Chinese or the Japanese were all that interested in Korea, it was just the convenient way to get to either China or Japan. Made the Koreans pretty irritable though.
Frankly I’d like to point that my life has been pretty good in comparison to many others. During the Korean War my adoptive mother had to flee Pyongyang with her family as a little girl because of the advancing Chinese. She lost a cousin and two uncles to robbers during their escape.
I’ve also been fortunate enough to have avoided travelling 90 miles over open shark infested ocean trying to get to Miami from Cuba. I didn’t have to survive a Soviet Gulag for 40 years. I didn’t have to experience the killing fields of Cambodia. I haven’t had to try and survive in the crime and drug infested shantytowns of Rio. I have never had to worry about being necklaced with a rubber tire and gasoline in South Africa. And I haven’t had to worry about being sold as a slave to European sex tourists in Thailand. And I don’t have any need to be concerned about maintaining the family’s “ownership” of stretch of sidewalk in Calcutta. I’ve never had to worry about being chased down, caught, killed and eaten because some people think that they can get sorcerous powers by eating a pygmy.
In comparison, I’ve had, and still have, it really easy. My biggest decision tonight was the NY strip steak or the apple stuffed pork chops. A lot of people know they are fortunate, but I really know how fortunate I am. A lot of people play the various lotteries in the hopes of winning.
I won my lottery in 1969, in the most important lottery in the entire world.
ed,
Yeah, that kinda puts things in much needed perspective. Gee, and I thought I had it bad because Wizbangers tend to hate lawyers and they like to pick on me. Sniff.
Sorcerous powers by eating a pygmy??? I think I wanna TRY that!
Microsoft rape porn sex http://www.microsoft-rape.com/