I figured since our last political discussion went so well, this would just be sweet, sweet icing on the ideological cake. Enjoy!
50 Comments
Leave a comment
~ Featured ~
-
Feb 08, 2012
Cinecast Episode 245 – White People Cure Racism Through Football
Welcome back to our little show. Lots of in-house business items on the table this...
- Brave New Worldview – 30 Science Fiction Films of the 21st Century (370)
- Jandy: Then where will we get our amusement from, Andrew?
- Andrew James: I’m about to shut down the comments on this thread. They’re getting more asinine all the time.
- swiss023: um where’s back to the future parts one, two, and three?
- Talk Amongst Yourselves (8)
- Jericho Slim: About to drive to Austin from San Antonio to see A Separation and Kevin. I hope everybody is right and the trip...
- Adamau: Managed to see Safe House the other day and agree it was a fairly decent action film. I will watch anything with...
- Marina: It totally looks and feels like a Tony Scott film but he’s not even executive producer! Bizarre!
- Jericho Slim: Definitely a Tony Scott film, but better than pelham or unstoppable. I doubt you’ll like it as much as me...
- Andrew James: As I said on the Cinecast, I don’t care what anyone says, I know it’s a Tony Scott film. And your...
- Kurt Halfyard: Considering it’s Denzel Washington in the lead, and the slick (if slightly ADHD editing) rhythm of the...
- Cinecast Episode 245 – White People Cure Racism Through Football (17)
- Sean Patrick Kelly: I went to see the Oscar Shorts last night. The animated shorts are definitely overall better than the...
- Rick Vance: So I see my testing the waters of the ‘assignment’ was not as profitable as I thought, digital jazz is...
- Matt Gamble: I’ll see if the girlfriend has any interest, because I am not sitting through that thing alone.
- Andrew James: Which just inspired me to make a new list on LetterBoxd.
- Andrew James: I’m inclined to agree with this. Though I like pretty much all aspects of this film; surprisingly. Young...
- Movies We Watched (1)
- Jericho Slim: Domenic, agreed on pandorum. I assumed it was garbage until I heard Jay on filmjunk say that he liked it. I...
- Cinecast Episode 244 – Of Muscles and Men (56)
- Hans: Thanks a million Jandy!
- DavidM: I’ve received it. Much thanks!
- Jandy Hardesty: Hans, I just sent one to the email you left with your comment. Forgot about those.
- Jandy Hardesty: David, I just sent one your way.
- DavidM: uh, you might need my email address, I suppose: fa2q @ talktalk.net
- DavidM: I’d like an invite please, if you (or anyone else) still has one.
- Hans: Thanks a million Jandy!
- The Amazing Spider-Man trailer debuts. (7)
- DavidM: Well, it’s definitely a post-Dark Knight take on Spiderman – complete with the word ‘BEGINS’...
- Friday One Sheet: Kill List (2)
- Kurt Halfyard: I’d argue for WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT KEVIN, but yea, I loved, loved, loved KILL LIST.
- DavidM: Such a good film. Best horror film of 2011, in fact.
- Steve Carell is seeking a friend for the end of the world. (1)
- Kasper: I hate Carell in whacky comedies, but damn, I love him in these kinds of movies. Must see for me.
~ Recent Comments ~
I’m not gay and I hate musicals,,,
And I admit this is genius,,,
Won’t be seeing it but its going to be huge!
To be fair usually our political debates are great. Probably because, no matter how interested we are in politics, we’re all movie people first.
Unfortunately that thread was interupted by a politics first type who, clearly he had no interest in actually seeing the film in question. Political people are course, crude and dogmatic.
I really enjoyed it still. I really found it interesting how three of us on the same side of an issue tackled to debate from three completely different perspectives.
Our debates get somewhat heated at times, but have you ever watched Congress in session… or for god’s sake, Parliament! Now that gets heated.
“Won’t be seeing it but its going to be huge!”
You just saw it.
It is pretty ironic that people who uphold democracy rights for minority groups are now furious that democracy didn’t swing in their favor and want a do over.
Yes the new law sucks but that what the majority of Cali folks wanted so they have to deal with that.
swarez – the fact of the matter is that it should not be something that is up for a vote. No need to get into this whole discussion again, but it is a matter of interpreting the Constitution. It should be a federal issue.
You do not vote on civil rights issues. During the 1960s, people did not vote on rights for African Americans. In the early 20th-century people did not vote on the rights for women. Because it dealt with the freedom of a group of people: which is the federal government’s job.
Some people have a hard time grasping that, but that would be like putting to vote “Should African Americans be segregated?” If it were put to vote and 51% of Americans voted “YES” should that then be the case? No, because once again, the constitution protects people from that.
“the fact of the matter is that it should not be something that is up for a vote.”
Exactly, that human rights are subject to the whims of a simple majority. I mean in the US in at least some states laws could be passed banning certain religions. is that democratic simply because its put to a vote?
And in the US government, “majority rule is tempered by minority rights protected by law.”
Kind of agree with swarez. A couple days after Prop 8 passed, I was listening to NPR and heard one of the funniest quotes ever. I can’t remember it word for word, or even who said it (it was some leader of an activist group – Gay and Lesbian Association or whatever it’s called). The quote went something like this…
“We will be challenging Prop 8 in court and will fight this thing to the max because even though it was put to a vote and passed, I don’t think the vote should go through because I don’t like it.”
To me that is hilarious. Jonathan put it better above, but the way this lady states it, we should challenge anything put to a vote if we don’t like the way it turns out. It’s like, what’s the point of voting in the first place.
Also, I’ve seen this video posted on other sites yesterday and today, and I have to say that most sites have a lot of idiots posting their thoughts in the comments section.
Yeah swarez, I find it a pretty disgusting thought that minorities have to take whatever the majority dishes out, simply because of a lack of numbers. That has nothing to do with democracy. By your logic, it would be feasible for a country to take away gay peoples passports, and put them into labor camps and gas them to death if 51% voted for it. That’s not a democracy mate.
It may be possible for the simple majority to vote something outrageous like that into affect in other countries, but fortunately not the United States of America. That would be since our country is founded under the premise that everyone is entitled to their inalienable rights. You know, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
The US has a well documented history of making certain groups of people pursue their happiness a little harder than others.
And you’re better for it Andy!
“It’s like, what’s the point of voting in the first place.”
Human rights should have never been put to a vote in the first place, especially by simple majority. if its a constitutional issue there’s a reason we have a judicial system. Sorry, but lawyers and judges really do no better than Billy Bible Thumper about what is legal and what is not.
Yeah, what y’all said.
The reason the courts exist is to protect the public from wacky ballot measures like this. Like the t-shirt says “when do we get to vote on your marriage?”.
Obviously, the noonprop8 crowd is just gonna come back with their own ballot measure in ’10. The courts need to set a precedent.
“By your logic, it would be feasible for a country to take away gay peoples passports, and put them into labor camps and gas them to death if 51% voted for it. That’s not a democracy mate.”
Actually that is the basic idea behind democracy. Majority rules.
But of course human rights should never be put up for vote, the very idea is moronic. And because of that the results should taken to court. But the results came because of where the voting took place. A large portion of the population in California is Latino and Asian, two groups that are largely catholic and as such oppose homosexuality. When are people going to learn not to mix religion and politics?
“Actually that is the basic idea behind democracy.”
swarez – do you live in America? Just curious. You are right that this is the basic idea of democracy, but do understand that America is not a pure democracy and it was NEVER meant to be. Our government is not set up so that every issue should be voted on democratically. The democracy comes from electing people who make decisions FOR us. Then if the politicians we elect see fit, they create things called initiatives that the people vote on. And then in SOME states (my home state of Pennsylvania is not one of them) there are things called referendums, where people get to put stuff on the ballot (which isn’t an easy task). You might already know this though.
But no, it would be IMPOSSIBLE for a referendum to be created to vote on taking away the rights of a racial or ethnic group, even if a super majority supported it. Impossible, because of something called the Constitution that protects these rights of everyone, despite what people say (remember what I said above about the government is majority rule, but not when it interferes with minority rights?). It is a protection against ourselves in a way. As with these racial and ethnic protections, it should be the same for sexual orientation.
Of course the stickiness of the situation is not really (in my mind anyway) discrimination, but changing the definition of a word to mean something else entirely.
I’m not a Fundamental, Christian right wing nut, so I don’t believe in “banning” anything. Gay people should have the same rights and opportunities as straight people in terms of legal issues. But marriage has religious meaning to most Americans and is in place for procreation. That’s why the term “civil union” came into being. A civil union couple (it’s my understanding) has all the rights and privileges of a married couple, but they’re not “married”. By definition, it is impossible for two men to get married – regardless of what the law says. Unless somehow the law is able to literally alter the definition of a word.
“it would be IMPOSSIBLE for a referendum to be created to vote on taking away the rights of a racial or ethnic group”
So why can’t homos marry like heteros? I guess it says somewhere (other than religious books) that marriage is a priveledge, not a right.
I think the american democracy was in place during the timeperiod where blacks were allowed no rights, and had to work untill they died for no pay. Constitution schmonstitution.
No, it does not say that anywhere Henrik, which is the point I have been trying to make in this thread and the previous Milk thread. I will reiterate that it is not a state issue or something the people should be voting on.
Read in the Milk thread about homosexual couples and adoptions too – it only makes me shake my head in shame. I like America, I like what it stands for in theory, but there are some inherent flaws in this system the way we have it implemented.
“That’s why the term “civil union” came into being. A civil union couple (it’s my understanding) has all the rights and privileges of a married couple, but they’re not “married”. By definition, it is impossible for two men to get married – regardless of what the law says. Unless somehow the law is able to literally alter the definition of a word.”
Andrew, did you read in the Milk what I wrote about homosexuals and adoption in many states? They do not have the same rights in a civil union as they would in a marriage. Not at all. If you did not read it, let me know, because it is very important to understanding a HUGE part of this debate.
“But marriage has religious meaning to most Americans and is in place for procreation.”
Right, but this is the problem, Andrew! I know that you understand how our government works, so take a step back and look at this from another perspective. For most Americans it does have a religious meaning and it is there for procreation, yes, but it doesn’t have to have a religious meaning and it doesn’t HAVE to be about procreation. To some marriage is simply about love. Or a symbol. Or what ever. To our government, which recognizes marriages, it should not be a specific religion’s definition. And this is the point of our federal government protecting the minority – because it is seen as a religious ceremony to the majority and homosexuality is considered a sin to these same people. Marriage has been around since the beginning of mankind, far before Christianity or whatever other religion was established.
I will keep plugging away at this and I will continue these conversations as long as I have to, because this is a matter of civil rights and the integrity of our entire political system is on the line. I don’t care if you disagree with two men or two women being married, I don’t care if it is against your religious beliefs, I don’t care if you find it icky – if you read what rights were guaranteed to us by our forefathers it is not an argument. There is no debate and in fifty years, we will look back in shame at this, not so dissimilar to the pre-Civil Rights movement of African Americans.
In regards to adoption, rights go out the window – as they should. A child should go to the best home possible. There is no doubt that a gay couple can and will provide a good, stable home. Still, statistically speaking, it is MUCH better for a child to have a mother AND a father. So no, I guess I didn’t read your schpiel in the other thread.
Also, when I use the word “definition,” I don’t mean a religious definition. I mean a definition period. Look up marriage in the dictionary. The definition should have the same amount of weight as the definition for a forklift or marquee. It’s a definition of a word which can be changed by culture, yes. But until that culture changes the definition of the word, the gov’t has no say. Just like the gov’t (or a referendum) can’t decide that the word “fork” now means an object one uses to deliver mail.
mar⋅riage [mar-ij]
–noun
1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
(From dictionary.com)
But I like George Shaw’s definition – “When two people are under the influence of the most violent, most insane, most delusive, and most transient of passions, they are required to swear that they will remain in that excited, abnormal, and exhausting condition until death do them part.” [G.B. Shaw]
“statistically speaking, it is MUCH better for a child to have a mother AND a father.”
Lets see the statistics please. Otherwise, I’ll label you prejudiced.
“Still, statistically speaking, it is MUCH better for a child to have a mother AND a father.”
Umm… why? It has nothing to do with the character of their parents. Nothing. Which I don’t think you have such foolish thoughts either. Don’t pull the “they need a mother or father figure and will miss out on one” either, because what harm would two men or two women adopting have that one single man or one single woman adopting a child would not also do?
These “statistics” you speak of have to do with the ignorance of peers who subject the children to ridicule for HAVING homosexual parents. The same as how fifty years ago, if you had one black and one white parent, you would often be ridiculed and, if you want to go this route, statistically speaking, these children had way higher risks of depression, anxiety, behavior problems, and what have you (and STILL DO TODAY).
Which if you go back and read the Milk thread, my argument is that ALL homosexual couples shouldn’t be excluded because of statistics. African-Americans and Hispanics are statistically much more likely to end up in prison – should we not allow them to adopt?
It should be a case by case basis – gay, straight, bi, single, couple, mutant – and an entire group should not be excluded. Finding out if people are stable and capable of raising children safely is why adoption is so difficult and such a long process in the first place.
Henrik, he may be right that there are statistics out there (and I touch on that above). But statistics can be so unbelievably misleading. You must look at the variables (i.e. bullying of the children, the psychological impacts of social unacceptance, etc).
Andrew you are seriously losing ground on this argument. Some of your points are so baseless and backward it starts to defy belief. Yes, please, produce some statistics (which I doubt exist in any meaningful study, this type of this is nearly impossible to track, and then Jonathan’s point of a group being ostracized/marginalized then using the marginalization as a tool against ‘their ability to be good people’), before using them to back up your points.
I’m with Jonathan all the way, well spoken in both threads.
And speaking of ‘definitions’ and language, why do the folks over in Afghanistan keep flip-flopping from Freedom Fights to Terrorists? It’s all about perspective. And people point to ‘traditional’ definitions when society has evolved past the point. Just have a look at the Digital Millennium Copyright act.
Yes, I managed to work about 3 different hot button subjects into this post. So, abort me.
Kind of off topic, but speaking of language – if you want to read one of the most brilliant essays on political language ever, check out this essay by George Orwell (which is part of a collection called “Why I Write”):
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm
“Some of your points are so baseless and backward it starts to defy belief.”
Actually, his arguments are the ones I usually associate with americans.
It is kinda weird that a country that prides itself on forward-thinking, innovation, leadership and above all freedom, is collectively intolerant, enforces baffling limitations and what not on a particular group (And I don’t mean it’s aboriginal people). Yea, as Jonathan said above, the fundamental limiting of a peoples rights will be looked on with shame akin to pre-civil war times probably what, 20 years from now.
You can’t stop progress, people want to evolve, despite the forces of the traditionalists that attempt to hold everyone back to outdated and bigoted standards.
From the Orwell article – “Most people who bother with the matter at all would admit that the English language is in a bad way, but it is generally assumed that we cannot by conscious action do anything about it. Our civilization is decadent and our language — so the argument runs — must inevitably share in the general collapse. It follows that any struggle against the abuse of language is a sentimental archaism, like preferring candles to electric light or hansom cabs to aeroplanes. Underneath this lies the half-conscious belief that language is a natural growth and not an instrument which we shape for our own purposes.”
– Now say again why the ‘definition’ of marriage should be ‘absolute’??? Yea, language can be a deadly weapon.
Personally I’ve never understood why gay people want to be married in to a religion that doesn’t want them there in the first place.
They need to form their own religion that gets recognized by the government, if Elvis fans can do it then so can they. Then they can marry like a motherfucker.
Are you guys actually reading what I write, or just pulling out fragments to make me appear like a dick?
Kurt, which part of “Gay people should have the same rights and opportunities as straight people in terms of legal issues” is it that I’m “losing ground” in this argument? I didn’t even realize this was an argument until now.
First of all, Swarez: fucking exactly. I think even “Jedi” is recognized as a religion these days.
Second, I think Jonathan raised really interesting points in comment #24. I can’t disagree with almost everything written there – I particularly like his argument about the statistics I mentioned (which I will try to find forthwith). Instead of just screaming “bullshit” like everyone else, he knows that what I was referring to is correct and is willing to think about it for a second and come up with a sound argument as to where and why those statistics might come from. I think it’s a good point about why children without a mother or a father are maybe bullied in school more, etc. I hadn’t thought of that. Except…
“Don’t pull the “they need a mother or father figure and will miss out on one” Why? Because it’s an invalid point? Or just because it’s a sound and thoughtful proposition that one who is in favor of gay marriage doesn’t want to consider or ponder? It has nothing to do with single parenting; it has to do with a boy needing different things from a father and mother. But let me be CLEAR: I am not saying a single parent can’t raise a spectacular child on their own. In fact, if one succeeds, I think it should be recognized as one of the greatest of life’s successes.
Third, I think you guys are missing my point and you’re putting words in my mouth instead of thinking logically. I never said gay couples should be excluded from adoption. I said exactly what Jonathan said, it should be on a case by case basis. What is best for the child is what should go. Rights have nothing to do with it.
“…what harm would two men or two women adopting have that one single man or one single woman adopting a child would not also do?”
Again, putting words in my mouth. I never said they would do any harm of any kind – in fact, I believe my exact quote was, “There is no doubt that a gay couple can and will provide a good, stable home.” Of course you all disregard that to try and make me appear intolerant. But yeah, in terms of preference (IN GENERAL), it would be much better for an adopted child to be with a couple over a single parent. If we can’t agree on that, then I can’t further this conversation any more.
So again for the cheap seats, I am not in favor of “banning” anything. I don’t generally like to amend the constitution (state or federal) at all in fact. If I were living in California I would’ve voted the same way as all of you. What I’m talking about is actually really simple and to be frank, almost not worth discussing. I’m talking semantics. I’m simply saying that there is a definition of a word that should not (can’t) be changed legally. I’m all for using a different term for gay couple “tying the not” so to speak so that they are allowed the same legal rights as everyone else.
All of you need to stop acting so high and mighty and politically correct.
“Personally I’ve never understood why gay people want to be married in to a religion that doesn’t want them there in the first place.”
Oh my, swarez. Have you read any of this or the Milk conversation at all?
“Why? Because it’s an invalid point? Or just because it’s a sound and thoughtful proposition that one who is in favor of gay marriage doesn’t want to consider or ponder?”
No. I both considered and pondered it and responded as to why that card cannot be played if you read it again. And I am pro-Constitution, pro-what-America-is-supposed-to-stand-for, not pro-gay marriage, not pro-guns, not pro-anything else. Think Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, only instead of fillibustering in front of the Senate, I am blogging behind a computer with a bunch of other movie nerds.
“It has nothing to do with single parenting; it has to do with a boy needing different things from a father and mother.”
And I completely agree with this. It is how our brain is wired and it is more difficult otherwise. Regardless, we all agree that single-parenting happens and happens often and the kids turn out just fine. But again, why not let two gay men adopt a child in need, but one single straight male can? And again, when there are 150,000+ children desperately in need of adoption in America…
“Third, I think you guys are missing my point and you’re putting words in my mouth instead of thinking logically. I never said gay couples should be excluded from adoption. I said exactly what Jonathan said, it should be on a case by case basis. What is best for the child is what should go.”
I recognized you agreed. I wasn’t putting words into your mouth, I was again conveying my point (daresay, a point I think you are missing too then?). You say they should be allowed to adopt on a case-by-case basis, this is good we are on the same page there, but they CANNOT when there are laws preventing unmarried couples from adopting in certain states. Yes, the laws in these states say “marriage,” not a civil union. A loophole for bigotry, like when African Americans were given the right to vote, but then there were poll taxes or even “reading tests” in certain states to be able to vote, knowing full well that the literacy rate of former slaves and African Americans at the time was very, very low.
“But yeah, in terms of preference (IN GENERAL), it would be much better for an adopted child to be with a couple over a single parent. If we can’t agree on that, then I can’t further this conversation any more.”
Yes. That’s what I said too, which furthered my point of gay couples not being able to adopt some places, but single male or females are. I don’t think we were arguing that.
So again for the cheap seats, I am not in favor of “banning” anything. I don’t generally like to amend the constitution (state or federal) at all in fact.
Nor I. The Constitution does not need amended for this.
All of you need to stop acting so high and mighty and politically correct.
Hell no. This is my country at stake.
I obviously get on a lot of tangents, Andrew. Don’t take it that I’m directing it all towards you, because I am not.
No Jonathan. I think you and I are on the same page. The states that allow single people to adopt, but not gay couples is bullshit.
I don’t think we really disagree on anything here. We’re arguing over pretty much nothing and people extracting snippets of what I said to start shit.
I started doing some research on the laws banning interracial couples from marrying, just because this sort of stuff interests me. This is both relevant in the fact that it somewhat parallels what is going on now, but irrelevant to the conversation, I suppose. I just find it fascinating that we were here less than 50 years ago. The laws against blacks and whites marrying in the US started right when Europeans first settled here and were around to as late as 1967. Back in the 50s, this was one man’s argument against these miscegenation laws:
“The right to marry whoever one wishes is an elementary human right compared to which the right to attend an integrated school, the right to sit where one pleases on a bus, the right to go into any hotel or recreation area or place of amusement, regardless of one’s skin or color or race are minor indeed. Even political rights, like the right to vote, and nearly all other rights enumerated in the Constitution, are secondary to the inalienable human rights to `life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’ … and to this category the right to home and marriage unquestionably belongs.”
History is fascinating. If not depressing.
“Oh my, swarez. Have you read any of this or the Milk conversation at all?”
This, yes. Milk, no.
And Andrew, we’re trying to make you look like a dick :Þ
Bottom line is that the definition of “Marriage” can easily be changed. What, when, and how makes something that existed and was defined before ‘unchangable’ This whole. Please protect my dictionary definition angle is utter bollocks.
And the language and definitions are constantly evolving. Why let Christianity or traditional values (which easily have ‘imperfect’ results as much as homosexual couples/relationships would too) hold things back?
I take umbrage to the defense that this is all about some ‘standardized definition that goes back to when the law happened to be written down.
“I just find it fascinating that we were here less than 50 years ago.”
I believe in Danmark, homosexuality was on the books as a ‘disease’ as late as the 1970s. Kind of America in reverse, you seem to change the official stance first, then work on the population, whereas the population here changes quicker, and then 30 years later somebody goes “Wh00ps! Guess we never got around to changing that!”.
Swarez speaks truth in terms of the nations him and I happen to inhabit. I’m horribly insensitive to any sort of struggle for human rights, since it’s never been a major issue here. Logic would dictate that the homos forget about christianity etc. But swarez, this is America, where education is hard to come by, and ignorance is the tune to which the daily flute plays. In that sort of environment, obviously you’re going to get pulled down into the ignorant semantic debates and try and batter your head against your enemy’s untill one of you falls. Think of it as the playground version of actual debating, I mean the fact that it’s even an issue is ridiculous to begin with.
Now, if only all you concerned americans would relinquish a teeny weeny bit of your precious money, maybe even putting off your new car for a year or two, in terms of taxation to make education freely available for all, you’d see some radical changes for the better.
Henrik, you live in a country of 4 mil people who are all the same race. That qualifies you as knowing jack shit about American domestic policies.
Maybe we’re spread a little thin because we have to pay taxes to kick the shit out of all the religious fundementalists that you guys let run amok all over civility.
When you guys stop having riots over cartoons is the day you get to lecture the Yoo-Nited States of America on religion.
Personally I’ve never understood why gay people want to be married in to a religion that doesn’t want them there in the first place.
They don’t. The vast majority of homosexual weddings are performed at courthouses. People tend to forget (or are simply unaware) their are two types of marriage, civil and religious. The religious form is totally unnescessary and superfluous, as it grants no rights and priviledges to the couple. Civil marriage is another thing entirely, and that is what homosexuals are clamoring to be allowed to do. Frankly, religion has nothing to do with the argument, though the religious right continues to try and insert it into the argument in a shameless attempt to legislate bigotry.
BTW, the Methodist Church gladly performs weddings ceremonies for homosexual couples and I believe most Lutheran Churches do as well (both have openly gay ministers and have for some time). So to say they should just find their own religion is incorrect as well. Current religions are already quite open to providing religious ceremonies, but once again, a religious ceremony infers no rights on the couple.
As for the real debate on this thread.
Swarez, I think you slightly misunderstand what the debate is over.
@ “When are people going to learn not to mix religion and politics?”
@ “Personally I’ve never understood why gay people want to be married in to a religion that doesn’t want them there in the first place.
They need to form their own religion that gets recognized by the government, if Elvis fans can do it then so can they. Then they can marry like a motherfucker.”
I know others have already made the same point, but I’ll rephrase it because I think it can be confusing. The fight isn’t over what types of marriages are and aren’t recognized by churches. Churches are outside the jurisdiction of courts and legislators. Many churches perform gay wedding ceremonies now, although the marriages are not legally binding. The ones that don’t recognize gay marriage wouldn’t be forced.
It’s an important point because one of the stategies of the yes on prop 8 crowd was to muddle this distinction. Making ludicrous and unfounded claims about state encrouchment on churches. What really reilles me up about this strategy is how disengenuous it is since most of the social conservative /christian right crowd is extremely hostile and dismissive of the establishment clause (seperation of church and state) that is written into our first amendment.
Massachussettes (where gay marriage is recognized by the state) churches are not forced to perform ceremonies.
So this is just not a case of mixing church and state. If anything I would argue that it’s about removing religious traditions from our laws. Which is something all parties should be able to agree on.
I recognize this thread has turned into a pile on which is unfortunate.
Andrew, I hear this position a lot and I just don’t understand it.
@ By definition, it is impossible for two men to get married – regardless of what the law says. Unless somehow the law is able to literally alter the definition of a word.”
It’s as if you’re suggesting that the dictionary is legally binding.
Of course there’s a pro-gay marriage analog of this argument which says that the word “marriage” is vital to the legitimacy of gay unions. I don’t understand much better from this angle. To me it’s frustrating that the debate about equality of human beings has degenerated into a semantic tug of war.
I support the legitimacy of openly gay people in our communities. My support doesn’t stop at the word “marriage” and I think it’s odd that anyone suggest it should.
It just doesn’t add up. we change social institutions all the time, often far more radically. The idea that we need to protect the definition of marriage through legislation is absurd to the point of being random.
As far as challenging the orthodoxy of marriage I think gay marriage is pretty mild. Certaintly it’s less extreme than the 19th Amendment (women voting) which completely changed the institution of marriage by granting women first class citizenship. Marriage was transformed from an exchange of property to a partnership between equals. That is a radical change and would anyone argue that this deviation from tradition bettered our society? Tradition in of itself is no virtue.
In contrast gay marriage only extends the current definition of marriage to new people.
There was another comment that bugged me.
@ But marriage has religious meaning to most Americans and is in place for procreation.
I hear this all the time. Legally speaking the statement is just wrong.
This religious/reproduction standard; while probably completely valid from an sociological / historical perspective; is not written into our laws at all. Straight couples are never expected to justify their marriage along any standard. Legally a marriage is about whatever the participants say it’s about.
Besides that, you sort of trip over your point later on when you defend gay adoption:
if marriage is good for child raising
and gay adoption is good
then gay couples who adopt should get married.
I am also a big defender of gay adoption and it’s one of the same reasons I’m so adament about gay marriage. Andrew Sullivan often makes a similar point. There’s a glaringly obvious conservative justification behind gay marriage.
“Henrik, you live in a country of 4 mil people who are all the same race. That qualifies you as knowing jack shit about American domestic policies.
Maybe we’re spread a little thin because we have to pay taxes to kick the shit out of all the religious fundementalists that you guys let run amok all over civility.
When you guys stop having riots over cartoons is the day you get to lecture the Yoo-Nited States of America on religion.”
Well done, sir. Well done.
“Henrik, you live in a country of 4 mil people who are all the same race. That qualifies you as knowing jack shit about American domestic policies.”
Get your facts straight if you’re going to be condescending.
“Maybe we’re spread a little thin because we have to pay taxes to kick the shit out of all the religious fundementalists that you guys let run amok all over civility.”
Huh? Are you saying there are more religious fundamentalists in Danmark than in the Yoo-nited states? I highly doubt it, and either way, here again some facts would be nice. Again, I don’t feel sorry for you having to fend off all the illeterate morons you gave a rifle and promised pots of gold if they’d only topple their annoying little government. Although, if there is one thing there’s cool about America, it’s that it always wants to be seen as a leader, but never seizes a chance to pass the buck whenever shit is bad.
“When you guys stop having riots over cartoons is the day you get to lecture the Yoo-Nited States of America on religion.”
There weren’t alot of riots here over cartoons. In case you got confused, the riots took place in the middle east. The riots that were here circa the same time (I wouldn’t be surprised if american media just called everything danish riots and got everything bungled up into one big clusterfuck of violence, so your ignorance might be excused), were concerning a completely different issue.
Yeah, seriously, Rusty. Get your facts straight. There must be AT LEAST five million people that live in Denmark. COME ON!
And really, Rusty, your ignorance about Danish riots boggles my mind.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-02-14-denmark-unrest_N.htm
What a wonderfully tolerant place to visit. I hope this cleared up the history of Danish riots founded on cartoons so we can stop all of this madness at rowthree!
This is no different than the US Andy, or any other country for that matter.
Denmark is a very tolerant place and is one of the most liberal countries in the world. You should try it one of these days.
@ Denmark is a very tolerant place
Henrik should visit it one day.
“Some observers (…) suggested the reprinting of a cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad in Danish newspapers Wednesday, may have aggravated the situation.”
Whoa, talk about a smoking gun. Andy, please. Here is a bit of a report on what the major riots that occurred here were about:
http://www.dougnagy.com/archives/2007/03/03/henriks-denmark-riot-report-1-the-battle-of-ungdomshuset/
Rusty, I am probably more intolerant than my country, because I refuse to tolerate ignorance. It just pisses me off too much.