Proposition 8 stands for freedom of speech and religion. The behavior of many Prop 8 opponents — stealing signs, breaking windows, harassing, intimidating and physically attacking Prop 8 supporters — makes it clear that a large part of the anti-Prop 8 agenda is, in fact, the curtailment of speech and debate about homosexuality.
The rationale is obvious: If you can’t win an argument in an open forum, close the forum or shut down the debate. Hans Clausen, in his 2005 article in the Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, shows how gay activists in a growing number of countries — including Canada, Spain, Ireland, Australia and the U.K. — have achieved this “forum closing” objective by legalizing “gay marriage” and/or criminalizing speech critical of the practice.
Clausen does a superb job of laying out the facts and analyzing the law. I have excerpted some key passages below. Warning: Portions of this post might be rated R by the MPAA:
Giving credence to Alexis de Tocqueville’s argument that in democratic societies the love of equality is greater than the love of freedom is a recently emerging trend among Western nations to legally proscribe speech critical of homosexuality. Such laws, in various forms, now exist in a large and growing minority of countries in Europe and North America. The goal of these laws is much grander than preventing discrimination against homosexuals; rather, the objective is seemingly to promote the social acceptance of gay and lesbian lifestyles. These laws provide for civil remedies and in some instances even criminal sanctions for speech considered offensive or degrading to homosexuals . . .
Just across the U.S.-Canada border, in British Columbia . . . Chris Kempling’s . . . benign comments critical of homosexuality have not been . . . well tolerated–particularly by the government. Kempling, a public high school teacher and counselor, was initially suspended from his job for five months without pay (15) by the province’s educational accreditation board for writing letters to the editor (16)–printed in the local newspaper, (17) but never introduced into any public school or classroom (18)–that argued, on the basis of scientific and scholarly research, (19) that homosexual relationships are unstable and gay sex risky. (20) He also criticized what he viewed as the pro-gay stance of the public education system. (21)
Kempling started writing his letters after being asked by presenters at a government-sponsored workshop to distribute copies of a gay-and-lesbian newspaper–which included advertisements for gay bathhouses, pornographic personal ads, and information about joining casual-sex and masturbation clubs–to students at his school. (22) He initially complained directly to his union and to the Minister of Education, but his complaints were ignored. (23) “When I realized that no one in authority was prepared to take any action, I decided to educate myself, and start writing directly to the public, to make parents aware of what was being proposed for their children,” Kempling said. (24)
When the accreditation board learned of Kempling’s letters, it launched a full inquiry: a government investigator was dispatched to Kempling’s small town and was soon speaking with community leaders and Kempling’s supervisors and colleagues. (25) Not long thereafter, Kempling–a thirteen-year employee of the public school system with an exemplary record (26)–found himself suspended and lacking support from his peers, his bosses, his union, (27) and even the B.C. Civil Liberties Union. (28) Although no evidence existed that Kempling’s letters caused any disturbance or controversy at his school (29)–nor did any students or parents complain of Kempling’s letters or job performance (30)–the B.C. Supreme Court upheld the accreditation board’s decision to suspend Kempling for writing his letters, stating that “the appellant’s discriminatory expression is of low value … [and] is incompatible with the search for truth.” (31)
The treatment that Kempling received is becoming less and less unusual: a strong trend has recently emerged among Western nations toward proscribing speech critical of homosexuality–either through the law or other indirect means. In 2003 legislators in Sweden amended that nation’s constitution to prohibit critical speech directed at homosexuals. (32) Violators can be punished by up to four years in prison, and one Christian pastor has already been sentenced to jail under the new law. (33) In 1991 (34) Ireland amended its Prohibition to Incitement of Hatred Act of 1989 to include sexual orientation among groups protected from “hate speech.” (35) Norway now also proscribes hate speech directed against sexual minorities. (36) In 1994 the government of New South Wales, Australia, passed the Anti-Discrimination (Homosexual Vilification) Amendment Act, (37) which subjects violators to up to six months’ imprisonment. (38) Denmark similarly has made it a crime to “utter publicly or deliberately … a statement or remark by which a group of people are threatened, derided or humiliated on account of their … sexual orientation.” (39) Although a minority, Western nations that legally proscribe speech critical of homosexuality are growing in number. (40)
Even in the absence of laws prohibiting “hate speech” directed against homosexuals, the citizens of many Western nations who speak critically of homosexuality are not necessarily free from governmental harassment. In 1996 New Zealand’s Film and Literature Review Board unanimously banned two videos that presented the opinion that homosexuals contribute to the spread of AIDS . . .
The South African Film and Publication Board awarded The Pink Agenda: Sexual Revolution in South Africa and the Ruin of the Family, a book critical of homosexuality, an “R18″ classification, thus preventing its sale to minors. . .
Other examples include the Netherlands, where the Dutch Supreme Court granted an injunction and damages for the tort of discrimination against a religious group that published an antigay article titled “Sodom is Everywhere,” which did not mention the plaintiff by name. (48) In Belgium, a civil rights group that receives government funding filed a lawsuit, under that country’s antidiscrimination law, against a Catholic cardinal for declaring that, in his opinion, ninety-five percent of homosexuals are “sexual perverts … who have a serious problem.” (49) In Spain, a Roman Catholic Primate is being sued for slander and incitement to discriminate stemming from his comments that same-sex marriage could hurt the country’s social security system, which is currently facing insolvency because of low birth rates. (50) Catholic bishops in Ireland have been warned that dissemination of a Vatican publication describing homosexuality as “evil” could result in prosecution under that country’s hate speech laws. (51) In 2002 street preacher Harry Hammond was convicted in Britain, fined 300 [pounds sterling], and required to pay court costs of 350 [pounds sterling] for violating the Public Order Act of 1986 by publicly displaying a placard with the words
“Stop immorality. Stop homosexuality. Stop lesbianism.”. . .
But perhaps the most extensive legal regime against speech critical of homosexuality exists–surprisingly–in Canada. (56) In September 2003 the Canadian House of Commons passed a bill adding “sexual orientation” to the list of groups protected against hate speech under the nation’s criminal law. (57) Violators of the law can be sentenced to up to five years in prison. (58) Further, the Canadian Human Rights Act prohibits “hate speech” against homosexuals from being communicated over telephone lines and computer networks. (59) “Hate speech” disseminated by television or radio can be punished by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC). (60) Literature deemed to be hate propaganda can be banned from importation under the Customs Tariff Act. (61) The Canada Post Corporation Act allows the government to prohibit mail delivery when the mails are used to commit an offense. (62) Moreover, all the provinces provide an additional layer of legal protection to homosexuals against such speech, (63) and at least three provinces have shown particular zeal in prohibiting “hate speech” directed against homosexuals. (64) . . .
The history of Canada’s federal legislation proscribing hate speech began in 1965, when the Minister of Justice, amid an increase in neo-Nazi activity in Canada and the United States, established the Cohen Committee to study hate speech. (66) When one of its members, Pierre Trudeau, became Prime Minister of Canada in 1970, Parliament acted upon the Committee’s unanimous recommendation to add new offenses to Canada’s criminal code. (67) The new law prohibited advocating genocide (s. 318), publicly inciting hatred likely to lead to a breach of the peace (s. 319(1)), and willfully promoting hatred (s. 319(2)) against any “identifiable group … distinguished by colour, race, religion, or ethnic origin”–but not sexual orientation. (68) Between 1990 and 1996 six unsuccessful attempts were made by legislators to expand the definition of “identifiable group” to include homosexuals. (69) But in 2004 the Parliament passed bill C-250, extending the reach of sections 318 and 319 by adding “sexual orientation” to the list of bases upon which certain groups could be protected. (70)
The amendment’s originator, Svend Robinson, an openly gay former member of the House of Commons, said that the legislation was intended to protect gays from violence. (71) This justification, however, is dubious: as critics of the amendment have shown, homosexuals–like all Canadians–were adequately protected before the amendment not only from crimes of violence, but also from the advocacy of violence against them. (72) Section 718.2 of the Criminal Code allows heightened punishment for hate crimes, including those motivated by the victim’s sexual orientation. (73) Section 22 imposes criminal liability on anyone who counsels or advocates violence against any person when that counsel is somehow acted upon. . . .
Columnist John Leo argues that “[t]he churches seem to be the key target of C-250″; (76) whether that claim is correct or not, many within Canada’s evangelical community fear being punished under the new law. One minister in Guelph, Ontario, stated that the law would chill the speech of religious believers because of the possibility of criminal punishment determined by an untoward judiciary: “The bill will be used, I fear, by activist judges to censor the Bible and the Christian message on morality vis-a-vis homosexuality,” he said. (77) The President of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (EFC) stated that “[w]e are deeply concerned about the chilling effect this legislation may have. We … want to ensure that … prohibiting hate speech does not criminalize the legitimate expression of religious belief….” (78) Another official of the EFC claims that the new law is affording homosexual-rights activists a method of intimidating clergy: Christian ministers, she claims, are being harassed through menacing letters, phone calls, and e-mails, causing them to fear that their sermons are being monitored. (79) Some Christians worry that teaching the Bible’s condemnation of homosexuality to their children could lead to civil liability if their children repeat those teachings in a public school. (80) Conservative Christians perhaps have reason to fear: as another evangelical leader noted, “[t]he wording of the legislation is so vague, there is no way of knowing how it will be interpreted.” (81)
Other religious communities outside Christianity are also feeling the pinch of the new law. (82) Even outside religious circles, the new law seems to be chilling speech. For example, Dominic Tse, a Canadian of Chinese descent, stated:
The Chinese culture has a long history of certain morals that we hold regardless of our religious affiliation. We believe some acts of sexual behavior are immoral and we want to make sure we have the right to have public debate on these issues…. We also know what it means to live under a society where you cannot speak your mind. (83)
Academicians also seem to be feeling the effect: some university professors are scared that the law will threaten free inquiry in the classroom and in their own publications. . . . Liberal Senator Anne Cools worries that the law exposes “millions of Canadians to criminal prosecution who hold moral opinions about sexuality”: (87) with the current government of Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin poised to introduce federal legislation authorizing gay marriage in January 2005, (88) Cools worries that the new law will effectively silence from the debate “those who hold opinions that homosexuality is sinful, immoral or unhealthy.” (89)
Whatever chilling effect exists seems to stem from two perceived defects of the new law: (1) the vagueness of its language and (2) the insufficiency of its defenses. One cause of vagueness is the lack of a definition of “hatred” under [section] 319. (90) Janet Epp Buckingham of the EFC argues that “[w]ithout a clear definition of what is criminal hatred, it is ambiguous what public statements will be considered criminal.” . . . [T]he Parliament’s failure to provide a firm definition of hatred in [section] 319 seems suspicious in light of the fact that the term “genocide,” which is proscribed in [section] 318, is carefully defined. Moreover, given that, as one official of the EFC has stated, “Christians have seen their rights to dissent restricted by case after case in the courts[,]” (94) leaving the definition of hatred to judicial interpretation is not the safest course to protecting speech or religious liberties.. . .
The bottom line here is that official recognition of homosexual union as “marriage” is one big step on the road to cutting off speech critical of homosexuality. Once homosexual unions achieve constitutional equivalency with traditional marriage, the next steps will be to make homosexuals a protected class for civil rights purposes and to enact statutes punishing vaguely-defined “hate speech” directed at homosexuality. Once this happens, public and private discourse on this topic will effectively end as parents, pastors, teachers and bloggers begin fearing prosecution for saying what they think.
Anyone who thinks this can never happen in the United States is mistaken. The Obama campaign has already made numerous efforts to curtail debate about Barack Obama’s competence and his loyalty to America. If he wins the presidency — still a very big if — he will owe gay activists big-time.
Clausen’s full article is available at AccessMyLibrary.
{ 28 comments… read them below or add one }
thanks for this article.
there is also an interesting article here:
http://prop8discussion.wordpress.com/2008/10/28/same-sex-marriage-and-creeping-totalitarianism/
The pinch here is that Paul Martin was NEVER elected, nor had any right to rule other than calling an election. When actually ran in an election he was soundly defeated, and his predecessor Dion lost even more this election including some traditionally deep seated liberal ridings.
If it wasn’t for extremely race based voting (in our case, Francaphone for the Bloc Quebecuas) that is thankfully faltering Mr. Harper could oppose these stupid laws. Race based voting is an extremely dangerous thing, don’t underestimate it when you oppose Obama.
To be fair though, B.C. is the left coast here as much as California is there. Obama is probably as bad as Treudeau, and he’s in a time he can do a LOT more damage.
Keep on truckin against Obama, if you lose my family members down there (small business owners as a matter of fact) are in for a world of hurt. Try to make it so people don’t have to learn the hard way what a liberal government does to a country.
Hi;
May I interject a real life situation. I’d like to hear your guidance on this.
My mother was given a drug to take to lessen the chance of miscarriage and promote healthy babies — that’s what the doctor told her. The drug is Diethylstilbestrol, or DES. In male fetuses, it feminizes the brains of one in five of us ‘DES sons’.
I finally came to terms with this, and realized my choice was transition or die. So, I’m now a male-to-female transsexual who’s had ‘the operation.’ I’ve changed all my legal paperwork and although I still have a male body with XY chromosomes, it has been retrofitted to approximate female anatomy, which is good because if I ever end up in an accident, there will be no ’surprise’ for the first responders.
I ‘pass’ very well, thank you. Only rarely do strangers figure out I was not born this way. Most people have to be told, by me, or, more often, by someone else who just has to ‘drop the bomb.’
All my paperwork has been changed. Legally, I’m female. But I have to find an OB/GYN who can check my prostate during my yearly pelvic exam (yearly mammograms don’t need that level of disclosure.)
So my question to you is — knowing what you know now about me, and assuming for the moment you get absolute power to label me and make determinations on where I can and can’t go —
-Do I marry a man? Or do I marry a woman?
-Which restroom and changing facility do you feel I, a male-to-female transsexual, should use when in public spaces?
-Am I immoral?
-Am I a paedophile?
-Am I tearing down western society in support of a deviant agenda?
-Am I selfish?
I eagerly await your responses;
Hazumu Osaragi
You’re
-Not following the conversation at all.
No one’s advocated criminalizing homosexuality. The topic by and large is the imminent danger to free discussion posed by each of the laws mentioned above. Each of these laws are in theme selves oppressive to anyone who’s opinion is against them.
Who you want to be with is bloody well up to you, just like absolutely everyone else its up to you to understand the course of you’re life.
No one should be supporting a proposition who’s advocates both there and in other countries clearly work to silence their opposition by force of law.
Hazumu –
My heart goes out to you. What a confusing situation. So many people have been changed so dramatically by drugs of one kind or another that were sold to their parents as a solution to some kind of “problem”.
I don’t want and wouldn’t accept “absolute power to label you and make determinations on where you can and can’t go.” In fact, from your description of the situation, if we were to go to lunch, I would have no reason to suspect anything unusual about you unless you were to make a point of it through your words, dress or behavior.
As the saying goes, “hard cases make bad law.” I don’t think that your truly rare situation should be used as the basis for crafting a rule to govern the vast majority of Americans or Californians.
In the context of Prop 8, I suppose the question is whether you would qualify as a “woman” in order to be legally “married” to a man. Given your female anatomy, I see no impediment to it under Prop 8. Whether you would be comfortable with the arrangement is another question, but it’s up to you and your guy, not me.
Restrooms — for what it’s worth, I’d say the women’s room works. Immoral? That’s between you, your pastor (or whatever) and God.
Pedophile? Haven’t a clue, but you haven’t alleged facts that suggest it.
Tearing down western society? Doesn’t appear that you are unless you have been stealing signs, gouging out the eyes of Prop 8 supporters, or asking judges to violate the constitution.
Are you selfish? I’d have to get to know you better before making that kind of judgment. If you contributed as little of your income as Joe Biden has over the past three years, definitely “yes.” More than Sarah Palin, probably “no”. Send me a copy of your tax returns, and I’ll take a look.
Bottom line for me: My religion (LDS) teaches that Jesus Christ, through his infinite atonement, will heal all of us and get all of these tough calls straightened out when he comes again. He knows and loves you and me better than anyone and only he can judge us for eternal purposes.
Meanwhile, while we occupy the mortal stage, the mortal law must order our existence as a nation. Paramount in that order are the rights of parents to say what they think about homosexuality and to determine who will teach their children what and when about sexuality and family relationships.
Prop 8 is designed to protect those rights and to give special legal recognition and protection to the one kind of romantic relationship that ensures the continuity, strength and stability of the nation. We call it “marriage.”
I’ve been trying to find a connection between Diethylstilbestrol feminization of the brain. I’m not finding any studies that suggest that occurrence. What is this disorder called?
I’ve found studies that show that DES sons have an increased risk in genital abnormalities, including one or both testicles not dropping, but that can happen with babies not exposed to DES. If they don’t descend on their own, a simple surgery resolves it.
The only study I can find relating to the brain indicates a feminization in the sense that DES sons show a tendency to have feminized spatial skills, but the study specifically states that it does not make the DES any more feminine than their non-DES brothers, it just means they process spatial related matters differently in their minds.
“It may be that DES-exposed males use both sides of the brain in matching the shapes, a trait most commonly seen in females. That doesn’t mean that DES-exposed males are more feminine than their nonexposed brothers, the researchers emphasized. The test results simply mean they go about the task differently than their brothers.”
So, are you sure the DES isn’t just an excuse used to justify your desire to masquerade as a female?
Oh, and here’s the link:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_/ai_12881775
for this quote:
“It may be that DES-exposed males use both sides of the brain in matching the shapes, a trait most commonly seen in females. That doesn’t mean that DES-exposed males are more feminine than their nonexposed brothers, the researchers emphasized. The test results simply mean they go about the task differently than their brothers.”
Greetings, Kurt Schulzke;
While not a Mormon myself, I’ve been exposed enough around the periphery I should probably be called Jack.
I also know several trans-sisters who were Mormon. One is now a Son of Perdition, and I’m proud to call her a good friend. You can read Cindi Jones’ story in her book, Squirrel Cage. Pay particualr attention to the abhorrent, barbaric things that were done in the name of ‘curing’ her.
I realise this is an extreme example, and most Mormons are truly wonderful people. It’s just that this rare condition tends to bring out the worst behaviour in some folks.
Skeptical,
http://forum.mesomorphosis.com/mens-health-forum/prenatal-exposure-diethylstilbestrol-des-134253671.html
You may ignore or refute at will.
Hazumu
Saying that all (or even most) of the people who support gay marriage want to limit speech is like saying that all (or even most) of the people who oppose gay marriage want to outlaw homosexuality–misleading, to say the least.
With that in mind, I’d like to pose an open question: Is it absurd to suggest that perhaps hate speech laws and gay marriage laws might be entirely separate issues? We can allow and legally protect gay marriage without silencing its critics, just as we can allow and legally protect interracial marriage without silencing its critics.
Some people will think that this new kind of marriage is immoral, and they will say so, and that will be fine. They will not be obliged to condone or practice it. They will be obliged, however, to take on the issue directly–to discuss their misgivings honestly, without relying on gut reactions to extreme cases, or on distracting appeals to tangentially related issues.
Drew –
It doesn’t take a majority of Californians to impose pro-gay dogma on a class of 1st graders. Nor did it take a majority for four goofy judges at the Supreme Court to overrule the majority, in 2006. It didn’t take a majority of American colonists to win the Revolutionary War, either.
If gay militants (don’t need a majority, just a few hot heads) could find a way to let free speech alone, you might be on to something. But the Gavin Newsomes of the world are what we call “hogs” in negotiation lingo. Pigs get fed. Hogs get slaughtered. Newsome got slaughtered, as well he should. Figuratively speaking, of course.
Kurt–
I am certainly not denying the existence of hot heads, extremists, and miscellaneous crazies. Nor do I disagree that the most extreme people tend to also be the noisiest and most didactic. My point was simply that we can enact gay marriage (or any other new legal concept for that matter), without necessarily listening to or involving such people.
Gavin Newsom’s tactics were dead wrong. But that doesn’t invalidate the cause of gay marriage–nor more than Nat Truner being a murderer invalidated the cause of abolition, nor more than the bombing of an abortion clinic should close the issue of abortion.
As for this concept of “imposing gay dogma.” First of all, in all seriousness, what is “gay dogma?” That’s an honest question, with no agenda other than the desire to understand.
Secondly, though, there is no dogma of any kind inherent in the learning of facts. Knowing a fact does not inexorably lead to believing a dogma. If a first grader learns that traditional Western marriage is between one man and one woman, but that some societies differ significantly from that definition, how does that indoctrinate the first grader into anything?
Values that buckle at the first appearance of an opposing point of view are weak values. So if the heterosexual, nuclear family is such a hearty, sturdy concept , then it can easily weather the existence of an alternative.
Right, and if families don’t agree that homosexuality is normal, and don’t want the idea that it’s normal taught to their children, and furthermore can’t homeschool their children because they don’t have a college degree, I suppose you would say that they then have their last option which is to leave the state of California? I propose instead that since the state is evenly divided on whether their children should be taught that homosexuality is normal, they just split the state into the two states of Northern and Southern California. That makes more sense to me.
“I propose instead that since the state is evenly divided on whether their children should be taught that homosexuality is normal, they just split the state into the two states of Northern and Southern California. That makes more sense to me.”
I know an awful lot of Californians that would agree with that for oh so many reasons! Let all the liberals relocate down south with all the Hollywood celebs who want to run the state with their $$$$$$$. Leave the northern part of the state to families!
Right on! There have been serious efforts to split CA in two, several times. I’m all for it. We could stop shipping our water south to fill their swimming pools.
If the lefties left San Francisco for points south, wow, what a day that would be. As it is, it is probably only a matter of time before its burden of filth sinks that otherwise beautiful city into the Pacific.
So 51 states… Only six more to go to make Obama’s wild guess of 57 correct.
Speaking of Obama’s absurd guess of 57 states (actually the number of Islamic states) — I am reminded of how many times over Obama’s media groupies have claimed he ran a “flawless” campaign. That is such a pile of you-know-what that there has to be a pony in there somewhere.
He made a number of outrageous gaffes of word and deed, which if made by any Republican candidate, would have sunk his ship. Such as “My Muslim faith,” for Pete’s sake, when George Stephanopoulos saved him from himself. Buying that house with felon Frank Rezko’s help was another, hanging out with an unashamed terrorist, Bill Ayers… The list of should-have-been-fatal flaws is long.
If the media were not in the tank for him, he’d long ago have been back voting “present” in the Illinois legislature.
Joey–
Schools don’t have to teach that “homosexuality is normal.” The schools can simply teach that homosexuality exists (and has more or less always existed), and that some societies accept it more than others. There is no such thing as “normal” sexual behavior. Norms are defined by whichever social group happens to be in charge, and they can be good or bad, logical or illogical, moral or immoral. (For example: I’m sure that you and I would agree that Iran’s cultural norms, sexual and otherwise, are bad for its people). So we can have a discussion about what is good sexual behavior if you’d like, but to argue about what is “normal” is an intellectual dead end.
As far as splitting the state down the middle. As someone who was born and raised in Los Angeles, I’m open to the idea. However:
Jayde–
When you say “Leave the northern part of the state to families,” I don’t think that you are literally saying that there are no families in Southern California. So do you mean that the values of San Fransisco and Los Angeles (and so on) are somehow anti-family? If so, could you please explain further? Is there something anti-family about accepting non-traditional families?
April 38–
Even if Northern California and Southern California were to become separate states, they would still be part of the same nation. You’re talking more like a secessionist than anything, as though you feel that you have nothing at all in common with your left-leaning neighbors. Is that a fair assessment? Again, I simply want to understand.
Gravtias–
George W. Bush had one or two unseemly things in his past (bankrupting businesses, for example), and yet he became president. Twice.
I’m not saying that these things should have necessarily stopped him from becoming president, but to suggest that no Republican can get away with anything less than a squeaky-clean record is simply ahistorical.
I think that Barack Obama owes his election much more to Sarah Palin than to CNN. The scandals surrounding Palin–things she actually did as governor, not silly little instances of misspeaking or people she knows–quite rightly alienated people. I, for one, am much more concerned with people’s actions than I am with their associations.
Do you actually, genuinely think that Obama is a Muslim, or that he supports terrorism? I don’t think that those are defensible positions. But it is defensible to say that Sarah Palin is something of a demagogue, and that John McCain wantonly reversed a lot of his old positions during this election.
So it’s something of a cop-out to blame the media for McCain and Palin’s loss, instead of blaming McCain and Palin. It’s like when people say that Al Gore lost the 2000 election because of Ralph Nader. Al Gore lost the 2000 election because of Al Gore.
Jayde–
“When you say “Leave the northern part of the state to families,” I don’t think that you are literally saying that there are no families in Southern California. So do you mean that the values of San Fransisco and Los Angeles (and so on) are somehow anti-family? If so, could you please explain further? Is there something anti-family about accepting non-traditional families?”
Sorry. Didn’t fully explain. Along with the libs relocating to the south with the celebs, wholesome families (and non-families too) could relocate to the much prettier (no offense to those of you down south) portion of the state in northern California. I’d gladly take Fort Bragg and Lake Tahoe (and the countless other beautiful moutain lakes) and leave the desert to the liberals. Yes, they can even take Santa Barbara, Santa Monica and so forth.
“You’re talking more like a secessionist than anything, as though you feel that you have nothing at all in common with your left-leaning neighbors. Is that a fair assessment?”
I know this wasn’t directed to me, but I’m answering for me.
It’s not that I don’t have anything in common with my left-leaning (or falling over) neighbors. I have friends of all persuasions. But, when it comes to CA politics, the liberals attempt to use their Hollywood dollars to force their will on the rest of the state. If the state were split in half, allowing for the libs to have a state all to themselves, then finally the voice of the conservatives in CA could be heard in Washington, rather than always having their voices squelched by the representation of Feinstein, Boxer and Pelosi.
“But it is defensible to say that Sarah Palin is something of a demagogue…”
Defend that statement then, with facts, not tabloid news.
Jayde–
I now understand what you are saying, and it does make sense. But (unless we are talking about secession here) the issue is substantially more complicated than diving people up on an ideological basis. There are serious problems with the idea of one state wanting to ignore the gay marriage of another state. For example, would a gay couple married in Southern California have their marriage recognized in Northern California?
This was, in fact, one issue that kept interracial marriage illegal for so long, and it leads us back to where we started: We can’t agree on everything, nor should we have to, and yet we are one nation–a proudly pluralist nation.
So I ask you: Do you think that gay marriage–not anything that you assume would accompany the legalization of gay marriage, but gay marriage itself–would somehow prevent you from living as you choose to live?
Cosmo–
OK. Here are some ways in which Sarah Palin is a demagogue.
In terms of policy: Sarah Palin ran for Mayor as a “fiscal conservative.” She then increased government expenditures and, as a direct result, left the city in debt.
In terms of rhetoric: Sarah Palin repeatedly made appeals to small town honesty and openness, as opposed to Washington equivocation. She then equivocated, repeatedly. For example, after she was found guilty of wrongdoing in that whole “Troopergate” situation, she said that she was glad that she had not been found guilty of wrongdoing. Note that I am not invoking the scandal itself, but rather her highly equivocal reaction to it. So, regardless of whether you think that she abused her power in those firings, the point stands.
Further, regarding all of her comments about Barack Obama’s supposed “socialism,” always in the guise of quoting Joe the Plumber: Do you think that Sarah Palin actually considers Barack Obama a socialist? If not, then her appeal to peoples’ fear of socialism is demagoguery.
And while we’re on the subject of exploiting ill-defined ideologies: What is the actual meaning of “family values?” I have gathered from this board that the term includes an opposition to gay marriage (though no one here has yet made any attempt explain how gay marriage, in and of itself, undermines familial institutions), and I assume that the term also includes a Pro-Life stance.
But does it entail anything else? Can we agree on what is meant by it at all? If the term does not have a clear meaning, but is rather a squishy neologism meant to evoke some abstract sense of nostalgia for a simpler time, then any appeal to “family values” is a form of demagogy.
Drew –
You wrote:
For example, after she [Palin] was found guilty of wrongdoing in that whole “Troopergate” situation, she said that she was glad that she had not been found guilty of wrongdoing.
Palin was never “found guilty” of anything in the so-called “troopergate” affair. She was never tried for anything so it would have been impossible for her to be found guilty. In fact, the day before the election, Alaska’s State Personnel Board officially, explicitly cleared her of any wrongdoing in the matter.
It would be more accurate to say that the legislators who insisted on investigating her were found guilty of wasting taxpayer money for their own political ends.
Kurt–
You are right that, because Sarah Palin was not found to be in violation of any laws, it is incorrect to say that she was “found guilty” of anything. I apologize for misspeaking. I was referring to this element of the investigation (quoted from the article to which you linked me):
“The legislature’s inquiry, carried out by a special counsel, found that while she was within her rights as Alaska governor to dismiss Monegan, she had breached ethics rules by allowing her husband to badger officials into firing Mr Wooten.”
This breech of ethics was the “wrongdoing” to which I referred, and which Sarah Palin chose to ignore in her statements. Again, I apologize for being unclear.
If you would like to discuss my other points, then I would be very interested in having such a discussion.
Either way, thank you for your time.
Drew –
You wrote: “My point was simply that we can enact gay marriage (or any other new legal concept for that matter), without necessarily listening to or involving such people [extremists].”
I respectfully disagree. The moment you legislatively declare homosexual union = marriage, all it takes is one hothead to file a lawsuit alleging hate speech or discriminatory conduct. Then courts take over and eviscerate free speech. This is a major issue.
But it’s also important to remember that the productive, society-stabilizing relationship between man and wife merits special legal recognition, whereas society-eviscerating homosexual relationships arguably do not.
p.s. Drew — On the troopergate thing, you wrote:
“The legislature’s inquiry, carried out by a special counsel, found that while she was within her rights as Alaska governor to dismiss Monegan, she had breached ethics rules by allowing her husband to badger officials into firing Mr Wooten.”
The finding of the legislative inquiry was specifically overturned by the Alaska State Personnel Board’s decision. Therefore — even if it were originally worth something (and arguably it wasn’t because of it’s biased provenance) — it is misleading to refer to that one-off inquiry as having any factual or legal merit.
Kurt–
As far as the Troopergate affair, I was unaware that the legislature’s findings had been overturned. So that was a bad example to bring up. But you did not address my other points–namely, those about accusing Barack Obama of being a socialist, and those about the invocation of “family values.”
And this latter point, about “family values,” leads directly back to our disagreement about gay marriage. On what do you base the statement that homosexual relationships are “society-eviscerating?” Even putting aside the issue of gay marriage, what is it about homosexuality that you find so destructive?
I agree that a government has the right to promote certain kinds of relationships by the granting of special privileges (tax breaks, and so on). But, with gay marriage, we’re not talking about special privileges. We’re talking about people in stable, monogamous relationships who would like, for example, to be able to visit their significant others in the hospital in the case of serious illness.
So what is it about a stable gay relationship (and, yes, there absolutely is such a thing) that is so destabilizing? Granted, homosexual couples cannot reproduce. But they can certainly adopt, and there is no credible data suggesting that a child being raised by two gay parents in a stable household is any worse off than a child being raised by two straight parents in a stable household.
What, then, makes heterosexual relationships so much more valuable? I am not arguing this from a religious standpoint, mind you; the Bible is quite clear on the subject. I am arguing this from the quite separate standpoint of social policy.
Regarding your other point. You said:
“The moment you legislatively declare homosexual union = marriage, all it takes is one hothead to file a lawsuit alleging hate speech or discriminatory conduct. Then courts take over and eviscerate free speech.”
I would oppose any attempts to limit speech, even “hate speech.” And the majority of those who support gay marriage, as far as I can tell, feel the same way. The “hotheads” you’re talking about are a small, shrill group of idiots doing a grave disservice to their cause. They do not represent the gay marriage issue as a whole.
Let me ask you this: Did free speech suffer when interracial marriage became legal? I know that this comparison may seem odd to you, but why is it odd? Both gay marriage and interracial marriage are about personal freedoms being more important than tradition. (You will still be free to live traditionally, but others may choose not to). In both cases, we’re not talking about what you are obliged to embrace, but only what you are obliged to tolerate.
I am extremely glad that we are able to disagree respectfully. I truly wish that the debate over this issue–as a whole–could consist of more respectful disagreement, and fewer acts of counter-productive aggression.
Drew –
The responses to all of your questions are contained in other posts on this blog. I haven’t invoked “family values” because I don’t know what it means.
The most obvious way in which homosexuality eviscerates a society is a biological fact of life. For how many generations does a homosexual “family” continue? If that glaring difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality isn’t enough, then there is the psychological and emotional fact that children — who, in the absence of heroic medical procedures can only be produced by hetero couples — need a father and mother, not just a random set of two adults.
Finally, there’s the relatively short-term public health issue involving HIV and other STDs. CDC figures are pretty staggering. In 2006, homosexual & bisexual men accounted for 53% of new U.S. cases of HIV when these demographics make up, at most, 2-3% of the U.S. population.
Each of these is an example of how homosexuality tends to destroy society, in the classical sense of “destroy” .
Drew — I appreciate your willingness to defend free speech. But it’s a nice sentiment without practical effect. Your support can’t overcome the effect of the one hothead who gets the ear of the one judge who muzzles free speech or forces parents to allow their kids to be taught homosexuality in the schools.
Meanwhile, those who truly “are” homosexual (likely an extraordinarily miniscule subset of society) are completely free to enter into marriage like anyone else, with an opposite sex partner of their choice. Prop 8 does nothing to change that fact.
Comparisons to civil rights for blacks are inapplicable. Black skin is a genetic state of being, not a behavioral phenomenon.
Kurt–
First and foremost, I am glad that we can agree to the meaninglessness of “family values.” I was not claiming that you had personally invoked the concept.
You said: “For how many generations does a homosexual “family” continue?”
This is not a fair question, because there is no reason to believe that gay parents are any more likely to raise gay children. If the vast majority of the world’s families have been straight, then the vast majority of the world’s gay people have been the products of straight parents.
But even if that were not true: Gay couples are (or should be) free to adopt, and straight couples are free not to have children. A “gay ‘family,’” then can go on just as long as a “straight family”–socially, if not genetically.
Or, to put it another way: Does a heterosexual marriage that produces no children destroy society?
You said that children “need a father and mother, not just a random set of two adults.”
On what do you base the assertion that a child needs one parent of each gender? I understand that it seems like common sense to many, many people–but lots of incorrect things have seemed like common sense over the course of human history.
I fully understand that the primary function of marriage is the raising of children, but why must they be the parents’ biological children? For example: Articles on the subject (including the Stephen Baskerville piece that you quoted this past October) do a good job of establishing why having a father figure is good, and why marriage is itself is good for men. But they make little attempt to explain why the father figure has to be the child’s biological father, or why stable homosexual relationships cannot “civilize men and control their promiscuity,” whereas stable heterosexual relationships can.
Two loving parents, regardless of their genders or sexual orientations, are not “just a random set of two adults.” I am aware that there is ample statistical reason to prefer stable, two-parent homes to single-parent homes. But I know of no study suggesting that children of stable gay parents are any worse off than are children of stable straight parents.
Regarding the CDC figures: I do not deny the flagrantly irresponsible behavior of many, many homosexual men. But I do not think that these men having unprotected sex with intravenous drug users are the same men who want to settle down, get married, and possibly adopt children. If we were to judge a group primarily by its worst members, then we would judge Evangelical Christians by the actions of Fred Phelps–and that would be completely absurd.
You said: “Comparisons to civil rights for blacks are inapplicable. Black skin is a genetic state of being, not a behavioral phenomenon.”
Dark skin is a genetic trait, but race is a social (and therefore behavioral) phenomenon. Race, as a concept, was created specifically to establish a “natural” hierarchy with those who created the hierarchy (White Europeans) on top. Blacks were not persecuted because they had dark skin, but rather because their dark skin was erroneously associated with cultural inferiority, or sinfulness, or stupidity.
To be Black, then, is not a “genetic state of being,” but rather a social designation–and in no sense is race more natural than sexuality. So my comparison to interracial marriage (not to civil rights per se, because there are no gay drinking fountains or gay lunch counters) remains intact.
You say that homosexuals “are completely free to enter into marriage like anyone else, with an opposite sex partner of their choice.”
I am familiar with this argument and, if I may be blunt, it is pure sophistry. I suppose that before interracial marriage was legal, one was still free to marry a person of one’s own race, just like everyone else. But that fact hardly remedied the need for interracial marriage.
So I pose the question to you again: Did free speech suffer when interracial marriage became legal?