chrisishardcore.com

Comments: Bigots

Here is what i would say if I were running for national office:

"When I think of the term 'marriage' I think of the union between a man and a woman, but this attempt to scrawl campaign slogans into the document that serves as a foundation of our democracy is sickening. The defense of marriage act already protects states that do not want gay marriage. I will do everything I can to prevent this administration and his colleges from tarnishing our constitution with this transparent ploy to distract America from their failures"

Posted by Jon at February 24, 2004 01:06 PM

Sickening. I hope Edwards or Kerry wins, for they are supporters of gay marriage. Oh wait, nevermind. They're just weasels who also oppose gay marriage, but would stop short of what Bush is doing.

There's not really a moral high ground to be had in this one, among the three major players.

Posted by zachary d smith at February 24, 2004 01:14 PM

And for your trivia question, would the 18th Amendment be a valid answer?

Posted by zachary d smith at February 24, 2004 01:16 PM

It would be hard to claim that Edwards or Kerry are active and vocal gay rights leaders. But there is a difference between not being a leader and proactively trying to get bigotry against them written into the constitution that defines our democracy.

I wish that America wanted a crusader for gay rights to be president. It doesn't. But I am pretty sure it does not want a reactionary bigot either. And I think that most people, straight and gay, will see that there is a space between the two and that the current democratic party occupies that space.

The most frusterating thing about the hard left is how self destructive it is. It does not really matter what the issue is. There is a solid 1% of the population that will decide that better is no better than worse. Fortunately there are just as many on the other side. The extremes can yell at each other in front of the library while the rest of America picks a president.

Jon

Posted by Jon at February 24, 2004 02:05 PM

Zack, first you know politics and life in general isn't as simple as for or against.

Think of taxes. Sure Bush is "against taxes" or more accurately "for tax cuts." But do you believe that he is against all taxes? Maybe for a four or eight year period where he can borrow money for expenditures but surely a President who enjoys spending federal money as much as Bush is against "additional" taxes but not against all taxes.

I agree, there is no moral high ground. But there is more or less a morally neutral ground -- Edwards and Kerry pretty much inhabit this -- and a morally low (or lower) ground -- inhabited by Bush.

Regarding the 18th amendment. Well on the one hand if you want to compare Bush's amendment to the 18th go ahead. History will prove both to be equally distasteful.

I do think however that Kerry and Edwards take the high ground. They support civil unions and legal recognition for gays but oppose "marriage." Most Americans, when they hear marriage, think about walking down the aisle in church before they think about legal arrangements such as their will. Kerry, Edwards and Bush are all right to oppose "gay marriage" if, say, a court was ordering the Catholic church to marry gay couples.

But this is not happening. You know it and to pretend that there are no shades of grey to this debate is dishonest.

Posted by Chris at February 24, 2004 11:08 PM

Morally neutral ground? Since you've made the slavery parallel already on your website, I'll say this: Kerry and Edwards' stances sound a lot like "states should be allowed to decide whether they have slaves or not." Passively allowing what should be a basic right to be withheld in some states is not as bad as actively campaigning against it, but it's certainly bad.

In any case, I doubt gay marriage will be an issue I'd base my vote on. Besides, if it were my clinching issue, I'd probably vote for someone who actually supports it, like Nader.

Also, take a look at Professor Instapundit's analysis of the proposed amendment. If what he says is right (the amendment would simply make it harder to reverse DOMA, without making any changes to existing law), once again the warbling of critics outweighs the alleged Bush atrocities.

But hey, you're a "Democrat attack dog," so I guess you're just doing your job :)

Posted by zachary d smith at February 25, 2004 07:26 AM

My understanding (contrary to Glenn Reynolds) is that the language is sufficiently vague so as no one really knows what it will do. Know this: those pushing for an amendment (the religious right) think homosexuality is an abomination and would like to deny any and all rights to gays as a way to discourage anyone from "choosing" to be gay. This was the logic on display in the Georgia senate hearings and I'm pretty sure it's consistent with national thought from Christian conservatives on the issue.

Also: Concerned Women for America, not me, made the slavery reference, and they (straight conservatives) were saying anything that didn't ban civil unions was like slavery to them. So it's not as if some gay group (or me) said that gays not being allowed to marry was slavery for them, it's the Christian conservatives who think granting gays the same legal rights you or I would have if we were to wed (but not to each other) is slavery for them.

Finally, what it ultimately boils down to is legal rights. By coming out against amending the Constitution, Kerry and Edwards are standing against an erosion of rights (in many cases not even yet won).

That is the issue...whether to amend the Constitution or not. Bush is for it and (so far) Kerry and Edwards are against it. "Marriage" has nothing to do with it, in the long run. Bush is trying to use fear about government involvement in religious institutes (ie a court telling your church that they must "MARRY" gays) to deny basic rights to gays because a large portion of his base don't believe they actually exist. And you should meet these people -- they think it's a choice encouraged by "tolerant/decadent" government policy and popular culture.

Like I said I'd come out for some sort of action if a court were trying to tell my church what it had to do (although I doubt the Supreme Court would uphold that ruling since the Constitution already seems pretty clear on the church/state issue).

As a side issue, economic conservatives could point out that this is one issue on which most large corporations are more democratic than our government as many companies have been becoming increasingly gay friendly in the past few years, offering "marriage" like benefits to gay employees if they also offer them to straight ones.

Posted by Chris at February 25, 2004 09:29 AM

Kerry and Edwards need to change the focus from Gay Marriage to the Constitution every chance they get.

Most people don't really care that much about gay rights one way or the other. They don't want homosexuals persecuted or descriminated against, but would be more comfortable if the gay folks would 'keep that part of their relationship to themselves' and refer to the other one as their roomate or something.

If the focus is on 'protecting the institution of marriage' the center will go with Bush. If the focus is on whether our constitution needs to have a chapter on homosexuals, they will go with Kerry or Edwards. At least that is my take.

The president swore an oath to uphold the consitution and now he is trying to scawl campaign slogans into it. We need to be talking about THAT.

Posted by jon at February 25, 2004 12:35 PM

Now, i'm no fan of the constitutional ammendment, but technically he's not rescinding any rights.... just maintaining the status quo.

Posted by pbh at February 25, 2004 03:41 PM

Thats parsing it pretty fine. The constitution is the meta law that dictates how other laws are written. A constitutional amendment that said that "No state shall issue a license to grow medical marijuana to anyone not born into the white race" would be racist whether or not any minorities were actually having 'real' rights taken away. Likewise actively making marriage off limits to homosexuls at the constitutional level is a profound step away from accepting them as full citizens.

Posted by jon at February 25, 2004 08:22 PM

can you think of another time in history when someone has successfully modified the constitution to rescind rights?

The 13th Amendment clearly rescinded an individual right (the right to own another human being), in order to guaranty the individual rights of others. The 18th Amendment focused on the power of the state to regulate the import, export and sale of booze; it didn't actually impact the rights of individuals, since it was silent as to whether a state or the federal government could actually prohibit an individual from drinking. When the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th, it gave back to the states that power.

In any event, the fact that Bush believes prohibiting gay couples from getting married is somehow as necessary as ending slavery is a sign of the political trouble he finds himself. The initial public reticence about enacting this amendment, regardless of where opinion stands on the issue of gay marriages, is testament to the skepticism the people have towards amending the constitution to limit individual rights.

Posted by Steve Smith at February 25, 2004 08:27 PM

Rights? What rights? Where oh where in US constitutional history do you find a "right" for homosexuals to marry?

By this logic I'll give you one. The 26th Amendment, which establishes the voting age at 18, denies 17 year olds the right to vote.

Posted by Smaack at February 26, 2004 07:15 AM

Smaack: The difference between the 26th Amendment, or any of the other amendments concerning suffrage, is that those laws expanded rights (in those cases, the right to vote in federal elections) to encompass people who did not previously possess them. Seventeen-year olds did not lose the right to vote, since they couldn't vote beforehand in federal elections; however, if a state wishes to permit teenagers to vote in local elections, it is free to do so.

In the case of the FMA, the law seeks to narrowly define the right to marry (a liberty right under the Constitution) so as to exclude a class of people in every state. This amendment would prevent states from more broadly construing a right (in this case, the right to regulate and make laws concerning marriage) that is traditionally within its sole jurisdiction.

Posted by Steve Smith at February 26, 2004 12:18 PM

It's clever of the gay lobby to pretend that rights would be taken away by this amendment, but the "right" of gay marriage has never existed, except possibly in the emanences and penumbras.

Several amendments took away existing rights. The 18th amendment took away the right to manufacture, sell or import liquor. The 25th took away the right of anybody who had been President for two terms to run for President again.

Posted by Pat Curley at February 26, 2004 05:43 PM

you're all full of BS. Marriage is between a man and a woman, period. Anything else turns my stomach. You all may think I'm a "homophobe" (actually, homosexual behavior doesn't scare me, it grosses me out. But I suppose "phobe" denotes fear which denotes ignorance. Interesting play on words to put those of us with moral objections on the defensive)for feeling that way but unfortunitly for you, I'm in the majority and the majority gets to define the moral boundaries within society. Two men getting married is as objectional to me as a father marrying his daughter is to (hopefully)you. If the father/daughter are consenting
adults and if they were unable to concieve kids (removing the genetic arguement), upon what grounds do you deny them the right to marry? Its simple - its not right. If you get to move the line between what is right and what isn't, then another group gets to move futher to include themselves. You simple cannot move the boundary to include gay marriage and then stop it forever. Once the boundary is disloged, it goes all the way.

Posted by chris at February 27, 2004 04:42 PM

Post a comment