Card puts his cards on the table.

[_EAllusion]

Okay...thanks for that.

So if California's Prop 8 does not pass, will Card accept the "will of the people?" Clearly in Massachusetts, allowing gay marriage is the "will of the people," yet Card mentioned them in the same breath as California.

A State Supreme Court decision declaring a ban on gay marriage unconstitutional is what got it started in Mass. Popular and legislative opinion followed shortly thereafter.

There's a repeated history of popular opinion becoming more favorable to gay rights once those rights are allowed. It's one of the reasons why this quick California vote is a line in the sand. If it fails, future attempts will only fair worse.

[Guest]

Oh my, just what I wanted for supper: a SUPERSIZED homophobic rant.

I made my points on the original thread.

Just cannot bring yourself to the point of philosophical substance can you Dude?

Just all the standard liberal ad hominem diversions and self congratulatory moral posturing in lieu of serious argument.

[_Droopy]

I always thought Card was a lefty (and therefore an apostate). This is good news.

I don't think so bc, not in any well thought out manner. In reading many of Card's op-eds over the years, I've perceived him to be a strong social conservative but hostile to free markets and property rights. Actually, given what he's written, I see the problem here pretty much the same terms as with Nibley, in that Card is, not to insult him, but at the same time, not to beat around the bush, an economic illiterate and holds negative attitudes about free market principles. I don't think Card really understands economics much (given some of what he's written about taxes and economic policy generally) and I think his hostility to capitalism is primarily psychological and emotional, not rational or substantively philosophical. I think its more of an attitude or temperament, not something that could be understood as a well thought out position that would place him on the Left in a coherent ideological way. I may be wrong, but that's been my impression.

Actually his statements about private property in this essay indicates something better.

[_Droopy]

...the exclusion of same-sex couples from the designation of marriage clearly is not necessary in order to afford full protection to all of the rights and benefits that currently are enjoyed by married opposite-sex couples; permitting same-sex couples access to the designation of marriage will not deprive opposite-sex couples of any rights and will not alter the legal framework of the institution of marriage, because same-sex couples who choose to marry will be subject to the same obligations and duties that currently are imposed on married opposite-sex couples. Second, retaining the traditional definition of marriage and affording same-sex couples only a separate and differently named family relationship will, as a realistic matter, impose appreciable harm on same-sex couples and their children, because denying such couples access to the familiar and highly favored designation of marriage is likely to cast doubt on whether the official family relationship of same-sex couples enjoys dignity equal to that of opposite-sex couples. Third, because of the widespread disparagement that gay individuals historically have faced, it is all the more probable that excluding same-sex couples from the legal institution of marriage is likely to be viewed as reflecting an official view that their committed relationships are of lesser stature than the comparable relationships of opposite-sex couples. Finally, retaining the designation of marriage exclusively for opposite sex couples and providing only a separate and distinct designation for same-sex couples may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise — now emphatically rejected by this state — that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects “second-class citizens” who may, under the law, be treated differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex couples. Under these circumstances, we cannot find that retention of the traditional definition of marriage constitutes a compelling state interest. Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are unconstitutional.

The point of the above legalistic gibberish being precisely what?

http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazi ... 4_4694.php

http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q ... EyMDVlNTM=

http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed052408b.cfm

[_Droopy]

Card scares me.

And people like you absolutely terrify many of us.

[_Droopy]

There's a repeated history of popular opinion becoming more favorable to gay rights once those rights are allowed. It's one of the reasons why this quick California vote is a line in the sand. If it fails, future attempts will only fair worse.

There's a repeated history of popular opinion becoming more favorable to pedophile rights once those rights are allowed.

There's a repeated history of popular opinion becoming more favorable to human/animal sex rights once those rights are allowed.

There's a repeated history of popular opinion becoming more favorable to legal infanticide rights once those rights are allowed.

There's a repeated history of popular opinion becoming more favorable to Nazism as Nazi policies are allowed.

There's a repeated history of popular opinion becoming more favorable to the Roman Games once those games are allowed.

[_The Dude]

Just cannot bring yourself to the point of philosophical substance can you Seth?

That's the second time you've called me "Seth". What's up?

[_Droopy]

Hey, Droopy! How are you? Well?

Just had a quick comment. I don't know if this was addressed on the other thread or not, since I only read a small part of it. Forgive me if I repeat. :)

Recognizing gay marriage "marks the end of democracy?" How so?

To the degree that unaccountable judges are making decisions affecting the social and moral fabric of an entire people completely outside of deliberative democratic processes and without legal or constitutional jurisdiction.

Isn't NOT allowing something the "end of democracy?"

1. To correct both you and Card, we do not live in a democracy.

2. Representative democracy is not about allowing people to do whatever they please. That is not the understanding of the term "freedom" that is the cornerstone of our constitutional Republic and its classical liberal/Judeo/Christian foundations.

Isn't forcing people to not be able to enjoy the same civil rights as their fellow citizens an "end to democracy?" Isn't THAT in fact tyranny, rather than allowing the same rights to all people?

Homosexuals already have all the possible civil rights they can have, and they are the same as enjoyed by heterosexuals. Marriage is not a "civil right" in the strict constitutional sense. In a broader philosophical and socio-cultural sense, Homosexuals cannot be married because homosexuality and the institution of marriage are conceptually exclusive (as are, historically, their cultural imperatives) and the radical transformation of the concepts of marriage and the family resulting from acceptance of such a change would not only end "democracy" but, in time, civil society per se.

Incidentally, I live in New Hampshire, about twenty miles from the Massachusetts border. I happen to go through there quite frequently, and truthfully, it's a delightful, beautiful state. Everyone seems happy and normal, and families do not appear to be falling apart. At least, not yet. ;)

Nice meaningless subjective anecdote Hally (I'll leave the People's Republic of Taxxachusetts to those who like that kind of thing...)

[_Droopy]

Just cannot bring yourself to the point of philosophical substance can you Seth?

That's the second time you've called me "Seth". What's up?

Nothing. Its just that all leftist Moonbats look the same to me.

I've corrected this above.

[_Mad Viking]

The point of the above legalistic gibberish being precisely what?

Context.