Three Wise Men, Or Three Blind Mice?

Today’s Washington Times reports on comments by three wise (or formerly wise) men of the Democratic party — James Carville, Robert Schrum, and Stanley Greenberg — at a breakfast sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor.

Although the most newsworthy comment was probably Carville’s assertion that the Dems need to be “born again,” I was most struck by something on which all three agreed:

The three men yesterday said Democrats won’t embrace the Republican position on cultural issues like the definition of marriage.

I think several things are interesting here. First, they assume that the definition of marriage is a “cultural issue,” like abortion or affirmative action. Those who feel strongly about defending what now I suppose must be called the traditional view of marriage might well agree that marriage is a cultural issue, but they would tend to describe it as part of the foundation of western (and maybe eastern) culture.

There is an irony, or something like an irony, here. The Democrats, multiculturalists all, pride themselves on their sensitivity to preserving and promoting a multiplicity of American (and other) cultures. What is their new mantra of “diversity,” after all, if not an insistence on the presence of many different patches on the quilt of American society?

But their celebration of multiculturalism has no room for anything like a majority culture. The irony is that a belief that marriage should be limited to a union between a man and a woman is not simply an artifact of the ignorant “evangelicals,” but is widely shared in the black and Hispanic communities as well.

All cultures are good, and even equally good, it would seem, except for cultural values that are widely shared by large numbers of people.

Say What? (33)

  1. Edna W. November 9, 2004 at 12:23 pm | | Reply

    To be fair, John, those Democrats said they wouldn’t embrace the Republican POSITION on things like the definition of marriage.

    I think even taking into account the weak regard for accuracy of the Washington Times (aka Paper Moon), the implication is that the Democrats have no intention of pushing an amendment which writes that “majority definition” of marriage into the Constitution. That’s the Republican position, that’s what the Democrats won’t embrace.

    Although I’m tickled you just use this as yet another opportunity to bash Dems and tout Repubs….whereas I thought you might have some interesting insights on the discriminatory nature of such a constitutional amendment. Don’t you know a Nuremberg Law when you see one, John?

    Or are you too busy kvelling over the fact that, when it comes to defining marriage, you’ve FINALLY found something you can agree on with the “black and Hispanic communities”?

  2. John Rosenberg November 9, 2004 at 12:45 pm | | Reply

    Come now, Edna. Do you really think Carville, Shrum, and Greenberg oppose only a federal Constitutional amendment defining marriage? Is it your view that they SUPPORTED the 13 state constitutional amendments that were just passed? I don’t think so.

    Finally, if you re-read my post you will note that I did not endorse, or in fact take any position on, the proposed amendment. If you go back through old posts you will also fail to find me endorsing the amendment. That’s because I haven’t taken a position on it. If I had to right now I’d probably oppose it, especially because the states seem to be accomplishing the same goal rapidly themselves. But if the federal courts overturn these state efforts …. Well, then we’ll see. In any event I see neither the federal or state efforts as a Nuremberg law.

  3. Edna W. November 9, 2004 at 4:08 pm | | Reply

    Well, John. You don’t see it as a Nuremberg Law.

    But the first Nuremberg Law—the Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honor (which sounds strangely like an S&M video starring Ralph Reed and Ursula Andress)–explicitly prohibited marriage between Jews and Gentiles.

    I’d say that any constitutional change which is intended to forestall a minority from claiming the right to marry (or to unite civilly) has a whiff of old Nuremberg about it.

    Or are you going to pretend that those nice folks in Oklahoma, et al., were just Protecting American Marriage and American Honor….and that those ballot measures had nothing to do with an attempt to forestall civil rights for homosexuals (in states where homosexuals comprise a small enough minority that it’s easy to gang up on them).

    Rather than enjoying right-wing triumphalism on the subject of gay marriage, you might actually exhort your readers to follow the principled thinking of the Cato Institute on this topic….they think the government should get out of the marriage business altogether, hetero AND homo.

  4. Andrew P. Connors November 9, 2004 at 6:31 pm | | Reply

    Outright, I have to say that equating a constitutional amendment to preserving traditional marriage is no where near the same level as a Nuremberg Law. The point of the law, which Edna made blatantly apparent in her post, was to prevent interbreeding. As far as I know, homosexuals can’t breed, so I don’t see the connection. To equate the attack on marriage to the struggle for civil rights for minorities is ridiculous and is a serious affront to that movement; indeed, many African-Americans are publicly angry that homosexuals have attempted to latch this issue onto civil rights, which are inherently and obviously different.

    I’m only inclined to agree with Edna in that government has no business in marriage. However, so long as the government is in the business of marriage, i will support the constitutional amendment, if only to guarantee that activist judges don’t attempt a fundamental and pervasive cultural change that at best does nothing good and only risks moral decline on a large scale.

  5. James November 9, 2004 at 6:49 pm | | Reply

    “There is an irony, or something like an irony, here. The Democrats, multiculturalists all, pride themselves on their sensitivity to preserving and promoting a multiplicity of American (and other) cultures. What is their new mantra of “diversity,” after all, if not an insistence on the presence of many different patches on the quilt of American society? But their celebration of multiculturalism has no room for anything like a majority culture.”

    John –

    Please explain how the legalization of homosexual marriage represents a threat to majority culture. Gay citizens, who seek the rites of marriage, do not propose to outlaw heterosexual marriage but instead seek a society where a broad range of choices about marriage are left to the individual. How does this viewpoint pose a threat to the traditional view of marriage?

  6. Dave Huber November 9, 2004 at 7:24 pm | | Reply

    I’d say that any constitutional change which is intended to forestall a minority from claiming the right to marry (or to unite civilly) has a whiff of old Nuremberg about it.

    But that’s just it. Unless I’m mistaken, the FMA does not forbid civil unions.

    But say civil unions are indeed legalized across the land, but gay “marriage” is not…. but gay civil unions guarantee ALL the benefits analogous to traditional marriage (next of kin, healthcare, etc.).

    Then we’ll hear a “separate but unequal” argument!

  7. Edna W. November 10, 2004 at 4:21 am | | Reply

    Andrew, the first Nuremberg Law did not SIMPLY prevent interbreeding. It also outlawed any Gentile woman under the age of 45 working alone (e.g., as a maid) in a Jewish household. Look it up. That has about as much to do with “breeding” as sodomy does. In fact, it was based on the premise that Jewish men wanted to prey on gullible nubile shikses.

    But Andrew, bubbeleh, you also note that you’re eager to prevent gays from marrying because those darned activist judges (and I assume you don’t mean those activist judges who decided Bush v. Gore) from fostering “pervasive cultural change that at best does nothing good and only risks moral decline on a large scale.” In which case, Andrew, I wonder: What do you make of “Loving v. Virginia”? Which surely was decided by activist judges….considering that there was no LEGISLATIVE decision in the old South which decided that intermarriage was o.k. and that anti-miscegenation laws were a bad idea?

    I’m really curious to have your opinion on THAT, Andrew. Because it strikes me that Loving v. Virginia is the rationale whereby any judicial decision on gay marriage (or civil union) will be decided. Do you feel, Andrew, that black-white intermarriage has caused “moral decline on a large scale”….as its opponents predicted (at the time of Loving v. Virginia) it would? Because I’d just LOVE to hear you argue that one, Andrew. Especially if Tiger Woods is in da house with a nine-iron.

    As for Dave: you stated (in response to my claim that “any constitutional change which is intended to forestall a minority from claiming the right to marry (or to unite civilly) has a whiff of old Nuremberg about it”) that ” the FMA does not forbid civil unions.” Right, the FMA doesn’t. I was talking about the 11 ballot initiatives to amend STATE constitutions. Among those 11, there were some that specifically outlawed any form of “civil union” additionally, as I suggested. (E.g., Oklahoma’s State Question 711, which included language not only defining marriage as “between one man and one woman” but also “prohibit[ing] giving the benefits of marriage to people who are not married”…i.e, NO CIVIL UNIONS, written into the constitution.)

    And finally, for James, (with a blue state inflection on the red state terms)….God bless you.

  8. ernest November 10, 2004 at 6:11 am | | Reply

    Edna — is that you, Cobra?

    (And “Bubele”?!? Isn’t that faux Jiddish kind of blackface, thus completely beyond the pale?)

  9. Stephen November 10, 2004 at 8:35 am | | Reply

    The issue of gay marriage is one of the most compelling non-issues imagineable.

    Perhaps 4% of the population is gay. Since I live and work in one of the most predominantly gay communities in the U.S., I can say with some certainty that I see very little evidence that even a small proportion of gays want to be married. Most of my gay friends complain that they can’t even get a second date. So, we are definitely dealing with less than 1% of the populace when we discuss gay marriage. Much less than 1%.

    Why is so much attention being paid to this if it affects virtually nobody?

    I can only conclude that the symbolic nature of the controversy is what’s really important. It is difficult to imagine how this issue has any practical resonance. I can only think of three reasons why this issue has become so predominant. (1) Gays, for their numbers are actually quite powerful in the media and academia; (2) academia is obsessed with promoting homosexuality for reasons that bewilder me; (3) liberals want a wedge issue that defines them as “enlightened,” and those who oppose them as “bigots.” I tend to think that number 3 is the reason why this has become a public issue.

    Really, why are we paying so much attention to this absolute non-issue?

  10. ELC November 10, 2004 at 10:46 am | | Reply

    “But their celebration of multiculturalism has no room for anything like a majority culture.” Of course not. That’s because the real purpose of muliticulturalism isn’t the celebration or promotion of any culture, minority or not. It’s real purpose is the deconstruction and eventual destruction of Western civilization — because “multiculturalism” is a tactic of cultural Marxism. That’s why one finds so much agreement (as Christopher Hitchens noted just this week) between leftists who promote “multiculturalism” in America and elsewhere in the West, and Islamofascists who want to destroy America and the West: the object and the goal of their hatreds are the same. Promotion of sexual perversity is just another aspect of this cultural deconstruction, besides being a stepping stone towards legitimization of child molestation… er… excuse my insensitivity… besides being a stepping stone towards legitimization of intergenerational intimacy. That might explain, mightn’t it, why so few homosexuals are interested in marriage but there’s such a mighty push for homosexual “marriage”, no? After all, once civil rights are established for practioners of one paraphilia, they’ll eventually be established for all of them. (For evidence of the effect of “gay” “marriage” on real marriage, read Kurtz, Stanley.)

  11. Cobra November 10, 2004 at 12:46 pm | | Reply

    I am not Edna, but I certainly enjoy what she has to say. And I suppose “monoculturalism” is what some are cheering for here?

    –Cobra

  12. Stephen November 10, 2004 at 1:23 pm | | Reply

    The answer to Cobra’s response is Michelle Malkin’s excellent piece today about why the liberal press is agog over Barack Obama. She points out, quite correctly, that the media hysteria over black political figures takes place only when that figure is a Democrat. If that black political figure is a Republican, he must be a “sellout,” or an “Uncle Tom,” or a “race traitor.”

    The enemy against which Cobra constantly pits himself just doesn’t exist. That enemy is a product of his imagination. I do not know why it warms his heart so to dream of the resurgence of the Klan. Paranoids have to have enemies… that’s about all I can say.

    It goes against all we believe, but I’ll state some facts of my life. Most of my gay friends are in their 40s and 50s. They are decidedly conservative, and probably vote Republican. I live in a community just outside Manhattan that is equal parts black, Hispanic, Asian and white. It is a very conservative and religious community, no matter the race. This community is somewhat famous for its white high school basketball coach, who specializes in transforming black bad boys into useful citizens.

    The stereotype of conservative, religious communities as opposed to integration is so much bunk. It is true that most people prefer to live with their own kind. This is as true for blacks as it is for whites. My wife, who is Asian, and I, attended a black Baptist church for an extended period. We were not welcomed, we were never asked to be members of the congregation and we eventually just gave up and quit to attend an evangelical church that is mostly Filipino but welcomes just about all races.

  13. Thor November 10, 2004 at 1:30 pm | | Reply

    I am sorry but Barack Obama is about as black as I am! And I am not black! He was raised by a white mother in HAWAII and never even knew his black father.

    Now Alan Keyes, HE’S black.

  14. John Rosenberg November 10, 2004 at 1:44 pm | | Reply

    “Monoculturalism”? It is my impression that, for better or worse, vast majorities of virtually ALL of the identifiable cultural groupings in the U.S. — whites (granting for the sake of argument that there is such a thing as white culture), blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, and probably even Others — all share a belief that marriage should be restricted to a union between one man and one woman. Perhaps that belief is unwise, and it is no doubt hurtful to some, but why should the preferences of a very small number of people in this society take precedence of the desires of a very large majority of those from myriad cultural backgrounds?

    For whatever it may be worth, I think legislatures have, and should have, authority to provide for gay marriage or civil unions if they so choose. I could easily support either one. But I have yet to be persuaded that there is a right to gay marriage that can and should trump majority sentiment to the contrary.

  15. Edna W. November 10, 2004 at 2:05 pm | | Reply

    John, you say: “Why should the preferences of a very small number of people in this society take precedence of the desires of a very large majority of those from myriad cultural backgrounds?”

    Please explain how permitting homosexuals the right to marry (in some form or other) would in any way represent their “preferences…tak[ing] precedence of the desires of a very large majority”.

    It would extend an existing right to a small minority (who don’t currently have that right), and would not infringe on ANY existing rights of your very large majority.

    So in what way would permitting that small minority of homosexuals to marry be an imposition on the majority?

    I’m shocked, John, that you wouldn’t take a more principled stand on this issue (or non-issue, as some seem to think).

    It seems to me that, for the sake of your readers, you ought to either take a stand against the FMA, et al., as real discrimination….or else provide us with one of those fabulous slippery-slope arguments that you do so well, in which permitting gay marriage will result in Rick Santorum eloping with your (male) schnauzer ten years hence, then setting up a Mormon harem with Jim McGreevey.

  16. Stephen November 10, 2004 at 2:12 pm | | Reply

    Being against gay marriage is not discrimation. It’s just sanity.

    Outside of the precincts of deluded intellectualism, just about everybody in the world knows this.

    Edna, you’ve ignored my post. Gay marriage is a non-issue. Go back and read it.

    I think that you fall clearly in category 3. You have an emotional need to set yourself up as a champion of human rights, and a consequent need to constantly define some evil group as “bigots.” This is a hangover of the 60s religion, in which human rights crises must constantly be on the front burner, not matter how inconsequential and silly those human rights crises might be.

    There is no other explanation for your absorption in the ludicrous and fantastical issue of gay marriage. It’s a mental disorder.

  17. John from OK November 10, 2004 at 3:04 pm | | Reply

    Bottom line for me:

    No tax breaks or extra social security benefits because 2 guys got “married”, with no expectation of monogamy, no stigma attached to extramarital sex, and no stigma attached to divorce. Their marriage is a hell of a lot easier than ours.

    I don’t have a link but apparently in

    Canada, not only have judges made gay marriage legal, but one also ruled that gay partners are entitled to RETROACTIVE tax breaks and benefits, costing the Canadian treasury a few billion dollars. Can’t happen here? Our judges are capable of anything.

    BTW, that’s the real fear among evangelicals in Oklahoma: what the judiciary will do next.

    Finally, on behalf of the red 51%, I would like to thank those MA judges and the S.F. mayor who equate marriage amendments with Nuremburg law, for giving us 4 more years of Republican rule!

  18. John Rosenberg November 10, 2004 at 3:27 pm | | Reply

    Edna – First, and foremost, I have a female Labrador (Charlotte, so my daughter Jessie, when she was a bit younger, could call our house Charlotte’s Villa, which takes on additional meaning when you note that we live near Charlottesville), not a male Schnauzer.

    I’m sorry I bother you by not taking a stand, or a more principled stand, on the DOMA or the FMA etc. I try to avoid taking principled stands until and unless I have a principled position to advocate, and, for better or worse, here I don’t. There are good principled arguments on both, or all, sides, and I haven’t sorted them out yet to my own satisfaction.

    Finally, gay marriage would be an imposition on the majority in almost precisely the same way that legalizing polygamy would be an imposition on those who believe marriage should be monogamous. Again, I think a legislature could reasonably (and legally) provide for gay marriage, but I don’t know of a rights-based argument for gay marriage that would not also apply to those who desire plural marriage.

  19. Edna W. November 10, 2004 at 4:07 pm | | Reply

    Stephen, I ignored your post because you don’t seem to have anything valuable to say. Apart from claiming that gay marriage would apply to such a small minority (based on your survey of the gay community, from your vantage as an evangelical Christian) that it’s not worth permitting or debating.

    So gay marriage applies to a small one-percent of the population (in your estimate). Didja feel the same way about the estate tax, Steve? It also applies to a teensy one-percent of the population (after they die).

    And you think that it’s outrageous to make the Nuremberg comparison? Funny, Grover Norquist did the same thing regarding the estate tax. (As Grover said: “the morality of the Holocaust” is visible in saying ” ‘Well, it’s only a small percentage,’ you know. ‘I mean, it’s not you, it’s somebody else.’ “)

    So, did you think that Grover had “an emotional need to set yourself up as a champion of human rights, and a consequent need to constantly define some evil group as bigots.” (In Grover’s case, he openly compared Democrats to Nazis.)

    Did you question Grover’s sanity as you did mine?

    Also Stephen…..from your vantage as an outer borough New Yorker…you tell us with authority that the gays you know complain they could never get a second date. (You also tell us that your gay New York friends “probably vote Republican”, which really suggests that they’re all having an elaborate joke at your expense when they talk to you.)

    In any case, Stephen, take the F train down to Park Slope. Have you ever met a Lesbian, pal? If so, did SHE complain that she was tired of the promiscuous Don Juanita scene of the Lesbian bars, and couldn’t get a second date? You seem to be basing your confident figure of “less than 1 percent” of homosexuals desiring marriage on gay MEN.

    (You seemed to be alluding to an old joke: Q: What does a gay man bring on a second date? A: What second date? Well it’s also worth recalling another joke: Q: What does a Lesbian bring on a second date? A: The moving van, and all three cats.)

    If you actually thought about marriage rights applying to LESBIANS, you’d realize that it’s not something that affects a very small percentage. It’s something that affects nearly every Lesbian in America (with the possible exception of Karen Hughes).

    -=-=-

    And John, sorry to have misidentified your dog (it was a hypothetical dog in my earlier post, I didn’t realize you had one).

    And also, thanks for obliging me with the slippery slope. I knew you’d come through on it.

    In what way would allowing gay marriage somehow also let polygamy in the back door? Civil unions are a contract between two persons (of whatever gender), and no more than two. Case closed.

    But John, I’m only badgering you on this point for the sake of a larger issue: I think that anyone who bothers to think about politics is going to realize that BOTH parties, Democratic and Republican, are a bad fit as far as principles go. I think we’re undergoing a shift in political alignment comparable to what happened in the 1930s. The uneasy coalitions of BOTH parties are going to fall apart….I mean, has Karl Rove realized yet that, when the Rapture happens next year, the Stock Market will crash? So much for the alliance of evangelicals and free-marketeers.

    So basically, John, I suspect (not to pigeonhole you) that you have enough basic libertarian decency to realize that the gay marriage debate must result either in gays’ right to marry, or in the government’s withdrawal from marriage altogether (as the Cato Institute suggests).

    But if you actually came out and said that, you might erode your readership base, huh?

    (Although frankly, shedding someone like Stephen wouldn’t be such a loss.)

  20. Stephen November 10, 2004 at 4:51 pm | | Reply

    Edna, you live in a fantasy world.

    I know that people who lived in the hermetically sealed universe of liberal New York like to get worked up over the nonsense that fascinates you.

    It’s just silly stuff. You are a very silly, overly self-involved person. You are a drama queen. I’ve met plenty of them.

    The fantasy of belonging to an “oppressed” minority has been the favorite of rich kids like you for 50 years.

    It doesn’t surprise me. I’ve heard plenty of it.

    Try reality. It’s not so bad.

    You have absolutely no complaint in this life. You have nothing coming to you because you like to fantasize that you are black and living in the Jim Crow south.

    It is a sin to do this, but sinners are everywhere.

  21. Stephen November 10, 2004 at 5:07 pm | | Reply

    Edna,

    When are rich, spoiled, college educated kids going to stop pretending that they are among the “oppressed” suffering under the boot heels of the “bigots”?

    I’ve been to Park Slope plenty of times. You are the standard issue one would expect from that community.

    The pretenses of your life should shame you. But then, you are surrounded by rich, spoiled college educated kids who support your fantasies. Hell, I own a house in Woodstock, NY. Your kind is manufactured by liberal arts programs like so much sausage.

    Gay marriage is a non-issue that we should all ignore. Ignoring and laughing at drama queens is a good start.

    Your reply caused me to almost all off my chair laughing at your ridiculous pretensions. Thanks for the laugh. It made my day.

  22. Edna W. November 10, 2004 at 11:03 pm | | Reply

    Golly, Stephen, you had to reply TWICE in the space of twenty minutes? I must have really touched a nerve.

    Both responses wholly ad hominem, which I wouldn’t mind if you made some kind of point to go along with the abuse.

    Interestingly….you make all sorts of assumptions about me (that I live in NYC, I attended a liberal arts college, I think I belong to an “oppressed minority”, I’m a rich kid) none of which are true.

    Well: I don’t live in NYC, I attended a large university and majored in the sciences, I’m not a Lesbian (if that’s what you’re implying) and I’m nowhere near rich, and was not raised rich.

    Not everyone who disagrees with you is part of some cartoon-version of a cultural elite. You don’t know me. But I adore the assumptions you make…because you can’t respond to my arguments.

    So: why don’t you re-read my posts and make an actual argument? I’m sure that your Lord, if not your mail-order bride, can help you do so.

  23. Kenneth Jordi November 11, 2004 at 4:36 am | | Reply

    Dear Edna,

    Stephen doesn’t need responding to your arguments — the American electorate did it, time and again, and the answer happened to be “No to Same-Sex-Marriage”.

    You can go and call it Nurembergian or Djengis Khanian or whatever, at the end of the day most Americans prefer that marriage be limited to one man and one woman at a time.

    Every time the question of same-sex marriage is put before the public, the public emphatically says no. In 13 states this year — in Missouri on Aug. 3, Louisiana on Sept. 18, and Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Ohio, Utah, and Oregon on Nov. 2 — voters faced proposed constitutional amendments limiting marriage to one man and one woman. In all 13 states the amendments were approved, by majorities ranging from 57 percent in Oregon to 86 percent in Mississippi.

    And this year was by no means an anomaly. In 2002, voters in Nevada approved a similar constitutional amendment. So did voters in Nebraska and California in 2000, and in Alaska and Hawaii in 1998. Each time, the margin of victory was huge.

    And if you think that doesn’t matter because the SCOTUS will give you what you want anyway — well, that remains to be seen. The justices may not share your antipathy to democracy or your eagerness to ride roughshod over representative government. Particularly when the president has just won re-election, and Republican control of Congress has just been strengthened.

  24. KRM November 11, 2004 at 3:54 pm | | Reply

    Edna – Please provide one cogent arguement that applies to opening marriage to same sex couples that could not be easily applied to groups of three or more. The fact that the polygamy lobby is not as large, or as currently en vogue in academia and the MSM, as the gay agenda lobby is not a cogent arguement.

  25. Stephen November 11, 2004 at 4:21 pm | | Reply

    “So: why don’t you re-read my posts and make an actual argument? I’m sure that your Lord, if not your mail-order bride, can help you do so.”

    And, Edna, you are an overt racist.

    That has become the usual for people like you.

  26. Cobra November 11, 2004 at 8:22 pm | | Reply

    This is absolutely beautiful! So much drama, and I’m not in the middle of it. I’d just as soon lurk, and drink it all in without response, but…

    That wouldn’t be me, now would it?

    Thor writes:

    >>>I am sorry but Barack Obama is about as black as I am! And I am not black! He was raised by a white mother in HAWAII and never even knew his black father.

    Now Alan Keyes, HE’S black.>>The One drop theory is the belief that a person with any traceable non-white, especially African ancestry, should be regarded as not being “white,” irrespective of the person’s own apparent physical characteristics (even “one drop” of non-white “blood” disqualifying the person from being reckoned as white).”

    –http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/one%20drop%20theory

    Given the fact that white conservative anti-miscegenationists would denote people who had a black ancestor 8 generations ago not white, (they called people who were 1/32th black “quintoons”), you might actually be correct in your statement that Obama is about as black as you are. Like many Americans are discovering through DNA, there may be a negro in your family’s historical woodpile.

    Stephen,

    Well, at least you found somebody other than me to demonize, and for that I’m eternally greatful. But you’re taking it easy on Edna. You call me a “gang member” every time I post something you disagree with. And for your info, Michelle Malkin is the same psycopath touting a new book here:

    http://michellemalkin.com/books.htm

    I’ll leave Malkin’s novel idea of bringing back ETHNIC INTERNMENT CAMPS for your own entertainment value.

    But you did write a line I found poignant:

    >>>Most of my gay friends complain that they can’t even get a second date.>>Perhaps that belief is unwise, and it is no doubt hurtful to some, but why should the preferences of a very small number of people in this society take precedence of the desires of a very large majority of those from myriad cultural backgrounds?>>*Alabama has a law saying no one under 16 year old can have sex.

    **Alabama has a law saying children over 14 year old can marry.

    ***Alabama must either forbid these two married children from having sex, –OR–

    Alabama must say married children 14 & 15 can have sex but unmarried can’t.”

    from http://www.ageofconsent.com

    Now, I’m sure John, that 14 year olds getting married might “impose” on somebody’s sense of morality, no matter what gender they are. But it just illustrates the backwards nature of America in regards to sex, marriage and morals.

    For those using the Bible to base their attacks on gay marriage, remember the Bible also condemns mixed-thread clothing,shrimp-cocktails, intimate relations between Jews and Gentiles, idolatry, working on the sabbath, covetous thoughts, witchcraft, bacon-cheeseburgers, and women going outside in public during their menstrual cycles.

    I’d like a show of hands of people not guilty of any of the above.

    –Cobra

  27. Cobra November 11, 2004 at 8:23 pm | | Reply

    This is absolutely beautiful! So much drama, and I’m not in the middle of it. I’d just as soon lurk, and drink it all in without response, but…

    That wouldn’t be me, now would it?

    Thor writes:

    >>>I am sorry but Barack Obama is about as black as I am! And I am not black! He was raised by a white mother in HAWAII and never even knew his black father.

    Now Alan Keyes, HE’S black.>>The One drop theory is the belief that a person with any traceable non-white, especially African ancestry, should be regarded as not being “white,” irrespective of the person’s own apparent physical characteristics (even “one drop” of non-white “blood” disqualifying the person from being reckoned as white).”

    –http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/one%20drop%20theory

    Given the fact that white conservative anti-miscegenationists would denote people who had a black ancestor 8 generations ago not white, (they called people who were 1/32th black “quintoons”), you might actually be correct in your statement that Obama is about as black as you are. Like many Americans are discovering through DNA, there may be a negro in your family’s historical woodpile.

    Stephen,

    Well, at least you found somebody other than me to demonize, and for that I’m eternally greatful. But you’re taking it easy on Edna. You call me a “gang member” every time I post something you disagree with. And for your info, Michelle Malkin is the same psycopath touting a new book here:

    http://michellemalkin.com/books.htm

    I’ll leave Malkin’s novel idea of bringing back ETHNIC INTERNMENT CAMPS for your own entertainment value.

    But you did write a line I found poignant:

    >>>Most of my gay friends complain that they can’t even get a second date.>>Perhaps that belief is unwise, and it is no doubt hurtful to some, but why should the preferences of a very small number of people in this society take precedence of the desires of a very large majority of those from myriad cultural backgrounds?>>*Alabama has a law saying no one under 16 year old can have sex.

    **Alabama has a law saying children over 14 year old can marry.

    ***Alabama must either forbid these two married children from having sex, –OR–

    Alabama must say married children 14 & 15 can have sex but unmarried can’t.”

    from http://www.ageofconsent.com

    Now, I’m sure John, that 14 year olds getting married might “impose” on somebody’s sense of morality, no matter what gender they are. But it just illustrates the backwards nature of America in regards to sex, marriage and morals.

    For those using the Bible to base their attacks on gay marriage, remember the Bible also condemns mixed-thread clothing,shrimp-cocktails, intimate relations between Jews and Gentiles, idolatry, working on the sabbath, covetous thoughts, witchcraft, bacon-cheeseburgers, and women going outside in public during their menstrual cycles.

    I’d like a show of hands of people not guilty of any of the above.

    –Cobra

  28. John from OK November 12, 2004 at 12:31 am | | Reply

    “The very theory of America (though not always practiced) was the rights of the minority would be recognized despite the wishes of the majority.”

    I’ll be sure to tell that to all my relatives in CA so they don’t worry so much. It seems they are under the illusion that we have majority rule in this country and that elections actually mean something.

    Happy Veterans Day.

  29. Cobra November 12, 2004 at 7:51 am | | Reply

    John,

    Are you claiming that minorities don’t have rights in California?

    –Cobra

  30. . November 12, 2004 at 5:13 pm | | Reply

    The “Gay Marriage” debate could have been framed as looking for a legal equivalent of marriage for nontraditional partnerships. This was not pursued. Gay marriage proponents rarely/never acknowledge that the state has a vested interest in certain types of social institutions.

    Basically, the entire thing feels to me to have been designed as a political ploy for a culture war. Like many other people in this country, I’m not interested in the war, but I blame the activists for framing it that way, and hope they lose horribly for doing so. I’m not happy to get called a bigot for expressing reservations about letting some decade-old principled vision of a utopia override thousands of years of established human culture. Trying to reshape human nature to fit a vision hasn’t worked out well in the 20th century.

  31. Edna W. November 15, 2004 at 3:51 am | | Reply

    I’m not sure who just said that he’d never let “some some decade-old principled vision of a utopia override thousands of years of established human culture”…which is why he opposes gay marriage….but let’s consider those thousands of years.

    And let’s consider them in the context of Judeo-Christian culture, since that seems to be what won this election!

    I think if you take a closer look at those thousands of years, you’ll find that the Bible (for example) clearly sanctions polygamy.

    When you define marriage as between “a man and a woman”, I think you need to ask yourself, friend….Are you accusing the holy patriarchs and pillars of the Christian faith of immoral trendy-lefty behavior?

    Abraham himself had more than one wife at the same time, and his offspring–indeed the whole of Abraham’s line, the whole race of Jacob, and the twelve tribes of Israel–were considered legitimate. Remember: Deut. 23:2 forbids bastards from entering the priesthood, ergo, BOTH of Abraham’s marriages were considered legitimate by GOD.

    So please, don’t pretend like the idea of marriage as defined simply between “one man and one woman” is a very old, Burkeanly organic concept.

    GOD HIMSELF disagrees with you on the definition of marriage.

  32. Gyp November 15, 2004 at 8:53 am | | Reply

    “GOD HIMSELF disagrees with you on the definition of marriage.”

    “For those using the Bible to base their attacks on gay marriage, remember the Bible also condemns mixed-thread clothing,shrimp-cocktails, intimate relations between Jews and Gentiles, idolatry, working on the sabbath, covetous thoughts, witchcraft, bacon-cheeseburgers, and women going outside in public during their menstrual cycles.”

    I thought you all knew better than to quote things out-of-context. Most of that stuff ya’ll listed is all in the OLD testament–it was abolished in the NEW testament, which is where Christianity comes from. Talk to Jews–Orthodox Jews–about that, fine, but you can’t throw the Old Testament at Christians when a lot of the rules were taken away in the New. The only stuff in the list up there that you can really bring up is as follows:

    homosexuality, idolatry, covetous(sp?) thoughts, and witchcraft. That’s still not allowed. We–Christians–may do it, but that doesn’t make it any more appropriate. Marriage is defined in the New Testament as a union between one man and one woman. Period. That’s it. That’s where all the controversy comes from.

    Now, I do agree that you can’t use the Bible to prove a point to someone who doesn’t believe that it is the Truth, but if you are going to use the Bible in an arguement you need to make sure you have all the facts straight.

  33. Cobra November 16, 2004 at 10:32 am | | Reply

    Gyp writes:

    >>>Most of that stuff ya’ll listed is all in the OLD testament–it was abolished in the NEW testament, which is where Christianity comes from. Talk to Jews–Orthodox Jews–about that, fine, but you can’t throw the Old Testament at Christians when a lot of the rules were taken away in the New.”

    Could you please explain to me WHY many fundamentalist Christians are seeking to place the 10 Commandments in public buildings, since the 10 Commandments are most certainly Old Testiment rules?

    –Cobra

Say What?