Please visit the new home of Majikthise at bigthink.com/blogs/focal-point.

« Ancient Greek joke book foreshadows Monty Python's "Dead Parrot" sketch | Main | Rick Perlstein at NYU »

November 13, 2008

Dan Savage vs. Tony Perkins on Prop 8

[HT:Daily Dish.]

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c61e653ef010535ec9272970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Dan Savage vs. Tony Perkins on Prop 8:

Comments

Some people don't understand the difference between rites, and rights.

Love this footage.

I shut it off at the four-minute mark. The moderation was not just a failure; it was nonexistent. With both parties speaking at once and apparently neither of them listening, I saw no point in continuing.

Oh boy. Keep posting Dan Savage on.

The same old comparisons with interracial marriage, references to "homophobia", bla bla bla.

And for this same stale baloney he interrupts the other guy every time he tries to speak for 15 seconds or more. This is the ugly face of the marriage redefinition movement.

Anderson Cooper is indeed a weak moderator. Under these circumstances, after one warning, he should have killed Savage's mike when Perkins was speaking. There would have been no need to do vice versa

It's such a canard to blame the California courts for legislating from the bench on gay marriage.

California recognizes a substantive constitutional right to marry. The right to marry is much older than the gay rights movement. In fact, this legal right has been part of California's jurisprudence since before "gay" was a household word.

Legally, the right is about being able to marry the adult of your choice and form a legally recognized and protected family with them. The scope of that right was tested by laws against interracial marriage. Back in the day, the courts decided that the right to marry the person you love trumped any laws on the books restricting the right to marry to same-race pairings.

The question, then, was whether it was constitutional in California to restrict a right possessed by all Californians to people who want to marry someone of the opposite sex. The court correctly concluded that it was not.

The people of California , those bigots who elected Obama, apparently do not agree, despite malicious interference by the state court. Nor do the people from the other states.

A few judges in a few states can be seen applauding however.

Okay. If the sole purpose of marriage is to produce children, could The Phantom please explain - because Tony didn't - why infertile couples are allowed to marry?

Hey, The Phantom Homer, if we want your opinion, we'll slap Tony Perkin's dick out of your mouth.

Until then, go peddle your hate on Stormfront.

The people of California , those bigots who elected Obama, apparently do not agree, despite malicious interference by the state court. Nor do the people from the other states.

Yeah, 52% of them disagree. That's a real consensus you have there.

Hey, The Phantom Homer, if we want your opinion, we'll slap Tony Perkin's dick out of your mouth.

TB, there's no such thing as "We." You're the shrillest commenter here by a mile; your "we" refers to yourself and perhaps the FDL nitwits who came up with the idea of calling Ellen Tauscher a whore.

Speaking as one of those "bigots", I've gotta ask, Phantom...do you enjoy coming here and baiting people by calling them names, like, oh, I don't know..."bigots"? Does it satisfy you if they lose their tempers and respond with name-calling? Do you feel superior? I can't imagine you have any other reason for posting here...

"You're the shrillest commenter here by a mile ... "

Here Alon, you dropped your hankie. Try not to get a case of the vapors when clutching your pearls next time.

Alon

The 53% is a low water mark. If the idiots dare try a ballot initiative anytime soon, it will be over 60%

The 53% here was lower than it ordinarily would have been due to an Obama landslide in California. ( the Obama who is secretly for gay marriage though he pretends to oppose it)

TB fails to even annoy. He is the true voice of leftist antiintellectualism here

culture

I'm a name caller? Have you ever read the works of TB?

Why do I come here? It is none of your business. Perhaps its because I like to see what the far left has to say. Perhaps its because I like to amuse myself by doing battle with the intellectually anarmed, ten to one ( unarmed is by no means all here. There's some thoughtful, whimsical comment. And then there is what TB and ilk come out with every time they log on )

I wish Tony Perkins would google some of those studies he's always talking about! He won't of course, because he's a kook.

Kooks always have problems with teh google for some weird reason. :P

Along with those sneaky liberal judges, I apparently just don’t get it, so Phantom, please explain:

- How marriage as a civil, legal contractual arrangement differs from all other contractual relationships, as conservatives seem to think it does.
- Why the civil/secular institution of marriage needs in any way to take religious ideas of marriage of any sort into account.
- Exactly how permitting homosexual marriage will erode, or corrupt, or besmirch (or whatever it is that conservatives think is going to happen) civil and/or religious marriage.
- Why anyone who does not belong to a church that fetishizes straight marriage needs to waste a moment’s time of a short life worrying about what those churches think.
- (This is from your comment on another thread) What is it about two hairy men marrying or having sex that makes you and other conservatives so queasy? Marriage/sex is more appetizing between hairless boys? Why?

The CA Constitution will have the last word in CA, and the CA Constitution has an equal protection clause.

Prop 8 won't stand.

Guv Arnie already stated that the same sex marriages that have already taken place, REAL MARRIAGES, will not be nullified.

Phantom is a bigot. Why does he/she come here? To be the skunk at the garden party. It's how he/she gets his kicks. Sad life he/she has.

Again, some people don't know the difference between religious rites, and civil rights.

To echo what cfrost has said (more or less) despite all of The Phantom Homers thrashing, I have yet to hear him say why gay marriage is so bad.

What's the negative here?

What shouldn't gay people marry?

Sure sure, there's all that laws and precedent stuff, but that's by and large BS; half thought out "reasoning" that thinks the issue is something that is mala en se when it's acutally mala prohibita.

It all boils down to this: Why should gays have rights taken away?

The 53% is a low water mark. If the idiots dare try a ballot initiative anytime soon, it will be over 60%

Maybe, but that will be because there's a built-in public opposition to each ballot initiative.

On the other hand, California's demographics favor more SSM support, not less. Young voters support SSM by large margins; old ones oppose it. Blacks, who are leaving California, are the most anti-SSM racial group; Latinos, who are moving in, are anti-SSM by a few points, but for them the generational gap matters more since most of the Latino growth in California comes from the young. Nonreligious voters, a large, rapidly growing group, opposed the proposition 9-to-1.

And honestly, the anti-SSM side was better funded. Inexplicably, the pro-SSM organizations never put out posters of Obama saying he opposed prop 8, which he did; however, the anti-SSM groups said Obama was against gay marriage. When you come right down to it, gay rights groups are still more comfortable fighting in court, so the tactics they used were litigious rather than political. Occasionally, gay rights group do engage in politics, and then they sometimes win, as they did in Arizona two years ago.

Excuse me but could we boot TB from the room? He's pretty offensive and adds nothing to the dialogue.

That:

http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2008/11/dan-savage-vs-t.html#comment-139130784

is adding nothing Jack?

I just have a low tolerance for bigots that advocate the removal of rights.

Oh, and one other thing Jack, you know what's offensive?

Being threatened by homophobes as my ex-wife and I walked down the street; she had short hair and overly broad shoulders from being a nationally ranked rower. "Hey faggots! Want a beating?" That happened three times.

You know what's offensive?

Visiting a friend in the hospital who was nearly fag-bashed to death.

You know what's offensive?

Seeing another friend get completely disowned by his family because he was gay ... and then after he died, his partner of more than a decade having to go through having their house raided by said family to recover "family property" since the family was the closest living relatives. I had that happen to TWO sets of gay friends.

You know what's offensive?

A gay couple who were friends of mine who, after spending years and tens of thousands of dollars caring for one of their terminally ill parents weren't even allowed into the church for the funeral by relatives.

My WORDS offend you?

In the words of Ian McKay, boo-fucking-hoo.

Let me just add that the 52% is the high water mark for bigots like Phantom.

It's over.

You're probably right mudkitty 52% is the high water mark for this sort of thing.

If you look at what the support was last time around (the low 60% range) to what it is now, and look at the demographic trends in both who supports and who is against this sort of thing, being anti-gay anything is a waning trend.

In 40 years, our children will look back on opposing gay marriage the way people of today look back on Loving v. Virginia.

mudkitty

Tell it to the voters in 30 states.

Tell it to your Barack Obama, who agrees with my definition of what marriage is.

cfrost

You're a thinking person, unlike TB and unlike mudkitty.

I won't spend much time on this here, as it's been kicked around these pages many times, and there's simply not much point in doing it in detail all over again

This is a very new idea, that nearly no one even heard of until 10-15 years ago. Some idiot here says that he heard of it in 1980 or maybe 1880 or 1780, but I take that with the same grain of salt as everything else that he says. He's a liar, and an angry liar at that. All here, including he himself, know it.

Marriage is fundamental to societal organization. It's not simply a contract as the one I might sign with mail you ten widgets at a set price - its a form of social recognition.

Nearly everyone wants to have some limits on what should be a recognized marriage.

Some societies are fine with marriages that include brides or grooms aged as young as 14 or below. Americans by and large do not

Some societies, including Arabic, Muslim, African, and a surprisingly large number of neo Mormon "families" in Utah, Nevada are organized along the lines of polygamy - one man and multiple wives. These ancient forms of family and marriage are not recognized by Americans, despite the fact that there are not necessarily any victims or any exploitation in such relationahips.

The brand shiny new concept of "gay marriage" -marriage without a bride or without a groom - is proposed as the pressing matter of the age by those who by and large wish to deny marriage rights to polygamists and others who deviate from real marriage.

Marriage is largely an institution to protect children. I think that children are by necessity harmed when they grow up without both a father and mother. Doesn't mean that single mothers or occasionally single fathers cannot do a good job in the absence of a partner, I do say that it's sad to see children brought up by a so called married couple that do not include either a mother or father.

I've seen children ( girls ) brought up by such fatherless families ( two lesbians who split up, leaving only the biological mother to raise her ) Its obvious to all - including the mother by the way - who doesn't lie and bullshit on blogs just to prove a point -- that the child has suffered from the lack of a father in her life.

Not all married couples have children, but not all polygamists have them either.

The fact is that not all relationships are going to be sanctioned by society. Not by me, and not by the angry foot stamping little TBs and mudkittys of this world either.

Gays should not be messed with, but neither should the rest of society.

This isn't mainly an issue of rights- its an issue of status.

Militant gays want to have equal recognition to what they would call "straight marriage". Sorry, that's not on.

Civil unions can address the needs of gay couples ( but not of gay polygamists if they exist ) but you're not going to get most people to agree that gay relationships are just as good as normal relationships.

They're not. Stamp your feet all you want. I won't belabor the point, but this is a truth, and I think that a lot of you realize this but will never say it here.

Since every one of you draw the line somewhere on what society should recognize as a legally recognized recognized marriage, I will avail myself of the same right.

Marriage is between one adult man and one adult woman. Period. If you disagree, I won't call you names, like some here are wont to do

"California recognizes a substantive constitutional right to marry. The right to marry is much older than the gay rights movement. In fact, this legal right has been part of California's jurisprudence since before "gay" was a household word."

your misreading of Supreme Court case law on the subject of marriage: you are making the same mistake the New York Court points out in its recent decision. Discussing the Supreme Court precedents of Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987); Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)

Judge Graffeo noted….

“To ignore the meaning ascribed to the right to marry in these cases and substitute another meaning in its place is to redefine the right in question and to tear the resulting new right away from the very roots that caused the U.S. Supreme Court and this Court to recognize marriage as a fundamental right in the first place.”2


2 - Andersen v. King County (J. Graffeo concurring)

I shut it off at the four-minute mark. The moderation was not just a failure; it was nonexistent.

Feature, not bug, Ted. A cursory browse around the cable news channels will quickly demonstrate that yelling, cross-talk, and constant interruption is the norm and not the exception. I don't like it either, but apparently somebody out there does, or the networks would presumably do things differently. Moderation is boring; shouting matches are "edgy."

And honestly, the anti-SSM side was better funded.

It was also dishonest, Alon. A lot of the propaganda behind Prop 8 intimated that churches were in danger of being "forced" to marry same-sex couples. In reality, of course, churches can refuse to marry any couple, for any reason or no reason whatsoever, and no one is proposing changing that in any way. You have to wonder what the outcome might have been had one side not resorted to that kind of deliberate distortion of the facts.

UK

But all government entities would be forced to perform same sex marriages and to recognize them

And all schools would have indoctrinated students in the normalcy of this change. Many parents want no part of this.

The comments to this entry are closed.