One area of miscommunication in the marriage equality debate is about words like “bigot” and “homophobe.” Marriage equality opponents, quite understandably, don’t like being called bigots and homophobes. They might genuinely have nothing against lesbians and gays; some of them have good friends who are lesbian or gay, and some of them are lesbian or gay themselves.
The problem here, I think, stems from two different definitions of “bigotry.” Marriage equality opponents think “bigot,” in this context, means “someone who hates lesbians and gays.”
Speaking for myself, that’s only one possible meaning of “bigot” or “homophobe.” Another meaning, which is how I tend to use those words in the context of the marriage equality debate, is “someone who favors an unequal legal status for lesbians and gays.” And by that latter definition, it makes perfect sense to describe those who oppose marriage equality as homophobes and bigots.
This is no different from how I view any other issue involving bigotry. To reuse an example, consider someone in the 1960s who favored laws and rules excluding Jews from fancy country clubs. That person may have had many close Jewish friends; perhaps they only favored the exclusions because they valued the club’s longstanding traditions. But regardless of this person’s personal love for Jews, they nonetheless favored one law for gentiles and a different law for Jews, and that made them an anti-Semite.
Put another way, our opponents think that being a homophobe is only about what’s in their heart. I think that being a homophobe can be about what’s in one’s heart, but it can also be about what’s in one’s policies.
Of course, it may make marriage equality opponents – some of whom I quite like and respect – uncomfortable or unhappy to be described thus. I’m sorry about that; but truth doesn’t cease being true just because it makes some people uncomfortable. If the stigma bothers them that much, they can avoid it by changing their minds and favoring equality between gays and straights..
Point well taken, Amp. I think the part that pisses me off is that . . . well . . . these words mean things. I mean, “bigot” and “prejudiced” have actual, specific, real-world meanings, and when we apply them to people, that’s usually because those people meet those definitions.
If you believe in a Constitutional Amendment permanently denying the right to marry to one group of Americans, you believe in inequality. That’s not some crazy-ass insult I yanked out of my ass. That’s a descriptor.
It’s like: If I argued explicitly for nationalization of all private business, it wouldn’t really be “red-baiting” to call me a communist sympathizer, would it? I wouldn’t get to whine and bitch and moan about how people are calling names, right? Well, the same thing applies here. People who advocate bigotry and prejudice get called prejudiced bigots.
If you don’t like it, don’t argue with me, argue with Mr. Merriam and Mr. Webster.
—JRC
Very well said. It seems like marriage equality opponents redefine terms like “bigot” in order to suit their policies. How can they sleep at night, I wonder? The concept is so simply, but so many people don’t get it. If your only defense to being a bigot is that you don’t discriminate as much as someone else, you are still a bigot. I think these people have a case of cognitive dissonance, where they change their attitudes to fit their actions.
This is an important distinction to make. Way too many people believe that racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. are just a matter of having bad feelings, personally, towards members of particular groups; so any attempt to challenge someone on behavior that has the **objective effect** of hurting other people just because they are members of a particular group is stymied with something like the following non-response: “But I’m not a racist! I don’t have any bad feelings about Black people!” (Connected with this is the frequent attack on the Left that, by challenging oppression, and oppressive practices, we are acting as “thought police.”)
On the other hand, there is a point that’s not raised here, which I think is important to raise. We’re not entirely free of blame for this confusion, when it comes to words like “homophobia” and “bigotry” in particular; isn’t it true that the tendency towards the exclusive focus on personal attitudes rather than objective structures is, to some extent, built into the way that these words are constructed? I mean, if a pseudopsychological term like homo**phobia** _isn’t_ supposed to call attention to personal psychological factors, then what in the world __would__ be?
his isn’t to say that we should ditch the words “homophobic” or “bigot”. They’re serviceable words, they work well enough for what they do, and we can make the distinctions we need to make even if it goes against the grain of how the words are constructed. But we should be aware that we are going against the grain, and understand that when discussion is diverted to irrelevant arguments about personal attitudes — the sort of arguments that you rightly complain of — the language that we’re using to describe people who are anti-gay is partly to blame. (Even if we don’t _intend_ for it to be taken that way: objective conditions are as important as subjective conditions in language, no less than in politics!)
I once read a book by a guy named Gene Marine that pointed out the distinctioon between racism and bigotry. He said that bigotry was an actual hatred of folks of color/women/GLBTs—but he referred to racism as the unconscious assumption brainwashed into people from the get-go that white is normal. And he referred to sexism (he called it “masculinism” as the same assumption—just sub male for white.
So yeah, you’re right about not all same-sex marriage opponets are outright bigots (although the most vocal ones ARE, IMHO). But I do believe they harbor an unconscious assumption about heterosexual normality—especially het marriage—that they need to own up to. I call this heterosexism.
In my opinion a movement must arise against what I call NORMALISM.
I once read a book by a guy named Gene Marine that pointed out the distinctioon between racism and bigotry. He said that bigotry was an actual hatred of folks of color/women/GLBTs—but he referred to racism as the unconscious assumption brainwashed into people from the get-go that white is normal. And he referred to sexism (he called it “masculinism” as the same assumption—just sub male for white.
So yeah, you’re right about not all same-sex marriage opponets are outright bigots (although the most vocal ones ARE, IMHO). But I do believe they harbor an unconscious assumption about heterosexual normality—especially het marriage—that they need to own up to. I call this heterosexism.
In my opinion a movement must arise against what I call NORMALISM.
Hmm. The argument sounds good on the surface, but ignores that most marriage opponents view homosexuality as immoral and the result of personal choice, not biology. They see a difference between being black and being gay – in thier perspective, one can’t choose one’s race, but one can choose not to have gay sex. And therefore, for them, laws ought to prohibit homosexual acts, or at least not reward people for them.
Coming from their perspective, your reasoning could be used to say that it’s bigotry to deny convicted felons the right to vote.
I don’t think it’s an issue of bigotry as much as it is an issue of scapegoating.
John,
Okay, let’s scrap the racism is to sexuality comparisons. How about substituting religion for race in the equation? Being a Jew or a Muslim or a Christian or a Buddhist is a matter of personal choice, not biology. Why don’t we prohibit any of those groups from civil marriage?
Being Jewish is both racial and religious; one can be Jewish without practicing Judaism.
But that’s beside the point – I’m not sure how to answer your question because my insight into people with whom I disagree only goes so far. But I suppose that since it isn’t common for conservatives to think that being Muslim or Jewish is immoral, they therefore feel that it’d be bigoted to prohibit them from civil marriage. Then, too, allowing Muslims to marry wouldn’t be seen as a state endorsement of Islam, but allowing gays ot marry will be seen as a state endorsement of what many conservatives feel is immoral.
There’s two elements to consider here: the personal decision to engage in a behavior, and the moraility of the behavior itself. That’s why I used my convicted felons example.
John, the supposed immorality of behavior that harms no one should never be used to justify laws. I couldn’t care less if same-sex opponents think homosexuality is a choice; whether it is or not has no bearing on whether banning SSM is discriminatory.
There’s a huge difference between someone who commits a crime against someone else and somebody who loves someone else, so I really don’t think your convicted-felon example applies.
And Rad Geek, would you agree that it makes sense to describe arguments as objectively racist, bigoted, etc.?
Hestia,
Here’s a stab at answering your question:
“And Rad Geek, would you agree that it makes sense to describe arguments as objectively racist, bigoted, etc.?”
I think it makes sense, but only in the same way that it makes sense to describe a meal as ‘healthy’: not because the meal has the property of health (after all, a meal is *usually* dead at the time we eat it!), but because it contributes to the person who eats it having the property of health. Similarly, what I’d like to say is that arguments don’t in and of themselves have the property of being racist, sexist, homophobic, etc., but we might call them that because they either __contribute to__, or __express__ racism, misogyny, homophobia, etc.
(Of course, I’d *also* want to stress that just pointing out that an argument is racist or misogynist or homphobia isn’t the same thing as refuting the argument! Those are properties that relate to the person making the argument, or the system supported by the argument; appealing to them is a form of argumentum ad hominem, or special pleading, if it’s taken to be an argument __against__ the argument described as homophobic/bigoted/etc. Arguments have to be criticized on their own grounds — as valid or invalid, sound or unsound, cogent or weak, before diagnostic terms such as these become relevant at all.)
Does this sound right, or am I just muddifying matters further?
“Another meaning, which is how I tend to use those words in the context of the marriage equality debate, is “someone who favors an unequal legal status for lesbians and gays.”
So basically you use the word “bigot” to describe anyone who disagrees with you?
No, we use “bigot” to mean “someone who favors unequal legal status for lesbians and gays.” We use “asshole” to mean “someone who ignores the arguments and pretends to take the moral highroad.” For example, there’s this total asshole named Ben Bateman who comments at Alas a Blog from time to time and completely ignores the debate and oversimplifies everything everyone else says so that he can argue them down. Man, that guy is such an asshole.
What about those of us who believe homosexuals should be given equal rights via civil unions?
I have no hate nor animosity toward anyone based on race, religion or sexual orientation. Yet there are those who would call me “Bigot” because I disagree with the need to redefine *anything* simply because someone might be offended, or feel left out.
I like “Alas” because I believe the opinions expressed here, though I disagree with most, are better informed and certainly more eloquent than 95% of the blogs on the net. But I have yet to read any argument that convinces me that an activist homosexual community has the right to redefine the well established societal construct of marriage for the rest of us. If anyone would care to try to convince me, my mind is open.
I thought I’d stop in and get a dose of that tolerance and respect for diversity the liberals are so famous for. Let’s see:
Anyone who disagrees with SSM is a bigot and will be called nasty names.
Whew! That’s about all the tolerance and respect for diversity I can take for one night. I’ll go back to my conservative blogs, where no one calls anybody a bigot or any other nasty name.
You folks go back to agreeing with each other. I’ll go find a real debate somewhere else.
Ben – I don’t see what’s terribly confusing about saying that you’re prejudiced if you do not favor equal rights for others. Go ahead, make bigot an empowering word. Reclaim it: tell the world you’re *proud* to be a bigot, tell them that it’s a good thing, that it’s what keeps the country strong, whatever. But why deny it?
Quadratic: Civil unions, at their best, in the few states where they exist, still do not grant the same rights as marriage does.
In order to give these unions the exact same status and the same rights as marriage, quite a lot of laws would have to be passed in every single state. A lot of things would have to change on the federal level, as well, so that civil unions are recognized across the country and so that they receive the same federal benefits as marriage.
And even if civil unions were so greatly altered that they became exactly the same as marriage on state and federal levels (which would be expensive and very time-consuming at the very least), it’s still a question about whether or not they would be recognized internationally: for example, for the purpose of granting green cards.
And if you think it’s okay for them to be exactly the same, but that they must have different names… well, I’m not sure I can argue that because I don’t understand. Are you open to emotional arguments? Is it pointless to mention the sheer joy and elation of the recently married same-sex couples I’ve interviewed. One couple had a civil union before: it didn’t mean anything to them. All the couples, when they were finally married, were overjoyed: not all of them were religious, but they *felt* it deeply. Felt a deeper connection, felt recognition, felt *real.*
If that doesn’t mean much, I think it’s at least worth to consider how much time and money it’d take to change a zillion laws in order to make civil unions Separate But Equal. Now, I’m tired and it’s late so I can’t say exactly how much effort, but it’s a lot. So sleepy.
There’s a huge difference between someone who commits a crime against someone else and somebody who loves someone else, so I really don’t think your convicted-felon example applies.
Well, I’m not saying I agree with the reasoning behind the conservative position on homosexuality, I’m just saying that in their minds, it’s immoral. And most conservatives have no problem with enacting laws that enofre a partiuclar kind of morilaty, so long as that particular kind is theirs (but try passing a law that, say, feeds the poor…) This affects everything for them- I’d imagine they’d think that if gay sex is immoral, then two people are doing each other mutual harm by participating in it.
The larger point here is that while being able to call someone a bigot has some emotional and rhetorical power, I’m not sure it serves any real purpose. It is not, after all, a useful diagnostic that helps us better deal with our political opposition, and it has the added negative side-effect of flattening and dehumanizing its objects. If we expect Ben Bateman to do work to understand our persepctive in all its subtleties, we ought to do the same, right?
The larger point here is that while being able to call someone a bigot has some emotional and rhetorical power, I’m not sure it serves any real purpose.
I have to agree with John here. It serves very little useful purpose to call people bigots. Engaging conversation without name calling is more likely to sway people.
Some people will never be swayed to your point of view.
That said, the broader purpose of blogs is to air your view to third parties who may lurk. One might hope to convince those on the fence with examples and counter arguments. In that vein, responding: “Well, you’re just a bigot.” is generally pointless!
I absolutely agree that no label is a substitute for a well-reasoned rebuttal–and also the presence of mind to understand that some people will choose to ignore logic and reason in favor of protecting their own worldview at all cost, and you won’t ever change that, so you might as well preserve your own sanity and refuse to discuss anything with them.
That said, I still think it’s valuable to call a spade a spade on occasion. The word “bigot” does indeed have negative connotations. I don’t agree that it “flattens and dehuminizes” anyone. There are charges built into the word that I think SSM opponents should refute, if they can–namely, that they want to encode inequality into law. (And if there’s something I still don’t get about opposition to SSM, then they should be able to refute it well enough so that I’m comfortable rescinding the term as it applies to them. Just because I call someone a “bigot” doesn’t mean I don’t understand where they’re coming from.)
Personally, I try to refrain from using these kind of words, except to describe an argument, which, unlike Rad Geek, I believe can be inherently racist, sexist, etc. But in the case of SSM, I choose to continue using the word “bigot,” in conjunction with actual debate, because of what it does contribute to the discussion. And if anyone has a problem with it, well, that’s kind of the point. I don’t hate anybody. But I’m certainly not afraid to risk offending them when the shoe fits.
And if someone wants to call me, I don’t know, a bleeding-heart liberal or something, I’ll have to decide whether it’s accurate (in the same way as “bigot” is accurate in describing anti-SSM folks), and if it is, either embrace it or change my opinion, and if it isn’t, show how it isn’t. Which SSM opponents haven’t been able to do so far.
Finally, there’s a fine line between turning the other cheek and resorting to your opponents’ tactics. In the case of insults and labels, it’s even finer. I don’t usually include them in my arguments (though I’ve had to make a conscious effort to stop using the word “stupid”), but I won’t eliminate them just because they’re “low-brow” or whatever. If I can defend my use of them, I will; I never promised to be a saint, and besides, sainthood doesn’t guarantee right-ness.
John, I understand that some people think homosexuality is immoral. That’s fine. But it’s indefensible to use that belief as a reason to ban SSM, so I can’t really approach the issue from the anti-SSM perspective. My relativism doesn’t stretch so far that I can tolerate people trying to force their belief on others. It’d be like saying we should ban Republicans from voting, since a lot of people think Republicanism is immoral.
It’d be like saying we should ban Republicans from voting, since a lot of people think Republicanism is immoral.
Gosh… that would disenfranchise the entire COUNTY! (Or at least Wheaton, Illinois.)
Merriam Webster online says a bigot is “a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices”
Umm, doesn’t that term apply equally well to SSM advocates? (see, Andrew Sullivan)
The point is whether you think the other side is being intolerant or irrational. People on both sides think that the other side is being intolerant or irrational. There are plenty of SSM advocates who are bigoted towards conservatives.
Well, is there, then, an alternate suitable term for someone who opposes equal rights for all people? “Wrong” sounds good, but it’s not really a noun, so it’s probably out. And remember as well that no one has made the argument, to my knowledge, that conservatives ought to be put in a separate, lower class of human beings who are entitled to an inferior set of rights. Remember that no one is trying to deny SSM opponents anything by law. So the whole idea that there is some kind of “reverse-bigotry” going on is probably quite mistaken. For my own part, it’s not that I can’t see where opponents of SSM are coming from, it’s just that I don’t find them to be valid in a legal context (or, less importantly for legal matters but more importantly personally, a moral context). I also don’t find them to be compelling to the point that I’d be willing to deny someone equal rights, particularly if they are a minority (which, like it or not, are protected in the US).
Anyway, long post, but in substance I’d be willing to suspend use of the word “bigot” if a more value-neutral alternative were available, and now having read at least one dictionary definition, I may have to find another one anyway.
“Umm, doesn’t that term apply equally well to SSM advocates?”
I was wondering when somebody would actually look the word up and discover just how far afield Barry’s definition is. He wants to use it as an epithet against anyone who disagrees with him on SSM. The delicious irony is that in doing so he shows just how narrow-minded and intolerant he is towards those who disagree with him. So his idiosyncratic definition of bigotry shows that he fits the actual dictionary definition of the word.
But I must say that many of Barry’s readers are much more reasonable than he is. Kudos to those readers who have noticed that calling the other side names accomplishes nothing.
OK, I’m willing to give up the term “bigot” when referring to anti-SSM folks. However, the word “prejudiced” still applies. And let there be no doubt that Mr. Batemen goes to ridiculous lengths to attempt to legitimize his prejudice (see his colorful and non-sensical essay on how only biological parents can rightfully claim the term “parent”).
“Well, is there, then, an alternate suitable term for someone who opposes equal rights for all people?”
This is the point – the use of the term ‘bigot’ presupposses an answer to the point in question. If you think that it is flatly obvious that SSM is a fundamental right and that there is no rational position against it, then of course you are going to say those against SSM are bigots. Likewise, if you think it is ludicrous to call SSM a ‘right’ and that those in favor of it are blatantly ignoring the historical definition of marriage and substituting one of their own choosing purely on selfish grounds (and are calling those against SSM hateful and ignorant without addressing the substance of the claims) then you will tend to think of pro-SSM advocates as bigoted.
“Anyway, long post, but in substance I’d be willing to suspend use of the word “bigot” if a more value-neutral alternative were available, and now having read at least one dictionary definition, I may have to find another one anyway.”
How about not calling those of us against SSM anything? Perhaps you could just address the arguments, and not make assumptions about the people making them, or, if you do make assumptions (which is human nature, of course), don’t call them names? The original post only belies the author’s inablity to see the points that the other side is making, or to treat their arguments with fairness. If they are bigots, then their arguments are by definition irrational, so why should I bother addressing them?
Mike,
It seems to me that the anti-SSM arguments have been addressed. And every week, it also seems to me, SSM opponents come forth with a new and more absurd argument. Which arguments have you not seen addressed? I’ll do a short list w/ short responses here. Please feel free to add to the list or question the short responses – preferably in an existing SSM debate thread on this blog.
1) Argument: Marriage has always been 1man1woman
Response: So what? Does that mean that slavery in the US shouldn’t have been abolished because it was always Europeanmaster/AfricanSlave?
2) Argument: It cheapens the institution
Response: How so? Marriage is not a limited resource. Whether 18 people are married or 18 million people are married does not affect the value of my (or anybody’s) marriage.
3) Argument: It’s for the children (several variations)
Response: Should we deny children who have lost one or more parents the benefits that the stability of marriage provides?
4) Argument: Marriage is for procreation.
Response: Then why allow marriage to anybody who doesn’t already have children? Or why allow marriage for those who can’t procreate (women over 60 for example)?
5) Argument: It will destroy society.
Response: Have you looked at Denmark?
I can go on, but wouldn’t it be better to just re-open any of the existing SSM debate threads?
Jake,
Maybe you’ve only “addressed” anti-SSM arguments by insulting people who disagree with you and trying to shout them down. Maybe instead you could try to understand some view other than your own.
I’m not convinced. If you want to get technical, anybody who ever disagrees with anyone else is a bigot. In fact, if you want to get technical, you’ll have to agree that nobody is ever absolutely right or wrong and so we shouldn’t have any laws at all. Luckily, language is flexible enough that this isn’t the case. (Actually, this entire discussion is risking a descent into relativism. Can anyone ever be objectively right or wrong, or must we continue to acknowledge that an opposing opinion, no matter how insane or unsupported by reality, might be correct?)
I’m with Dan J entirely. What I’m referring to as bigoted when it comes to SSM is the intolerance in wanting to keep a particular group of people from enjoying the benefits of a public institution for no good reason. (If there’s a better word, I’ll certainly substitute it.) It’s the action of trying to force that opinion on others that I have a problem with. Under this reasoning I would also call anyone who would want to ban Republicans from voting a bigot, even though I personally harbor some, um, unfavorable opinions about Republicanism and its effect on America.
Am I being bigoted, then, towards people who oppose SSM? No, I don’t think so. They’re absolutely welcome to their opinion; I would never call anyone a bigot just because they believe something I don’t believe. But since they’re trying to force their opinion on people who don’t share it–and since I’m still waiting for any real-world, practical (vs. theoretical) evidence that SSM harms anyone at all (“Because I said so!” doesn’t cut it for me)–I don’t have a problem with bringing a little emotionally-charged language into this particular discussion.
Allowing SSM is far more tolerant than banning it. If we don’t ban it, SSM couples will be able to choose to get married, and people who don’t approve of SSM don’t have to engage in it. That’s where my charge of bigotry comes from.
Likewise, if you think it is ludicrous to call SSM a ‘right’…then you will tend to think of pro-SSM advocates as bigoted.
No, I don’t think that’s true. No SSM advocate that I know of has ever been charged with bigotry. The cultural definition of the word doesn’t apply to a belief that laws should expand rather than limit tolerance, and I think you’ll agree that the pro-SSM point of view is more tolerant than the anti-SSM one (since, after all, the definition of “tolerant” in http://www.m-w.com includes “the act of allowing something.”)
I’m sure anti-SSM folks think that pro-SSM folks are stupid and immoral and a whole host of other things, but I don’t think bigotry is among them, nor do I think it even applies. (I have no problem whatsoever with being accused of being immoral, and I won’t refute it. I’d explain why, but this post is already a little long…)
Perhaps you could just address the arguments, and not make assumptions about the people making them, or, if you do make assumptions (which is human nature, of course), don’t call them names?
I always address the arguments (or else I ignore them entirely). I call people names occasionally, and only if I think it’s warranted. I’ve explained why I think it’s warranted in this case. By the way, I say “fuck you” occasionally, too (though you won’t see it in print–except here, of course). (Note: That expletive is NOT pointed at anyone here; it’s just an example.)
If they are bigots, then their arguments are by definition irrational, so why should I bother addressing them?
Hey, I get into conversations, debates, arguments, and discussions with anti-SSM folks all the time. I’m usually hoping that they’ll realize the error of their ways and reject bigotry out-of-hand.
If they are bigots, then their arguments are by definition irrational, so why should I bother addressing them?
Isn’t this the same kind of accusation? “You’re too mean and stupid to really understand me,” right? If not, what’s the difference?
PS. I’m having a great time with this discussion. I’m very interested in language and the way it’s used. Keep me thinking!
“It’s the action of trying to force that opinion on others that I have a problem with.”
Isn’t the action here from SSM supporters trying to force their view of marriage on the rest of us without so much as a democractic vote? From the anti-SSM perspective, the goal is simply to protect what always was, not to force anything new on anybody.
Ben Bateman, my God, you are an asshole. Every time I think you’ve topped your previous asshole-ishness, you top it off. Fine, I’ll refrain from calling you a “bigot” but you’re still an asshole. A very big asshole. The entire asshole of assholes.
Anyhoo, as to this:
From the anti-SSM perspective, the goal is simply to protect what always was, not to force anything new on anybody.
Uh, what always was. Are you this much of a contankerous idiot as well as an asshole? Do I really have to go into the details of how marriage has already changed over time, without votes? Like interracial marriage, or even monogamy? These weren’t how things always were.
But since even if I did debate you on your word, without calling you an asshole and bastard and cantankerous idiot, you’d still be saying I’m spewing insults at you. Since that is the case, I’m not going to deny myself the pleasure of calling you an asshole, since you are one. An asshole that is.
Ben Batemen writes: “Maybe you’ve only “addressed” anti-SSM arguments by insulting people who disagree with you and trying to shout them down. Maybe instead you could try to understand some view other than your own.”
Ben, try looking at my post where I list 5 common arguments against and 5 abbreviated responses to. Did you miss that? Was that insulting? If so, how would you rephrase that to not be insulting? And I am trying to understand views other than my own. Anti-SSM person states their argument against SSM and I question the argument by bringing up facts & studies that seem, on the surface, to contradict the argument. If anti-SSM person has something that refutes what I brought to the discussion I’m very interested in seeing it.
But…… your arguments about marriage being primarily for procreation have fallen flat in the face of both history & the institution as it now exists. Instead of addressing the (seeming) flaws in your argument you descend into some nonsensical essay about how only biological parents are real parents. Thus insulting all parents who have adopted. I’ve read your writings and postings for some time now and your logic for why SSM is bad just gets worse & worse. So, yeah, I guess you could say that I have no respect for your arguments and that would be insulting to you.
But I have, and continue to, address arguments against SSM without insulting my opponents. Search this blog for the discourse between myself & Moebius and see for yourself.
Mike, I notice that you haven’t argued with the substance of my definition of “homophobia” and “anti-semitism.”
Here’s the substantive question: Is there something wrong with defining a policy that calls for two sets of laws – one set for gays (or Jews, or blacks, etc) and one set for the majority group – as a bigoted policy?
It seems to me that SSM opponants want to call a major argument “out of bounds” by dismissing it as name-calling; as if there were no difference between saying someone’s policy is homophobic, and saying that they’re a big booger-head. However, I disagree that saying “I can’t support Mike’s policy on marriage, because Mike’s policy on marriage in effect creates one law for straights and a different law for gays, and that’s bigotry” is impolite, or even that it’s name-calling in any significant fashion. It’s criticizing your policy, Mike; and dismissing it as “name-calling” doesn’t respond substantially to the critique.
* * *
The dictionary definition Mike brought up doesn’t really refute my argument, by the way. First of all, my original post spoke of both “homophobia” and bigotry – even if you want to argue that bigotry in fact has nothing to do with prejudice in the English language (in which case, why do you object to being called a bigot?), you surely can’t make the same argument about the word “homophobia.”
Secondly, dictionaries are descriptive, not perscriptive; where a dictionary definition doesn’t describe how a word is actually used by typical speakers, the dictionary definition is what’s mistaken, not the speakers. The modern use of the word “bigotry,” especially in a context like this one, frequently implies prejudice against a minority group. If a dictionary doesn’t include a definition which includes that implication, then I’d say the dictionary is incorrect.
“Ben Bateman, my God, you are an asshole. Every time I think you’ve topped your previous asshole-ishness, you top it off. Fine, I’ll refrain from calling you a “bigot” but you’re still an asshole. A very big asshole. The entire asshole of assholes.”
Raznor, this may seem hypocritical of me – since I myself told Ben to f.o. once – but that was when he wasn’t a participant on this blog.
Now that he is, with all due respect, I want to request that you (and others) refrain from comments like this one. It’s not what I want “Alas” to be like.
Jake’s nailed down great counters to the most common arguments of anti-SSM people. The one he didn’t address is Portland-centric – the belief that Diane Linn should have had a public discussion of same-sex marriage before issuing her order to the bureau to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Somehow, I doubt the fundies would be complaining about it if the order was to keep on denying licenses to same-sex couples (as Lane County did) or wait and see (like Washington County did).
Like it or not, the Multnomah County charter grants the County Chair a LOT of authority in running the bureaus under her command. Interpreting an ambiguous law (with reliance on county counsel and outside counsel) regarding who may be issued a marriage license is definitely what she’s authorized to do.
I’m *against* the recall efforts regarding the county council, and will support Diane Linn and Lisa Naito in their re-election campaigns this fall against late-filing conservatives.
From the anti-SSM perspective, the goal is simply to protect what always was, not to force anything new on anybody.
Like Raznor said, marriage is certainly not what it always was, so this is a moot point. And nobody plans to require that you run out and marry the first guy you meet, nor that you even approve of SSM.
So what the anti-SSM folks really want to do is protect what is currently, and what has been before in different ways, a discriminatory institution, and the pro-SSM folks want to allow people to decide for themselves, not others, whether or not to marry. The former’s bigotry, the latter isn’t.
Jake,
I don’t have the time or energy to go into the details of the pros & cons of SSM – you are right, these arguments are all over the web. I will merely say that if you have read Maggie Gallagher’s and Stanley Kurtz’s pieces (for example, in the Weekly Standard), and don’t think those are valid arguments, or that they have been rebutted effectively, then there’s no chance that anything I say will change your mind. If you haven’t read them, then I refer you to them.
1) Argument: Marriage has always been 1man1woman
Response: So what? Does that mean that slavery in the US shouldn’t have been abolished because it was always Europeanmaster/AfricanSlave?
Slavery wasn’t always European master/African slave. There are all kinds of combinations of races and nationalities that enslaved one another. White Europeans have been enslaved by Africans. (see Robert Davis)
The argument isn’t simply that it marriage has always been between a man and a woman, so we should never change it, it is that it has always been between a man and a woman – why is that? And shouldn’t we proceed very slowly if we are going to propose to change that definition?
2) Argument: It cheapens the institution
Response: How so? Marriage is not a limited resource. Whether 18 people are married or 18 million people are married does not affect the value of my (or anybody’s) marriage.
I don’t think anybody argues that it cheapens the institution. What people argue is that gay marriage is only possible after the institution has been cheapened (by no-fault divorce, less societal pressure to be monagamous, more liberal views on sex, etc.) The point is that marriage is a public institution, and needs a common set of views about what it is in order to be successful. If everybody gets to define for themselves what marriage means, then it will no longer have any common public meaning. Many people don’t have a problem with that, but I think it will have serious long-term consequences.
3) Argument: It’s for the children (several variations)
Response: Should we deny children who have lost one or more parents the benefits that the stability of marriage provides?
4) Argument: Marriage is for procreation.
Response: Then why allow marriage to anybody who doesn’t already have children? Or why allow marriage for those who can’t procreate (women over 60 for example)?
5) Argument: It will destroy society.
Response: Have you looked at Denmark?
Read Kurtz’s article on Marriage in Scandanavia. Part of the point is that even if you don’t think Denmark is so bad off, we cannot transfer the Scandanavian system of government benefits (which are necessary if you weaken the link between marriage and childrearing) from small, ethnically homogenous, wealthy countries like Denmark to America.
This post is too long and is basically off the topic of whether it is appropriate to call opponents of SSM bigots (or homophobes).
All I’m saying is that there are too many people, of a wide variety of ideologies, religious or cultural values, educational status, etc. who are opposed to SSM to simply dismiss as ignorant bigots who are animated by an irrational animus against gays.
Responding to Hestia:
Marriage has certainly has changed over time and been done differently in different cultures. But to my knowledge it has never been between two people of the same sex, at any time, in any culture. So let’s just be clear on the small point: You said you had no problem until someone forced their opinion on others. Can’t we agree that the forcing is coming from the left, and the right is resisting the change? You can argue that the left ought to force this change, and I’m sure you will. But let’s at least be clear on who’s forcing what on whom.
Now on this bigotry business, the word “bigot” is pretty clearly defined in the language, and it refers to intolerance towards other views rather than holding a specific view. I guess you’re free to redefine words as you please, but it’s unlikely that others will understand you, especially others who don’t already agree with you.
But let’s go ahead and play Barry’s game. He’s so certain that his view of SSM is correct that he wants to call anyone who opposes it a bigot. He uses an example of someone who supported country clubs that excluded Jews. In his mind, discrimination by race or sexual orientation is so obviously wrong that no reasonable person could favor them. It’s a simple, undeniable, clear-cut moral situation. Discrimination is wrong, and if you don’t understand that, then you’re a bigot.
Does that mean that everyone who supports affirmative action–racial discrimination by government–is a bigot?
Hestia,
Your whole post is still begging the question. When you say “Hey, I get into conversations, debates, arguments, and discussions with anti-SSM folks all the time. I’m usually hoping that they’ll realize the error of their ways and reject bigotry out-of-hand”, that implies that you are engaged in a genuine exchange of ideas, where both sides are in principle open to being persuaded by the others arguments, and where both sides are supposedly using rational arguments. In such a situation, I maintain that it is wrong to call the other side bigoted just because they haven’t come around to your point of view.
“No SSM advocate that I know of has ever been charged with bigotry.”
Maybe that just means that anti-SSM people are more polite ; )
I think this whole word definition question is a result of the fact that liberals have stuck in their head that bigotry = racial bigotry, and then fit every situation into that category. Likewise with homophobe – a homophobe is someone who has an irrational animus against gays. But then pro-SSM people say that *by definition*, someone who is against SSM is a homophobe. This begs the question as to whether their opposition is based in irrational fear or rational principles. I don’t deny that some anti-SSM people are motivated by fear, but it is unfair to simply characterize all such dissent as so motivated. This is why it is wrong to call anti-SSM people bigots and homophobes.
Ampersand, you can rationalize using these terms all you want, but they aren’t going to help you convince anyone that your position is correct – they will just make people angry.
Mike,
I think that you’re correct when you say that if I think Gallagher & Kurtz have been effectively rebutted (and I do, read Gabriel Rosenburg for example), that nothing you say will change my mind. But that’s not really what we were talking about here. I think that I have responded effectively to your comment of 9:51 this morning in that I have addressed the arguments of the anti-SSM crowd. And effectively too, I think, if you read what I wrote correctly.
For example I wrote that slavery in the UNITED STATES has always been Europeanmaster/AfricanSlave. Not that slavery everywhere has always been yadayadayada.
But when it comes down to it, IMHO, I think that all of these arguments have been addressed and refuted credibly. And that leaves me with only religious faith or prejudice to explain the motivations of the anti-SSM crowd. As I said before, I will forego the word bigot for now, but prejudice accurately describes what I have been seeing.
Ben Bateman writes: “Can’t we agree that the forcing is coming from the left, and the right is resisting the change?”
No. I don’t think we can. Maybe I’m not understanding what you are saying. Nobody is forcing you to marry a person of the same sex. Nobody is prohibiting you from marrying a person of the opposite sex. So, what precisely are you being forced to do? Recognize that SS spouses are entitled to the same benefits as OS spouses? To me that seems like somebody else’s civil rights are being forced on you, and last I checked that, in part, is what the USA is all about. Freedom and civil rights.
“I think that being a homophobe can be about what’s in one’s heart, but it can also be about what’s in one’s policies.”
This is what I mean – you can thus mark off any policy as being bigoted by using your own definition of what the policy should be, without regard to the actual arguments put forth in favor of or against the policy. The argument that marriage laws apply a distinction between gays and straights irrationally presupposes a particular definition of marriage. But that is the question at issue – what is the definition of marriage? Or more accurately, what has it been, and should we change it? If you declare ahead of time that all those who don’t agree with your particular definition are bigots, then you are not engaging in debate, you are just determining the answer ahead of time and saying to hell with everyone who doesn’t agree with me.
On the question of who is imposing who’s views on each other- marriage is a public institution. There will be a common definition one way or the other. If SSM becomes legal, even if it is only in a handful of states, then the whole country will be forced to recognize that definition in a myriad of ways. This idea that if you don’t like SSM, don’t engage in it is silly. If marriage is just a private enterprise, why is it necessary to have SSM publicly recognized? The whole debate is over what the publicly shared definition of marriage should be. I respect those pro-SSM people who are willing to argue for it in the democratic arena, but most of them don’t. They know that they can’t enact it that way, and that it would take much more hard work. It’s much easier to have the courts simply declare that the common definition of the primary social institution should be changed.
Re: “Can’t we agree that the forcing is coming from the left, and the right is resisting the change?”
Jake, the change is not being forced on me individually. It’s being forced on the laws and society I live under. I deserve to have a voice in those laws just like everyone else. I will have to live with the consequences of those laws, just like everyone else.
I believe that SSM will have terrible consequences for our society, meaning the one that I and my children have to live in. I’m trying to defend the society I live in against the change that the pro-SSM crowd wants to force on me–without my vote, and without the vote of my elected representatives.
That’s why I say that this change–in the society and laws I live under–is being forced on me, and it’s completely backwards to claim that I’m forcing a change on anyone else.
A quick last note…..
It doesn’t need to be and shouldn’t be argued in a democratic arena (if you mean majority rule). That is why we have the constitution. To protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. And I think the 1st, 9th & 14th amendments spell that out clearly. All the other refutations of anti-SSM arguments are window dressing. Maybe I should just refer to SSM opponents as anti-American (to borrow a favored political tactic). But seriously, how is being anti-SSM not being anti-constitution & the civil rights it protects?
It’s been fun, Mike, thanks for the dialogue.
Wow. What a revelation. Having different sets of standards for different groups actually constitutes bigotry! So does this mean that if a feminist were to hold men to different standards than women that they would be bigots?…
But that is the question at issue – what is the definition of marriage?
Well.. that is one question.
Another question is: Who should be given the legal and financial benefits the government grants to those who marry?
Some people are more hung up on the word itself than are others. ( And some people want a different word to mask the fact that they intent to confer lesser financial benefits and privileges to civil unions.)
Or more accurately, what has it been,
It has, historically, been many things. It has been a means of forming political alliances. It has been a vehicle for socially accepted sexual relations. It has been a method of extending kinship ties and financial obligations. It has been…. many, many things.
and should we change it?
Marriage has changed and adapted constantly.
Our current marriage customs are quite dissimilar to those in the Patriarch, Abraham’s time. Were I Sarah, I would not supply my husband with my hand maiden, so he could father a child. Were I Leah, I would have had a fit when my father married me to a man who didn’t love me… and I would have been equally displeased if he later married my sister!
I respect those pro-SSM people who are willing to argue for it in the democratic arena, but most of them don’t.
So, what have you to say about the County Officials in Oregon who passed legislation? And the court that did not set grabt a summary injunction setting aside the decision?
They know that they can’t enact it that way, and that it would take much more hard work.
I support SSM, and I do not “know” it can’t be enacted this way. Why would I think it can’t? Vermont passed Civil Unions. A county in Oregon made marriage legal.
So.. why would I “know* it’s impossible? Difficult yes. Impossible, no.
It’s much easier to have the courts simply declare that the common definition of the primary social institution should be changed.
Americans of all political pursuations have a long tradition of pursuing issues in courts. This is hardly first, and it will not be the last.
I was always taught that separation of powers in our government was a good thing. Even when the courts interpretation differs from mine, I still value their function when they interpret laws.
Correction (this blog doesn’t seem to have the option of editing one’s posts) Should have read:
Wow. What a revelation. Having different sets of standards for different groups actually constitutes bigotry! So does this mean that if feminists were to hold men to different standards than women that they would be bigots?…
I’m sorry, Ben. In light of other posts of yours that I’ve read, here and elsewhere, I’m really not interested in continuing any further discussion with you.
I maintain that it is wrong to call the other side bigoted just because they haven’t come around to your point of view.
Well, I maintain that if the shoe fits, wear it. I don’t think it’s wrong to use the word, I don’t think the word is wrong as applied to SSM opponents. I’m not calling anyone a bigot because they don’t agree with me, but rather because their position falls within the accepted-by-society definition of the word. And frankly, I consider myself pretty well-versed in the anti-SSM argument, having taken part in a number of them, so I don’t think it’s an issue of an unwillingness to listen or discuss or a lack of understanding, either.
As I see it, you have two choices. You can accept that I think you’re a bigot, or you can try to convince me that you’re not, or that the anti-SSM position isn’t. I’m totally open to convincing.
But, for the sake of continuing discussion, let’s just say I agreed to stop using the word. Is “prejudiced” (as Jake suggested) or “supportive of discrimination” OK? Do you mind those labels?
If SSM becomes legal, even if it is only in a handful of states, then the whole country will be forced to recognize that definition in a myriad of ways.
It’s preferable to forcing the country to recognize a definition of marriage that demonstrably harms a group of people–and in more tangible ways than just their fragile belief systems.
Seriously, do you think we should we ban Republicans from voting? I and many others are forced to acknowledge the Republican perspective. Or here’s an easy one: Shouldn’t we ban smoking in public buildings, even if they’re privately owned? I’m forced to inhale smoke whenever I visit my local Applebee’s. (Their non-smoking section is a joke; since when was a table three feet away from the bar considerred nonsmoking?) Sure, I can choose not to go there–but SSM opponents can choose not to marry someone of their gender. So what’s the difference?
I respect those pro-SSM people who are willing to argue for it in the democratic arena, but most of them don’t. They know that they can’t enact it that way, and that it would take much more hard work.
OK, see, it’s difficult to take your position against using the word “bigot” seriously when you yourself attack people rather than their arguments.
Ben: “Marriage has certainly has changed over time and been done differently in different cultures. But to my knowledge it has never been between two people of the same sex, at any time, in any culture.”
Well, you are incorrect. Would you like me to reference my anthropology textbook? I can think of several cultures offhand that have allowed for marriages between same sex individuals, for different reasons.
Conservatives keep invoking anthropology on this subject without seeming to actually ask any anthropologists about this.
Mike: “it is that it has always been between a man and a woman”
What’s up with your use of singular indefinite articles in there? Or are plural marriages, which have been common throughout history in very disparate cultures, not marriage?
Also, see above response to Ben.
Well, you are incorrect. Would you like me to reference my anthropology textbook? I can think of several cultures offhand that have allowed for marriages between same sex individuals, for different reasons.
Conservatives keep invoking anthropology on this subject without seeming to actually ask any anthropologists about this.
Well, Erika beat me to it. But here’s just one source that looks at this subject (same-sex marriages that have existed in various cultures throughout time). A look at an Anthro 101 textbook could provide dozens more.
“As I see it, you have two choices. You can accept that I think you’re a bigot, or you can try to convince me that you’re not, or that the anti-SSM position isn’t. I’m totally open to convincing.”
So, when did you stop beating your wife? Like I said, you’re already presupposing a particular answer to the question when you frame the question that way.
I suppose I could just accept the fact that you think I’m a bigot, but that isn’t going to resolve the question, now is it?
“But, for the sake of continuing discussion, let’s just say I agreed to stop using the word. Is “prejudiced” (as Jake suggested) or “supportive of discrimination” OK? Do you mind those labels?”
You’re so magnanimous. Those words don’t have a negative connotation, either, and they shed so much more light on the problem…
Amp, I’m sorry for being a bit over-the-top. I was attempting to combine my anger with Ben’s more arrogant post with embittered comedy. But without the benefit of spoken-word and hence comedic timing, it’s hard to tell the difference between that and attempting to start a pissing contest. So I’ll try to say what I was trying to say without an “asshole” saturation rate of onsiderably less than 1 per three words.
Ben, let’s be honest here. Homosexuals are not allowed spousal benefits. These include right to custody of children should one die, rights to conjugal visits in a hospital, and rights to Social Security benefits that all apply to heterosexual married couples. So denying same-sex couples marriage is a clear, demonstrable harm to these couples. However you’re arguing here that this harm is justifiable so that heterosexual couples need not be inconvenienced with having to comprehend a new social definition of marriage. And that isn’t a bigoted position because . . .?
Bigot
One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
Sounds to me you’re partial to heterosexual couples, that being your own group, and don’t really seem to care about any pains suffered to homosexual couples, those that differ. I’m just saying that’s a clear textbook case of bigotry. The fact that you don’t like it doesn’t make it untrue. Or as Hestia put it, hey, if the shoe fits . . .
rights to conjugal visits in a hospital
Actually, I don’t think anyone actually has this “right.” I’m sure most doctors, in fact, seriously frown on that sort of thing — depending, of course, on why the patient is in the hospital. ;)
I’m guessing that you either meant conjugal visits while one partner is in prison, or simply visitation rights in hospitals, or both.
“One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.”
I think this is a euphemistic and diluted definition of Bigot.
The definition Raz posted describes almost everyone in this thread, and I’m certain this is not accurate..
Bigot, to me, conjures imagery of morons in white hoods, gay bashing meatheads, and goose-stepping jackbooted fascists. It’s an offensive word. Would you call a black man a nigger? Or a homosexual a faggot? Certainly not! So stop using demeaning labels for people who are not as enlightened or progressive as you.
Quad –
What if someone seriously argued that Christians are morally inferior and should not be permitted to teach in school? Would it be okay to call such a person a bigot?
I think the distinction is that there is never an appropriate time for a white person to call a black person a nigger, or a straight person to call a gay person a faggot. These things are always inappropriate.
On the other hand, I think that any honest person has to be willing to admit the possibility that they might be prejudiced in some way; that their own views may be colored by racism, sexism, homophobia, or some other form of bigotry. (I’m not saying that I’m any exception to this rule!)
It’s certainly happened to me that people have said to me “don’t you think that’s sexist?” or the like in response to one of my opinions. I don’t think the correct reaction would be for me to say “that’s just name-calling”; I think the right reaction is for me to seriously consider the question, and to either produce an argument for why what I’ve just said is not sexist, or admit that it was sexist and either argue that sexism is justified or change my views.
Hestia’s post starts with:
“I’m sorry, Ben. In light of other posts of yours that I’ve read, here and elsewhere, I’m really not interested in continuing any further discussion with you.”
and then:
” I consider myself pretty well-versed in the anti-SSM argument, having taken part in a number of them, so I don’t think it’s an issue of an unwillingness to listen or discuss or a lack of understanding, either.”
followed by:
“I’m totally open to convincing.”
So which is it? You’re totally willing to listen and open to convincing, except when somebody disagrees with you?
And then this one really takes the cake:
Mike: “I respect those pro-SSM people who are willing to argue for it in the democratic arena, but most of them don’t. They know that they can’t enact it that way, and that it would take much more hard work.”
Hestia: “OK, see, it’s difficult to take your position against using the word “bigot” seriously when you yourself attack people rather than their arguments.”
Mike’s statement wasn’t an insult; it was an assertion of fact. Either they know they can’t get SSM enacted democratically, or they don’t. It’s a vote-counting exercise. Given that they’re going to the courts instead of the legislatures, it isn’t an outrageous conclusion to say that they aren’t spending their resources at the legislatures because they suspect they’d lose there.
But I really like the logic in your last statement: It’s difficult to take people seriously when they attack people rather than arguments. I totally agree. And based on the many personal attacks laced with profanity I’ve received on this site, I find it very difficult to take the pro-SSM position seriously. I’ve written hundreds of words here with zero profanity and a minimum of personal attacks. (Twice I’ve implied that Barry is a bigot on SSM, which I stand by.) I can cobble together a little montage for you, if you want, of responses I’ve received from SSM supporters on this site.
Use your own logic Hestia. If the side using the personal attacks can’t be taken seriously, which side should you be on?
Ben, Fuck you, okay. The reason I say this is I’m the only fucking person whose profanely insulted you. And I apologized for going over the top, but you use that as a way of saying “Oh, look, poor me, I’m being unfairly attacked for my arguments.”
And your assumption that the people who disagree with you form a monolithic body of opinion that is apparently not nearly as well-informed as your arrogant self.
And you haven’t given me one reason, one reason, to not consider your stance on same-sex marriage bigoted. All you say is it’s not nice. As Roy Cohn* said, “Fuck nice!”
Oh and if you fucking can’t stand the fucking profanity, then I’m so fucking sorry. I’ll see what I can do about cleaning my filthy fucking mouth.
Fuck.
[*Okay, not Roy Cohn the man, Roy Cohn the character from Angels in America. It’s one of my favorite lines]
It’s alright for us to have differing viewpoints on this issue. Mine happens to lie on the conservative side and for religious and constitutional reasons. This happens to be my barrier to accepting ssm. If you don’t like it, please feel free to lobby your state rep to change it. I am a conservative who still believes that the tenth amendment means something. Until an amendment passes settling this issue passes, we’re stuck with the good ‘ol rules of the constitution on this one.
Bart, do you believe the 14th amendment means something? Or is it only the 10th. There’s 25 other amendments out there and only one of them has been rescinded.
Oh and bean, uh yeah. I was a bit angry while writing that post. Something about people asserting that their intellectual convenience overrides other people’s civil liberties puts me off just a tad.
Raznor, your hate and profanity is pathetic.
You owe Ben a REAL apology. Not “Sorry, but without the benefit of spoken-word and hence comedic timing” excuses.
“And your assumption that the people who disagree with you form a monolithic body of opinion that is apparently not nearly as well-informed as your arrogant self.”
Projection anyone?
Quad, fine I’m going too far. I’ll apologize to the room. I won’t apologize to BB. He set the tone for me with this:
“Another meaning, which is how I tend to use those words in the context of the marriage equality debate, is “someone who favors an unequal legal status for lesbians and gays.”
So basically you use the word “bigot” to describe anyone who disagrees with you?
Ben comes into a discussion, takes an entire well-written post, give it an unfair, one sentence misinterpretation and then argue with it from there. This reeks of arrogance. Then there was Jake Squid’s comment regarding quick summaries of anti-SSM arguments with quick responses to each, to which BB responds:
Maybe you’ve only “addressed” anti-SSM arguments by insulting people who disagree with you and trying to shout them down. Maybe instead you could try to understand some view other than your own.
If Jake’s response was crude, it comes out of summary. The idea that it’s just shouting people down is ridiculous, and shows a ubiquitous lack of intellectual honesty in Ben Bateman’s rhetoric style. Which led me in my overthetop “asshole” saturated post to respond:
But since even if I did debate you on your word, without calling you an asshole and bastard and cantankerous idiot, you’d still be saying I’m spewing insults at you. Since that is the case, I’m not going to deny myself the pleasure of calling you an asshole, since you are one. An asshole that is.
Besides the grammatic flaws, and overuse of the word “asshole”, this was the crux of my post. I suppose I could have been more civil and mentioned my displeasure with BB’s intellectual dishonesty without being, well, an asshole about it, and I apologize for that as well.
And when I mention monolithic stuff, I’m mostly responding to this:
Use your own logic Hestia. If the side using the personal attacks can’t be taken seriously, which side should you be on?
Hestia says she won’t bother arguing with Ben Bateman. Ben Bateman takes that to mean she won’t argue with any anti-SSM person. If that ain’t arrogance defined, I don’t know what is. And besides desiring that a group of people be oppressed for one’s own intellectual convenience, my other pet peeve is arrogance.
So I was over the top and unfair. For this I apologize to Ampersand, for bringing incivility to this discussion, I apologize to all the commenters as a group, of which Ben Bateman is one, but I do not apologize to Ben Bateman as a person. That I was an asshole doesn’t change the fact that Ben Bateman is being arrogant and unfair to everyone else on this board.
Raznor, what does the 14th amendment have to do with this?
I am also a conservative and agree with what Bart has to say. I also feel that this is not a civil rights issue. Gay people have just as much right to marry as I, a heterosexual, do. They just can’t marry someone of the same sex. Further, I think it is foolish for the gay community to equate their situation to that of blacks in the 50’s and 60’s. There is an enormous difference between a once enslaved people and a man or woman who is upset because they can’t legally wed their gay partner.
Hey, Amp, my spider sense is tingling. Out of curiosity, would Bart and Jeremy perchance have the same IP address?
Amp,
I don’t know if you want to gain support the meaning of the word bigotry with the word anti-semitism, as it doesn’t seem to mean anything anymore, since, like bigotry/homophobia, people don’t really believe it exists at all, at least not anymore. That of course, is Israel’s (Jews’) fault anyway though, right? Argh.
Uhmm… Ben seems to be gone…..
I’m confused by Tara’s post. Tara, are you saying anti-semitism no longer exists?
From Jeremy:
“Gay people have just as much right to marry as I, a heterosexual, do. They just can’t marry someone of the same sex.”
So then they don’t have as much right to marry that you as a heterosexual does. After all, you are free to marry anyone you wish to marry. That surely doesn’t sound like the same right to me.
Besides that, I don’t know if this kind of argument serves the whole ssm is bad for society meme that’s floating around.
From Jeremy:
“Further, I think it is foolish for the gay community to equate their situation to that of blacks in the 50’s and 60’s. There is an enormous difference between a once enslaved people and a man or woman who is upset because they can’t legally wed their gay partner.”
Nice way to reduce legitimate concerns to a mere emotive response.
Actually Bart, could you clarify your interpetation of the X amendment?
“Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. ”
The two possible ways I see it:
1) The federal governemnt has not been delegated powers to regulate marraige. So, laws defining “what marraige is” cannot be made at the federal level.
So, the right to define marriage is reserved either to
2a) the individual states may make these laws
or ,
2b) individual people.
If it is 2a) then the process is on going in the various 50 states. If, for some reason, 2b) applies, SSM would already be legal where ever 2b) applies because individual people already get to decide the meaning of marriage?
So… are you saying, you are philosophically opposed to SSM, but, based on the 10th ammendment, you don’t think the Feds can block it– unless there is a constitutional amendment? That’s why you suggest lobbying your state rep?
Nice way to reduce legitimate concerns to a mere emotive response.
I was wondering.. is there anything wrong with recognizing that marriage is mostly about emotive response.
My husband and I married because we felt a strong emotive response for each other. We did not feel this emotive response for anyone else. We felt this emotive response would continue, but required each felt the emotive response would be fostered by knowing the other felt sufficiently committed to link themselves in marriage.
So.. we married.
The “emotive response” is usually called love, and most people who marry, marry because they love one another. Some believe marriage fosters love and provides stability to life. (I do.)
This stability is beneficial to children. To provide this stability, we, as a society, may wish to encourage people who desire children to do so only after they marry.
However, that does not mean chidren are the central core for marriage. Love and commitment to one’s spouse is the central core of marriage. Without this, marriage fails.
Mike:
Like I said, you’re already presupposing a particular answer to the question when you frame the question that way.
No, I’m not. I didn’t say you are a bigot, but that I think you’re a bigot. There’s a difference: the first is fact, the second is opinion. And you haven’t convinced me to change it, hence, accept that it’s my opinion or argue it. Why aren’t SSM opponents bigots?
Those words don’t have a negative connotation, either, and they shed so much more light on the problem…
If you’re expecting me to never use words that you don’t like, you’ve got a long wait ahead of you. Explain to me how opposing SSM isn’t prejudice and isn’t discrimination; I’m pretty sure it fits the textbook definition of both those words.
But here, a concession: I’ll stop using the word “bigot” to refer to people. I will continue to use it to refer to arguments, comments, positions, opinions, or statements. I think it’s absolutely legitimate to say, “That belief is steeped in prejudice,” or “That’s a bigoted statement,” and then go on to say why. (While I tend to assume that most people would recognize bigotry when they see it, I’d rather clarify.)
I mean, they’re adjectives; they do mean something, and there’s a good reason to use them, namely, to point out aspects of an issue using words with definitions upon which everyone has previously agreed. “Stupid,” “silly,” “hateful,” “un-American,” and even “immoral” are entirely subjective and therefore don’t work; “prejudiced,” “racist,” “illogical,” “sexist,” and even “arrogant” have some objective meaning and are therefore fair game.
I notice that you didn’t mention your own attack on liberals, nor did you answer my question about banning smoking. Please do so before you comment further on my posts.
Ben:
So which is it? You’re totally willing to listen and open to convincing, except when somebody disagrees with you?
Ben, it’s not that I’m not interested in conversation with you because we don’t agree–Mike and I have been getting along just fine so far–but that I’ve seen you respond with vitriol and/or sarcasm a little too often. And I suppose part of it is that I’m pretty sure you’ve heard every point I could raise against anti-SSM arguments; if they haven’t gotten you to change your mind, I doubt anything I say will. I’m saving my breath and blood pressure.
But I’ll respond to a couple points you raised in this particular post.
Mike’s statement wasn’t an insult; it was an assertion of fact.
“Bigot” isn’t an insult, it’s an assertation of fact. Either you’re in favor of discriminating against gays and lesbians, or you aren’t.
But I really like the logic in your last statement: It’s difficult to take people seriously when they attack people rather than arguments.
No, it’s difficult to take people seriously who are trying to make the argument that we should attack arguments and not people when they attack people and not arguments.
Finally, based on the many personal attacks laced with profanity SSM supporters have received on this site and others, I find it very difficult to take the anti-SSM position seriously. I’ve written hundreds of words here and in other places with zero profanity and a minimum of personal attacks. I can cobble together a little montage for you, if you want, of responses SSM supporters have received from SSM opponents on this site and others. Use your own logic, Ben. If the side using the personal attacks can’t be taken seriously, which side should you be on?
I don’t really mean that last paragraph, of course; I’m just trying to show you why I don’t buy it. Some people who oppose same-sex marriage do so in a thoughtful and respectful way. And I know that I and others have argued in favor of SSM both thoughtfully and respectfully. But you’re right: When most of what one side, or one individual, has is profanity or personal attacks, I don’t want to be allied with them, nor do I want to discuss anything with them. I don’t think that’s the case with SSM in general (though it is with particular individuals).
I do take the SSM issue very seriously. I find the anti-SSM position hard to accept, for many reasons, most of which I’m sure you’ve heard before. It isn’t a matter of “taking sides;” it’s a matter of how I believe the world should be constructed, which is that as long as they aren’t demonstrably harming anyone, people should always be able to do pretty much what they want. I favor populating the world with all kinds of different opinions, lifestyles, beliefs, etc., not limiting them. And I have seen no evidence whatsoever that allowing SSM will result in demonstrable harm.
So.
Ben Bateman proposes the following revision to what we mean by the phrase “___ is forced on ____”:
“Jake, the change is not being forced on me individually. It’s being forced on the laws and society I live under. I deserve to have a voice in those laws just like everyone else. I will have to live with the consequences of those laws, just like everyone else.”
But Jake, you cannot force anything on laws or society. You can force things on individual people; you can force things on many individual members of a particular group. But you can’t force things on anything that doesn’t have a will (forcing something on somebody necessarily means that you are doing something _against their will_)–and laws and societies don’t have wills. People do.
Perhaps what you mean to say is that certain changes to the law are being forced on *you* as someone who lives under those laws, and on other individual members of society who oppose same-sex marriage, against your will–this is what you seem to indicate when you say “I deserve to have a voice in those laws just like everyone else. I will have to live with the consequences of those laws, just like everyone else.”
But does this way of framing things make any sense? I agree that you deserve to have a voice in the laws under which you live, and that to take away that voice is to force something on you against your will–but ONLY if the laws that you want to have a voice in are laws that don’t involve using the power of the State to tread on the rights of others. (Neither you nor I nor anyone else, for example, deserves to have any voice whatsoever in whether or not there should be laws that allow all Christians to be hunted like animals or impose the death penalty on Black people who commit misdemeanor crimes. There should not be such laws regardless of whatever we happen to think about the matter, because such laws cannot exist without treading on other people’s fundamental human rights. I take the U.S. Constitution to be an excellent historical example of a legal document that recognized this principle; since it requires all member states to have republican forms of government, but *also* imposes strict requirements that certain fundamental rights cannot come up for consideration, no matter how many people might think that they shouldn’t be protected.)
Now, the argument of same-sex marriage advocates is that same-sex couples have a right to be free of State interference in wedding. Of course, you probably do not endorse this argument; you probably think it is inappropriate, to say the least, to compare the State denying marriage privileges to same sex couples to things like slavery or Jim Crow or rounding-up of dissidents. That’s fine; but then **that** is the proper field for the argument to take: the argument should be over whether or not discrimination in marriage privileges IS the sort of injustice that same-sex marriage advocates say it is. Just appealing to whether or not these changes are being “forced on” you before you make *that* argument is bypassing the argument, and begging the question against your opponent.
Hestia: “I’ve seen you respond with vitriol and/or sarcasm a little too often. And I suppose part of it is that I’m pretty sure you’ve heard every point I could raise against anti-SSM arguments; if they haven’t gotten you to change your mind, I doubt anything I say will. I’m saving my breath and blood pressure.”
Sarcasm I’ll admit to. I think that’s a legitimate rhetorical device. Vitriolic is a harder call. I do state my views directly and without apology, and perhaps you perceive those as vitriolic. But then, I’m responding to some statements that are truly hateful–not just Raznor, but mostly Barry.
On being unconvinceable, you’re probably right that you won’t change my view on the entire SSM question. And I’m unlikely to change your view. But aren’t there other, smaller goals that we can accomplish through conversation? I see SSM not as a single big question, but as a number of small points. For example, right now we have two questions: 1) Is everyone who opposes SSM a bigot? 2) Between the pro-SSM and anti-SSM groups, which is forcing something on the other? Certainly it’s conceivable that we could agree on one or both of those questions without agreeing on the larger questions.
On your third-to-last paragraph, I was truly worried for a moment that some SSM opponent had in fact personally attacked you with profanity. I had to re-read the next paragraph to realize that you were just kidding. I assure you that, if an SSM opponent were to respond to you or any other SSM proponent with profanity and personal attacks, I would be the among the first to condemn him.
Rad Geek:
I agree with your last paragraph: Asking whether one side of the debate is forcing something on the other doesn’t really resolve the issue. I was responding to Hestia’s statement that SSM opponents were forcing their beliefs on others, which she said explained why she had trouble understanding the anti-SSM position. My point was simply that the idea of one side forcing something on the other is not objective. To the extent that one side can be said to force something on the other, the pro-SSM side is doing the forcing in the sense of creating a change in the law that wasn’t there before outside of the democratic process. That’s not an argument I created; it’s a response to someone else’s.
Your view, as I understand it, is that SSM is being enacted outside of the democratic process, as it should be. Some issues, which include fundamental human rights, are properly outside the bounds of what the people can do with their laws.
I view it differently. For me, consent of the governed is only source of governmental legitimacy. In my view, consitutional rights are inviolable because the people made them so, not because enlightened people agree that they’re really really important. The restraints on passing certain kinds of laws by simple majority are legitimate because the people imposed those restraints on themselves.
So I don’t understand appeals to constitutional amendments that were clearly approved by people who did not intend to create SSM. I had a good discussion on this with Mark Barton on MarriageDebate.com, though he took a very different approach than the one I think you’re taking.
Before I respond to your position on the proper relationship between democracy and constitutional law, have I stated your view fairly?
Ben Bateman writes: “So I don’t understand appeals to constitutional amendments that were clearly approved by people who did not intend to create SSM.”
Well, the people who approved those constitutional amendments did not intend to create a lot of things that have been created as a result. Mostly because those things were not (and in some cases, could not be) foreseen. Nevertheless, the amendments must be applied to modern circumstances. And, really, you don’t think that the people who approved those ammendments meant them to be a blanket philosophy to cover situations in the future? I mean, look at the 9th amendment for X sake. How much more of a GENERAL statement of philosophy can you ask for. Clearly the 9th amendment wasn’t intended specifically for any cause. It is a blanket statement.
And look at section 1 of the 14th ammendment. Specifically the first half of the last sentence. “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States…” Can you get any more general than that?
I could see your point if something as specific as the 13th amendment were being used in the argument. But it isn’t. So your statement is mistaken at best.
Rad,
“But Jake, you cannot force anything on laws or society. You can force things on individual people; you can force things on many individual members of a particular group. But you can’t force things on anything that doesn’t have a will”
I disagree with this statement. The laws and society under which we all live are representative of all of us. Any imposition upon the law is an imposition on everyone. Our laws are, in essence, a living representation of our will. We live in a participatory democracy, do we not?
“Further, I think it is foolish for the gay community to equate their situation to that of blacks in the 50’s and 60’s. There is an enormous difference between a once enslaved people and a man or woman who is upset because they can’t legally wed their gay partner.”
The Massachusetts Attorney General has cited a 1913 law which prevents the state from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples from other states.
This law was originally created to prevent interracial marriages.
There’s a difference between homophobia and racism? Uh, not in this case.
On the “forcing of beliefs”:
While Ben is correct that who is forcing on who doesn’t resolve the issue, it may be useful to examine who is forcing what on whom, and how they may be doing it.
I believe it is fair to say that some religiously motiviated SSM opponents justify limiting individuals marital choices based on their own religious scrupes.
In this sense the religious SSM opponents are trying to use the law to “force” non-adherents to adhere to a tenant of their religion.
I believe this is a correct use of the word “force”.
On the other hand, some SSM opponents are trying to make SSM marriage legal, which would force those with religiously based objections to recognize that the unions have are legal.
This is a also a also correct use of the word “force”.
They are “forcing” different things.
So, are they any different? Yes.
The US constitution generally, prohibits the establishment of religion. Prohiting SSM isn’t going so far as to “establish” a religion.
However, we have a fairly strong tradition of frowning on laws which have as their sole, or major purpose, the intention of forcing individuals conform to a religion they do not follow.
Similarly, we also generally frown on laws prohibiting people from organizing their private lives as they choose simply, because it might violate a third parties religious scruples.
So, in that sense,
“forcing gays to conform to the religious feelings of the majority”
is a more a “frowned on” type of forcing and
“forcing the religious to accept that their religious tenants are not the law of the land”.
is an acceptable type of forcing.
Of course, there are other issues….
In defense of Barry, the only thing I have seen him angry about in the least is pornography. I’m not sure where the “hatred” is coming from, but it’s not here.
lucia:
I really don’t think that most SSM opponents are primarily motivated by religious principles. Certainly some are primarily motivated that way, and many others have that as a factor. But I really think you’ve mistaken the motivations of those who oppose SSM.
You’re not alone in this, of course. I’ve heard a great many fanciful views from SSM supporters on what the SSM opponents “really” think, as if we’re hiding our true motives in some deep, dark conspiracy. If you really want to know what motivates an SSM opponent, you could just ask.
I don’t see how restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples becomes “forcing” a religious tenet on anybody.
My view on this forcing business is very, very simple. Force implies change. In the physics sense, a force makes an object move. In the threat-of-violence sense, you force someone to do something that they wouldn’t otherwise do.
Restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples isn’t changing anything. No one is being required to do anything that they wouldn’t normally do. So it doesn’t make sense to say that SSM opponents are forcing anybody to do anything.
But it does make sense to say that SSM proponents are using force, in two senses. First, they’re changing things. This is why they often call themselves progressives. They want to “push” society in a direction that they believe will be beneficial. In fact, they often proudly call themselves a “force for change.”
Second, and you probably won’t agree with this, they’re using “force” in the sense that they’re encouraging the courts to enact changes in the law without the consent of the governed. I see that as a very serious threat to our system government. We have a system for deciding what our laws will be, and it involves electing representatives in legislatures. Court are supposed to interpret the law, not invent new and unprecedented laws out of vague conceptions of nondiscrimination or fundamental human rights.
So that’s why I say that, if you’re going to talk about who is forcing whom in the SSM debate, it’s the pro-SSM side trying to force a change on the anti-SSM side. That doesn’t preclude an argument that the force is inherently bad. You could say that the North forced the South to end slavery. But let’s at least agree on which side wants something to change.
And on Barry’s hatred and anger, I assume that you’ve read more of his writings than I have. Of the two threads I’ve participated in, he’s been consistently nasty and closed-minded. In the first, he used some profanity in responding to a post of mine on another site. (I’d provide a link, but the temporary hosting seems to have broken it.)
In the second, which is this thread, he’s redefined the insulting term “bigot” to include 1) a majority of Americans alive today, 2) the vast majority of non-Americans alive today, and 3) the overwhelming majority of everyone who has ever lived but is not alive today. In his final sentence, he then generously promises to quit insulting those who agree with his views on SSM.
You don’t see any hate or anger there?
Ben: lucia:
I really don’t think that most SSM opponents are primarily motivated by religious principles. Certainly some are primarily motivated that way, and many others have that as a factor. But I really think you’ve mistaken the motivations of those who oppose SSM.
That’s why I said “some” and not “most”. So.. since you think that “certainly” some do, do you continue to really think I am mistaken?
Ben:My view on this forcing business is very, very simple. Force implies change. In the physics sense, a force makes an object move. In the threat-of-violence sense, you force someone to do something that they wouldn’t otherwise do.
No, no, no!. Who taught you mechanics? In a physical sense, force can just as easily be said to cause things to “stop” as to cause them to move!
For example, if you build a damn, the damn has to exert a force to hold back the water and keep it from moving!! Take my word for it. (Or if necessary, call your former physics professor.)
You can also use force to hold people in place. Think of a kidnap victim tied to a chair to keep them from moving.
Individual forces can sometimes be required to keep things hold things back, or up, or restrain things, slow things down, speed things up, or change the direction of motion.
Remember. It’s very simple: Sum of all F = d(mV)/dt.
But enough Newtonian mechanics.
Second, and you probably won’t agree with this, they’re using “force” in the sense that they’re encouraging the courts to enact changes in the law without the consent of the governed…
I both agree and disagree. I already said both sides were using force as I understand the word. But then, I use the full definition of force instead of your partial definition.
I disagree with both “enact changes in law” and “without consent of the governed”.
The advocates of SSM are asking the courts to interpret laws that were written by the legislature, pure and simple.
In some cases, these laws are constitutional amendments that embody principles that the “governed” in past generations thought so important they instituted them by super majorities.
I realize that your interpretation of the various statutes and and constitutional doctrines may differ from the interpretations by the courts. However, it is the role of the judiciary is to interpret the laws.
I do not see them inventing new laws. Even when I disagree, I do not see them inventing new laws!
As I see it, the judiciary has ALWAYS been accused of enacting new laws by people who are grumpy about their interpretations.
I
You could say that the North forced the South to end slavery. But let’s at least agree on which side wants something to change
And you could say the South forced the African slaves into bondage. Or the south used force to try to maintain slavery. Or to.. whatever!
Acting as Mrs. Languag person: “Force” is synonymous with “change”; thats why we have two separate words.
If you mean change, say change. Otherwise, you will force me to send you an engineering statics text book and force you to work all those problems involving forces on things that don’t move!
And on Barry’s hatred and anger
This post is no longer addressed to me… right? I haven’t commenting on Barry’s anger. I have no idea which person is Barry… I did a find on this page and only saw references to a Barry. Is Barry Amp? Or Amp Barry. Someone else? (Sorry for being clueless…)
I’ll fill you in lucia – Ampersand = Barry Deutsche. Look up his comics. I don’t know why in this context, where Barry is known more commonly as Ampersand, BB feels the need to address him as Barry. I’m assuming it’s a sign of disrespect somehow.
Lauren mentioned “Barry” April 1, 2004 01:23 PM
, Ben was replying. Probably no disrespect intended.
lucia:
“No, no, no!. Who taught you mechanics? In a physical sense, force can just as easily be said to cause things to “stop” as to cause them to move!”
Yeah, yeah, OK :) I thought of that when I was writing, but then I thought that the force can also change the direction of a moving object and speed it up in the same direction. So why muddy the prose?
Oh, and sorry about the last paragraph. I got you confused with Lauren, another two-syllable female-sounding name starting with L. I’ll try to pay closer attention next time.
Now on the judiciary and the constitution, maybe you can explain something that’s always puzzled me. If you start with a consent-of-the-governed theory of constitutions, then how do you make sense of extending an amendment into something that those who voted on the amendment clearly didn’t intend? Let’s assume for argument that voters of legislatures of long ago put some words into a constitution that can fairly be read to achieve some result. If the voters didn’t intend that result, then they haven’t consented to it. So why should it matter that the courts can torture their words to produce a result that the judges want?
A separate question: I agree that judges should interpret laws rather than make them. But isn’t it possible that some hypothetical court could make law under the guise of interpretation? (e.g. We hold that the Constitution requires a maximum income tax rate of 28.73%.) And if so, isn’t the question of whether the courts interpret rather than make law an empirical one?
Ben:Yeah, yeah, OK :) I thought of that when I was writing, but then I thought that the force can also change the direction of a moving object and speed it up in the same direction. So why muddy the prose?
Seriously, I make it a rule to avoid discussing Newtonian mechanics in public, but if you are going to totally mistate the law to try to gain some advantage in a political argument….
As to confusing me with lauren..If I can’t even keep track of the fact that Barry is Amp, I’m not the one who is going to indict you for that.
I was more concerned that you accused me of implying “most” when I specifically said “some”.
Ben….. ….onstitutions, then how do you make sense of extending an amendment into something that those who voted on the amendment clearly didn’t intend?
I think, as a practical matter they don’t extend them to anything the people who wrote the ammendment clearly did not intend.
The states ratifying the constitution insisted on the Bill of Rights which included the IX ammendment. It seems clear to me that people (voters) were clamoring that the consitution should be read to limit the federal government, the state government and the majority *a lot* They intended to retain as many indiviudal freedoms to as possible.
We can argue what ” a lot” means. But. I believe that what the founding fathers, and people ratifiying their constitutions thought was “when in doubt limit governmental intrusion and leave the decision to *individuals*”. Were they thinking “SSM”? No.. but they also weren’t thinking of computer programs when they included provisions for copyright in the constittion.
They meant: Reserve many, many choice to *individuals*.
If they did not mean that, what could the IX ammendment possibly MEAN?
Why not just skip it leaving 9 ammendments in the Bill of Rights? (Or split one of the other two, if you are a numerologist who loves the number 10?)
Let’s assume for argument that voters of legislatures of long ago put some words into a constitution that can fairly be read to achieve some result. If the voters didn’t intend that result, then they haven’t consented to it. So why should it matter that the courts can torture their words to produce a result that the judges want?
That is the fault of the voters for endorsing a slovenly written piece of legislature. The voters can change it by ammending the constiution once more.
We enacted prohibition– quite clearly. We hated the outcome. We revoked it. Voila!
That’s the beauty of the constitution.
Hypothetically, every branch of the government can abuse it’s power.
What’s the point of deniying it? The fact that individual branches, or people, may abuse their power is supposedly one of the strengths of separation of power..
That’s what I learned in highschool, anyway. (As you may have guessed, my training is in engineering.)
And so… as to the issue of empirical yes. it is an empircal one. You may be surprised to learn that my thesis was in *experimental* fluid mechanics. and so, I have no discomfort with empirical methods…. (Which are at the heart of the scientific method.)
So.. I can say.. I have observed the historical empirical evidence, and I believe that the supreme court almost never “writes” new law. They almost always “interpret” laws.
When they do write new law, should the people truly hate it, the people amend the constitution! (or go to war… As I think, Dred Scott was primarly overthrown, ultimately, by war, was it not?)
Thanks Raznor. I thought Amp must be Barry! I just wasn’t quite sure…
To be fair, I never assume that using someone’s real name is a sign of disrespect. Could be.. but it might be intended as a sign of respect.
It’s just a little confusing in context because I didn’t know, and the post seemed to be commenting on something I said about Barry.
Actually, I shouldn’t be here posting with quite this much wine in me…. these little boxes with no spell checker are bad enough.. I hate to even imagine how many typos I’ll see in my own post tomorrow
A few comments on ‘forcing’ and the law:
Ben Bateman responds to my recent post with the following clarification and question:
“I agree with your last paragraph: Asking whether one side of the debate is forcing something on the other doesn’t really resolve the issue. I was responding to Hestia’s statement that SSM opponents were forcing their beliefs on others, which she said explained why she had trouble understanding the anti-SSM position. My point was simply that the idea of one side forcing something on the other is not objective.”
I cannot agree with this at all. It seems to me quite clear that whether or not Jones is forcing something on Smith is a matter of objective fact, not a matter of viewpoints or preferences. The issues involved are (1) whether Jones is doing something against Smith’s will, and (2) whether what Jones is doing is something that Smith has a right to have some say in. (I can’t force anything on you that you consent to; and I’m not forcing anything on you, say, by moving my own property around in my living room — even if you REALLY REALLY wanted my couch to stay where it is.) Since I take both what you consent to or do not consent to, and what you do or do not have a right to demand, to be matters of fact, so is whether or not I am forcing something on you. I take the operative question in the same-sex marriage debate to be: who is forcing what on whom? SSM opponents and advocates come up with opposing answers to these questions–the opponents at moment usually leaning on some theory or another of popular sovereignty, and the advocates on some theory of inalienable individual rights. THIS is where I take the field of argument to be. (I understand that insofar as your appeal to having things “forced on” you is premature, it also means that the appeal to which you were responding was just as premature. Fair enough.)
Ben goes on:
“To the extent that one side can be said to force something on the other, the pro-SSM side is doing the forcing in the sense of creating a change in the law that wasn’t there before outside of the democratic process. That’s not an argument I created; it’s a response to someone else’s.”
That’s fine, and if I say your argument was begging the question then it’s no less true that the argument you responded to was also begging the question. But I want to underline that your argument _does_ beg the question. For an advocate of SSM, this is a matter of _fundamental rights_, and therefore should _not_ be contingent on the endorsement of the legislature. (That doesn’t mean, of course, that it _can’t_ be achieved through the legislature, just that it shouldn’t _need_ to be.) The advocate of SSM is just going to counter that I can’t force something on you unless what I am doing has something to do with something you have a right to (I can’t, in any important sense, be said to have forced the arrangement of the furniture in my front room on you), and s/he is going to argue that s/he regards the marriage of two people who have nothing in particular to do with you is not anything that you have a right to weigh in on. That doesn’t mean that they are necessarily right, of course; it just means *that* is where the argument lies, *before* anything can be said about forcing anything on anyone.
“Your view, as I understand it, is that SSM is being enacted outside of the democratic process, as it should be. Some issues, which include fundamental human rights, are properly outside the bounds of what the people can do with their laws.”
A couple points of clarification.
(1) I *don’t* think that same-sex marriages should be recognized by law. But that’s because I don’t think that *any* marriages should be recognized by law; I think that the best way to solve these difficulties is to get the State out of the marriage business entirely. What I’m trying to do here is get clear on the arguments, not to plump for either of the sides in the mainstream SSM debate.
(2) It’s a bit odd to claim that same-sex marriages are being ‘enacted outside the democratic process.’ I take it you *don’t* mean that they are being enacted without a democratic plebiscite! — since relatively few laws are ever enacted that way. I take it that you mean that it’s being enacted outside of the _legislature_. That’s true, but it seems to me that the judiciary’s understanding of a constitution, is as much a part of the process of law in a democratic constitution as the edicts of the legislature is. What I *will* say is that *if* marriage between consenting adults is either a constitutional guarantee or an inalienable human right, *then* it shouldn’t be contingent on being ratified by the legislature! I take it, in fact, that there is simply *no such thing* as an act of the legislature that contravenes constitutional guarantees or inalienable human rights; any legislature that *tries* to pass such a bill will simply *fail to make a law*, because it steps outside of the bounds of its legitimate authority. (The same is just as true of a plebiscite or any other sort of legislative mechanism. There are simply some things that they cannot make law no matter what.)
“I view it differently. For me, consent of the governed is only source of governmental legitimacy.”
I agree with you that the consent of the governed is the *only* source of governmental legitimacy. But I cannot agree that it is *always* a source of governmental legitimacy. After all, if *you* consent for all the Christians in the U.S. to be hunted like animals, that doesn’t mean that the government has any authority to do so; and it still doesn’t have that authority if 51%, or even 99%, of the population consents to it.
Put it another way: the ‘consent of the governed’ is a necessary but insufficient condition for government authority. The government also needs to be acting with respect towards everyone’s inalienable rights, and it also needs to be acting within a Constitutional framework that gives it a particular form, a coherent process, and outlines the proper sphere of its authority.
“In my view, consitutional rights are inviolable because the people made them so, not because enlightened people agree that they’re really really important.”
I think that this is a false dichotomy. Supporters of SSM don’t think that it’s a matter of what enlightened people agree on. They think that it’s a matter of what people have a fundamental right to. Judges succeed or fail at recognizing those fundamental rights; they do not CREATE them just by believing in them really hard.
. . .
“So I don’t understand appeals to constitutional amendments that were clearly approved by people who did not intend to create SSM.”
I think appeals to original intent are misleading at best. The issue is not what the person *meant* to write, but rather the meaning of what s/he *did* write. If someone, confusing “may” with “might” as many people do, says “Hitler may have won World War II,” then s/he has said something *false*. The fact that s/he *meant* to say “Hitler might have won World War II” does not change the meaning of what s/he *did* say. Similarly, if the authors of, say, the Fourteenth Amendment *actually* wrote something that entails the recognition of same-sex marriage, then that’s good enough — even if that has absolutely nothing to do with what they *meant* to accomplish, and **even if they would have repudiated same-sex marriage if they were asked**. So it makes perfect sense to me to appeal to amendments on issues that have nothing to do with the original intent of the amendment; the exegetical question of whether the Fourteenth Amendment *actually* entails recognition of same-sex marriages is something that I won’t delve into at the moment.
“Before I respond to your position on the proper relationship between democracy and constitutional law, have I stated your view fairly?”
I hope that this helps clarify things a bit (though I fear that it has only muddified.)
Lucia and Rad Geek have both given very interesting responses. I’ll try to do them both justice.
Lucia, I’m all with you on the ninth (and tenth) amendments limiting the power of the federal government, though to nitpick I think that those were intended more as a matter of empowering the states than individuals. But in general let’s agree that personal liberty was a big goal in the Bill of Rights. How do you get from personal liberty to SSM? (I’m assuming from your comments that you’re an SSM supporter.) How does the government giving benefits to somebody else impinge on your personal liberty?
On judges interpreting vs making law, I’d agree that the vast bulk of the US Supreme Court’s opinions in a given year consist of interpretation rather than lawmaking. But it only takes a handful of lawmaking opinions to cause real harm to the government. So I’ve got two questions for you on judges:
1. How would you determine when an opinion was lawmaking rather than interpretive?
2. If a group of judges insists on lawmaking rather than interpreting, what are the other branches of government supposed to do about it? Before you just say “amend the constitution,” consider that that solution is only effective to the extent that the judges pay attention to what the constitution says. If the judges are simply ignoring the constitution, which I think has happened many times, how will amending it affect what they do?
Rad Geek:
So your view is that a law must have the consent of the governed and be consistent with inalienable rights. I’m OK with that in theory, but people seem to have very, very different views of what rights are inalienable. I think inalienable rights must be negative, that is, rights to not have people do certain things to you. But many people want to include within “inalienable rights” things like health care, housing, etc., which are positive rights, or rights to have something given to you. So which inalienable rights do you have in mind? Also, do you see some connection between inalienable rights and SSM?
Your last point is a philosophy of language point that I’ve heard before, but I don’t agree with. How can you make sense of words without asking yourself what the person who wrote the words intended?
An example: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Does this mean literally that Congress may not write any law that refers in any way to any kind of church? Does it mean that Congress is forbidden from, say, offering tax exemptions to churches, because to do so they would have to say something about churches in a law? And since it only refers to Congress, does that leave the President and judiciary free to impose a religion on the people?
I don’t know of anyone who believes that those words should be interpreted literallly as written. As with all other language, those words are interpreted in accordance with what we think they’re supposed to mean. I think that they were intended to prevent the federal government from establishing a national church like the Anglican church in England, which would compete with the various official state churches that existed at ratification. Many people think that those words mean “separation of church and state.” But I don’t know anybody who thinks it really means “Congress shall make no law.” Maybe you’re the first.
Here’s a non-legal example of the importance of intent that I remember from a linguistics course: The linguistics professor is driving down a highway, having recently returned from Russia to the United States. He sees a sign that says “Cyn Ahead.” He wonders what “Cyn” could mean. Then his familiarity with Russian takes hold, and he translates “cyn” into “soup.” (In Russian, “cyn” is even pronounced the same way as the English word soup. It’s that crazy Cyrillic alphabet.) So he wonders if the sign means that he will be able to buy soup somewhere up ahead. Then he remembers that he’s in the United States now, and it’s unlikely that they’ve started writing the road signs in Cyrillic. Instead, he realizes that “Cyn” must be an abbreviation for “Canyon.”
The point is that you can only make sense of “cyn” if you know something about who wrote it and what he probably intended to convey by writing it. Without reference to someone’s intent, the symbols alone mean nothing.
Posted by Ben Bateman
Lucia and Rad Geek have both given very interesting responses. I’ll try to do them both justice.
Lucia, I’m all with you on the ninth (and tenth) amendments limiting the power of the federal government,
Nice try adding the 10th to confuse the issue and bring in the “State Rights” issue to my argument.
I was discussing the IX, which stands on it’s own and precedes the X.
Read the IX Ben…
“Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Since you are a fan of X (and I am a fan of X), let us read that one to examine the meaning of “people”.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
I prefer to believe that the founders weren’t being redundant when the wrote “to the states respectively, or to the people”. I would assume “people” and “states” mean different things. (My interpretation: People=> individuals; States=> Virginia, Rhode Island… etc.)
So, Amendment IX is talking about PEOPLE not STATES.
If you wish to be a “strict constructionist”, and also have credibility, you can’t just go redefining “people” to mean states, thus rendering IX practically meaningless!
My opinion: When the founders wrote the IX and the people endorsed it, they knew *precisely* what they were saying:. “Just because we didn’t explicitly list a right, it may exist, and the people retain that right.”
This type of clause is inserted in contract all the time: People don’t GIVE UP rights unless they *explicitly* vote to do so. That’s what the US constitution says, and that’s what the American voters endorsed.
though to nitpick I think that those were intended more as a matter of empowering the states than individuals.
Not to nitpick, but that would be the 10th. But, that’s just what I learned in high school…..
But in general let’s agree that personal liberty was a big goal in the Bill of Rights. How do you get from personal liberty to SSM? (I’m assuming from your comments that you’re an SSM supporter.) How does the government giving benefits to somebody else impinge on your personal liberty?
I am a SSM supporter. Although for the record, I am married to a man, and am planning my 20th wedding anniversary excursion for June…
People have a right to organize and live their own lives. Although these not “enumerated” in the constitution, it is fairly clear that the founders, and voters in the colony were all for letting individuals (i.e. the people) live their lives, have liberty and pursue happiness. I know I was pursuing my own happiness when I chose my spouse , even though I am we have always suspected my mother did not, quite approve. (Polish relatives..drinks … gasp beer…! Horrors……)
Why shouldn’t others have a right to pursue their happiness?
When they wrote Article IX, I believe the founders wished to reserve for people the right to pursue life, liberty and happiness. I believe they knew that meant that rights they had not even enumerated would be considered to exist. That’s what they SAID!
I believe that it was their intention that if we wish to TAKE AWAY a right, we must do so by ammending the constitution. (And we did, in fact, at one time, revoke the right to make sell and distribute liquor. )
1. How would you determine when an opinion was lawmaking rather than interpretive?
I would read the various opinions, and all citations and see if the opinion was based on the wording of the constitution, the law as written and precedents. How else? ;)
2. If a group of judges insists on lawmaking rather than interpreting, what are the other branches of government supposed to do about it? Before you just say “amend the constitution,” consider that that solution is only effective to the extent that the judges pay attention to what the constitution says. If the judges are simply ignoring the constitution, which I think has happened many times, how will amending it affect what they do?
I disagree that they have ignored the constitution many times. I you think they have, please be specific. Then, discuss the various supporting and dissenting opinions and….
Look, it is perfectly possible for the Senate to write a CLEAR amendment that does what you hope for: Ban SSM. The problem for you is that 1) They started discussing it, wrote a first draft which was VERY CLEAR. They passed that around and figured out it wasn’t going to pass…. 2) They are on their second draft. It’s not clear that can pass.
It would also be possible to write a CLEAR amendment to vitiate the 14th. The problem is that it won’t pass.
SSM opponent’s problem is that correct reading of the constitution suggests that SS marriage may be a constitutional right and they can’t seem to get sufficient democratic support to change this. You don’t seem to have the votes at the federal level! (Although, that remains to be seen.)
I’ll step on Rad’s comment in the “force” argument.
..
I think Rad is wrong when he says he isn’t forcing anything on you when he insists on moving his furniture around in his own living room. He is forcing something on you: He is forcing you to accept that this is HIS business and not yours.
So, Rad and I differ on the “meaning” of force. (Sorry Rad.)
However, I think he has a right to force you to accept that *you * are not the master of the universe and cannot dictate every single friggin’ thing you want just because you want it.
That is to say: I think it is “justifiable” force. That doesn’t make it “not force”. (But, since my background is in engineering, I don’t think “force” necessarily has bad connotations. We can use it for good or evil. )
I imagine Rad is willing to stay out the heck out of your living room and let you decorate your walls with those horrible poker playing dogs… It’s your right. Rad and I will just laugh at your bad taste and gossip about it to the neighbors.. ;)
I should let Rad answer your comments on his post, but I can’t help butting in.
Your last point is a philosophy of language point that I’ve heard before, but I don’t agree with. How can you make sense of words without asking yourself what the person who wrote the words intended?
Ben… I must say…you are losing credibility on claiming to you are able interpret what people “intend” words to mean. So far, on this blog along, you have
* translated “force” to mean “change” and/or “only the part of force that supports my argument”, (and then when corrected on your mis-use , justified the incorrect novel use, because the correct use would ‘muddy’ your prose!! )
* translated my use of “some” to mean “most”, and
* translated my reference to the “IX amendment” to mean “the IX and X… but lets forget about the IX”.
I suspect I could find more novel re-translations of words and phrases if I scrolled up, or searched blogs widely. But, if you do not stop this, I will personally nickname you “Mr. Malaprop of Blogdom”.
An example: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Does this mean literally that Congress may not write any law that refers in any way to any kind of church?
No.. if the founders meant “shall not make reference to or regulate…” instead of “establish” they would have said “…reference to or regulate”….Once again.. I tend to assume that, as much as possible, they selected the words they meant to use, and understood them to mean what most people think they mean. When a single noun or verb was ambiguous they added modifiers in the form of adverbs, adjectives and even complete clauses! (Imagine?!)
And since it only refers to Congress, does that leave the President and judiciary free to impose a religion on the people? Ben… read the constitution. The whole thing Start here:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html
. The powers of the executive and judicial branches are discussed in articles II and III. But, don’t read those until after you read article I.
If reading doesn’t clarify the the powers, duties and responsibilities of the separate branches, try a google and read articles discussing “separation of powers.” Or, go to the library.. (Sorry to be snide.. but did they require a constitution test for high school student in your state?!)
I don’t know of anyone who believes that those words should be interpreted literally as written. As with all other language, those words are interpreted in accordance with what we think they’re supposed to mean.
Ahh.. so like Clinton.. you think it depends on what the meaning of “is is”?
Well.. I agree with you that words are interpreted in accordance to what we think they are supposed to mean. But you certainly come up with some singular definitions. (That is: Singular to you… not using the common definitions most others use….)
…. “Congress shall make no law.” Maybe you’re the first.
Rad is hardly the first…
But more to the point, why are you editing out “establishment”? That’s an important word! I may be the first, but I assume that when the founders wrote a full sentence, they meant the FULL sentence…. But maybe that’s just me.
The point is that you can only make sense of “cyn” if you know something about who wrote it and what he probably intended to convey by writing it. Without reference to someone’s intent, the symbols alone mean nothing.
With all due respect to you linguistics’ prof… if this sign existed, it would be an example of bad, unclear and unnecessarily confusing sign writing. “Canyon ahead” is no longer a phrase than ” tourist information”, which appears frequently on signs. A typical American driver would have seen the canyon before they guessed what the sign might mean.
It is fortunate for drivers that highway sign writers avoid abbreviating words to the point of incomprehensibility to native speakers. (and.. I assume your linguistics prof. taught you the “flip side” of that lesson? If you write a sign, you should try to use words as readers are likely to understand them? Or.. did you fall asleep for the second half of the lesson– just as you did in highschool physics?)
It is also fortunate that the founders were, generally, highly literate, had large vocabularies, and carefully selected their words that meant what they intended. They even discussed specific word choices among themselves. They also circulated the proposed amendments and people in the colonies where these words were discussed further. “Establishment” did not mean “regulation”. “People” did not mean “states”.
Ben Bateman wrote: “I think inalienable rights must be negative, that is, rights to not have people do certain things to you.”
What about free speech? Freedom to assemble? Right to a fair trial, impartial jury of peers and all? Pursuit of life, liberty & happiness?
Ben also wrote: “How do you get from personal liberty to SSM?”
Is marriage not a personal liberty?
And: “How does the government giving benefits to somebody else impinge on your personal liberty?”
How about if persons of East Asian descent were not allowed to drive? Would that be an impingement on the personal liberties of persons of East Asian descent? I take it that you would say, “No, because that is a benefit that the government is giving to somebody else,” if I read your statement correctly.
I found many other things that Ben wrote to be inconsistent with both his internal logic & with the real world, but both Lucia & Rad have written some excellent pieces pointing out where this has happened.
I want to thank the three of you for posting a nice debate on the constitutional/legal aspects of SSM. Which is where I think the debate needs to be for now since that is the stage that we’re at.
Ben asked Rad:
And: “How does the government giving benefits to somebody else impinge on your personal liberty?”
Wrong question. At least from my point of view. (It may be a valid one from Rad’s. He may, of course, provide his own answer.)
To answer a question *I* consider more “relevant” Is the government giving benefits to somebody else and denying them to you, unconstitutional?
See Ammendment XIV:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxiv.html
Don’t skim past the article I, which ends
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Laws confering the financial benefits of marriage protect against economic uncertaintiies and vagaries of life. They protect the dependt children who are being cared for by a pair of adults.
Therefor, marriage confers a protection and must be applied equally.
I can see two ways to achieve equal protection:
1) eliminate civil marriage, or vitiates its legal and financial consequences. (No effect on social security, taxes, property laws, yada, yada..) or
2) confer access to marraige equally.
When the Supreme court ruled on “Loving” they took option 2. If I understand Rad correctly, he likes option 1.
As to philosopy:
I happen to believe the equal protection clause belongs in the constitution. But, if you dislike it, by all means, contact your Seneator and suggest he amend the constitution!
Please refer to the constitution for direction on the correct process, which requires getting a lot of people to vote for your ammendment! ;-)
1.) Why this battle over SSM? Hey – Christains – we lost the battle about marriage when the no-fault laws were passed. Find a new battleground – ’cause yo gonna lose on this one. I predict:
In 10 years, SSMarriages will be divorcing and screwing up families just like OSMarriages do now. In the long term – there are bigger fish to fry than this.
2.) Bigot is a rather strong epithet – makes you think of the thugs that beat up Matthew Shepard. Frankly, I can’t think of anyone that writes comments on blogs that is like that. Stick with ill-informed homophobe… it is certainly a more nuanced name to call someone if you must.
3.) Duh – gay people want to get married – and they will respond with personal attacks if you present some contorted case why they can’t. Understand, it is intensley PERSONAL to them. The way that gays get all pissed off when you make a counter-SSM argument to me is, well understandable. Why this is a suprise boggles my limited brain capacity.
“Bigot is a rather strong epithet – makes you think of the thugs that beat up Matthew Shepard. Frankly, I can’t think of anyone that writes comments on blogs that is like that. Stick with ill-informed homophobe… it is certainly a more nuanced name to call someone if you must.”
I have to disagree with this one thing you said (though I agree with the rest of your comments). Plenty of peaceful people who never hurt a fly were still very pro-Jim Crow, but I’d say they were just as bigoted as the Klansmen who burned crosses and killed Black people.
Ben Batemen wrote:
According to the Pew poll, “Not surprisingly, the most religious Americans are the least likely to favor gay marriage. Nearly half of Americans with relatively low religious commitment approve of allowing homosexual couples the right to marry, compared with just 17% of those who are more religious. This gap along religious lines exists across all age groups.”
Accoridng to the Pew poll, what do opponants of “gay marriage” say their main reason is for opposing gay marraige?
A) 28% Morally wrong / a sin / the Bible says
B) 17% Against my religious beliefs
C) 16% Definition of marriage is a man & a woman
D) 12% It’s just wrong / I just don’t agree with it
E) 9% Homosexuality is not natural/normal
F) 4% Purpose of marriage is to have children
G) 2% Bad for children
H) 2% Opens the door to other immoral behavior
I) 1% Undermines traditional family
J) 1% Don’t have stable, long-term relationships
K) 1% Causes economic/legal problems
L) 3% Other
M) 4% Dont’ know/Refused
So it’s true that most SSM opponants don’t cite religion as their main reason to oppose SSM.
However, it’s also true that the reasons I encounter a lot while reading conservative intellectuals against SSM – reasons F through I – are fairly insignificant reasons most people oppose SSM, compared to religious motives (A & B), tautologies (C), and just plain homophobia (D & E).
Bottom line: FAR more people oppose SSM because of religion than oppose SSM because they’re worried about the harm to children. I take your word that you’re not motivated by religion, Ben; but you’re more an exception than a rule.
* * *
Finally, Ben, I did say “fuck off” in response to your describing the SSM debate as “Those who care deeply about children” versus “Those who don’t.” (Either because they won’t be “represented” in the future by children, or they will, but don’t care about what happens to those children).
You later backed away from this statement (or explained that you didn’t mean it the way I took it). I’m happy that you’ve turned over a new leaf, and I’m very impressed with how polite you’ve been in this thread. But please don’t pretend that you were a poor innocent victim who never, ever said anything insulting about anyone you disagree with. I admit I’ve got my flaws, but maybe you should admit that you’re not perfect, either, and take some responsibility for the offense you’ve given.
I’m quite willing to let bygones be bygones, and cease attacking you personally if you’ll cease attacking me personally. Are you willing?
I think it’s possible that the people who wrote the fourteenth amendment wanted to create a general princple of good goverment, rather than create an amendment which would be applicable to the issues of their time and no other issues at all. (If they did intend that limitation, by the way, why didn’t they write it in? As written, it obviously can be read as a statement of general principle. Why do you think they left that very clear interpretation open, if that wasn’t their intent?)
Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson said it very well 55 years ago: “The framers of the Constitution knew, and we should not forget today, that there is no more effective practical guaranty against arbitrary and unreasonable government than to require that the principles of law which officials would impose upon a minority be imposed generally. Conversely, nothing opens the door to arbitrary action so effectively as to allow those officials to pick and choose only a few to whom they will apply legislation and thus to escape the political retribution that might be visited upon them if larger numbers were affected.”
Amp, to answer your rhetorical question, there are at least 2 reasons I can think of why any amendment of constitution, might be written broadly, when they intended to apply it narrowly.
1) Those who wrote it had poor language skills or wrote it in haste without reflection.
2) Those who wrote it wanted “credit” for “thinking big” and being broadminded, when in fact, they are smaller minded.
I do not believe any of the amendments were written in haste. The Senate review the wording carefully. They are now on their second draft of the marriage amendment, and likely they will wordsmith another version before they pass anything on to the states.
In the second case, my thinkiing is: So what? If they crafted a broad amendement, wishing others to “believe” they were broad minded, Senators know there is a serious risk that the broad interpretation might apply.
They have decided that they are willing to take that risk. So be it.
In any case, when the document doesn’t say what some of the Senators intended, I still believe we need to prefer what it actually says to speculations about “what it means”. Why?
Because the “governed”, who did not write the documnt, read the document.
During the ratification process, they consented to what they read.
When I read a document, contract, bill or amendment, and vote, how am I to guess that the Senators meant to hold me to something esle? Did I vote for what they “magined but did not write?
I voted based on what is written.
So, those who are concerned with the “consent of the governed” do need to be very concerned with what the document says. It does not make sense to waive away what it says by speculating that those who wrote it might have meant something else.
More commonly, people speculate “what they would have written if only they could predict the future with 100% accuracy.” The theory here is: Yes, the wrote it broadly and meant to do so. However, that is only because they didn’t think of a particular question.
It is clear that Senators know that they cannot anticipate every individual question and issues. If they are concerned about that, they can write a bill or amendment narrowly. They know this. The voters know it.
So, inability to predict the future is also not a reason to interpret a bill or amendment other than as it is written. No one can predict the future. Everyone knows that. That is why the founders created an amendment process.
I am posting in regard to my own post dated yesterday at 5:45 am.
After private conversation with Ben, I want to apologize for unnecessary vitriol, snide remarks and digs contained in that post.
I “heard” a tone in his post, which I now believe he did not intend. This is my fault, since I am have long been aware that the tone of email and posts to blogs appears to the reader more negative than intended.
My tone was intentionally more severes. That was not fair. It is a fault I try to guard against, but I often fail.
I also need to comment that it is somewhat courageous of Ben to post at all.
I disagree whole heartedly with his position on SSM, but it is his position. I also recognize that he returned to the blog to read at least 7 posts criticizing both his position, and in some cases, his person.
Moreover, I assume he wished to respond to all posts. This required him to address, simultaneously, a number of arguments from vastly different perspectives. For example: I argue mostly from my understanding of the Constitution. Rad argues form the perspective of “Inalienable Rights”. Others ague from entirely different positions.
How is any one to respond to all of those thoughtfully, and in the rapid fire manner required, or at least expected, on blogs? It is a difficult thing to do. I’m not sure I could do better.
As a rule, I think it best, when at all possible, try to assume people mean what they say sincerely, and are not trying to “dig” or act as trolls. Although I disagree with Ben on SSM, I believe he is not acting a a troll.
I failed to hold myself to this principle, and jumped to a conclusion. I acted on this conclusion. I now believe both my conclusion, and my actions were wrong, and rude.
I dug and cast aspersions where I should not have. I believe I injured Ben, and the blog. I apologize to both.
Sorry, but you are what you do, not what you “feel in your heart”!
Here’s the thing though, pure majoritarianism is not a good system for a Democratic government. I’m as populist as the next guy, but I recognize that people en masse are generally nonrational. A typical method of tyranny, at least by those who know what they’re doing, would be to stir hatred and fear of group B in group A (not necessarily a minority-majority of the population, but this relationship is typical).
I believe the writers of the Constitution realized it, which is why they created a Judiciary that could protect the values of the Republic without having to appeal to the masses. Ben, you commented earlier how SSMers go to the courts to avoid going through democratic processes, but that is the method in our Constitutional Democracy. Especially in Civil Rights movements, since the movement only is useful when it advances the rights of individuals despite unpopularity with the majority.
This is kind of longwinded I know. I’m in the middle of writing the abstract for my thesis (how’s that for an exciting Saturday night! ah to be young) so this isn’t as clean or as well-thought out as I would have liked, so, uhhh, yay.
Uh, and sixfootpole, I just did a “find” search for “feel in your heart”, and the only place that occurred was in your post. To whom are you responding?
I’m sorry I haven’t had time to respond to all this. The work I put off last week is catching up to me. I’ll get to it in a few days.
Lucia, thanks so much for your kind comments and apology. You’ve restored a good deal of my faith in the other side. Barry: Yes, I will be happy to forgo personal attacks as long as you agree that it’s possible for a reasonable, intelligent and honest person to disagree with you.
I’ll be glad to go back to any thread of conversation we’ve created here, but since we’ve moved to Constitutional interpretation, I’ll start there.
Amp has asked: “If they intended the limitation, why didn’t they write it in?” Lucia wants to interpret constitutions exactly as they are written. I disagree with them.
I’m a lawyer by trade. I don’t say that to try to intimidate anyone, but to explain that I have an unusual perspective on theories of interpreting written rules: It’s what I do every day. So what I’m about to say isn’t theoretical, but from long experience. (And let’s skip the lawyer jokes.)
Words are always imprecise. No matter how many rules you write for a situation, people will always create new situations that don’t fit within the rules. Put another way, the number of rules you can create is always finite, but the number of significantly different human situation is always infinite.
A simple example:
“Thou shalt not kill.”
To many non-lawyers, this is a very clear rule. But when you really analyze it, you see that it’s far from clear. On a first edit, we might make an obvious point:
“Thou shalt not kill another person.”
By failing to clarify this, Moses left open the door for an argument millenia in the future that Mosaic law requires vegetarianism. So we’ve got the species down. But there is much more to clarify:
Next rewrite: “Thou shalt not kill another person intentionally.”
We don’t want to outlaw accidental killing, do we? Suppose Joshua is practicing his archery and doesn’t know that Ruth is taking a nap in the pile of hay behind his target. That’s not murder, is it?
Actually, it depends. Joshua might have chosen a poor spot for his archery practice. He could be terribly careless, which might count about the same as intent, but with a lesser penalty. Millions of words have been written trying to explain exactly what it means for someone to do something intentionally. So adding “intentionally” only minimally clarifies the rule. That word really represents centuries of thought by scholars and judges on what the word “intentional” means in a legal context.
A few more exceptions: “Thou shalt not kill another person intentionally, unless: 1) you’re a soldier, or 2) you kill in self-defense.
For the soldier, who is he allowed to kill? Enemy soldiers, obviously. But not if they’ve surrendered, in which case the soldier must take them as prisoners of war. Unless the enemy has made a tactic of pretending to surrender and then fighting back.
Can the soldier kill civilians? Maybe. That’s a really complicated issue in itself. It can be hard to distinguish enemy soldiers from civilians. And how much of a risk to civilians is acceptable? Does the rule change if the enemy is purposefully using them as human shields?
Self-defense in murder is another complex topic. There’s mistake: What if you thought that the other person was threatening to kill you, but witnesses who were present disagree? Does your subjective belief in the other person’s intent to kill you exonerate you, or does your belief in the threat have to be objectively reasonable? Can you kill someone who is merely threatening to injure you but maybe not kill you? Does your belief about the level of threat or the probability of your own death have to be subjectively true or objectively reasonable?
My goal here is not to start a discussion of the details of murder law. The point is that, even for such a basic concept of murder, you could fill volumes with explanations, definitions, exceptions, and exceptions to the exceptions. In fact, people have already done exactly that, and yet still we have cases where the facts are clear but the application of the law to the facts is unclear.
This is why those who write constitutions don’t include every exception to every amendment. Even legislatures, which write enormous statutes these days, know that they can’t cover every situation. They have to assume that reasonable judges and lawyers will interpret their words. That’s a big part of the reason for having judges and lawyers.
This is why those who write constitutions don’t list all the exceptions to each amendment, and this is why it isn’t enough to read an amendment in the abstract while ignoring the writer’s intent. It’s theoretically impossible for anyone writing a rule on a legal topic to perfectly express his meaning with the imperfect tool of words. It’s impossible to list all the exceptions and definitions. This isn’t just a problem of changing times and circumstances; it’s a problem inherent in words themselves.
Ben,
So, I take it, you think it is justifyable for the courts to interpret the written words of the document?
And if yes, how do you interepret the IX ammendment? (Not the 10th.)
Lucia