OH, WHILE I’M PASSING OUT CONSTRUCTIVE ADVICE, can I suggest that folks unhappy about Proposition 8 would be better-served by pushing for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act than by protesting at Mormon Temples and stomping on crosses?
At any rate, protesting at city halls is a lot friendlier than picketing churches, no?
Glenn and I are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I don’t know that stomping on crosses makes much of a point - not every Christian sect supported 8 - but the Mormons sure as hell did, and I see no reason their bigotry should go unscathed or unremarked - or unprotested.
At any rate, protesting at city halls is a lot friendlier than picketing churches, no?
And makes a hell of a lot less sense. The city halls of California were almost unanimous in opposition to Prop 8.
Frankly, I simply don’t understand Glenn’s obsessive urge to protect Mormons from the consequences of their bigotry. They were the single biggest factor - raised and spent the most money, ran the most scurrilous, dishonest ads, probably mobilized the most people - why should their central role be ignored? Or excused?
UPDATE: (From Chef Mojo) Welcome Instapundit readers! Have at it as always, but before going off the deep end, you should understand how this subject is playing out over here at DP. I would invite you to read the following posts and comments to get the flavor of what’s been going on.
Man, I’m Tired of These “Moderate” Supporters of Bigotry
Gays: Start Buying Firearms. Lots of Them.
Submit to Stumbled Upon!
I guess Glenn just feels a need to remind his audience that Mormonism is a religion of peace, despite the harm it has caused to itself and others in the name of the prophet.
So an advocacy group ran “scurrilous” advertisements that successfully “mobilized” people? Gasp! The horror. Such activities are simply unheard of in politics.
Question: Is it possible to legitimately opposed Barack Obama without being a racist? (Many implied during the campaign that it was not possible.)
Question: Is is possible to legitimately support Prop. 8 without being a bigot? Bill Quick seems to be implying that the only reason to oppose gay marriage (oxymoron) is out of bigotry.
Question: Why is the bigotry, intolerance and indeed fascism of the anti-Prop. 8 forces ignored in so many places? Glenn Reynolds point is that bigotry, intolerance and fascism turn off the American people and thus by their bigotry, intolerance and fascism, the anti-Prop. 8 protestors are hurting their cause.
Question: Of all the people, organizations and groups that supported Prop. 8, why single out the Mormons? Is this not a case of bigotry? (Oh, I thought the election of the One healed the nation….)
Are the Mormons motivated by something other than bigotry? Revenge perhaps?
After all, they are, themselves, victims of an ersatz ‘Defense of Marriage Act’–one in which they were forced to alter the tenets of their faith.
From what I understand, Mormon polygamy was based on the structure of their Gods’ family–emulating it helped them get their version of Heaven. Abadoning it….
I believe the move created schismatic ‘fundamentalist’ Mormons.
Is it possible that somewhere in this whole thing is the feeling ‘If WE can’t have an alternate form of marriage–we’re gonna see to it that NO ONE gets one’?
I mean, I haven’t seen gay groups coming out in support of Mormon alternate marriage….and I have this feeling that I wouldn’t have to look too hard to find some gays making statements–possibly quite public– against examples of it–say the recent Texas thing–on religious wackjob grounds.
But who knows, it’s just a thought that crossed my mind…
Jabba — the answer to the firsst question is “yes.”
But the answer to the second one is “no.” Really. There are rationalizations, but using religion as an excuse doesn’t change that it’s racism.
Opposing gay marriage is bigoted? What about opposing polygamy? Can I oppose that and retain my morality? Can I oppose homosexuals in the military? I just want to make sure that nothing I do is bigoted, so that I can be more like those oh-so-saintly gays that are trying to force their “rights” on people that have voted over and over again to keep marriage b/t man and woman.
Considering that polygamy is still in the Mormons’ religious DNA and that some backcountry folks still practice it, and considering that Muslims currently practice polygamy, you’d think that they’d take advantage of the gay marriage thing as a wedge to bring in polygamy.
But instead, they very are fighting against gay marriage, regardless of the political cost to them. So clearly, they’re working off sheer idealism.
Which of course is bigotry. Just like patriotism is bigotry, and believing that one’s religion is actually true is bigotry….
What does opposition to gay marriage have to do with racism?
Important safety tip to the Prop. 8 protesters:
Be really careful about constantly calling people “bigots” because, one day, they may just wake up and tell themselves, “Yeah, I guess I am a bigot. And it feels gooooooood.”
Jabba question #2:
I’m agnostic. Nothing particuarly against gays per se. But I’m 60/40 against gay marriage as pragmatic social policy.
I don’t see any defensible line between gay marriage and poligamy. I think poligamy is a bad model for society, for too many reasons to discuss here.
I think its a pragmatic and reasonable decision to give a preference to marriage as a family unit with a primary focus on raising children. I don’t believe gay marriage is primarily that. (I know there are lots of exceptions on both sides here, but we are talking very broad social policy).
Of course. And since the editors and vast majority of readers of this blog did not support Obama, the question is irrelevent.
Give me a good reason to support it, and I’ll answer. As to the reasons that the pro-proposition 8 folks gave, I’ll let a Mormon and an evangelical Christian answer.
I dunno. Perhaps it’s the same reason that Glenn Reynolds and PJM ignore this effort by this person, and ignore the collusion of LDS with the Roman Catholic Church.
Because they made it a matter of word of the prophet to support it, and a majority of the dollars spent came from Mormon sources. Enter into the political fray, and abide by the consequences.
Chef, Bill - my response is probably languishing in the spam filter because of the links.
Some comedian quipped about Gay marriage words to the effect of ‘why not? Gays should be unhappy ike everyone else.’
I could really give a damn one way or the other. If a couple of people want a legal contract…and that is what marriage is all about..a contract..that says they will share their life then what the hell. I don’t see that it threatens my marriage nor the marriage of anyone else.
In fact I don’t care if someone marries their goat so they can claim an income tax deduction…maybe if enough people married goats the public would finally realize that income tax deductions for family memers is an income redistribution scam that penalizes those who have chose not to have families.
Fixed it, Ray.
I’ve had this discussion in the macro about a hundred times in the last 10 days.
Traditional values - a healthy respect by the state and individuals for the family and other non-state social institutions - is the framework in which individual liberty is possible. Short of being armed to the teeth and ready to kill to keep the neighbor’s kids off your lawn, the only way you can enjoy a broad swath of liberty is if everybody agrees to show a lot of restraint in respecting your rights and autonomy generally. Your rights may end at my nose, but if everybody runs around swinging their fists, windmill style, a lot of noses are going to get hit unintentionally. To the extent you want to have a society where everybody is free to swing their arms, you need to have people who self discipline, and swing carefully. That self restraint doesn’t come from the command, “do as thou will.”
Pissing on traditional values across the board is a big part of the gay lobby’s agenda. On the one hand, I very much understand some of the movement’s desire to be just like me, in a comfortable house with a little family out in the burbs. On the other hand, I understand what the Dobsons of the world fear, and what many of the philosophical proponents of the gay marriage push understand, that it is a gramscian tactic aimed at overturning the norm, the single most important social institution in the West.
As somebody who tries to value both individual liberty and traditional western culture, as well as to reconcile my faith with my politics, I’m okay with and would probably vote for civil unions with most or all the contractual rights of marriage, at least at the state level. But words matter and symbols matter, as any good Gramscian could tell you, and I cannot in good conscience support the notion of gay marriage. Sorry, can’t go there.
If that makes me a hater or a bigot or the equivalent of a klansman, or will subject my church to protests, so be it. I’m not asking anybody to quit being gay, so quit asking me to abandon what I strongly believe (and what the neo marxist radical left strongly believes) to be a keystone of western civilization.
I guess Bill Quick just can’t deal with the fact that it was African Americans (plus Obama) that led to the passage of Prop 8, and that the Mormons had precious little to do with its success.
Give it up Bill. Better luck next time.
I have yet to have someone explain to me how civil unions / partnerships, in which same-sex couples have the same legal standing as married couples, are not a sufficient compromise on this issue. To me the gay marriage lobby is trying to have its cake and eat it too. Being called a bigot for opposing gay marriage but being happy with civil partnerships makes me want to say “To Hell with the Gay Marriage Lobby.” The situation in this country is moving in their favor (look at the swing between Prop 8 and the gay marriage amendment in 2000). If they keep stomping crosses and vandalizing churches, it’s going to be counterproductive for their cause- a cultural “Janet Jackson shows her boob” moment for gay rights, in which a lot of otherwise apathetic people are immediately turned off.
Not true, gays just want to be included as a part of traditional values and maintain their integrity. But let’s turn the question around. Can you explain, Al, why denying civil unions and the ability of gays to provide a home to unwanted children is a part of the socon agenda?
Skip the Mormons. Let’s target the Jewish sects that support racial and gender preferences. Bigotry should not go unpunished. The Jews have only themselves to blame for the nasty hate campaign against them. Hate breeds hate.
They asked for it.
Glad you accept it, Al. Because it does.
That’s right. Of course, the Jews didn’t raise and spend 22 million dollars to primarily finance and organize the effort to use the power of the state to enforce their bigotry.
So it’s now bigotry to successfully defend a tenet of one’s religion.
Will the same term be applied to those global warming believers that get propositions passed at the state level defending tenets of their religion? Say, in California, devotees of the Goracle pass Proposition G, whereas all vehicles sold in California have to achieve > 30 MPG? Is that bigoted? Using Bill’s logic, it must be if no one can come up with a good reason to oppose such a measure, and who could realistically oppose wanting all cars to get > 30mpg?
You’re stupid, because I deal with it quite well, and have supported gays in their anger against the black bigotry also. It is disgusting that the Mormons and the Blacks who are first to whine whenever their precious liberties are violated in any way should be first in line to trash the liberties of others. As for the Mormon’s lack of involvement, not only are you stupid, you’re a liar as well.
Yes, if the tenets of your religion are bigoted - as these are.
Diggs, you’re not defending your religion, because gays aren’t asking to get married in your religion. Nobody is forcing your religion to do anything. Rather, you and your co-religionists are confusing the State with your Church, and are using the power of the State to oppress others.
Render unto Caesar, and all that, Diggs.
And then what will happen? You’ll deny civil liberties to gays? Unlike now?
Go ahead and call yourself a bigot if it makes you feeeeelllll gooooood. A little honesty wouldn’t hurt this situation.
Oh please, Bill. You actually believe that those bigots don’t donate money to non-profits and political campaigns that support racial and gender preferences?
There is a lot more than $22 million involved.
Hate the haters!
Cites, please, about the donations to the anti-Prop 8 campaign, which is the issue in this post. Otherwise, you’re just trolling.
Further, if any religious group does support oppressing others based on bigotry, then I do indeed oppose them, and believe they should pay a price for their bigotry - at least a price of protest, exposure, and public shame.
No, oppose and defeat them. Crushing their bigotry-based attempts to oppress feels a lot better than simple hate, especially at the moment of victory.
Can you explain, Al, why denying civil unions and the ability of gays to provide a home to unwanted children is a part of the socon agenda?
Yeah, sure. I’m interested in defending the most important parts of the key social institutions, they’re out defending parts of the frontier that maybe aren’t all that important, which have already been overrun.
And Bill, sorry for being a dick about things, you’ve been good to me and I don’t want to repay that with malice. The truth still stands, however, that influential legal leaders behind the gay marriage push, a cadre of professors, are enthusiastic about the Gramscian effects of this initiative. Since I’m one of the bad guys now for only favoring civil unions, a merely tolerant Catholic rather than an enthusiastic supporter of your cause, I’ll avoid hanging around like a troll and goading you. But you’re going to have to come to grips with the radical left’s presence in your movement, and it would behoove you to ask why. They don’t typically do things that are in the best interest of individual liberty. Ciao.
“if any religious group does support oppressing others based on bigotry…”
I’m guessing that “based on bigotry” is a qualifier of some sort? So a racial or gender oppression could come from a good place, but, of course, respect for tradition never could?
Am I wrong? I just never heard anyone say ‘down with oppression, unless it is with good intentions.’
No, you’re going to have to come to grips with the basic fallacy of this argument.
UPDATE: I should have remembered that this argument is also a Logical Fallacy: Guilt By Association.
The radical left is present in every American pro-individual liberty movement. Perhaps you aren’t old enough to have participated in the black Civil Rights movement, or you’d know what I’m talking about - Look up H. Rap Brown, Stokely Carmichael, Huey Newton, Eldridge Cleaver, and so on. It is the radical left’s business to try to co-opt any movement that upsets the established order.
This doesn’t mean that the goals of the movements are wrong, or that the oppressors of those groups aren’t bigoted, wrong, and evil.
In actuality, the leftists in the gay movement are much less violent and destructive than those in other civil liberties movements like the historical Black civil rights movement, or the current immigrant movements.
You’re quite confused, aren’t you, Mike? Of course “bigotry” is a qualifier. Why don’t you get a good dictionary and look up bigotry. Also look up “oppression” and “respect for tradition” (you’ll have to look up the individual words, or have somebody do it for you).
With a lot of work, you may begin to understand that forcing somebody to follow your traditions whether they wish to or not, based on nothing more than the fact that you dislike them (or your god tells you to dislike them) for what they are, is an affront to liberty.
Got it, Bill. Thanks for the education. You’re right on top of the thee/me philosophy.
You’re quite welcome. Always happy to help lift the general intellect a bit.
This is truly bizarro world. Even President-Elect Obama is an anti-gay bigot under your definition.
Bigotry or not, they lost a fairly constituted election. Should they choose to protest those who opposed it, more power to them, although I personally believe that physical assault and destruction of property probably won’t draw more converts to their side.
As to your point about “black bigotry”, I would posit that many blacks simply do not view gay marriage as being on par, civil rights-wise, with the historical problems they faced throughout history in this country. Those I’ve talked to even seem a little miffed that the gay lobby would compare their tribulations with slavery or the Jim Crow era.
Clearly, if the gays want this issue resolved in their favor, they have a lot of work to do as far as educating people as to why it’s a civil rights matter. Screaming epithets at people on the other side isn’t going to convince anyone.
http://mormontimes.com/mormon_voices/orson_scott_card/?id=5002
’nuff said…
Citizen, if by that you mean that Orson Scott Card is just as bigoted as the rest of them, then I’m down with that.
Citizen, that was 2043 words of unfounded assertion, categorical confusion, and no citations of any sort. Kevin Hamilton is a troll, and Orson Scott Card should have known better than to enter into this debate with Hamilton’s worthless letter as his main support, and a pack of platitudes, distortions, misinformation, and lies alongside.
“All we did was tell the truth.” That’s bullshit, total bullshit, Orson.
You know I have been on the fence on this one for awhile. But reading about the truly vile comments and alleged actions from the pro-gay side, has put me over the edge. Not in their favor.
This is a strange way to ask for tolerance…
Comments such as:
1. “Burn their f–ing churches to the ground, and then tax the charred timbers.”
2. Dropping the N-bomb at African Americans
3. “I’m going to give them something to be f – ing scared of. … I’m a radical who is now on a mission to make them all pay for what they’ve done.”
4. “Trust me. I’ve got a big list of names of mormons and catholics that were big supporters of Prop 8. … As far as mormons and catholics … I warn them to watch their backs.”
5. I hope the No on 8 people have a long list and long knives.
Actions such as:
1. Beating up girls and old ladies at protests
2. Disruption of religious services
3. Burning the Book of Mormon on the church steps
4. Mailing white powder to two Mormon temples
5. Shooting out windows at churches
If believing that a mother + a father is a better family unit than 2 fathers or 2 mothers makes someone a bigot, then yes, I’m a bigot.
It has nothing to do with the physical acts performed in the bedroom. It has to do with the best family structure.
You oppose 2 brothers, or a brother and sister, or a man and 2 women getting married. You’re a bigot as well. A little honesty is always appreciated.
So, Um, would you have opposed the efforts of MLK, because of the deplorable actions of the Black Panthers?
Proj, there are many strong secular reasons to oppose incest, without resort to “beliefs.” You can probably make them yourself.
So it’s cool with you to have the State mandating family structure, based on your idea of “best”? Got a cite to prove that?
The potentially horrific consequences of incest for the children of such unions are not in doubt, unlike the unproven assertion that gay couples would make poor parents.
As far as polygamy goes, its worst observable consequence is that it produces large numbers of low-status men who cannot find wives. However, this is observed in societies where women also are property and do not have equal rights. I don’t think there’s an operational example of a polity where both polygamy and women’s rights coexist.
That is another thing… Quit comparing the gay agenda to the Black civil rights movement.
Gays were not forcefully taken from their homes put on boats like cattle taken to a new land and forced to labor under threat of injury or death.
Gays are not readily identifiable at 100 yards as are African Americans and likewise not subject to centuries of extreme discrimination and disenfranchisement.
I support the peaceful approach of MLK in turning the hearts of the populous. And I would suggest that approach for those pushing the gay agenda.
If I were a direct target of the black panthers then yes I would work to avoid giving power or a greater voice to them, and that sentiment would naturally flow to those they are associated to.
The similarities and differences between the black civil rights movement and the gay civll rights movement have already been discussed here. My only point in this case, was that you shouldn’t judge the entire effort by the actions of one faction.
No.
Oppression is oppression. It doesn’t matter how the oppressed reached their wretched state.
So, thank you, Um, I guess then you’ll be supporting the cause linked in my response to Jabba above. Or didn’t you read it, or follow the links?
“Oppression is oppression. It doesn’t matter how the oppressed reached their wretched state.”
From your comments I assume this doesn’t extend to Mormons and Catholics?
“So, thank you, Um, I guess then you’ll be supporting the cause linked in my response to Jabba above. Or didn’t you read it, or follow the links?”
I haven’t yet. But I appreciate the invitation. I will take a look.
“So, thank you, Um, I guess then you’ll be supporting the cause linked in my response to Jabba above. Or didn’t you read it, or follow the links?”
I assume you mean: jointheimpact. I followed the link and then went to the homepage, not just the 3 post discussion.
No, I will not support this group or its efforts. They have pictures up of the protests where two girls were beaten and an old lady was beaten up.
Sorry, not my cup of tea.
Well we can’t win them all, Um, although you seem to ignore the mission statement, and instead conclude that the goals are really determined by the pictures posted. But just so I’m clear, do you support the socon agenda in my link to Al above. He clearly does not.
Just wondering, they way I view it:
Gays can form a civil union, which gives them all the same civil and legal benefits of a marriage. So how is it that they are being discriminated against? If they have access to exactly the same civil and legal benefits?
Marriage, by its nature is a religious principle, grounded in religious traditions and beliefs for thousands of years, thus why it is such a passionate subject.
I don’t see it prop 8 as bigotry, especially since I don’t see any civil rights being denied. I only see it as a group of religious people trying to protect a religious principle, really only a name, “marriage”, from being redefined and forced on them by the government and a, generally, non-religious group.
I would say, gays forcing traditional religions to accept their views of marriage as a violation of church and state and oppression in its own right.
Of course I think the state should not be issuing marriage certificates to begin with as it is religion, but we are past that point.
From your comments I assume you think the Mormons and the Catholics are being “oppressed” by anybody objecting to, or protesting, their oppression of others?
Please demonstrate this “oppression” of which you speak.
“you seem to ignore the mission statement”
It seems those that wrote the statement are ignoring it as well. The proof is in the pudding.
I didn’t see “socon” the the NY Times article, but I assume you mean the agenda that “bans people who are ‘cohabitating outside a valid marriage’ from serving as foster parents or adopting children.”
I believe that it is extreme. Foster kids are at a significant disadvantage due to a complete lack of a foundation. They are always being shifted, moved, schools changed, etc… Any situation where they have some consistency and love will be better then the alternatives.
I wish every kid could have a stable home. Alas I have yet to find a magic lamp.
Everyone is a bigot, even Bill Quick. We are just bigoted against (towards?) different things. What’s amusing is there is PC and non-PC bigotry.
This is my first–and last–visit to this place. What an absolute joke. Why in the world would Glenn Reynolds link to some guy who has nothing better to do than to get into verbal spats with anonymous commenters on his sight and call them stupid and liars? How old are you?
This is bush league.
It was nice not having had to get to know you, Unimpressed. Thanks for saving all of us time and energy. Get lost, good riddance, and don’t let the virtual door hit you in your pompous ass on the way out.
At least we agee there. And I’m going to wait for the joinitheimpact event to occur, before I judge their motives.
No one is forcing traditional religions to do anything within the context of their religion. We at DP, however, are saying that when traditional religions seek to use the power of the state to enforce those traditions on others within the realm of secular politics and at the expense of liberty, they are making a grave mistake.
“From your comments I assume you think the Mormons and the Catholics are being “oppressed” by anybody objecting to, or protesting, their oppression of others?
Please demonstrate this “oppression” of which you speak.”
Good grief… I have no problem with people exercising their constitutional rights but the items below are wrong and many illegal.
Violence against people, violation of property, intimidation, threats, hate crimes fit into oppression and oppressive techniques. Or wouldn’t you agree?
1. Going after people
“http://gatorgop.blogspot.com/2008/11/crazy-lefties-attack-old-lady-at -no-on.html”
“http://www.poligazette.com 2008/11/14/going-too-far-against-prop-8/”
“http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gutnLWP4KNjECVTydghhwRVzJikAD94DOQ 380″
“http://antigayblacklist.com/”
“http://www.cbs8.com/stories/story.145603.html”
“http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hWQRMq91zcde41dhzAa SEx2wEHFwD94EEP9O2″
“http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=8077″
2. Going after property
“http://www.wnct.com/nct/lifestyles/faith_values/article/vandals_hit_2 _churches_in_california/23349/”
“http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=4762579″
“http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1382472.html”
“http://www.sltrib.com/ci_10965977″
3. Vile comment on blogs
“http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80220″
4. Disturbing religious gatherings
“http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2008/11/12/national-press-ign ores-mi-media-whitewash-lansing-church-homosexual-anar”
“Please demonstrate this “oppression” of which you speak.”
I created a large post with many links. It isn’t showing up, it may have be caught by the spam filter…
“No one is forcing traditional religions to do anything within the context of their religion. We at DP, however, are saying that when traditional religions seek to use the power of the state to enforce those traditions on others within the realm of secular politics and at the expense of liberty, they are making a grave mistake.”
Our current set of laws (constitutional, and statutory) ARE society’s morality written down. An individual, political party, church, corporation, group, anyone has the right to influence the creation, modification or deletion of these laws.
There isn’t too much argument in society on the idea that murder is bad. Thus universally we have laws to punish murder and actions leading up to murder.
There isn’t consensus on abortion, gay marriage, etc… thus there is a conflict back and forth. But both sides have the right to influence the law making process.
Saying “within the context of their religion” is as short sighted as saying “I don’t care what you do in the context of your bedroom” but don’t put it in our laws.
Why aren’t you guys beating up little old ladies in Compton or South Central. That is the demographic that put prop 8 over the top. Is it hypocrisy or fear? I’m going with fear. Stay classy Prop 8 supporters, you’re winning the hearts and minds of the middle.
UmYeah, none of the links in your post I pulled from the spam filter actually show “oppression”. They are the acts of private individuals, not government power.
Of course. But when the Churches enter into the secular, political fray, and violate their own principles by using misinformation and propaganda to conduct that influence, as Matinra has pointed out, and I did, using the links to an evangelical Christian and Mormon, then there must be something wrong with the argument.
“UmYeah, none of the links in your post I pulled from the spam filter actually show “oppression”. They are the acts of private individuals, not government power. ”
Right, because violent actions don’t suppress, oppress, and create fear. Remind me why “hate” laws were put in place again….
Our government is a collection of private individuals. There was a vote. One side won the other lost. There will no doubt be another vote. One side will win the other lose. The generation of fear, via violence, to speak out, causes suppression and oppression. This is not helping for the next voting opportunity.
“by using misinformation and propaganda”
Or in other words “The other side is giving a different viewpoint than mine, and I don’t approve of it.”
Don’t confuse UmYeah with reality. He’s too busy defending the upholders of oppression as being “the oppressed.” Same sort of whackjob logic that calls atheists “religious believers.”
I’m closing this thread. It has devolved, as such things usually do, into a cesspool of outraged bigots sputtering about how bigoted I am for daring to protest against their bigotry, and actually (gasp!) calling it what it is - bigotry.
Let their heads explode when they can’t repeat the same dreary, tired responses here. Eventually they’ll die off, and then folks who actually believe in liberty can start to permit folks to live their lives without a bunch of religious fanatics trying to destroy their freedoms.