Political and social observations from two aspiring hedgehogs who love the Isaiah Berlin essay.
Here is the first television advertisement by ProtectMarriage.com. I wonder if Gavin Newsom had any idea he would be the star of the first "Yes on 8" ad?
Labels: Gavin Newsome, Proposition 8, ProtectMarriage.com, same-sex marriage
posted by Lowell Brown at 8:52 AM
|
"The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing." --Archilochus
What Do We Mean by "Hedgehog," Anyway?Read Article6blog: Presidential Politics and Religion!
Michael Ramirez Political Cartoons
THOUGHT FOR THE DAY:
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
--John Adams, 'Argument in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials,' December 1770.
PREVIOUS POSTS:
What a real hedgehog looks like
13 Comments:
It was a strange claim to make in a country that does, after all, value democracy. We'll see--the proof is in the pudding!
Paula
http://a-large-room.blogspot.com/
In 1967, Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court overruled the anti-miscegenation laws in 17 Southern states. Have you an argument against the democracy of this as well?
Please read this well-researched argument in favor of same sex marriage:
http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm
Dear "anonymous:"
First, it is interesting that whenver I post anything about Prop o8, comments appear from the "no on8" side almost immediately. There wouldn't be an organized effort to monitor blogs going on here, would there?
Second, the miscegenation argument assumes that sexual orientation, and acting thereon, is the same as race or skin color. Surely you recognize the eminent debatability of that assumption.
This first Yes on 8 ad was simply awful. It offers the viewer a choice between an enthusiastic crowd and a dour Pepperdine law professor going for the hard sell like a used car salesman facing the end of a bad month. I hope and pray that Frank and Jeff decide to spend their entire war chest buying airtime for this ad.
Loved the ad. It lets people know that how this law may very well affect many people who think it won't touch them if they are not gay. It also reminds us of how this law has been forced upon us by judges contraty to the will of the people.
Excellent reply to anonymous' erroneous comparison of the anti-miscegenation laws to gay marriage. They are not equivalent.
Rest assured, Mr. Hedgehog, that I'm not a representative of any organization and this is no attempt to shut down your blog because your opinions differ from mine. I'm a Democrat, after all, and that's the kind of stance a Republican would take. I only discovered about this blog through relations of mine.
I recognize the debatability of virtually anything, as is the wonderful benefit of Free Speech in this country. In any case, my use of the Loving v. Virginia case was primarily in regard to the Supreme Court ruling the anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional and "forcing" them removed in those States without voters' input. Naturally, in an enlightened 2008 one can't make an argument against the democracy of this without being viewed a racist...despite the fact that racism was traditionally considered acceptable in America as far up until 1960's, including the idea that a nonwhite person was inferior to a white person and therefore they could not be married. The diagnosis of homosexuality as some kind of mental disease was not removed completely from the American Psychiatric Associations Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders until 1986.
The cause of gender identity and sexual orientation has not yet been discovered, and it certainly wasn't a choice for me. What we do know for certain is there is no scientific basis for the claims that homosexuality is "curable" through therapy, and the success rate is very dubious.
In regards to the gay rights/civil rights movement comparsion, while I think the argument of who has suffered the most is unhelpful, as suffering is suffering, here is Margaret Kimberly of The Black Commentator:
"Opposition to gay marriage in the black community tends to follow the narrative that discrimination against gays is trivial or even acceptable. Therefore, gay marriage cannot be a civil rights issue. It is true that the demand for civil rights for gays is not the same as the demands for civil rights for black people. Gay people were not enslaved, segregated, or forced to live under the threat of death from mob rule. None of which means they haven’t faced discrimination. Gays were subject to job discrimination, anti-sodomy laws that mandated prison terms (and death in certain countries), and forced treatment in psychiatric hospitals.
These risks were avoided by staying in the closet. Anyone passing for straight could live a comfortable life. A Faustian bargain is not the equivalent of slavery, but it is difficult to claim that it doesn’t create discrimination...
...Gay people have not suffered the same degree of oppression as black people, but their desire to marry whomever they want is a genuine rights issue. Besides, if their ability to stay married is no better than that of straight people a large number of them won’t stay together anyway. If gay marriage opponents want to discourage homosexuality they might want to rethink their position."
The full article: http://www.blackcommentator.com/110/110_fr_gay_civil_rights.html
From one anonymous to another,
The flaw of the entire argument about same-sex marriage is that it is not a fundamental right.
Marriage is and has always been a lifetime commitment between a man and a woman to become a singular entity to bring children into the world and raise those children in a family unit. Governments have recognized the benefits to society as a whole and encouraged the creation of family units because of their basic nature and because of the stabilizing effect on society as a whole.
With the redefinition of marriage by California's Courts Proposition 8 was needed to bring marriage back to it's basic tenets, that "marriage" is only valid and recognized between a man and a woman.
Don't bring up the argument that many couples don't fit the definition of marriage. That does not negate what marriage is and has been. By making it a "right" that anyone can and should enjoy then there is no limit to who can get married, whether it is two individuals or ten, just as long as they love one another it's okay.
By trying to create this into a civil rights issue this moves teaching your children that the gay lifestyle is wrong and if you think sinful then that would become hate speech and be punishable by the law. No longer would freedom of speech or religion be possible. Every effort will be made to shut those voices down.
I guess that is enough for now.
Hey, y'all are famous!
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/10/3/34353/4724/707/618640
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/10/3/152135/396
http://www.calitics.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=7092
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=7359
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=8811
http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2008/10/3/15325/3258
http://chinoblanco.blogspot.com/2008/10/updated-yes-on-8-plans-and-personnel.html
Very interesting that groups of recent immigrants who have benefited from liberal sympathies are now turning their backs on liberals. I doubt that it has occurred to them that if Prop 8 passes because of them they will get little support from CA liberals when it comes to immigration issues for the next few years. Looks like the Conservatives can kill two birds with one stone.
I (as well as everyone) have a RIGHT to stand up for what I or everyone feel is MORALLY right.
I am voting YES on Prop 8 which is in favor of protecting marriage!
Marriage is a wonderful institution between a man and a woman.
Marriage was put together as an institution for children, a man and a woman can physcially have a baby together. People of the same sex can't physically do that. It wasn't meant that way.
If you define marriage as a way for a man and a woman to be together to have a baby, there are some situations where a man and a woman could not have a baby because of some difficulties on reproducing. I do not find that there is anything wrong with a man and a man being together or for a woman and a woman being together.
where do they get the idea that gay marriage will change the teachings in schools? I recently realized that many of the GBLA groups in schools are being changed due to the people who dislike same sex relations. I really think its sad.
Saying that marriage is between a man and a woman does not discriminate against homosexuals, it would only be discrimination if it said marriage was between two heterosexuals or two whites, as it is, a homosexual man may marry a homosexual woman.
Immanuel Kant, the German Philosopher, argued that practical contradictions are immoral. When a maxim is universalized, if it is no longer possible for the agent to act on that maxim, the maxim is deemed immoral. For example, if everyone not qualified to get a loan lied and said they were, the lending system would break down and no one would offer loans anymore, then you would not be able to take out a loan to achieve your intended maxim. Similarly, if everyone were homosexual, people would stop having children and the human race would cease to exist making it impossible for people to continue to be homosexual (the intended maxim). Thus, by universalizing the maxim of homosexuality, we see that homosexuality is immoral. And since limiting marriage to man-woman unions does not exclude any groups, the people can and should create such a law.
Post a Comment
<< Home