Fund Your Utopia Without Me.™

28 March 2013

When Will Some SSM-Opponents Realise That They Are Their Own Worst Enemies?








"Remember when Republicans did?"

Kataklysmic on March 28, 2013 at 11:06 AM


I bet that there are a lot of elected Republicans – even conservative Republicans – that either support SSM or are agnostic about it and have been so for a while. Of course, there are many here that will tell you that a “gay conservative” or a “conservative that supports SSM” is a unicorn and/or oxymoron right before calling you a “moron” or worse.



"So, as a Libertarian, you don’t believe in the three-legged stool of Reagan Conservatism? Do you believe that one should be called a “Conservative”, if the only Conservative belief one has is “fiscal restraint”?"

kingsjester on March 28, 2013 at 12:01 PM


I am not a “Libertarian.” I am a “libertarian.” I consider there to be a considerable difference. One is a party; the other is a philosophy. While there was/is much to admire about Ronald Reagan, he is not my favourite President. Calvin Coolidge is.

I take the position that FA Hayek did on Conservatism. “Why I Am Not A Conservative”

I oppose the selective embrace of Big Government and use of its power to enforce or endorse. You see, like most of the Founding Fathers, I look at government as a necessary evil. I believe that government should have the very least intrusive role in the lives of individuals, business, and society, as a whole, as is possible without creating anarchy. Unlike politicians like Rick Santorum, who believe that they can use government to advance the tenets of their faith (read his book It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good, Preface, p. IX – he talks about using government to help the poor based on the Catholic tenet of charity, but GOVERNMENT IS NOT CHARITY), I believe that government’s role is and should be severely limited, as enumerated in the Constitution. I do not, as Santorum does, buy into the notion of “general welfare” being something other than what the Founders intended it to be, which was anything but welfare as it is known today.


On the left, they say, “Hey, look, we aren’t taking away your Second Amendment rights. You can’t have this A gun, but you can have this B gun. So, how can you say we have infringed upon or limited any right of yours?’

Some on the right say, “Hey, look, we aren’t prohibiting homosexuals from getting married. XY can’t marry XY, but XY can marry XX. So, how can you say we have prohibited XY from getting married?”


Before you say it, yes, I know that marriage is a Tenth Amendment issue(Baker v Nelson) – although it can be argued that it is also a Ninth and Fourteenth issue, too – and the right to bear arms is, specifically, guaranteed in the Second Amendment, my point is that each side doesn’t mind limiting the rights of others when it feels like it.

Now, despite what many here believe, I am not a fervent, radical, militant proponent of SSM. If it were the only issue on the ballot, I can’t honestly say that I would be motivated enough to go to the poll. I am not much of a cultural warrior although I am a radical when it comes to constitutional law. If there was a proposed amendment mandating that churches be required to perform SSM or employers provide abortifacients or a repeal of the 2nd amendment, I’d be the first in line to cast a vote. I do, honestly, believe that SSM is inevitable, as does Justice Scalia, and I don’t think the world will end.

I will say this and I sincerely mean it: I LOATHE with every fibre of my being the bigots on the left that beat up people of faith for their sincerely-held beliefs. At the same time, I cringe when I read some of the posts here with “conservatives” calling homosexuals, especially conservative homosexuals, who work with them on so many causes, “mental or biological defects” or “deviants” or “Marxists” or whatever. Even if you believe it and even if it were true, would you tell Sarah Palin that her son, Trig, is a “mental or biological defect”? Can you, good people, not see how hurtful that it is to a gay man or woman to be called “defective”? If all people are “God’s children,” does God want you to call His children “defects”? Must some of you lower yourselves to the Dan Savage gutter? It does nothing to advance your cause to become hateful – I am using “your” generically, kj – and only repels those that are relatively ambivalent.

When I was a child, my lapsed, Anglican mum and agnostic, Jewish father used to send me to Sunday School on occasion. I remember being struck between the angry, hateful, vengeful god of the OT and the warm, inviting, kind, gentle, and teaching Jesus of the NT. Don’t be the god of the OT.

I know, I know. I’m an atheist or, I should say, I’ve never had that spiritual epiphany or connection that you have so I will be told that I have no right to speak on the subject and am only using religion as a cudgel to beat the religious. I promise you. This is most untrue. Do with my suggestions what you will. They are only my opinions and you know what they say about opinions…



"I am sorry you had a bad experience in church. People are flawed."

kingsjester on March 28, 2013 at 1:44 PM


I didn’t say that I had a bad experience in church. I just said that I’ve never experienced that “spiritual connection or epiphany or whatever” that people of faith have. If you promise not to tell anyone, I’ll let you in on a secret.

Two things happened the other day:

First, I was at the market and the girl at the register was in an absolute fit. She was absolutely distressed and looked both angry and ill. I said that I hoped that she would be better and able to rest as soon as her shift ended. She said that she had just started her shift. Trying again, I noticed her name-tag. I told her that “Audrey” was one of my favourite names and reminded me of Audrey Hepburn. She kind of muttered under her breath ‘Thanks.’ Trying one last time, I told her that I hoped the Easter Bunny would bring her something special. She said “I don’t believe in any of that stuff.” I said, “Oh, come on. Everybody believes in the Easter Bunny! lol!” “Not me. I never have,” she replied. I asked her, “Not even when you were a child? You didn’t even pretend when you found out who the Easter Bunny really was?” She said, “Nope.” I asked, “No Santa Claus or Tooth Faerie either. Who did you think left the money under your pillow when you lost a tooth?” She said, “No one ever left anything under my pillow when I lost a tooth. I never had a birthday present or a Christmas present or an Easter basket.” It took everything in me not to start bawling in the store.

I cried all the way home. How could a parent or grandparent or aunt or family friend or anyone treat a child as if they were completely invisible?

Second: So, I get home and a few hours later, the phone rings. The caller ID says that it’s an 800 number. I.NEVER.ANSWER.800.NUMBERS. NEVER. Yet, I did on Monday. Anyhoo, it was a guy from the Police Benevolence Fund. I told him that I’d send him a cheque and was about to ring off when he just started talking. He was telling me about several policemen, who had just died and had small children. I told him about my daughter. We spoke for probably 15 or 20 minutes. It was very weird for me. Anyway, he said, “I’m going to make a deal with you: If you light a candle and say a prayer every day for 30 days for the children of those fallen policemen, I will do the same for you and I promise you that you will notice a big change in your life.” Ordinarily, I would have rolled my eyes, but I said, “OK, you’ve got a deal.” And, everyday, I’ve lit a candle and said “Please grant peace, comfort and strength to the wives and children of the fallen.” I don’t know to whom I’ve asked, but I made a deal and I’m sticking to it.

So, for those like astonerii or whatever her/his name is, who have called me “a heartless atheist,” bite me!

As for Reagan, like I said, there was much to admire of him, but my favourite POTUS is Coolidge.

I would remind some Republicans/Conservatives, however, of Reagan’s 11th Commandment, which seems to have been thrown on the ash-heap of history in the last few years, especially when it comes to issues like SSM. Some say that there is no such thing as a ‘gay conservative.’ Bruce Carroll a/k/a @GayPatriot is a strong conservative and, as his twitter handle implies, a homosexual. He was seriously considering challenging Lindsay Graham next year. If there was a two-man primary for the Republican Senate seat in South Carolina, who would the “true cons” of Hot Air rather: John McShame’s mini-me, Senator Scarlett, or a real conservative, who just happens to be gay, Bruce Carroll? COME ON! That’s a no-brainer.



"RWM, you assert (without even a citation) that homosexuality is genetic or otherwise immutable when you imply that calling homosexuals ‘defective’ is calling God’s creation ‘defective’.

And, yeah, full disclosure: I’m gay. Do I _like_ being called ‘defective’? No. Do I see it as more truthful than not? Yes. I’m ‘intrinsically disordered’, as the saying goes. I don’t want to be ostracized for being that way, and I don’t think very well of those who do it, but I will never deny that disordering.

Again, don’t try to tell people that part of ‘having to accept homosexuals and their homosexuality’ (which is more or less true) is ‘having to accept their lifestyle’. We can (and certainly do) make decisions about other people based on their decisions. To live the homosexual lifestyle is such a decision.

(I also make decisions about other people based on things like, oh, living the current promiscuous heterosexual lifestyle in the US. Again, it’s behavior.)"

Scott H on March 28, 2013 at 3:20 PM


I did not mean to imply that homosexuality is genetic. Honestly, I have no idea. I have a cousin who is gay and I have always known that she was since we were children. She wasn’t just a “tomboy.” Does this mean that her homosexuality is genetic? Hell if I know. Frankly, I don’t care. She is who she is and I love her for exactly who she is.

The point of my post, however, was not whether homosexuality is genetic; rather, I was imploring people to think about refraining from calling people “defects.”

Whether your sexual orientation is genetic or a lifestyle choice is of absolutely no import to me. What does concern me is people calling you “defective.” The Left routinely relies on insults and intends to be as hurtful as possible. I would hope that we are better than that. We can disagree without being Dan Savage. 

I sincerely apologise if you were offended by the misunderstanding. Again, my intent had nothing whatsoever to do with genetics. The only reason that I brought it up is because many people here believe homosexuality is a genetic defect and hurl invectives regarding their belief. They wouldn’t do so about Trig Palin. So, even if they believe homosexuality is genetic, they shouldn’t do to gays what they would not do to Sarah Palin’s son.

I'm a lawyer.  I can tell you from experience that there is no faster way to lose a jury - regardless of how sympathetic your client is - than to resort to calling people vile names, using scumbag tactics, and losing your temper.  

Who do you think is a better advocate for gay marriage:  Ellen DeGeneres or Dan Savage?  Who do you think is a better advocate for traditional marriage:  Mike Huckabee or Fred Phelps?  It's really that simple.

Those who believe that calling you a "biological or mental defect," a "deviant," a "Marxist," or telling you that you deserve the death penalty or are going to Hell are defeating themselves and are too self-righteous to realise it.



http://tinyurl.com/d8d8urk


2 comments:

Anonymous said...

What is it that leads you to believe that religious liberty will be defended, or in any event, that it's defense has a reasonable chance of success? As INC has pointed out, the litigants before the court were relatively silent on the matter.

In the event of the triumph of the secular in the instance of SSM, what is the thing that leads you to believe that the tax-exempt status of churches in clear violation of anti-discrimination law (h/t Fred Barnes) will survive?

Predictable-History said...

The First Amendment. Fred Barnes couldn't give a single example in the US. Canada doesn't have a First Amendment. Hell, it doesn't even have free speech...and neither does the UK & Europe where "hate speech" is criminalised.