Protect me funny hat and bathroom walls, from the Beast of Consent! Lo, its time approaches and all will be consumed in its wake!
Selwyn Duke, American Tinkler:
How to Win the Marriage Debate
Somethings got the chumps still in the professional homophobe business steaming. What might that be?
The big news on the culture-war front is a federal court’s striking down of Proposition 8, California’s constitutional amendment protecting marriage.
Ah, right. It’s been a bad time for the homophobes. They used to be able to stand tall, their monomaniacal obsessions treated as serious contenders in the culture war and enjoying their majority power to beat down the fags whenever they so pleased.
But things changed. The court of public opinion swung around the other way and now it seems that being virulently anti-gay is going the way of being anti-catholic or pro-segregation. Something to be nurtured in dog whistles and desperate attempts to “return to the good old days” and to be complained about as “political correctness” taking away your rights.
And the overturn of Prop 8 is more painful than it seems like it ought to be, because it’s a reminder of a lot of things. The way the fellow cock obsessors have been trickling away and pretending they were never really invested in hating the gays what with the oh-so-important issue of whether women should be allowed to fuck, the 80 findings of fact in the original Prop 8 decision and the fact that they have no legal case, and of course the ticking time bomb before the first referendum passed legalization of gay marriage occurs and they officially run out of excuses.
As such, it’s left a few suckers still in the game a bit flustered and stuttering.
In a two-to-one ruling, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit wrote, “The people may not employ the initiative power to single out a disfavored group for unequal treatment and strip them, without a legitimate justification, of a right as important as the right to marry.”
Now, sane people not engaged in a long-running series of bad faith arguments, might focus on the whole “legitimate justification” part, seeking to find the legitimate justification for their beliefs and present it as proof their views align with any reality.
We are of course not dealing with sane people. So, let’s see what they’ll obsess about. Hmm, could be a standard “activist courts”, could be “there is no such thing as a right to marry”. Maybe an “unequal treatment”? They have as much right to marry a member of the opposite sex as anyone…
Now, I’m not sure why the judges mention a “disfavored group,” as if singling out a “favored” one for unequal treatment would be okay. As far as I know, the 14th Amendment, on which the court based its ruling, doesn’t offer equal protection to only those the current fashions deem “disfavored.” Thus, I think this is an example of emotionalism influencing a ruling and its language, sort of as if a judge sentenced a defendant and, adding an adjective, announced him as “stupid” Mr. Smith. Calling a group “disfavored” is similarly a subjective judgment. This is not the only thing the judges were subjective about, however.
I’ll admit, that possibility hadn’t even crossed my mind.
Maybe, just maybe, they mention a “disfavored group” because, and just bear with me on this one, that’s an actual legal term with an actual legal definition, you inbred fuck.
But let’s just pretend that this occurred on a planet where that wasn’t the case and we were to take his issue as if it wasn’t the desperate grasping of a man desperate to keep around a squad of professional homophobes to continue to delay his eventual coming out.
Well, there’s the little fact that these rulings for “the disfavored” also apply to the “favored”. The “favored” can’t be barred out of a diner based on race, can’t have their sports programs unilaterally cut due to sex, and can’t have their marriages treated as a game of keepaway by vindictive fags.
And that’s before we get to the rest of the sentence that you are ignoring about unequal treatment without justification stripping them of an important right and all.
It’s almost like you are arguing in obvious bad faith or something.
Speaking to bias, some may point out here that the Ninth Circuit is the most overturned court in the nation and that the two judges who ruled against Prop. 8 were appointed by Democrats.
You know, every conservative and their mom loves to throw this quote around as if it was their love doll. Of course, looking deeper it tends to refer to yearly overturn numbers in the current court. Which a) the Supreme Court reviews like balls all cases per year, so most overturned isn’t exactly “this court is terrible”, b) most of the overturns has to do with a bitch fight between the Ninth Circuit and the Supreme Court on prisoner’s rights so is a deliberate action on both parties to call the other a bag of dicks, and c) this Supreme Court.
I mean, seriously, when you are trying to argue that a court sucks because it’s been overruled by the Court that passed Citizen’s United and was pretty much also the one that passed Bush v Gore, you are kinda hurting your case just a little.
Yet the reality is that they’re hardly alone: virtually everyone — including conservatives — misses the 800-pound gorilla with the pink tutu and rainbow flag in the middle of the marriage debate.
I didn’t know you marched in the Parade.
The court’s reasoning is that a state cannot deny homosexuals the right to “marry” if that right has already been established for others. This certainly seems to accord with the 14th Amendment, which reads, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States … nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” So, by the judges’ lights, since Prop. 8 abridges for one group a privilege afforded everyone else, it is unconstitutional.
But what really is the central issue here? It isn’t whether marriage is a right or a privilege; it isn’t whether it is covered under the Constitution. It isn’t even whether or not homosexuals have a right to “marry.” The crux of the matter is this: what is this right or privilege?
I hesitate to say “go on”, but…
If the court rules that there is a right to a certain thing, it must know what that thing is. Yet if the court accepted that the thing called “marriage” is the union between a man and woman, there would be no debate. The judges would simply state that, just like anyone else, homosexuals have a right to marry — to form that time-honored union between themselves and a member of the opposite sex.
Called it, woo! Everyone take a shot for “gays have just as much right to marry a member of the opposite sex”.
Ah. Shame that’s not the definition of marriage. Shame it is just a legal contract denoting kinship and a legal family as well as a cultural institution denoting an intention towards love, support, and commitment (however the couple may define that term).
And shame that the courts pissed so strong on that sort of definitional bullshit when you actually did make the legal definition “marriage is a union between two people of the same race”.
But how were you to know? You’re only 45 years behind the curve. In wingnut terms, that might as well be last week.
Now, some will say the court accepts that there has been a redefinition of marriage. If so, they had best tell us what it is.
Yeah! They should definitely tell us that marriage has been changed from a bill of sale from father to husband of unwanted chattel (the wife), or from a legal framework of harem creation as it was in biblical times, or a means of processing captured slaves after genocides as again it was in the Bible. Also that it was never defined as man on woman. Hmm, on second thought, maybe they should keep that shit to themselves.
Because, you see, our leftist marriage engineers have not redefined marriage.
They have undefined it.
Again, with the hesitancy. Alright, find my zen, ah…
They have not said that marriage is the union between any two people.
Yes, instead they worship this demon God known only as Consent and argue that He and His mighty hatred for all that is good and pure trump over the Law of the Slippery Slope, thus denying us argument after argument of unmitigated bullshit. Cover ye virgins and weep for the heavens, lest this beast consume all of our bad faith arguments. Like when women are allowed to fuck. What?!? You don’t say! Then this battle is lost, sound the horn for retreat, the Beast is far too strong for mortal men to defeat alone!
Woe unto the douchebags, we have been lain low this day!
If they did, they’d render themselves just as “exclusionary” and “discriminatory” as those they decry and relinquish a hammer with which they bludgeon tradition. They have not offered any alternative parameters for marriage.
Not offered, we don’t listen. Same thing, no?
They’ve simply implied that the correct definition — the one accepted for millennia in Western civilization — is wrong.
Yet if these leftists cannot say what marriage is, how can they be so sure about what it isn’t? If they cannot offer a definition they’re certain is right, how can they be so confident that the right definition is wrong?
`Exactly so,’ said Alice.
`Then you should say what you mean,’ the March Hare went on.
`I do,’ Alice hastily replied; `at least–at least I mean what I say–that’s the same thing, you know.’
`Not the same thing a bit!’ said the Hatter. `You might just as well say that “I see what I eat” is the same thing as “I eat what I see”!’
But the point is this: the court obviously doesn’t accept the definition of marriage embraced by most people worldwide today. If it did, it would have ruled as indicated earlier. Yet there also is no noted alternative definition by which to go. Thus, it seems that before the judges could rule on the right to this thing called marriage, they’d have to rule on what this thing is in the first place. So have they ruled that there is a right to they-know-not-what.
I’ve seen quite a number of sad pathetic things in my duties as monitor to the right-wing, but I gotta say this tops the list.
Nothing is quite as pathetic as someone trying to argue “takebacksies” with regards to a legal argument as if their tempermental toddler tantrum overruled legal decision.
Sorry, Selwyn, you lost. And you didn’t lose because you got screwed, you lost because you had no case, no legal argument for why “dem fags ain’t allowed to do that, no siree”. You’ll just have to deal with that.
I know it hurts, I imagine some days it almost feels as bad as having your dignity and right to form a legally-valid union with your chosen partner treated like a yo-yo for vindictive assholes.
That’s right, no one can understand what that feels like.
Of course, the judges certainly understand marriage to be some kind of legally sanctioned union between or among different parties. But this takes in a lot of territory. If this is all it is and everyone has a right to it, how can we deny it to polygamists (and their conception of marriage has infinitely more historical precedent than does faux marriage)?
You know what, assholes, fuck it. Yeah, eventually there will probably be poly marriages and you’ll have to suck that down about as well as you sucked this down. Choke on that.
Also, whoops on the giveaway there. Almost revealed that the real “traditional biblical marriage” you guys craw on about would actually be polygamous rape factories rather than the 1950s nuclear family model you like to allude to (you know, the monogamous rape factory).
This is where some roll their eyes and say that these things will never happen. But while such scoffing is rhetorically effective, it’s not very intellectual.
…You…You were trying to be…Sorry, let me begin again.
You were trying to be intellectual?
Oh, Selwyn! Oh, my poor poor dear. I…I just don’t know how to break it to you. Come here. I know, honey, I know you tried so hard and those other kids were so mean. It’s okay.
It’ll all be okay.
I’ll first point out that people in the 1950s would have likewise laughed off the notion that granting homosexuals the right to “marry” would be a major social and legal movement 50 years later. More significantly, however, ideas matter. The precedents we set matter. And when you undefine something, nothing is excluded. No boundaries means no limits.
Consent? What does that Foul Beast have to do with what I just said? That is the boundary? You would set a demon as boundary to such an important task? Are you liberals truly so vile as to do that?
Also, yeah, homosexuals, what do you think about the slow evolution of history and its curve towards justice…ah crap I did it again. You’re the stupid ones with the crap argument! Nyah!
This is why the left’s actions do, in fact, threaten marriage. To fail to respect the institution’s time-honored definition and also refuse to offer any alternative definition is to seek to destroy the edifice without a plan for what will take its place. It is to imply that marriage can mean anything. And if something can mean anything, it means nothing.
As for conservatives, they have been suckered again. Without even realizing it, they have allowed the left to frame the debate — as a matter of rights — when it is first and foremost a matter of definitions. To argue it as a matter of rights is to lose the debate; to control the definitions can render that debate irrelevant.
Argue on definitions! Of course! Why hasn’t the professional homophobe crowd thought of that, yet! I mean, it’s such an obvious and compelling argument that’s never been raised be-
What, you say? That was pretty much their attempted defense of Prop 8? And it got smacked down so hard that conservatives are only now starting to feel the sting on their cheeks?
Well, then why didn’t you liberals say anything?
What does “we wanted to laugh at your stupidity” mean? Is that code for worshipping Consent, the destroyer of tradition and life?
This is why, mind you, I would not have written Prop. 8 as its framers did: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Instead, it should have been, “Marriage is hereby legally defined as a union between a man and a woman.” The actual text gives the courts wiggle room to find in favor of currently invalid or unrecognized “marriages”; the suggested text makes it so that there is nothing else to find in favor of. (Of course, ambitious judges can find a way around anything, but they’d have to do a bit more creative constitutional trampling.)
Oh, I’m sorry Douchebag McGee, I thought you were arguing that that was the legal definition of marriage. That you were just trying to protect the “definition of marriage” from being “undefined” by the mean old homos who want to be able to form legal bonds of kinship with their significant others.
But please, do go on about how you would have redefined marriage as your bigoted horseshit to prevent it from the awful crime of being “redefined by homosexual activists”.
I’m sure if only you had been more blatant then there wouldn’t have been 80 findings of fact against your side and its arguments.
Because there would have been exponentially more.
Yet controlling the definitions starts with controlling the vocabulary.
Why yes, we only want to preserve the definition of marriage, because proper English totally outweighs human dignity. And to do that, all we need to do is redefine marriage and fuck around with most of the English language.
You know, when you make a bad faith argument that you are supposed to be consistent with what you are making a bad faith argument to, right?
For a definition won’t take hold in society unless the word it defines first does. This is why conservatives should never use the term “gay marriage,” as this is an explicit acknowledgement that such an institution exists. Nor should they use “heterosexual marriage,” for what is the other side of that coin?
What is most readily accepted is that which is assumed. From the get-go, conservatives should have insisted that marriage is marriage, a union between a man and woman and nothing else. This would have put odd alien fantasies about marriage, whatever they may be, in perspective. Because you cannot have a right to that which doesn’t exist.
Yes, conservatives, if only you had tried arguing that. Why it would have been so novel and not at all, the failed and obvious tactic of a couple of years ago, which was already falling apart before the Prop 8 decision ripped it a new breathing hole.
If only you had been that self-aware and forward-thinking (hey now), then no one would ever dream of alien fantasies of fucking that chick from Avatar…I mean, about being able to marry their chosen partner. Why gay people might not even exist, or at least not in numbers where we had to acknowledge that they exist and we could continue safely in ignorance and no one would be hurt by our bass-ackward desire to put our heads in the sand.
And the Beast Consent would not have laid waste to our home of Traditional Marriage, turning our house slaves into ravaging beasts demanding so called rights to work and rights to fuck, creating these fictional pairings of man and man, woman and woman, and triad and quad and so-on configurations that weren’t just abuse-driven modern harems we could easily scare-monger (what with being our own conservative “traditional” creation).
Our people would not have been driven into the snow, to weep for their arguments, rended to the bone in front of the children we always hide behind. Leaving us lost, scattered and scared.
If only we had listened and tried what we did and failed. It could have all been prevented.
But who would have listened?
Who would have heeded my post hoc prophecy?