So it sez, in order:[list=1]
[li]We don’t want queer folk marryin’ each other.[/li][li]Damn gummint folks can’t be recognizin’ no queer marriages.[/li][li]We rely on “the home,” like all those Founding Fathers did, to keep democracy from going to hell in a handbasket. Clear subtext: We can’t let the queers in on our family values schtick because that’s a step away from the fall of the Roman Empire.[/li][li]Because we can’t let queers have “homes” of their own, Congress said states can legally ignore each others’ valid marriages.[/li][li]By god, a Republican Department of Justice will keep them queers from getting married in Vermont then sneaking back across the border to claim they’re married in Nebraska![/li][li]For the same reason, we think people should be able to fire queers from their jobs and kick 'em out of their rented homes without any legal recourse.[/li][/list=1]In short: Fuck off, queers.
Once again, good luck banging your head against the wall, Mary Cheney.
I strongly disagree. Laws have a huge normative effect, conferring societal approval or disapproval on a person’s actions. They’re not an attitude cure-all, of course, but they can be pretty darned impressive as peer pressure, especially if the laws have wide public support.
And Scylla, there is no shame whatsoever in disavowing planks in a political platform. Believe me, there are a ton of Democratic planks I would happily condemn, though none so distasteful to me as the Republican anti-gay rights plank.
Homosexuality is not specifally referred to at all.
As I said before, I think that it’s a safe assumption that this statement is very careful about what it actually says, so let’s examine it carefully.
I support the traditional definition of marriage that way, too. I am a a man who happens to be married to a woman, so that should hardly be a surprise.
That’s right. The Federal Government should butt out. Unless it’s Constitutionally mandated, it’s a state issue.
Still no direct reference to homosexuality here. You could apply this to polygamy equally well.
Good. I think the home is important to. I think broken homes are a terrible thing, and kids have a better shot at life if they have a good home life. I’ll even go further personally. I think institutions suck at raising kids. A kid needs a home.
Ok, so what’s in this Defense of Marriage Act? I could agree with it, or I could disagree with it. Within the context of this quote it seems to be supporting marriage and the concept of the home (which has not been defined.)
We’d have to look at this Act. But there’s nothing within this quote so far that can lead one to reasonably assume it’s a manifesto against homosexuality. Being pro one thing, doesn’t mean you’re anti something else. I like football but I’m not against baseball. I’m pro-heterosexual, but you’re making a false assumption if you guess that that means I’m anti-homosexual.
Now, this is the clincher. It’s really quite an artful piece of work.
Look at the first statement again, and now look at the final one.
If
You support heterosexual marriage and it’s privileges and protections
and:
You do not believe that sexual preference can be given special privileges or protections
it follows:
Homosexuals must recieve the same protections and privileges in marriage that heterosexuals do.
Let’s apply this to a hypothetical gay man. Call him Fred, and see what we can determine as following from this statement:
The Republican party supports Fred’s right to marry a woman (not that this particularly thrills Fred.)
The Republican party believes Fred needs a good home to either be instilled or to instill the virtues of Democracy (whatever they are.)
The Marriage Protection act somehow helps this (or is supposed to.)
The Federal Government can’t force Nebraska or any other state to recognize his Gay marriage to Tony (presumably Nebraska can make up its own mind as to whether it wants to recognize Tony as Fred’s Spouse, and it’s not any more the Federal Government’s business how it does this than at what age it hands out Driver’s Licenses.)
Fred and Tony get no special privileges or protections because of their sexual preferences.
OK so far?
What else can we imply from this statement about Fred and Tony as far as the Republican party is concerned?
It is not clear whether or not there marriage can constitue a “home” as that’s pretty undefined, but presumable if it could that would be a good thing supported by the Republican. Maybe the Marriage Defense Act can give us more details about whether this is possible or not, or how they might go about doing so.
We really can’t say much else from this statement unless we look at another couple. Let’s call them Mark and Mary. They’re heterosexual, and they’re married.
Mark and Mary’s tradititional marriage is supported by the Republican party overtly. Their ability to create a home is equally vague from this statement as it is for Fred and Tony, but the same applies. Presumably if they do so, and go about instilling the virtues of democracy that would be a good thing.
Now, it seems that Mark and Mary are enjoying overt support that Fred and Tony aren’t.
How do we handle this? What are we to make of it?
Well, that’s easy. If we go to the last sentence of MEB’s quote we learn that no special protections or privileges should be converyed because of sexual preference.
Mark and Mary seem to be getting a special privilege and protection, don’t they?
Well, if we let that stand we have a contradiction, don’t we?
So let’s see. Is there a solution to this conundrum that gives Mark and Mary the benefits of marriage and home creation without conveying a special privilege not enjoyed by Fred and Tony?
Anything else creates a contradiction.
Indeed, there is one solution, and one solution only.
At the Federal level Mark and Mary’s marriage and Fred and Tony’s need to be treated identically.
The States are free to determine their own privileges and protections to either Mark and Mary, or Tony and Fred, but what they give to the one couple they must also give to the other couple. Otherwise the special protections and privileges based on sexual preferences rule will be violated.
Since the Republican party supports Mark and Mary in their traditional marriage, and does not believe in the conveyance of special rights and privileges based on sexual preference it must also support Tony and Fred’s marriage.
Anything else contradicts either the first of the final statement of the quote.
Are you one of those people that thinks you can hear secret messages by playing records backwards?
Do you think the writing on your milk container is a secret code for aliens?
I leave it to the Teeming Millions to decide which one of us is fooling himself on this subject. I’m quite confident that my reading is far and away the more rational one.
minty’s interpretation, by the way, while colloquially phrased, follows the passage faithfully line by line. Yours, Scylla, is the lovechild of Kathy Acker and Dr. Seuss.
As I said before, It’s a careful statement. You can’t summarize it or interpret it according to your own agenda or beliefs.
You have to look at what it actually says.
No. I’m not a deconstructionist, but I’m a careful reader and a professional negotiator.
If you read the statement with the bias that Republicans are anti-gay, it seems to say something other than it actually says.
Anyway, the Defense of Marriage Act was supported by a 2 to 1 majority of Democratic Congressmen, so if you maintain that it is saying
“Fuck you queers,” as you previously stated than you’ve basically defeated your own argument.
The Democratic party seems to be in pretty strong agreement with this, as well, and my original thesis that intolerance is independant of party lines remains intact.
I really don’t understand this level of pigheaded ignorance and denial.
If you think I’m wrong, then make an argument. a Simple assertion is a worthless argument.
If in fact, I am wrong and that quote actually says “fuck you queers” than I guess you can console yourself that you are on the side of all that is true and just because the Democratic party is only shouting it’s agreeement at 2/3 the volume of the Republican party.
Since you did ask me to parse the Goddamn thing (I think it was you, who asked me to do it. Anyway, somebody did,) you can hardly complain about it when I go ahead and do so.
It certainly seems disingenous to call me a sophist or a deconstructionsist for fulfilling such a request.
And, since I did go to the trouble to do so, I think it deserves more than a “wow, sophist” as a rebuttal.
Retraction, por favor, re: the pigheaded ignorance. I’ve made my arguments. Scroll up till you hit a syllogism. Address the contents of that post. Realize why they call it “plain meaning.” Rinse and repeat as necessary.
Oh, and take a look at BKB’s link while you’re up there.
In case I was less than perfectly clear earlier, I condemn those Democrats who, through cowardice or conviction, voted for the Defense of Marriage Act. And yes, I think they did tell gay citizens to piss off with that vote.
I would note, however, that the extent of coincidence between the Republican platform and the position of the Democrats who voted for DMA is rather limited. I don’t recall any Democratic position statements to the effect that homosexuality was a threat to democracy, and the Democratic party as a whole has supported the “special legal protection” of making it illegal to fire people because they’re gay. I’d say those are both substantial improvements over the official Republican position.
Now that’s something that both Democrats and Republicans oughtta be ashamed of.
But I guess Democrats only need to be 2/3 as ashamed as Republicans.
The Republican party is bad and evil because it hates gays 1/3 more than the Democrats.
The bottom line is that any party that wasn’t discriminating against gay rights would have slammed that piece of shit, and both the Democrats and the Republicans sailed it through.
The truth is there’s not a high horse in sight that isn’t full of Greeks.
My horse is fairly high. I don’t recall associating myself with either the Democrats or the Republicans. But as far as that goes, I fall in with minty:
Well-said. Coulda done with a Perot/Hightower-esque homespun colloquialism, though.
My first premise: "The traditional concept of marriage excludes gay couples who seek formal recognition of a long-term commitment. "
The first portion of the first sentence of the platform passage: “We support the traditional definition of “marriage” as the legal union of one man and one woman.”
So the traditional definition of marriage is one man and one woman.
A gay couple ain’t “one man and one woman.”
Yeah…can’t see where I got my premise from. :rolleyes: Would “the traditional concept of marriage excludes gay couples” have been better? 'Cause the rest of the syllogism holds.
Again, I wholeheartedly agree with you on DMA. It’s a travesty. But to point at DMA and claim that as the end of the story is disingenous in the extreme. In fact, why don’t we take a look at the Democratic platform:
That compares quite favorably with the Republican platform of denying legal protection to gays and lesbians, “energetic” legal defense of DMA, and implicitly denying that homosexuals have any part in the values of family and democracy.
