# What are you getting out of all this, Bricker? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 23, 2004, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-getting-out-of-all-this-bricker/265593 "2004-09-23T01:17:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![iampunha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/74df32/32.png) [@iampunha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iampunha)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-getting-out-of-all-this-bricker/265593/41 "2004-09-23T06:14:46Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > This is ridiculous. \*Bigot \*has a literal definition that is relevant to a discussion regarding limiting the rights of a specific class of people. The word is being used literally and explicitly. \*Idiot \*and \*troglodyte \*are not intended to convey any literal information. And when you call someone who is anti-gay a bigot, do you think you will get a significantly different reaction from the one you would get if you called them a troglodyte instead? (Ignoring the snarky “Yes, because they don’t know what a troglodyte is” answer) ---
**Author:** ![duffer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duffer/32/1026_2.png) [@duffer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/duffer)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 6:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-getting-out-of-all-this-bricker/265593/42 "2004-09-23T06:21:41Z")
_Niggardly_ also has a literal and very real definition. But we’ve seen what that’ll do for a Senate career. _paging Senator Byrd for a ruling_ ---
**Author:** ![roger\_thornhill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@roger\_thornhill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/roger_thornhill)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-getting-out-of-all-this-bricker/265593/43 "2004-09-23T06:28:06Z")
Keeping with the definition of ‘bigot’ given by \*\*Brutus \*\* above, the problem with it is that it covers both estimable qualities and the opposite. Thus, a radical proponent of change in an unfair world would see him- or herself as ‘obstinately devoted to his or her own opinions’, while they would see those who oppose them as ‘intolerantly devoted to his or her own prejudices’. But I don’t think it’s a problem about words. Sympathetic understanding (ie trying very hard to understand what your opponent is really saying) and a refusal to believe in the notion of ‘manifest truth’ (ie the idea that, although truth may be hard to find, once it is revealed, it is impossible for us not to recognise it as truth) are, for me, the keys. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-getting-out-of-all-this-bricker/265593/44 "2004-09-23T06:46:49Z")
> [@iampunha](#): > > For our purposes, I see no difference. Both are insulting, both are meant to cause strife and neither is especially given to promoting tolerance and understanding. Call them bigots, idiots, troglodytes, whatever insulting term you care to throw around. I doubt you’ll get many people saying “I am intrigued by your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.” I think it’ll be rather effective, myself. Certainly, the technique seems to work pretty well in, for example, political campaigning. Time will tell, I suppose. > [@](#): > > So, just to make sure I’m parsing this correctly, if a quarter of the population said you were an idiot, and offered while saying that no evidence or reason for saying it, that would cause you to rethink your position? I’ve got quite a bit of evidence that the people who voted for this law are bigots. For example, the definition of the word “bigot.” I haven’t provided it in this thread because, so far as I can tell, everyone posting to it is already a veteran of the hundreds of other gay rights threads on this board, and are familiar with all the arguments for and against. > [@](#): > > Or, to use an example you so courteously provide on this very page, what evidence have you given that **roger thornhill** should consider seriously your charge that his point is horseshit? You have told him absolutely nothing of where he should begin to try and figure this out. What is his motivation to respond with scholarship when you have not? What more is there to say to that post? It’s pure opinion and appeal to authority, and wholly lacking in logical argument. How do you rebut that on any level more significant than “Is not!”? > [@](#): > > Did they offer reason for what they said, or did they just label you a bigot and move on? Some offered reasons, some were just angry. Either on its own might not have been enough to change my mind. Both together were pretty formidable. > [@](#): > > Covert ops e.g. not challenging the held notion that one is heterosexual (for purposes of this discussion) and challenging beliefs held about the GLBT community. I was reasonably successful doing this, changed a few minds on the subject, actually came out to a few people who saw the error of their ways. Still not following you. > [@](#): > > I think you really have to examine the situation on a more intricate level than “millions of people” before you decide how to proceed. For some people, obviously being called a bigot is something that will make you curious as to the reason. For others, being called a bigot is a sure way to get that person firmly entrenched in their ideas, especially if they gain some sort of satisfaction from the feeling that they are being persecuted for, say, their religious beliefs. They seek comfort in those with the same beliefs and are even more motivated to keep you from getting what you want. > > Those on the fence? Well, consider two possible approaches: > > 1. The bigots want to ban gay marriage because they’re fucking morons. > > 2. We want to make recognized the rights gay people should have that they currently lack. > > While you will certainly get people rallying behind the first, it has been my experience that the second tends to be more effective. Experiences and results, of course, differ. I suppose my experiences and results differ, then. For the vast majority of the people who were motivated enough to go out and vote for this bill, I do not think it is possible to change their minds. I think the more realistic strategy is to go after those who haven’t formed solid opinions on the subject, through rational argument primarily (which I have done in other threads, but lately I’ve been getting sick of writting the same crap over and over) but also through old-fashioned political mudslinging. There’s a culture war going on, and if we never return fire, we’re going to get our asses handed to us. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 8:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-getting-out-of-all-this-bricker/265593/45 "2004-09-23T08:25:57Z")
> [@iampunha](#): > > And when you call someone who is anti-gay a bigot, do you think you will get a significantly different reaction from the one you would get if you called them a troglodyte instead? What the fuck do I care about a bigot’s reaction? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 11:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-getting-out-of-all-this-bricker/265593/46 "2004-09-23T11:51:55Z")
> [@](#): > > What the fuck do I care about a bigot’s reaction? Bigots vote, too. If you need to change the votes, you need to resist the temptation to alienate the voters. (Just in the last six day, I saw an engineer lose a company’s biggest and oldest account because he was personally offended by the verbal haranguing of an idiot on the account’s management team and responded in kind. No matter how satisfying it was to let loose at the idiot, that was several millions of dollars annually over many future years that were tossed away to give him a momentary sense of smug self-righteousness at the end of a phone call. Smug feelings are not a good principle on which to base actions.) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 12:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-getting-out-of-all-this-bricker/265593/47 "2004-09-23T12:32:27Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > So is your opinion closer to: > (1) Same-sex unions should not be referred to as “marriages”, because the word “marriage” already has a very specific linguistic and cultural meaning. Thus, you respect a committed, solemnified same sex union just as much as you respect a marriage, but don’t to use the same word to describe them, much as you respect helicopters just as much as you respect airplanes, but don’t want to use the word “airplanes” to describe them, because you think they are two distinct things. > > or > > (2) You respect the right of same sex couples to form unions, but view those as somehow less important/sacred/meaningful/fundamental/natural/significant than a Marriage. (1) sums up my feelings very well. And not having read the actual Louisana amendment, I was judging it solely by brief descriptions in headlines. I now see that the amendment DOES, in fact, purport to prohibit civil unions… and I am dismayed. It is absolutely terrible that a valid purpose: the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman – is used to secure agreement for an invalid purpose: forbidding a private agreement between two people. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-getting-out-of-all-this-bricker/265593/48 "2004-09-23T12:34:45Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Civil unions cannot be actually _equal_ as long as the Federal tax code does not recognize them. How can this be a state issue or be decided at the state level (unless we actually recognize the “full faith cand credit” clause and impose rulings from Massachusetts, Vermont, and Hawaii on the rest of the country)? I would amend the federal tax code to recognize civil unions with the same benefits as accure to marriage if the persons claiming such benefits reside in a state that recognizes their union. ---
**Author:** ![duffer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duffer/32/1026_2.png) [@duffer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/duffer)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 12:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-getting-out-of-all-this-bricker/265593/49 "2004-09-23T12:40:14Z")
North Dakota has a state amendment banning same-sex marriage on the ballot for the November election. Thought 78% was high? Check for stats a day or two after the election. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-getting-out-of-all-this-bricker/265593/50 "2004-09-23T12:41:55Z")
Maybe it’s because I have absolutely no respect for tradition _qua_ tradition, but I don’t understand the objection to just letting gay folk **marry** rather than going through all the work and tortuous constructions to get an entire other tier of legal relationship framework put into place for civil unions. If a tradition is useful, keep it. If it’s not useful, or worse, is harmful, toss it. What is this slavish devotion to the current definition of the word “marriage”? It’s a fucking WORD. To set up an identical network of legal relationships just so you can call them something different is idiotic. And makes you look pretty irrational and bigoted, just so you know. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 12:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-getting-out-of-all-this-bricker/265593/51 "2004-09-23T12:42:44Z")
> [@minty green](#): > > If this is what serves as grounds for a Pit thread, it’s time for someone to get some fucking perspective. In fairness to the OP, it is a particularly gentle Pit post. So far as I can recall, it’s the first time I’ve been Pitted, and any Pit thread that advises the Pitee to select “a different course” as opposed to inviting him to fuck a small bird or rodent, or implying that his parents met in a New Orleans house of prostitution, is a good one. I think the OP had something to say that didn’t belong in GD, but was not particularly vitriolic. And I commend and thank him for it. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 12:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-getting-out-of-all-this-bricker/265593/52 "2004-09-23T12:45:27Z")
Gotta admit that I find the subtle distinction between ‘marriage’ and ‘civil union’ (where CU means all the rights and responsibilities of marriage but with a different name) to be too small for me to discern. But I can respect people who feel that way. I think it might be silly to worry over a hair split that fine but then again I find many things silly in society…one more won’t blow my gaskets. Not unlike Bricker I favor a very strict interpretation of the constitution. I am personally deeply uncomfortable with the courts inferring rights and responsibilities that are not expressly laid out. Even where I agree with the courts (any courts) reasoning on such an issue I would be far happier if such were expressed and then enacted by the relevant legislative body. That is, after all, why we have legislatures and an amendment process. But labelling Bricker as a ‘bigot’ is foolish in this regard. He is a man who’s opinion differs from yours on a ‘hot button’ issue. That doesn’t make him stupid or evil…it just means his opinion differs. Shouting and name-calling simply guarantees that YOUR opinion will be discounted. Reasonable people should be able to discuss issues without emotion or rancor…even in the most heated debate. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-getting-out-of-all-this-bricker/265593/53 "2004-09-23T12:46:40Z")
> [@duffer](#): > > North Dakota has a state amendment banning same-sex marriage on the ballot for the November election. Thought 78% was high? Check for stats a day or two after the election. Well, when your entire state population is smaller than the population of the Twin Cities… ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-getting-out-of-all-this-bricker/265593/54 "2004-09-23T12:51:28Z")
> [@Otto](#): > > Because denying human rights is peachy dandy, as ong as it’s done state-by-state. “Judicial activism” is nothing but code for “decision I don’t like.” That’s absolutely untrue. If the legislature passes a law I don’t like, and that law is challenged and upheld by the courts… that would be a decision I don’t like. But you would never hear me call that “judicial activism.” Because the courts would be doing their job: interpreting the law as written. Similarly, if the courts read into the Constitution a heretofore-new right in an area I agree with – say, for example, that a federal court found that an unborn child is vested with full proections as a person under the Fourteenth Amendment – I’d like the result. But I’d be the first first to decry the action as judicial activism. That change – even though I favor the result it would bring - should come from the legislature, NOT the courts. I’m about the PROCESS. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-getting-out-of-all-this-bricker/265593/55 "2004-09-23T14:10:01Z")
> [@Maureen](#): > > I’m sorry, **minty green** , but what you’ve seen isn’t respect. It’s barely concealed contempt covered by a veneer of condescension. I can’t view it as anything else. > “You people can play house but don’t think for a second you have a right to call your disgusting little arrangement a _marriage_. Take your civil union and be happy to have it.” Two points: (1) Bricker never said any such thing, and your inference of such a statement from what he _has_ said is completely unwarranted. (2) If you think that the hair-splitting difference between the word “marriage” and the term “civil union” is proof of hatred and bigotry, may I respectfully suggest that you obtain some perspective from somewhere. Because if that’s all it takes to warrant such serious accusations, you’ve just condemned one hell of a lot of non-hateful and non-bigoted people who are otherwise squarely in the gay rights camp. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-getting-out-of-all-this-bricker/265593/56 "2004-09-23T14:20:34Z")
> [@minty green](#): > > (Bricker) has been nothing but respectful to homosexuals, either individually or collectively. Telling women who have been in an exclusive, committed, loving relationship for 50 years that they are unworthy of using the word “married” to describe themselves is disrespectful in the extreme. > [@minty green](#): > > The sum total of his offense, it seems, is to disapprove of the word “marriage” when applied to same-sex unions, even though he apparently supports all the rights and privileges of marriage under an alternative name. Fuck alternate names. Fuck jumping through hoops of fire to get second-class status. “Marriage” has power and status in the world, and denying the word, even when granting the rights, is a statement that same-sex couples are “less than.” > [@minty green](#): > > That, and daring to point out that the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision recognizing gay marriage appears to be prompting a counter-productive backlash on gay marriage across the country. If you seriously think the anger mounting at **Bricker** has anything to do with his pointing out the anti-SSM backlash (as if we were all backward children who don’t read the papers to see it for ourselves; as if many of us don’t live in states with bans either proposed or in the works right now) then you’re foolishly mistaken. > [@J. Chance](#): > > But labelling Bricker as a ‘bigot’ is foolish in this regard. He is a man who’s opinion differs from yours on a ‘hot button’ issue. That doesn’t make him stupid or evil…it just means his opinion differs. “I prefer peanut M&Ms to plain” is a difference of opinion. “Your 50 year relationship is unworthy of the name we extend to Britney Spears’ drunken Vegas wedding because you’re homosexuals” is bigotry. Bigotry is stupid and evil. Therefore… ---
**Author:** ![GLWasteful](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/f05b48/32.png) [@GLWasteful](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GLWasteful)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-getting-out-of-all-this-bricker/265593/57 "2004-09-23T14:32:06Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It is absolutely terrible that a valid purpose: the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman – is used to secure agreement for an invalid purpose: forbidding a private agreement between two people. Except that you would be hard pressed to find an instance wherein “marriage” is being defined as the union of a man and woman that _doesn’t_ include a little something that shoots down any and all hope of the civil unions between homosexuals that you advocate. > [@Bricker](#): > > I would amend the federal tax code to recognize civil unions with the same benefits as accure to marriage if the persons claiming such benefits reside in a state that recognizes their union. This sounds like an awful lot of trouble to go to just to protect the word “marriage” from being used by gays. Besides, what happens when people move, as they do in this mobile society of ours? Are they screwed if they move to a state that refuses to recognize their union? Would there be any recourse available to them? Or should they just rub some dirt in it and move on? As I said in the thread that spawned this one: Adding more bureaucracy seems like a bad idea in this instance. Plus you’ve managed to create a whole lotta new problems for those who move from state to state, and I guarantee you that once you start dicking around with the federal tax code to recognize something that is virtually identical to SSM, there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth in the land. Why not just allow SSM from the go? Makes a lot more sense, to my POV. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-getting-out-of-all-this-bricker/265593/58 "2004-09-23T15:08:33Z")
> [@Otto](#): > > Telling women who have been in an exclusive, committed, loving relationship for 50 years that they are unworthy of using the word “married” to describe themselves is disrespectful in the extreme. I’m not telling them that they are unworthy. I’m telling them that the word doesn’t apply to them. If a man serves honorably 52 years as a U.S. Senator, he is not entitled to be known as “Governor.” This does not mean that I am denigrating his long and faithful service as a senator, or being disrespectful to him, his dedication to public service, or the great good he has done over his career. > [@](#): > > Fuck alternate names. Fuck jumping through hoops of fire to get second-class status. “Marriage” has power and status in the world, and denying the word, even when granting the rights, is a statement that same-sex couples are “less than.” No, it’s not. It’s “different than,” yes, but not “less than.” And I continue to find this fascinating. I am in support of full legal equality for same sex unions, and I’m a bigot. This attitude may be a good clue for those activists who actually wish to accomplish something in this arena. > [@](#): > > Bigotry is stupid and evil. > > Therefore… Alienating those who would support significant advancement of your cause is an idiotic thing to do. Therefore… ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-getting-out-of-all-this-bricker/265593/59 "2004-09-23T15:40:22Z")
I hear ya, **Bricker**. I’ve had similar taunts thrown my way for a similar position. I think these measures up for vote in several states accurately portray the feelings of Americans in general on the subject. The mere fact that others might wish these citizens felt differently won’t make it so. Neither will name-calling. There is a backlash going on right now, a huge and effective one. This is a political reality that would cause normal political operaticves to shift tactics. I think the fact that this is such an emotional issue for many, on both sides, can cloud judgement. Absolutists who take an all-or-nothing stand are quite likely to end up with nothing, instead of all. How this helps people who need benefits right now is beyond me. A lot of parallels are being made to the civil rights movement. But that movement, at least the moderate arm of it, was led by people with far more political savvy than this. They knew they wouldn’t gain all of their goals immediately. They instead took every victory they could, and used their expanded rights and power to press for more rights, and more power. The progress they made was incremental, yet very effective. ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2004, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-getting-out-of-all-this-bricker/265593/60 "2004-09-23T15:47:14Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No, it’s not. It’s “different than,” yes, but not “less than.” In this case, ‘different than’ is ‘less than.’ Civil union is a _local_ status, invented by each jurisdiction piecemeal. Marriage is _portable._ If I get civilly unioned or whatever the verb is, as soon as I cross the Quebec border, my partner and I would be strangers. If I get married, I’m married in all ten provinces and three territories – or at least I have a much better position to argue that I should be. This will become more and more important as more and more countries get same-sex marriage. (Spain is scheduled for the beginning of October, fyi.) There is a far, far better chance of people who are married in Quebec being considered married in the Netherlands than there is of people who are civilly unioned in Quebec being considered _PACSé_ in France. On a more fundamental level, you’re not going to come up with a word that conveys both equality to heterosexual marriage and difference from it. I’m just supposed to accept that my husband won’t be my husband because he’s male? What sense does that make? In days gone by, the definition of “marriage” was “a union between a man and a woman of the same race.” Apparently, to avoid tarnishing the sacrosanct definition of marriage, we should have come up with a different word for interracial marriage. Maybe “shirley.” Of course, “shirleys” would have status almost the same as marriage… and Loving should have just shut up and accepted it. Wouldn’t want to alienate those people who were sort of in favour of it. (Interesting side note: the most recent edition of the _Canadian Oxford_, under their definition of “marriage,” states “…two people…”) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-getting-out-of-all-this-bricker/265593.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-you-getting-out-of-all-this-bricker/265593.md?page=4)