If You Disagree, I Must Not Have Screamed Loudly Enough
Gay “marriage” advocates who see the courts as the appropriate vehicle to implement their agenda would do well to read Dean Esmay’s “last” post on the subject, in which he compares them to the idiot heroines in horror movies who make obvious tactical errors that get them killed. Unfortunately, Dean’s sage advice seems to have been lost on a number of gay marriage advocates, including the Discount Blogger. Indeed, just as I was about ready to write off this post as a rude but excusable tirade, he followed it up with this one, which likened supporters of the defense of marriage amendment with al-Qaeda terrorists. [To his credit, he does make it clear that he does not condone acts of actual terrorism in response, which is more than I can say for one of his commenters.
I'm beginning to think that some people feel so strongly about certain issues that they really shouldn't opine on them at all, at least not in public.
It's not just gay marriage; it's all the hot-button issues. Some feel so strongly about guns that they either go to one extreme and demonize responsible, law-abiding gun owners, or they go to the other and make constitutional hay out of every law that treats firearms any differently from paperclips. [Those who appreciate irony should note that one of the more obnoxious "haymakers" on the anti-gun side is Holley Galland Haymaker, an engineering professor at LSU.] Others still, like much the staff over at Reason, have brilliant things to say about taxes, IP law, or most other topics, yet mysteriously switch to full-blown idiotarian mode as soon as the topic shifts to illegal immigration or the war in Iraq. And, of course, there’s abortion, which turns everyone into a baby-murderer, an evil misogynist bent on oppressing women, or both.
Amazingly, even such boring topics as tax law are not immune. When Congress first amended the Internal Revenue Code to provide for married couples computing their taxes jointly, we got the “marriage bonus.” Then, when Congress got around to partially correcting that anomaly, we got a “marriage penalty,” instead. If they ever go back to taxing married people as though they were unmarried, we’ll get the “stay at home Mom penalty” we started with. Short of enacting the flat tax that almost no one except Steve Forbes seems to want, Congress just can’t win.
Someone reading this bound to think to themselves “nice critique of others, Xrlq, but you’re no different; you do fine when discussing abortion, which you couldn’t give a flying phuck about, but once the topic turns to X, you come unglued.” If that’s you, well, here is your golden opportunity to tell me what X is, and why. Of course readers are free to comment anytime they like, and on any topic, but this time around I’m specifically asking you to tell me if there are any topics I seem to be so close to that I either can’t, or simply don’t, discuss fairly. In my book, the saying that people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones is incomplete. A better statement would be “people who might live in glass houses should not throw stones, unless they are willing to see their own houses demolished in the process.” Well, I’m here to say that if my house is made of glass, I’d rather see it get demolished, and then build a new, better one, in its place. So have at it.
Last, but not definitely not least, I’d like to tip my hat to a few individual bloggers who, in my opinion, have done an exemplary job of discussing certain hot-button issues fairly, despite having strong feelings of their own. One is is the BoiFromTroy, a gay Republican blogger whose views on gay marriage are roughly identical to those of Andrew Sullivan and the Discount Blogger (even to the point of linking favorably to the first of his two dreadful posts), but has thus far managed to retain a civil tone while debating the matter with me, the Clam, and anyone else who comes along with a contrary view. [Well, almost - he did recently brand President Bush's mainstream position on the topic as "hard right," but that's pretty mild, as ephithets go.] Another is Hugo Schwyzer, an anti-abortion, pacifist, anti-death penalty socialist who manages to be polite to just about everybody, to the point of declining to call me “pro-death” even when I basically invited him to do so. The third, and the last (at least for now), is the Angry Clam, whose strong, conservative views have never stopped him from taking the the high road on the topics of …. um …. nothing actually. Nevermind.
UPDATE: Michael responds with even more vitriol. Apparently, obnoxious screaming and terrorist analogies didn’t cut it before, so this time he resorts to libel instead:
One more thing as an aside: If you disagree with the President’s position on the equal message issue, then according to XRLQ, you’re just not civil, as you’ll note in the last paragraph of his post.
The idea, of course, is that you’re supposed to take his word on the gist of that that last paragraph, rather than actually coming here to read it yourself. Anyone who actually reads it will know that it says exactly the opposite of what he claims, namely, that you can support gay marriage and be civil about it. In fact, both of the individuals who I lauded in that paragraph, Hugo Schwyzer and the Boi, do hold views on gay marriage that are substantially identical to Mr. Discount’s. The only difference between them and him is that they choose to debate the matter civilly, while he opts to act like a prick about instead.
February 7th, 2004 at 1:42 pm
Yeah. I’ve basically stopped reading Andrew Sullivan at this point, and a large part of that is that he’s so painful to read on gay marriage. He’s just unprincipled. He seems to see the federal government as a vehicle for his personal “acceptance,” and with gay marriage, he just can’t go beyond that. Granted, you sometimes see that in his other posts, where he seems to be more about scoring points than actually making an argument, but it gets unreadable on gay marriage. Which is a pity, because his blog really does have its moments.
Personally, I can see arguments that the government shouldn’t be regulating who can get married. But in that case, wouldn’t the answer be to just have state governments stop issuing marriage licenses and turn it into a purely contractual institution? I can see that argument. But the pro gay marriage argument just seems to be this specious faux-libertarianism that is most concerned with “acceptance,” which is not government’s job.
February 7th, 2004 at 2:12 pm
John, you hit the nail on the head regarding Sullivan. I’ve often wondered how many others thought the same as I about his inconsistency and his need for “acceptance.”
Xrlq, I was holding my breath while reading this post. I made it through unscathed. This time.
February 7th, 2004 at 2:24 pm
Xrlq, I have found you to be very amenable in all issues. Even the few I may disagree with you on. This is one reason I regularly read your blog. I hope that I also seem reasonable in my comments. Keep up the good work.
February 7th, 2004 at 2:31 pm
Yeah, up yours too, Xrlq.
Then again, would I really be The Angry Clam if I didn’t sound unhinged half the time?
February 7th, 2004 at 2:41 pm
On Agreement
The last week on this blog has shown that there are deep divides on many issues–whether it’s Gay Marriage or whether Riverside is the appropriate New York equivalent of Malibu or Bethesda. XRLQ says that, “if you disagree, I must…
February 7th, 2004 at 2:46 pm
John: good point, but the gay lobby will never accept it. What they want is a law saying that all two-person unions are equally wonderful. Once contract law replaces family law, all voluntary unions involving one or more consenting adults will have the same legal status, and their position will be destroyed.
Patrick: you sound a bit defensive. I’ve “scathed” a lot of people over the past 13 months, but I don’t recall scathing you. Have I?
Joel: indeed, you’ve been among the most thoughtful commenters I’ve encoutered. Then again, that’s easy for me to say since we seem to agree 90% of the time.
Angry: Hell, no you wouldn’t be; that was my whole point. If you ever evolve into The Happy Clam, I’ll consider jumping off a bridge. Unless, of course, it happens on April Fool’s Day, in which case I’ll have a good, private laugh, while others jump off that bridge instead.
February 7th, 2004 at 3:11 pm
Not everyone is a baby-murderer, only those who kill their babies because it’s more convenient than taking responsibility for their own actions.
It’s fine and good to win a debate fairly without resorting to emotional rhetoric, but sometimes the issue is so important that it’s better to win at any cost than to worry about intellectual nicities.
February 7th, 2004 at 3:13 pm
Gay Marriage
I have a question for all the people advocating state recognized gay “marriage.” What about the many gay men and women who oppose gay marriage for very profound philosohpcial and theological reasons, but would support some form of legally recognized…
February 7th, 2004 at 3:16 pm
No, you’ve never scathed me. I just had a bad feeling I was about to be. Guilty conscience I guess.
February 7th, 2004 at 3:21 pm
IF YOU DON’T LIKE GAYS, YOU’RE A TERRORIST!!!
Apparently some people think I believe this. Two people, Matt over at WMD and XRLQ (if that is his real name) have accused me of using this post to equate you with a terrorist if you happen to disagree with…
February 7th, 2004 at 3:48 pm
I don’t think I’ve ever seen you come truly unhinged about anything. It’s an interesting question to throw open to your readers. I may ask the same of mine.
February 7th, 2004 at 3:52 pm
WHEN DO I COME UNHINGED?
Xrlq has a question for his readers: I’m specifically asking you to tell me if there are any topics I seem to be so close to that I either can’t, or simply don’t, discuss [them] fairly.I think this is an…
February 7th, 2004 at 4:47 pm
Gay Marriage III: The Wrath of Everyone
Well, the blogosphere is still spinnin the gay marriage debate around and around as gay bloggers line up on one side, straight bloggers against gay marriage on the other and a whole crapload of us in the middle wondering what…
February 7th, 2004 at 4:56 pm
X,
What arguments opposed to “complex marriage” don’t start with “well, my religion says it’s bad?” It’s a slippery slope, and the gay lobby is denying that by making a lame excuse. Now as I’ve said, I’m not sure whether the government shouldn’t
The “conservative” case for gay marriage is weak. It doesn’t strengthen the institution. If you look at Scandanavia, where they’ve had gay marriage for about 10-15 years now, the out-of-wedlock birthrate has gone up, and the only reason the marriage rate has gone up is because people who like marrying have been doing so often, which is hardly a good sign. Stanley Kurtz wrote a really good piece on it here (feel free to correct this if you allow embedded hyperlinks in your comments)- http://24.104.35.12/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp
Basically, most of the arguments I see as good in favor of keeping things as they stand are tangential, and I’m not sure if they’re strong enough to keep having government regulate marriage. I think connecting marriage to child rearing is very good, because two parents provide two support systems for the children not only emotionally but financially, and that for that, marriage is very much worth strengthening, even against the cries of unfairness from the gay lobby that are in many ways valid.
February 7th, 2004 at 5:06 pm
Do I Annoy You?
Xrlq asked that question of his readers today, so I figure why not follow suit? Is there any issue I shouldn’t talk about, because I don’t know what I’m talking about or worse, I’m too emotionally invested in it?…
February 7th, 2004 at 6:58 pm
First, don’t be mean to my boyfriend Michael…
Second, don’t tell Dean that I have a boyfriend. ;-)
I did not think in anyway that Michael was calling opponents of “Gay Marriage” terrorists. I think he was drawing a parallel and was showing how gays may feel terrorized by those with all the power.
It’s the same feeling that SSM opponents have when the Courts start imposing their “view” of right and wrong. That is why so many people scream about “judicial activism” because they “feel” the courts are behaving tyrannical.
February 7th, 2004 at 7:33 pm
I hope the “up yours” was taken in character.
February 7th, 2004 at 9:32 pm
Rosemary: the reference was to “barbarians who wish to impose their will upon, and oppress, their own people,” not to people who fear that barbarians will impose their wills on THEM.
Angry: of course it was. I do reserve the right to add it to the quotes at the top of my blog, however.
February 7th, 2004 at 9:36 pm
By all means.
I have a new one going up soon myself:
“The Angry Clam has an evil heart with an evil brain, which may turn some off. But, to translate John Galt in the Clam’s rhetoric: if somebody doesn’t like you, on your own terms, ‘Fuck ‘em.’ And fortunately I’m a fan of malice — Mr. Burns (104 year old cartoon megalomaniac), Cartman (bossy a-hole), Milton’s Satan (proud, God defiant iambic-monologist ), A.E.Houseman (poet/smartass Latin textualist), all of which the Clam is a mix with more. I remember him back before the election fiasco in Florida 2000, back when he was a libertarian; and now he’s a Tory. Writer Dorthy Parker said somewhere, ‘Every woman loves a fascist.’ Ladies, here you go.” - Paul Cornelius.
Note: I was registered Libertarian during the California open primary period. I maintain my unbroken GOP voting record, which W will probably make me break. Fucker.
February 7th, 2004 at 9:52 pm
Rosemary,
The thing is, the gays bitch and moan about not having “the power,” but the fact is, it’s those nutty Christians who get marginalized. When was the last time you saw an anti gay marriage op-ed in any of the mainstream media? OK, the Washington Times ran one in recent memory, but they’re owned by the Moonies.
You can be in favor of the war in Iraq, the flat tax, the second amendment, or almost anything else. But the mainstream media draws the line at gay marriage and totally tries to marginalize its opponents.
February 7th, 2004 at 10:01 pm
“I maintain my unbroken GOP voting record, which W will probably make me break. Fucker.”
I keep getting you and that other nonvoter-guy mixed up. Are you the guy whose nonvote is going to send a clear message to the G.O.P. that it’s gotten too hard-right, or the one whose nonvote is going to send an equally clear and unambiguous message that it has drifted too far to the left?
February 7th, 2004 at 10:05 pm
It’s not about a message.
Last time I had to hold my nose, I damaged the cartilage from holding it so tightly.
February 9th, 2004 at 9:32 am
Words mean things
Michael Williams and Xrlq have been engaged in a debate on the rhetoric used by pro-life advocates in the debate on abortion. Like Xrlq, I have serious reservations about the rhetoric of the pro-life side as well, specifically in equating…
February 9th, 2004 at 11:13 am
Never has your blog been more inappropriately named! I am neither insulted nor injured, dear vowel-less one.
Thanks.
Hugo
P.S. And a hello to the splendid and pugnacious mollusk, who has always been a model gentleman when visiting my corner of the ‘b-sphere…
February 9th, 2004 at 5:35 pm
A Week Has Passed . . .
The Wonkette has a good fisking of Peggy Noonan’s [who?] column about Western Civilization falling along with Miss Nasty’s bodice top. Why is it, again, that that makes us responsible for the Dhimmi’s attacks?!? I must be dense. Dense or…
September 7th, 2004 at 8:55 am
BFT 200K
Thanks to XRLQ for referring my 200,000th visitor since September 19, 2003 from this old post on the gay marriage debate….