Bummer of a Poster Child

8 Responses to “Bummer of a Poster Child”

1. elmo Says:
   July 25th, 2006 at 12:10 am

   R.I.P Dog Snot Diaries

2. curtis kreutzberg Says:
   July 25th, 2006 at 1:31 pm

   Read the whole thing. No clue as to which one is the mother.

3. Doc Rampage Says:
   July 25th, 2006 at 3:07 pm

   I suppose you mean that they have hurt their cause, but I don’t think so. Chavis’s failures had no appreciable effect on the affirmative action debate and this separation will have no appreciable effect on the gay marriage debate. Even if conservatives manage to make the separation an issue (unlikely), almost no one who is at all prone to supporting gay marriage is going to care.

4. Nels Nelson Says:
   July 25th, 2006 at 4:08 pm

   Who doesn’t think of gay marriage as a civil rights issue, other than a few anarchists and theocrats?

5. Xrlq Says:
   July 25th, 2006 at 8:22 pm

   Doc: you may be right about that. My point was that they are crappy poster children; I’m not predicting they’re really going to set their cause back all that much, which I don’t believe.

   Nels: I am neither an anarchist nor a theocrat, but I don’t see gay marriage as a civil rights issue, and I doubt any but its staunchest supporters do. Do you know any gay marraige opponents who see it as a civil rights issue?

6. Nels Nelson Says:
   July 25th, 2006 at 9:23 pm

   Perhaps we’re using different definitions of “civil rights”, by which I mean a right granted by the government. Or maybe we’re not even using the same definition of “marriage”.

   I believe most opponents of gay marriage would agree that gay residents of Massachusetts currently have the right to marry. A few opponents might say the right cannot be granted, that the court ruling has no force, as it runs contrary to a religious law. And a few others - supporters, I guess - might say that gays always had the right to marry, as governments lack the authority to sanction any form of marriage.

7. Mark L Says:
   July 26th, 2006 at 4:36 pm

   Why do you say that the Goodridges have hurt the cause of same-sex partnership? Because it is going to make people think that gays that get married are just narcassistic look-at-mes that are playing house? I suspect most people believe that anyway.

   I have no objection to gay marriage. If a gay man and a gay woman want to get married I’ll be down at the courthouse defending their right to do so. What they do (or don’t do) in the privacy of thier bedroom isn’t my business.

   What I object to is narcassitic look-at-mes redefining marriage. If two gay men or two gay women can “marry” each other, then two straight men or women can also — for the tax and inheritance breaks, of course — unless you want the government monitoring people’s behavior in the bedroom to ensure that proported marriages really are marriages. Nothing like the gays inviting the government back into the bedroom.

8. Dave Munger Says:
   July 26th, 2006 at 10:31 pm

   I think the belief that this is a civil rights matter hinges on the arguement that people are Constitutionally entitled to equal treatement under the law, and that homosexual couples are deprived of this when it comes to things like insurance, social security, and some tax stuff. But American conservatives do not agree that those kind of things (scarce material goods) fall under the heading of things that people can be Constitutionally entitled to. It’d be like saying that I have a right to be given something by the Government that it can only take away from someone else, so it’s contradictory to say that everyone has a right to it (my right to it would mean depriving someone els of it). I don’t know if that has anything to do with what Xqrl was talking about though.

Leave a Reply