Dueling Idiocies
Today’s Richmond Times-Dispatch offers dueling op-eds on the marriage amendment, with businessman Ken Newsome arguing in favor of the amendment and liberal theologian Jack Spiro against. Or at least, I think that’s which side each is on. Each argument is so comically bad that I have to wonder if both individuals are really Rove-esque moles attempting to work for one side by discrediting the other.
- Shorter Newsome: Vote yes on the marriage amendment, ‘cuz Massachusetts and Vermont suck, and Virginia rocks.
- Shorter Spiro: Vote no on the marriage amendment, ‘cuz my Bible has everything crossed out except the parts about love, and besides, I served in the Air Force!
RTWT if you must, but be forewarned that your IQ will drop at least 10 points if you do. I don’t know if this effect is permanent or not, but why take the chance?
September 25th, 2006 at 7:23 pm
The real argument here is “does conservatism actually exist or not?” When people claim to believe that unprecidented legislative efforts to drastically alter basic societal institutions would have unintended consequences, are they lying? In other words, do the people who claim to have conservative beliefs in fact have the same beliefs as liberals, but claim to believe otherwise PURELY out of vindictiveness against the minority of the week?
September 25th, 2006 at 7:51 pm
…. no?
I’m not sure what you’re really asking, Dave. It seems like the ones who would have be lying if they claim they believe “that unprecidented legislative efforts to drastically alter basic societal institutions would have unintended consequences” would be the ones who support gay marriage, not those conservatives who oppose it.
September 25th, 2006 at 9:29 pm
I only skimmed them. I think I feel the 10 pts. draining away nevertheless.
September 25th, 2006 at 10:04 pm
I think it’s a bit un-conservative to support gay marriage, but equally so to support unnecessary constitutional amendments. Massachusetts, Vermont and Hawaii need marriage amendments. Virginia doesn’t.
September 26th, 2006 at 12:11 am
I’m not so sure they’re unnecessary. Those three states have demonstrated the problem: pass a law making it legal, gay couples exercise their right under that law, and *then* you want to pass the amendment nullifying the law? Seems like, practically speaking, rolling it back would be a lot more difficult than prohibiting it to start with.
September 26th, 2006 at 12:59 am
I think gay marriage should be illegal because it hurts the economy — if those gay guys were not married they would need to rent two apartments, and drive two cars, and buy two refrigerators, and two beds, etc., etc.. I really cannot understand why you said those links would lower our IQ.
September 26th, 2006 at 8:01 pm
My comment was a little unwieldy, but I meant that conservatives stand implicitly accused of lying about why we oppose gay marriage. As a rule, they don’t argue that the conservative position is wrong, but that it is not what we really mean.
September 26th, 2006 at 11:11 pm
Ah. In other words, no matter what we propose about the dangers to society, it’s all because we *hate* *gay* *people.* Gotcha now. :)
September 26th, 2006 at 11:30 pm
Anwyn: the three states in question are all far left looney states, not representative of what is likely to happen in beet red states like Virginia, or even in semi-dark blue states like New York (whose Court of Appeal has rejected gay marriage) or California (whose Supreme Court almost certainly will). If you really think that gay marriage is so toxic that we can’t bear the risk of having a court go overboard and reverse the result in a year or two without causing irreparable damage, then I guess it makes sense to pass SOME form of a “no right to gay marriage” amendment in states that are almost as far to the left end of the spectrum as Massachusetts, Hawaii or Vermont. Even there, an amendment like Virginia’s is a cure almost as bad as the disease. If it’s really about preventing judicial power grabs - and not about tying the hands of future legislatures - why not pass an amendment merely clarifying that nothing in the constitution shall be construed to require the state to recognize marriages other than between a man and a woman?
September 27th, 2006 at 10:26 am
Hmmm. I guess I don’t see why “tying the hands of future legislatures” is a horrible thing, if you believe gay marriage should be illegal.
Also, would const. amendments in the three affected states actually roll back what they’ve already got? The fundamental fiction in this whole thing is the supposed separation between marriage and civil union. There’s no practical difference, and a state that pretends to preclude one while allowing the other is fooling itself.
September 27th, 2006 at 7:56 pm
Damn you Xrlq i am now pemantly dmgd.
September 30th, 2006 at 11:37 pm
I’m not sure civil unions should be, and I am sure that private contracts intended (or allegedly intended) to serve as marriage substitutes should be as enforceable as any other contract. As to gay marriage, I have yet to hear anyone argue why it’s not only bad, but somehow worse than rape, murder, mayhem, robbery, embezzlement, speeding, tax evasion, kidnapping, or just about anything else that’s illegal but not unconstitutional.
Yes. Hawaii did just that, and no gay couple is legally married in Hawaii today. Of course the states could include a grandfather provision if they wanted, but it wouldn’t happen automatically.
Nonsense. For one thing, the two are not identical, and certainly don’t have to be. For another, even if they were that would be no reason for a constitutional amendment, unless you happen to live in one of the few states whose judges think the constitution requires one or the other.
October 1st, 2006 at 12:46 pm
I walk down to City Hall and get hitched; I walk into my church and the minister gets me hitched by virtue of both the state and the church.
In the eyes of the state, for tax purposes, for who to point the finger at over mutual children, for purposes surrounding the death of one or the other, those two events are the same. Marriage is where the state and the church intersect; the only possible difference I can see between civil union and marriage is that if the one were legal while the other was not, there could be no possible loophole for the state coercing a church to perform a marriage for a couple it otherwise would not bless.
Contracts made privately intended to serve as marriage substitutes do not rise to the level of state recognition.