Dr. Ric is up to it again, making outrageous statements about how Jeff and I are trying to coolify the deep homophobia and racism that lurks in our dark, dark souls. He’s on especially about our opposition to legislating gay marriage en banc.
Well, Jeff, I felt, was rather at pains to point out that if the issue of marriage between people of the same sex were agreed to in a democratic fashion–e.g. in a referendum–then he’d have no opposition at all. That’s my position, too. The question of what constitutes marriage really is a matter, therefore, of concensus in a speech community. For example, you may wish to call Coors beer. Having a healthy respect for beer, I beg to differ. You may choose to call Wonder Bread bread. That is your right, and you wouldn’t be alone. But I will continue to view it as something different from bread. Truly, it is breadish, but that doesn’t mean it is bread. Nor is Cheez-Wiz cheese, nor is MD 20/20 quite a table wine.
Jeff points out, I think, how far we have to go in bringing equal rights to gay and lesbian couples when he quotes approvingly this comment from another blog:
No private contract can get you health care through your spouse’s employer, nor require your employer to give you family and medical leave to take care of your sick lover, nor get Social Security and Veteran’s spousal benefits, nor get an exemption from the estate tax, nor get the ability to sponsor your lover for his green card, nor get preference to adopt your lover’s child, nor receive the privilege not to testify against your lover, nor get domestic violence protection from the law.
If we were to grant the use of the title, “gay marriage,” to the arrangement, how long do you think it would be before we were being harangued (by Andrew Sullivan’s ear shearers) to drop the gay part of the formula? And yet, there would be people who continued to recognize a difference in the arrangements, simply on the basis of sex. Would that be wrong? Would these arrangements not be different in fact on that basis alone? Would not gay and lesbian couples continue, as a matter of fact, still to regard their own marriage arrangements as distinct from traditional intersexual marriage? They would, and the only significance of the conflation of the term would be that public expression of the fact of the evident differences in the arrangements would be circumscribed, and the hypocrisy instituted through legalistic browbeating in the public sphere.
Dr. Ric also claims that we are both against affirmative action. Neither of us is against needs based affirmative action. Frankly, I am very much in favor of it, having gone to an Ivy and seen firsthand how one of the institutional functions is to maintain the credentials of a socioeconomic elite. And there is a fundamental contradiction in his insistence in maintaining the difference in one sphere and not the other. Either way, it seems that his solution is that people ought to submit to be guided by their intellectual betters, and this is frankly insulting.
Finally, he seems to feel that my blogging has been superior to Jeff’s lately, which shows just how out of touch he is. I admit, though, that I have occasionally eaten almost a whole carton of Maltesers.
You may choose to call Wonder Bread bread
I don’t … and it looks like the consensus has moved in our direction. Maybe we “bread rights” advocates should have found a sympathetic judge and shut down the Wonder bakeries earlier?
I don’t want to give this guy any more traffic. Let him earn it with good work, rather than by calling people racists and homophobes so that they’ll link him.
All right. Nuke the post?
I just broke the link to his site. He’s not the mainstream press, so showing him up as a lying lapweasel for Timmah’s rage is rather an impotent endeavor. Besides, it just more shame-mongering: any policy dispute that doesn’t favor Dr Ric’s positions is necessarily either racist, homophobic, sexist, classist, or fascist / theocratic. The guy wouldn’t know how to compose an argument that didn’t work it’s way back from one of the premises. In fact, that’s what he does for a living. So writing posts like his latest require nothing more than plugging a new name in and hitting a macro button.
For what it’s worth, I’ve also come out in favor of needs based affirmative action.
I don’t want to dignify lies about my positions — particularly when they come from academics. It just depresses me too much to think that this is what our university system rewards, and these are the kinds of people on university “diversity” committees.
Caric is an intellectual and moral fraud, and if his scholarship, beyond such predictable reducibles as he posts today, is anything like his blogging, I wouldn’t be surprised to find some Ward Churchill-like machinations in his theses.
Cool.
I’ve always said, and will say it again: Go ahead and legalize gay marriage everywhere. And then announce that henceforth heterosexual marriage will be referred to as “real marriage” and watch heads explode…
On second thought, I’ll leave the link in. Let his dishonesty show.
I love his idea that I’m being “glib” when I talk about equal protection rights. He seems not to realize that I’m referring to the way such has been adjudicated in cases like Loving.
I don’t want to be seen as endorsing Caric’s periodic ad hominem forays over here, or his snide remarks about “the right” or Republicans in general, but… I think this part of his argument has merit:
So if the traditional definition of marriage is to be given preference, simply because it is the tradition, it means maintaining the tradition of prejudice against homosexuality in the law. That is not the goal of the non-homophobic wing of the Republican party, but it seems to be the result of holding a position based on tradition, or, perhaps more accurately, based on a deeply held respect for the right of the masses to set policy for the country based on their current prejudices. If the ideal way for change in the tradition to occur is through changing the opinions of the masses, which would presumably come about through persuasion and enlightened discourse (and having their children watch the Wiggles), then shouldn’t we spend some portion of our time engaged in that sort of persuasion? And shouldn’t we occasionally push back against those two guys in our party who take the Bible very literally and have a deep-rooted dislike of teh ghey?
To assert our Cool Guy(TM) bonafides….
Do me a favor, and delete my above comment. I’ve stepped into a deep pile, and I would like to extract my foot, if possible. I knew there was a history here, but I didn’t realize just how bad it was. No benefit can come from having this conversation in this thread.
Since said fraud makes part of his pittance over at Morehead imputing motives, I have to wonder aloud if he himself is motivated by blind habit — hitting that macro button — or simply having painted himself into a corner, his not losing face now needing more of his stock and trade.
After all, we once elected another leftist fraud to two consecutive presidential terms on his calculated basis of not quite enough people noticing the cavernous emptiness. In Caric’s circles, such as some likewise probably are, maybe there’s just enough tenable-looking bullshit left at the end of the day to keep the pay coming and the softest heads impressed.
So, about motive, whether habit, ego, or accident, it pays Caric its various dividends, especially way down there in the academic equivalent of a comic book store in a ramshackle strip mall on the outskirts of some insignificant burg. To take it (or Morehead State’s political program) seriously would defeat it’s very purpose.
No, marriage was designed to settle a man down so that he’s protect and a support a woman and the children she bore him. Gays really don’t have a place in it, and they never have. I’m with the pack here in that I have no problem with civil unions and the availability of benefits granted to straight partners, and I wouldn’t mind seeing government get out of the marriage business altogether.
But gays can’t marry each other anymore than I can decide to be black. It just doesn’t work unless you completely change the definition of the word, which is exactly what the more radical sorts are after.
Aside from the one caveat, this pretty much nails Caric’s argument.
But of course, what is happening here is that you (and Caric) are looking at actions through a particular set of intentions which may or may not be apposite, but which certainly are NOT attributable to all those who favor an historical or traditional view of marriage.
For instance, it is just as appropriate to say “if the traditional definition of marriage is to be given preference, simply because it is the tradition, it means maintaining the tradition of preference for heterosexual couplings in the law.”
Preferences are not prejudices, necessarily, and there is no reason why a democratic republic that is supposed to be self governing can’t establish preferences it thinks best serve the will of the people. This is true, of course, only if there is no discrimination based on race or sex.
Courts have ruled consistently that ssm doesn’t run afoul of sex discrimination protections (which would call for strict scrutiny). And though Caric calls it glib, this is precisely the thinking behind the argument that gays can marry — just not those of the same sex, unless the electorate allows it. Because what is being ‘discriminated against’, if that’s the semantic route you wish to take, is sexual orientation, not sex. I don’t think of it that way, I should add — I say instead that societal preferences for what the social construct of marriage allows is decided upon, appropriately, by the people — though I’ve said I would have no problem with accepting the will of the people, should public opinion shift. Similarly, I’ve said I’d support civil unions, and that such unions would require that we fix certain loopholes that currently can’t be addressed by readily-available contracts alone.
I’ve also said that my problem with same sex “marriage” is a problem solely with the attempt to claim membership to a particular tradition by way of judicial fiat.
And as I wrote elsewhere, I’m perfectly able to understand that once the definition is extended to include same sex unions, than we will have changed the tradition. This is because (pace Caric’s and others cartoon version of positions) I don’t find the definition of marriage immutable.
I recognize, that is, that it can be made to change. The question is, should it, and if so, why?
I don’t think it should — first, because I don’t think anyone is entitled to lay claim to the traditions of others simply because they want to be recognized as part of that tradition. Such an artificial enlistment into the ranks of the married, unless it is accompanied by the consent of those whose traditions are being hijacked, will only lead to a backlash against gays.
So if it makes you — and Caric — happy to characterize “tradition” as a tradion of discrimination rather a tradition of preference based on sanctioning the most efficient (and healthy, in the sense of comprehensive) family dynamic, that’s on you guys.
But don’t act like I haven’t gone after the religious right, or anti-gay throwbacks like Fred Phelps.
I can’t help that some people’s religions teach them that homosexuality is a sin, and that they have the audacity to believe their religions. However, that belief is tempered by anti-discrimination laws, and the dictate within the religion to hate the sin and love the sinner.
I worry more about the kind of religious fervor that insists that IT’S OWN IDEAS MUST BE ACCEPTED, else those who don’t accept them are to be demonized and “discriminated” against by a self-selected intellectual elite.
Ards
I realize you are arguing in good faith; however, Prof “Cancer” Ric’s sentence is easily dismissed. In Ancient Greece and Roman, male/male liasons and eroticism was widely practiced, condoned, even taxed. But you won’t see any Roman/Greek same sex marriages.
The men of this society were allowed all sexual expression … sexuality was an expression of power and social status. In Roman times it wasn’t about “homosexual orientation” but about where one was the penetrator (who kept his status as “man”) and the penetrated (who occupied a status of “lesser man” and thusly a legitimate object of desire of a “man”) Marriage was about securing the family line …thus women became the property of their husbands (transferred from their previous “owners”, their fathers). Guarded, chaperoned, locked away, traded, etc.
On another thread someone stated that up until a few hundred years ago there were no “state laws” concerning marriage. That is untrue; many marriage customs shifted, changed and were codified into accepted practice. Rome had many marriage laws, many of them stricter than our own (no intermarriage between classes, no polygamy, nothing within 6 degrees of consanguinity) which controlled whether or not any children of the union were “legitimate”.
There’s a lot of people that mostly just seem to have a problem with the aesthetics of opposition to gay marriage.
PS IIRC Emperor Augustus looked with some alarm at the “sexual extravagance” of the upper classes along with its concurrent drop in marriage and offspring. He concluded this wasn’t in the best interests of society, so he began criminalize adultery, awarded prizes to those married and having children, and heavily taxed unmarried men and women.
I can’t see how Caric hasn’t died from embarrassment yet. The guy has a pathological inability to consider his interlocutor’s positions on the merits.
My response to Dr Ric, who again trots out affirmative action and his self-allowed “victory” over me in our previous debate:
Writes Caric:
Sentence one: “I don’t view affirmative action as a tradition.”
Compare with this, also written by Caric: “issues like affirmative action needed to be analyzed in relation to the history of racial oppression.” Okay, then what? Maintain our support for them even after we recognize their failures? If that’s not a feint toward “tradition,” I’m not sure what is.
But what gets me is, Caric repeats this over and over, each time forgetting to mention that my response to his argument for historical situatednesss (offered him, oh, 5 times now?) is that any “history of racial oppression” must necessarily include those (equally historical) fixes undertaken by government and the private sector to correct said oppression. That studies (see, eg., Sander) show that affirmative action based on race may actually be hurting those it ostensibly claims to champion is somehow never allowed into these “historical analyses.” It’s as if bracketing them — bracketing parts of history that don’t fit the narrative — is essential for the continuation of that narrative.
Interesting, that.
Sentence two: “Instead, affirmative action is a modest and reasonable mechanism for addressing the inequities caused by the history of segregation and continuing racial oppression in American society.”
A. assertion: affirmative action is modest and reasonable. By what metric? Who decides on its modesty? It’s reasonableness?
Can something that we continue to defend — though studies show it has the opposite effect of its intent — be considered “reasonable”? And if so, why? If the continuation of the program creates or inflames racial animus, or promotes racial divisiveness, how is it reasonable — particularly in light of its real world failures? How is it “modest”?
You seem to arrive at these conclusions the same way you arrive at your self-proclaimed victories in arguments: simply by saying it is so.
B. red herring / assertion: affirmative action is indeed a “mechanism for addressing the inequities caused by the history of segregation”. But so what? That is not in dispute. Instead, the question is, is it an effective program? Do its net social positives outweigh its net social negatives? If so, prove it. Make an argument, rather than tossing off assertions as if they were arguments. If not — if, for instance, the studies turning up on “diversity” and affirmative action (by liberal scholars, no less) show that this “modest” and “reasonable” program is both immodest (it demands continuation despite its failures) and unreasonable (why continue it if it isn’t accomplishing what it set out to accomplish, and in the process, causing fostering racial divisiveness?) — how can you justify your support for such programs, or justify demonizing as “racists” those who support a new approach that THEY feel will bring about the very kind of equality YOU promised when you gave us race based affirmative action as an orthodoxy?
C. Assertion: continuing racial oppression in American society.
Again, you act as though I never addressed this. Prove that there is continuing racial oppression of the kind that is institutional and based exclusively on racial animus. Otherwise, you’re going to have to accept that there can be multiple causes for continued disparity of outcomes, many of which have been detailed by reputable scholars like the Thernstroms.
As ef upthread noted, you don’t argue. You assert, demonize, and then rely on shame mechanisms that appeal to progressive orthodoxies as if they were immutable truths.
Funny you would go on about religious fervor when it is use whose entire worldview is based on leaps of faith.
Prof Cancer sez: “The exclusion of gay people from marriage is a serious matter of human rights.”
No … collapsing walls on gays is a serious matter of human rights.
Gads, the sheer unseriousness of the Left cult still continues to amaze me.
why continue it if it isn’t accomplishing what it set out to accomplish
Useless in argument (what isn’t?), but probably true: It accomplishes what it set out to accomplish.
Since its proponents are proven dishonest, precisely what affirmative action is for can only be deduced from what it actually does, which is to knock underclass whites and uppity Asians off the educational track to upward mobility, and replace them with the children of black politicians and third-world diplomats (though in the corporate/NGO world, it seems only to lead to the “overrepresentation” of white women in mid-level positions).
As Cher famously sang, “Cui bono?” The same people who advocate the policy, it appears. Unprecedented!
Until such time as it’s gamed — at best, until such time as it’s social negatives include proved willful manipulation, which brings us back to Caric’s characteristic imputing of motive, the other side of his own coin — it’s aimed at addressing the inequalities caused by the history of segregation. Ostensibly.
Which again makes knowing motive everything, and that divination, as bureaucratic policy, would zoom right by Professor Cancer, I’m guessing. I mean, it has to, doesn’t it? How could even he defend a program that depended not on initial right or even ultimate accomplishment for authority, but on trying the practitioner’s intent?
Here I’ll also, to be fair, part company with some PW’ers in that I’m convinced that any affirmative action whatsoever is folly. My claim is that such cannot be managed in tidy little constitutionally-reliable bureaucratic parcels, and that eventually it all devolves into folks gaming a bloated, offensive system. Check how large DHHS is these days, Caric, keeping slums erected all over the country, before bitching about the cost of liberating non-whites overseas.
Consider the government’s fraudulent treatment of domestic violence in the name of gender feminism and, running directly parallel to affirmative action because deeply racially and gender-tinged, family law as the opportunistic gameshow it’s become for the Joe Biden’s and various local officials of the world.
Jeff, at this late date, I’d question affirmative action’s motive (as much as one can question an entire program’s “motive.”) For his part, Caric does indeed rely entirely on stated intent, or proclaimed intent, or even assumed, hoped, hyped intent. There can be no other option, given the facts on the ground all these years later.
Of course, the primary question still lies there, half-dead, silent, concealed, never addressed: By what right would government mold the private citizen’s moral values? With Caric, it’s all assumption, hope, political acrimony, but never right, process, outcome.
Exactly. But of course it cannot be proved. By now it’s merely a political cudgel.
When a government social program fails, the question to ask is not how much should we pare it back to un-fail it. Or how much should we grow it to make it a success. That dichotomy alone — hopefully this not quite yet being a simple emotional American mob, voting its experiments forward to DC for it to dispense with Caric’s blind, arrogant, ostensible hope — should be our first yardstick as to precisely what government should be in the business of managing and what it should not. Each need to pass that test and virtually none can.
It should not be a question of how to fix, for another example, broken statist schooling. The question is why does it exist and by what fundamental, essential, originalist authority shall it exist. Likewise AA: How to make government make the citizen behave (excluding serious crime) is a moral issue. Government has no right being there, especially when it can be shown that the increasing causes for it to be there are nothing more than political opportunity and constituent dependency.
Prof. Caric is a real douchenozzle.
Jeff,
First, thanks for the even tempered reply. I saw your responses to the original post after I submitted my comment, and I could tell you were pretty angry. I wasn’t sure that the disclaimer in my opening line was strong enough to make it clear that I wasn’t supporting Caric’s personal attacks on you; that’s why I suggested that my comment just be deleted.
Anyway, I think right now I would just like to underline the points we agree on, rather than continue belaboring our differences. I’m pretty sure you would agree with the following, but correct me if I’m wrong.
* Homosexuality is not immoral.
* Homosexuals should be able to enter into civil unions.
* Historical oppression is not a justification for government discrimination against any class of citizens.
* Believing the above does not make one a closet racist.
* Your problems with applying the term “marriage” to homosexual relationships do not make you homophobic.
* The use of the above pejoratives by members of the Left is intended to intimidate their opponents, shut down discussion, and win the debate by default.
I’m sure there are others, but that will do for now. I might reply to your comment#12 later, but for now I’m just happy to have my foot extracted. Gonna go watch Firefly with the missus. Have a good evening.
CJK? Doesn’t the pointy hood and robe hide the payess and scapulary?
Yes, but they get all their communion wafers wholesale.
I’m dying to hear the pro-homo marriage argument against the state sanction of incest.
Why is it wrong? Why is it not wrong?
ccoffer: You’ll find your answer here and here. Hope this helps!
Darleen,
Indeed.
I am gay-marriaged out.
This isn’t about the benefits. It is about forcing societal acceptance via the judiciary. If it were, civil unions with all of the perceived benefits would be sufficient. If it was about benefits, these discussions would happen in the Legislature. They want to co-opt an institution and gain forced membership.
Ahhh, communion wafers… Irish fritters.
The mere fact that we even have to debate this issue shows the degradation of the language, and how the Left has usurped such foundational words like rights.
I don’t understand how it’s the same people who prize teh diversity that now seek to conform gay people to the institutions of straight people. Jeff and many here are pretty much all about giving gay people carte blanche to redefine a parallel union as creatively and profoundly as they can imagine, tailored and crafted to suit. And what do they do? They whine and pout.
With a nod to JD at #31, didn’t we used to call this charity?
Ah but Dan, by willfully insisting that one thing is identifiably different from another, you are committing a cardinal sin – that of (horrors!) discrimination.
Next thing you know, you’ll be peeing standing up…
Wow – I didn’t know I had a choice of wings to join. Thanks, Ardsgaine, for pointing it out!
“That is not the goal of the non-homophobic wing of the Republican party”
PUTZ!!
– what continues to amaze me is the willingness of people of common sense and good faith to accept “alternate life styles” as a viable “legal” or “marraige contraxt issue”. it needs to be said over and over, until these twat waffles get it, or at least just give up, shut up, and sit down. Sexual orientation, other than the natural bond between a man and a woman is a choice. Period. You choose to do things that are asocial to the system you live in, you’re going to run into a pile of shit. People have all sorts of reasons for the way they view these “alternatives, and you can argue each case ad naseum. Doesn’t change a thing. Nor does trying to legislate human feelings, or human nature. Down that path leads madness.
– But then, when your entire narrative belies an inner confusion and frustration with the way of the world, why should that be unexpected.
– Up to me, I’d say fuck it. Tell it like it is, and let them stew in their own juices.
– Same on affirmative action. Everyone over the age of 7 knows that its one of the handy tools the Left uses to maintain an illusion of “unequal rights”, and at the same time, keep the minorities dependent on their party so they can continue to suck on that voting teat. Again, screw it. they’re going to do whatever they can to hang on to their base. they’re already in the minority so this syhould come as no surprise.
– Water boys like Caric are the forward guards of the Socialist Anarcists nestled amongst the academia, where they sought refuge to work their seditions. they choose any sort of manufactured issue, by whatever minority group they can find, and work it into the national debate in all sorts of nefarious, clandestine ways, always rewarded when the target group feels empowered through the rhetoric, and hopeful they can bring down the social construct as they go.
– Don’t give them shit. Without an audience, or better with the cold light of exposure, they can be properly burried in their own hateful vomit.
Spies, Brigands, and Pirates :
The incest arguement is not a slippery slope fallacy…gay marriage has already been used in two real world incest cases. I believe it has also been cited in a beastiality case, and I know it has been used in polygamy cases.
Since these people are already using gay marriage to justify their behavior, it is incumbent on the supporters of gay marriage to either cite why the use is inapplicable or the behaviors are socially acceptable.
The incest arguement is not a slippery slope fallacy…gay marriage has already been used in two real world incest cases. I believe it has also been cited in a beastiality case, and I know it has been used in polygamy cases.
And you have case citations for these, I guess?
We’re waiting.
“I don’t think anyone is entitled to lay claim to the traditions of others simply because they want to be recognized as part of that tradition.”
That about sums it up neatly for me. I await justification of such usurpation that Jeff has pointed out.
Jeff – your Amazon tip jar is busted – it throws this error –
You entered an amount that was too high. The largest payment allowed is $0.00
News report
Marginally on-topic
Sorry, the news article link inh this post is defunct
Those are from searching my archives. A search of past PW comment threads would, if I’m not mistaken, turn up many more. Enjoy.
Hmmm. The news article in the first link above was changed since I posted on it. The original content is excerpted here.
Relevant content from the “marginally on-topic” link, since it’s an update:
Emphasis added.
I’m against affirmative action. The intention is sound, but it just doesn’t work in practice. In the back of my mind, their will always be that little voice asking “Is this guy any good, or did they just give him this job?”
You may say, well we only gave someone an opportunity. You would be more trusting than I am. Is this prejudice? Probably, based on the definition of the word. It is different from race based antipathy, to which I plead not guilty. I want everybody to get a fair shake, and the opportunity given to someone was denied to someone else.
There actually exists not a single word in the US Constitution authorizing the Federal filthyass Government to tell anyone whom to hire and for what reason. The whole concept of affirmative action is based on a bald faced lie.
I’m all in favor of affirmative action. Just proves them coloreds can’t get hired on they own.
“I don’t think anyone is entitled to lay claim to the traditions of others simply because they want to be recognized as part of that tradition.â€Â
Anybody tell Ward Churchill that?
McGehee: I’m most interested in the “two incest cases” and the “beastiality (sic) case” that gahrie mentioned. I don’t care much about polygamy, frankly (actually, I don’t even care much about incest, if the parties involved are of legal age and if they take precautions to ensure that no offspring result).
I’d like to see cases where the “just like gay marriage” theory actually had some impact on the outcome of the case, not some random case where some incompetent/desperate lawyer put forth a crazoid theory that got laughed out of court.
I recall a case where a lawyer argued (unsuccessfully) that his client had shot his girlfriend “by accident”. Nine times. So clearly this means that we need to disallow the accident defense entirely or we’ll soon have a world where anyone can shoot anyone at any time, right?
Marriage is a contract. Minors (in general) and animals can’t agree to contracts. Seems pretty straightforward to me.
McGehee: Everyone I asked, whether reluctantly or eagerly
Umm…”poll of random crowd members at ‘gay-themed’ event” and “binding court opinion” are two different things. Entirely.
And there isn’t a single word in the US Constitution which forbids the Federal Government from telling whom to hire and for what reason. The Constitution’s a bit tricky like that. It does contain a fascinating power it reserves to the Congress: the power to regulate interstate commerce. Since businesses engage in commerce the Federal Government can tell them whom to hire.
For instance, the Congress tells them no to hire illegal immigrants. It is silent, however, on being able to fire someone who is gay. So, see it’s a mixed bag from you perspective.
Mr. McGehee…a survey at a game-themed event? It is to laugh.
Vandaly – You are a perfect idiot. How about this ? Powers not given the federal government, nor denied the States, are the States.