Quotes of the day

posted at 10:35 pm on August 9, 2010 by Allahpundit

So what are gay marriage’s opponents really defending, if not some universal, biologically inevitable institution? It’s a particular vision of marriage, rooted in a particular tradition, that establishes a particular sexual ideal.

This ideal holds up the commitment to lifelong fidelity and support by two sexually different human beings — a commitment that involves the mutual surrender, arguably, of their reproductive self-interest — as a uniquely admirable kind of relationship. It holds up the domestic life that can be created only by such unions, in which children grow up in intimate contact with both of their biological parents, as a uniquely admirable approach to child-rearing. And recognizing the difficulty of achieving these goals, it surrounds wedlock with a distinctive set of rituals, sanctions and taboos.

The point of this ideal is not that other relationships have no value, or that only nuclear families can rear children successfully. Rather, it’s that lifelong heterosexual monogamy at its best can offer something distinctive and remarkable — a microcosm of civilization, and an organic connection between human generations — that makes it worthy of distinctive recognition and support.

***
[W]hen Levi reveals himself to be a jerk again, every People magazine reader in the country fully sympathizes with Bristol chucking him out, again. Get married for the sake of the children? Unwed motherhood as a disgrace? What is this, the Middle Ages?

Walker’s decision was a twist in a complex legal story that stretches back to the 1990s. Many more twists lie ahead. The judge’s decision will almost certainly be reversed on appeal. (Walker seems to know it, too: He suspended his own decision from going into effect until after the appellate court had its say.)

But we don’t have to wait for the courts to finish their work to know the answer to the big question.

The harm feared from same-sex marriage has already arrived: Whether same-sex marriage is accepted or not, opposite-sex marriage as a norm and expectation has already collapsed.

***
Sanchez went on to say that there are no legitimate arguments against gay marriage. That they’re all stupid or bigoted.

Bigotry is, of course, the “stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own.” I’ll leave it to others to decide who best matches that description.

Perhaps proponents of same-sex marriage, emboldened by Judge Walker’s assertions, might think that they no longer need to persuade those with whom they disagree. Voters have routinely shunned arguments in favor of same-sex marriage while judges have forced it on some states. But it is telling that so many proponents of same-sex marriage are unable or unwilling to respond fairly to the arguments in favor of traditional marriage law.

***
Let me be clear: Had I been a Californian, I would have voted against Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage. I would like all 50 states and the federal government to grant same-sex couples access to marriage. But it would be far better for that change to come from elected institutions than from the courts.

U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker struck down Proposition 8 because it “fails to advance any rational basis for singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license.” But it’s silly to believe only nut jobs and bigots could rationally oppose same-sex marriage, or that millions of Californians who accept other laws protecting gays were acting irrationally…

Thanks to Judge Walker, the debate is no longer about whether gays deserve protection from the law, a debate they were steadily winning. It is more about whether democratic processes should be trusted to resolve the question. That’s a debate they are likely to lose.

***
I think it’s a little naive to assume that it will have no impact at all — that legal changes don’t beget cultural changes, and that public definitions don’t influence private conduct. Maybe the potential consequences are so vanishingly minimal that they’re easily outweighed by the benefits to gay couples; that’s certainly a reasonable position. But looking out across America’ landscape of heterosexual dysfunction, it’s still a little hard for me to accept that what this moment demands of us is the legal formalization — indeed, the constitutionalization, if Judge Walker has his way — of the ideological conceit that marriage has no necessary connection to gender difference, procreation or childrearing.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Going through a Little Feat phase right now. The early stuff.

Saltysam on August 10, 2010 at 3:19 AM

Waiting For Columbus and Hoy Hoy! are the two best albums in all of recorded music history. And I am not exaggerating.

John the Libertarian on August 10, 2010 at 3:26 AM

Good to see we have another musician ..Looks like we are going to be Hijacking a lot of QOTD threads in the future for music discussions in the late night..:)

Dire Straits on August 10, 2010 at 3:26 AM

Well, I was kinda waiting for “The Most Rational Person on the Face of the Earth” to show me his/her stuff, but apparently the chest thumping was just a big show.

Didn’t mean to scare him/her off! :)

Music is a better conversation, though, but I gotta get some shut eye.

I’ll catch up to you next time, Straits and John.

Pleasant dreams.

Saltysam on August 10, 2010 at 3:38 AM

I am not exaggerating.

John the Libertarian on August 10, 2010 at 3:26 AM

11?

Saltysam on August 10, 2010 at 3:40 AM

BTW loved the guy who assumed I was gay.

I bet he assumes 48% of california is gay, too.

triple on August 10, 2010 at 3:40 AM

Saltysam on August 10, 2010 at 3:38 AM

Enjoyed it ..

Dire Straits on August 10, 2010 at 3:41 AM

Good night.

John…

…great taste in music!

Saltysam on August 10, 2010 at 3:42 AM

Enjoyed it ..

Dire Straits on August 10, 2010 at 3:41 AM

G’night!

John the Libertarian on August 10, 2010 at 3:43 AM

…great taste in music!

Saltysam on August 10, 2010 at 3:42 AM

okay, maybe exaggerating just a little bit. You do know the backstory of Lowell George and Frank Zappa, yes?

G’night.

John the Libertarian on August 10, 2010 at 3:45 AM

triple on August 10, 2010 at 3:40 AM

Well, triple…

I waited for nearly an hour.

But, I’m off to bed now.

Saltysam on August 10, 2010 at 3:45 AM

yes?

John the Libertarian on August 10, 2010 at 3:45 AM

Oh yeah.

I gotta go to bed. Don’t let ‘triple’ jive you with any of his cosmic debris.

G’night.

Saltysam on August 10, 2010 at 3:47 AM

G’night!

John the Libertarian on August 10, 2010 at 3:43 AM
Enjoyed it.. :)

Dire Straits on August 10, 2010 at 3:48 AM

Camp It Out!
A bit suspect, I think….

Kini on August 10, 2010 at 4:40 AM

Social conservatives need to stop redefining the family. Since time immemorial, family means one thing: blood ties. The core relations are between parents and children, between grant-parents and grand-children, and between siblings. Your spouse is not related to you by blood, so it’s absurd to claim that marriage is central to family. The concept of the “nuclear family” as an ideal is a radical departure from traditions. Until recent time, a family consisting of a wife, a husband, and two kids would be regarded as a failure. A single-child household–even more so. A large and extended family is superior to a small isolated one, period–socially, economically, and biologically.

year_of_the_dingo on August 10, 2010 at 7:09 AM

Social conservatives need to stop redefining the family. Since time immemorial, family means one thing: blood ties. The core relations are between parents and children, between grant-parents and grand-children, and between siblings. Your spouse is not related to you by blood, so it’s absurd to claim that marriage is central to family. The concept of the “nuclear family” as an ideal is a radical departure from traditions. Until recent time, a family consisting of a wife, a husband, and two kids would be regarded as a failure. A single-child household–even more so. A large and extended family is superior to a small isolated one, period–socially, economically, and biologically.

year_of_the_dingo on August 10, 2010 at 7:09 AM

absurd and laughable. marriage IS a family. how do you think you get the kids to become parents and grandparent? its sure not by 2 or more men, or 2 or more women hooking up.

talk about rewriting history. orwellian

right4life on August 10, 2010 at 7:44 AM

The sole justification for the government affording marriage a special status is because of the vital role of this institution in raising families. Gay marriage negates this purpose. The effect of this moronically selfish development will not be known for generations. Hopefully society will not react as angrily as Ed Morrissey and decide that the government should no longer support the institution of marriage because of this taint.

Basilsbest on August 10, 2010 at 8:21 AM

I support gays in civil unions, but sodomites have no place in defining their unions as “marriage”.

jbh45 on August 9, 2010 at 10:45 PM

I agree. This is all about Gays wanting to feel normal as if calling their Union marriage will do that. They can talk about equal protection all they want but when put into proper context it applied to a man and a woman. If it’s no big deal as many have stated here then why do they have a problem with calling it a Civil Union as long as they enjoy the same rights? Tradition or otherwise why must the majority have to change for a very, very, small minority? This is the kind of crap that takes up way to much of our time when we should be worrying about real issues.

New Patriot on August 10, 2010 at 8:38 AM

A large and extended family is superior to a small isolated one, period–socially, economically, and biologically.

year_of_the_dingo on August 10, 2010 at 7:09 AM

Go back to tending your litter, breeder, and leave the rational discussion to the adults.

Dark-Star on August 10, 2010 at 9:01 AM

Isn’t “make homosexual behavior seem natural and normal” somewhere in the Communist Manifesto ?
Remarkable, what all’s in there.
I’d lost my bookmarks and having a tough time locating the specific link to the manifesto that states it very precisely.

It’s disconcerting that so many(gays) are simply consumed by that word.
SouthernGent on August 9, 2010 at 10:52 PM

That’s what has many of us scratching our heads over this, SG. Other than the desruction of what the word ‘marriage’ TRULY implies, why bother ?? oy

pambi on August 10, 2010 at 9:23 AM

I’ll leave God out of it. See if you can manage to avoid using the full force of the government to force your morality down my throat, and manage to remain rational.
Saltysam on August 10, 2010 at 2:48 AM

How ironic you say this, when you want the government to sanction YOUR morality. Specifically, that homosexuals are deviants and should therefore forever remain, at least in some aspects of society AND under the law remain second-class citizens.

Well, you do not have that right. The government is not allowed to sanction discrimination and persecution under the law.

Vyce on August 10, 2010 at 9:29 AM

How ironic you say this, when you want the government to sanction YOUR morality. Specifically, that homosexuals are deviants and should therefore forever remain, at least in some aspects of society AND under the law remain second-class citizens.

lets see gays are the most well off group in the country, and you want to change the law and eliminate freedom of speech and religion for any who dare disagree with you.

Well, you do not have that right. The government is not allowed to sanction discrimination and persecution under the law.

Vyce on August 10, 2010 at 9:29 AM

yeah we do have that right. you want a ‘right’ that has never existed in the history of the world. there is no discrimination against gays and there sure isn’t persecution, just the opposite, as the catholic charities in Boston, and a doctor in CA, among other, found out.

right4life on August 10, 2010 at 9:47 AM

Waiting For Columbus and Hoy Hoy! are the two best albums in all of recorded music history. And I am not exaggerating.

Well, Hoy Hoy! is really a compilation album and not a proper album per se, and Waiting for Columbus is a live album.

AS far as their studio stuff goes, you’d be hard pressed to top Dixie Chicken, and as a close second, Sailin’ Shoes.

As long as Lowell George is in there somewhere, it’s pretty much all good.

After Lowell died, eh.

Good Lt on August 10, 2010 at 9:48 AM

W]hen Levi reveals himself to be a jerk again, every People magazine reader in the country fully sympathizes with Bristol chucking him out, again. Get married for the sake of the children? Unwed motherhood as a disgrace? What is this, the Middle Ages?

Let’s look at this rationally – Bristol gave herself to a jackass. He is still a jackass, the father of her child, and nothing is going to change that. Her error in judgment will be with her for the rest of her life.

If she hadn’t been stupidly engaging in sex at a time when young girls see no further than an appealing face/high school jock, this is what can happen.

I’ve been told by an unwed mother at work that she was on the pill AND he was using a condom, and she still got pregnant.

Sorry, sweetheart, but I’m not buying it. You were trying to one-up his other babymomma to hold him. Yet, you declare nobly, you would never get married just because of a child. That would be wrooooong.

I’m sick of what has happened to our society. I’ll end up paying for this chick’s kid, but at least I hope that Bristol will not be collecting welfare.

disa on August 10, 2010 at 9:51 AM

I’ve been told by an unwed mother at work that she was on the pill AND he was using a condom, and she still got pregnant.
disa on August 10, 2010 at 9:51 AM

Odds are low but not zero.
Only abstinence gives you a 100% success rate.

So a f@g federal judge declares a popular vote amending the California constitution done in accordance with the provisions outlined in said constitution and found to be constitutional under said constitution by the California Supreme Court to be unconstitutional under the Federal constitution.

Sounds like this gay blade just wanted to justify his perverted lifestyle.
Why he was not asked to recuse himself is beyond me.

We really need a constitutional convention to amend the constitution outlawing “same sex marriages” and banning all federal benefits to partners of federal employees that are not legally married spouses. This “judge” may have helped catalyzed the effort.

Bubba Redneck on August 10, 2010 at 11:38 AM

How ironic you say this, when you want the government to sanction YOUR morality. Specifically, that homosexuals are deviants and should therefore forever remain, at least in some aspects of society AND under the law remain second-class citizens.

Well, you do not have that right. The government is not allowed to sanction discrimination and persecution under the law.

Vyce on August 10, 2010 at 9:29 AM

The government has not been asked to get in the business of defining marriage until lately, when your lobby has been determined to issue a new legal definition out of thin air. Until recently, it has been understood through common law what marriage is. The term has a legal context due to the court’s responsibility to provide justice and through thousands of years of understood meaning. Our government did not invent marriage, nor did it issue any type of legislative definition in the past. It wasn’t necessary. It is what it is, as it has been defined through the ages, and has been recognized by the courts for what it is.

It is defined in Blacks Law Dictionary, not by edict, but through practice.

It has been through YOUR lobby that the legal term “marriage” is being challenged. YOUR lobby wants to make a SIGNIFICANT change to a definition through the iron fist of government power. YOUR lobby wants the government to recognize NO separate and distinctive characteristics between two completely different concepts, which is irrational.

This has put those that believe marriage has SIGNIFICANT meaning as it has been practiced, culturally and legally, throughout thousands of years in the position of meeting you head on in the arena of legislation in order to preserve its distinctive characteristic in the courts.

When YOUR groups lobby a legal re-write to a long understanding developed through epochs of human history they should, in a rational society anyway, accept the responsibility to answer these questions.

These questions, which are serious and respectful, are central to our disagreement. Yelling “discrimination” as loud as you can without grounding your claims on a sober and reasoned answer to these fundamental questions is a decoy tactic.

You just enjoyed skipping the context of the argument in the earlier post, as I was being challenged on reason, church and state etc. I accepted the challenge.

Can you? (So far, not so good)

a recap:

If the legal definition of marriage needs to be changed:

1. How should this term be re-defined, specifically?

2. Why should this term be re-defined using this specific language?

3. Should the traditional definition be recognized by the government as having any distinctive characteristics?

4. Under what authority should this new definition receive its legitimacy?

Saltysam on August 10, 2010 at 11:42 AM

After Lowell died, eh.

Good Lt on August 10, 2010 at 9:48 AM

There are phenomenal musicians in that group, but after Lowell, the magic was gone. I agree.

Saltysam on August 10, 2010 at 11:52 AM

Ever get into the wave? Adrian Belew from Talking Heads, the Twin Towers in the front of the vid is eeeeeeerie.

John the Libertarian on August 10, 2010 at 3:00 AM

Adrian Belew wasn’t in Talking Heads-he was in King Crimson.
David Byrne is Talking Heads.

annoyinglittletwerp on August 10, 2010 at 11:55 AM

When I was in my late teens and early twenties I hung out at the arcade at the mall-’Aladdin’s Castle’-and they had a 4-5 ft. wide video jukebox.
I think I wore out this one.
*I’m feeling sooo old. whimper.*

annoyinglittletwerp on August 10, 2010 at 12:03 PM

Specifically, that homosexuals are deviants and should therefore forever remain, at least in some aspects of society AND under the law remain second-class citizens.

Well, you do not have that right. The government is not allowed to sanction discrimination and persecution under the law.

Vyce on August 10, 2010 at 9:29 AM

All this is a bunch of hyperbolic nonsense.

So, I’m to conclude from this that the YOU have the right to use the iron fist of government to force society, and the laws that govern it, to change the legally understood meaning of marriage?

What is your obsession with this word?

Saltysam on August 10, 2010 at 12:16 PM

Anyway, I gotta work.

Mouths to feed.

Saltysam on August 10, 2010 at 12:18 PM

annoyinglittletwerp on August 10, 2010 at 12:03 PM

Heh. On a recent vacation, we went to a campground whose rec hall had a working LP jukebox loaded with 45 singles. The only name I recognized on the entire songlist (and there were a ton of choices) was Elvis Presley.

Dark-Star on August 10, 2010 at 1:43 PM

Adrian Belew wasn’t in Talking Heads-he was in King Crimson.
David Byrne is Talking Heads.

annoyinglittletwerp on August 10, 2010 at 11:55 AM

Honest injun, Belew was a session musician and toured with the Talking Heads, but you’re right, he’s better known for King Crimson — and the Tom Tom club.

John the Libertarian on August 10, 2010 at 4:21 PM

Honest injun, Belew was a session musician and toured with the Talking Heads, but you’re right, he’s better known for King Crimson — and the Tom Tom club.

John the Libertarian on August 10, 2010 at 4:21 PM

Mea Culpa.
LoL

annoyinglittletwerp on August 10, 2010 at 4:45 PM

Comment pages: 1 2