I love gloating

[xfer]

It's such a hilarious concept!

I'm on a yahoogroup with a bunch of archconservatives (one other liberal and a moderate helps me fight the hordes) who attended BC with me, and they're gnashing and weeping about the gay-marriage decision:

Another rear-guard action by a desperate, dying elite. Dred Scott, anyone? The only thing "progressive" about this decision is the progress of the judiciary into obsolescence.

Will the baby boom generation please just die already? You've had
your shits & giggles. This is just ... sad.

So I'm engaged in some A-plus gloatery right now. and it rules.

 

[FuSoYa]

What do they have to say about intelligent reasons for opposing it?

 

[xfer]

well, one of them mumbled some nonsense about how civil marriage/union laws don't have, built into them, a time delay feature the way marriage laws do. that is, to move from one marriage to another takes 3-6 months (usually more like 6) once you get through all the legal entanglements, blood tests, and the like. in theory, you could civil-union-hop week after week.

but that seems staggeringly stupid, because the answer obviously isn't "too bad, no civil unions then" it's "add a damn six month time limit to unions"

"But if you try to add any sort of obstacles to gay marriage, the liberals'll have your hide!"

no, despite the idiot factor that does certainly exist (like the "any restrictions on abortion will lead to a ban on abortion" terror), I think most liberals understand that making it so you can only get civil unioned once every six months is not going to lead to anything untoward.

also:

I won't even bother with this one as we
have discussed it in many different ways over the years. Although I'm not surprised to see Massachusetts leading the charge over the cliff.

 

[xfer]

one of the conservative libertarians on the list has actually been in a domestic partner arrangement in MA, through his company (private companies could offer benefits if they wanted) and said they had a simple "wait six months before you file again if you dissolve a partnership". sounds like an easy provision to throw in the law.

 

[xfer]

I still haven't heard a good retort to my Senator's (Santorum) critique of these kinds of decisions. Just a lot of hemming and
hawing and how-dare-hes.

How right you are about this being an issue in the upcoming election. That's how democratic republics usually learn how to maintain order around deeply divisive issues: they vote on it.

How wrong you are about it being a "wedge" issue. Gay marriage is overwhelmingly unpopular outside the liberal alcoves in the NE and college campuses. Then again, in their quest for power, the left never could hold their nose long enough to overcome that niggling little obstacle that democracies require: popularity. They're too busy labeling everything contrary to their insular logic "keepin-it-stupid."

Your side is all holed up inside the filibuster-protected judiciary, farting forth stinkbombs like today's decision. That's a poor long term strategy in a democracy. Calling the demos stupid isn't helpful either.

A handful of holier-than-thou jurists can't resolve massive cultural issues through brainpower alone. It didn't work with slavery or abortion. Modern civil rights disputes were resolved in Congress with
an assist from the executive. You guys really should develop a new electoral strategy because this one could only end badly: either you starve in isolation or you bring down the institutions with you in
them, just for spite. Among the leftists I know, spite isn't a small motivation. Oh well.

Enjoy your Pyrrhic victory today. Throw a parade. See you next November.

 

[FalseTodd]

Here's my favorite bit from a radio pundit tonight:

Jay Severin (very mildly paraphrased): "Mit Romney is one of those people that doesn't check which way the wind is blowing before stating his views. He stands up there in the middle of the storm and fights for what he thinks is right. Governor Romney, what is our best course of action now that this has happened?"

Romney (again only slightly paraphrased): "Write letters to your legislators."

Me (in the car, not paraphrased in the slightest): "GWAHAHAHAHAHA!"

 

[lizard]

I have some friends on another board who are arch conservatives. in fact, my friend Chrisy, in a move surely cursed by the gods and elements both, named her newborn baby girl Reagan.

ick.

 

[deadair]

i kinda like that for a girls name... sayin'

 

[lizard]

it wouldn't be so bad if it didn't conjure up Ronald.

 

[deadair]

ronald now, or then?

 

[lizard]

both

seriously, this is a girl who believes Reagan should be on mt. rushmore. she dismisses iran contra, james watt, ed meese, every tawdry thing ever committed by the Reagan administration.

 

[deadair]

better yet...

both

seriously, this is a ______ who believes ______ should be on mt. rushmore. he/she dismisses ______, ________, ________, and every other tawdry thing ever committed by the _________ administration.

there, now it can be used as a form letter.

 

[lizard]

haha excellent concept.

 

[xfer]

Regan would be a headspinningly okay name if it weren't for Ronald Reagan.

More from the cons (emphasis added by me):

--- In blorch@yahoogroups.com, Alex <sprought@y...> wrote:
> So what's your suggestion as to how to fix a
> staggering cultural failing, such as a Syrian
> disregard of human rights or a Southern disapproval of
> domestic partnerships, if not partially through the
> creation and enforcement of laws?

*****
Depends on the right, depends on the jurisdiction, depends on your idea of "staggering." Man-man marriage isn't a staggering social deficiency, if that's what you're implying. For the left, everything from minimum wage to sodomy is on moral par with the abolition of slavery. These people just aren't serious.

And this isn't really about the health benefits of married people. This is really about the spiteful subversion of a traditional institution the left never liked, redefining it into meaninglessness. It's a poison pill. Civil unions are far more digestible to the body politic, but the left wants gay marriage, a wholly different creature.

Alex, let's be clear about what happened in Massachusetts. There wasn't any "creation and enforcement of laws." There was judicial fiat, Gabe's favorite. Even more arrogant: they have DIRECTED the legislature to legislate something up to their taste. Checks and balances are out of whack, and that is the truly frightening development. We elect specific people to create and enforce our laws. We come together in the legislative forum, debate, compromise, and resolve these issues. The judiciary has usurped this function on the thinnest possible constitutional grounds ("emanations and penumbras") -- and that can't last in a democratic republic. Either the non-democratic branch reforms, the democratic branches reform it for them, or the republic eventually putrefies and disintegrates.

So to answer your question, we resolve cultural disagreements the way we always did: persuasion, deference, legislation, enforcement. I might have no problem with specific abortion rights if I actually had a voice in the argument. That discussion was cut off by seven old guys in 1973.

 

[xfer]

so basically all the gay couples in MA think that shared health benefits are nice and all, but they're REALLY secretly cackling and wringing their hands about the subversion of marriage. HIGHFIVE.

 

[azal]

a really loose-wristed highfive.

 

[avi]

YES! we're one step closer to destroying marriage once and for all! GO LEFTIES!



(sssh! don't tell the right!)

 

[FalseTodd]

And this isn't really about the health benefits of married people. This is really about the spiteful subversion of a traditional institution the left never liked, redefining it into meaninglessness.

What about gay marriages makes other people's marriages "meaningless"? Usually I can understand the opposite position on these issues, but here I truly don't get it. It doesn't compute to me at all. The only way it makes sense is if it is taken from a religious perspective, which is totally illegitimate, unless I'm just totally mixed up about whether or not we have a secular government.

Even more arrogant: they have DIRECTED the legislature to legislate something up to their taste. Checks and balances are out of whack, and that is the truly frightening development.

Read: "Wait, we control everything right? The house, the senate...isn't every single issue supposed to go our way now?"

Am I misunderstanding what happened here? My understanding (and I admit I haven't read the decision yet) is: "There is no definition of marriage in the state constitution that excludes same-sex couples; Therefore their exclusion is unconstitutional. Hey legislature: fix it! You have six months." Now how is this arrogant or "legislating from the bench"?

We come together in the legislative forum, debate, compromise, and resolve these issues. The judiciary has usurped this function on the thinnest possible constitutional grounds

I might have no problem with specific abortion rights if I actually had a voice in the argument. That discussion was cut off by seven old guys in 1973.

OK there just seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding here. AFAIK, Roe never says "abortions are legal and that's the final word forever". What it says (of course, cause it's the fucking court!) is that the current abortion bans are illegitimate! You want abortion limitations, run it up the goddamn legislative flagpole and see who salutes. Address the issues that Roe brings up, and see if you can come up with a definition of fetal viability that can make it through the house and the senate. "Cut off by seven old guys in 1973"? Yeah, cause there was alot more discussion when the procedures were just plain against the law. How does the Supreme Court "cut off the discussion"?

If the Supreme Courts, both Federal and State, weren't making decisions like this, then why in the fuck would we have them? They check the legislature! It's what they do! BLAH! If this decision goes so fully against the will of the people then get your majority together and amend the f'n constitution and write the law correctly in the first place.

 

[xfer]

What about gay marriages makes other people's marriages "meaningless"? Usually I can understand the opposite position on these issues, but here I truly don't get it. It doesn't compute to me at all. The only way it makes sense is if it is taken from a religious perspective, which is totally illegitimate, unless I'm just totally mixed up about whether or not we have a secular government.

Well, I think it makes sense; it's just wrong. For example, the animal-rights mantra "A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy" is intended to strengthen the importance of animals; what it actually does is partially do that, but also partially degrade the importance of humans.

If you accept the position that gay people are inferior to straight people, then yes, it makes perfect logical sense that allowing gay marriage degrades straight marriage. We don't like to think that way because it's forcing us to confront the real problem, which is: people who believe gay people are inferior. We would rather pretend people don't think that way and call it illogical.

This is forcing an unenlightened culture to change, no different than American-imposed regime change in a dictatorial sharia country. Are the conservatives going to strike back with suicide bombings? With legislature? Or...are a lot of them going to eventually, grudgingly agree, like they did with Civil Rights?

Culture change, even when it's imposed, is not necessarily bad. Sometimes you have swallow your pride and join in.

 

[lizard]