Thursday, November 06, 2008

Finding amusement where you can.

Josh torments the dim:
I was talking to one of my coworkers today, someone who claims to be moderate. She was smug as all hell about Obama and disappointed that she couldn’t needle me about it since I just can’t make myself get emotionally invested. I was checking the results of our local races and state votes, and expressed dismay about what looks like a Prop 8 win.

To which she replied…”Good.”

Cue the movie villain steepled fingers and slow spin around in my chair until I was looking her face on, much the way you might look at a bug you were about to step on.

“Run that by me again. What does ‘good’ mean?” I asked...

29 comments:

Anonymous said...

Ref: Prop 8.
IMHO, maybe it's time to get government out of the whole marriage business.

Restrict the government’s role to (reasonable) child support issues. All other legal aspects of marriage might be better handled as contract issues. That is, couples (or groups) could enter into partnership agreements covering the rights/privileges they wish to enjoy.

Marriage could still exist, but would be a social/religious institution with no legal recognition.

Of course, I’d expect many religious groups to oppose this, and Divorce Lawyers to fight to the death to prevent it…

rob said...

Regardless of the right/wrong of Prop 8...

Just read a news article that said because it passed, the San Fran mayor is looking to take it to the courts to over turn it.

What the duece? When the people VOTE to PASS the proposition, that tends to mean the people WANTED IT TO PASS.

God help me if I ever was force to move to the People Socialist Democratic Republic of Kalifornia.

You can all go to hell, I'll stay here in Texas.

knirirr said...

I'd agree with anonymous concerning marriage.

As for this law, I find it astonishing that those who would consider themselves "caring" because they are left-wing are quite happy to use state power to pursue their outrageous bigotry.

Wolfwood said...

I think one problem is that so few people are willing to consider the underlying assumptions of their views. We need to emulate the Chinese Fooooood lady and play "And Then?" more often.

Them: I think the government should be able to require states to recognize homosexual marriage.
Us: Let's say I disagree and refuse to recognize it, be I the Governor, a minister, or an employer. And then?
Them: Well, you'd have to. It'd be illegal not to.
Us: What if I said that the law was unconstitutional and that you can't make me obey it. And then?
Them: Well, the government would make you.
Us: How?
[portion where "Because you have to" is repeated by Them several times omitted for space]
Them: You'd be punished if you didn't. If Governor, you'd be removed from office. If a minister, your license would be revoked. If an employer, you'd be fined or put out of business.
Us: What if I refused to step down or to pay your fine?
Them: They'd make you do it or go to prison.
Us: How would they "make" me go to prison? If I refused, would they use force to make me?
Them: Sure; it's their job.
Us: And if I were stronger than they were? Would they use weapons, including guns?
Them: Probably; they're the police.
Us: So because I won't recognize homosexual marriage, you're willing to allow deadly force to be used against me?

Tam said...

wolfwood,

Careful with that one.

Suppose someone didn't recognize heterosexual marriage? And then?

Personally, I think the lack of gay marriages is depriving Court TV of a major revenue source: South Beach Divorce Court would be the Best. Show. EVAR.

Wolfwood said...

Tam,

I don't really think the govt should be involved with marriage in the first place, but I see your point. To my mind, the exercise more of a teaching tool: few people ever stop to think that the things they want the govt to do generally wind up with physical, even deadly, coercion if neither side is willing to budge.

George Hedgepeth said...

Oh Tam, I agree! I imagine Gay Divorce Court would be awesome junk tv!

Tam said...

wolfwood,

To my mind, the exercise more of a teaching tool: few people ever stop to think that the things they want the govt to do generally wind up with physical, even deadly, coercion if neither side is willing to budge.

A hearty agreement there. 99 44/100% of folks never stop to think that at the basis of every law and regulation is an implied death threat. P.J. O'Rourke referred to it as the "Gun To Mom's Head" test...

perlhaqr said...

wolfwood: you seem to have failed to recognize that by forbidding an otherwise lawful activity for a select portion of the citizenry, this is the start of the "and then" game.

Private businesses and churches should be perfectly capable of refusing to acknowledge gay marriage. They are private entities.

The duty of the government is to treat all citizens equally.

----

Personally, I think the gays in CA should just stop paying their taxes. After all, they aren't getting the same service as everyone else, so why should they pay for it?

Anonymous said...

perlhaqr,

Precisely what, “Lawful activity,” is forbidden by Proposition 8?

AFAIK the only difference, as far as government recognized rights and privileges, between civil unions (permitted in California) and what was banned by Proposition 8 is the use of the term marriage.

TBeck said...

Barry won Kali by a solid 15%, but Proposition 8 passed by a mere 4%. So, that means that nearly one in eight voters was cool with a black man in the White House but thought gays wearing matching wedding bands was far too icky.

A bigotry that dare not speak its name to be sure.

Rick C said...

Tam,

Tell me where, ever, in the history of history, the State didn't recognize marriage? Even as the Soviets tried to destroy the institution in the 20s, they didn't ban it.

They did cause a bunch of social problems, though.

Jay G said...

I've never understood the bias against letting gay folks marry.

Why should they be spared the pain?

rob said...

Jay G....nice.

Gay folks should have every right to get married. They should be as miserable as the rest of us.

Wolfwood said...

For a lot of religious folks, it often actually comes down to the word "marriage." I'm willing to acknowledge that the state has the ability to grant effectively the exact same benefits to homosexual couples as to heterosexual ones, but when they call it marriage I see an intrusion by the state into religion. If they started calling our flag not "Stars and Stripes" but "Body and Blood," or if they started calling paper-less banking "Transubstantiation," I'd be similarly offended.

I don't think that this is really all that much about homosexuality. It's about having something that a portion of the population finds distasteful but not normally of much everyday concern and ramming it down the throat of those people.

Or, to put it in gun terms, it's as though a cast piece of metal has a burr on a crucial surface. Are you so proud of your casting that you won't grind off that little burr so everything else will work?

word verification: "calitall"

WilliamtheCoroner said...

OK--there is a strong tradition in the Old Testament that God is, unlike the other gods of the time, not rooted to a place but active in history & politics. Therefore the political fortunes of the faithful are dependent on how well they obey God's law. Failure to obey God's laws leads to adverse political consequences. This is one of the central themes of the Book of Judges.

Now, if obedience to God's laws have political consequences, the logic goes what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms IS the state's business because it will affect how God treats the State and the State's political future.

This is, of course, bronze age thinking and totally ignores the establishment clause, but that is irrelevant to some folks. So there is some logic behind their actions. Primitive, unconstitutional logic, but logic nonetheless.

Anonymous said...

When you cast people who disagree with you about gay marriage as "dim", you reduce the likelihood they'll be willing to work with you about anything else.

"I'm intelligent and tolerant but you're ignorant and a bigot" doesn't play very well across most of America.

Rick said...

I don't think that this is really all that much about homosexuality. It's about having something that a portion of the population finds distasteful but not normally of much everyday concern and ramming it down the throat of those people.

Read that again and substitute the minority of your choice for "homosexuality" (Jews, Blacks, Masons, etc.). Sometimes a majority of the population needs to drag the others into the light.

Wolfwood said...

I could read it again and substitute "meatloaf" or the dinner entree of my choice, but it wouldn't prove anything. I'm not expressing any opinion on what should be allowed in the bedroom; I'm just saying that toying with words has consequences. If I ran a grocery store, could I label my chicken as beef? Of course not. Even though they're both meat, and even though anyone with any sense knows the difference, that still doesn't make it right.

Really, is it worth capturing a word that already has a well-established meaning when you know others will fight you tooth-and-nail over it? If it's about medical, tax, and visitation benefits then that battle's already largely been won. If it's about power and trying to force your way on those who disagree with you, then I guess it is.

Tam said...

Anonymouse,

"When you cast people who disagree with you about gay marriage as "dim""

What I was casting as dim were the reasoning abilities displayed, not the position they were being used to support.

og said...

The gay marriage bottomline is, when you call the relationship between a man and man or woman and woman "Marriage" it opens the gate for the prosecution of churches who will not recognize those relationships.

Civil unions which allow gay couples ALL the rights of married different sex couples should of course be allowed, everywhere.

If you need your relationship to be called a"Marriage" to be happy, you have utterly missed the point of "relationship". Your relationship with your significant other is what is important,not what you call it. That is just "I want what I want no matter how it hurts anyone else" activisim.

DirtCrashr said...

It's ironic that the big turnout for Barack in California included a LOT of church-going blacks who voted against gay-marriage. It was their turnout in really-really big numbers heretofore unseen, in deep blue Liberal areas like the Bay Area, that pushed Prop-8 and Obama through. Poor and destitute East Palo Alto had a lot of Yes on 8 signs when I went there to Home Depot a few weeks ago. In affluent and super-liberal Palo Alto and Menlo Park, signs were the opposite.
Local Liberals are flummoxed that their Leftist concepts of Civil Rights Uber-Alles didn't mesh with the Black Experience of Civil Rights and that the local Black population voted Wrongly.
It's almost as if they don't attend Black Churches or know how the other side of the Freeway lives...

Anonymous said...

If "marriage" refers to a religious union and "civil union" refers to a legal contract recognized by the State, then heterosexual couples who said their "I do's" in front of a JP aren't married... just civilly united.

How well do you think that would go over?

MisbeHaven

Wolfwood said...

MisbeHaven,

Marriage doesn't solely refer to a religious union; it refers to a heterosexual union.

og said...

"How well do you think that would go over?"

If you sign up for that, fine. Nobody is talking about making this retroactive.

JHardin said...

> If you need your relationship to be called a "Marriage" to be happy, you have utterly missed the point of "relationship". Your relationship with your significant other is what is important, not what you call it.

og FTW!

Mark@Sea said...

Anonymous:

"I'm intelligent and tolerant but you're ignorant and a bigot" doesn't play very well across most of America.

Apparently it does - or did you miss the election results?

Don Meaker said...

So when an homosexual couple trots up to your church and asks to be married, if you refuse, the shysters sue to take over the place. End freedom of religion.

The amazing levels of promiscuity among homosexual men lead to short life and high levels of disease. Health and life insurance costs for that group should be high. No reason why married men, who support their famlies and children should have to pay high insurance costs to support the gay (male) lifestyle.

Anonymous said...

Wolfwood, I'll go you one better: the whole "gay rights" movement has almost nothing to do with homosexuality. I discovered this 30 years ago. How Cole Porter (from Peru, Ind.!) and Noel Coward devolved into Elton John is beyond me. Now, Gertrude Stein to Melissa Etheridge may be more of a logical progression...