Anti-Proposition 8 plaintiffs: the idea that marriage is for a man and a woman is based on hatred
Maggie Gallagher writes about the wind-up of the appalling Proposition 8 trial in California, in which the plaintiffs seek to overthrow an amendment to the California constitution, voted for by the people of California, which declares that marriage is for a man and a woman. If plaintiffs win, and the decision is upheld, then self-government is officially dead and we are living under the rule of judges.
Following the passage of Obamacare, I said that if the law is not repealed, then those of us who don’t want to live under such a tyranny may have to start thinking about seceding from the United States. We then had a long and remarkable discussion on that subject, triggered by “Jeffersonian’s” proposal to divide the U.S. into two countries. (By the way, a greatly expanded version of Jeffersonian’s article will be posted soon.) However, before Obamacare came along, I always felt that what might lead to a breakup of the United States would be the institutionalization of same-sex “marriage.” If such institutionalization is carried out by means of court decisions which invalidate state constitutional amendments passed by popular referendum, meaning that the most fundamental level of democratic self-rule has been abrogated, then the case for secession in response to same-sex “marriage” becomes equally as compelling as the case for secession in response to Obamacare, because both measures would mean that we had come under a leftist dictatorship.
- end of initial entry -
Dean E. writes:
In the comments following Gallagher’s column at Town Hall.com is this one from “Allen,” copied below, with my response following.
“Allen” wrote:
The simple facts are:
1. Opposition to marriage for gay couples arises only from anti-gay animus.
2. The primary source of this anti-gay animus is religious, although a small part of it is cultural.
3. Mere animus, regardless of the source (including religious and social beliefs, particularly arbitrary ones like those presented here), cannot be the basis for discriminating against a group or denying them the right to equal protection of the law.
That young lady treated you the same way she would treat a KKK member or a Jew-hating white supremicist. “But I’m not like those evil people” you whine. Really? Come tell that to me and my husband and our baby daughter.
[end of Allen’s comment]
Let’s go through Allen’s three theses:
1. Opposition to marriage for gay couples arises only from anti-gay animus.
In 5000 years of recorded history we’ve never had such a thing as “gay marriage,” and you say that’s only because of a universal irrational animus afflicting humanity? You think that everywhere and always people have simply been mindless, vicious bigots, but suddenly a few people—I mean, a few white liberals living in the West—declare “gay marriage” to be just and proper, and all humanity prior, all the billions of them for thousands of years in every corner of the globe, have been wrong, and you few liberals alive today in 2010 are right?
2. The primary source of this anti-gay animus is religious, although a small part of it is cultural.
So the source of this universal, irrational animus is mere religion, that old superstition, that pre-scientific notion that only far-right troglodytes still cling to, right? And some part is cultural, a mindless habit passed on for no reason at all, mere inertia, right? You don’t think it’s possible that a prohibition universally shared by all peoples, all cultures, in all times, just might represent a universally shared wisdom? You don’t think it just might be possible that the reason it’s been universally prohibited is that “gay marriage” is so obviously cockeyed, so obviously against nature, so obviously against reason and common sense that no people anywhere at any time have been so foolish, so deluded, so crazy as to put it in practice?
3. Mere animus, regardless of the source (including religious and social beliefs, particularly arbitrary ones like those presented here), cannot be the basis for discriminating against a group or denying them the right to equal protection of the law. That young lady treated you the same way she would treat a KKK member or a Jew-hating white supremicist. “But I’m not like those evil people” you whine. Really? Come tell that to me and my husband and our baby daughter.
So all those who resist “gay marriage” are the moral equivalent of KKK members and Jew-hating white supremacists while you are the summit of moral rectitude? All humanity, always, everywhere, has been wicked and wrong, and now suddenly you come along virtuous and right? And anyone who doubts you is just a KKK/Nazi meanie? Have you actually examined your thinking on this or are you simply indulging your mere animus? (And do remember, your mere animus against KKK/Nazi meanies cannot be the basis for discriminating against them.)
Ben W. writes:
Anything contrary to the liberal agenda is based on hatred. The love of God is based on hatred. The love of tradition is based on hatred. The love of one’s country, society, culture and civilization is based on hatred. The love of one’s race is based on hatred. The love of the written word is based on hatred.
If one loves God, one hates the secular humanist and atheist.
If one loves tradition, one hates progress.
If one loves one’s country, one hates the rest of the world.
If one loves one’s civilization, one hates primitive societies.
If one loves one’s culture, one hates the other’s culture.
If one loves one’s race, one hates other races.
If one loves the written word, one hates the electronic media.
One cannot have a focussed, well-defined love of something. Otherwise it is deemed too aggressive and exclusionary.
In other words, we should all be sponge-Bobs, absorbing everything…
The world will not end with a bang or a whimper but with a giant pffffffffffffffffffft after the balloon goes out from taking into too much air and nothingness.
LA replies:
You have understood liberalism: liberalism, consistently followed, says that attachment to every particular thing is evil. Liberalism therefore demands the elimination of every particular thing that exists.
Also, let’s not forget: according to David Zirin in The Nation, if one loves baseball and dislikes soccer, one hates and fears nonwhites.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 16, 2010 02:30 PM | Send