The morning after Federal Judge Vaughn Walker issued his ruling that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional, the Mercury News editorial board declared, “Facts triumph over bigotry in Prop 8 ruling.” That same evening, ABC News ran portions of an interview with President Obama where he expressed his opposition to same-sex marriage.
Does this mean, that in the eyes of the Mercury News and others, that President Obama (and anyone who shares a similar opinion on same-sex marriage) is a a bigot?
From the Mercury News: “The ruling provides a measure of hope that as the case mends its way to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and, ultimately, the Supreme Court, facts will continue to win out over bigotry.”
What do the words “bigot” and “bigotry” mean anyway? Websters defines a bigot as, “one obstinately and intolerantly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion.”
While appearing on MSNBC, White House senior adviser David Axelrod said that, “The President does oppose same-sex marriage, but he supports equality for gay and lesbian couples, and benefits, and other issues…”
So, if you share President Obama’s opinion on the subject, are you a bigot? Is he?
Like the subject of illegal immigration, one needs an eleven-foot pole to engage in discussion on this matter. Checking my pole inventory, I see that the best I can do is a ten-foot pole.
> Like the subject of illegal immigration, one needs an eleven-foot pole to engage in discussion on this matter. Checking my pole inventory, I see that the best I can do is a ten-foot pole.
Naaaahh.
I don’t think so. A two and a half or three foot pole should be sufficient.
Remember, mommy was “white”, and daddy was three quarters Sudanese arab, which the U.S. census classifies as “white”.
So, really, Our Historic First Black President is really seven eighths “white” and only one eighth “black”.
But who’s counting, except maybe, the NAACP, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the Democrat Party.
So, you’re probably safe if you only address the question: “Of the seven eighths part of the President that is white, is that part bigoted?”
I can no longer financially or politically support a President who states publicly that he believes in full equality for LGBT citizens, just as long as they are not allowed to marry.
The two positions simply can not co-exist.
And as a Constitutional scholar, Obama knows this in his heart.
Were the large majority of Americans who were opposed to interracial marriage at the time of Loving v. Virginia bigots?
Yes.
Just because you hold the majority opinion does not mean you are not a bigot.
And likewise, just because you hold the minority opinion does not mean you are not a bigot.
So, what’s your point?
In denial, much?
Living inside of your head, are you?
Everyone there agrees with you, don’t they.
Judge Vaughn’s ruling was on the evidence provided in court, evidence which came down to factless assertions on the part of the defense. Faced with no compelling evidence to exclude gays, to continue to do so is bigotry. The president *says* he supports equal rights, but on marriage, he says he opposes it because “…God gets involved.” So, yes, the president is a bigot, as are all Prop 8 supporters who cannot offer any evidence supporting their position. I’m sure there is someone somewhere who can offer a reason-based defense of the ban, but I have never seen one.
Personally opposing gay marriage is not bigotry. Turning your personal opinion into a law against gay marriage is bigotry.
Well said Common Sense.
I think its ridiculous to assert one has to believe the institution of marriage ought to be fundamentally and radically altered in order to avoid being a bigot. The idea that California’s decision to define marriage as it has always been defined somehow violates the federal Constitution is absurd.
It’s ridiculous to assert that marriage has been “fundamentally and radically altered.” Two people love each other and get married. Same as ever.
If you can’t see that making marriage a sex-neutral institution (irrespective of whether one thinks that is a good idea, or not) is a hugely significant and quasi-revolutionary change in the fabric of society, well, all I can conclude is you must not be very intelligent, or at least not very insightful.
One almost gets the impression you are simply pulling my leg.
There should be no need for the gov’t to know if someone is married or not.
Perhaps in a libertarian world on the planet Zognarr.
Have you checked in with the federal government lately?
Two million employees. Three or four trillion dollars to redistribute.
They need rules to spread that money around.
They need to know things about you to make their rules.
They need to know if you are married, how many gallons of water you use to flush a turd, and what kind of light bulb you use and where you dispose of it. Among other things.
It would be nice if the law was devoid of opinion, but thats not the case.
The law forces me to support Planned Parenthood, religous organizations, aid to Africa, hundreds of charities I oppose, dead end school systems, welfare, drug rehab, pie in the sky energy projects, baseball stadiums, high rise developers, gay pride festivals, cinco de mayo celebrations, investment banker’s salaries, car manufacturers, my neighbors healthcare costs, my neighbor’s mortgage, pensions for teachers my children never had, cops who stand there as someone digs a ditch….
I highly doubt a community like San Jose’s would welcome a clearly defined law with no “personal opinions”.
One can only wait with baited breath for Funk & Wagnall’s and Webster’s to change the definition of the word “marriage.”
> One can only wait with baited breath for Funk & Wagnall’s and Webster’s to change the definition of the word “marriage.”
Well, without knowing what Funk & Wagnall’s prior definition of “marriage” was, I can’t say for sure if this is necessary.
But your are astute to realize that the core issue is the definition of a word: “marriage”.
Until the nihilists hatched their cynical scheme, the entire civilized and uncivilized world understood that “marriage” was an institution releated to procreation, and hence, inherently applied exclusively to persons of opposite sexes.
The nihilists formulated the concept of “gay marriage” to legitimize formerly proscribed behaviors in the modern era of “procreationless” sexual union. This necessarily involved the distortion of the established and universally understood concept of marriage.
The greater society ultimately realized that it was necessary for the good of civilization to arrest the disintegration of the established concept of marriage resulting from procreationless, responsibility-less sexual unions, and clearly, and precisely articulated a definition of marriage that the overwhelming majority of civilized people already understood.
Courts are often asked to make judgements about the meaning of vague or novel concepts. In the case of Proposition 8, the court had no such judgement to make. The voters of California prescribed to the court the relevant exact meaning of the word “marriage”.
The court had NO authority to presume any other definition of the word “marriage”. The court could NOT quote Webster or Funk & Wagnalls and rule that the definition of “marriage” is X-Y-Z. The voters TOLD the court, TOLD Webster, and TOLD Funk & Wagnall’s what the definition is. Period.
Whenever and wherever the word “marriage” is used in the state of California, it means what the voters said it means in Proposition 8. Any other formal or precise use of the word marriage is inoperative.
For all practical purposes, the voters of California trademarked the term “marriage”.
You can’t call your camera a “Kodak” unless Kodak agrees. You can’t call your soft drink “Coca Cola” unless Coca Cola says you can. You can’t call your sexual union a “marriage” unless it is consistent with the definition and usage prescribed by voters in Proposition 8.
If the court feels that “marriage” violates equal protection, then it is up to the legislature to invent another term and another institution that remedies that problem.
Marriage is what it is. The voters have defined what it is. If gays don’t like what it is, they can’t change matters by getting a court to change the definition, just as they can’t fly by getting the court to change the definition of flying.
Okay Judge Mental we get it already. You hate gays. Move on will you.
Ahh, the inveterate PC; PC but without charity. I guess it was inappropriate of Judge to express his opinion. So inappropriate that you implied his opinions were not welcome on this sight.
Greg,
His opinion is welcomed but his obbession with spreading hatred isn’t.
> Okay Judge Mental we get it already. You hate gays. Move on will you.
Nope. Not moving on. Not while there is a single Christian needing rescue.
By the way, does my hatred of gays rise to the level where I need to be put into a re-education camp?
Will the majority of California voters also be put into the camp, or just those who refuse to admit to their hate crimes?
Most of us have caught on to the fact that “PC” is just a collection of attitudes culled from the Urban-Coastal Class as weapons against the ideas of the Country Class. Maybe we shouldn’t dignify these strange conclusions and equivalencies, and just point out that remarks like “You hate gays.” are just controlling devices, born in ignorance, and marinated in group-think.
And to think I actually voted for Christian Hemingway. The choice was Judy Chirco or Christian Hemingway- a real Hobson’s Choice if ever there was one. But after that ridiculous comment, Christian, I’m glad Judy Chirco is my representative- and I never thought I’d hear myself saying THAT.
Christian,
In reading Judge’s text above, it would be a stretch for me to conclude that he hates gays. Yet even if he does, how can one partition a man’s objects of love and hate from his opinion. Rationalizing, as you have, that Judge does not belong on this site is to censor the opinions of others. Are you willing to abridge our Constitution in that manner?
John Galt,
Thanks for the vote but I’m glad I lost. Leaving politics was the best thing I ever did. Now I can actually work to help the folks that really need it.
Greg,
“Rationalizing, as you have, that Judge does not belong on this site is to censor the opinions of others.”
Objecting to hateful comments and asking someone to move on to another topic isn’t censoring them. I never said he didn’t belong on this site; you twisted it to mean that. You and John can bend my comment any way you want but I don’t agree there’s no hate in his/her comments.
I support gay marriage always have and always will. I am not going to apologize for that. I don’t sit here saying anyone who disagrees with gay marriage are bigots, but I see plenty of attacks on those who support it.
John and Greg,
The good news is, regardless of how you and others feel about gay marriage, the courts are here to ensure equality! Thank God! I plan to attend as many of my friend’s gay marriages as I’m invited to!
Have a great weekend!
Occasionally a bona fide bigot will hide behind the charge that his critics are just being PC, but for the most part, I agree.
Its not a Constitutional issue, unless the government claims he can’t continue posting here.
“I support gay marriage always have and always will.”
You always supported gay marriage? How long ago are we defining as “always?” Because no one supported it before the 90s.
Its not exactly certain the U.S. Supreme Court will agree with Vaughan Walker’s decision. In fact, we pretty much know the court is split 4-4, with Anthony Kennedy as the unknown, deciding vote.
Mental, Your Honor, you’ve been a naughty blogger.
No soup for you.
Dearest Christian:
In the spirit of love, harmony, and socialist brotherhood, please allow me to propose to you a simple intelligence test.
Question 1: In the State of California, what is the definition of the term “marriage” as it used for matters of public policy?
Question 2: What is the basis for the definition that you articulated in response to Question 1?
Is it:
A: Funk & Wagnall’s Dictionary?
B: Webster’s Dictionary?
C: The Oxford English Dictionary?
D: The Bible (Old Testament)?
E: The Bible (New Testament)?
F: The Torah?
G: The Koran?
H: English Common Law?
J: The Kama Sutra?
K: Playboy Magazine?
L: The North American Man Boy Love Association?
M: The Santa Clara County Clerk?
N: The California Legislature?
O: The Governor of the State of California?
P: One federal district judge out of one thousand federal judges?
Q: The voters of the state of California?
This is your chance to really shine, Christian. Put that big, dazzling intellect of yours to work and knock this one out of the park.
Peace. Love. Save the whales.
“Nope. Not moving on. Not while there is a single Christian needing rescue.”
Oh so if we Christians agree with gay marriage you think it is your mission to reform us?
Save your breath. I believe in one Savior and HIS name is the Lord Jesus Christ.
Judge Mental,
Here is a test of your Chistianity, integrity, and honesty:
What is your real name?
Do you work for the Pegram Campaign? If so, what is your paid position on the campaign?
What church do you go to?
Did you have a bad experience with someone who is gay?
I sign my real name when I post, and do not hide facts about my background; what about you?
That would be bated breath; we’re not fishing here.
Webster’s defines “marriage”, inter alia, as “the institution by which men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family.”
Marriage has for most of history been a religious insitution. Weddings were performed in churches or temples or synagogues.
Only in relatively recent times has there been a clear, defined civil aspect, which sets forth the rights and responsibilities of the parties.
It is the religious nature of the word that muddies the waters. The entire LGBT community should have the same civil rights as straights when it comes to partnerships that most of us call marriage. The word is now in the way of reason and equal protection.
There is no inconsistency in defining marriage as it was defined by Prop. 8 and at the same time giving all persons equal civil/legal rights when they decide to become a committed couple. There should be NO difference in the rights and responsibilities of the partners vis-a-vis each other that is in any way dependent upon their sexual orientation.
All persons—gays, straights, etc—should enter into a civil union if they want legal protections and legal rights with respect to each other. Marriage should be relegated/returned to a separate, religious ceremony, ruled by the rules of the particular denomination to which the participants in the marriage belong.
Return the word and the act of marriage to a strictly religious setting, and everyone else enters into a civil union, whose rules the state sets up and enforces.
Actually, Webster’s definition continues:
(2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>
per: Webster.com
How can Obama be a bigot? I mean the guy’s black.. er what’s that?.. his Mom was.. oh ok now it makes sense.
Yes Obama is a bigot.
to a large degree “marriage” is about property rights and who has them or will inherit them. the notion then that gays (or anyone else) can be excluded from said property rights falls short as that can be handled readily with instruments already at hand.
thus the notion of “marriage” has now become nothing more than an equalizer of lifestyle choice. as far as rights, everyone already has that pertaining to what has historically been accepted as marriage, you as a man can marry any woman (consenting of course) and any woman can marry any man. many choose not to marry in this fashion for a variety of reasons.
there should be concern down the road about the implications of gay marriage, i.e., some churchs not performing said function and then having the whole thing end up in court.
pologamy is and has been recognized in virtually all cultures and societies at some degree since we lived in caves. But that opens up a whole new can of – -complications.
in sumation give any couple full property rights and allow gays to simply call it something else – “Legally Bonded” – “Gay-iage”??? everyone wins, no sore losers.
> to a large degree “marriage” is about property rights and who has them or will inherit them.
Hugh:
I’m hugely disappointed. You have fallen far short of your customary perspicacious insight.
In a healthy enduring society, marriage property issues are ultimately secondary to the central and fundamental issue which is: who is responsible for raising children.
As far as I’m concerned, in the absence of marriage and where there are no children involved, property issues can be satisfactorily handled via contract law or probate.
All the property issues of “gay marriage” could be handled in this way.
The reason they aren’t is because the nihilists pushing for “gay marriage” ultimately want to destroy the societal notion that parenting is a privilege and obligation primarily associated with marriage as a heterosexual institution, and create a society where “parenting” is a privilege and obligation of the state and its agents.
The state will then be free to define the behavioral templates for raising children, and see to it that they are each and everyone brought up to be a “new socialist man” (or “new socialist woman”) without the interference and miseducation introduced by benighted and ignorant biological parents who would likely be full of anti-social prejudices, stereotypes, and wrong-headed attitudes.
“Gay marriage” is just a wedge issue to destroy the nuclear family. This is nothing new. Nihilist utopians have ALWAYS sought the destruction of the family in order to allow for the creation of “new” social institutions (with them in charge).
Judge Mental,
While I respect your right to your opinion on gay marriage, your comments about gay couples raising children are completely ridiculous. To say that gay parents, and gay marriage, ““Gay marriage” is just a wedge issue to destroy the nuclear family. This is nothing new. Nihilist utopians have ALWAYS sought the destruction of the family in order to allow for the creation of “new” social institutions (with them in charge).” is so hate filled and ignorant I can’t believe it.
Did you have some bad experience with someone who was gay or something?
> . . . your comments about gay couples raising children are completely ridiculous.
Sounds judgemental to me.
> . . . is so hate filled and ignorant I can’t believe it.
Hate filled? Try this:
http://www.counterorder.com/history.html
From ‘Catechism of a Revolutionist’ (1869) By Sergei Nechayev
PRINCIPLES BY WHICH THE REVOLUTIONARY MUST BE GUIDED IN THE ATTITUDE OF THE REVOLUTIONARY TOWARDS HIMSELF
– – – –
This is an illustration of what is inside the heads of nihilist utopians.
Similar things are undoubtedly inside the heads of people like Saul Alinsky, Bernadine Dohrn, William Ayers, Van Jones, Frank Marshall Davis, and people who they associate with.
Judge Mental,
“Sounds judgemental to me.” I never said it wasn’t.
Hugh,
Gays are not second class citizens. We don’t get to sort them like laundry. They aren’t in “sexual unions,” they are in loving relationships like we straight folks are. They deserve the same treatment we get.
The only sore losers I see are the folks who want to segregate them with titles like, “Legally Bonded” -“Gay-iage.”
> They aren’t in “sexual unions,” they are in loving relationships like we straight folks are. They deserve the same treatment we get.
> The only sore losers I see are the folks who want to segregate them with titles like, “Legally Bonded” -“Gay-iage.”
Call it a “sexual union”, or not.
Call it “legally bondes”, or not.
Call it “gay-iage”, or not.
But whatever it is, it is NOT marriage. The voters of California could not have made it clearer or more explicit.
If a lesbian weds a gay male, it can be called “marriage”. If a lesbian weds another lesbian, it can’t be called “marriage”. Period.
Even a mighty federal judge cannot make up his own definitions. If a judge is TOLD by the voters that a triangle has only three sides, he can’t decide that figures with four sides are also triangles.
Judge Mental,
I’ll be calling two people of the same “gender” committing themselves to one another before the Lord “GAY MARRIAGE.” You and your cronies can call it what you want.
Notwithstanding differences in speed and degree, all cultures endure change. Citizens holding firm to tradition do a service to the culture by erecting the barriers that restrain the efforts of the reckless and unwise. Citizens who push for change serve by challenging the culture to maximize its potential. Who’s right and who’s wrong is sometimes obvious, though, more often than not, only time does the telling.
Hatred, exaggeration, lying, intimidation: all standard tools of those waging cultural war at the lowest levels of society. The Mercury News editorial board, in stooping to the use of name-calling, did nothing in the battle over the meaning of “marriage” other than define its own level of discourse.
What an absolute disgrace to this city.
I don’t think of Obama as a bigot. I just think of him as a typical black man.
> I don’t think of Obama as a bigot. I just think of him as a typical black man.
Hmmmm.
As Archie Bunker famously said to Lionel in an episode of ‘All In the Family’:
“You can take that two ways.”
To which Lionel replied:
“I only meant it one way.”
Hey, Judge, you neglected to point our that both Lionel and Archie were purely fictitious characters, and both spouted the lines channeled to them by Norman Lear, an infamous hater and TV producer. Every word by Lionel and Archie represent no one besides Lear.
> Hey, Judge, you neglected to point our that both Lionel and Archie were purely fictitious characters, and both spouted the lines channeled to them by Norman Lear, an infamous hater and TV producer.
Jay:
You are eminently and precisely correct: I DID neglect to point that out.
Undoubtedly, my callous neglect made your life more wretched and unlivable.
Oooops. Oh, well.
Good point Jay. Just as I was only spouting a line channeled to me by Barack Obama and represent no one besides our President.
In understanding the definition of bigot as explained above in Websters- “one obstinately and intolerantly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion” – Both sides of this issue are guilty of bigotry as each holds firmly to their belief and opinion.
It seems that one of the problems we are having with this issue at large is an overarching desire to change the definition of words, Whether marriage, bigot, or any other word.
Words are symbols that are assigned a meaning so that clear communication can be accomplished. Without definition, we lose understanding and meaning and there is a breakdown in society.
It is much like the word “change”- This can mean anything from a jingle in your pocket to going from brunette to redhead. Not only do we need to know the definition we also need to know the context and intent.
Marriage in the traditional biblical context for the express intent as a vow to God between one man and one woman means a sacred spiritual union between the man and woman in the eyes of God and the two, according to biblical teaching, become one flesh.
Marriage in the context of same sex unions means a legal contract allowing equal benefits and rights of property much like the marriage of two companies.
If society decides to add a new definition, it doesn’t change another definition. We only need to understand the context and intent.
So to that I say-
COOL!
So-
Let all heterosexual Christians fly rainbow flags as a symbol of peace and a promise God made not to destroy the earth by flood, get married and know that God has blessed your union, and don’t live in fear of what man can do.
Let all homosexual people fly the rainbow flag as a symbol of their sexual pride, get married in order to have equal rights and don’t live in fear of what man can do.
For further definition, According to Wiki- The use of rainbow flags has a long tradition; they are displayed in many cultures around the world as a sign of diversity and inclusiveness, of hope and of yearning.
“There are several unrelated rainbow flags in use today. The most widely known is perhaps the pride flag representing gay pride. The peace flag is especially popular in Italy and the cooperative flag symbolizes international cooperation. It is also used by Andean people to represent the legacy of the Inca empire (Wiphala) and Andean movements.”
Obama sure enough has a gay marriage/bigotry problem. But how to amend?
– Rainbow flag at the whitehouse? nah. Tired. Been done.
– Having his teleprompter programmed to end any reference to gay issues with “Not that there’s anything wrong with that”. nope. Too Seinfeld.
I got it… Obama can patch things up by bowing to gays.
– http://bit.ly/bkzEkQ
– http://www.wscleary.com/pov/graphics/uploads/obama bow.jpg
– http://bit.ly/8ZWWdn
Lots of free time today, eh Novice?
> got it… Obama can patch things up by bowing to gays.
Interesting. But not bold enough.
How about if he and Michelle marry Barney Frank and Rosie O’Donnell.
The first multi-ethnic, multi-gender, multi-orientation, multi-religious, matrimonial four-way in White House history.
You voted for change, right?