Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Jacoby is Right! Bullying Undermines Gay Marriage Campaign

By

Jeff Jacoby pretty much speaks for me in today’s column. Comparing gay marriage to Jim Crow rules is far from accurate.

The difference between civil unions and marriage is the difference between freedom and slavery? Voting and forbidden to vote? Public education and forced illiteracy?

That’s what we are being asked (told) to believe.

Well call me a “hater” then.

Let the linguists figure it out.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. Step 1. Read Jacoby’s argument against marriage equality:

    I oppose same-sex marriage for reasons previous columns have explored. I think it would be reckless to jettison the understanding, as old as civilization itself, that society has a deep interest in promoting families anchored by a married man and woman. It seems to me nonsensical to claim that men and women are utterly interchangeable, or to deny that children are likeliest to thrive when they are raised by both a mother and a father. I believe that timeless moral standards must not be casually overturned and that doing so is apt to have unintended and unfortunate consequences.

    <

    p>Step 2. Reflect on the number of things that have changed since the 19th century. For example, marriage itself has changed radically from an institution whereby a man owned a wife to one where there is ever more equality. It might be reckless, too, to “jettison” horsemanship, lighting with candles, and the like.

    <

    p>Furthermore, Jacoby’s argument only works in his doll’s house. In places where marriage equality has been around for years, the structure of society has not come down.

    <

    p>We come back to the universal point: Jacoby is an idiot. No surprise: here he makes an idiotic argument.

    <

    p>Step 3. Once you realize that Jacoby’s idiotic argument is merely a bad disguise for something ugly underneath, you must ask what is he hiding.

    <

    p>The answer to that is simple: he finds homosexuality icky. He can’t say that. No, no, no. Instead he has to pretend he’s saving civilization.

    <

    p>Jeff Jacoby, so very, very noble.

    • The quote you selected from Jacoby’s column is exactly how I feel.

      <

      p>So I am a hater and an “idiot” and this opinion of mine disguises my ugly underneath.

      <

      p>Let the linguists figure it out.

    • an idiot.  There are many, many people who think the same way (I was one of them not too many years ago), and you have to give them time to rethink and analyse their thoughts. And then he will be called “wishy-washy” if he doesn’t cling to his value system. Easy for me to say, but it does take time for people to accept what are for them new ideas.

      • He’s capable of writing awful columns on almost any subject. I truly believe they got him since they needed a “conservative” columnist, but wanted one who could be easily discredited. I was saddened when they dropped Cathy Young and kept Jacoby.  

        <

        p>That said, this column is one of literally dozens on the evils of gay marriage. He’s literally obsessed with the subject.  This is just his latest barrage. In fact, he’s been making these same argument since 2004:

        <

        p>

        No surprise, then, that the media depiction of the same-sex marriage controversy has been strikingly one-sided. The views of those who favor it are often and prominently featured; their appeals to justice and compassion are repeatedly quoted, echoed, and expanded on. There has been a shower of celebratory coverage centered on the wedding plans of gays and lesbians, and upbeat descriptions of all sorts of related matters, from the marketing of wedding dresses for lesbians to the first Bride’s magazine article on same-sex ceremonies.

        But there is rarely an admiring story about those who take a stand against throwing out the ancient definition of marriage. Rarely does the coverage suggest that they might have an argument worth listening to or an insight worth considering. Rarely do the feared negative consequences of same-sex marriage get more than a fraction of the attention paid to its anticipated benefits. Hard to miss is the attitude that those who favor same-sex marriage are enlightened, while those who don’t are bigots.

        <

        p> Jacoby is worse than a bigot – he’s an apologist for bigotry.

        • And I like her work. Your analysis of why they keep Jacoby may be correct.  I think that that particular bigotry has melted away quite a bit during the past 25 years. Call me stupid if you wish but I believe that people can and do evolve in their thinking. If Jacoby is an apologist for bigotry, perhaps his own children will be more enlightened.  

          • JACOBY is a proven idiot.  Others holding his opinion set are evaluated on a case by case basis. đŸ˜‰

            <

            p>The world would be a depressing place if people didn’t grow and change. I’m heartened that gay marriage is a non-issue for many of the latest crop of 20 nothings.

            <

            p>I’m a huge fan of Cathy’s writing and am glad to hear you are as well.  I don’t always agree with her, but I always enjoy what she has to say.

          • Twenty-five years ago, an honest conservative might have worried that letting gays marry could undermine the institution of marriage because, well, gays weren’t marrying 25 years ago. Such a conservative — who believed that all our institutions achieve a sort of fragile equilibrium set either by God or by the Invisible Hand that can only be destroyed by human or regulatory meddling — could have anticipated that expanding the institution of marriage would lead to bad, unintended side-effects.

            <

            p>Those 25 years have past.

            <

            p>The verdict is in.

            <

            p>The social impact can be accessed.

            <

            p>There are no unintended bad side-effects.

            <

            p>Case closed.

              • I wanted to register my complete disagreement in as few actions as necessary.  Every sentence is wrong.

                • Maybe I should restate it?

                  <

                  p>I’m trying to look at marriage equality from the perspective of an honest but traditional conservative. (I’m not one, as you should know.)

                  <

                  p>Conservatives frequently feel that mucking with tradition can have bad, unintended consequences. This spans their view of the market to the views of social conservatives. An honest but traditional conservative would have approached a matter like marriage equality with the expectation that instituting it would have bad side effects.

                  <

                  p>What’s clear, not just from Massachusetts’ experience, but, from the the European experience as well, is that marriage equality leads to no discernible undermining of marriage. In fact, Massachusetts continues to have an enviably low divorce rate. (To pick one statistic.)

                  <

                  p>That means that honest conservatives must accept that their expectations have been disproved, i.e., that the case is closed.

                  The silence of your downrating and the terseness of your response don’t reveal at all what you’re saying other than what sounds like a kind of pissy negativity.

                  1. Are you saying marriage equality has had negative side effects? What are they?
                  2. Is my characterization of conservative thought inaccurate? How?
                  3. Do you just think conservatives are doody heads and so trying to reflect on how they think is ipso facto bad?
                  4. Are you saying it’s too soon to decide whether marriage equality was a good thing?

                •    1. Are you saying marriage equality has had negative side effects? What are they?

                  <

                  p>Yes, people are developing a reflexive defensive Pavlovian response to all questions about same-sex equality, and have learned as a matter of moral truth that same-sex couples must have equal rights to married man-woman couples.  This conditioned reaction has already made it hard for society to deal with future issues that relate to same-sex couples, especially in the reproductive technology area.

                  <

                  p>   2. Is my characterization of conservative thought inaccurate? How?

                  <

                  p>Well, it’s true people like Irving Kristol and other conservatives have held up Tradition as being morally good and worth upholding, but I think they were afraid to deal with the real radical mission of good versus evil.  They intellectualized and secularized to make the motives of conservative people understandable to academics, but really conservatives are radical utopians who can’t stand the status quo and have a constant desire to cast out Satan and bring Babylon down.

                  <

                  p>   3. Do you just think conservatives are doody heads and so trying to reflect on how they think is ipso facto bad?

                  <

                  p>I think it’s very problematic, given everyone’s utter fallibility.

                  <

                  p>   4. Are you saying it’s too soon to decide whether marriage equality was a good thing?

                  <

                  p>No, it’s too soon to realize it was a bad thing.

                • You haven’t thought much (or are not interested in) conservative thought. The description I’m giving goes back at least to Edmond Burke and not to the neo-conservative du jour. Your response to #1, for example, makes utterly no sense in context of my downrated comment.

    • Here’s a Liberty Council press release,courtesy MassResistance:

      <

      p>

      This is an historic battle for the minds and souls of our children – for our very culture. The mealy-mouthed approach must end. This is not just about ‘marriage.’ It has everything to do with forced affirmation of homosexuality – under penalty of law. Indeed everyone who fought hard to defend marriage in Maine is to be congratulated, but if it weren’t for a brave group of truth tellers – Paul Madore, Peter LaBarbera and Brian Camenker – who came to Maine in the final hour to hold a press conference and address the pink elephant in the room – homosexual deviancy and the radical ‘gay’ agenda – counterfeit marriage might have prevailed.

      <

      p>Jacoby is full of it. So is Ernie, but we knew that.

  3. It’s so rude of gay people (& their sympathizers) to say mean things about people who want to restrict their rights!  Where do they get the nerve?

    <

    p>Seriously, even granting that the Jim Crow system was more pernicious for African-Americans than what gay people are facing today, and that’s not a great argument…so what?  The effrontery you and Jacoby apparently feel from this argument some person(s) made is nothing compared to have one’s second-class status codified in law and voted on by fellow citizens.  Get over yourself.  And get over the fact that there are gay people and some of them might want to have their committed relationships recognized by the society they live in…just like straight people.  

  4. there is no comparison between jim crow and not having gay marriage.  This country certainly has made progress, but we still don’t afford people of color the same oppurtunities we would afford a gay white person.   It’s easy for me to say that, being a middle class white male — but its also easy for a gay person to say they feel the oppression that someone who lived in 1950’s and 60’s Birmingham did.  

    <

    p>Equating the two respective rights movement does a great deal of disrespect to the brave men and women who got attacked by police dogs, lynched and arrested by the dozens, and sprayed in the face by police hoses just so they could have the right to EXIST.  

    <

    p>The gay rights movement would do themselves good by avoiding any sort of comparison and keeping it in perspective.  Speaking of which, does Jacoby have a source for this jim crow comparison, or did he pull it out of his ass?

    • Even this 2004 WaPo guest opinion column is far more nuanced.  I’m going to go with “pulled it out of his ass.”

      <

      p>Still, in many states, being gay means you can be denied housing, fired from your job, denied visitation rights to your spouse, kept from marrying, …

    • Marriage equality should also be viewed as part of making gayness ordinary and unremarkable, as opposed to icky and contagious. Homosexuality used to viewed much like Frankenstein’s monster: revolting to behold and murderously dangerous.

      <

      p>So yes, there’s the civil rights issue of enabling pairs of people to enter into contracts previously unavailable to them, but the achievement of marriage equality has a larger impact.

      • Here’s the Yes On 1 Walking Script. The Yes ON 1 TV ads closely mirrored these talking point, focusing on CHILDREN and TEACHING HOMOSEXUALITY IN SCHOOLS, along the usual vague talk about the dangers of messing with tradition.

        <

        p>

        Hello, we’re walking precincts today for Stand for Marriage Maine. I’m ____________ and I live over on ______________ (street).

        Have you heard of Question 1 regarding traditional marriage?

        Let me quickly tell you a couple of facts about it.Question 1 repeals and locks from ever taking effect a bill passed by the legislature and signed by the governor that allows homosexual marriage. The legislature went out of their way to avoid allowing you to vote on this important issue.

        The new bill, if we don’t pass Question 1, will change Maine’s law on marriage which has existed since Maine became a state. The current lawdefines marriage as being the union of one man and one woman joined in traditional monogamous marriage and an institution of very strong value to society.

        The new proposal for gay marriage would also eliminate the law that says Maine has a compelling interest to nurture and promote the unique institution of traditional monogamous marriage in the support of harmonious families and the physical and mental health of children and that the State has the compelling interest in promoting the moral values inherent in traditional monogamous marriage. Regardless of what you think about homosexual marriage, we wonder why they would eliminatethe law that says marriage is good for children.

        After throwing out Maine’s traditional support for marriage as the basis for raising children in the trash heap, they replaced it by saying Marriage is the legally recognized union of 2 people.

        Gender-specific terms relating to the marital relationship or familial relationships, including, but not limited to, “spouse,” “family,” “marriage,” “immediate family,” “dependent,” “next of kin,” “bride,” “groom,” “husband,” “wife,” “widow” and “widower,” must be construed to be gender-neutral for all purposes throughout the law.

        A Yes vote on Question 1 blocks all these changes and prevents homosexual marriage in Maine,restores traditional marriage as the law, and still maintains the rights and benefits of Maine same-sex couples who are covered by our domestic partners law.

        A No vote allows the legalization of genderless marriage, and would lead to the teaching of our children in public schools that they can grow up to marry either a boy or a girl, that either option is the same, and prevent parents from opting their children out of such “instruction.” This is what has happened in other states such as Massachusetts which legalized homosexual marriage.

        If the election were held today, would you vote … definitely Yes, probably Yes, probably No, ordefinitely No … on Question 1?

    • One might almost imagine from your remarks that gay folk have not also “got attacked by police dogs, lynched and arrested by the dozens, and sprayed in the face by police hoses just so they could have the right to EXIST.”

      <

      p>Please don’t get me wrong — I’m by no means comparing the situation of gay folks in the US today with Jim Crow, but please do not trivialize what we have ourselves been subjected to within these United States. People still kill us

      <

      p>and people still think that’s OK.

      • I disagree.  The murderers of Matthew Shepard will be in jail until they die, rightly.  The murderers of Emmett Till walked free and then got paid to tell about how they murdered him.

        <

        p>The only thing that trivializes the difficulty gays have in society is when comparisons are made to what we put black people through.  

        <

        p>However, since it would appear the only person making this comparison is Jeff Jacoby, it’s a moot point.

  5. I was adamantly opposed to gay marriage until I determined that I did not have to do it myself.

  6. Re-reading Jacoby’s column, even his sources don’t back up his claims.

    <

    p>Here’s the conclusion of the college newspaper OpEd piece he claims denounced the voters:

    <

    p>

    I’m not angry, Maine – just disappointed. You let hatred, confusion, misinformation and ignorance emerge victorious over liberty. More importantly, you let Maine families down. I cannot believe the opponents of marriage equality think they are preserving marriage. They are letting it crumble away into oblivion, an outdated model that serves fewer and fewer people. Our society needs marriages and families. When the divorce rate in Maine continues to rise from 46 percent to 50, 60 or 70 percent, you will have the “Yes on 1” campaign to blame. They didn’t preserve marriage. They mummified it alive.

    <

    p>It’s telling that he had to go to a college newspaper and a blogpost to find evidence of “bullying” but he even has to twist the blogpost’s despair over losing a civil rights battle into “Jim Crow.”

    <

    p>

    Gay rights are civil rights; gay rights are human rights. Discrimination is always wrong. In the future, those who oppose gay marriage now, will appear as ignorant, mean and foolish as those who opposed interracial marriage fifty years ago.

    <

    p>It’s interesting that Jacoby fails to mention this piece of grandstanding from the Yes On 1 folks:

    <

    p>

    “We went up against tremendous odds,” Marc Mutty, public affairs director for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland who has been on loan to the campaign, said from Portland. “We all know we were the little guy going up against the big guy, but we prevailed. We prevailed because the people of Maine – the silent majority – the folks back home spoke with their votes.

    <

    p>Little guy going up against the big guy?  It seems much more like the tyranny of the majority.  Especially once you know the majority of the Yes On 1 funding came from out of state.

  7. Same sex couples do have a lot of rights that African Americans didn’t have 50 years ago. Nobody, anymore I think, is turning the firehoses and the dogs on them.

    <

    p>But they don’t have one thing. One thing that validates their love, commitment, and family in the eyes of the law, and even their God – if they have one. That is the right to marry, just like the rest of us.

    <

    p>Until and unless same sex couples have that same right to marry,  their relationship cannot be equal to mine or another marriage. They’re still sitting in the back of the bus.

    <

    p>

    • But is marriage a civil rights issue in light of the rights given gay couples in civil unions?

      <

      p>I believe marriage by definition is between a man and woman? I can’t help it. Gay couples and civil unions and all sorts of relationships are fine.  They don’t bother me. The corruption of the word “marriage” does. The principle of the thing bothers me.

      <

      p>Sorry, I just don’t see it as a civil rights issue.

      • I believe marriage by definition is between a man and woman? I can’t help it.

        <

        p>So we maybe shouldn’t be discussing this with you since your opinions are frozen forever?

      • I linked to a WaPA guest editorial about it above

        <

        p>

        The act — really an amendment to an earlier law — was passed in April, over Gov. Mark R. Warner’s objections, and it takes effect July 1. It says, “A civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges and obligations of marriage is prohibited.” It goes on to add that any such union, contract or arrangement entered into in any other state, “and any contractual rights created thereby,” are “void and unenforceable in Virginia.”

        <

        p>The Washington State fight was also about civil unions, not marriage. Other places have prohibited domestic partner insurance or anything conveying the “benefits of marriage.”

        <

        p>Get it?  

        <

        p>You may think you’re all noble and shit, but you’ve yet to provide a reason to deprive others of rights other than “I can’t help it.” Forgive me for thinking that’s  pretty weak.

        • Unfortunately for those of us who support marriage equality they remembered to close all the loopholes too:

          <

          p>

          Section 15-A. Marriage.

          That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.

          The amendment ratified November 7, 2006, and effective January 1, 2007-Added a new section (15-A).

          <

          p>Sounds like even local governments are prohibited from even recognizing a domestic partnership of an employee.  Unlike the federal and MA constitutions, VA amendments are inserted into the constitution rather than added to the end.  Ironically this is part of the Bill of RIGHTS, but deprives certain people of rights.  Not sure why it was added to section 15 which talks about education and what is necessary to truly enjoy rights.

      • For many reasons:

        <

        p>Civil unions or no, such couples are still denied hundreds of rights and equal treatment under the law, Ernie.

        <

        p>Yet, more than this, it is a civil rights issue for those religions that sanctify these unions. Let me be clear:

        <

        p>Many gay couples indeed are deeply religious, and participate in the religious sacrament of marriage whether state recognized or not. Why must their religions, their priests and priestesses, their imams (yes, even some imams sanctify these weddings), have to measure their faith and ritual up to the yardsticks imposed by faiths (or translations of faiths) that discriminate against gay people? If the State is going to recognize the marriage sacraments of some –

        <

        p>then ought it not recognize the sacraments of all?

        <

        p>This is religious discrimination, Ernie

        • The United Church of Christ has endorsed full marriage equality since 2005.  This is an unconstutional playing of favorites as far as I’m concerned.

        • The state doesn’t recognize sacraments, it pronounces couples married when they officially consent if they qualify for a license, and the officiant can be of any religion or no religion.  It is not the religiousness of Priests and Imans that the state needs, but the solemnity, which is why Justices of the Peace and people duly authorized by the governor to solemnize marriages can also do it.  Even a Priest cannot pronounce a same-sex couple married.

          • The question remains: Why should the marriage sacraments of religions that discriminate against gay people be recognized if the marriage sacraments of religions that do not so discriminate are not? The state indeed IS recognizing marriage sacraments — providing that (in entirely too many states yet) those sacraments are practiced in accordance with only the tenets of more politically powerful religions.

            <

            p>Again, religious discrimination

            • The state has no idea if any sacraments are performed, and it doesn’t care, as long as the vows are witnessed and solemnized by someone authorized to solemnize weddings (Solemnize means make sure everyone is taking it absolutely seriously and recognizing the legal significance and life long commitment).  The Pope himself could perform all the sacraments in the book for a same-sex couple, but if the state doesn’t let people marry someone of the same sex, that wouldn’t matter a bit.

              <

              p>Now, there might be a matter of religious discrimination in the law that says certain religious leaders are automatically able to solemnize weddings, while other religions like maybe Wiccan or Jedi are left out of the law and a Wiccan priest or Jedi Knight would have to request a temporary authority to solemnize weddings.  But that honor of being automatically recognized is based on how established the church is, not on their views about who is allowed to marry, for example UU ministers are automatically recognized as solemnizers even though the UU church also performs same-sex weddings.

              <

              p>http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws…

              • That is not what is in question, however, given how Massachusetts recognizes equal marriage rights.

                <

                p>If the Roman Catholic Church did not discriminate in bestowal of the sacrament, we would not be having this discussion – as it would not have pressured so very many state legislators elsewhere, nor funded so many ballot drives (against or for) throughout this struggle.

                <

                p>The fact remains: Ministers of most faiths in every state are permitted to solemnize the bestowal of their sacraments, except in those states where the bestowal of such sacraments offends the more politically powerful of faiths.

                <

                p>Everywhere that equal marriage rights are denied, such rights are denied on the basis of specific theological views.

Archives