I WILL have my basic human equal rights. I WILL marry whom I choose when I choose, NOT YOU. I am gay, and very angry. If I cant have my basic human rights, then I will take them! Dont tread on me!

I remain optimistic, even though this news was disappointing. The judicial process, when it works best, is a laborious process. Judge Walker's decsion remains rock solid; I find it difficult to believe that any Court will find reason to overturn it.

That being said, James' sentiments are justified and indicative of the real anger that is out there. This battle may well end up in the streets.

We are a gentle people, but we do not have unlimited patience with bigotry masquerading as piety and manifesting as injustice.

James you do have your basic human rights thats why you are able to voice your displeasure. Marriage as a human right is debatable. To call it a basic human right is an insult to others who suffer far more dire consequences including homosexuals in areas less tolerant. You would also do well to remember you are a minority before making idle threats. I could care less about the issue, but I do care when threats are made by impatient poeple who have no clue what real suffering is make threats. You want to see your rights violated try living in parts of the world where you would be executed for homosexuality or even talking against the state then you will understand what violations of human rights really are.

Well said James and BankStreet. Religion has no place in our laws and the selfish bigots pushing for the ban have no place in a modern, civilized, equal rights society. Sadly, I doubt most of them will ever "get it." That 2,000 year old tall tale has far too many under its evil "spell."

Anonymous,

You are correct. The right to marry the person of one's choice is not the same as the right to life. We have become spoiled in this country, I guess, living as we do under a Constitution that purports to grant equal access to the benefits of citizenship to all. Pardon us. We have come to understand that rights are worth fighting for, we have come to understand that minorities have rights, we have come to understand that religious dogma does not trump those rights. We have come to understand that the Constitution applies to us. And we are impatient.

BankStreet - I'm not bothered by anyone fighting for their rights. While I'm not sure I consider marriage a basic human right I have no quarrel with those who do. I think you put it right whe you said we are spoiled in this country. The constitution does apply to all of us. However, I don;t see where aggressive posturing will aid your cause. There are many like me who are either indifferent or unsure on the issue. Those are the ones you need to rally to your cause. The extremists will never see it your way. making threating sounding statements won't help you in the long run.

Anonymous,

As I said in my initial post, I am more than willing to see the judicial process through to what I see as its inevitable conclusion.

That being said, I do recall that other civil-rights struggles made successful use of extra-judicial tactics to pursue their objectives. Don't forget that the modern "gay liberation" movement began with civil disobedience that shut down lower Manhattan for three days.

We are a gentle people....

As to whether equal access to civil marriage is a"basic human right," would you regard equal access to a five-and-dime lunch counter a "basic human right"? How about equal access to a hotel room? Equal access to employment security? Equal access to the voting booth? I'm not entirely sure *you* have the right to determine what is a "basic human right."

BankStreet, let's please remember that the Stonewall Rebellion was led by transvestites and other gender queer folk who could not hide among the crowd. It was not led by the effete gentry of the HRC or their ilk.

Gentle. Indeed!

Like Joan of Arc.

BankStreet you may be right, but what gives you or anyone else the right to make the decison of what constitutes a basic right. To answer your questions yes to all and I view all as much more important to life than marriage. You may not agree and that is certainly your right.

Anonymous,

With all due respect, I think those who are denied their rights are probably in the better position to recognize those rights and that particular injustice.

And the right to a loving spouse seems to compare quite well to a ham sandwich at a lunch counter.

Dana,

Your point is very well taken. We sometimes forget the debt we owe those very brave girls. A lot of New York City cops learned the power of a well-flung four-inch pump forty-one years ago this summer!

But, Dana, let's give the pinstripes at HRC, et al., some credit. It's nice to have the lawyers (including the ABA) on our side this go round.

Dear "Anonymous" who wrote the following:

"I could care less about the issue, but I do care when threats are made by impatient poeple who have no clue what real suffering is make threats. You want to see your rights violated try living in parts of the world where you would be executed for homosexuality or even talking against the state then you will understand what violations of human rights really are."

This is a true, but trivial observation or objection. It is true, but trivial because one could say that about almost all of life in a country like ours. All the goods of our culture, including rights we enjoy, are premised on NOT being those benighted countries where both commerce and culture is vastly inhibited for whims or follies (including lamentably religious ones) of the State. So your insouciant pose that we homos need to get with the program and realize how lucky we are is has the wan, flaccid character of all true but trivial objections. It means nothing because it could mean anything.

It is BECAUSE life is so good here compared to other places that gay people want to enjoy to full benefit of this fine situation. No attempt to be corny here, but gay people just want the American dream. Perhaps the "American Dream" is not written into the Constitution per se, but one can say that about of a lot of things. And surely we can see it in embryo. Those who object to gay marriage must rely not on ideas found attenuated or embryonic in the Constitution, but on labyrinthine explanation on the history of culture. It is amazing to hear these reactionary religionists -- which I am aware you are probably not -- turn from their normal lock-step dogma to pseudo-scientific cultural analysis. What justifies their nasty fight against other people's well-being is suddenly the grand sweep of culture, or which they usually know little. Or if they do know something it is a professional jargon they implement relentlessly.

So, Anonymous, you seem to want to stake out some reasonable middle ground here, and I don't think such exists.
But you are doing this by denying reality and thus sounding ugly. You warn against "aggressive posturing" --- hello, a court decision is not posturing!! It is a decision by one of the bedrocks of our society. So no offense to you personally, because I sense you are not an extremist, but if you are going to assess the state of this argument, which is now clearly the decision of a high court as mere aggressive posturing then you might think about moving to Afghanistan, where confusion about the status of law is utterly bizarre. If I may turn around your suggestion that started this discussion. If you could spend some time in Afghanistan perhaps you would appreciate the definitiveness of courts that saves us from barbarism.

BanksStreet respectfully the denial of what you see as a right doesn't necessarily make it a right. The ham sandwich is food and I view the ability to obtain food a basic right. Marriage hardly rates on the same level. Marriage is nothing more than religious or legal arrangement or contract if you will. Not having it does not prevent you from living a life with a loving partner so I don't see it as anywhere close to a basic right.

Anonymous,

As you well know, those folk sitting at the Woolworth's lunch counter weren't there because they were hungry. Hunger and the access to food wasn't the issue. The right to eat with their fellow citizens was the issue.

In the case of marriage equality, companionship isn't the issue. The right to have that companionship acknowledged, respected, and protected by the State is the issue. Equal access to privileges accorded other citizens is the issue.

Those privileges include:

- The right to visit a spouse in the hospital
- The right to make medical decisions for a sick spouse
- The right to make funeral arrangements for a deceased spouse
- Access to family courts for dissolution of relationships
- Death benefits for surviving spouses of firefighters and police officers
- Mutual responsibility for debts
- Joint assessment of income for determining eligibility for state government assistance programs
- Ability to sponsor a spouse from another country for a green card
- Community property ownership protections
- Child custody, visitation, and duties of financial support to children
- Eligibility for health benefits (without taxation) and COBRA benefits through an employer
- Ability to take leave to care for a sick spouse under the Family and Medical Leave Act
- Right to inherit a spouse's pension
- Entitlement to inherit social security and disability benefits upon the death of a spouse
- Ability to inherit jointly owned property without incurring tax penalties
- Right to file joint income taxes
- Ability to put a spouse on the deed to a home without incurring tax penalties
- Access to "family memberships"
- Domestic violence protections
- Immunity from testifying against a spouse
- Right to sue for wrongful death of a spouse

Hardly trivial.

Anonymous, if as you say, "Marriage is nothing more than religious or legal arrangement or contract," why is anyone attempting to deny that right to gay people?

Minors and the mentally incompetent are not able to enter contacts. Your reasoning is absurd. Why would we be able to sign a mortgage contract or even a credit card receipt at the Hippo, but not a marriage contract?

Can you give me another example where a class of people are denied a right similarly?

Dana,

I love the way you put this: "Why would we be able to sign a mortgage contract or even a credit card receipt at the Hippo, but not a marriage contract?" .....and if I can extend this logic out: Do those who want to deny marriage to gays deny us the right of private property, which is just as much a "bedrock" societal issue for us as marriage??

The fact is that a lot of the most reactionary types would indeed like to deny lots of things, but they don't say it for purely political reasons. That is why they merit decisive focus, for they are truly destructive types. If society isn't exactly the way they happen to like it, they want to take all of it down. Some right-wingers of a religious stripe can't stop themselves from salivating over the end of civilization itself. So much for their commitment to the a shared society! That is why their sense of civilization, for all their talk of "bedrock of society" is very, very thin. They are not be trusted as moral actors in the slightest.
By definition, if your horizon is destruction, no action in the moral foreground of life will be reliable or trustworthy.

Bankstreet without going through your exhaustive list some of those things such as making medical decisions can be dealt with in legal documents already existing. Yes you are also correct some can not. The issue what constitutes a basic right or a right for that matter? You and I don’t see the Woolworth's lunch counter the same way. That’s hardly something worth debating. Some other items on your list have potential negative aspects particularly if you get into debt and tax issues. Ask a spouse who had their partner left them holding the bag for debts. To be honest in comparison to other issues like torture and abuse they are completely trivial. Are you honestly putting marriage on the same platform as torture or death faced by homosexuals in some other nations?

Dana you’d have to ask the people fighting issue. I’m not one of them. I could care less one way or the other. What was absurd was mentioning minors since as far as I know they can’t get married without parental consent. Comparing mortgage contracts and credit card receipts to marriage hardly makes the point of it being a basic right since neither of the items you mention are basic rights. Since I don’t view marriage as a right your last sentence is meaningless. Might I suggest you save your argument for those who openly oppose what you seek. I’m indifferent on the issue. My original post here was in response to an angry threatening post made. Since then Bankstreet and I have respectfully debated the issue. While I don’t agree with that view I do respect the ability to present it in a rational reasonable manner.

You miss the point Anonymous. It is you who are saying that gay folk have a limited right to enter contracts. That is what makes it comparable to minors, the mentally infirm, and certain classes of bankrupts. And that is a class similar to where you want to put gay people.

It is you who said that “Marriage is nothing more than religious or legal arrangement or contract." Your phrase was very clear, “nothing more than.” And you do not say “religious AND legal arrangement,” you say “religious OR legal arrangement.”

So as far as being a legal arrangement your suggestion that gay folk cannot enter into it is exactly the same as denying us the right to sign a mortgage or a credit card receipt. Ir really has no bearing on whether you “don’t view marriage as a right,” if the right we are discussing is the right to enter what you call a “legal arrangement or contract."

If you want to define marriage as something other than “nothing more than religious or legal arrangement or contract," then you might have a place to offer your view that since you “don’t view marriage as a right” that my last sentence is meaningless. You don't make the claim that marriage is a “particular” right though. You classify it “nothing more than” other contracts.

And so my last sentence refers to that right, the right to enter contacts. By denying us that right you put us in the same class as minors, the mentally infirm, and certain classes of bankrupts.

I really seem to have missed the “threatening post made” that you say you were responding to. And I don't understand why you are arguing against gay marriage if your statement “(i)'m indifferent on the issue” is made in good faith.

Dana until you prove marriage as a right you really can't talk about a right being denied. I don't view contracts or the ability to enter them as a basic right either. I define a basic right as something all people are entitled to - things such as food, clothing, shelter etc. I'm not arguing against gay marriage I am arging against calling marriage a right it isn't. The first post where the angry poster talked about taking this presupposed basic right if not given is the one I speak of. I take exception to that last sentence. I have not ever said a thing in opposition to gay marriage and dare you you show where I have done so. What I have done is questioned calling marriage a basic right and to place it on the same level as true human rights violations where people are tortured ot executed for differnt practices, beliefs or ideas is an insult. Any suffering you want to claim pales in comparison.

Anonymous,

Let's review how this discussion got started.

James in San Diego apparently inflamed you when he termed access to civil marriage a "basic human right." I attempted to mollify you by pointing out that our Constitutional rights are pretty basic (and certainly human). I thought we agreed that access to civil marriage is not on a par with threats to live and liberty. Your returning to that canard now is a disingenuous red herring.

I drew parallels to the rights others have fought for -- and gained -- through the Courts and through civil disobedience. I made the point that access to lunch counters (which you mistook for access to food) was a legitimate pursuit of equal rights, comparable to our fight now for marriage equality.

As to marriage being a "right," are not all the services of the State to be accorded all citizens equally, as their "right"? Is not civil marriage a service of the State? Is not the denial of that particular service the denial of a right? In the context of American civil rights, a "basic human right"?

Yes, "threats" have been made here. But those threats have been only of civil disobedience ... a phenomenon as American as apple pie.

No one is asking you to champion our cause. What we are asking is that you acknowledge its validity.

You are mistaken Anonymous. The ability to enter contracts is a right under law and has been supported as such at various times by the Supreme Court except for certain classes of persons such as I defined earlier.

It is largely supported by the due process clause and the equal protection clause. Without the right to enter contracts we would not be able to pursue commerce, own land, possess a driver's license, or even register to vote. There are instances where the right has been truncated for the common good, such as not allowing people to enter into a contract that would violate their right to minimum wage or overtime pay. Or, as alluded to earlier, persons who are unable to understand the consequences of their signatures, such as minors and the mentally infirm, are not able to enter contracts.

But your prohibition does not reach that level. You would deny that right solely on the basis of sexual orientation and solely regarding a particular legal instrument.

That is ludicrous. Your pretzel logic could have us deny an African American man (or some other class of citezen) the right to sign a voter's registration application yet enforce his contact on a sub-prime loan. I'm not saying you would do such a thing, only that it follows the same logic. And that is a logic that tosses the equal protection clause out the window.

Your definition of rights as including “food, clothing, shelter etc.” is wrong. We have no such rights.

I truly don't understand how you can say you are not arguing against gay marriage when you tell me and BankStreet and others that we cannot sign that contract. Again, you are the one that insisted that it only a contract. BankStreet did not compare it to torture, nor did I. Only you have used those words, except where George quoted you.

I still have not found the “threats” you mentioned that you were responding to.

As a right-wing lawyer, I specialize in being able to see through liberal cant. Like a lawn mower cutting through weeds or a very masculine razor cuttng through a forest of hair, no one can doubt my sharp edge. (By the way I want to plug the great products from Nair for Men that thankfully advertise on the National Review Online so heavily. We know that all those conservative men who are against gay marriage, and for the complementarity of the sexes are also of course for being smooth like a woman). But having this smoothed, hairless field of rationality allows me to see that Judge Walker's decision is really the opposite of what all the gay people think it is. It is really a loss. Some might say I turned the facts upside down in my National Review piece, and that my logic is part of the regnant conservative detachment from actual events, but I know better. We conservatives know that being hairless on our manly chests, and maybe down below allows our intellectual phalanxes to stand out. That is what being a conservative is about. Being so secure in yourself that you can fight gay marriage and use Nair for Men to become like those we are properly drawn to due to our adherence to moral complementarity !!!

I recommend it, it has worked for me.

Ed Wheelan, Anti-Gay Rights and Nair for Men spokesman.

Thanks Ed. While I respectfully disagree with your position it is at least intellectually consistent. Keep it smooth Ed.

Peter, those “reactionary types would indeed like to deny lots of things.” They come from the same mold as those who denied women the vote, blacks the classroom.

Forty seven years ago Gwyn oak amusement park in Baltimore County was desegregated. This was against the backdrop of protests by many of the moral and religious leaders of the community on the fourth of July of that year. Then County Executive Spiro T. Agnew had been critical of the protesters saying that they had “lost sight of their responsibilities.”

When you put old wine into new wine skins the skins will burst at the seams. Resistance to progress is futile. People like our first poster, James, will do as they please. Others will bash back.

The genie will not go back in the bottle.

My dear Mrs. La Rocca,

I am so gratified that you have praised my intellectual consistency, for that is what we conservatives aspire to. Your praise had made me realize that Nair for Men may be the missing link that allows people with different beliefs, but who are also faithful to the Church, to find common ground. Recently in the " ------ ' Club in New York City I saw Professor Robert Georgeous changing in the locker room. It is clear that he is a devotee of Nair for Men. There was not a hair on his complementarily attracted body. And I heard him say something like "Tom is like a baby's bottom!" Who knows what that means, but clearly it indicates the relevance of conservative Nair-initiated hairlessness and the appropriate understanding of the long-standing sense of marriage as a union between the at male, and the hairless female. One must naturally exempt Maggie Gallagher from all these considerations, even though she has been so important to the cause. I hear she and her lawful partner have a role reversal of hirsute realities worked out, that comports with lawful complementarity, But it is beyond the tolerance of the average hairless heterosexual male to even imagine. I want to thank you for helping me grasp how important Nair for Men can be for the conservative cause. We may differ on some issues, but it is important that someone intelligent has recognized the centrality of hairlessness to conservative National Review religiosity.

Ed Wheelan, Anti-Gay and Nair for Men Spokesman for the National Reviews

Have you considered either waxing or laser hair removal Mr. Wheelan? Both are rather painful and could be considered a form of penance; somewhere in between wearing a hair shirt and flaggelation. The laser process is permanent, so if you are looking for perpetual remission of sins this is your best choice. On the other hand, if penance has a more obsessive component for you the waxing is much better. You can return again and again for repeated sacrifice and expiation. It is a grand stratagem, but not for faint of heart, though it provides maximum joy.

But then, sweetheart, you seem like such a “smooth operator.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgLPunVhToo

Mrs. LaRocca,

It is clear to me that you should be working at a Think Tank. I am in awe of your suggestions for further hairless complementarity.

Thanks

O thank God, my recent trip to the Catholic New Media Conference has shown me the light at the end of the tunnel. I now have found an identity by which to resolve all my contradictions in light of the all these cultural gay rights rulings. I believe in six degrees of separation, and when recently interviewed by another very conservative blogger named Peter Ingemi, who calls himself DaTechGuy, I made a connection. Through his wonderful site I have come to know another wonderful sit called A Conservative Lesbian, by Cynthia Yockey. She helped me see the light. Finally, I understand my true identity, I am a Conservative Lesbian! The truth will set you free.

T.P, Conservative Lesbian
The American Papist Lesbian, and St. Louis Jesuits Rockstar

Bankstreet you are partially correct James comments did inflame me but not because he claimed something as a basic right. The word taking does not equate tp civil disobedience. Peaceful civil disobedience is about convincing people of your cause not taking. Taking denotes a more aggressive tone one bound to generate more push back.

Leaving aside the issue of marriage as a right in general, there are right and basic rights. Basic rights are those all people regardless of age, beliefs, mental capacity etc should be accorded. I don't happen to hold marriage in the category of a basic human right. American civics is not the guide to determining basic human rights. If that were so then you are saying African Americans had no basic rights until the constitution was amended to outlaw slavery.

What I questioned was calling your cause a basic right and threatening to take it as opposed to working to convince people. Since there is no clear cut definition or basic rights or even rights in some areas why exactly does it bug you that I don't consider marriage (regardless of sexual orientation) a basic human right?

Dana simply saying I'm wrong and holding your opinion out as the only acceptable is hardly a convincing argument. Besides doing that all you've done is insult my logic, which unlike yours is not blurred by my passions, and basically called me a liar for my comment about not arguing against gay marriage. Of course you didn't show where I did either but let your passion for your cause blur your ability to make a dispassionate logical argument. Next time try making your case without appealing to ridicule.

The Thirteenth Amendment only abolished slavery Anonymous. We still had a long way to go. Five years later the Fifteenth Amendment removed race as a barrier to voting. Gwyn Oak Amusement Park in Baltimore County wasn't desegregated until 1963. Two hundred and eighty people were arrested the month before for protesting the racist policies that were then considered settled law. County Executive Spiro T. Agnew was critical of the protesters saying that they had “lost sight of their responsibilities.”

And it is that kind of civil disobedience that seems to offend you when LGBT folk say they will take their rights rather than wait to be served them, like caviar, on a sliver of toast.

On the same day that Gwynn Oak was liberated 250,000 people marched on Washington organized by the openly gay social activist Bayard Rustin, among others. There Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. made his most famous utterance: “I have a dream.” Centuries of inequality would not change overnight. The “rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice,” as Dr. King phrased it that day, would begin with continued struggle.

On September 15 that same year, four black girls died in the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church bombing, in Birmingham, Alabama. In “Behind The Backlash: White Working-class Politics in Baltimore,” author Kenneth D. Durr reveals that the Archdiocese of Baltimore held George Wallace personally responsible for those deaths and that the Archdiocese dubbed him a “law defying racist.”

That's how people “take” their rights. They were not dependent on others opining what rights they were willing to hold as a basic human rights.

Nor will we.

Dana what either eludes you or you choose not to see is that MLK didn't use words like "take". Mahatma Gandhi did use such combative terms as well. They understood that words like that are confrontational and only cause others to dig their heels in against them. It does little if anything to change anyone’s mind. He understood that one had to enlighten people to see the inequity they supported. Speaking as one who at the moment is indifferent on the issue using confrontational words won't get you any closer to your goal. What it will do is succeed in making those who might support your cause end up opposing it. Civil disobedience doesn't bother me unless it becomes angry or threatening. See my first response to Bankstreet. You seem to see things black and white or maybe give and take is more appropriate. Your passion for what you want still blinds you from clearly seeing what needs to be done to obtain it.

“If I can't have my basic human rights, then I will take them!” Is not a threatening phrase silly. The man didn't say he was going to harm somebody. He said he was going to get married. Married! You know; hold hands, you-wash-I-dry, go to PTA meetings, church picnics....

Our rights are not dependent on the opinion of an anonymous person who says he doesn't “happen to hold marriage in the category of a basic human right.” That being the opinion you expressed and then labeled as “indifferent.”

We already have a right to equal treatment under the law. What eludes me is why you think your opposition, ehem, I mean “indifference,” should make a difference. Sure we would like for you and every one else to understand the Constitution and Judge Walker's decision, and even Attorney General Gansler's opinion. But if you don't understand any of that it changes nothing.

Angry civil disobedience bothers you?

So be bothered. It bothered Spiro Agnew when Priests and Rabbi's and housewives marched on Gwynn Oak. He got over it. Do you think the protesters who were assaulted that day were not angry? Do you really believe Dr. King wasn't angry? Or Gandhi?

We already have the right to get married. It is only a matter of spreading the joy to the rest of the nation. All the whining of the wingnuts insisting they would defeat Mr. Gansler because of his opinion came to nothing. The Republican's threw in the towel and chose not to run against him. We appreciate the Republican indifference.

All of that said the history of our movement began quite opposite from the Civil Rights struggle of Dr. King. We started out with Stonewall. And man, it was a riot!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots#.22The_last_straw.22

Dana,

Keep in mind in arguing with this anonymous dude that Glenn Beck also claims great insight into the ethos of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Consider the source. I love everything you have said. Keep saying it . But remember .....pearls before swine.

Dana I'm pretty sure I already stated I have no issue with nonviolent civil disobedience. I don't ever recall accusing the poster of anything except using threatening words. How would you react if those opposed to gay marriage used such words as angry and take. I'm quite sure your reaction would be different that it is since you are passionate about the issue. I never said King or Gandhi weren't angry. I quite sure they were, but they had the clarity of mind to refrain from using combative terms in their causes.

How exactly is saying marriage isn’t a basic right taking any side in this debate. You want to keep on making accusations against me. Again I challenge you to prove them. I actually find both sides rather in the matter childish. Both seem more interested in hurling insults at each other and anyone else not firmly on their side. From the sound of your post you appear no different.

I knew from the beginning that whichever side lost the vote in California would then make a legal challenge to reverse the outcome. It would have been faster to simply settle it their in the first place. What determines everyone rights, including yours and mine, is the law. Either as it is written or as interpreted in the courts. Your opinion of what rights you think you have is completely meaningless. In the end it will be determined by the law and whichever way it ends up will have no effect on me. There are far more serious issues to get upset over then if one can marry. If you your passion didn’t cloud your judgment you’d be able to see that.

George thanks for adding additional proof that it isn’t just the anti-gay marriage side that can appeal to ridicule as opposed to make a logical argument. I’ve been insulted and attacked by both sides for not jumping to their cause.

Mr. Anony gets an A+ in Back-Pedaling!
Anonymous- Man speak with forked tongue!

George - Care to back that up with something or are you just going to keep up baseless personal attacks. You sound like a gay version of Glen Beck.

A+++ in stealing other people's insult lines too! America's Got Talent!

You are back-pedaling Anonymous. George was pointing that out in the same way that I pointed out the flaws in your logic. It isn't a “baseless personal attack.” it is an observation based on a reading of your posts.

The first thing to keep in mind is that James never threatened you or anyone else. He said he was angry and that he intends to secure his rights. He said he would “take” his rights. The second thing to keep in mind is that you accused BankStreet of “aggressive posturing” and you wrote to him “making threatening sounding statements won't help you....” Yet he did neither. The third thing to keep in mind is that you accused me of calling you a liar when I wrote “I don't understand why you are arguing against gay marriage if your statement “(i)'m indifferent on the issue” is made in good faith.” I did not call you a liar. I said I did not understand.

These three things I list because they indicate that you do not read or do not understand what we are writing. Your knee jerks and you react to what has not been said.

Now you are saying that what determines rights is the law. That's what I have been trying to tell you all along. But a few posts ago you wrote “I define a basic right as something all people are entitled to - things such as food, clothing, shelter etc.” Yet food, clothing, and shelter are not defined as rights in any law. Still confused you write to me “Your opinion of what rights you think you have is completely meaningless.” I offered no opinion, that's what you did with your food and shelter nonsense.

The only one on the offensive here is you. We are going to continue being angry until we have taken our rights in every state of the union and at the federal level. If the words “angry” and “take” bother you then you will have to remain bothered.

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
(Gandhi)

In -order to fully understand where the attitude of believers wishing to protect the sanctity of marriage are coming from, you should see the biblical definition of marriage at http://www.youtube.com/mrsbettybowers

Dana – Let’s see you called my original post trivial. My reasoning absurd pardon me but those sure sound like personal attacks and not attempting to point out any flaws. I don’t recall making such comments about you despite the fact I don’t agree with your reasoning on the matter. George has done his share of insulting as well. I’m not going to list his as he managed to out do you in that area. You don’t agree with me that is your right and I respect that. However, nothing you have said proves your view or disproves mine. Before attacking my logic and reasoning you might want to reread your post and consider if it’s your reasoning or emotion talking when post.

I like that Gandhi quote. I’ve used it before. Unfortunately it applies to you far more than me. That was precisely why I responded to the original post. Despite the fact that the legal battle is slowly going in your favor you still seem to be looking for a fight. Why because not everyone see the issues like the big deal you do? I’m not fighting for or against anything. You can rationalize it anyway you wish and attack me as your foe as much as you like. The one thing you can’t due is change my mind as to what constitutes a right and realizing that you do the only thing you can appeal to emotion and ridicule. TO be honest other than what you want I see little difference in methods between you and those on the opposite side of the debate as you. Both appear to let their emotions get the better. Both seem to have the either you with us or against us mentality.

Dana you misunderstand my post to Bankstreet. I never accused him of anything. That reference was meant those fighting for gay marriage not Bankstreet personally. Maybe if you stop using your emotions and try looking more logically you wouldn't keep making accusations against me which lack any credibility.

Be as angry as you like it its no bother to me. It will just make your struggle that much more difficult and longer as you alienate people who might otherwise support your cause. It makes no difference to me one way or the other as a I said from the very beginning. If you weren’t so caught up trying to pick a fight you might have realized my views have no bearing on your crusade.

George - Grow up and try backing up your claims with something. I say try because we both know in the end you can't do it. Your smartest move would be to not repsond. Let's see if you are that smart.

Robert,

Thank you for bringing Betty Bowers to the fore. That was hilarious! I look forward to gleaning more wisdom from her at my leisure.

I never used the word “trivial” to describe your first post anonymous. You must have me confused with someone else. I have argued that your reasoning is absurd. It started out this way with your description of marriage as nothing more than a legal contract and then failing to accept that it is ruled by contract law. You could have amended your argument to say that marriage was somehow different than other contracts, but you didn't. Such arguments have been made to limit the right to enter contracts in the past and have been successful. You didn't do that.

These are not personal attacks though, not the one you falsely accuse me of nor the one that I did and defend. Calling your argument trivial and your reasoning absurd does not attack your person, it attacks your argument and your reasoning. No one has said that “Anonymous” is trivial and absurd. But even if we did it would hardly be a personal attack.

It can't be personal if you can't be identified.

“You would also do well to remember you are a minority before making idle threats.” you told James when he “threatened” to get married. That comment reveals everything we need to know about your character and motivations.

You are mistaken to think I have a “with us or against us” mentality. I don't give a rats *ss if some anonymous fellow is with me or against me. My mama wasn't afraid of the white sheeted men in the backwoods of Arkansas and Tennessee. I would be a lousy example of the dignity I inherited from her if I were to shrink from the unnamed. Civil rights are not determined by public opinion, they are determined by law. Our country has a history of cowardly men trying to take away the rights of others whom they perceive as weak.

You are defending your ignorance of the language when you say that you did not attack BankStreet. It isn't up to the reader to figure out what you meant to say or would rather have said. We can only interpret what you actually said.

You wrote; “making threatening sounding statements won't help you....”

You did not write ““making threatening sounding statements won't help those who make them...,” or “making threatening sounding statements won't help those fighting for gay marriage”

If you said the wrong thing just man-up to it. Don't blame me for your error.

Dana my apologies it was George who made the trivial comment. However, you can play all the word games you want calling someone's logic absurd is an appeal to ridicule not a logical argument. I'm not sure there is any other way to interpret an appeal to ridicule. Maybe you didn't mean it that way that I can not say.

What exactly does giving a reminder to a minority about making threats reveal about me? I noticed you ignored the rest of what I said. Probably because you were too busy rushing to conclusions about me. Actually it's your ignorance of language that appears to be the problem. No one else except you seems to have jumped to the conclusions you complain about. Since the post wasn’t to you I wasn’t counting on having to dumb it down. I’ll keep that in mind for future posts. One more thing your comments about me go well beyond mine to Bankstreet yet in your mind that’s ok. Are you familiar with the word hypocrite?

The only think I blame you for is your own ignorance and inability to force your view on me without appeals to emotion and ridicule. What’s even dumber is you’re doing with someone who doesn’t even oppose what you want. I never said you were afraid of anyone. Your “us against them mentality stems” from your desire to argue with anyone not firmly on your side even someone not directly opposed to what you want.

You don’t need to give a civics lesson I’m well aware how things work. I dare say more than you based on your posts. I’m sure you’ll accuse me of being against you for this, but I’m beyond caring, you should be concerned about popular opinion because enough people turn against your cause and right wingers could end up amending the constitution to deny you what you want. Personally I could care less either way, but given your desire to paint me as a foe I doubt you’ll accept that for what it was intended as friendly advice for someone whose emotions on an issue cloud their logic.

Oh dear, you do take offense easily, don't you.

Do you really think that innuendo of some bad end coming to your adversary as in “you would also do well to remember you are a minority before making idle threats,” is indicative of a gentleman.

It isn't.

Dana,

Yeah, this guy finds great offense in being called "trivial" but he is willing to put other people's basic rights through a blender of bizarre casuistry. He considers his bruised ego the equivalent of having one's fundamental rights disrespected. Beneath contempt. "Gentleman" , yeah right, more like bullshit artist.

Dana I don't recall ever calling myself a gentlemen. Please don't confuse anything I've said for taking offense. Had I taken offense to something I would be nowhere near as cordial as I have been. I simply made a point that seems to have rubbed you the wrong way. You can't seem to accept that everyone has a right to opinions including those that dare I say it don't agree with yours. Why spend so much time on a person who has actually said nothing in opposition to what you want and doesn't oppose what you want simply said it wasn't a basic right and pointed out that there are far bigger violations of far more important things going on and reminded you that making what could be considered threats when you are a minority isn’t the wisest course of action. Leaving out my opinion on rights nothing I have said is incorrect you simply don’t like it and you let your emotion get the better of you keeping you from making a dispassionate argument based on logic that would even get me to consider changing my view on the subject. You’d be better served taking a cue from Bankstreet. He made some sound arguments leaving out ridicule and also had the wisdom to realize that there is no reason to debate someone who isn’t actually opposing the change desired.

Ravensfan Al-Anon for someone making posts lacking any logic you commenting on mine is about as meaningful as the village idiot calling someone stupid or listening to Rush Limabaugh discuss civil rights. I didn’t think anyone could post a less intelligent post than some already here. Congratulations on showing it was possible.

Anonymous, like so many people who want to have their cake and eat it too -- mostly conservatives by the way -- you are a chameleon. Your questions to Dana show a lack of comprehension of the reason for the whole thing, the "why" of the whole conversation. You are an exemplar, a useful exemplar. Like the "independents" who are in every way Republicans except in name, you want to pose. Now you are a bad ass, next minute a logician. Thank God you are being cordial, otherwise we would have been inundated with capital letters and exclamation marks. I know your type. Basically harmless, but the effects of what you are doing is not. One of the media characters in the gay marriage debate whom I like to parody is similar to you, I think. I parodied him on another site, a rather simian one. He and his friends would reply with four-letter words and hyperbolic punctuation under the moniker of SnoopDoggy or something like that . It showed the real state of his sanity when he thinks his Commentariat is not watching. I know that is how you would react if you were really mad. Like him, you strike a pose of reasoned conversation, but quickly can turn to a shriek. Like my parodied character, who was even moved to decry anonymous bloggers recently [!] after his own foul-mouthed simian escapades, you utterly miss the point. The point of all of this, from my perspective, is to gradually undermine the respectability of point of view that you and others represent. People like you participate in it, by silence and by word. You participate by haughty rejection, and by pretentious condescension. Next minute you will be a "Rambo" type I am sure, like another of my favorite characters a foppish boy who apparently now fancies himself a Catholic Rambo. Hilarious! The reason the strategy works is not rocket-science, and speaks more of basic integrity. It is because the only real countering medicine would be one decent statement that realistically worked in a pluralistic context, instead of wishful thinking and posturing. A statement like "I will grant others their rights, as long as you will grant me my religious right to personally conceive of your life-choice differently than you do." With that they really could be influential in the culture, they might actually win a culture war or two . That they will not do so , and neither will you, therefore says a lot. . So have at it tilting at your windmills with "logic", which by the way you seem quite new to. Keep up your knowing disdain. Your lack of humor psychologically speaks volumes, and your enthusiasm is very useful.

p.s. I hate Rock n Roll but I often think that a great theme music for blogs would be Axl Rose's Welcome to the Jungle.

DEVEROUX
Is that his tart? Does Pat have a tart?

FERGUS
She's not a tart.

DEVEROUX
No, of course not, she's a lady.

FERGUS
She's not that either.

That's right Anonymous, you never did call yourself a gentleman. But your not acting like a lady either. None of the posters here have attacked you personally. You use words like “village idiot” to another poster and then whine when you get your feelings hurt.

I will not bother to address the words you use to attack me because I grew up in a world of breeding and decorum where ladies look the other way from vulgarity.

George I had a feeling you weren’t smart to let it rest. You really are in love with yourself aren’t you? Here's a suggestion instead of long winded irrelevant stories why don't you explain how I've said anything that in anyway has any effect on your cause. Why exactly my not believing marriage in general as a basic right causes you such concern? Maybe you can do it without irrelevant stories designed to mock or malign other groups which may or may not be of concern to me. Your problem is I made a point that you can't counter with all your smoke and mirrors or knit picking definitions so you resort to appeals to ridicule as your only tactic. A popular tactic used by the left and right to avoid actually arguing the substance. Especially good, along with appeals to emotion when there is no logical argument. Throw in a couple of irrelevant conclusions and you can pontificate for hours and never actually discuss the issue. I’ve already on more than one occasion acknowledged my view on what constitutes a right is an opinion and even said everyone is entitled to their opinion yet somehow for those like you that only seems to apply when the opinion agrees with your own. Maybe in the next response you can take a few shots at the Mormons and Evangelicals just to spread the ridicule around. If possible try and answer my questions if it isn’t too much trouble or gets in the way of your ridiculing others.

Dana so your saying this isn't a personal attack "Beneath contempt. "Gentleman" , yeah right, more like bullshit artist" How exactly do you define one then I'm curious? All I did was respond in kind. Sorry if you didn't like it.

What exactly did I attack you with in that last post? Sounds like the only with hurt feelings is you dear. What vulgarity did I attack you with? So far the only person crossing that line is the person you defended from my "village idiot" comment. I'm sorry to say I find that quite hypocritical on your part. Apparently that world you grew up didn't teach you about lying as to imply I said anything vulgar in an attack on you is a complete lie on your part.

Yes, everyone is entitled to their opinion. But when your opinion attempts to deny LGBT people equal protection under the law we will stand up for ourselves. Your advice to George, basically telling him to shut up or else, only showed your contempt for those who would dare disagree with you. Baltimore ceased being a carbon copy of the antebellum south long ago. Reminding folk that they are a minority and suggesting they should keep in their place as in, “You would also do well to remember you are a minority before making idle threats,” only reinforces the image you have built for yourself.

I didn't say that you attacked me in the “last” post. In one post alone, though, you addressed me with these words:

“your ignorance....” “Since the post wasn’t to you I wasn’t counting on having to dumb it down.....” “The only think I blame you for is your own ignorance....” “What’s even dumber....”

I'm sorry that someone said that your comments were"beneath contempt” and suggested that you are a “bullshit artists.” But it was not sweet Dana who addressed you in that fashion.

It causes me great angst to repeat the unwholesome language with which a person addressed a lady of polite demeanor. I can only assure the rest of the readers that it is not intended to offend your ears. Were it not for Anonymous' insistence that these vulgarities be repeated I was quite content to drop the matter. I hope the example of my fall from grace in this manner will be an example to the rest of you, especially the darling Stonewall Girls, that social intercourse with ruffians is fraught with danger.

Stonewall Girls - Nice out of context quote. I noticed you ignored where I challenged George to back up what he said. Did you read all our and simply decide to pick ne sentence, or did you just not read the all the exchanges? How does my opinion deny you anything? I keep hearing it, but when I ask someone to logically explain how all I get is silence, or attempt to change the discussion, or appeals to emotion or ridicule. I suggested refraining from using threatening language nothing more. If you weren't so busy applying your own biased stereotype to someone who doesn't see things the same as you maybe you might realize your actions are no better than those you criticize.

You go girls, Stonewall Girls, thank you--- I could not have said it better myself. This lame-brain wants me bad mouth Mormons. No way, they are generally way too hot. As for Evangelicals, I won't do that either, because though there are a few brilliant ones (like the guy who wrote Theologies of the Reformation I recently read), generally they are way too dumb to make it fair.

Erratum: Theology of the Reformers, by Timothy George. Excellent book!

George - You have no problem bashing some groups, conservatives, independents, catholics then you try and act like you're above that sort of thing with two of the most outspoken anti-gay marriage groups. What a hypocrite you are. All groups have their brilliant and not so brilliant people. If you weren't so narrow minded arrogant and biased you'd realize that. I noticed you still didn't bother to actually address my questions to you. Why is it you do everything but that. You claimed you knew me. If that’s true addressing those questions shouldn’t really pose that much of a challenge should they? Any chance you'll ever bother addressing them or are you simply going tp keep dancing around using ridicule and emotional appeals.

Dana as I recall it was you who said "your ignorance of the language " before the response you mentioned. You seem to be able to dish it out, but get offended when it's offered back at you. Never the less I will apologize. I was over the top with my response. There was no call to say what I said. You don’t need to be sorry for comments you didn’t make. However, it would be nice if you could admit you were wrong in claiming no one made any personal attacks. There was no need for you to repeat anything. All you needed to do was admit your comment regarding personal attacks was wrong. Something you didn’t do despite being sorry the comment was made. You were determined to drop the matter? You were the one who brought it up by singling out my response comment while ignoring the original comment and claiming no one made any personal attacks. The only thing you seem to be determined to do is ignore attacks made by those who agree with you and pick up mine. That despite the fact I have never ever said gay marriage shouldn’t be legalized.

Anonymous,

A fair reading of history shows that all change is organic, and not rational. Rationality is a tool, but it has never really convinced anyone, if they did not have other reasons to believe it. What rationality can do is help create a preponderance of evidence that helps persuade. Societies are not just about rationality, call me a Burkean of sorts for believing that.

At the same time there is such a thing as logic. It can be a useful tool. But it is limited. It may not be able to prove every position, but it can prove many divergent ones. The trouble is, the view you staked out, really is not in any logical frame for a plural society. There may be, as I said, certain societal traditions for holding what you do, but not logical ones. Those opposed to gay marriage usually change the frame of the argument where they can have some logical coherence. If there are institutions like marriage that are prior to societal construction, then marriage cannot be conceived necessarily as a right by all sorts of people. This is what is usually argued. But you were not arguing that. Those who do, however, miss a very important premise of their own logic. That is that one must necessarily accept that there are institutions that are not societal constructions. They have a right to believe that there are. But the basis of a pluralistic society is that such as society must act as if they were not. Not to negate them, but to allow others who don't believe that their own way of existence in that plural field. By the way, this is where the slippery Professor Robert George always smuggles in a lot of malarkey. He will not allow for a true plural construction. That is his choice. But there is absolutely no reason for anyone to accept this if they don't want to. And it is a democratic disaster to require anyone to.

Back to your argument. You seemed to want to stay in the realm of rights and argue that gay marriage is not one. But by any logic of plural construction gay marriage must be as much a right as any other otherwise plural construction is negated and, ironically, with it the right of religionists to hold their worldview too. As I said the only way to change this frame is argue for the priorness of institutions. It can be done, but only on a religiously philosophical basis. It simply has no standing societally in a plural view, except in terms of enforcing current mores on marital duties and child-rearing. These change, and quickly, but that in itself would seem to argue for the plural view anyways.

Do you have no sense of humor Anonybaby? Is it either so flaccid or so tied in knots that you miss the irony of the whole thang?

We started the war in 1969 and we finally won. You are marching in front of the plantation begging the south to rise again.

It will not.

So sad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZ88oTITMoM

George, my mama always told me to carry myself with one demeanor in Kmart and another one at Bergdorf's. She said it would keep me from being beat up for being a sissy.

Of course I disagreed because I was always a disagreeable child. I used Capote as an example, flitting from Kansas to Manhattan he remained the same little butterfly. I said “Mommy, I want to be Truman Capote when I grow up. I don't want everyone to be my friend, only beautiful people.”

Momma had that disturbed look on her face that all momma's got in the 60's when they realized their kid's wanted to be Capote or Liberace.

George you raise many good points and I completely agree with everything you said in the first paragraph. My argument as you put it is marriage, is not a basic right for anyone straight or gay. In one of my early posts I said “While I'm not sure I consider marriage a basic human right I have no quarrel with those who do” For some reason you and many others seem to be intent on painting me as being anti-gay marriage. My original post was a response to what sounded like an angry frustrated person using language that besides sounding threatening, in my opinion, also doesn’t really aid your cause. For some reason ever since then I’ve been deluged with a combination of arguments and in some case personal attacks for being anti-gay marriage. Every time I ask someone to explain how I get no response. You and I have traded some nasty shots and for my part in that I apologize for the comments. I do not apologize for my opinion which I believe correct. I respect your right to hold a different opinion on the subject. All I ask is for the same courtesy.

Stonewall Girls what humor am I missing? You might want to read all my posts before making judgments. I noticed you ignored my questions in response to your earlier post. Why is that When & where did I voice any opposition to gay marriage? I will say comparing gay marriage to slavery is an insult to those who suffered far worse than simply not being able to marry. Even if I believed marriage was a right how can you compare that to being treated like property with no rights. Sorry call me humorless but I find that struggle and the later struggle for equal rights far more serious than marriage. What I find sad is so many people so willing to jump to conclusions about someone. This if your not with us your against us attitude that comes from so many.

Anonymous,

Your logic is now starting to remind me of Foucault's. That is a very different sense of social construction, and a quicksand. Glad you liked at least a few points. As my favorite "philosopher" said, "Blessed are the peacemakers."

In answer to your oddly constructed sentence “Why is that When & where did I voice any opposition to gay marriage?”

(1) “I could care less about the issue, ….” Posted by: Anonymous | August 17, 2010 3:42 PM

(2) “The ham sandwich is food and I view the ability to obtain food a basic right. Marriage hardly rates on the same level.” Posted by: Anonymous | August 18, 2010 11:07 AM

(3) “I’m indifferent on the issue.” Posted by: Anonymous | August 18, 2010 4:07 PM

(4) “...I am arguing against calling marriage a right it isn't. ... What I have done is questioned calling marriage a basic right ….” Posted by: Anonymous | August 18, 2010 5:51 PM

(5) “I don't happen to hold marriage in the category of a basic human right.... “ Posted by: Anonymous | August 19, 2010 12:23 PM

(6) “How exactly is saying marriage isn’t a basic right taking any side in this debate.” Posted by: Anonymous | August 20, 2010 11:42 AM

Synopsis: Anonymous, what you have said is that you could care less about the issue (1), believe that a ham sandwich is more important than marriage (2), you are indifferent to the issue (3), you are arguing that marriage is not a right, and is not a “basic right” either (4&5), and you want to know how saying so suggests he is taking sides (6).

It all sounds perfectly logical to us and not the least bit absurd. We can't imagine anyone construing it to mean anything other than that you while you are opposed to the right of gay people to get married, but at the same time you really don't care.

Oh Anon the girls were making a metaphor! The girls were not comparing marriage to slavery, well, maybe Erica was, if you met her and her husband you would understand. You know they're into this whole D/s scene that I don't really understand. Sorry to digress.

What the girls meant when they said: "We started the war in 1969 and we finally won. You are marching in front of the plantation begging the south to rise again," was that they won the war.

In 1969 the girls defeated the police in New York City in what has become known as the Stonewall Rebellion. Historically we can compare this to John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry, with the notable difference that Brown lost. Still, that was the start of the struggle. Our subsequent gains in the civil rights arena can be compared to the Civil War, except of course the Stonewall Girls have been to finishing school since '69, so now they fight with words. The early struggle for marriage equality can be compared to the reconstruction era. In other words, you'll have to get used to it folks because this is the law in some states and soon will be the law in all.

I have asked the girls to please not post metaphorically to you anymore. They all agreed except Erica. She is pouting right now and wants to know what will happen....

Dana thanks for pointing out my failure to proofread a post. Maybe you could explain for me what purpose there was in making that comment other than to insult me. If you can't see it then I feel sorry for you. You took the sandwich comment not as intended. I've already explained it and don't see the need to do it again since you've already made up your mind on what it means. I noticed you couldn't bring yourself to admit you were wrong on the no one's making personal attack comment. Not surprising I wasn't expecting it. What you think about my opinion is your problem not mine. Sorry if you don’t like it but I have the same right to voice mine as you do so in your own words get use to it

For someone who claims not to be making personal attacks you sure like coming as close to it as you can without actually name calling. Any doubt from your first post was eliminated with the second. Please don’t insult my intelligence by denying it was intended only to correct a misassumption I made. If that was the intent there was no need for much of the first or the last paragraph.

George I'm sorry but I'm not familar with Foucault so I really can't respond other than to say I like and agree with the last quote.

Well you don't need to be. Foucault's ideas and "logic" have so eviscerated reasonable discourse on society, and affected every level of analysis, that they are part of the general culture now. You are a Foucaultian and didn't know it. Case solved.

As much as I would love to play by your rules it just isn't possible since you keep changing them. Or as Foucault might say, we are engaged in abnormal discourse. Foucault is to philosophy what Freddie Mercury is to music and Freddie Mercury is to music what Capote is to literature....

If that makes it any easier. But then anyone who references Foucault has no intention of making it any easier.

Or as Hesse wrote in the Glass Bead Game:

“The only way to learn the rules of this Game of games is to take the usual prescribed course, which requires many years; and none of the initiates could ever possibly have any interest in making these rules easier to learn.”

And if pi had been three we would have gone full circle, but alas, we shall not. So me and the girls are going to pick up our glass beads and go play in somebody elsewhere's sandbox.

Ciao

George - That wasn't very enlightening. It was a good editorial of your opinion on Foucault's ideas and "logic".

Dana I always have to laugh when someone tries to get the last shot in then runs for cover like they are doing the other person the favor. It's usually the sign of someone too proud to admit they could be wrong. I changed the rules? Really. I could have sworn my first and last post said the same basic thing and that anytime the topic veered it was you doing the veering. As much as I'd love seeing how you twist words to try and provet that lie I hope you and the girls do "pick up your glass beads and go play in somebody elsewhere's sandbox" Maybe in one where they oppose what you want.

Anonymous,

I assumed that a simple Google search would give a few good summaries of Foucault's thought. My mistake, in fact you could read several and barely get a sense of why he was so influential. First, preliminarily, he was incredibly useful because he said a variety of very contradictory things, and therefore is useful for just about anything the aspiring academic might want to say. I think there are even essentially conservative Catholic types making use of him now. But more to the issue, the important thread of his thought --the money shot -- is that social constructions are instruments of power and inchoate intent -- instead of deliberate and meaningful interaction. There may indeed be ways to show this in history, but so what? You can show lots of things by history, as well by logic. Rather, to my mind, the only interesting and nontrivial thing to say about historical social constructions is that they follow beliefs closely, and gradually events and constructs come to mirror beliefs in a kind of reciprocity . This does not mean there was not much more going on in any period. For instance, Jean Delumeau has shown that the Middle Ages, far from being a thoroughly Christian era was only so on a more or less elite level. The persistence of semi-pagan culture was huge. Still, to the extent that theories on anything were presented they were almost all in the Christian context. There may have been many people who were ahead of their time who could "think" a thought about a modern idea of "right". But they had no chance unless it was in the contemporaneous frame of reference.
The notion of "rights" we have today was a huge cultural shift begun the 17th and 18th Centuries. It was 80% cultural and 20 % intellectual by my calculation. We are the heirs to this change. At this point appeals to denying rights that assumes a culture prior to the one developed in the Enlightenment is ironically a danger to itself. If you allow ideas based on priorness of institutions, you paradoxically endanger those very institutions. Because tomorrow someone can come along and argue that their interpretations of what constitutes a "bedrock" and "natural" is more correct. In an extreme you could get a Pol Pot. This is why a true plural social construct can give no standing to any claim outside its own democratic plurality. In that way it protects myriad other claims, even one that might seek to negate it in some harmless way. But I follow those theorists who say that those who would seek to destroy the decent social construct itself by direct action or intellectual machination are not to be tolerated by law.

I wasn't trying to get in a "last shot" silly. I was going out after a hard day's work.

I'm glad you laughed though. You take this yourself way too seriously. Now it's time for desert. I'll correct your errors later.

Me. Wrong? Oh don't be silly!

Anonymous, yes, you changed the rules. Really.

First you said that you “define a basic right as something all people are entitled to - things such as food, clothing, shelter etc.” and then in another post you say that what “determines everyone rights, including yours and mine, is the law. Either as it is written or as interpreted in the courts.”

You can't have it both ways. If you want to define food clothing and shelter as “rights” you can't insist that “rights” are what is determined by law, because food clothing and shelter are nowhere defined as rights by law. The right to marry, on the other hand, is determined by law, as the Walker decision clearly put forth. This was also decided by a ruling by the Supreme Court of California based on the equal protection argument in June of 2008. Both were “interpreted in the courts.” which was the test you put forth as your argument for the validity of a “right.”

So by your most recent definition marriage is a “right” as defined by law.

But now you disagree with the conclusion drawn from your own definition.

You bounce back and forth with what you “accept” as a “right.” It is a peculiar moral Esperanto that you speak. If you stuck to one definition it would be possible to engage in dialogue. But you don't. We have no way of determining from one post to the next what definitions you are using.

That's why I and the girls call it the Glass Bead Game. That is why we laugh and play in the sandbox and only take it seriously when the bullies are kicking up the sand.

When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.

George - I did do the Google search and like you found no good summaries of his thought. Thanks for your well thought out response.

Dana - Did the girls come back with you or is it just you this time? You may find it humorous to make subtle ridicules I just don't see the humor in it.

Now on to where you are still wrong. Look at the two quotes and you will find that in one I use the word basic. In another I don't. I happen to be of the opinion that there is a difference. You may not think that way and that is certainly your right. I’m not sure why I seem to be the only one willing to accept that there is more than one way to look at the topic of what a right is. The difference for me is that basic rights aren't determined by law we are all entitled to them regardless of any circumstances. Other, lesser rights are determined by law. You also continue to take statements out of context. You know the law comment was a response to your assertion that those denied rights were the ones best able to determine a right. You also neglect one of my early comments where I admit that marriage as a right is debatable clearly indicating while I don't think it is that is not set in stone, I have not bounced around rather you have danced around so much that you got yourself dizzy and lost track of where this whole thing started. You and others were so busy pre-judging me as anti-gay marriage and attack me for it you didn't take the time to consider what I said. You and the girls need to remember when you play and kick in the sandbox not to kick sand in other peoples face. As well as the possibility that if you do you may get it kicked back at you.

So now you are differentiating between “basic rights” and “lesser rights.” And you are defining “lesser rights” as those defined by law. Is that right?

Marriage is one of those pesky “lesser rights” you speak of that are determined by law, like equal protection, the right to jury trial, to face your accuser; that sort of thing.

You say that the law comment was a response to my assertion that those denied rights were the ones best able to determine a right. But I never asserted that. I have been quite content with allowing the Supreme Court of California and Judge Walker to define that right.

Among “basic rights” you have listed food, shelter and clothing. You have further defined them by saying “we are all entitled to them regardless of any circumstances,” and that “(b)asic rights are those all people regardless of age, beliefs, mental capacity etc should be accorded.”

So by your definition, regardless of circumstances all people have the right to food, shelter and clothing. And that works out just fine until Dana wants caviar and Erica already spent her money on that new Coach handbag; she'll be eating at Wendy's. What started out as Marx's egalitarian Utopia now becomes his nightmare of all hitherto history being a history of class struggle.

So if food shelter and clothing were “basic rights,” which they are not, they would not be “equal rights.” They would always be variable rights defined by class, income, taste, and desire.

As for your question “Did the girls come back with you or is it just you this time?”

The Stonewall Girls are fast asleep on my floor recovering from last night's slumber party. Oh dear, it is past noon. I had better brew some Irish coffee for their breakfast.

Dear Humpty Dumpty,

Have you considered getting a degree in Catholic theology? I think you would find a lot of profound Christological understandings of your brokenness there. We love you the way you are, please don't follow Marie Osmond and go on Nutri-System! Mormonism does not have the profound understanding of ontological indigence that Catholicism has.

Catherine Laboure

Anonymous,

You said: "The difference for me is that basic rights aren't determined by law we are all entitled to them regardless of any circumstances." Can't you see that the ONLY reason you can assume this is that you live in a country that in fact does enshrine your right to this by law. Have you read much twentieth century history I must ask, there were several societies that brought down the force of the state against this basic rights you assume. It is all a matter of law in one way or another,
What you seem to assume as "basic" is in fact the wonderful, glorious freedom given us by the fortuitous and virtuous development in thought and culture that we are heirs to. Please don't take if for granted like it was the mere background of life. It isn't. It could disappear if we are not discerning.

Dana you write as though that differentiation is something new. It was in my very first post to James. Granted I didn’t spell it out, but felt that was pretty obvious since I had said James wasn’t being denied and basic rights, then went on to question marriage as a right. Please don’t try and paint a picture that I’m somehow changing my position or views. I realize it’s easier to paint a picture that I’m changing than simply admitting you either misinterpreted what I said or just simply apologizing for a mistake. It’s a pity that in that world of breeding and decorum they didn’t teach you a little humility.

My apologies someone else made the denied rights comment. Sorry for incorrectly attributing that one to you.

For what purpose, other than finding a reason to argue, are you bringing up your caviar versus Wendy’s example? Why else go from a broad more philosophical view of basic rights to try and narrow to a more specific legalistic focus. The only reason I can come up with is you want to find some reason to either continue arguing rather that to grant to me what I’ve granted to you and others multiple times, the right to their own opinion.

I see now you want to change the discussion and bring up a new term equal rights. Isn’t that bit like saying a shape isn’t a rectangle because it isn’t square? Since you offered no scientific or any other kind of proof what makes my definition of basic rights wrong besides the fact you don’t agree with it?

You might want to make that Irish coffee strong if they plan on entering the discussion again.

George you may not realize it but you just basically supports why I made the very first comment which drew all the exchanges. James post in my opinion didn't take into account the "wonderful, glorious freedom given us by the fortuitous and virtuous development in thought and culture that we are heirs to". I can understand why he would be angry, but at the same time with things moving towards, granted slowly, what he and you are looking for why use language which could be conceived as threatening by anyone. I also would think for the long term you would want to influence public opinion in your favor not just have a judges decisions as your only support. Look at what’s going on in New York City right now all because of a group trying to do something already legal. There are too many people in this country making too many angry speeches and not willing to listen to others who see things differently. I agree we can not take our freedom for granted.

Oh well, I sort of do see your point, but wow it has taken a lot for you to explain it ! Phew, I'm exhausted. And though you do have a point, it is, I'm sorry to say only a little bit interesting. Yes things evolve, yes they change, yes it is sometimes better to let things evolve and change and grow, instead of seizing things by the roots and pulling up. But your point, then sounds a bit like Chauncey Gardner's in Being There.

The trouble is your point seems to also necessarily imply the corollary one. That sometimes things will grow the wrong way, and evolve the wrong way, and change the wrong way. Therefore, If you are as neutral on the subject as you have repeatedly claimed, then you cannot reasonably have any objection to attempts to seize the right, as well as watching it grow, given the risk that the vine might be a choker.

George looking at the first two posts I thought I made it seemed pretty clear. The problem was the discussion evolved into more than it was originally intended by some who either wanted to label me anti-gay marriage or accept a different opinion on what constitutes basic rights. It was the desire of others to complicate matters that dragged out the discussion.

I’ve never voiced an objection either in the past or present to attempts to obtain what you and others view as a right. I do believe I suggested to some their fight wasn’t with me but with those who do oppose what you want. We could debate ad infinitum on basic rights and never come to agreement because there are always going to elements we place different values on. That’s why on many occasions I tried to emphasize that I was expressing and opinion and respected others right to hold a different opinion.

George let me conclude by apologizing to you for any inappropriate or ridiculing personal attacks I made against you in any previous posts.

No offense taken, and anybody who manages to bring a ham sandwich into an intellectual discussion must have merits!

My head is reeling and I can't tell right from right anymore, but I want to commend you Anonymous, George, and Dana for your fortitude. You have displayed stores of patience and stamina I can only dream of.

I shall raise a glass to all of you tonight!

I have come to a recent epiphany which I wrote about on the blog of the American Principled Project. You see I am very perplexed about the lack of morality in the world as an American Papist Lesbian. But now I understand it. If people interact with robots, as in robo-calls, then they are more moral. Phew! Now I understand human affairs. People are more likely to say they are against gay marriage if they are interacting with a robo-call. I guess this is what left for me for consolation of "Winning on Principle" , robotic calls and annoying people during their dinner. I just know that some of the mean people who mock dedicated people like me will point our that only the dumb-asses tend to be the ones answering robo-call surveys. Smart people tend to hang up, they will say. It is self-selected for the cognitively challenged, from the get -go, That is what they will say. But that is because they do not have the same special intuition that I have that allows me to see that, as I have written on my own blog, that committed gay relationships are the same as rape. Now where is my robo-cucumber?? O yea, my night-stand.

Check out the new fabulous APP article on Gold. And wasn't Glenn Beck fabulous!!

TP

Or as Arlo sang,
>I don't want a motor-sickle... I just wanna ride my robo pickle....

Very apt, clever and funny! There was holy laughter amongst the saints and heavenly choir. Bless you, and pray for Thom! He is so busy praying for Christopher Hitchens that he forgets about himself! What he needs is a nice fella.

We have another winner of the The George Weigel Prize for Catholic Convenience. There are many people making cases for Natural Law these days as an antidote for what they see as the decay of society. Some have argued that there are Natural Law reasons for preferring one lifestyle or another. That is kind of old hat now, and unlikely to win an award. But a certain Monsignor Stuart Swetland of St. Mary's Emmitsburg has made a sweeping claim of such brilliant fatuousness that it really stops you in your tracks. In an article in the National Catholic Register attempting to justify the Catholic position on homosexuality he uses the following as a justification:

"Well, many would argue that the tradition of natural law is the basis of the founding of our country. An interpretation of natural law is that you can know moral truth through reason alone."

He says this in such a breezy way that one almost barely notices what is being claimed. It is not just the usual sense that this was a Christian nation and that its governmental philosophy was therefore related in some way to that fact and the legal traditions of Christendom. No , Msgr. Swetland is making a claim of such magnificent fantasy as to be almost unbelievable. After clearly defining Natural Law in terms of the understanding of the Catholic Church, he then makes the statement above. This means, in effect, that Msgr. Swetland is claiming that the U.S.A. was founded on Catholic philosophy!!! What a brilliant suggestion.

The reason it wins the George Weigel Award for Catholic Convenience is that it is a brilliantly wrong-headed idea which is at the same time completely meaningless. Since Catholic philosophy was nowhere a dominant influence on the majority of deciders of our Republic, Swetland;s assertion means, well, nothing. It is a smart sounding bit of total fantasy, perfect for a seminary teacher. We congratulate the winner!!

George maybe you should keep the award. I haven't read the article and since you didn't leave any link, why is that George? Lets just focus on the single sentence you quoted.

It starts out with the words "Well, many would argue" I'm not sure where you we educated, but where I was that could only be interpreted as the author stating that there are a lot people who would argue the point. It doesn't even state that the author would agree with that argument. Although I'll give you he probably does.

You also incorrectly attribute natural law as catholic philosophy only. A quick search would seem to indicate that the concept of natural law goes well beyond the catholic philosophy .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

In fact that article mentions the following.

"American jurisprudence - The U.S. Declaration of Independence states that it has become necessary for the United States to assume "the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them". Some early American lawyers and judges perceived natural law as too tenuous, amorphous and evanescent a legal basis for grounding concrete rights and governmental limitations. Natural law did, however, serve as authority for legal claims and rights in some judicial decisions, legislative acts, and legal pronouncements. Robert Lowry Clinton argues that the U.S. Constitution rests on a common law foundation and the common law, in turn, rests on a classical natural law foundation.

George keep the award for yourself for your own ability to cast your own misrepresentation of history as well as your use of one sentence probably out of context to attempt to ridicule concepts that you don’t like. It sure looks like the one promoting fantasy is you.

Sir,

You seem to have misunderstood. It is Msgr. Swetland who in his article in the National Catholic Register (8/30) claims that the Catholic understanding, which naturally always is construed as the same as what others happen to believe is the right one. One problem, it is not what others believe, only certain Catholics do. But take note. This is the Catholic view. And this is what Swetland was claiming founded the country:

"What is bothersome to many individuals is that the Catholic Church doesn’t just hold it on religious grounds. The Church’s position is that this isn’t something that is known to us just based on revelation, based on what our revealed Scriptures say. The Catholic position — and this is where Dr. Howell was specific in his teaching — is that this is something that is based on what the moral/natural-law tradition calls right reason"

Well, it is all very nice that Msgr. Swetland thinks that just by claiming that the Catholic Church views its philosophy one way that that makes it so for historical analysis. But if you think that most scholars think that ANY Catholic notion in the 18th century was the same as the one that founded this country, then you are just deluded. Let us be even more explicit, since the Catholic view on these matters is often that of Thomas Aquinas, Swetland and apparently you are defending the notion that Aquinas' philosophy founded this country. Ridiculous. I am well familiar with this tack generally, let me anatomize it:

1.) This is the Catholic view. (x,y,z)
2.) The Catholic view is the same as truth from a neutral point of view.
3.) Therefore, the Catholic view is coextensive with legal propositions from a neutral point of view.

The problem is, nobody believes this, EXCEPT CATHOLICS. And only the most right wing among them. It is a fantasy, and an arrogant one. If you think we are going to retract our well-deserved award, you got another thing coming. Congratulations.

Right back atcha

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09076a.htm

George I understood fine you seem to be the one who doesn't understand. The problem is you only quoted a single sentence and still haven't provided a link to the actual article you criticize. the problem is you intrepret history the way you choose then make baised judgements against catholics simply because you don't hold the same views. I could have provided many more links to show the error of what you mock. I simply used the first one which is one more link than you provided. Instead you go off on your irrelevant conclusion based on insufficient evidence to try and convice others and yourself that you are making a clear objective commentary. You aren't and with a few exceptions probably have fool few except yourself.

Dana,

I especially like this line from the essay you provided:

"A few theologians of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, following some older ones, maintained that there cannot exist in anyone practical ignorance of the natural law."

I wish they were more explicit. Does it mean they thought they everyone thought like a Thomist no matter what?? There was a lot of that sort of thinking in Catholic history, but it sounds very funny applied to these centuries. But one is tempted to apply some of the controversies over Jansenism and its aftermath here. The historical fact is that Natural Law thought of the Catholic variety, became by way of Jesuit theologians incredibly recondite and legalistic. Thus, if one were to encounter Catholic Natural Law thought in the 18th Century, you would likely find it flavored with this labyrinthine intellectual aspect. So the idea that this maze of legalisms, which was Natural Law thought in the 18th Century, was what appealed to the Founders of our Yeoman's Republic as the founding principle is so perversely wrong and even funny that it make you wonder. One wonders what Msgr. Swetland and others at St. Mary's Emmitsburg think they are teaching the fathers to be. Is it a form apologetics based on the mere fact that most people will not know the difference. Well, sorry, they will know the difference if you remind them of some of the basics of American history.

In fact far from being in a position of influence, Catholics at this period were on the defense. Michael Sean has a recent blog post about anti-Catholicism in colonial times which is actually right-on. And it gives a sense of what the real environment would have been like. I only would have added to Michael's essay that one of the sectors of society that often did not discriminate against Catholics in this general era was Freemasons. In fact there is a famous Lodge right here in DC, of which many of us are quite proud, that was formed largely by Roman Catholics from our whole area.

Peter

Catholic Freemasons?

I didn't know that. Let's tell Dan Brown.

Yup. I assume you know that Bishop Carroll's brother was a Freemason, and that it is speculated by some that is why Carrol refused to promulgate the encyclical against Freemasonry in the country. One example of a phenomenon that often surprises Catholics of today, where either Bishops or rulers of countries refused to promulgate papal directives.

I don't think we need to tell Dan Brown much, he is quite fond of Masonic history from what I have heard.

Have you seen this discussion between Maggie Gallagher and St. Peter?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bCu2eGCjz4

That was great. I want to see the Dante-esque Maggie in the Inferno as well. As St. Thomas said, one of the chief joys of heaven is contemplating the miseries of the damned.

You might have to wait for that dear Peter. But it is definitely worth its weight.