A Prime Opportunity For Resolution Is At Hand

Avatar

Burt Likko

Pseudonymous Portlander. Homebrewer. Atheist. Recovering Republican. Recovering Catholic. Recovering divorcé. Editor-in-Chief Emeritus of Ordinary Times. Relapsed Lawyer, admitted to practice law (under his real name) in California and Oregon. On Twitter, to his frequent regret, at @burtlikko. House Likko's Words: Scite Verum. Colite Iusticia. Vivere Con Gaudium.

Related Post Roulette

59 Responses

  1. Avatar Doctor Jay
    Ignored
    says:

    +1000 for the quotability of Bull Durham. And yeah, I’m not interested in interfering with Sunday mornings or evenings or whatever at somebody’s church.

    “What do you mean, William Blake?”
    “I mean William Blake!”Report

  2. Avatar Kim
    Ignored
    says:

    They’re already standing on sand.
    If you don’t make them fight, they’ll drown on their own.Report

  3. Avatar Creon Critic
    Ignored
    says:

    SSM advocates, let’s be graceful winners, and bargain back.

    I’m not sure I understand what this means. By and large I haven’t seen SSM advocates arguing for reaching into houses of worship and determining that yes, women can be Roman Catholic priests or that Orthodox synagogues must now perform interfaith marriages. And in terms of tradeoffs, the thing being traded is equal dignity in civic life along with other residents of the US. Can someone be discriminated against in a public accommodation? Are “no gays allowed” signs permissible? Can an individual be fired for their gender identity?

    At root, I think in many of these culture war conflicts there is really no bargain to be had. If one believes gay marriage literally devalues every heterosexual marriage, there’s not much bargaining to be done there. If civil unions can never equal marriage because the distinction itself denigrates a particular community, there’s precious little space for bargaining. The culture wars will have winners and losers, and however gracious one tries to be, to the victors go the spoils.Report

    • Avatar Tod Kelly in reply to Creon Critic
      Ignored
      says:

      @creon-critic

      “If one believes gay marriage literally devalues every heterosexual marriage, there’s not much bargaining to be done there.”

      The question, I would argue, is just how much of that actually exists out there — and personally I suspect that not a lot of it does.

      “SSM Devalues Heterosexual Marriage” is just one in a long list of arguments that has been put up to give people something that wasn’t “No Gays Allowed” to embrace so they could look and feel reasonable and fair while promoting a two-tiered society. Most of those arguments have gone the way of the dodo over the past 25 years or so, because even though they were presented as Value Statements, they were in fact just strategies that people quickly abandoned when the argument was effectively answered.

      I think Burt is right here, and this is why: I believe that there are more people in the Republican party who either support SSM or who are simply stuck being against it because — and only because — it’s a Culture War litmus test than there are people in the Republican party who deep down are and always will be opposed to SSM on purely philosophical reasons.

      If the goal is to promote equal rights and privileges both under the law and as a matter of sisal norm, and not to beat/stick it to/get our pound of flesh out of conservatives/Republicans/older people, then I think it’s important to have them be in on the conversation of how to move forward.Report

      • Avatar Creon Critic in reply to Tod Kelly
        Ignored
        says:

        @tod-kelly
        Here’s the thing, if by bargain, or conversation on how to move forward, what’s meant is negotiating the terms of the opposite side’s surrender, then I think SSM marriage advocates, myself included, would be good with that. But it wasn’t a resounding victory, a Loving v. Virginia 9-0 ruling. This was 5-4. There’s still contestation and room for hope for those who oppose SSM. I don’t know if those hopes are well founded, but suppose a Republican wins the presidency, and suppose Justice Ginsburg or Justice Breyer is replaced by someone in the Scalia mold, who knows, the conservative view could very well prevail.

        After all, every dissent hopes for reversal and to return triumphant as a majority opinion one day. Witness the current concern about the fate of affirmative action, as the deciding justice shifted from O’Conner to Kennedy, the Court’s perspective has shifted rightward. SSM opponents will want that rightward shift with their issue – and if not an outright removal of the dignitarian / equal protection basis Kennedy has laid out, then just a hollowing out of potential protections. And I can’t say I blame them, because as someone on the left, I hope for the death penalty to be found cruel and unusual one day, and any number of 5-4 rulings that didn’t cut my way under Roberts (or Rehnquist for that matter) to one day be revisited by a court with more Thurgood Marshalls and Ginsburgs and fewer Scalias and Thomases.

        Shorter me: there’s still a lot of bitterly contested ground here, and I don’t see any side making serious concessions anytime soon. We’re still fighting about Lochner (in some circles anyway) – to me that says these disputes tend to linger.Report

        • Avatar North in reply to Creon Critic
          Ignored
          says:

          SSM isn’t something that is easily reversed. Let’s say a President Walker (my skin crawls) is elected and, as the country collapses into a Regonomics induced recession, replaces A Ginsburg or a Breyer with a Scalia. If SSM came to the court room again for some reason I think you’d see Roberts flip sides pretty promptly at the prospect of the court unmarrying all those married gay people. Especially if social acceptance continues tromping along at the pace it’s been developing.Report

        • Avatar Tod Kelly in reply to Creon Critic
          Ignored
          says:

          @creon-critic You may well be right. After all, a lot of what I am going on here is my gut and the universe of conservatives and Republicans I know — which, although fairly large, is clearly anecdotal.

          Still, I think this one of those wars that is won, and as with most wars there are still going to be skirmishes going on for a bit. And I’m not even that worried about SCOTUS, because I think you’d need at least two justices replaced. (I think Roberts wanted a more organic process to get to the finish line; now that we’re there I do not believe he would vote to reverse.)

          Also, I think that the trend for social acceptance is going to continue on the path it’s already on. The more time people see that the world hasn’t collapsed because gay people aren’t in closets, the more it will be accepted — more and more each year, until those few opponents who are left feel as uncomfortable saying it in public/politcs as most people who still actually feel that way about Loving do today.Report

        • Avatar Damon in reply to Creon Critic
          Ignored
          says:

          We’re still fighting Roe v Wade

          Someone on the news a few days ago said something equivalent to “the SC has “decided” this, interrupting the normal democratic process. Now were’re going to be litigating this and various incarnations for the next 30 years.”

          I think he’s right. It’s going to be a mess.Report

          • Avatar Road Scholar in reply to Damon
            Ignored
            says:

            Damon: We’re still fighting Roe v Wade

            True. But reversing RvW would look a lot different than reversing SSM. The former would be like what happened with Prohibition (in reverse of course) while the latter would involve un-marrying thousands, perhaps millions, of people. Alternatively, they could say no more going forward, but wouldn’t that be its own 14th Amendment, equal protection issue?

            IANAL, but I don’t see that happening short of packing the court with Scalia and Thomas clones.Report

      • Avatar zic in reply to Tod Kelly
        Ignored
        says:

        I recommending this post by Amanda Marcotte at TPM, on what ruining marriage really means, which is a response to Douthat’s column in the Sunday NYT, because I think Marcotte’s onto something very important here — It’s not because straight people won’t want to get married if gays are doing it, too. It’s because it redefines marriage as an institution of love instead of oppression. She builds the case for this carefully, and while it might be a bit over-the-top feminist for some tastes, I think she’s on the money; it’s shifting marriage from duty the duty and life-long commitment (and sometimes, misogyny) to a choice rooted in love and joy. It’s removing the suffering, an essential part of traditional Christianity, you suffer now, and get your reward for suffering in heaven, from marriage.Report

        • Avatar Jaybird in reply to zic
          Ignored
          says:

          Turning marriage from being a lifetime covenant into something founded on feelings will have upsides and downsides.

          The people who care more about the one than the other will say that people who disagree are being immoral, of course.Report

          • Avatar Road Scholar in reply to Jaybird
            Ignored
            says:

            Jaybird: Turning marriage from being a lifetime covenant into something founded on feelings will have upsides and downsides.

            I truly don’t understand this idea that extending the franchise of marriage to include same-sex couples changes the essential nature of the institution. At least beyond the bit about making babies via fucking anyway.

            How does it change it from being about commitment to being about feelings? Are same-sex marriages not a lifelong commitment? Do straight couples not marry for love?

            I guess I need someone to show their work on that answer.Report

          • Avatar gregiank in reply to Jaybird
            Ignored
            says:

            Also having good and bad aspects was turning marriage into something about love since it surely wasn’t always about finding your one true love . Or turning marriage into something where people choose their own partners instead of their parents doing it for them was a thing. The world seems to have kept turning; change happened.Report

        • Avatar ktward in reply to zic
          Ignored
          says:

          I’ll have to read Marcotte’s piece.

          @jaybird has an interesting distillation: that love and marriage remain exclusive concepts. Except, that’s not remotely true in the US.

          The political quagmire has to do with who it is we’re “allowed” to love. Thus marry.Report

      • Avatar DavidTC in reply to Tod Kelly
        Ignored
        says:

        @tod-kelly
        “SSM Devalues Heterosexual Marriage” is just one in a long list of arguments that has been put up to give people something that wasn’t “No Gays Allowed” to embrace so they could look and feel reasonable and fair while promoting a two-tiered society. Most of those arguments have gone the way of the dodo over the past 25 years or so, because even though they were presented as Value Statements, they were in fact just strategies that people quickly abandoned when the argument was effectively answered.

        I think people often forget that most of what ‘society believes’ is, in fact, completely invented by a few people and repeated until enough people said it. This is as true, or *truer*, of religious beliefs as anything else.

        Yes, those ideas were just *invented*…but all ideas people have about society are just invented. There are people who, despite “SSM Devalues Heterosexual Marriage” clearly being stupid, really do believe it.

        What’s more, the ‘resistance’ going on now is deliberately being caused by specific individuals who want power, and are willing to manipulate ‘religion’ in order to hold onto it. This is not any sort of natural phenomenon.

        Likewise, the *acceptance* is not any sort of natural phenomenon either. It’s winning because the other side is, to put it bluntly, stupid, and because the war was actually lost when women were allowed to step outside their ‘roles’, and it’s far to late to go backwards to that.Report

    • Avatar North in reply to Creon Critic
      Ignored
      says:

      I’d join with Tod and Burt in disagreeing here Creon. There are many areas that gay rights advocates, if not SSM advocates in general, wish to take the war to the Fundamentalists where it might be ill advised to go. I have read sentiments in favor of shooing religion out of the public square, of revoking their tax exempt status, of forcing them to discontinue charitable works unless they confirm to public norms* that I think go way over the line from defending gay rights into the territory of “making them regret persecuting us for so long”.

      Ironically many fundamentalists would prefer we charge in torches blazing to our compromising with or (God forfend) ignoring them. Christianity has martyrdom bred into its bones and modern Christians do -not- like the idea that they are Pharo (which for the past several centuries they have been) so many would greet gay retribution as vindication and validation. Nothing would be crueler than letting them have their sandbox and leaving them to it.

      *Even when said charitable works are entirely funded by the religious with no government sponsorship or partnership**.
      **I’m generally inclined to think if you take the publics dime then you are expected to function as an arm of the public so no taking gays funding (tax money) and then excluding them.Report

      • Avatar Francis in reply to North
        Ignored
        says:

        I’m curious as to your sources for driving religious organizations out of purely privately sponsored charitable work. (This is more than just a ‘cite please’ because I actually want to see if the sponsors of this idea have any kind of legal theory or if they’re just being vindictive.)

        Thanks.Report

    • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Creon Critic
      Ignored
      says:

      At root, I think in many of these culture war conflicts there is really no bargain to be had.

      Yeah, I agree with you about this. At least right now. In fact, I’d say that now is exactly not the time to bargain. Like you, I don’t know what that even means.

      One thing I agree with Burt about is to refrain from going into Christian churches and Christian heads and trying to change how those folks – as Christians! – conduct their business. But I don’t think there’s much of an effort do that, actually, and if there is, doing so doesn’t strike me as a particularly – or uniquely, to the extent such a view exists – gay issue. Homophobia and anti-gay animus go a lot deeper than just some sloganeering based on the bible, and evangelical atheism is all about attacking the Churches and Minds of Christians. That said, I personally don’t have any problem with rabid gay-rights supporters maintaining the culture wars. It’s a free country, yes? And God gave us freedom, amirite? And part of the reason I don’t have a problem with it is because even as we speak conservatives and Christians are gearing up for the Big Pushback based on the RFRA. What sorta protections do they actually want recognized in the legal sphere which they can’t act on privately? Further, why do they want specific protections recognized in the public sphere anyway? What’s accomplished by doing so?Report

      • Avatar zic in reply to Stillwater
        Ignored
        says:

        What sorta protections do they actually want recognized in the legal sphere which they can’t act on privately? Further, why do they want specific protections recognized in the public sphere anyway? What’s accomplished by doing so?

        This helped clarify something that’s been fermenting in the gray-matter vat for a few days now: forgiveness.

        A very big piece of Christian practice is asking to be forgiven for your sins; it’s the very core of the dramatic death-bed confession, its what cleanses the Christian of sin so that he or she might enter heaven, the Kingdom of God; and it goes hand in hand with admitting Jesus to your heart and caring for the poor.

        So the Christian who finds herself at risk of moral corruption because she had to issue a marriage license to two women or bake a cake for the wedding reception of two men has another path than outright discrimination against those women, those men: issue the license (because that’s her job) and Ask God to forgive her. Get down on your knees and ask for those sins to be washed away.* Pray that those people going into a sinful marriage find their way to God; pray that they do God’s work by caring for some unwanted children or ministering to the poor; do your job with a prayer that they find god in your heart.

        *This is definitely a Baptist thing; I think less true of Catholics who do penance and are exhorted to not repeat their mistakes; but I’m fuzzy since it’s been a very long time since I felt need for God to forgive me, hedgewitch that I am.Report

        • Avatar gingergene in reply to zic
          Ignored
          says:

          Zic, I hope you’re being facetious here. This brings to my mind images of mafia men in confession, asking for forgiveness for actions they knew were wrong, and know they are going to repeat. How shallow a faith!

          For one thing, many denominations (and Catholicism is one) don’t believe that forgiveness is given without true repentance. For instance, Catholicism disapproves of sex outside of marriage, considering it sinful. Many priests will not absolve you of the sin if you are continuing it, like living together (or in an second marriage if the first was not annulled by the Church).

          Repentance requires a sincere effort to avoid the sin.The idea that you would intentionally commit a sin, planning in advance to ask for forgiveness, shows no repentance for what you’ve done.

          Myself, I don’t believe gay marriage is a sin. Neither is fulfilling the law and giving any two people a marriage license, or marrying them. But to suggest that people who do find it sinful can simply ask for forgiveness after the fact for something they *sincerely* believe is sinful is more than a little dismissive of those people’s faith.Report

          • Avatar Kim in reply to gingergene
            Ignored
            says:

            How much do you know of the Church’s contact with the Mafia?Report

          • Avatar zic in reply to gingergene
            Ignored
            says:

            I am not being facetious.

            You repent your behavior; if enabling someone else to participate in legal behavior is sinful (aka the HL contraception argument, too), we’re holding individuals responsible for others’ sin against the other person’s will. That is not belief, that’s coercion. Which I think a sin.Report

            • Avatar gingergene in reply to zic
              Ignored
              says:

              The issue isn’t what we hold against other people, it’s what they sincerely believe God will hold against them. You may believe they are silly, or wrong, or ignorant, but what *you* believe is for yourself, just as what they believe has no bearing on you.

              I am not suggesting that their sincere belief means they should be allowed to discriminate. Most people have principles that eliminate certain jobs from consideration. If you find performing your job requires you to act immorally, you should resign from your job.

              I am suggesting that if you tell someone that they can break God’s law with the intention asking for forgiveness after the fact, you shouldn’t be surprised if they are insulted or find your understanding of their faith shallow. It’s a hollow option.Report

  4. Avatar LWA
    Ignored
    says:

    OK this is where the “attitude” part of me comes in.

    Given that:
    1. There is a surprisingly large number of people who are still, 150 years on, relitigating the Civil War;
    2. There is a large number of people who want very badly to overturn the Progressive legislation of 1910-1920s such as universal schooling child labor etc.;
    3. There is a large number of people who want very badly to overturn the New Deal;
    4. There is a large number of people who want to overturn the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Fair Housing Act, the Clean Water Act, and anything to do with the Great Society;
    5. Most importantly, these positions have not softened over time, and their numbers have not decreased, but instead have hardened and grown ever larger. Scott Walker could not have been elected in 1985, or 1975.
    6. Finally, these people stand on the very real brink of controlling all 3 branches of government, plus a majority of statehouses.

    How could we possibly be “gracious winners”?

    What in the world makes anyone think the other side has surrendered? So far as I can see, they view this as half time.

    My advice is that we should go full Conan on them. Crush them, drive them before us and hear the lamentation of their women.Report

  5. Avatar Saul Degraw
    Ignored
    says:

    I am more on the Creon Critic and LWA side of things.

    I have not heard SSM advocate arguing that all houses of worship should be forced to perform SSMs.

    What I do see are counties in some areas refusing to give out any marriage licenses at all in order to get around the ruling.

    To their credit, some red states have said that the law is the law and they are giving out the licenses.

    What I have seen is every single GOP candidate willing to pander to the anti-SSM crowd to a varying degree. An example of a more serious pander:

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/07/01/bobby_jindal_s_religious_liberty_executive_order_is_illegal_and_anti_gay.htmlReport

  6. Avatar Saul Degraw
    Ignored
    says:

    I would also argue that many LGBT people faced many years of harassment, verbal abuse, and much worse at the hands of all the people screaming Chicken Little right now. Rod Dreher’s polemic can basically read as “What…..do you mean we can’t be homophobic any more?” You wrote about a guy who was passionate enough in his homophobia to try and get a referendum for summary execution on California’s next election.

    It is rather hard to be a gracious winner against those who kicked you down and it did hard and brutally. I am largely convinced that the wails about Christian persecution are because they have spent so long being the oppressor, they think revenge must be in order.Report

  7. Avatar LWA
    Ignored
    says:

    I think it is also worth noting that social movement does not necessarily always move in a progressive direction.

    I have read personal histories of Afghanistan and Iran, from people who lived there in the 1950’s and 60’s, who remember that these places were much more cosmopolitan and accepting of secularism and gender equality than they are now. (Not that they were liberal democracies- but their repression did not aim at secularists and women).

    What is going on now in the Muslim world in not a continuation of tradition, but a moral revanchism, a return to a past which in many cases never existed. The young radical muslims in France never experienced the sort of fundamentalist state which they advocate- it is a utopian ideal for them, imaged but never experienced.

    Very much like the Lost Cause version of the antebellum, the Christian Dominionist view of “Christian America”, or the market fundamentalist vision of the Gilded Age, I think it is entirely possible that the battle for the soul of America can swing in a different direction than we all think.

    I remember the Dukes of Hazzard in the 70’s, and music by The Band like “The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down” , and the rebel imagery of southern rock bands, and as a So Cal teenager, it seemed harmless, since I imagined the war was long over, and we were all friends now, and this was just a harmless cultural tic like Irish do on St. Paddy’s Day.
    Because hey, in the 1970’s all the culture wars were over- people lived together in sin, had abortions freely, black people and women had equal rights, and the Birch Society was on its last legs, and would disappear within a decade.

    Only later I realized it wasn’t harmless, that many of them really meant it, and I have watched as things like the Voting Rights Act have become gutted. Why? Because we were asleep at the switch, and didn’t notice those who worked tirelessly to win school boards, state legislatures, and eventually the entire Republican Party. Today the Birch Society occupies a commanding presence at CPAC, and Buckley is long forgotten.

    The Handmaids Tale is always out there, as a plausible alternate reality. It just takes hard work and effort and determination to put into practice.Report

    • Avatar Saul DeGraw in reply to LWA
      Ignored
      says:

      @lwa

      Yes and no.

      The truth of both countries in the 1950s and 60s vs. now is much, more complicated.

      Both countries were ruled by an anti-democratic elite who were modern, secular, and cosmopolitan but also very willing to use torture and murder against dissenters. The Shah was empowered by the British and the CIA in the 1950s after Iranians elected a Socialist Prime Minister.

      The majority of the citizens were poor and also much more conservative many times.

      So calling them more modern is true enough but not the whole story. You had a jet-setting elite and the majority did not share in the wealth.Report

  8. Avatar Mike Schilling
    Ignored
    says:

    Maybe the guy used to be a hockey goon, so he’s a minister of the ex-checker.Report

  9. Avatar Kazzy
    Ignored
    says:

    Supposing “Gays won’t be served” was legal… How would they go about enforcing the policy? “He looks gay. Don’t let him in.” “But I’m not.” “Doesn’t matter. I think you are.”

    What sort of action could a straight person take against the store if they were “wrongly” discriminates against?Report

    • Avatar Burt Likko in reply to Kazzy
      Ignored
      says:

      “Perceived as gay” = “Actually gay” for purposes of California law.Report

      • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Burt Likko
        Ignored
        says:

        @burt-likko

        For reals??? So, if some employer in California decides only a gay dude would wear a pink shirt… or attend the ballet… or eat vegan… he could fire an employee who engaged in these behaviors, even if not on company time???Report

        • Avatar Burt Likko in reply to Kazzy
          Ignored
          says:

          No, just the opposite.

          Let’s say Samuel the Straight Guy comes to work in San Diego wearing a pink shirt. Boris the Bigoted Boss thinks that only gay men wear pink shirts.

          Boris says, “Sammy, I didn’t know you were gay. Pack up your stuff, you’re fired.”

          Boris has committed an unlawful employment practice, specifically sexual orientation discrimination. It does not matter that Samuel is actually straight. Boris perceived Samuel as gay, making the tort intentional.Report

          • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Burt Likko
            Ignored
            says:

            Ah, got it!. Thanks, @burt-likko . But what happens in those states where firing someone for being gay is legal?Report

            • Avatar Gabriel Conroy in reply to Kazzy
              Ignored
              says:

              @kazzy

              Not that I know (but it hasn’t stopped me from opining before) I suppose that in a pure “at will” state, one can be fired for “mistaken cause” as much as for “any cause or no cause.” Maybe there are exceptions, however. I’d also wonder if the situation you describe would edge slightly closer to gender discrimination, inasmuch as “perceived to be gay” has a lot explicitly to do with gender stereotypes.Report

    • Avatar Glyph in reply to Kazzy
      Ignored
      says:

      Kazzy: How would they go about enforcing the policy?

      Twenty questions, drawn equally between arcana from sports history, and the complete discography of Madonna.

      I would fail.Report

  10. Avatar DavidTC
    Ignored
    says:

    Heh. I think this is the first time I’ve ever read a Marcotte article and completely agreed with it, no exceptions, no caveats, 100% agreed.

    It makes the point that I’ve been making for a while: Homophobia (and transphobia) isn’t anything to do with sex.

    It’s to do with gender roles. The idea that the ultimate goal in life is to be a man and own an attractive woman.

    It’s the reason that men are more acceptable of women ‘acting like men’ and with lesbians than vis versa, why a trans man is just sorta weird and a trans woman is horrible.

    Howso? The logic is simple:

    Of course some of the women have figured out that their current place is at the bottom and have tried to move up. Tried to get their own women, or try to pass as men. It’s entirely logical! Of course they’re trying to ‘pass’, who wouldn’t want to be a man?! As long as only a few women do that, leaving plenty of women for everyone else, whatever, it’s okay. (Hey look, the dog thinks she’s people! And the woman thinks she’s penis-people!)

    Well, it’s okay until some man has decided on her specifically, then she needs to stop playing pretend and let him win her, fair and square, like it’s supposed to work. Women don’t *actually* get to decide such things.

    And letting them get *married* to another woman is a bit too far…men know the rules, they aren’t supposed to hit on women who are owned by another man, but how the hell does that work for lesbian spouses? They own *each other*? What? Marriage is supposed to be end of the system, where the best guy finally wins the girls, and if the guy is a girl, that means they’d never be owned by a man, and if they have that option, why would they not *all* do that? Lesbianism is a sorta joke women can do until and if men want them, it’s not, like, a real thing, except maybe for ugly women who men won’t really ever want.

    Meanwhile, of course, men who go the ‘wrong way’ are *traitors*. At the very least, if a man feels like that might be interesting, he should do it in *secret*, so as to not harm the entire concept of male superiority. It’s almost the same thing as B&D…woman=submissive, so, yes, you might have some sort of fetish about being submissive, but don’t tell everyone.

    The world view is pretty easy to understand, and it pretty much explains *every* sexist position social conservatives have taken over the last century, even the ones that otherwise appear oddly inconsistent.

    EDIT: Obviously, this belonged in response to @zic above.Report

    • Avatar zic in reply to DavidTC
      Ignored
      says:

      I think I dislike the extreme of chattel property here, seems like it unfairly casts men as abusive and fails to give credit to the suffering they experience in bad marriages without exit rights, often entered into prematurely so that sex isn’t sinful. So I would put more emphasis on her point being redefining marriage from a duty (with a good dose of Christian suffering . Apparently, in a world where SSM is acceptable, where marriage is a voluntary partnership not based on duty and suffering. One implications of this view might be an assumption that couples who don’t embrace traditional marriage models lack a sense of duty and won’t willingly suffer for the greater good of their family, and that’s just ludicrous.Report

      • Avatar Murali in reply to zic
        Ignored
        says:

        One implications of this view might be an assumption that couples who don’t embrace traditional marriage models lack a sense of duty and won’t willingly suffer for the greater good of their family, and that’s just ludicrous.

        Well, if you are not willing to marry the boy/girl your parents pick out for you for the sake of the family….
        Well, if you are not willing to avoid premarital sex for the greater good of the family…
        Well, if you are not willing to stay in an unhappy marriage for the sake of the family…
        Well, if you are not willing to marry someone of your own ethno-religious group for the sake of the family…
        Well, if you are not willing to stay in the closet for the sake of your family…Report

  11. Avatar CJColucci
    Ignored
    says:

    There can’t be a negotiated deal unless there is a basis for a deal. Over the last few months, I’ve heard a lot of anti-SSMers, now that they’ve had SSM shoved down their throats, argue that the pro-SSM side should have been gracious and accepted a “deal” for civil unions. I actually thought that myself, 20 years ago, but nobody showed up from the anti-SSM side to put that on the table. Indeed, most of the advocates on that side of the non-existent table were working to scuttle civil unions, too. Karma’s a bitch.Report

    • Avatar Will Truman in reply to Notme
      Ignored
      says:

      The cease & desist is being misrepresented. (I link to the twitter explanation because the author is otherwise sympathetic to Sweet Cakes.Report

    • Avatar Burt Likko in reply to Notme
      Ignored
      says:

      No, it’s not any kind of political resolution. It’s the disposition of a single case. It’s not even the final disposition, because it’s subject to appeal.

      As @will-truman noted above, the nature of the so-called gag order is greatly misrepresented. The actual order prohibits the bakers from putting up a no gays allowed sign on the front door of their bakery, similar to one used by the hardware store owner described in the original post.

      $135,000 does seem like an excessive amount of damages for cupcakes. Given the reporters failure to read the order and comprehend it, I wonder if this is not also a misrepresentation, perhaps inadvertent perhaps otherwise. Based on my own experience with anti-discrimination law, this amount of money appears to be the total judgment, not just damages. It is also not a “fine.” It would include damages to the complainants, The costs of suit incurred by both the administrative agency and the complainants, and attorneys fees incurred by both the administrative agency and the complaints. These are all remedies that have been part of antidiscrimination law since the 1960s.

      Furthermore, it would be in the nature of such a case that the defendants would have been offered an opportunity to admit fault and make restitution, and pay only a nominal amount of money along the way. The certainty of legal liability would have been made plane to them as part of making that offer. The defendants chose to do this the hard way, so they got a hard result.

      Under the political compromise I suggest in the original post, there would still be liability here, because the bakery is a public accommodation, not a church. The church that the bakers go to would be able to exclude the lesbian couple from religious ceremonies, including shutting the churches doors to that couple for purposes of holding a wedding ceremony.

      But a bakery is not a church. Baking cupcakes is not a religious exercise, it is a commercial exercise. Refusing to bake the cupcakes was not a religious exercise, it was a political exercise. I’m not particularly sympathetic to the bakers.Report

      • Avatar Notme in reply to Burt Likko
        Ignored
        says:

        People need to grow up and stop whining. If bakery x won’t make cupcakes then leave and find somone that will. Not everything needs to end up in court. This kind of silliness isnt going to bring people together.Report

        • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Notme
          Ignored
          says:

          @will-truman

          I doubt you share the beliefs of our dear friend NotMe here, but see what I mean about the tendency to tell folks to “grow up and stop whining”? It seems acceptable to tell gay folks (and women and people of color) as much but absolutely unacceptable to say as much to conservative Christians.Report

        • Avatar Burt Likko in reply to Notme
          Ignored
          says:

          [Gay] people need to grow up and stop whining. If [Christian] bakery x won’t make cupcakes then leave and find somone that will. Not everything needs to end up in court. This kind of silliness isnt going to bring people together.
          [Black] people need to grow up and stop whining. If [racist] bakery x won’t make cupcakes then leave and find somone that will. Not everything needs to end up in court. This kind of silliness isnt going to bring people together.
          [Christian] people need to grow up and stop whining. If [atheist] bakery x won’t make cupcakes then leave and find somone that will. Not everything needs to end up in court. This kind of silliness isnt going to bring people together.
          How far do you want to go with this?Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *