Hypocrisy Again

The Republican attorney general for Virginia, Judith Jagdmann doesn’t like the Supreme Court’s ruling on the death penalty.

"It is unfortunate that five justices of the United States Supreme Court substituted their judgment for the will of the people of Virginia."

I wonder if she was chagrin when the Supreme Court substituted its judgement for the will of the people of Florida.

Comments

[David]

It seems to me that putting words in other people's mouths would best qualify as the straw man argument here. Where exactly have I called anyone a bigot, or anything else for that matter?

I merely repeated the talking points we hear daily from those opposed to marriage equality.

Here's something to chew on. By "redefine marriage," do you perhaps mean define it as a partnership between two equals rather than as an inherently unequal relationship between two differently statused people? Just a friendly question.

[John K.]

Bob, it's good to be back. I like coming here to learn about how others think about society's pressing issues. Let's agree that homosexuals have a right to live as they choose. But, in my opinion, they don't have a right to redefine marriage for our entire society.

[Steve]

One thing I've been pondering is the effect of Atkins and Roper - what incentives does it give to legislators? If the Supreme Court is taking a head count of the states, you'd think the states will start passing bills with a sign on them that says, "SUPREME COURT LOOK HERE." And, maybe it gives the states an incentive to keep the unconstitutional laws on the books - if Supreme Court precedents aren't good for more than 15 years, sodomy may be back out, execution of teenagers back in, before you know it. The next majority might say, look, Virginia never changed their sodomy or death penalty statutes, that's evidence that the real trends in society were not what Judge Kennedy thought in Lawrence or Atkins or Roper.

The differences between Roper and the Bush v. Gore case are fairly pronounced, even if both may be viewed as undemocratic. The Florida case is sort of an oddball situation, even though it affected the whole country, it is not worth much as a precedent. State laws will be attacked under Lawrence/Atkins/Roper everywhere all the time from now on. I think those who disagree with those cases will push for the anti-gay marriage amendments, the anti-abortion statutes, the new death penalty expansions, if for no other reason than because in some sense their work product will shape the record in future Supreme Court cases.

[Bob]

John, good to hear from you again.

I can't speak for David but as for myself the parallels do seem similar -- that it's not bigotry but God's will. But let's not call it a name at all. What might be helpful, John, is if you would expound on why gay marriage is an attack on the institution of marriage and what is the negative fallout from allowing it.

After all, it's not like marriage between a man and a woman is on solid ground. Fifty percent end in divorce. A large percentage of men and women are unfaithful in their
marriages. The ability for at least one parent to stay home with children has been eroded by a sense among couples that one income isn't sufficient anymore. All these things hurt marriage and the ability to raise children.

I can't see how allowing same-sex marriages hurts society and specifically the institution of marriage. If children see more openly gay couples married, it's not going to entice them to become gay. It's not a learned characteristic, by all scientific accounts. What exactly would happen to marriage if gays were allowed to marry? How would that be so awful to the institution and our society? If you can give us a cogent answer, maybe folks wouldn't be left to guess as to the motives of the opposition.

[John K.]

Stating as objective fact that something is outright bigotry and then attempting to shame anyone who disagrees with him is a strawman argument and one most common to arguments about race and sexual orientation. Apparently, racial quotas are required for non-racists and, therefore, anyone who opposes those quotas is a racist. Similarly, it's a logical fallacy to suggest that anyone who opposes gay marriage is ipso facto a bigot.

[David]

The opponents of marriage equality do seem to be making exactly the same arguments that were made against interracial marriage - that it is a violation of God's design, that it will undermine the invisible pillars of civilization, etc. But of course that was completely different.

[Bob]

Thanks for the clarification. On a related note, I wonder how effectively the comparison of the South's opposition to mixed-race marriages can be made to today's debate about gay marriages.

[brian]

sorry, i was trying to be sarcastic. my point was that conservative virginians have been complaining about the supreme court overriding their will for a long time, unfortunately that "will" is usually just to perpetuate a cruel and unusual practice which never should have been allowed in the first place.

[Bob]

What the hell is that supposed to mean? You support segregation?

[brian]

conservative virginians said the same things about segregation 40-50 years ago. if they now want to inflict cruel and unusual punishment, maybe the supreme court should just stay out of their way.