What nonsense. Dumbledore is supposed to be gay? Now? After all seven books have been written and thoroughly scrutinized, she has to come out with this nonsense?

What possible point is served by asserting such things? That’s a little like claiming that Tom Sawyer’s Aunt Polly is a lesbian - there’s nothing in the text to indicate such irrelevancies and no reason to even mention.

And such things are, in fact, irrelevant to the story that is told in those seven novels.

The only reason she would say such a thing is to pander to the gay community, to give them another “role model” (who was apparently so closeted that his one great love was the second-most evil person in the previous century), and aboput something that is about as important as his favorite jam.

It’s raspberry - as J.K. was so quick to point out when it was an actual throwaway plot point - which leaves determining the reason why she never mentioned any relationships among the adults, gay, straight or mixed, as an exercise for the student.

(Hint: The series wasn’t called “Albus Dumbledore’s personal relationships and the Goblet of Azkaban”.)

Agreed, Drum.

And Jim, have you considered for a moment why you’re
even mentioning what you think “someone, somewhere” may be doing, based on this completely irrelevant, obviously political blathering of Rowling’s?

It’s ridiculous enough for her to make this after-the-fact feel-good footnote for god-knows-what end…
But then for you to pick up on it, and actually waste the energy of pondering what some reactionary out there might possibly, could be, likely is, mayhaps, doing with that bit of sillyness is… well…

...well… far too irrelevant for me to have already wasted a comment on, I guess.

So color me just as guilty, I suppose.

I applaud J.K. Rowling for having the guts to drop that revelation.

Jim, gotta tell ya, the people who would be pissed he was gay never bought a Potter book because its about witchcraft.  The same idiots that bitch about homosexuality and religion are also the ones who object to Harry on the grounds the books will somehow lead their lil chillens into the arms of Satan by teaching them witchcraft.  Take it from personal experience living here in the bible belt.

And I’m with Drum.  Why drop it now? But, I gotta say, it does not mean one whit to me that he was gay, straight, asexual.  As a character, his sexuality meant little to nothing to me. Its the righties who hate gays and the lefties who love them that this would matter to.  Everyone else would just go “Hum...ok”

The reason she revealed this now is because an audience member asked her if Dumbledore ever found true love. If that question had never been asked, chances are Dumbledore’s sexual preference would have remained a mystery.

Rowling does this stuff purely for attention.

She has a love/hate relationship with her fans. She gets pissed that they dare to have opinions she hasn’t told them to have, but lord she adores the attention.

I’d say every few months she’ll drop something like this. It will keep people talking about her and the series for awhile, thus she can bask in the glow of it until it fades and she has to drop another bit of “canon” to get the spotlight again. She never has to write another word to keep up her celebrity.

But mostly all I thought was, like you Jim, “yawn”. Maybe that it was a bit funny, that she got so pissed-off at the “slashers” in her fan community putting together male characters she didn’t approve of, then does this almost like a peace offering. But really, so what? The people that will squee over it were probably assuming it anyway, the people that would get pissed over it are already pissed that gay people are daring to exist let alone gay characters, so in all it will make very little difference to anybody or anything, other than Rowling herself.

The reason she revealed this now is because an audience member asked her if Dumbledore ever found true love.

“Yes, he did, but not since he was a very young wizard,” Rowling was quoted as saying.

See how I would have answered that question without making any reference to sexual preference either way?

Rowling was pandering, pure and simple, and over an irrelevant character trait, at that. You call this “guts”? I call it attention-seeking, and over something that matters not one whit, because the series is NOT about any character’s sexual habits.

And I say this as one who considers himself a fan.

christian: i’m 100% in agreement.  the people who give a shit already think the book is evil.

Drum:

If J.K. Rowling is indeed seeking attention as you say, then why does that bother you so much? Dumbledore’s sexuality isn’t central to the plot of the series, right? Then there’s clearly no reason to fret about this development.

Scapeworlder, you’re missing the point.

It bothers Drum for the same reason it bothers me…

It’s not because Dumbledore is now gay,
it’s because Dumbledore is now gay.

It’s because Rowling does not have any courage, as you credit her for.
Because, face it, if she did, he would have been
gay from book one. (or two, at least.)

Her book sales aren’t going to suffer, at this point, because of this “revelation”.
They may get a little boost from the gay community, though.

So it’s obvious she did this for two reasons;
Political pandering, and to get a few more bucks in her already bulging coffers.

And that, my dear boy, is not admirable, nor brave.

Again, suppose as you say that Rowling is doing this to score with the gay community (who probably already read her books anyways): Why does it bother you? I mean, we are talking about a little detail that’s inconsequential to the story, right? And, last time I checked, making a buck is considered admirable in this country.

Dumbledore’s sexuality isn’t central to the plot of the series, right? Then there’s clearly no reason to fret about this development.

artmonkey said it quite well. If it were at all necessary to the plot, she would have revealed it fairly early in the series, rather than coming up with something that is so unimportant that there is absolutely NO evidence that Dumbledore was at all interested in a relationship with a person (or persons) of either gender. (Hell, Aberforth was at least interested in goats, fercrissake.) But there is NOTHING in any book that shows that Dumbledore is gay. In fact, the first book hints to the opposite, when he admits in Book 1, Chapter 1, that he blushed when Madam Pomfrey claimed that she liked his new earmuffs.

There is no point to mentioning it either way, and nothing in the canon to indicate this, so why would she make the claim now?

Only one reason.

pan·der /ˈpændər/ –noun Also, pan·der·er.

2. a person who caters to or profits from the weaknesses or vices of others.

See also: brownnose, cajole, fish, gratify, indulge, massage, please, politic, satisfy, snow, soap, soften up, spook, stroke

And, last time I checked, making a buck is considered admirable in this country.

By pandering? I don’t think so. It is like claiming that he prefers a Motorola cell phone solely for the endorsement checks. Once more, this is not a series about any given character’s sexual habits, but about a fight between good and evil, involving friendship and bravery against heavy odds. She could easily have answered the question without having to pander, or even to go into specifics.

And remember that this is supposed to be a children’s series for “young readers” (which is where you will find it on bookstore shelves).

If she had wanted one of the characters to be gay, then she could have written it that way without detracting from the storyline at all. (I had my concerns about Crabbe and Goyle, who were always together, even when Draco wasn’t around. And let’s not forget poor Mr. Ollivander...)

But to come up with it after the fact, despite the lack of any evidence at all in any of the books, is purely pandering for political points, and it does a great disservice to poor Dumbledore, who has now been apparently consigned to celibacy since teenager-hood, given that his “great love” has been either overseas or locked up since that big fight that killed Dumbledore’s sister.

And you know that Rita Skeeter would have LOVED to spill that particular kettle of fish, yet she said NOTHING. You’d think that being gay in the 1940s and 50s would have been worthy of her acid-green quill.

There are too many ways for Rowling to have slipped that fact in without disturbing the storyline, yet she chooses now to make that assertion?

So, why is it so important to you for her to have pandered in this way? You call her courageous yet she didn’t do it when she had the chance to actually make it so. You call her admirable for making a buck, but I’d be willing to bet that you thought Ken Lay deserved the death penalty.

What’s next? Madame Rosmerta is into bondage and light discipline, with a Sex Shoppe being run out of her basement? Flourish and Blott’s has a XXX-rated section behind the counter? Ollivander’s selling other items that are long and thin, in plain brown wrappers, “for the discerning witch”?

Hey, they’re just “making a buck”, right, and that’s considered “admirable”, don’t you agree?

But to come up with it after the fact, despite the lack of any evidence at all in any of the books, is purely pandering for political points

I definitely see this point (also made by Artmonkey and in a different way Rann).  Not being a reader of these books, I have no idea...but seeing the discussion, I totally get that this was an extraneous thing Rowling seems to have made up on the spot to get brownie points from whoever tracks those kinds of points.  Tempest in a teacup, I suppose, but yeah...I can see why it’s annoying.  I also think that it;s totally irrelevant...well, unless it makes you dislike JK Rowling.  That, I understand.

I wonder why she bothered?  It was kind of an answer to a question no one actually asked.  It seems like she was just waiting for her big moment to reveal it.

She’s like the George Lucas of books.  Revisionist and hates her fans.  See?  Told you I understand.  I love Star Wars and the universe, but I want to beat George Lucas with a three foot steel pipe.

It was kind of an answer to a question no one actually asked.  It seems like she was just waiting for her big moment to reveal it.

I have to wonder that if no one had asked the question, would she still have found some reason to make the “big announcement”?

And you’ll notice that she says nothing about Grindelwald being gay, just that Dumbledore was “smitten”.

From a comment as Ace’s:

Wait, I just got it.  Dumbledore died.  Rowling wrote it.  Rowling killed a gay man.

That’s a hate crime!

LOL

She’s like the George Lucas of books.  Revisionist and hates her fans.  See?  Told you I understand.  I love Star Wars and the universe, but I want to beat George Lucas with a three foot steel pipe.

I’ll take out his kneecaps you can take him when he hits the ground.  Worst thing to happen to the Star Wars Universe was Lucas getting back involved in it.

In 20 years Rowling will re-release her books the way she oringally intended them to be.  With computer generated pages, deleted pages, and new words including the 2 minute poem by dumbledore about his love of frilly undergarments.

as a harry potter fanatic (is it unhealthy for a 32 year old to have read the series 3x, and can’t wait to read them again??), i would like to offer some clarification, which may or may not be found relevant by anyone on earth:

But to come up with it after the fact, despite the lack of any evidence at all in any of the books, is purely pandering for political points

She’s like the George Lucas of books.  Revisionist and hates her fans.

i am not going to discuss whether deciding dumbledore is gay was political pandering.

however, you should know that throughout the 7 books, and especially after deathly hallows, JKR QUITE often canonizes facts not in the book.  from something as benign as who got married after book 7, what jobs they had, personality traits that people were curious about, and this latest.  in the same reading, she discussed who neville married, and the fact that hagrid was the eternal bachelor. 

she’s been doing this for years, and contrary to Lucas, it’s appreciated by the fans.  it’s not necessarily revisionist, since it doesn’t change anything.  no one noticed until she picked what some people consider a “hot button” issue. 

[there are a couple of errors she corrected in her books which i suppose could be deemed “revisionist,” but they were flat wrong, such as the order in which certain characters bit it being incorrect]

also, i would say (and this is strictly conjecture) that 1/2 of what she canonizes outside of the book is the result of careful planning as part of her deliberate character development, and 1/2 comes to her after the fact, but is still deliberate.  i find it doubtful that any of it is “on the spot,” since i’m almost positive all the questions are pre-approved.  i think there’s a good chance that dumbly was gay in her mind for quite some time, even if not from day one.  there’s a chance otherwise as well, of course, but this is just my opinion.

the story i have read regarding dumbly coming out of the closet, is that during the review of the HBP script, there was reference to an old (female) flame of dumbledore, and she took it out as being inaccurate.  thus, it seems quite thought out as part of the character description.  (i’d quote a source if i was feeling ambitious, but i’m not!  i can find one if necessary)

maybe she wanted to out dumbly before anyone made that story known? ;)

my post was so grammatically flawed.

i have no intention of fixing it, just wanted you to know that i know ;)

(is it unhealthy for a 32 year old to have read the series 3x, and can’t wait to read them again??)

Only three times? You must not be able to multitask very well, young lady. ;-)

during the review of the HBP script, there was reference to an old (female) flame of dumbledore,

And where in hell did THAT detail come from? There is absolutely no reason for such a thing to be written into the script in the first place, since almost all of the “past events” subplot in HBP is about searching into Voldemort’s past, not Dumbledore’s. (I say “almost all” because at least two of the trips into the Pensieve involve Dumbledore’s personal memories.) It certainly never appears in the book.

Once more, for those in the cheap seats, the stories are about HARRY POTTER, not the past loves of Albus Dumbledore.

Jo-jo, first, don’t be too ashamed at 32. I’ve got 4 (almost 5) years on you, and I cherished these books, as well.

And as for Rowling’s thought process, it’s obvious to me that the reason the books worked so well was because she was simply recounting the happenings of a fully formed universe that she had sole intellectual access to. Her writing was not page-specific. In the Potter universe, things happened all the time that she never recounted. She was just giving us limited access to a world that was independent in her mind, and had a life of it’s own, if that makes any sense.

However, if I’m not mistaken, all the other “revisions” or fleshing-out of previously untold details were all in response to direct questions regarding them. No leading, no offering; just answers to burning questions.
Dumby’s sexuality (practised or not) was never a question that was asked, nor that needed to be answered.
This tidbit was, quite obviously, forced into the public sphere by Rowling for her own reasons.

Was it answered to a director to counter an inaccurate plot point in a film?
Maybe.
But then why go on and throw it out there in a different setting?
I’m assuming the director took that direction, and cut the scene/line, and that was the end of that, right?
So why force that issue on a public gathering that never even thought of the question, let alone asked it?

Sorry, jo-jo. She’s soap-boxing it, and it’s painfully obvious, at least to me.

In other news, in response to a fan’s question as to whether there will be more reprintings of The Chronicles of Narnia, the estate of C.S. Lewis issued a statement this morning that
“Aslan, after all, was just a great, big Pussy.”

Dumby’s sexuality (practised or not) was never a question that was asked, nor that needed to be answered.
This tidbit was, quite obviously, forced into the public sphere by Rowling for her own reasons.

So why force that issue on a public gathering that never even thought of the question, let alone asked it?

From the article JimK linked to:

She took audience questions and was asked if Dumbledore found “true love”.

Maybe she didn’t need to answer the question, but why take her to task for doing so?

Maybe she didn’t need to answer the question, but why take her to task for doing so?

Spaceworlder, maybe if you’d paid attention the first 3 times we answered this question from you, you might already know.

Once more; because the only reason she’s doing so is for political pandering, and that is, flat-out, annoying.

So, that’s why I take her to task for doing so…
which is a far more reasonable position than you have for celebrating her for doing so.

Once more; because the only reason she’s doing so is for political pandering, and that is, flat-out, annoying.

I somehow get the feeling you wouldn’t be as “annoyed” if she were pandering to your politics.

So, that’s why I take her to task for doing so…
which is a far more reasonable position than you have for celebrating her for doing so.

What’s so unreasonable about my praise of her actions?

How did I know this was going to turn into an epic-length comment section despite being over essentially nothing...?

Because when its something dealing with homosexuality, whenever someone is critical of the position people with a massive chip on their shoulders believe you’re arguing because you hate gay people.

And then people go and accuse others of “you’d do the same thing if they were pandering to your views,” you know because that’s the only reason they are sticking up for it.  “If I do something everyone would obviously be the same way as well.”

Buzzion:

I’m sorry for arguing against the notion that Rowling should be criticized for deciding the sexuality of a character she created. Clearly, you are much wiser than I with my chipped shoulder.

I was going more for “experience” as the reason, but whatever.

Its not the matter of deciding the sexuality of a character she created.  She is pandering to a group of people as has been pointed out.  If she wanted him to be gay she should have you know, put it in the book.  Oh but wait these books aren’t about that.  But she has now inserted it into canon.

Its complete garbage, and your little “you would do it to if it was in favor of you” defense is crap.  You know that comprehensive piece of shit immigration deal that congress tried to backdoor passed everyone in the nation?  I want to know who all the cowardly shit congressmen are that decided they’d vote no after it became obvious it wasn’t going to pass.  In your little world view I should be happy with these people for pandering to me, but I’m not.  Guess you’re not as psychic as you thought.

Its not the matter of deciding the sexuality of a character she created.  She is pandering to a group of people as has been pointed out.  If she wanted him to be gay she should have you know, put it in the book.  Oh but wait these books aren’t about that.  But she has now inserted it into canon.

So, you’re pissed because she made a few gay people happy?

Its complete garbage, and your little “you would do it to if it was in favor of you” defense is crap.  You know that comprehensive piece of shit immigration deal that congress tried to backdoor passed everyone in the nation?  I want to know who all the cowardly shit congressmen are that decided they’d vote no after it became obvious it wasn’t going to pass.  In your little world view I should be happy with these people for pandering to me, but I’m not.  Guess you’re not as psychic as you thought.

Broken analogy: Rowling isn’t a bureaucrat.

So, you’re pissed because she made a few gay people happy?

Pissed she’s pandering.  I don’t like being pandered to, and I don’t like people who pander.  You want to be a sucker go right ahead.

Broken analogy: Rowling isn’t a bureaucrat.

And both groups are pandering.  And were Rowling a bureaucrat, it wouldn’t be an analogy.

So, you’re pissed because she made a few gay people happy?

Oh, you mean she was pandering. I knew if we pointed it out often enough, it might sink in…

Broken analogy: Rowling isn’t a bureaucrat.

No, but she is seeking public approval in the form of dollars, rather than votes. (There is little enough of a distinction on that issue already, thankyouverymuch, so please leave off making your own.)

And if teenagers were allowed to vote, I’m sure she would be elected Governor somewhere. Hmmm, let’s see, which major western state elected a (foreign-born) man as Governor almost solely on his celebrity?

So, you’re pissed because she made a few gay people happy?

Sweet flying fuckwads, you’re thick!

I gotta know, spaceworlder… are you really
this vapid, or are you just playing to the crowd,
here?

No, no… seriously… you do know how incredibly moronic what you’re sounds right now, don’t you?

The woman in pandering for her own selfish reasons, and that annoys me. (and others)
I couldn’t possibly care less to whom she panders.
Get that straight, please!

You see, my protest is fair, at least.
Yours, however, is highly suspect.

If Rowling were next to declare, say, that Harry Potter moved to the U.S., registered republican and was a vocal defender of George Bush and the Iraq war, what would you have to say about it?

...no, I mean honestly.

Because I, for one, would be just as annoyed as I am right now.

You, however, would likely be pointing a 6” twig at every photo of Rowling you could find, screaming “cruciatus!”, and you know it.

So don’t give me any more of your “because she’s not pandering to you” crap, you disingenuous little cretin.

“Hit him again, he’s still twitching!” LOL

You, however, would likely be pointing a 6” twig at every photo of Rowling you could find, screaming “cruciatus!”, and you know it.

You owe me a keyboard, pal. That was priceless. *applause*

I think I’ll just leave you guys to your circle jerking.

How did I know this was going to turn into an epic-length comment section despite being over essentially nothing...?

Dude.  You know you’re freaking reading my mind, right?

Stop that.  And in case you saw that one part in there while you were reading my mind, no, it doesn’t mean anything.  It’s just a thought.  I wouldn’t actually fillet anyone.  ;)

I think I’ll just leave you guys to your circle jerking.

I’ll have you know I would never circle jerk.

That’s fucking gay, dude.  No way.

(he dryly quipped.)

That comment wasn’t directed at you JimK. :-)

Ooh, what a zinger you have come up with. I don’t know that I will ever be able to adequately respond to your rapier-like wit.

Or half of one, anyway.

(Are you an idiot all the time or just when you post comments here?)

He walked around in a dress all day and swished his wrists about. How is that NOT gay?

Sorry to be late to the party. :-)

Did she do it for political pandering? No idea. Have to ask her.

Did she make it up after the fact? I don’t think so… I think it might not have been intended to be his back story from the start, but I think that when she decided to write in Grindelwald it became his story.

Do I think she did it for the publicity? Obviously, since no one really picked up on this whole “harry potter” thing and it really needed a boost in the press. I mean, that’s the only possible explanation.

Do I ultimately care? Not in the least.

Do I think she did it for the publicity? Obviously, since no one really picked up on this whole “harry potter” thing and it really needed a boost in the press. I mean, that’s the only possible explanation.

ok, that made my monday morning ;)

p.s. sean - did you finish gum thief?  i have a little left to go, but i am enjoying it!

I ordered the special edition, so it hasn’t shown up yet. I forgot about it, actually… I’ll have to go check my pre-order status.

oh.  right.  duh.  we had this convo.  i bought both so i wouldn’t have to wait ;)

The Onion weighs in on this vital issue

“Hey, that wasn’t supposed to come out yet. Incloseto putbacko!”

BWAHAHAHAHAHA

Did she do it for political pandering? No idea. Have to ask her.

Did she make it up after the fact? I don’t think so… I think it might not have been intended to be his back story from the start, but I think that when she decided to write in Grindelwald it became his story.

Do I think she did it for the publicity? Obviously, since no one really picked up on this whole “harry potter” thing and it really needed a boost in the press. I mean, that’s the only possible explanation.

Do I ultimately care? Not in the least.

Bingo. (props to Sean)

Don’t know, don’t really care--though I personally find it feasible that she considered him gay from the beginning, and wrote him that way, in what was a largely (if not entirely) desexualised universe.  Meaning, his sexuality only entered into the picture tangentially, and in a mostly unnoticeable way.

Afterwards, the question came up, and she answered it.  (Notice, she’s now taking flak from both sides, as was largely predictable.  There will probably be people who will now pore over her books to analyze the gay theme to it...which will add approximately 1% to her sales, if that...and analyzing sexuality in a series almost devoid of sex is sure to be tons of fun) Perhaps it was pointless to even bring it up now, but really, whatever.  They’re her books.

And I will admit, I say this as someone who is *not* a fan.  I dealt with HP the same way I did with the Wheel of Time series:  a friend recommended them, I managed to get 4 books in and finally lost interest.  So I can’t comment with any validity, really, perhaps something enormous happened later in the series to add some real depth to this argument, but I doubt it.  Dumbledore was the guardian-of-the-hero character.  He is now/was gay.  There is nothing to prove/disprove this aspect of him, barring a DJ Quick-esque “sweet black pussy” comment that I missed in book 6.  Who the hell cares.  Seriously.

I have a sneaky suspicion that this is an after the fact revelation and was done in relation to Hollywood and the movies. If you notice the movies started out following the books almost word for word. Then when they changed directors Dumbledore became a harsh 60’s hippy. That’s not how it read and certainly not how he started off in the first movies.
Look at what Hollywood did to the Dukes of Hazzard, The Honeymooners and so many other movies. They can’t understand a world where there is no gay person so they have to have a scene in the coming movie to show Dumbledore liked men to fit with their world view.

The last reason he was not gay until now is that if you make him gay from the beginning his whole relationship with Harry, Snape and several other male characters take on some whole new meanings and become a sick twisted story of man-love and students. Does that mean Harry is gay too? I mean he lived in a closet and didn’t come out until high school. Oh and I see, Snape is actually a transgendered wizard who dislikes Harry because he is friends with Hermoine. All the detentions were Snapes way of getting Harry alone so he could get Harry to admit his true feelings for Ron. It all makes sense now!

This is 100% the influence of Hollywood and total crap on JK’s part. She wrote a wonderful children’s story that fired the imagination of millions of adults as well and Hollywood can’t stand that their propaganda was not being pushed on us so they found a way.

PS just look at the rest of the quotes from the article. No that’s not pandering is it???

Gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell welcomed the news about Dumbledore and said: “It’s good that children’s literature includes the reality of gay people, since we exist in every society.

“But I am disappointed that she did not make Dumbledore’s sexuality explicit in the Harry Potter book. Making it obvious would have sent a much more powerful message of understanding and acceptance.”

And a spokesman for gay rights group Stonewall added: “It’s great that JK has said this. It shows that there’s no limit to what gay and lesbian people can do, even being a wizard headmaster.”

Please!

The last reason he was not gay until now is that if you make him gay from the beginning his whole relationship with Harry, Snape and several other male characters take on some whole new meanings and become a sick twisted story of man-love and students.

Because lord knows gay men can’t exist without buttfucking any other male they come across. Just like all straight men fuck every female they come across, right?

Oh dear, I guess pre-revelation Dumbledore was committing some federal crimes with Hermione, in that case.

By the way, in case that massive load of stupid that you just sprayed all over this blog like it was Tila Tequila on any given Friday was in fact just sarcasm, I apologize. If you meant it, I feel sorry, but in an entirely different way and for entirely different reasons.

Gotta love that “cater to me or you’re a homophobe” mindset so prevalent among gays.

She’s still pandering, Rann, even if you think she’s pandering to you personally. (See also “brownnose”, “suck up to”, “kaotao”...)

I said nothing about pandering.In fact, if you’ll look up a bit earlier, I said I thought she was attention whoring. In that particular comment I addressed a ridiculous assertion, that being that since Dumbledore was gay he must also be having gay sex with his underlings and be a pedophile.

But I’m sorry, Drumwaster. I’m getting in the middle of you putting words in my mouth so that you can yet again try to excise your personal demons by ranting at the world and not-so-subtly blaming an entire, broad class of people, raging over everything connected to them, because of what one person did to you.

Please, do continue. I will not be responding, but since you don’t seem to need me to actually say anything for you to decide what I’m saying, I don’t imagine that will deter you.

because of what one person did to you.

Speaking of “putting words in mouths"…

But please, tell us more about what must have happened to me as a child to explain why I don’t think allowing one State to dictate domestic (marriage) laws to the rest of the nation is a good idea.

So, according to you, because I’m against gay marriage, I must be 1) afraid of teh gheys, 2) hate teh gheys, and 3) suffering from gay sexual abuse as a child?

So when was the last time you wore a pair of bare-assed chaps while riding a float down Lankershim Blvd? If not, then why do you assume that I fit the opposite stereotype? Because I don’t put up with people trying to impose their lifestyle in the face of overwhelming voter opposition? I don’t think we should all be forced to attend church services, either, but that doesn’t make me an atheist…

IOW, project much, dumbass?

Because I don’t put up with people trying to impose their lifestyle in the face of overwhelming voter opposition?

No one’s imposing anything on anyone. All the gays want is the right to marry one another. They aren’t asking for straight people to become homosexual. If you ask me, that’s a reasonable demand.

If anything, people who are against gay marriage are the ones imposing their lifestyle on others. Who are you to say if two people of the same gender can’t marry?

And while we’re throwing names around:

Drumwaster, you are a dip shit.

EXPECTO PATRONUM

All the gays want is the right to marry one another.

Not true. What they are demanding is public recognition of that act.

Who are you to say if two people of the same gender can’t marry?

Since I have never said that, nice try. What I am advocating is the State’s right to decide, using its own vox populi methods, such issues for itself.

The Constitution doesn’t mention marriage. The Tenth Amendment reserves any powers, not specifically given to the Feds or specifically prohibited by it, to the States. If each State were to be able to decide issues such as gay marriage and abortion for themselves, rather than have an unwelcome and abusive solution imposed from above, then decide which of the fifty solutions might work best, then our Government would work the way it is supposed to.

As we have it, we have advocates of gay marriage ignoring the democratic processes in an attempt to get one unelected judge to rule in a specific fashion, then try to compel every State to conform its laws to that unelected legislator-in-a-black-robe’s whim.

That is how we get ruling that allow local governments to ignore eminent domain precedent, or five people who never have to submit themselves to public approval making a decision that shouldn’t have been made by that branch in the first place.

Gay marriage isn’t being prohibited, no matter how many times you can allege that it is. No one is preventing you from marrying your butcher, or from Andy Sullivan from marrying his Brazilian pool boy if that is what he wants.

It is just that the State, who has a specific and directed interest in contuining and advocating its own existence, gets to decide for itself what kinds of behaviors it wishes to encourage. Notwithstanding the various exceptions (childless couples, etc.), the goal of marriage is the production and protection of children and the conservation of assets. Society has the right and authority to decide for itself which methods it will use to encourage that behavior, and if - no, when - society chooses to alter the requirements that have been set (involving age, gender, number and consanguinity of the participants, plus associated health concerns), then it will do so through the voice and methods chosen for such changes to be percolated through the system. In our society that is through the Legislative Branch.

NOT the Judicial.

When you can get a majority of the voting public to support a position you are advocating, then you will get what you want. Until then, I am under no obligation to defend my position, because I’m not the one advocating for change. I don’t have to point out that existing societies that permit same-gender marriages are collapsing even faster, as the dovirce rate is actually higher than our own rate of almost 50%. I don’t have to point out the obvious difficulty of raising a child in mom-and-mom or dad-and-dad relationships (or even single parent families) as being “just as good as” families with both a mother and father, because the facts say otherwise.

And none of that has anything to do with being afraid, just choosing to believe that society won’t be improved by a change that could conceivably cause even more harm to a society that can’t handle any more upheaval without cracking.

In the meantime, when you have something better than “if you are against gay marriage, it must be because you are homophobic”, give me a call. Otherwise, quit wasting time on something you can’t justify.

If you two want to run off and get married, I’m sure Sean would be happy to act as best man…

I’d be honoured.

I don’t have to point out that existing societies that permit same-gender marriages are collapsing even faster, as the dovirce rate is actually higher than our own rate of almost 50%. I don’t have to point out the obvious difficulty of raising a child in mom-and-mom or dad-and-dad relationships (or even single parent families) as being “just as good as” families with both a mother and father, because the facts say otherwise.

Good thing you didn’t say such nonsense.. because man, you’d look like an ignorant fool (I know, I know.. big stretch).

Aren’t some judges elected in the states? (I’m thinking of Florida, where I believe that is the case).

I thought the courts are where laws are supposed to be evaluated for their constitutionality?

Not true. What they are demanding is public recognition of that act.

Um, that’s bad because...?

What I am advocating is the State’s right to decide, using its own vox populi methods, such issues for itself.

Wasn’t segregation once a “state issue?”

In the meantime, when you have something better than “if you are against gay marriage, it must be because you are homophobic”, give me a call.

But YOU ARE HOMOPHOBIC.

If blaming another country’s ills on homosexuality doesn’t qualify you as a homophobe, then what does? Seriously, you’re basically saying: “I don’t hate gay people; I just think they’re a social evil that needs to be suppressed!”

Imagine a Nazi saying he isn’t anti-semitic, even though he thinks Jewish people are responsible for all the evils in the world. Image a Klan member saying he doesn’t hate black people, he just doesn’t want them drinking from the same fountian as him.

Your homophobic disposition couldn’t be more obvious.

But YOU ARE HOMOPHOBIC.

Oh, well, if you’re gonna put it in CAPITALS, it MUST be true, right?

If blaming another country’s ills on homosexuality doesn’t qualify you as a homophobe

Not on homosexuality. On gay marriage. There is a difference, as I’m sure you can see.

Or perhaps not, given that your worldview requires that someone be either a full-throated advocate of gay marriage or a homophobe, there being no middle ground.

Homophobe ranks right up there (or perhaps “down there") with “racist” or “bigot” by removing the argument from the area of facts into feelings, and no one is more shrill at “expressing their feelings” than homosexuals. (Since the use of stereotypes are not only acceptable, but almost mandatory.)

It must suck, being as heterophobic as you are.

Imagine a Nazi saying he isn’t anti-semitic

Godwin’s Law having been invoked, I shall retire in quiet victory.

(Tell me, does it hurt being that stupid? If not, it should.)

My point was about the militant gays not the normal people. And YES had Dumblebore been gay from the get go it would not have been a childrens book. IF it was a childrens book with a an openly gay Dumbledore, as the militants would have liked, then it becomes a much different story.

Call it homophobic if you like but “hidden gay characters” in a childrens book IS an agenda/

I have no care of who does what with who but I do care when that agenda is subversively pushed on others just as you would be if there was a claim of a hidden gay basher. What if you found out that the “real” intent was that “pure bloods” was actually code for heteros and “mud-bloods” were the gays?  You’d be pissed if she came out with some crap like that now wouldn’t you.

PS. Yes the hetero male teachers would have wanted the female students. They may not have acted on it but it is there. So why is it so hard to accept that gay men might be enticed by a school full of young me when a straight male could be enticed by a school full of girls? Or once you’re gay does your normal male drive go away?

I like to think that I’m a normal male, and am not even remotely enticed by 12 year olds.

Oh, well, if you’re gonna put it in CAPITALS, it MUST be true, right?

It’s called emphasis, dip shit.

Not on homosexuality. On gay marriage. There is a difference, as I’m sure you can see.

No there isn’t.

Or perhaps not, given that your worldview requires that someone be either a full-throated advocate of gay marriage or a homophobe, there being no middle ground.

Please. You preaching a “middle ground?” Can you get any more dishonest?

It must suck, being as heterophobic as you are.

It would certainly suck if I were, because I am hetero you fucking ‘tard.

Godwin’s Law having been invoked, I shall retire in quiet victory.

“He brought up Nazi-ism! That means his analogy is wrong!”

Drumwaster, you are a dumb ass.

It’s called emphasis, dip shit.

And using EMPHASIS does not make your words any more TRUE.

No there isn’t.

Yes, there is, just as there would be a difference between being straight and being single.

Can you get any more dishonest?

Fuck you. There is no correlation between personal sexual preference and one’s position on gay marriage. There are heteros who support gay marriage and homosexuals who oppose it.

It would certainly suck if I were

But what if I EMPHASIZE that you are a heterophobe? Doesn’t that make it TRUE?

because I am hetero

Self-loathing heterophobe, no doubt. Just like gays against gay marriage.

“He brought up Nazi-ism! That means his analogy is wrong!”

No, moron, it means that since you had to resort to comparing me to the Nazis because I oppose you on a political issue, it means your argument is pathetically weak, your logic is flawed, and your conclusion is inescapably invalid, with your only resort to be throwing more “feelings” at me as if those would somehow convince me that you are right.

“Oh, my God, he thinks I’m a Nazi; maybe I’d better change my mind.”

Puh.
Leeze.

“Homophobe” “Bigot” “Nazi” “Dumb ass”

Have you got anything more than name-calling?

And using EMPHASIS does not make your words any more TRUE.

That’s not the point, moron.

Yes, there is, just as there would be a difference between being straight and being single.

If you’re blaming gay marriage for society’s ills, then you’re blaming homosexuality by extension.

Fuck you. There is no correlation between personal sexual preference and one’s position on gay marriage. There are heteros who support gay marriage and homosexuals who oppose it.

“You are either with us or against us.”

I think you know who said that.

But what if I EMPHASIZE that you are a heterophobe? Doesn’t that make it TRUE?

Keep grasping for straws, dumb ass.

Self-loathing heterophobe, no doubt. Just like gays against gay marriage.

I love being heterosexual, thank you very much.

No, moron, it means that since you had to resort to comparing me to the Nazis because I oppose you on a political issue, it means your argument is pathetically weak, your logic is flawed, and your conclusion is inescapably invalid, with your only resort to be throwing more “feelings” at me as if those would somehow convince me that you are right.

No, it doesn’t.

Have you got anything more than name-calling?

I’ll stop calling you names when you start making rational arguments.

That’s not the point, moron.

So what, exactly, WOULD be the point of EMPHASIZING something that is NOT ONLY not true, but something you have no evidence for, and for NO OTHER REASON than trying to claim some mythical moral high ground? Because all you have done is ignore the facts and dive straight back into sheer name-calling.

Given that you don’t have anything else, I can see the inevitability of your tactic, but not the point.

If you’re blaming gay marriage for society’s ills, then you’re blaming homosexuality by extension.

No, I’m not, and I never even said THAT. (Is English a second language for you?)

“You are either with us or against us.”

I think you know who said that.

He was talking about terrorism. Are you seriously comparing gays to terrorists?

(And you call ME the homophobe...)

Keep grasping for straws, dumb ass.

Whereas YOU using that TACTIC of EMPHASIZING WORDS? Reality-based.

I love being heterosexual, thank you very much.

Just makes you MORE of a HETEROPHOBE, you BIGOT! (See how I EMPHASIZED that? Gotta make it true, because you said so.)

No, it doesn’t.

Actually, yes, it does. Just because you refuse to admit something doesn’t make it false, and just because you blindly assert something doesn’t make it true. Evidence - it’s not just for—ah, who am I kidding. You’re allergic to such things, so I shouldn’t even tease you by writing the word…

I’ll stop calling you names when you start making rational arguments.

I’m not the one who has to make the argument. ("Burden of proof”. Google it!) But because I disagree with your unsupported assertions, I must be a {fill in the insult du temps}, right?

Having a factual and legal basis (which I’ve gone over time and again) in making the case for States’ Rights, for Federalism and against Judicial Activism is meaningless because you assert that I must be afraid of teh ghey.

I suppose that it is theoretically possible that you could be farther from the truth, but I don’t think the Hubble would even be able to see across that distance…

So what, exactly, WOULD be the point of EMPHASIZING something that is NOT ONLY not true, but something you have no evidence for, and for NO OTHER REASON than trying to claim some mythical moral high ground? Because all you have done is ignore the facts and dive straight back into sheer name-calling.

The point is to emphasize my exasperation at your dishonesty. As for evidence, there’s tons of it in this thread alone.

No, I’m not, and I never even said THAT. (Is English a second language for you?)

Perhaps you didn’t say it, but the implication is that the “homosexual” side of gay marriage is what makes it a social illness, right?

He was talking about terrorism. Are you seriously comparing gays to terrorists?

(And you call ME the homophobe...)

So, you believe there are issues that don’t have a middle ground?

Whereas YOU using that TACTIC of EMPHASIZING WORDS? Reality-based.

Emphasis isn’t a tactic, it’s a device.

Just makes you MORE of a HETEROPHOBE, you BIGOT! (See how I EMPHASIZED that? Gotta make it true, because you said so.)

If you really want to impersonate me, trying following up your emphasis with paragraphs that back your argument. I know it’s tough for you to be rational, but at least try. You don’t want to go through life being a dumb ass, do you?

Actually, yes, it does. Just because you refuse to admit something doesn’t make it false, and just because you blindly assert something doesn’t make it true. Evidence - it’s not just for—ah, who am I kidding. You’re allergic to such things, so I shouldn’t even tease you by writing the word…

First of all, you haven’t said why my analogy falls under Godwin’s Law, which doesn’t condemn all evocations of the term ‘Nazi.’ Second of all, Godwin’s Law isn’t even a real law, and it’s been falling out of style lately anyways due to abuse from fucking ‘tards like yourself.

Having a factual and legal basis (which I’ve gone over time and again) in making the case for States’ Rights, for Federalism and against Judicial Activism is meaningless because you assert that I must be afraid of teh ghey.

No, it’s meaningless because our country recognizes that everyone is created equal. By extension, that means homosexuals have the right to be legally married. If we deny them that right, that means we are deeming them less equal than heterosexuals. That alone overrides all your legal mumbo jumbo.

The point is to emphasize my exasperation at your dishonesty.

Ah. But you are now doing what is known as “begging the question”. That is to say, assuming facts not in evidence.

I am not being dishonest simply because you assert me to be so. You actually have to prove that I am being dishonest. And given your complete lack of facts so far, the tendency seems to lean towards you not only NOT making such proof, but actively avoiding such niceties, relying solely on your unsupported assertions.

And those, in the face of my repeated disproving of your assertions, means that YOU are the one being dishonest.

Irony can be pretty ironic, wouldn’t you agree?

Perhaps you didn’t say it, but the implication is that the “homosexual” side of gay marriage is what makes it a social illness, right?

I didn’t say THAT, either. Why not go back and re-read it? (Wait—an unspoken assumption in that direction is that you actually read it the first time, and I have no evidence for such an assertion.)

So, you believe there are issues that don’t have a middle ground?

Hey, YOU’RE the one saying that gays are like terrorists…

Emphasis isn’t a tactic, it’s a device.

When you use a device as a tool to accomplish a goal (no matter the relative worth of that goal), that use is called a “tactic”. Google it!

If you really want to impersonate me

Not impersonating. Just using the TACTICS that you deemed as acceptable. You don’t like the use? Don’t do it yourself, then whine when others do it to you. That is called HYPOCRISY, and no one will take you seriously for being one.

trying following up your emphasis with paragraphs that back your argument.

Yet another instance of your HYPOCRISY—telling others to follow a pattern of behavior that you have no intention of following yourself.

First of all, you haven’t said why my analogy falls under Godwin’s Law, which doesn’t condemn all evocations of the term ‘Nazi.’

Clearly you have no access to Google or Yahoo, since a quick search would have been able to show you even the Wiki entry on Godwin’s Law.

It even points out how the Economist knows that “A good rule in most discussions is that the first person to call the other a Nazi automatically loses the argument.” Anyone who has been on the web for a while knows such things. Which, of course, explains why you haven’t got a clue. What’s worse, you couldn’t buy a clue.

You couldn’t get a clue during the clue mating season in a field full of horny clues if you smeared your body with clue musk and did the clue mating dance.

Here’s a thought: why not actually learn something about a topic before running your mouth? You won’t be right any more often, but people will stop laughing at you for being wrong…

Second of all, Godwin’s Law isn’t even a real law, and it’s been falling out of style lately anyways due to abuse from fucking ‘tards like yourself.

YOU bring it up by comparing me to Nazis, and I’m the “fucking ‘tard” that is abusing it? Puh-leeze.

See what I mean about ignoring the facts in favor of invective?

By extension, that means homosexuals have the right to be legally married.

Non sequitor. (Latin for “that {which} does not follow”.)

And, they have every right to be married, but no right at all to force the state to set aside the requirements for the recognition of that (state-issued) license.

Just like the state can put requirements that are deemed prudent and necessary for the issuance of a driver’s license, a doctor’s license, a stockbroker’s license, a contractor’s license, et cetera, they get to decide what requirements are prudent and necessary to qualify for a marriage license. Those requirements involve age, consanguinity, marital status (you can’t get a license if you are already married), mental ability, and some states even involve health issues (requiring a blood test). 38 States have now included the additional requirement that the two parties include one man and one woman.

The States have that right, as does the Federal Government (signed under Clinton).

If you want to change that, then more power to you in your attempt, but you shouldn’t hold your breath. Until that is changed, however, gays can still be married, but those marriages will not be officially recognized by those States.

None of which has ANYTHING to do with the original thread, by the way, and since you will immediately resort to your standard tactic (name-calling), I don’t even know why I’m bothering.

If we deny them that right, that means we are deeming them less equal than heterosexuals.

Not at all. They have the right to get married to whomever tickles their fancy. They do NOT have the “right” to force the State to change the requirements for that license, any more than elementary school kids have the right to force the change in the definitions regarding age on a driver’s license, or any of the building trade specialists have the “right” to force the states to change their tradecraft requirements for a specialty contractor’s license. That doesn’t make pre-adolescents of handyment second-class citizens, just that they don’t meet the State’s requirements for the issuance of their respective licenses.

That alone overrides all your legal mumbo jumbo.

Also known as “The Constitution of the United States”. How DARE I bring up such mumbo-jumbo when discussing such important topics as the “right” of Andy Sullivan to marry his pool boy?

Since you have no interest in the “mumbo-jumbo”, all you have left is more name-calling. Quelle surprise.

They do NOT have the “right” to force the State to change the requirements for that license,
...

just that they don’t meet the State’s requirements for the issuance of their respective licenses.

You know you just admitted that the state is declaring some less equal than others based solely on if they are gay or not, right?

I’m sorry, but that’s discrimination any way you slice it, and it should be against the law, not codified into the law.  Individuals have rights that trump the interest of the state or the majority in America.  We were founded on that very principle.  Sometimes it takes us awhile to recognize the rights of various groups.  Blacks, women...now it’s gay people.

Unless we don’t value the rights of individuals in the U.S. anymore.  That can’t possibly be true, can it?  If it is, that’s not *my* country.  My country is the sweet land of liberty.

And justice.

For all.

You know you just admitted that the state is declaring some less equal than others based solely on if they are gay or not, right?

No, I have not. What I have done is state that the State has the sole authority to decide which acts or conditions or occupations or activities it wishes to either endorse, encourage, subsidize, discourage, deter, criminalize and punish.

If the State wishes to encourage heterosexual marriage or child-rearing, it will offer tax subsidies or breaks for such activities. If it wishes to discourage an activity, it will either outlaw, tax or (as in the current case) exclude certain conditions and occupations from public recognition.

Sometimes it takes us awhile to recognize the rights of various groups.  Blacks, women...now it’s gay people.

And if that is the case, it will be made in exactly the same manner as the granting of certain rights and conditions to blacks and women - through the legitimate Legislative processes (either through a Constitutional Amendment or through Legislative Action and Executive enforcement).

NOT through the whim of one unelected (therefore, unanswerable to the wishes of the people) individual in a black robe in one small jurisdiction deciding the issue for the whole nation.

And justice.

For all.

Justice includes the laws currently on the books, does it not? If a law is unConstitutional, judges are welcome to overturn it. But just because a law is not popular with a vocal minority is not sufficient reason to ignore the thousands of years of societal and legal precedents that are behind that law.

A societal change of this magnitude should have clearly foreseeable benefits, or the change should not be made.

I am quite serious when I say that those societies that have allowed gay marriage have not had their societies made happier, healthier, or better in any form of measure or manner thereby. Divorce rates are WORSE than the average hetero marriage.

And the only argument to “why should we make such a major change?” seems to be “why shouldn’t we?”.

From a Federalism standpoint, from a States’ Rights standpoint, from a individualistic standpoint, all of them lead to maintaining the status quo.

When a State starts requiring gays to marry persons of the opposite sex, then you can come to me and complain that someone’s rights are being violated. But no State has done that. They have simply added one more definition for a legal status recognized by the State.

It isn’t the act of getting married that gays want, it is the public recognition of that act. The State refuses to play along, just like it would refuse to acknowledge the result of a handfasting (which I have attended), attendance at an unaccredited medical school, or a vote for a candidate that did not properly register with the civil authorities.

I’m getting sick and tired of responding to every one of your increasingly stupider (and lengthier) comments, so I’m just gonna zero in on one statement:

If the State wishes to encourage heterosexual marriage or child-rearing, it will offer tax subsidies or breaks for such activities. If it wishes to discourage an activity, it will either outlaw, tax or (as in the current case) exclude certain conditions and occupations from public recognition.

Um, call me a hardcore Libertarian if you want, but the State doesn’t have the right to do any of that. It’s sole purpose is to enforce the law and protect both the safety and rights of its citizenry.

It’s sole purpose is to enforce the law and protect both the safety and rights of its citizenry.

First (and this is a minor nit, so learn from it, then move on), it’s “its”, for the usage you were intending. (Public school kid, weren’t you? That’s okay, so was I, I just took the time to actually learn stuff.) Just remember that, in contractions, the apostrophe is in the place of one or more missing letters. In this case, you wrote “It is sole purpose...”, and that makes no sense at all.

On the other hand, you might just be an utter moron, and actually meant to say that. There is evidence among your ramblings that you are, indeed, that stupid, so, as I said, learn from it and MoveOn.

Second, the State, like any entity, has the right to exist, and to perpetuate itself - to keep on existing. This is usually expressed as the right of self-defense, but the other side of that coin is the internal policies that the State is allowed to impose, by virtue of the consent of its citizenry. (Even a dictator rules by the consent of the governed—no matter how difficult he makes it for them to withhold it, they always have the right to say “No”, even if that is their last word. Verb. Sap.: “You cannot enslave a free man - the most you can do is kill him.")

If the citizens want something to happen, they elect legislators to make that thing happen. If it doesn’t, then:

a) there wasn’t (yet) enough support for that thing to push the issue through the established procedures; or,
b) they elect new legislators to make that thing happen

Sometimes these things are real-time and driven by current events (such as the almost knee-jerk reaction of declaring war against Japan two days after Pearl Harbor) and sometimes they take years and are driven by societal pressure (the women’s suffrage movement).

But if the idea is ripe, it’s going to happen.

If you honestly feel that gay marriage is “the next thing to do”, then agitate and legislate for it. If, in that deepest, dankest hole in your secret heart-of-hearts (right next to your secret love for the Care-Bears), you know that History will bear you out, then rest assured that it will eventually happen. When it does, you can congratulate yourself by saying, “I was for gay marriage back when Bush was in the White House!”, and feel all “cutting-edge” when your so-called friends are all, like, “No wei, d00d!”.

If, on the other hand, you don’t really think that, and you are pandering (as J.K. Rowling was), then maybe you should really think about picking up a different hobby, because you are on the wrong end of six-to-one odds among the voting public, and that simple fact tells me that the time is NOT ripe for this issue, and by continuing to push it at your ever-increasing shrillness, no one will take you seriously on anything.

You’ll be nothing more than another Sully, with just that single drum to beat, and just as about as enjoyable to listen to. But without the slavish sycophants to self-congratulate over. (Be sure to use lubricant.)

Third, the last thing you could qualify as is a “hardcore Libertarian”. You are, in essence, arguing for an unelected super-legislator to exercise an unConstitutional abuse of powers by finding a brand-spanking-new right in a document more than 230 years, and forcing that one man’s opinion on the entire nation because of the advocacy of an extremely vocal minority.

Would you be equally willing to force everyone to attend church? Conservative Baptists make up about the same percentage of the population as the advocates of gay marriage do, and at least the Constitution mentions religious worship (as opposed to “marriage”, which appears nowhere in the COTUS).

Does that sound fair? One small denomination forcing everyone to bend to their whims and start acting and talking just like they do, or be thrown in jail for “hate crimes”. (And who doesn’t love to go to church and be told how much of a bad person you are for not wanting to sit there and be lectured to, eh?)

I’m getting sick and tired of responding to every one of your increasingly stupider (and lengthier) comments

That’s all right, I understand how your insults were getting lost in all the “mumbo-jumbo” I kept explaining to you.

You and the facts… like oil and water. No matter how much I try to get them to blend, it never quite makes it…

Out of curiousity, Drumwaster, do you think that Loving v. Virginia was bad case-law (as, say, many people feel Roe v. Wade was)?

Yes, but because it was bad precedent having the Federal Judiciary decide an extra-Constitutional issue (one that is not mentioned in, therefore falls outside of, the Constitution; ergo, the 9th and 10th Amendments grants that power to the States or the People), not because of the decision reached. As you say, much like Roe v. Wade…

Now that I have laid out my legal argument against a SCOTUS precedent allowing miscegenation and a woman’s freedom to have unprotected sex with random strangers sans consequences, feel free to rebut by calling me a racist and a sexist. It’s what Spacey would do…

Um, call me a hardcore Libertarian if you want, but the State doesn’t have the right to do any of that. It’s sole purpose is to enforce the law and protect both the safety and rights of its citizenry.

Were you a hardcore libertarian, you’d be opposed to gay marriage.  You know since what it is, is the state altering the definition and institution of something it has no right to do.  Marriage doesn’t belong to the state.  They decided to license it for the purpose of generating revenue, and encouraging the creation of new little taxpayers, for the continued existence of the state. 

You realize that there is nothing stopping two gay men from going to a church standing in front of a minister and exchanging vows, calling your partner your husband and saying you’re married.  The state just isn’t going to license it, because there isn’t the incentive to.

There is an actual solution to this that I have laid out.  Eliminate marriage from the state.  Call all legal partnerships, civil unions, gay or straight.  You want to get married, you go to someone who’s “certified” to marry, which I believe you can now become over the internet.  This eliminates opposition from religious groups since if they don’t want to recognize the marriage their church can just refuse to marry people.  And it gives homosexuals what they claim it is that they want.  Legal equality.  Of course what they claim they want and what organizations like GLAAD are after are not the same.  As drum pointed out, they want public recognition of that act. They want to stick it in the faces of all those mean old church-going heterosexuals that they are now married.  Nevermind the fact that they can call themselves married now, and a legal recognition won’t change people’s opinions.  But its not about equality, its about pushing forward an agenda.

The state just isn’t going to license it, because there isn’t the incentive to.

But there is an incentive: As I said before, one of the principles our nation was founded on is the belief that all men are created equal. If we allow heterosexual people to marry and not gay people, then the State isn’t treating every citizen equally.

Buzzion’s point that the government shouldn’t hand out marriage licenses is quite valid, but it still doesn’t address the fact that the government is discriminating against homosexuals. No matter what system we have, whether it’s the State handing out marriage licenses or simply enforcing a contract, no one should be discriminated against for their sexuality.

P.S.

Drumwaster is a dumb ass.

Drum: So the bad precedent was that the federal supreme court decided it. What if it was the State Supreme Court that had decided the matter? Surely it is in the jurisdiction of the state courts to decide on the validity of state laws?

If we allow heterosexual people to marry and not gay people, then the State isn’t treating every citizen equally.

Show me a single State that expressly prohibits gays from being married. Just one. Any of them will do.

Why don’t you do the world a favor and hold your breath until you find it?

it still doesn’t address the fact that the government is discriminating against homosexuals.

You can’t claim discrimination for not being allowed to get a marriage license for being gay any more than you can complain about discrimination in not being allowed to get a driver’s license because you are not a resident - the State has set specific requirements before granting a State-issued license.

That doesn’t prevent you - or anyone - from physically getting behind the wheel and driving a vehicle. Just because you don’t have the State’s imprimatur doesn’t mean you can’t do something…

But that fact doesn’t change the whines of the gay community that they are “not allowed to get married”, because it has never been about the “right” to get married. It is about forcing the State to acknowledge - and, by extension, condone as a matter of policy - that event and condition.

How about my suggestion that we force everyone to worship according to the methods and practices of Jerry Falwell? I mean, everyone should be allowed to worship, and that means we should all have to follow lockstep behind a very vocal minority’s whims and prejudices, or we’re not being equally protected....

Since we want everyone to be treated exactly the same, and all.

Sean: The decision was not a bad or improper one, but was one that should have been decided at the State level, given that the 13th and 14th Amendments were already long-since ratified.

That is why we have let the States maintain their sovereignty, because government is best when it is most responsive to the public, and that means making as many decisions as possible at the local level. If a State wants to be racist in its internal policies, or define the age of consent at 12, or allow medical licenses to be earned through Internet Correspondence Courses, and that doesn’t meet the wishes of the populace, then the people will correct it at the next election. (Or through a recall, if the issue is urgent enough.)

If a State wants to lose reputation, and therefore businesses and workers and tax income, by being racist or bigoted, then they will collapse by chasing away the essential elements of the lifeblood of any political entity, causing the citizens to change their minds through market forces, not judicial fiat.

If, on the other hand, a State wants to entice a segment of the population to its borders, then it will alter its policies to entice that segment, usually things involving tax breaks or subsidies or official recognition. And if anyone is offended by that policy, then they get to “change the channel” by moving to where the political and economic and social climate is more comfortable.

That is how our system is supposed to work.

If a State wants to change the definition of marriage to include same-sex relationships, then more power to them, and I hope that they succeed well enough to encourage the rest to do the same.

If they don’t, then those facts will be soon evident, and other States will also learn from that failure, maybe wishing to alter the program slightly to fix the mistakes from the earlier attempt.

Eventually, we have all fifty States having their own policy on those many issues, and the population will shift to reflect the relative popularity of those solutions, increasing the political muscle of the advocates of any given solution.

A patchwork quilt of laws, to be sure, but that is what the Constitution describes.

The 14th Amendment was primarily intended to prevent the States from trying to take away any rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights.

But marriage isn’t mentioned anywhere, which makes it a State issue, to be decided at the State level.

It sounds like from your answer that you would agree that if the state supreme court had declared it unconstitutional, you’d be fine with that. (that being said, you didn’t actually address the question directly, so I can’t be sure)

Of course, the 14th Amendment does appear to provide a pretty obvious federal jurisdiction ground.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

Sounds like the writers of this constitutional amendment had a pretty good idea that states weren’t capable of being left to their own devices entirely.

It sounds like from your answer that you would agree that if the state supreme court had declared it unconstitutional, you’d be fine with that.

Exactly so. (I happen to agree with the decision and its basis, but not the manner in which it was reached. It was something that should have been handled at the State level, it being a State Law that was under contention.)

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

And it was in response to blacks not being permitted the right to vote (which is mentioned in the Constitution). The follow-up Amendment (the 15th, in case you lost track) had to be passed before the local courts took it seriously.

The 14th Amendment simply defined what a citizen is, and guaranteed that the States would treat all adults equally when it came to its laws and the Rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

But marriage is not now, and was not then, a Federal issue, since there were no Federal laws regarding marriage and what constituted a recognized one. Marriage is, by definition, a State issue, since it is the State that issues the license.

Sounds like the writers of this constitutional amendment had a pretty good idea that states weren’t capable of being left to their own devices entirely.

And if you will show me where the Constitution mentions marriage, I shall be glad to admit that the Framers intended for Marriage to be a Constitutionally (aka, Federally) protected “privilege or immunity”.

Look, Sean, I realize that it might be difficult for many people to grasp, but the COTUS is a contract between the citizens of the United States and the Government of the United States. It being such, it is spelled out in fairly vague terms, but where there is no mention of it at all, the Framers intended for the States to handle those things at the local level. Things such as speed limits. Housing restrictions. Educational requirements.

They understood that government works best when it is most responsive to the public.

I’m not going to go over this again, since I have an appointment to go to, but there is no problem with patchwork laws when at the city vs. State level, why do you expect problems when such variations exist at the State vs. Federal level? Keep the Federal Government involved with only those issues that present a national challenge, and let the States deal with the rest.

No “penumbras” or “implied rights” nonsense, any more than there is such nonsense in an employment contract or a lease on your apartment.

Go study the 9th and 10th Amendments for awhile, and see if any of this sinks in…

Show me a single State that expressly prohibits gays from being married. Just one. Any of them will do.

Wow, you just keep getting stupider and stupider.

According to this map (Dated July 2007), ~90% of the US doesn’t allow gay marriage. It’s like pointing out grains of sands in a desert.

You can’t claim discrimination for not being allowed to get a marriage license for being gay any more than you can complain about discrimination in not being allowed to get a driver’s license because you are not a resident - the State has set specific requirements before granting a State-issued license.

Weak.

By that logic, the State could justify Jim Crow Laws by claiming they’re just “requirements.”

That doesn’t prevent you - or anyone - from physically getting behind the wheel and driving a vehicle. Just because you don’t have the State’s imprimatur doesn’t mean you can’t do something…

“Just ‘cause you don’t a have license doesn’t mean you can’t drive!”

Shit, can you get any dumber?

But that fact doesn’t change the whines of the gay community that they are “not allowed to get married”, because it has never been about the “right” to get married. It is about forcing the State to acknowledge - and, by extension, condone as a matter of policy - that event and condition.

I’m getting sick of this idiotic argument.

What you’re saying is: “Gays want to stop discrimination at the government level, and that’s bad.” Why shouldn’t the State acknowledge and condone homosexuality “as a matter of policy?” Isn’t this the God damn land of the free?

How about my suggestion that we force everyone to worship according to the methods and practices of Jerry Falwell?

Did I mention you are getting stupider with each response?

This analogy is broken because no one is trying to force anyone to become gay. All the homosexual community wants is for the government to quit discriminating against them. That’s far from cultism.

Since we want everyone to be treated exactly the same, and all.

Yes, we do want everyone to be treated exactly the same. The government should not discriminate against someone for their nationality, color, gender, political standing, religious beliefs, or sexuality. That’s what we mean when we preach that “all men are created equal.”

If you think that’s a bad thing, then I guess you’re anti-American.

~90% of the US doesn’t allow gay marriage.

You’re missing the point, and that map doesn’t prove me wrong. (Is it deliberate obtuseness on your part or are you just too stupid to grasp the distinction?)

Not a single State has prohibited gays from getting married. 38 States, the District of Columbia, and the Federal Government have said that they will not recognize any such marriages as valid, but that is a far cry from outlawing or criminalizing such activity.

By that logic, the State could justify Jim Crow Laws by claiming they’re just “requirements.”

Weak, indeed. Jim Crow laws are already expressly forbidden under Constitutional precedent and Federal Statute. (However, “Crow Jim” laws are apparently hunki-dori.)

Meanwhile, why don’t you show me where the COTUS mentions marriage, like I suggested above?

I’m getting sick of this idiotic argument.

The analogy is quite apt. Government buildings are not allowed to display Christmas manger scenes because to allow something like that means the government is condoning and encouraging such religious behavior. Therefore, they are endorsing such behavior, and that makes one particular religion ipso facto a Government-sponsored religion.

Therefore, having a Government permit something means that the Government is endorsing it. (Is this too much “mumbo-jumbo” for your microcephalic cortex to comprehend?)

From this it follows that having the Government allow gay marriage would mean that the Government is actively encouraging and endorsing such behavior.

Rather than discriminate against gays or offend other segments, the Government has chosen a middle ground - not expressly prohibiting the action, but choosing to pretend that such things don’t exist, much like religion.

You don’t have to get Government permission to worship however you see fit, and marriage is a religious rite, rather than a governmental ritual.

If you and your boyfriend want to stand in front of a Episcopalian preacher and say vows, no one will stop you. But you cannot get a license from the government recognizing and endorsing such activity because the State is not required to endorse a given behavior.

Do you understand the difference between being able to do something, and getting official recognition of that thing? Are you capable of understanding that a difference can exist?

If not, how can you POSSIBLY consider yourself a Libertarian (or even a small-l libertarian, since you cannot see that a thing can happen without government oversight and approval)?

Shit, can you get any dumber?

I’m not the one having trouble grasping that distinction. You seem to be incapable of grasping that such distinctions CAN exist…

This analogy is broken because no one is trying to force anyone to become gay.

No, but the State is being forced to get even those who do not agree with such marriages to accept (and thereby condone) such events.

Yes, we do want everyone to be treated exactly the same.

Yup, and sexual preference is nowhere listed on the marriage license, nor anywhere in its requirements, just that the participants be of opposing genders. Gays are treated exactly the same as heterosexuals, and have to meet the same requirements set out in black-letter law.

That isn’t what they want. They want the law to be changed to suit them. They want the government to actively endorse their position.

If you want to change the laws, then you have the means to do so. Gather together enough signatures on a petition to put it on the ballot, and let the people decide for themselves. Just as they have done in those 38 States, etc..

Or are you the type that considers this issue SO overwhelmingly important that the government dictating what is and is not permitted through the politically-motivated dictates from an unelected tyrant in a black robe is not only acceptable, but expected?

Real libertarian, aren’t you?

(Time for you to rebut by calling me “stupid” again. Maybe you should EMPHASIZE it, so that everyone knows that it must therefore be true.)

Second, the State, like any entity, has the right to exist, and to perpetuate itself - to keep on existing. This is usually expressed as the right of self-defense, but the other side of that coin is the internal policies that the State is allowed to impose, by virtue of the consent of its citizenry. (Even a dictator rules by the consent of the governed—no matter how difficult he makes it for them to withhold it, they always have the right to say “No”, even if that is their last word. Verb. Sap.: “You cannot enslave a free man - the most you can do is kill him.")

With beliefs like that, you might want to feign a little less offense when someone compares you to a Nazi.

I think that if the Framers, and those who wrote the subsequent ratified amendments, had meant for an Amendment to apply to one specific thing (say, racial discrimination), they would have written it that way. Some are written this way, even most. But the 14th Amendment’s Privileges and Immunities Clause is deliberately and almost uniquely un-specific. The Framers of this clause specifically did not include what privileges and immunities were covered because they left that up to the judicial branch to decide. The same applies to the Equal Protection Clause. The Framers (and subsequents) knew that they couldn’t anticipate every permutation that a dastardly mind could concoct to deprive someone of a right (for example, the right to operate a Chinese laundry), or marry someone of a different race. Because, like Madison said

“The exceptions here or elsewhere in the constitution, made in favor of particular rights, shall not be so construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people; or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the constitution; but either as actual limitations of such powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.”

I find it curious that Drum takes such issue with Andrew Sullivan’s desire for equal marriage to be allowed. Sullivan has said on many occasions that marriage is a state issue, and that each should decide.. that there is no claim to make on the full faith and credit clause regarding marriage.. and that the federal government has no business regulating marriage at all. All of these seem like a perfectly consistent conservative position. Maybe Drum isn’t that conservative afterall (or is just Conservative as is currently defined by the Republican party).

I will say, though, that it is encouraging that Drum supports gay marriage in Massachusetts (or, rather, I assume he does.. since a state court decided a state issue). And that he, again I assume, thinks the Defense of Marriage Act and any federal involvement whatsoever in marriage would be unconstitutional (FMA or whatever).

RE: The State’s right to exist. I disagree with Drum.. the State’s only right are those which are given to it by the citizens. The State has no inherent right to exist by divine right, it serves at the pleasure of the people and should never forget that.

you might want to feign a little less offense when someone compares you to a Nazi.

Especially since everything I had written was the exact opposite of everything the Nazis specifically, and Fascists in general, have ever advocated.

Why not try to understand what is being said before you comment on things? “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.”

So that the Constitution does not mention marriage specifically means very little.

It means that the exclusion of those “rights, privilieges or immunities” are devolved to the States to decide for themselves, according to the 10th Amendment ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.")

Since the determination of marriage is not something “delegated to the United States”, the power to decide the issuance of State licenses - and, by extension, the requirements thereto - falls to the States.

The State has no inherent right to exist by divine right, it serves at the pleasure of the people and should never forget that.

Which is what I said. But, having gained that power through legal means (elections, even when there is only one party and one candidate), the State has the right to exercise such power as it sees fit to continue that existence.

If the people grow weary of abuses of power and tyrannical despots, they have it within them to stand up and say, ”No mas”, even if they are killed in the attempt.

I will say, though, that it is encouraging that Drum supports gay marriage in Massachusetts (or, rather, I assume he does.. since a state court decided a state issue). And that he, again I assume, thinks the Defense of Marriage Act and any federal involvement whatsoever in marriage would be unconstitutional (FMA or whatever).

Actually, I would support gay marriage in Massachusetts if the lawfully elected legislators were to pass a law granting that recognition, which would then be signed into Law by the State’s Executive.

I do not agree with any judge anywhere “creating” new laws (such as the “right” to abortion in Roe v. Wade or the “right” to gay marriage allegedly found in Massachusetts’ 230-year-old State Constitution) or finding something in a document that does not exist as it is written ("penumbra" arguments).

Maybe Drum isn’t that conservative after all

I never said I was conservative, just that I vote Republican because Democrats cannot be trusted with national security issues. However, I will admit that I am probably much more conservative fiscally than socially, and am such a Strict Constructionist when it comes to the COTUS, I make Ron Paul look like a Highlights subscriber. Bad news is that I actually believe it…

And that he, again I assume, thinks the Defense of Marriage Act and any federal involvement whatsoever in marriage would be unconstitutional (FMA or whatever).

Exactly so. The Federal Government had to pass such a definition because it is giving benefits to people of one sort or another based on marital status (including Head of Household), and they have no such Constitutionally-derived authority, even under any conceivable definition of “Interstate Commerce”. The States have that right, but not the Feds, as explained above. Any such attempt by the Feds is a violation of the 10th Amendment and an usurpation of State sovereignty.

Actually, I would support gay marriage in Massachusetts if the lawfully elected legislators were to pass a law granting that recognition, which would then be signed into Law by the State’s Executive.

Would you vote in favour of gay marriage in a referendum, or vote for a candidate who included gay marriage in his platform?

Would you vote in favour of gay marriage in a referendum, or vote for a candidate who included gay marriage in his platform?

In order: “Probably not”, and “what are his views on national security?”

(Knee-jerk reaction of “Homophobe!” in 3… 2… 1...)

One last time, in an effort to forestall the damed-near-inevitable aspersions on my character, I couldn’t possibly measure how little I care if two people of the same gender want to get married and spend their lives in wedded bliss (as rare as such a thing might actually be), so long as the laws of that State and society permits such things. Not even with micrometers and nanogram-caliber scales…

I do not agree with someone using an unelected judge (with his her own biases) to force changes onto a society in direct contradiction of that society’s expressed wishes. The underlying attitude is that of “for their own good” mixed with “they would agree with me if they were as smart as me”, and a dash of “they don’t know what’s good for them” thrown in for good measure, and I resent the whole thing.

As for politicians who might support the idea? They have that right, and even have the right to include the attempt at such legislation during his term in office. If it passes, and is signed into law, guess what? It’s legal now!

If it doesn’t, then he gets to try again. And again and again, if he wishes, until those who elected him to office tire of this Sullivan-esque one-trick pony and vote in someone else who actually cares about doing other thing - such as defending the State and Nation. And my vote would still be based on other issues.

All men are created equal. It says so right here. (That also includes women, so let’s not start on THAT tangent.) That means we all have the same right to strive and struggle to succeed with as little interference from those around us as can be managed in a world of cell phones and cameras on every street corner and scripted reality shows (the irony is pretty thick on the ground) yet where “privacy” is guaranteed as a “right” (which simply means that the microphones and cameras have to be that much harder to find).

As for homosexuality, it isn’t a case of “believing” in it or not, since it clearly exists. It must be a natural mutation (like “musical skill” or “athletic ability” or “excessively tall") that springs up at random. There appear to be genetic links but these have never been proven.

But the fact that it is a natural mutation doesn’t mean that it is a dangerous one, just not one that can be passed along, since “pure homosexuality” is a trait that cannot be passed to the next generation, by the very definition of “asexual reproduction”. It is what would be referred to as a “benign” mutation, like the difference between brown and black hair or between melanin-rich or melanin-deficient skin.

I also freely stipulate that human sexuality (as opposed to sexual preference) is not a binary set (either “on” or “off"), but a spectrum ranging from (say) Robert Mitchum at one end to Liberace at the other, just as an example. (There is surely a similar spectrum for women, from Janet Reno to Jenna Jameson.) It is something that exists inherently, and can be sometimes be faked for short periods.

But sexual preferences are one of those things that are NOBODY ELSE’S BUSINESS - not government, not the neighbors, not co-workers, not even the priest. (God doesn’t need to be told, because He already knows, because He created you that way!)

(Fwiw, I think one of my employees might be gay, but I couldn’t care less, because it’s none of my business. He is superb at his job, the hardest worker I’ve got, and is the highest paid employee because of all that. What he does on his own time is none of my business, and I’ve never asked.)