Gay-marriage foes going through stages of grief

1. Denial
“Marriage was created by the hand of God. No man, not even a Supreme Court, can undo what a holy God has instituted,” Michele Bachmann said in a statement to the press.

5. Acceptance
Rand Paul: "I would tell people who are for traditional marriage: the battle is lost at the federal level; concentrate on your state."

Gay-marriage foes going through stages of grief


    1. And the southern states seem to be gearing up for some good old-fashioned vote suppression. YeeEFNhaw!

      1. The Log Cabiners up north are just fine with vote denyin’ and discrimination. “Fuck you, women and minorities, we’ve got ours!”

      2. In fairness to the southern states, Indiana, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania are doing the same.

  1. Gosh, a resounding victory for ‘States’ rights’ that enjoys almost no “conservative” support whatsoever… Cute.

  2. Rand Paul: “I would tell people who are for traditional marriage: the
    battle is lost at the federal level; concentrate on your state.”

    Ah, I see the libertarian favorite is making another stance for “liberty”, the freedom and liberty of the established order to prevent a minority  from enjoying their due rights and liberty that is…..

    1. Yeah, you’d think a libertarian would say something like “I would tell people who are for traditional marriage: have a lovely traditional marriage.”

        1. Rand Paul is more right-wing and less libertarian than his father.   A couple of decades ago I asked Ron how he could oppose immigration; he gave some answer about property ownership that implied he thinks the Federal government owns the country, but it was a quick hallway conversation and he didn’t have time for more than a sound-bite’s worth of thought about it.  It certainly wasn’t a mainstream Libertarian position.

          As far as traditional marriages go, the usual Libertarian response is that it’s not the government’s business to decide who’s allowed to get married, but if we haven’t sold off City Hall yet we’ll be happy to rent it to you for an evening at attractive free-market rates.  Just don’t scuff the carpeting, and understand that you’re only renting the building, not the politicians in it.

      1. In an ideal world, I’d hope for a libertarian amusing enough to use the phrase “Let the meat-market decide” in reference to the issue.

          1. Funny enough, they’re hilarious as long as they’re shutting the fuck up about politics.

      2.  As far as I can see, they pretty much say, ‘Don’t blame the money‘, just not in Homer Simpson’s voice…

      3. But marriage isn’t defined traditionally anymore. That’s their point. You can’t have a ‘traditional marriage” when it isn’t defined as such.

      4. Republicans call themselves “libertarians” these days since the brand is so tarnished. Blame Glenn Beck.

      5. Based on his positions, Rand Paul is clearly not a libertarian. I think people associate him too much with his father, who was one (for the most part). He has a small libertarian streak in him on some issues (like privacy), but that streak is a pretty shallow one. Go deep enough and you find he’d just another Dominionist Xtian Republican like most of the rest of them.

        1.  Libertarians/right wing conservatives = same thing. No matter how they’d like to explain it away with meaningless talk about legalizing weed.

    2. I would also say that’s a somewhat debatable level of “acceptance.” He accepts it on the federal level, and will now try to discriminate on the state level. And in many states, he’ll have no problem doing so.

      1. Actually it would be more accurate to say that in many states Rand Paul must feel he’s already won. If I remember correctly twenty-one different states have passed some variation of a law or constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

        The one major downside of the news today is that it’s probably going to be a long, hard fight to get all those decisions negated at the federal level.

        1. Oh, for fuck’s sake, if there must be federal agents being assholes to people (I’m looking at YOU, 3-letter agencies), why can’t they at least be assholes to people who are, themselves, assholes? A good dose of, ‘NO, you actually HAVE to do this, because jail’ would be refreshing, would it not?

        2. That’s actually not true, as Rachel Maddow pointed out tonight. While the decision on DOMA did not go far enough to compel all states to enact marriage equality, the wording and reasoning behind the decision set up an easy case for next term. 

          Basically, the Supreme’s will indeed destroy all state anti-gay marriage laws/amendments in one fell swoop, (just like Lawrence v Texas did with sodomy laws) hopefully next term. 

          All it will take is for a same-sex married couple to move to a state where it is prohibited. When that state fails to recognize their marriage, even though the federal government (now) does, they will sue the state based on the fact that the state laws are unequal,  discriminatory and will be in conflict with federal law and which now must be seen as clearly a violation of Fifth Amendment protections. Scalia even admitted this in his angry dissent. (Which is what made him so angry, you can also see this in his almost unbelievable Lawrence v Texas dissent.) 

          Even though both cases today were indeed victories, the court kept the rulings narrow; they could have went far enough to enforce marriage equality nationally, but they don’t like to make such sweeping rulings when they can avoid it. 

          But after this decision, all someone has to do is bring the right case (easy to do now) and equality will win, and it will be enforced nationwide as anti-marriage equality laws will be deemed unconstitutional, and all the states with these bigoted laws will fall like so many dominoes – it’s inevitable – and it will happen soon now.  

    3. The only ones more paradoxical are the anti-choice libertarians. You see that quite a bit with a certain subset of “Men’s Rights Activists.”

      1. It’s less a ‘paradox’ and more ‘a strain of deep assholery that goes way back’.

        Your ‘libertarian’ or (in his likely assertion)’classical liberal’ tradition has a long history of asserting the importance and Natural Justice of a white, male, propertyholder to do as he pleases with himself and his chattels without state interference.

        What would make an…interesting… set of recordings would be a hidden-mic roundtable on the question of whether a man has the right to choose abortion for any fetuses he may have fathered… I suspect that severe cringing would be the inevitable result.

      2. The only ones more paradoxical are the anti-choice libertarians.

        Like Rand’s daddy, who so many people who haven’t been paying attention thought might make a good President.

      3. American libertarianism is strongly tied to Objectivism, and the core of Objectivism has always been “I should be allowed to do anything I want, but nobody else should.” Ayn Rand proudly despised monogamy until her husband got his own fuckbuddy, and loathed subsidized health care until she got sick.

  3. Speaking of Michelle Bachmann and the sanctity of traditional marriage, what is she doing dabbling in politics when she could be at home, dressing modestly and acting as a helpmate to her husband, and however many other wives and concubines God has seen fit to bless him with?

    1. With the DOMA smack-down and MN legalizing same-sex marriage, her husband just might be looking to bless himself with a husband in the near future…

      1. Hmm, that could be a problem: Jesus says that you cannot serve two masters. 

        Clearly, some sort of technique for allocating helpmates from the household womenfolk to any gays within the marriage will have to be devised, in order to achieve an unconventional family structure in keeping with His teachings.

    2. A quick Google search for Marcus Bachman will tell you where God’s plan seems to have gone awry for poor Michele. Proof that “pray the gay away” is less than 100% effective.

      1.  I f I remember correctly, it’s only for words with a french root, i.e. hospital.

        1. Actually, it was all just a reference to ‘biblespeak’ – e.g. ‘an hairy man’, and ‘an helpmeet’.as another way of saying helpmate. That latter also being interesting since it may be a simple misunderstanding

    3. Michelle Bachmann believes that women should take orders from men who have authority over them (ie husbands or fathers (who unknowingly take orders from their male religious authorities)).  In politics she believes women should take orders from a man who claims to speak for God.  Even if that guy is channeling Rousas Rushdoony.

      1. Did God shrink the video to a little, postage stamp-sized rectangle in the middle of the video window?

  4. “With the DOMA decision, we have ceased to be a constitutional republic. The words “We the People” are now meaningless.”


    I actually don’t understand this even. We the people means nothing unless some of the people are excluded! Or maybe he thinks homosexuals aren’t people?

    1. It’s even more incoherent than that: The defining feature of a ‘constitutional republic’ is no so much the composition of its electorate(many, probably most, republics have excluded large swaths of humans from being ‘the people’); but the fact that there is a ‘Constitution’ that “the people” or their representatives cannot legislate contrary to without extraordinary measures being taken to modify it.

      Sentence one is arguably deeply wrong(judgments striking down relatively-popular laws for being contrary to the constitution are exactly the sort of thing that makes a ‘constitutional republic’ ‘constitutional’ rather than being a fully representative or majoritarian republic). Sentence two is less deeply wrong(‘Constitutional’ does mean that “we the people” can only get what they want either in accordance with the constitution, or if they have sufficient sway to change it); but still seriously flawed in that that’s hardly ‘meaningless’, just not quite the meaning he was looking for.

      1. Thanks, as much as I was being snarky I actually could not grasp what he was even trying to say.

    2.  “Or maybe he thinks homosexuals aren’t people?”

      I think you have hit the nail on the head. LGBTQ folks, racial or religious minorities, women, intellectuals, the disabled, the poor, etc.: not actually people in the minds of some… er… people.

      1. Oh, they’re people, but because they “sin against Jahweh” they don’t count…only Bible-abiding Xtians do…

    3.  Or maybe it means, now that DOMA is unconstitutional, anyone who voted for it will be facing federal perjury charges.

    4. Although we’re talking about DOMA here and not Prop.8, I think the reasoning (and I use that term loosely) used by some to defend the latter may apply to the former. They argue that Prop.8 was passed by the California voters, so therefore it can’t be unconstitutional. When it’s pointed out to them that it contradicts language that was already in California’s Constitution, they argue that Prop.8 was passed by the California voters, so therefore it can’t be unconstitutional. This will usually become an endless loop, although they usually short-circuit it by yelling, “Judge Walker is gay! Conflict of interest!”

      There’s also Scalia’s dissenting opinion in an earlier case, Romer v. Evans, in which he argues that it’s the right of the majority to take away any minority’s civil rights. I don’t know how he reached that conclusion, but I am grateful that, in that particular case, his minority status didn’t afford him any kind of legal protection.

      1. Prop 8 was only passed by 52.24% of California voters. Which seems like kind of a low margin to override something in the constitution. It was my understanding that to override the constitution, you’d need to pass an amendment to it. And I assume that takes 2/3 of voters rather than 50% plus 1.

        1. I believe you’re thinking of the U.S. Constitution. California has what even many Californians admit is an easily abused and often ridiculous system for amending the state’s Constitution.

          I don’t think it was the number of voters who put Prop. 8 just over the edge that was the basis for it being struck down in a California court, a ruling which was then upheld by a district court. As I understand it the real problem was that proponents of Prop. 8 couldn’t explain why it was necessary.

          The original court case was almost amusing, because the incompetence of the defenders of Prop. 8 did so much to undermine their case.

          1. So they can amend their state constitution with a 50% + 1 vote? What shithead thought that up? Maybe someone should get a proposition on the ballot requiring a 2/3 majority for future propositions.

          2. I’m sure it was a very naive shithead who genuinely believed making it so easy to amend the state constitution was a power that no one would ever abuse.

            I know there was talk of putting an amendment that would invalidate Prop.8 on the ballot during the next round of elections, but I’m much happier with the way it was handled. It underscores the fact that civil rights are not up for popular vote.

            If I were a Californian, though, I’d take your idea of a proposition requiring a 2/3 majority for future propositions in a heartbeat.

    5. “We” is a set including yourself and other people. While the majority of Americans now support gay marriage, that group doesn’t include Bryan Fischer, so it must be “Them” the people. Poor, poor persecuted minority feels left out of the political process.

    6. The way to get the Teabaggers to sign-on to same-sex-marriage is to define a same-sex couple as having 3/5 of the rights of a normal couple

      1.  That 3/5ths can be moved about to abrogate whatever right necessary at that moment as well? Cos we need to get that stuff nailed down…

  5. Does Bachmann’s use of an indefinite article mean that she now embraces a pantheon of gods?

    1. It has faded out substantially by the New Testament; but the Old Testament is pretty compatible with the existence of multiple gods: Yahweh never actually denies the efficacy of his competitors, just warns you that he’ll smack you down so hard that your children unto the 7th generation will feel it if you worship them.

      More contemporary nigh-Manichean flavors(usually protestant, occasionally the more exorcism-enthused catholics) who see demons and principalities of the air behind every tree are operationally pretty similar: they are allegedly monotheists; but a pantheon-by-other-names of assorted demons haunts the world.

      1. Yeah, Old Testament God is more “I’m better than them” than “I’m all there is.”

  6. I guess Rand Paul is happy he’s already won in so many individual states, but if he’s read the court’s majority opinion he must be feeling a cold draft where his animus is showing.

  7. And the voting result cast down the traditional conservativists, and there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth, and it was good.

  8. Many evolutionary biologists will tell you that technically a Chicken Hawk is a living dinosaur.

  9. 1. Denial

    There’s a whole lot of that going around in anti-gay circles, if you know what I mean.

  10. 5. Acceptance 
    Rand Paul: “I would tell people who are for traditional m…

    That’s not acceptance; that’s bargaining. Also, being an ass. Not that that should surprise anyone that’s been paying attention.

  11. How traditional? Which tradition? Why? I can’t imagine more than handful of self-proclaimed traditional marriage advocates want a *really* traditional marriage. 

    Think back: 
    For some of the colonists who first came to the US, the wife *ceased to exist as a legal person* upon marriage; she passed straight from “controlled by dad” to “controlled by husband.”
    Not too long ago, widows were expected to wear mourning clothes for years, even their whole lives.
    Marital rape, anyone?
    Also, the old testament allowed polygamy, and Abraham married his half-sister, and Lot impregnated both his daughters in a single night.
    One of Muhammad’s wives was a child, and supposedly consummated the marrauge when she was nine.
    Should we re-introduce dowries and bride prices? Arranged marriages generally?
    In classical times it was mostly nobles who bothered with formal marriages – they’re expensive and intended to ensure legitimate heirs and line continuation.

    1. Lot impregnated both his daughters in a single night.

      It was two nights and they got him so drunk he didn’t know what was going on. At least, that’s what the Bible says, so take that with a pillar of salt.

    2. The answer is that, yes, many of them would love a return to multiple sister-wives as arranged, fuck-on-demand, cleaning/ cooking slaves.

      1. I’ve noticed that several pro-polygamy folks have been making the argument that it’s a terrible form of bigotry to support legal recognition of same-sex marriage but not plural marriage. Because “polyamorous” is a sexual orientation now, I guess.

        1. Polyamory is a legit form of sexuality. I used to be friends with a… triad, I guess? Who had been happily together for a decade plus. I think at some point two of them got married because of the insane way marriage is tied to lots of legal/govt benefits., but I lost touch a while ago.

          Traditional plural marriage on the other hand is more about ownership. I mean, you could (and people do) argue that any marriage is a patriarchal institution and gay marriage is more about assimilation than acceptance, but… man, I think that’s an argument for another day.

          1. Polyamory is a legit form of sexuality.

            It may be a legitimate way to live one’s life, but I have a very hard time accepting polyamory as a “sexual orientation” in the same sense that heterosexuality, homosexuality or bisexuality are sexual orientations.

            Here’s why: if I found myself attracted to other dudes, that would make my orientation “gay” or “bi” whether I acted on those attractions or not. If I found myself attracted to more than one woman, that would just make me a typical heterosexual male. It’s how I choose to act on those attractions that make me either monogamous or polyamorous.

            Unlike sexual orientation, polyamory and monogamy are not immutable traits: they really are lifestyle choices.

  12. I like Pelosi’s response.  When someone said that Bachmann had just made a comment on the ruling  she replied “Who cares?”

  13.  But private business and individuals should be free to persecute and discriminate at will. Yep. b.s. Libertarianism = Right wing conservatism.

Comments are closed.