Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
Friday, April 11, 2008
Fred Schwarz on Baseball & Conservatives on National Review Online
It’s time for all you closet conservatives to open the door and come out into the light.
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
The last week before the inheritance tax was abolished in Sweden the death rate sank by 17%. The tax rate is powerful. :-)
The key phrasing there is "my own". What makes it yours?
Of course. And some things it does might be good for you AND bad for someone else! The point is that in exchange for the government defending "your" land from marauders, you might owe it something in exchange. We are just arguing about how much you owe it.
It's all basically the same Mafia/Thug deal that's been going on since pre-history, except you get to vote for the thug.
I'm convinced; government has been re-miss in not outlawing death.
(That actually is a hell of a stat - were they keeping their dead hidden in a back closet?)
That's going a bit far, I simply assume lots and lots of typos were being made on death certificates...
Crosbybird - your relationship with your spouse may well be "just as special to you." But that is not what we are talking about. Marriage is not a private relationship between two individuals. It is a PUBLIC relationship, in front of friends, community, society, state (and God, if you're into that kind of thing). It is a question of what status that public relationship has in the public sphere.
On the specific question of "gay marriage" - I am firmly opposed to granting the solemnity of marriage* to relationships that are simply not marriages. The legal and economic benefits are actually a sideshow. The whole purpose of gay marriage is that gays want their relationships to be somehow recognised as "equal." They are free to go around calling themselves married at the moment. The problem (for them) is that many or most people don't accept their "marriages" as actual marriage. So they want the government to step in and remodel society and the social acceptance of their "marriages." And I'm opposed to the government trying to remodel society (for Burkean reasons), I'm opposed to the government undermining marriage (because it's the fundament of society), and I'm opposed to "gay marriage" (because it just ain't a marriage). So the whole thing's a no-brainer.
*and of course, the legal and economic benefits shouldn't be granted either.
I certainly hope so.
And it is patently unfair that only straight people should be subject to the terrors of matrimony.
But in terms of why the government is involved, blame progressives for that one -- as with everything else wrong with the country. We used to have common law marriage -- that is, hold yourself out as married and you are married -- and then people decided that the state needed to get its hooks into the process. (Common law marriage still exists in a few states, but is an obviously disfavored alternative, and there has been a steady trickle of abolishing it for new marriages even in the states which currently recognize it.)
Presuming that rather than "outlawed," you mean "deauthorized by the state," I agree; marriage should be privatized.
The general argument is that "Government has no right to legislate 'blah' because it infringes on an individual's rights"
But these rights are established by legal documents - starting with the constitution. Even the *BASIC* rights - like "I own this" and "Don't bust me in the mouth".
We implicitly or explicitly (when voting on issues) agree to these rights. Murder is illegal, effectively, because we "all" believe it should be.
So - let's take marriage here. You feel marriage (I am guessing "between a man and woman") to be a fundament of society that should not be remodeled by government.
But (as established earlier) there are 2 components to marriage - the legal/economic status (i.e, shared resources, taxation entity, prison visitation rights, etc.), and "the rest of it" (socio-religious status?). Now, to you - 'the rest of it' might be donut, and the legal status, the hole.
But the Government ONLY effects the legal status! I don't think anyone (seriously) suggests that the Catholic church be forced to "marry" same-sex couples. Only that they can go to city hall and get a frikin' piece of paper! And the power and influence of this piece of paper SOLEY emminates from the governmental body that issues it... so I don't see how you can say that changing the rules is "remodeling society".
Can the government tell me the minimum (hell, or maximum) age of people to get married?
So the question is-
Is Shaq's height so extreme that it qualifies as a physiological condition/cosmetic disfigurement affecting his musculoskeletal system?
certainly some individuals over 7' tall are suffering from an ADA protected disability...
but to me, Shaq just seems really tall...
EDIT: I wasn't sure that would work. FWIW, I think her comment shows her to be fairly casual about the benefits she has enjoyed living in the US and thoughtless about what real hardship is. I'm not as clear it should be a campaign issue.
Ah, the tautological objection.
Friends, community, society, and God can make their own rules with any exclusivity they wish. There are families that don't acknowledge interracial or interfaith marriages. There are religions that prohibit certain types of marriage.
It's surprising that people would yield such power to the government, to be able to dictate what constitutes a legitimate marriage in their eyes. A marriage isn't special or non-special because the government acknowledges it. As an example, my great-aunt lost her husband and eventually fell in love with another man. They are married in every sense of the word except the legal contract. They wear rings. They co-habitate. To an outside observer, they are indistinguishable from a legally married couple. Would this emotional bond be more special or more significant if it was accompanied by a legal contract? Especially if both of them needed to obtain lawyers and hash out every possible legal consequence that they avoided marriage not to be subjected to in the first place?
The only role the government should have in marriage, if any, is the recognition of the legal status for certain conveniences.
On the specific question of "gay marriage" - I am firmly opposed to granting the solemnity of marriage* to relationships that are simply not marriages. The legal and economic benefits are actually a sideshow.
You are presupposing the issue, by defining marriage as "between man and woman." Words and their meanings evolve over time. The law specifically defined blacks as three-fifths of a person. Most reject that definition today.
Tradition is not a sufficient justification on its own for sound policy.
The whole purpose of gay marriage is that gays want their relationships to be somehow recognised as "equal." They are free to go around calling themselves married at the moment. The problem (for them) is that many or most people don't accept their "marriages" as actual marriage. So they want the government to step in and remodel society and the social acceptance of their "marriages."
Some people have that agenda. I disagree with them. But that isn't the whole purpose, and it's foolish of you to ignore the legal and economic benefits that people are denied for being attracted to members of the same sex as insignificant.
I have two male friends that have been together for around ten years. They have as committed a relationship as anyone else in our social group. Some people in society will never accept them, and that's their prerogative. But when one guy gets sick and the other can't act as his health care proxy, or property doesn't pass directly, or they pay higher taxes, that's inherently unjust. Some of this can be corrected by spending resources to duplicate these privileges, but that expense is also unjust.
So that's the issue for me. It happens to be against my own interests economically. I'm heterosexual, so I'm giving up a benefit if the law changes. A benefit I don't deserve because I happened to be born wired to like members of the opposite sex so other people don't feel uncomfortable.
And I'm opposed to the government trying to remodel society (for Burkean reasons), I'm opposed to the government undermining marriage (because it's the fundament of society), and I'm opposed to "gay marriage" (because it just ain't a marriage). So the whole thing's a no-brainer.
Child labor laws. Repealing slavery and Jim Crow. Anti-trust legislation. These are all areas where the government did remodel society.
The government undermined the concept of "a day's labor" and "personhood" and "reasonable business practices." Court decisions undermined the concept of "free speech" with decisions that expanded speech rights. All of those were fundamental aspects of society. That's a good thing.
But you're right about one thing. It is a no-brainer. The government shouldn't pick certain lifestyles and endorse them financially. The economic benefits of marriage should be eliminated entirely and it would pull the teeth of the gay marriage movement to a large degree, if that's really what's important to you.
Names deleted. Yeah, that pinch you feel is just the fabric of society tearing itself apart.
(Although technically, being married is only a tax benefit if you have disparate incomes)
I don't know, Bunyon; it kind of feels like a dopey criticism of her. Certainly the Tennessee GOP ad is silly.
She's not a public speaker, was speaking contemporaneously, and probably phrased her point poorly. I've said before I don't really understand why the candidates' spouses are featured so prominently in these campaigns; along those lines it certainly feels tangential to obsess over something a spouse said.
Or against the establishments themselves or anybody else. Or who threaten to commit violence.
And who would have enforced those laws? The same local officials who refused to protect blacks against previous acts of racial violence? The FBI, which was infamous for its collaboration with those same officials? Or a newly created federal police force, specifically charged with prosecuting local criminal acts that would otherwise go unpunished?
Uh, who protected blacks against racial violence after the Civil Rights Act, Andy? The Civil Rights Act didn't create a federal police force, or a new FBI, or new local officials. When a black person sat down in a formerly all-white restaurant (Lester Maddox's, perhaps) or rented a room in a formerly all-white hotel (maybe the Heart of Atlanta motel), who prevented a mob of whites from assaulting him? Not the Civil Rights Act.
When a governor of a state defied a school integration court order, he risked jail. Hence, the relative lack of violent resistance to school integration. Beyond that, a far more effective form of resistance was gerrymandering of school districts; "freedom of choice" plans; "private academies" (subsidized by state governments---and yes, I know you wouldn't have allowed that one); and threats of employment losses to black parents who attempted to register their children in "white" schools.
Sometimes one of these tactics did the trick. Other times it was another. Sometimes it took more than one. But in combination it worked well enough (for whites) that by the end of the Johnson administration, only about 1% of southern blacks were attending integrated schools.
And this was when the entire Brown decision was seen to be at stake, with government officials at the highest levels involved and plenty of publicity. There wasn't any need for violent resistance.
But there's no serious analogy to be drawn between public schools and private restaurants. For every school there are scores of restaurants. Schoolchildren arrive in full view of the public, and in the case of newly integrated schools, they were often under the eye of a watchful press. Restaurant patrons come and go at all hours, and in towns far removed from any permanent federal presence other than the post office and perhaps a few agricultural agents. If in the unlikely case you actually would have had people opening integrated restaurants in towns beyond the Chapel Hills, they would have been sitting ducks for retaliatory violence, and there would seldom if ever have been any witnesses to testify. No federal law could have changed that.
And you still haven't addressed the question of where these brave white souls would come from, these noble entrepreneurs who would voluntarily open integrated restaurants in the heart of Dixie, away from places like Chapel Hill, in the face of organized opposition from their friends, their neighbors, their children's friends, and the local White Citizens' Council. You haven't addressed it because you know that to acknowledge the truth---that there were almost no such creatures---would shoot a hole in the empirical part of your argument. You would be right back to your wholly theoretical square one.
No, those are two of the "parts," but you left out plenty of other "parts" of what you have dubbed the "libertarian compromise." Like desegregating all public facilities. And enforcing voting rights. And opening up jury service to blacks.
First, we're not talking about government cafeterias and all-white jury and voting rolls.
Yes, we are. We're talking about southern society and its social mores, as well as the governmental remedies available to blacks. It's a package deal. You can't draw a line and say that desegregating public facilities doesn't have an effect on social mores. Or that giving blacks the ability to participate in government doesn't have an effect on the behavior of local officials.
David, to begin with, very few towns even have "government cafeterias." Most towns aren't big cities, and most government employees step out to eat lunch. That would rule out any "effect" in those towns.
And in cities like Atlanta or Montgomery, the effect would surely be limited, since such cafeterias are open for but one meal a day, and the experience of sitting on the other side of the room from a black employee in a government cafeteria during lunchtime would scarcely have been likely to have caused any sudden urge to sit down to dinner at a local diner---which of course would still be segregated anyway.
Stick to the issue at hand. This is not about government cafeterias. I know you would have banned segregation in those, and I've never said or implied otherwise. It's about the tens of thousands of Pickrick restaurants and the thousands of Dixie Motels and other Jim Crow places of business.
But you've ignored the effect of doing these things, which is relevant to the issue at hand. When people routinely eat in racially mixed settings at public facilities, it starts to be become silly for them to react violently to the thought of their private restaurants being integrated.
That still doesn't address the point of where these integrated restaurants would suddenly come from. A few government cafeterias in big cities aren't going to cause many repercussions beyond that immediate vicinity, especially since the whites would have felt that they were being "forced" to sit in the same room with blacks on a decidedly involuntary basis. The only way you were going to be able to integrate these southern establishments was to give the white population NO CHOICE IN THE MATTER, unless they wanted to retreat to their homes or their truly private clubs. A few southern leaders like Mayor Allen of Atlanta recognized this at the time, and by now it's a commonplace point acknowledged by just about everyone except you.
Well, boycotts are great, too. But how do you "boycott" an establishment that doesn't want your business to begin with? Martin Luther King Announces Boycott of All-White McComb (Miss.) Diner might not have had quite the effect you seem to imagine.
1. You boycott it because "you" includes whites, whose business the diners did want.
In the context of the South of 1964, that sentence wins the Pulitzer for Self-Parody. Again you imagine this class of liberal (and fearless) southern whites, a class which simply didn't exist, no matter how vividly they seem to stir in your imagination. And again, I can only recommend a trip in a time machine as a cure for your delusions.
2. You boycott it because lots of "all-white" establishments were happy to sell to blacks and take black money; they just didn't want black people darkening their front doorsteps, pun intended. Just because you couldn't sit at the lunch counter didn't mean you couldn't buy food there.
Here you're talking about the tactics that were used in the big cities of the upper South (Greensboro, Durham, Nashville, and also in Atlanta, which was a uniquely liberal enclave in the Deep South) against local branches of chain restaurants and department stores. After four years, the fear of bad publicity in the North caused a handful of these Woolworths and Kresges to integrate their lunch counters in cities like these, just prior to the 1964 CRA, but this never extended beyond those cities, and for chains without a northern base, the tactic was meaningless---not to mention non-chain establishments.
It isn't very complicated. Being a man of common sense, he knew that the public accommodations law would give protective cover for those white establishments who were willing to go along, but who feared both economic and physical reprisals were they to do so. The sort of laws you're talking about wouldn't have accomplished that, because it would have isolated those restaurants, and singled them out for reprisal. And there wouldn't have been enough federal force in the entire country to protect them.
I think what you mean, Andy, is "There's not enough troops in the army to force the Southern people to break down segregation and admit the nigra race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes, and into our churches." But he was wrong, and you're wrong. And now we're back to Kevin's comment about the 101st Airborne. It didn't take that much federal force; it took a few shows of federal force. Once people saw that the federal government was serious -- and yes, it took a while, because the federal government wasn't particularly serious for a while -- the violence abated.
But that wasn't me talking, David. You didn't paste the preceding paragraph. That was Ivan Allen, the late mayor of Atlanta who testified in favor of the public accommodations law, for the very reason I cited: It gave the good guys the protective cover of knowing that ALL previously White Only establishments would then be in the same boat, and that they wouldn't be singled out. Whereas under your "solution" you would make the good guys into walking targets.
Once again I repeat: You're a good man caught in a dream world, trapped by a beautiful theory that would have dissolved in the face of the actual historical conditions, no matter how many big city government cafeterias and integrated voter rolls you might have been able to insert into the situation.
Sorry, if it wasn't clear, I agree completely with you. I wouldn't say being spoiled and not completely aware of the benefits one enjoys (especially for a woman) living in the US is unique to her. I'm as guilty of this as anyone. It was an over the top statement but, I agree, probably just a sign of speaking without thinking.
I was just trying to raise the ad in our long conversation. I don't like it.
Whoever thought of this part of the ad should be forced to run laps or something:
To further honor the occasion of Mrs. Obama's visit, the Tennessee Republican Party has requested the playing of patriotic music by radio stations across the state
Have a good night, all.
But that's just my opinion, it's too bad there's no historical precedent for this sort of thing--like if we had tried this strategy in the past--cause then we could simply ask the question: did it work? Are the institutions in question integrated?
Anti-Southern bias! Another great biproduct of the Civil Rights Act and modern Liberal politics. Thanks, guys. What would we do without you nice liberals to tell us what to think?
If you can't persuade 'em, you can always coerce 'em. Right?
Those are fighting words when addressed to Ray and bunyon.
Don't get me wrong, I am a conservative not a reactionary. I am not against all change as you seem to suggest. But I do think it's appropriate to take a sceptical view. And the more fundamental the change - and there is scarce a change more fundamental than toying with the definition of marriage - the heavier the case on those seeking to make the change. What is the wrong you're seeking to redress? Face it, we are not talking slavery or child labour here. The biggest "wrong" you can find is that a few gays have to take the trouble to draft a power of attorney. And for that you want to monkey around with the fabric of marriage? The remedy you're seeking is utterly disproportionate to the supposed grievance. And what's more I don't agree that the grievance is legitimate. I see no reason why gay (or otherwise unmarried) couples should get the same privileges married couples get. Repeat: these are privileges not rights.
Second, the three-fifths clause did not "define" anybody as anything. It said that for purposes of taxation and apportionment, slaves would be counted at 3/5ths.
The answer to that question -- once you figure it out -- is the same as the answer to your question about what would have prevented racial violence under my proposal.
But fortunately, under my proposal, it doesn't take "bravery," just self-interest. Can you imagine being the only restaurant in town willing and able to take everyone's money?
Well, I agree, but I didn't bring up "government cafeterias"; you did. I said public facilities. That includes far more than cafeterias; you're the one who tried to limit the discussion to cafeterias.
What's really bizarre is that most of the time, you think that abolishing even a tiny sliver of the regulatory state would lead to instant disaster; you think that every alphabet soup government agency is required in order to keep businesses from killing everyone on the planet just to make an extra penny. But when we're talking about segregation, you suddenly decide that economic incentives are as powerless as a United Nations diplomat.
Uh, you're being self-contradictory. If only a handful of people/places integrated, then it would be feasible to protect them all. You can't have it both ways; either there were so many possible victims that there weren't enough troops to protect them, or there were just a handful of visible ones, in which case there were.
"Die foul beast of the night! Die Die!"
Bunyon, in response to your claim that Andy and I think the government should have total control over every aspect of everyone's lives, I don't think I ever said that. I tried to point out that we will always be forced to enter into relationships that compromise our absolute autonomy. With that in mind, it becomes less about fighting to ensure our autonomy reaches this mythological state, and more about finding reasonable ways to manage these intrusions, be they from church, state, industry, anarchists, marauders, hoodlums, vampires or zombies. But reaching a state of absolute autonomy is not the end to which all conflicts should be subordinate to, which is what David has been arguing here for many years.
Crosby- if everyone had your attitude toward the situation, there'd be no need for the law. But after years of wheelchair-bound people being forced to drag themselves across dirty floors to access a toilet at a restaurant they've just patronized, arguing for a minimum standard is a matter of dignity for that class of people. And from an enlightened self-interest standpoint, anyone could theoretically wind up in that situation at any time, as Bob mentioned. Viewing it as the conflicting interests of two groups gets you a lot further than mobilizing a notion that no one under any circumstances should be forced to make modifications to their business that they don't want to. It has been a long and hard-fought battle to get where we are today, where employers are compelled to make accommodations for employees with disabilities so that they can be integrated members of society, and more importantly productive members of the work force.* I know David's head will explode with this one, but sometimes employers are ignorant about how to deal with disabilities and would rather let the person go than make what are often not large concessions to accommodate them. Again, once we get past the right to absolute self-determination as the prime value in system, we can deal with competing sets of value systems and attempt to arrive at a decision about what is a fair compromise between them. But this does not naturalize one value as absolutely right at the expense of all others, which is where David's problem comes from.
Bob, your point about the potential for people to become disabled I think has played a lot into the increased awareness. This is why, from a pragmatic standpoint, I find a Rawlsian conception of justice appealing. Roemer (mentioned above) is informed by Rawls IIRC in his exploration of inequality and attempts to use Rawls to construct a theory of just ways to compensate for it.
MCOA, thanks for the kind words above. Much appreciated!
* as an anecdote, my GF's brother is losing his eyesight. He's a software designer for a large company. He can still see, but he does need special equipment to do so, as his field of vision is declining. Under ADA law, as long as he's able to perform his job, the company is required to provide the equipment necessary. Now, it may be that he performs far enough above the average designer at his firm to cover the expense and then some, but the point of ADA is that he shouldn't have to be better, he should just have to be as good as the next employee.
Anyone else agree?
Second, the three-fifths clause did not "define" anybody as anything. It said that for purposes of taxation and apportionment, slaves would be counted at 3/5ths.
I'd rather not descend into a discussion of semantics. Substitute "illegal speech," a phrase which has changed meaning (if you don't like "define" either) over time, if the oversimplification of the three-fifths compromise detracts from the point. Or, in order to really make the thread explode, the legal definition of "person," and whether or not it excludes a fetus.
When you're saying "the legal definition of marriage should be changed to accommodate same-sex unions," it is not a useful counter-argument to say "same sex unions aren't marriage."
You don't really back up these beliefs, they appear to be principles from which you're arguing, which is all well and good, and I wouldn't suppose I can talk you out of them.
Well, of course. At some point, all arguments are reduced to certain fundamental assumptions.
I find it demeaning to marriage to reduce it to a lifestyle. I think it is a legitimate, indeed, a necessary role of government to define, regulate, nurture and support the institution of marriage. And other important social institutions too. I'm not a libertarian.
Certainly, I don't intend to demean the institution of marriage. I've been married before, and I'm planning to get married again. I believe in the bonding of a man and a woman who love each other, and the celebration of that institution before friends and family. That said, all that I hold dear about the institution applies equally to monogamous relationships between two men, or two women, or even three people if that's what does it for them.
Andrew Jackson was strongly opposed to a national day of prayer, not because he rejected the value of religion, but because it was held in such high regard:
the more fundamental the change - and there is scarce a change more fundamental than toying with the definition of marriage - the heavier the case on those seeking to make the change.
I don't think it's such a fundamental change. The heart of marriage, in my opinion, is the connection and celebration of those in love. It's so much more important to me than the number of plugs and sockets. To emphasize only certain types of love, to me, diminishes the beauty of the institution.
What is the wrong you're seeking to redress? Face it, we are not talking slavery or child labour here. The biggest "wrong" you can find is that a few gays have to take the trouble to draft a power of attorney. And for that you want to monkey around with the fabric of marriage? The remedy you're seeking is utterly disproportionate to the supposed grievance.
A few gays? There are more homosexuals in America than Jewish people.
You're also grossly trivializing the burden. There are many, many legal benefits that come automatically with marriage, and it's not a simple thing for a person not trained in the legality to draft a contract that covers all of them, if such a thing is even possible.
When I hear people bemoan the danger to the "fabric" of marriage, I'm surprised at how fragile they imagine the institution to be.
I see no reason why gay (or otherwise unmarried) couples should get the same privileges married couples get. Repeat: these are privileges not rights.
You do recognize the arbitrariness of that distinction, don't you? You could just as easily say "I see no reason why interracial couples" or "I see no reason why non-Christians" or "I see no reason why people with blue eyes." If the traditional definition of marriage supported one of these (as it did pre-Loving), then would it be right?
Isn't marriage enough of a wonderful thing that you don't need government sanctioned theft from non-married people as an extra bonus? That's essentially what you're doing by paying lower taxes.
Wow, I didn't know that. Living in NYC, I see a disproportionately high population of both, which makes it tough to gage...
Doesn't America have the highest percentage of people who identify themselves as Jewish of any country other than Israel?
That this question can be posed without stipulation and still seem, apparently, reasonable, helps expose the fraud that is libertarianism: why on earth should I be taxed in order to pay for these things? I understand that a libertarian will want government to do these things because a libertarian wants government to protect only as much as he, the libertarian, owns and considers valuable, but... I'm perfectly capable of defending myself and happy to defend myself without benefit of a police force, and know enough to know how to dig and line a pit with clay and keep it filled with water and powered by a pump in the event that my house catches fire. I'm also bright enough to build my own house and make it highly fire-resistant... so...Why do I have to tolerate having my income stolen so that some candyassed libertarian sucking gumdrops in an office and who can't fight his way out of a briefcase or figure out the rudiments of electricity and fire protection can form police departments and fire companies (the former of which are notorious, historically, for having threatened liberty around the world) at my expense?
The notion that I am somehow obliged to protect the soft libertarian from the consequences of his own philosophy would be utterly laughable save for the braindead seriousness of the libertarian's heartfealt cry, "This much taxation (as will protect me and mine!), and no more!
Another thing pointed out in various places is that 6 of the 7 judges on this court were Republican appointees. And of course the Republican governor of the state has said he supports the court's ruling, and is opposed to any constitutional amendment (via ballot initiative) that would attempt to overturn it.
McCain also will have trouble turning this into a campaign issue, since he voted against the FMA, wanting to leave these sorts of decisions to the states.
Well one of them did say that they were libertarians not anarchists ;-)
Alou, what exactly is it you're afraid of happening here? You keep saying that granting gay marriages the same legal status as straight marriages is a huge change to the fabric of society, but many people do not see it that way, and you have yet to back up your claim at all.* Furthermore, you're using that claim to put the burden of proof on everone else, when I would argue that the burden of proof is on those who would like to deny equal treatment to a class of people based on their sexual orientation.
Also, it's not as though the institution of marriage has been constant and unchanging through history, or that the government has never made changes to how it recognized marriages. Read Nieporent's post 4508, for example.
*In fact, one could argue that the government is just recognizing a change that has already taken place in society, as gays are getting married in larger and larger numbers in religious or non-religious ceremonies, just without the legal recognition. Merriam-Webster already lists same-sex unions as a definition of "marriage" in its dictionary.
Face it, we are not talking slavery or child labour here. The biggest "wrong" you can find is that a few gays have to take the trouble to draft a power of attorney. And for that you want to monkey around with the fabric of marriage? The remedy you're seeking is utterly disproportionate to the supposed grievance.
You are contradicting yourself here. If the only benefit you're talking about giving gays is not having to draft a power of attorney, then why are you so resistant to giving it to them? Why do you think such a small change is going to have such far-reaching (although unspecified) effects on society? What do you think those effects would be?
And what's more I don't agree that the grievance is legitimate. I see no reason why gay (or otherwise unmarried) couples should get the same privileges married couples get. Repeat: these are privileges not rights.
Sure. Just like driving is a privilege, not a right. Do you also see no reason why gay people should have the privilege of driving?
The "right" we're talking about here is the right to equal treatment before the law. "All men are created equal" was written in the foundnig document of this country and "the equal protection of the laws" is guaranteed to all people by the 14th Amendment. I'm not trying to claim that the Constitution makes gay marriage bans illegal (I don't have the legal background to make such a claim). But I think a law that explicitly denies equal treatment to a certain group of citizens based on traits they cannot control is much more in conflict with the basic fabric of our nation and society than the government recognizing gay marriages.
Furthermore, now that certain religious denominations do perform and recognize same-sex marriages (and this is not exactly a recent development), one could also argue that it amounts to religious discrimination for the government to recognize marriages from some religions but not from others--another concept that is very much in conflict with the basic fabric of this nation and society.
So again, if you think that terrible things may happen if we grant gays what amounts, in your words, to a minor legal privilege that everyone else already has, then the burden is on you to (a) explain to us what those things are, and (b) provide some evidence for why you think that's the case.
Those are fighting words when addressed to Ray and bunyon.
Indeed. I'm not nice. ;)
Anyway, it wasn't anti-southern, it was anti-Tennessee.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think the general tone of this thread could stand improvement.
Szym, I think this comment merits reporting to Furtado. Can you do that for me? He's not speaking to me anymore after I threatened to beat the #### out of someone because they made fun of Pedroia's height.
Uh, who protected blacks against racial violence after the Civil Rights Act, Andy? The Civil Rights Act didn't create a federal police force, or a new FBI, or new local officials. When a black person sat down in a formerly all-white restaurant (Lester Maddox's, perhaps) or rented a room in a formerly all-white hotel (maybe the Heart of Atlanta motel), who prevented a mob of whites from assaulting him? Not the Civil Rights Act.
Responding by explaining that schools are different is completely irrelevant, since I didn't say anything about schools. I asked about the Civil Rights Act. On July 3, 1964, what prevented a white mob from attacking a black who tried to eat at a formerly all-white restaurant that had just been legally desegregated?
The answer to that question -- once you figure it out -- is the same as the answer to your question about what would have prevented racial violence under my proposal.
David, if you can't see the difference between ALL restaurants being FORCED to integrate all at once---under the cover that "they made me do it"---and INDIVIDUAL RESTAURANT OWNERS proclaiming to the world (in places like Mississippi) that they WANT to integrate in towns dominated by the ethos of the White Citizens Councils, then you really are beyond redemption. History 101 and common sense mean nothing to you.
And you still haven't addressed the question of where these brave white souls would come from, these noble entrepreneurs who would voluntarily open integrated restaurants in the heart of Dixie, away from places like Chapel Hill, in the face of organized opposition from their friends, their neighbors, their children's friends, and the local White Citizens' Council. You haven't addressed it because you know that to acknowledge the truth---that there were almost no such creatures---would shoot a hole in the empirical part of your argument. You would be right back to your wholly theoretical square one.
But fortunately, under my proposal, it doesn't take "bravery," just self-interest. Can you imagine being the only restaurant in town willing and able to take everyone's money?
Jesus, David, send in the f*ck*ng clowns. I can only wish that you could jump into a time travel machine and try that little experiment yourself. Let's just say I don't think that you would have found anyone willing to sell you any business insurance. This Bizarro World of 1964 that you keep trying to conjure up gets more Bizarro every time you try to depict it.
David, to begin with, very few towns even have "government cafeterias." Most towns aren't big cities, and most government employees step out to eat lunch. That would rule out any "effect" in those towns.
Well, I agree, but I didn't bring up "government cafeterias"; you did. I said public facilities. That includes far more than cafeterias; you're the one who tried to limit the discussion to cafeterias.
I was merely using that as a shorthand, but fine: Name some other public facilities that could have been integrated, that weren't already integrated by 1964 under various court orders (bus station waiting rooms, etc.), and that would have had the effect of bringing about any serious degree of integration in the private sphere.
What's really bizarre is that most of the time, you think that abolishing even a tiny sliver of the regulatory state would lead to instant disaster; you think that every alphabet soup government agency is required in order to keep businesses from killing everyone on the planet just to make an extra penny.
Yes, and I believe in forced interracial gay marriages, too, I suppose. Whatever you say. Do you really need this sort of silly exaggeration of my position to make your point?
But when we're talking about segregation, you suddenly decide that economic incentives are as powerless as a United Nations diplomat.
Again, a caricature of what I've actually said. But let me repeat:
---Economic incentives are real, important, and often both pertinent and effective in terms of breaking down racial barriers. I mentioned Bear Bryant and Sam Cunningham as one shorthand example of this, and obviously I could name hundreds (or maybe millions) more.
---But in the South of 1964, those economic incentives desperately needed a jump start, in order to overcome the hopelessly ingrained social prejudices of that region. This is what the Mayor of Atlanta recognized when he testified in favor of the public accommodations section of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. This is what even the most rockribbed conservatives of today (other than the paleocons) will acknowledge in hindsight. They recognize the basic insight that in the South of 1964, white business owner heroes were few and far between, but that there was safety in numbers.
---And the two paragraphs above are perfectly compatible with one another.
But that wasn't me talking, David. You didn't paste the preceding paragraph. That was Ivan Allen, the late mayor of Atlanta who testified in favor of the public accommodations law, for the very reason I cited: It gave the good guys the protective cover of knowing that ALL previously White Only establishments would then be in the same boat, and that they wouldn't be singled out. Whereas under your "solution" you would make the good guys into walking targets.
Uh, you're being self-contradictory. If only a handful of people/places integrated, then it would be feasible to protect them all. You can't have it both ways; either there were so many possible victims that there weren't enough troops to protect them, or there were just a handful of visible ones, in which case there were.
But the problem (though not to you, apparently) is that there would be so few people who would have stuck their necks out, that it would have scarcely been worth the effort. And beyond that, of course, you're talking about punishing violent whites after the fact---big consolation to someone whose restaurant has been torched in the middle of the night. And where were you going to get witnesses in the sort of towns that made up 98% of the real world of the South? Do you have any idea what the whole purpose of groups like the White Citizens Council was? They were every bit as influential in the Deep South as Castro's CDRs were in Cuban neighborhoods---no sign of racial deviation escaped their Pinkerton-like attention.
And you can quote me on that comparison, because it is apt. Read the various histories of the Citizens' Councils if you think I'm exaggerating. And I know goddam well what the role of those CDRs have been. Those folks would have fit right in, up in Alabama or Mississippi. The federal government would have been powerless against their united determination to stamp out racial traitors.
Szym, I think this comment merits reporting to Furtado. Can you do that for me? He's not speaking to me anymore after I threatened to beat the #### out of someone because they made fun of Pedroia's height.
I think asking someone if they're royalty is a lot more polite than "#### you" twice. I would merely like to know how to better tailor the site for Matt's whims.
But you haven't shown in any way that gay marriage undermines a single thing.
Do you think the number of people who are gay is in any way affected by their ability to marry?
For the record, I am against mandatory gay marriage. That would be a problem.
I read that really fast and for a second there, I thought you wrote "I would really like to know how to better tailor this site for Matt's twins.".
And I was thinking for another second "Yowza! Go Matt!".
Szym, as long as you're open to tailoring the site to individual needs, could you tailor it so that, whenever Nieporent mentions my name in a thread, I am auto-emailed a naked picture of Brea Bennett instead?
That would be really cool.
But hey, if something were to happen, at that point, I'm sure individual power and strength would take over. If the boy were a charismatic, courageous young lad, I'm sure anyone who might wish his ill-will would notice these admirable attributes and change their hearts and minds.
And if something horrible were to happen, I'm sure that there's no chance that people would still harbor this ill-will fifty years later and deface the boy's memory. After all, it's simply non-profitable and self-defeating.
Then the only one left would be Marvin Hamlisch.
As for punishing people and finding witnesses, when the government wanted to, it was able to. The federal government -- drawing witnesses from the same population, drawing jurors from the same jury pools, managed to secure convictions when it stepped in. The local governments didn't because the local governments didn't want to, not because it was impossible to do so.
But hey, if something were to happen, at that point, I'm sure individual power and strength would take over. If the boy were a charismatic, courageous young lad, I'm sure anyone who might wish his ill-will would notice these admirable attributes and change their hearts and minds.
And if something horrible were to happen, I'm sure that there's no chance that people would still harbor this ill-will fifty years later and deface the boy's memory. After all, it's simply non-profitable and self-defeating.
Yeah, E-X, the world as we know it would be Heaven on Earth, if only governments got out of the way and let the people shop till they dropped.
And as far as I'm concerned, David can begin right here. I'm all for willing buyers and willing sellers, I am.
The problem is you dramatically overexaggerate the racism in the South; as you yourself (I believe) noted in an earlier thread, there was no armed revolution in response to the federal government's intervention.
In the school cases, there was little violence because there were so few schools being integrated for so long, and because of the other forms of successful white resistance that made violence unnecessary. And then there was the threat of jail. Governors don't like to go to jail.
And in the case of the newly integrated restaurants in the wake the CRA, the burden was spread out, and there were no individuals who could be singled out and targeted---they were seen as victims of an oppressive law rather than as race traitors, as would have been the case in your libertarian scenario. The restaurant owners after the CRA passed had safety in numbers, which was diametrically opposite from what would have been the case under voluntary integration.
Racism existed, it was virulent, and it was occasionally deadly. It was broad-based, but it wasn't as deep seated as you pretend. (Indeed, your very argument is self-refuting once again; if the situation were as hopeless as you claim, the White Citizen's Councils of the world wouldn't have needed to exist. But they did, because segregation was not sustainable long term.
The Citizens' Councils were formed in the aftermath of Brown as a way of forming a united political front against school integration. But it wasn't "necessary" to coerce anyone into segregationism; that ideology was as firmly entrenched in the South back then as deconstructionism is today in the English Departments of Ivy League universities. The CCs quickly formed alliances with (not to mention penetrated) State governments and evolved in several cases into quasi-police states very similar to the Communist model, complete with spies and selective violence, but all that encompassed was an added layer of reinforcement to a pre-existing ideology, with the usual power trips as an added incentive to keep the whole thing going. You might think of the CC's as "segregationists in a hurry."
And the only way you broke the back of those groups was by diluting their power through opening up the voting pool (which of course I know you favor), and by forcing a change of the mores through measures such as the public accommodations law. And with enforcement of those two key laws, the economic forces began, as I said above, to have room to breathe. Free markets are a wonderful thing, but markets crippled by social prejudice aren't free. And in the context of 1964, only the federal government was able to begin to reverse the effects of those crippling mores. Your handful of imaginary entrepreneurs weren't going to be able to accomplish that, with or without your proposed law.
As for punishing people and finding witnesses, when the government wanted to, it was able to. The federal government -- drawing witnesses from the same population, drawing jurors from the same jury pools, managed to secure convictions when it stepped in. The local governments didn't because the local governments didn't want to, not because it was impossible to do so.
The only problem with that rose-colored memory is that for every case that the federal government prosecuted to a successful conclusion, there were a hundred (or more) racial crimes of violence or intimidation that never saw the light of day. The feds went after only those rare cases where the facts were so blatant or the crime so severe that they had to go forward or lose face; the other 99% they simply ignored.
Yeah, that's totally true. It hasn't happened yet, but "long-term" is relative. If we just let it go, segregation will surely die out when the sun goes red giant.
Incidentally, it's likely to drag out another several hundred posts, but it's worth pointing out that in the Jena case, the white friends of the accused said that they couldn't testify because they were afraid for their safety and the only teacher to witness the beating left town quickly to avoid having to testify.
Meanwhile, one of the others has been arrested again for assault, in another city.
Without taking sides here, CrosbyBird, I just want to point out that none of this bit about legal and economic benefits applied to the plaintiffs in today's California case. The California statute in question afforded same-sex unions precisely the same legal and economic benefits as opposite-sex unions; it's just that the California statute -- voted on by the people -- defined one union as a "domestic partnership" and the other as a "marriage."
The entire fight in this case was over the word "marriage." Not over legal benefits, or economic benefits, or contracts. Just over the single word.
Again, Zenbitz, please tell this Mom on the board of directors at your son's coop preschool that she didn't know what she was fighting over. The fight wasn't over "tax and other bennies to being legally married." It was over, once again, the single word "marriage."
And this would be different from a similar initiative banning blacks from entering whites-only establishments... how?
Ah, semantics. Hurray. That solves all ills.
And you can tell just how serious Noonan is by the fact that she says "Democratic argument," instead of the usual "Democrat," as in "Democrat Party." A Republican has to be seriously scared in order to give up that little symbol of juvenalia.
To sum up this thread:
1) Liberals suck.
2) Conservatives suck.
3) I'm becoming a gay divorce lawyer.
4) Fewer interleague games, more doubleheaders.
5) Who killed Bambi?
Back to your regularly scheduled racism/libertarianism/gay marriage discussion.
Could you elaborate on this a little? I'm not sure I follow the real-world common sense part of this distinction.
If the poster boys for victims of racism are accused criminals who are actually guilty of the crime, I would suggest that this demonstrates the emptiness of the argument you propound. At one point, racism manifested itself in lynch mobs attacking innocent blacks based on mere accusation -- Till, the Scottsboro Boys -- and now it has allegedly been reduced (*) to prosecutors possibly overcharging (**) actually guilty blacks? I think that suggests that racism has receded very very far.
(*) After all, presumably if there were much more serious examples, then those serious examples would be the ones making headlines and drawing rallies.
(**) Overcharging is routine behavior by prosecutors in the criminal justice system, in order to induce the accused to plea bargain. Maybe that represents a serious problem with the justice system, but it isn't race-related.
But unless the only conservative in the world who is a leftist was referring to schools when he used the word "establishments," and that's not usually what the word refers to), establishments -- restaurants, stores, whatever -- are private. And only the owner has a stake in a private establishment.
Isn't this a bit to[o] [egads!] neat a distinction, DMN? Let's say I (we) grant your point, isn't it possible - if not actual - that there may still be racial aspects to overcharging such that, for instance, blacks might be overcharged more often than whites (or whites overcharged less when overcharging seems the routine), or blacks might be more overcharged, in the sense that they receive even harsher "overcharges" than white overcharges?
Godzilla
Private Gay Marriage? Is this like straight couples married by the Church of the Subgenius? I get what you are saying, but it all sounds kind of pointless. Who cares about private marriages?
I'm kind of shocked you would allow yourself to fall into the governmentally-regulated concept of marriage, David. Isn't this the sort of thing libertarians would be against? I'm serious, actually.
the collapse of public moral standards
is the kind of phrase that always reminds me of "they don't play baseball they way they used to." If there's one absolute constant in human discourse, it's that we are not as morally upright as we used to be. Like its baseball manifestation, this usually reduces to "I am no longer as innocent as I was when I was nine years old and believed the world was a benign and earnest place."
is the kind of phrase that always reminds me of "they don't play baseball they way they used to." If there's one absolute constant in human discourse, it's that we are not as morally upright as we used to be. Like its baseball manifestation, this usually reduces to "I am no longer as innocent as I was when I was nine years old and believed the world was a benign and earnest place."
The most screechingly obvious point you can make about "moral standards" over the course of history is that some have improved dramatically while others have indeed declined. Trying to extrapolate from one form of morality to another is what's truly silly.
I do view it as the conflicting interests of two groups. The business owner has an interest in running his business as he sees fit and maximizing his profit margin. The disabled consumer has an interest in access to someone else's property with certain conveniences and dignity.
When the business is one that is critical to the functioning of society, like a courthouse or police station, the second person's interests should be weighed much more heavily than the first person's. I don't feel so strongly about the interest when it's "eating in a restaurant." (If it's my restaurant, I derive moral satisfaction from providing that service to disabled people. I build that cost into my business model and I hope that my customers accept the higher costs because of the quality of environment that I've created. But that's my choice, and it should be my choice.)
Under ADA law, as long as he's able to perform his job, the company is required to provide the equipment necessary. Now, it may be that he performs far enough above the average designer at his firm to cover the expense and then some, but the point of ADA is that he shouldn't have to be better, he should just have to be as good as the next employee.
I don't agree with you. If his performance is the same as the guy who doesn't require special equipment, he's less valuable to that company. I acknowledge that it isn't his fault that he's losing his eyesight, but it isn't his employer's fault either. Ultimately, that company provides a service for a price, and that price is now higher because the company's overhead has increased. It isn't the consumer's fault that this guy is losing his eyesight either.
EDIT: (*) As I've acknowledged several times above, there are governmental benefits attached to government recognition of one's marriage. Some of those may represent a substantial amount of money. Nonetheless, I would hope that nobody's primary interest in being married is financial rather than social/religious.
And here's where we differ- you treat the business owner's business as strictly private, but I'm saying because he has invited the public in, in fact, because his business depends on the circulation of the public, those members have the right to set reasonable standards of accommodation. The disabled customer is asking for the same conveniences other customers have- DN has asserted that we use a material conception of this equality, and disabled rights activists have insisted that we use the principle to set the conditions of this materiality- if you're providing other customers with a restroom to accommodate their need to excrete waste (especially at a restaurant, where it's easy to argue that using the restroom is an activity related to consuming food and drink), then handicapped patrons should be provided with a restroom that accommodates their similar needs.
I don't agree with you. If his performance is the same as the guy who doesn't require special equipment, he's less valuable to that company. I acknowledge that it isn't his fault that he's losing his eyesight, but it isn't his employer's fault either. Ultimately, that company provides a service for a price, and that price is now higher because the company's overhead has increased. It isn't the consumer's fault that this guy is losing his eyesight either.
This summarizes the central difference in our vi