Card is advocating a violent overthrow of the American government if it decides to support gay marriage...A couple things: Card is an anti-gun lefty.
This same pathology was at work with the shooting, by a rabid right-winger, at the Knoxville Unitarian Universalist Church last month, and the very recent attack on the Arkansas Democratic Headquarters.
And tell me going over the edge because you're losing your food stamps is the act of a "conservative."
I'm sure many would consider me "right wing." Funny--it's not me trying to disarm gays, minorities, women--it's them.
Well, the federal government has no power to restrict marriage. A strict federal court would simply turn down any such case.
ReplyDeleteWhat happened to the classical definition of diversity? A federal decision would apply a single standard--however illegally. It would seem to me that both sides of the issue would see greater benefit from fifty choices instead of one.
But that's just me. What do I know?
Marriage is one man and one woman. Marriage is the ideal for raising families and the stability of the nation. It doesn't always work perfectly, but what does? It is the best option.
ReplyDeleteI am not anti-gay. It does not concern me in the least if two guys want to poke each other in the ass in the privacy of their home. I only draw the line when they expect me to CODONE their BEHAVIOR and spend my tax dollars in the schools to teach my children that homosexual BEHAVIOR is a government sanctioned lifestyle.
Homosexuals are people and have rights, just like anyone else, but they don't get to redefine marriage to validate their aberrant BEHAVIOR. On a biological level, their BEHAVIOR is 'broken' and would cause them to select themselves for extinction, according to Darwinian theory. That BEHAVIOR should not be sanctioned by the state.
when the state can define marriage, it becomes nothing at all.
ReplyDeleteThis would be a non issue if the state wasn't in the business of sanctioning marriages. The government shouldn't be doling out benefits to select groups, no matter how large of a majority that group holds. Until that changes expect the minority to expect the same treatment.
ReplyDelete"when the state can define marriage, it becomes nothing at all."
ReplyDeleteDo you see a difference between defining marriage and codifying the existing definition? I do.
If the gov were defining a thing as something that it is not, we're back to the Alice in Wonderland "words mean what I say they mean" fantasy. However, it is not only common, but in many cases necessary for the gov to include definitions for the terms used in laws and regulations to prevent confusion and, yes, even misuse of those terms.
The definition of marriage has been relatively static for an awfully long time. To enforce that definition through legislation is no different than enforcing the definition of "machine gun" so that places like Washington, DC don't try to make it mean something that it does not.
Oh, and Card is one of those unusual liberal Mormons. As a conservative Mormon, I find much of his thinking hard to understand, especially in light of our church's beliefs.
Wikipedia's OSC entry does mention his statist views on the RKBA and I imagine that he would have corrected any error, but I haven't been able to find much else about that online.
ReplyDeleteFYI there's quite a few copies of his famous Ender's Game available 2nd hand and on eBay. Don't buy one new if you must have one.
Mr. Trent's article is also unhappily distinguishable from many lefty writers' output in his "appropriation" of terms (Constitutional Republic) once
found only in more honest writers.
But his "linkage" of "Conservative"with the UU church shooting is classic lefty scare talk, betraying his true affiliations -- whether he fully recognizes them for what they are or not.
He didn't mention an even greater SF writer, Robert Heinlein, whose pithy summation "There are no dangerous weapons only dangerous people" make the novel* where that appears one of the top contenders for best SF novel of all time.
RAH also presents readers with incongruities, notably the later novel** with the alien Michael Valentine Smith. I've never quite understood how one man could write both The collection Expanded Universe does demonstrate IMO his loyalty to American Constitutional principles.
* Starship Troopers The pervasiveness of misunderstandings, often willful is remarkable.
** Stranger in a Strange Land which I must admit I haven't really read. From a synopsis I did read, it seems there might be disturbing parallels with a certain contemporary candidate (the cult like ambiance)
all the best,cycjec