Sunday, November 16, 2008
Homo / Politics Typo? Freudian Slip?
Posted by Christopher Frizzelle on Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 2:00 PM
In today's New York Times:
Supporters of the proposition have repeatedly argued that Proposition 8 was not antigay, but merely pro-marriage.“The marriage is between a man and women,” said Frank Schubert, the campaign manager for Protect Marriage, the leading group behind passing Proposition 8. “If they want to legalize same-sex marriage, they are gong to have to bring a proposal before the people of California. That’s how democracy works.”
Marriage is between a man and women? How many women, Schubert? As many as you want? (Schubert is the guy who led the charge to get Prop 8 passed, who came up with the devious winning strategy, and who called the emergency meeting right before election day, when it looked like Prop 8 might go down in flames, and convinced a bunch of religious crazy people to give a ton of last-minute money—including $1 million from the grandson of a former president of the Mormon Church.)
Share via
1
"That’s how democracy works.” High school civics FAIL.
I wouldn't make too much of the "women" blip.
I wouldn't make too much of the "women" blip.
2
Another telltale typo right there: “If they want to legalize same-sex marriage, they are *gong* to have to bring a proposal before the people of California." GONG!
4
How many people did they really convince in that last day with a million dollars? How do you spend that money?
8
“If they want to legalize same-sex marriage, they are gong to have to bring a proposal before the people of California. That’s how democracy works.”
Really...
Majority Rule, Minority Rights
Really...
Majority Rule, Minority Rights
9
This is how the law works.
You can't set up "marriage" as a prequisite to property and health care rights and then deny them to those who aren't married, and then also prevent them from getting married.
This is the same as having a "poll test" to prevent people from voting or any other type of limit.
IFF, they wish to define "marriage" as a civil bond between a male and female and remove all associated rights OR if they want to define "narriage" [sic] as a bond between male and male and give narriage [sic] the same rights as marriage, then that's ok too (although separate but equal may apply).
You can't set up "marriage" as a prequisite to property and health care rights and then deny them to those who aren't married, and then also prevent them from getting married.
This is the same as having a "poll test" to prevent people from voting or any other type of limit.
IFF, they wish to define "marriage" as a civil bond between a male and female and remove all associated rights OR if they want to define "narriage" [sic] as a bond between male and male and give narriage [sic] the same rights as marriage, then that's ok too (although separate but equal may apply).
10
The Freudian slip is on the other foot. Hatred and intolerance against the religious, and a desire to persecute them, illustrates the mental illness infecting the hearts and minds of the writer. Of course, he's not offended by the racism in the gay community, including that on display by Dan Savage.. and Anderson's racist slip on November 7th.. all your sort has accomplished is turning off lots of people who used to be allies of the gay community.
12
Quoting Mr. Schubert:
"If they want to legalize same-sex marriage, they are going to have to bring a proposal before the people of California. That's how democracy works."
Hmm...
Actually, that's NOT how democracy works.
Democracy requires that minorities have protection from the tyranny of the majority by the creation of separate branches of government. So, if the majority happen to be bigots, their attempt to force their bigotry on other Americans through the legislative branch is checked by the judicial branch.
Mr. Schubert clearly needs to re-take Democracy 101, lest he continue embarrassing himself and those he represents with his ignorance of a most basic principle.
-Greta in Seattle
"If they want to legalize same-sex marriage, they are going to have to bring a proposal before the people of California. That's how democracy works."
Hmm...
Actually, that's NOT how democracy works.
Democracy requires that minorities have protection from the tyranny of the majority by the creation of separate branches of government. So, if the majority happen to be bigots, their attempt to force their bigotry on other Americans through the legislative branch is checked by the judicial branch.
Mr. Schubert clearly needs to re-take Democracy 101, lest he continue embarrassing himself and those he represents with his ignorance of a most basic principle.
-Greta in Seattle
13
Actually, Greta, that's a Republican Democracy.
Raw Democracy means all those considered citizens (originally land-owning white men, or in Greece land-owning greek men) can vote, while the minority can't vote and has no rights.
Just ask a slave until a couple of hundred years ago in our "democratic" countries, or a woman until just a hundred years ago.
Raw Democracy means all those considered citizens (originally land-owning white men, or in Greece land-owning greek men) can vote, while the minority can't vote and has no rights.
Just ask a slave until a couple of hundred years ago in our "democratic" countries, or a woman until just a hundred years ago.
14
I watched the polygamy special on TLC and was disappointed that the interviewer didn't provide a little more explanation about the religion of the polygamist groups. Although these families called themselves Mormons, they are not currently practicing with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, which people mostly refer to as Mormons. . . The blog of the one husband filmed in this special can be found here where he discusses his father's excommunication from the LDS church for practicing polygamy: http://moroni-family.blogspot.com. I'm disappointed she let the confusion slide when this is already such a highly battled myth.
15
Thank you, Will.
But, the goal of my original post was not to differentiate between different types of democracy (i.e.: direct, representative, etc.).
The goal of my first post was to make clear that a basic principle of democracy, any democracy, was violated when Prop 8 passed, even though the majority voted for Prop 8, since it is common to all democracies to provide minority citizens protection against a tyrannical majority.
Although, as you point out, democracies often do not provide this protection until much time has passed and much struggle has been expended.
But, the goal of my original post was not to differentiate between different types of democracy (i.e.: direct, representative, etc.).
The goal of my first post was to make clear that a basic principle of democracy, any democracy, was violated when Prop 8 passed, even though the majority voted for Prop 8, since it is common to all democracies to provide minority citizens protection against a tyrannical majority.
Although, as you point out, democracies often do not provide this protection until much time has passed and much struggle has been expended.
Most Commented on Slog
-
Stephen Fry v. the Catholic Church by Dan Savage
-
Neologism Needed by Dan Savage
-
Palin's Cheat Sheet by Dan Savage
-
Straight Up by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: The Toilet Brush Off by Dan Savage
-
Every Child Deserves a Mother and a Father by Dan Savage
-
Tea Party Crowd Believes That Only Good Spellers Should Vote by Dan Savage
-
Every Child Deserves a Mother and a Father by Dan Savage
-
The Green Police Super Bowl Commercial by Charles Mudede
-
How's That Hopey, Changey Stuff Working Out For Childhood Obesity? by Dan Savage
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (15) RSS