Speaker for Himself

July 29, 2008 10:43 PM

Orson Scott Card on gay marriage, which he says "marks the end of democracy in America". Not everyone is too happy about that.
posted by Artw (284 comments total)

That column is as narrow as his fucking mind.
posted by turgid dahlia at 10:45 PM on July 29 [4 favorites]

This coming from a writer whose books are so replete with adolescent homoeroticism I almost came in my dry goods reading Ender's Game in ninth grade.
posted by bukharin at 10:49 PM on July 29 [47 favorites]

In other news: New Enders Game comic from Marvel!

Which appears to feature a small boy threatened by, um, vagina beasts
posted by Artw at 10:52 PM on July 29 [5 favorites]

Is this new news? I thought that his opinions on the matter were very well documented. Or am I thinking of someone else?
posted by roll truck roll at 10:53 PM on July 29 [6 favorites]

roll truck roll: The sentiment I've heard from most fans of Card's - and my own: "gee, I loved Ender's Game, and a bunch of the sequels were decent, as was [some other book by Card] but the man is fucking nuts!" So, no, not news.
posted by spaceman_spiff at 10:55 PM on July 29 [5 favorites]

He does a fantastic job of clearing up the confusion over whether same-sex couples can produce offspring. Also, judges might turn parking lots into greenery, so beware.
posted by strangeleftydoublethink at 10:56 PM on July 29

I read one of OSC's collections of short stories when I was about 17, and my conclusion then was that he was a very creepy minded individual. Seriously, I have read straight out horror that made my skin crawl less than his stories. Even Ender's Game is seriously messed up if you look passed all the exploding spaceship awesomeness.
He has been going on about homosexuality for years - methinks he may be protesting a bit too much, if you catch my drift.
posted by AndrewStephens at 10:58 PM on July 29 [12 favorites]

From his 'essay': The first and greatest threat from court decisions in California and Massachusetts, giving legal recognition to "gay marriage," is that it marks the end of democracy in America.

I dislike it that the ignorant get to speak in the public arena, and especially dislike it when the ignorant person in question will attract more eyeballs than every rebuttal put together.

Card, you unqualified moron, the citizenry doesn't get a say in the decisions of the judiciary. That's how it works. Whether it's democratic or not is irrelevant. The last thing you want is for a well-organized mob to be able to overturn a judge's decision on fundamental human rights by any means less difficult than a constitutional amendment.

And probably not even then.
posted by ten pounds of inedita at 10:59 PM on July 29 [36 favorites]

I've been saying it for years: Orson Scott Card is a frothing homophobe and his views should not be supported by people buying his books.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 11:02 PM on July 29 [9 favorites]

Why the fuck do people worship Ender's Game? I sniffed that O. Henry ending out, like, 30 pages in.

Maybe because I watched The Last Starfighter first. Damn, always loved that Robert Preston.
posted by sourwookie at 11:03 PM on July 29 [5 favorites]

and (fucking submit button), we all know what 'frothing homophobe' means. Hey, OSC, have a drink, suck some dick, stop hating yourself because your religion tells you to.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 11:05 PM on July 29 [7 favorites]

Just what the homophobe needs, more publicity.
posted by crossoverman at 11:08 PM on July 29

You now what else signaled the end of democracy in America? Bad Boys II.

And everything else that I don't personally like.
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:08 PM on July 29 [21 favorites]

This coming from a writer whose books are so replete with adolescent homoeroticism I almost came in my dry goods reading Ender's Game in ninth grade.

You know, its funny: I first read EG when I was 20 or so and still coming to terms with my own sexuality. I couldn't point to anything in particular -- nothing that I could really put my finger on and say "Yes, this is it" -- but I remember having the strangest feeling that Ender just wouldn't be into girls when he grew up.

Also, the aliens are called "buggers", so there you have it.
posted by Avenger at 11:10 PM on July 29 [2 favorites]

In other news: New Enders Game comic from Marvel!

OK, partial non sequitur, but why is Ender wearing Gordon Freeman's clothing?
posted by Schlimmbesserung at 11:13 PM on July 29

Say what you will, but the longer we allow the court system to simply strike down laws enacted by a democratic majority purely on the basis of those laws being unconstitutional, the more people are going to think that's exactly what the court system is supposed to do.

You've been warned.
posted by Navelgazer at 11:14 PM on July 29 [32 favorites]

A very polite friend of mine lived near Card for many years and has nothing at all to say about him. So more than likely OSC's an all-around ass.
posted by infinitewindow at 11:15 PM on July 29 [4 favorites]

This is why we sigh and say someone is "such a Card" when they being an indefatigable social retard.
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 11:17 PM on July 29 [20 favorites]

Like I needed another reason not to buy his badly written books.
posted by w0mbat at 11:19 PM on July 29 [4 favorites]

He has been going on about homosexuality for years - methinks he may be protesting a bit too much, if you catch my drift.

Seconded.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:23 PM on July 29 [2 favorites]

Card is overrated - try reading Xenocide if you want to know why. (Note: do not do this.) It's a sci-fi book in which people have their wishes granted. I wish someone had told me that before I read it.
posted by yath at 11:24 PM on July 29 [5 favorites]

He has been going on about homosexuality for years - methinks he may be protesting a bit too much, if you catch my drift.

Three-wayed.
posted by johnj at 11:25 PM on July 29 [12 favorites]

Say what you will, but the longer we allow the court system to simply strike down laws enacted by a democratic majority purely on the basis of those laws being unconstitutional, the more people are going to think that's exactly what the court system is supposed to do.

Yeah, that's why Loving v. Virginia was such an atrocity.
posted by blucevalo at 11:25 PM on July 29 [6 favorites]

I couldn't point to anything in particular -- nothing that I could really put my finger on and say "Yes, this is it" -- but I remember having the strangest feeling that Ender just wouldn't be into girls when he grew up.

Many years ago (i.e. after Ender's Game but before Speaker for the Dead), a friend of mine pointed out homoeroticism in a whole gamut of Card's work. (See Songmaster as the most overwhelming example.) I didn't think much of it at the time, but as the years have gone by, the point has become stronger. Card is obsessed with male homosexuality. Yours is to wonder why.
posted by outlier at 11:25 PM on July 29 [3 favorites]

OSC and his personal views (about this very issue even) have been referenced here numerous times before (see 1, 2, 3). I came to respect him by reading his books, like many others he was one of my favorite authors when I was younger. And no, I'm not gay. When someone you respect holds a different opinion or philosophy from your own, hopefully it spurs you to evaluate your own ideas again, engage in debate, and not just write them off immediately as stupid, uninformed and wrong.

There is a great divide in this country between the liberals and conservatives, and I think Metafilter's own fascination with the fact that someone many of us grew up reading and agreeing with turned out to be one of those crazy conservatives we have since come to regard as either hopelessly misguided or criminally avaricious. Turns out, there are intelligent people in the world who hold different views from your own. Replace a few few words in this thread with their liberal counterparts and you will see a startling similarity to the vitriol spewed in many a conservative blog. They aren't necessarily the enemy, they just started with a different set of premises.
posted by sophist at 11:26 PM on July 29 [10 favorites]

http://www.hatrack.com/

http://www.haterack.com/

Fixed that for you Orson.
posted by three blind mice at 11:28 PM on July 29 [2 favorites]

They aren't necessarily the enemy, they just started with a different set of premises.

Uhh.. actually? As long as they influence public policy, they are indeed the enemy to me and those like me.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 11:29 PM on July 29 [14 favorites]

When someone you respect holds a different opinion or philosophy from your own, hopefully it spurs you to evaluate your own ideas again, engage in debate, and not just write them off immediately as stupid, uninformed and wrong.

When that someone turns out to have ideas that that are, in fact, stupid, uninformed and wrong, it spurs me to reevaluate how much I respect that person.
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:31 PM on July 29 [44 favorites]

How odd, he actually provided the rebuttal to his own argument as part of the argument:

There is no branch of government with the authority to redefine marriage. Marriage is older than government. Its meaning is universal: It is the permanent or semipermanent bond between a man and a woman, establishing responsibilities between the couple and any children that ensue.

The laws concerning marriage did not create marriage, they merely attempted to solve problems in such areas as inheritance, property, paternity, divorce, adoption and so on.

Which is correct, assuming (with good reason) that Card is using the particular meaning of the word "marriage" that is typically used by Mormons. But as a direct consequence of this division between the two concepts, "marriage as a union under god" and "marriage as a union under the state", religious and moral objections have no bearing on the extension of the latter concept. None whatsoever.

Moreover, as others have noted in response to this:

The first and greatest threat from court decisions in California and Massachusetts, giving legal recognition to "gay marriage," is that it marks the end of democracy in America.

The US judicial system, not to mention the constitution, are essentially undemocratic. In many cases, it is preferable to avoid a tyranny of the majority than to enact perfect democracy. These systems are in place to prevent minorities (like, for example, religious groups who don't have the largest populations in the US...) from getting taken advantage of. And strangely enough, the US constitution isn't generally considered to mark "the end of democracy in America."

It's fairly clear that Card could see this if he gave the matter even a moment's thought, and so it's equally clear that the man simply hasn't given the matter any thought.
posted by voltairemodern at 11:31 PM on July 29 [10 favorites]

Amusingly (well, to me anyway), just above the column is this quote:

Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth”
Mark 9: 23

Kinda sounds like Scott can't believe.
posted by shetterly at 11:34 PM on July 29

I'll never forget the day gay marriage was legalized here in British Columbia. I remember looking into my wife's eyes, trying to wrap my head around the fact that we couldn't be married anymore. I couldn't look away from the pain those eyes, the sense that I'd let her down, that all the promises we made weren't worth a hill of beans now because the gays had destroyed marriage. And democracy. That was important to us to, what with the stolen elections and the illegal surveillance and the secret police and gutting of the constitution and the prison camps, democracy was more important to us than ever. But the gays. The gays...

I wanted to hold her. I wanted to shield her from it. I wanted to tell her it was going to be all right, but I knew - she knew - we both knew it was never going to be all right ever again... I wonder what she's doing now...

You BASTARDS! I LOVED HER SO MUCH! I... (great racking sob) I just wanted to grow old with her... we just wanted to be together, a man and a woman in love, was that SO wrong?

It still hurts, every day it's like a knife in my gut. Why'd you do it? Why? You fucking homos. Why'd you have to do it? (staggers off wailing, drops the bottle and it shatters on the trash strewn street. Later a dog, bone thin and desperate, comes sniffing for food and a gentle hand, but finds none.)
posted by Naberius at 11:36 PM on July 29 [156 favorites]

And copy editing. They destroyed that too.
posted by Naberius at 11:36 PM on July 29 [11 favorites]

He has been going on about homosexuality for years - methinks he may be protesting a bit too much, if you catch my drift.

By this logic, Metafilter's about 70% closet rabid fundy Christians.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 11:38 PM on July 29 [58 favorites]

Turns out, there are intelligent people in the world who hold different views from your own. Replace a few few words in this thread with their liberal counterparts and you will see a startling similarity to the vitriol spewed in many a conservative blog. They aren't necessarily the enemy, they just started with a different set of premises.

No, sophist, this is far too weak. Though I agree that a lot of the kneejerk responses that have been posted contain little thought, there are plenty of reasons for viewing Card's arguments as a hot mess (I gave one or two in my previous post). Contrast that with the fact that Card doesn't even bother to address any arguments in favor of gay marriage. He didn't just start with a different set of premises -- comforting though that may be to believe -- he started with different rules of engagement and goal state. And reflecting upon his own position is not, for Card, on the menu.
posted by voltairemodern at 11:39 PM on July 29 [3 favorites]

Oh! Oh! Heston! GOD DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL.....
posted by Naberius at 11:39 PM on July 29

I think the issue is, at least for me, that he could be liberal, conservative, or anything he wants, but when his scree against a part of the population EXCLUDES an interest in evaluate[ing] your [his] own ideas [and] engage[ing] in debate [with others], he's just looking to be disrespected, and then some.

I want to respect OSC's right to his opinion and his right to voice it, but suggesting that what he has said here is NOT, in some way, hate-speech, is just wrong.
posted by johnj at 11:41 PM on July 29

(See Songmaster as the most overwhelming example.)

I had never heard of that book before. I just read the Wiki on that and holy crap I'm speechless. It really reads like a novel written largely from personal experience. Tragic, painful and self-loathing.

I've just gone from anger to pity.
posted by Avenger at 11:41 PM on July 29 [5 favorites]

He has been going on about homosexuality for years - methinks he may be protesting a bit too much, if you catch my drift.

Thinking about this again and, in looking up an old quote, I really have to wonder:

Any homosexual man who can persuade a woman to take him as her husband can avail himself of all the rights of husbandhood under the law. And, in fact, many homosexual men have done precisely that, without any legal prejudice at all.

OSC, please come out of the closet before you hurt yourself or others.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:43 PM on July 29 [3 favorites]

By this logic, Metafilter's about 70% closet former rabid fundy Christians.

Of course, you can choose your religion, so it isn't a perfect analogy.
posted by Avenger at 11:43 PM on July 29 [3 favorites]

They aren't necessarily the enemy, they just started with a different set of premises.

And every second of every hour of every day of every month of every year, they are presented with the opportunity, the privilege, the right, the gift, the onus to re-evaluate those premises and make good on their role as humans.

Sucks that most don't.
posted by sourwookie at 11:47 PM on July 29 [1 favorite]

Dude, forget Ender's Game (and yes, I got the gay vibe from Ender as well). It's all about the gay man-boy rape in Songmaster, the alien-girl rape in Wyrms (the alien has multiple slimy penises that project from its belly), the multiple public man-girl rapes in Hart's Hope...

OSC definitely protests too much.

I mean, I realize that's entirely ad hominem, but it is a strong pattern. Something is not right with that guy.
posted by prefpara at 11:47 PM on July 29

By this logic, Metafilter's about 70% closet rabid fundy Christians.

Yeah but no. There is an extremely strong correlation, both anecdotally and scientifically, between homophobia and homosexuality.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 11:48 PM on July 29

By this logic, Metafilter's about 70% closet former rabid fundy Christians.

It's true: Seven out of ten Mefites sneak out of the house on Sundays to attend Baptist service. Even the Jews. It's scandalous.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:56 PM on July 29 [11 favorites]

He puts good premises into some of those books, and underneath all of his complicated internal meanderings, he's got a knack for dragging you into a scene and getting involved with it from time to time.

The way he embraces his fears and then lashes out at others for not being afraid of the same things has deeply disappointed me. Such a loss. If he had an emotional core as strong as his mind, I think he could have really done a lot of good with his gift of picking apart possibilities.

Most of the second paragraph could be about me, with two major differences: I haven't sold a-bajillionty books and I don't make a habit of spewing anti-human rights tirades.
posted by batmonkey at 11:58 PM on July 29 [2 favorites]

After the first time I read a piece of Card's non-fiction, I never read his fiction again.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 11:59 PM on July 29 [1 favorite]

As someone said, I think in some ways these closet cases are actually reasoning pretty rationally, they just start from false premises. The reasoning seems to go something like this:

1. I am a normal heterosexual guy
2. I constantly crave cock and only have sex with my wife due to social pressure
3. Without that social pressure, all us normal heterosexual men would ditch our wives and head straight for the gay bathhouses
4. Therefore, strong social (and legal) pressure is necessary for the human race to keep reproducing

You can see how it makes sense to them.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 12:01 AM on July 30 [116 favorites]

I think Metafilter's own fascination with the fact that someone many of us grew up reading and agreeing with turned out to be one of those crazy conservatives we have since come to regard as either hopelessly misguided or criminally avaricious.... [but] They aren't necessarily the enemy, they just started with a different set of premises.

Yeah, stupid ones.

--

Sorry, that was to easy. Look, when two people disagree, at least one of them must be wrong (of course, both can be wrong as well). I've read Orson Scott Card's writings about homosexuality in the past and he seems to fear butt sex as much as most people fear death. That's just not a rational reasonable premise to hold.
posted by delmoi at 12:03 AM on July 30

Cagey people are toxic no matter the reason they're cagey and insecure. It just so happens that a lot of closeted people are cagey.

It's tempting to totally vilify, rather than support, closeted fuckers (I've personally been screwed over by the bitchery of closeted, confused, uptight assholes), but it's important not to totally conflate this kind of overcorrection with closetedness, because that's kissing kin to homophobia proper.
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 12:12 AM on July 30 [3 favorites]

As long as they influence public policy, they are indeed the enemy to me and those like me.

There's where you're wrong dnab. One does not need to be homo to recognize that anti-homo rhetoric is a threat to everyone's personal liberty.
posted by three blind mice at 12:12 AM on July 30 [5 favorites]

This coming from a writer whose books are so replete with adolescent homoeroticism I almost came in my dry goods reading Ender's Game in ninth grade.

It's been years now since I've read Ender's Game, but I do recall lots of passages set on the orbiting battle school involving boys exercising in the nude, doing homework and hanging out together naked in the barracks, and of course the scene where Ender wrestles, fights, and kills a rival older boy -- in the showers.
posted by longsleeves at 12:13 AM on July 30 [1 favorite]

I found Farnham's Freehold by Robert Heinlen waaaaay more disturbing than Ender's Game.
posted by KokuRyu at 12:17 AM on July 30 [1 favorite]

Ender and Hitler: Sympathy for the Superman

You don't have to read his columns to conclude that he's not a good person.
posted by Pope Guilty at 12:31 AM on July 30 [8 favorites]

True, KokyRyu, but I'd hang out with Heinlein over Card any day. Anyone who invokes the "the long mammalian tradition of heterosexuality" in this context, or any context, is a cunt. And, judging from this piece, a cunt in bad need of an editor. And, in his heart of hearts, probably a pedophile as well, as anyone who reads Ender's Game honestly cannot help but admit. (PS: I am a big fan of the book.)
posted by luckywanderboy at 12:31 AM on July 30 [1 favorite]

There's where you're wrong dnab. One does not need to be homo to recognize that anti-homo rhetoric is a threat to everyone's personal liberty.

You mistake me. My intent wasn't to exclude others who are affected by such bigotry, just to point out the very--and, sorry, more--personal effect such attitudes have.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 12:38 AM on July 30

of course the scene where Ender wrestles, fights, and kills a rival older boy -- in the showers.
...and the killing blow is made possible by a feint to the crotch.

And now that you mention it, wow are his stories packed with explorations of nontraditional reproduction. I can't think of a single novel he's written that doesn't have a primary plot point revolve around some test tube baby, eugenics experiment, or bizarre alien physiology. Motherfucker's just looking for something.

Yes, do not read Xenocide. Jesus.
posted by breath at 12:38 AM on July 30

There's where you're wrong dnab. One does not need to be homo to recognize that anti-homo rhetoric is a threat to everyone's personal liberty.

You mistake me. I didn't mean to exclude people--meaning everyone who is straight--who are also affected by such thoughts. But the reality is that you are collateral damage, not the target.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 12:43 AM on July 30 [1 favorite]

From Pope Guilty's link: Card makes us wait until well into the second novel before he tells us that Ender hasn't consummated his love for Valentine.

Whoa, I had totally overlooked the incest angle. Gross. Gross.
posted by breath at 12:44 AM on July 30

Ugh, I feel dirty just for having read that.

Card's problem — at least as expressed in the essay, not generally — is that the courts have overturned the will of the majority. Basically, he's just wailing that this isn't faaaaair.

To which I'd say: that's the whole point. That's why we go to such great lengths to insulate the judiciary from the people; it's specifically so that they can ignore popular opinion when that's what the law requires.

Somewhere along the line, Card seems to have missed an essential point about the United States: it's fundamentally not a democracy. The will of the people in our government is actually quite limited, and it's carefully balanced against other forces to keep it in check. Any smart eighth-grader could tell you that.

Card's screed is a prime example of why unchecked democracy is dangerous; if it weren't for the checks placed against the power of the majority, we'd probably be living in some sort of quasi-theocracy by now. It's only because of some very undemocratic restraints that the Enlightenment-inspired, secularist values of a few long-dead men have managed to survive more than two centuries of demagoguery and spastic religious revivals.

It frightens me to imagine what an America where the courts were overruled by popular vote would look like. It's worth thinking about, though, because that's what Card is essentially complaining we don't have. And I'm very thankful for it.
posted by Kadin2048 at 12:46 AM on July 30 [28 favorites]

read Xenocide, didn't mind it, thought Ender's Game was much better.
posted by zippy at 12:46 AM on July 30

Dude probably thinks he's got his logic locked tight. Gonna change the world just like Locke and Demosthenes.

The real kicker is that the values that are espoused in the Ender's Game series: acceptance, forgiveness, seeking common ground with the totally alien, self-healing, the connection between all living people... are so mindblowingly, 180 degrees, antithetical to Card's blatant homophobia. I am seriously pissed off at what Card has done to my memories of Ender, Valentine, Jane, Bean, Peter, the Hive Queen et al. We can forgive manslaughter. We can forgive war. We can forgive genocide. But, teh butt secxs? HELL NO. amirite? Read your own books, jack ass.

I can only hope that he's gone batshitinsane and was actually a sensible human being before. Doesn't sound like that's the case, tho.
posted by Skwirl at 12:51 AM on July 30 [7 favorites]

The last thing you want is for a well-organized mob to be able to overturn a judge's decision on fundamental human rights by any means less difficult than a constitutional amendment.

Unfortunately (?) constitutional amendments are pretty piss-simple to manufacturer by popular vote here in Kullifornia. The Gay Marriage thing surviving past November is basically a coin-flip the last I checked.
posted by yort at 1:01 AM on July 30

Quoth Orson:

If government is going to meddle in this, it had better be to support marriage in general while providing protection for those caught in truly destructive marriages.

Because when government is the enemy of marriage, then the people who are actually creating successful marriages have no choice but to change governments, by whatever means is made possible or necessary.

This basically reads like a threat to attempt the violent (but only if necessary) overthrow of the government if he doesn't get his way. What a hate-filled whiner.
posted by mullingitover at 1:07 AM on July 30 [4 favorites]

With all the veiled (and not-so-veiled) homoeroticism in Ender's Game being referenced, I'm surprised nobody's mentioned the fact that the only moment of real warmth or intimacy in the novel is when Ender gets a peck on the lips from his best friend.

As a young and sheltered nerd when I read it, the fact that it dealt with a bunch of cadets at the Naked Military Academy being trained to kill "buggers" while avoiding any mention of the opposite sex pretty much went over my head. But even at twelve or thirteen or however old I was, a scene with two naked boys sharing an emotionally charged kiss seemed gratuitous unless the author was trying to tell us something.

I can only hope that he's gone batshitinsane and was actually a sensible human being before.

My guess is that his earlier, better work was at least in part the product of his struggle to reconcile his homosexuality with his conservative Christian upbringing. The prevalence of bloodless, scarcely credible hetero romance in his later work suggests how that turned out.
posted by Makoto at 1:07 AM on July 30 [1 favorite]

Look, Card is a serious Mormon. I've met him twice, listened to him talk; he is 'sure' about the mormon ideals, and really, only writes for the mass audience as it's profitable.

He really just wants to write plays and parables about Mormon life. Quit thinking he's anything other than a storyteller. Just because his stories are compelling, or perhaps he writes well, doesn't make his values more valid; since he's a good communicator, they merely seem like they are 'strong, well thought out/written views.'

In other words, your favorite writer sucks, when he doesn't tell stories, but gives his opinion on politics/religion/sexuality.
posted by filmgeek at 1:28 AM on July 30 [1 favorite]

In other words, your favorite writer sucks, when he doesn't tell stories, but gives his opinion on politics/religion/sexuality.

Actually, my favorite author is fucking awesome when he gives his opinions. Being a Pratchett fan has its perks.
posted by Pope Guilty at 1:29 AM on July 30 [25 favorites]

Set in 2135, "Ender's Game" tells the story of young Andrew "Ender" Wiggin, who is humanity's best chance to defend the planet from an alien attack by Formic race, known more commonly as Buggers.

Uh huh.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 1:42 AM on July 30

MORE LIKE ENDER'S GAY AMIRITE?
posted by turgid dahlia at 1:52 AM on July 30 [3 favorites]

Something is not right with that guy.

About 15/20 years ago, there was an excellent SF zine called SF Eye which took issue with one of Card's short stories. I don't remember the name of the story (I never read it), but it had some connection with one of Card's children, who was mentally handicapped, and SF Eye was outraged that the story seemed to be about Card fantasising about the death of his own child.

Does this ring any bells with anyone?
posted by daveje at 2:04 AM on July 30

I cannot help but think he tried to publish these crackpot essays anonymously, Locke and Demosthenes styley, got like two comments on his crappy blogspot in a year of posting, realized no one gave a shit and became a columnist for the one newspaper that would take him, the Mormon Times, and now the only people who actually give a shit are going "LOL HOMOPHOBE CRAPPY WRITER"

Way to fail OSC.
posted by Suparnova at 2:15 AM on July 30 [1 favorite]

To clarify my previous comments:

When a grenade is thrown, it is obviously not of much import who it was thrown at if you are in the blast radius.

But those who are specifically targets take a somewhat more personal view--and, indeed, must feel a more acute sense of danger--than those who are tragically hit by the collateral shrapnel.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 2:20 AM on July 30

I can't take anyone seriously who believes, in all honesty, that there's an Angel Moroni.
posted by rodgerd at 2:23 AM on July 30 [7 favorites]

(On a more serious note, though, this goes back to the sort of shit that encourages people to pick up guns and shoot up churches full of evil liberals)
posted by rodgerd at 2:25 AM on July 30 [1 favorite]

You mistake me. I didn't mean to exclude people--meaning everyone who is straight--who are also affected by such thoughts. But the reality is that you are collateral damage, not the target.

Everyone who loves liberty and believes in personal freedom is a target dnab.

And all of this "he hates gays so he must be a self-hating gay" in this thread, might well be true, but it seems to me that those would would demonize him by (in effect) subtley calling him "faggot" are totally missing the fucking point.

Disagree with him for what he says - isn't that enough - not because of what he might or might not be.
posted by three blind mice at 2:30 AM on July 30 [6 favorites]

When a grenade is thrown, it is obviously not of much import who it was thrown at if you are in the blast radius. But those who are specifically targets take a somewhat more personal view--and, indeed, must feel a more acute sense of danger--than those who are tragically hit by the collateral shrapnel.

dnab, ever been punched in the face by a skinhead because you happened to be standing next to a gay man having a conversation? Ever walked with your kids down the street and have them scared shitless by the same sort of assholes threatening two women holding hands? Ever have to explain to your terrified kids, "Daddy's got to do this" before you walk across the street to confront them?

Happened to me. And I'm not even cheerful, let alone gay.

This harms and hurts US ALL.
posted by three blind mice at 2:40 AM on July 30 [9 favorites]

Mormon pleeeasse.
posted by pianomover at 2:42 AM on July 30 [3 favorites]

Everyone who loves liberty and believes in personal freedom is a target dnab.

In the abstract, yes. In the concrete reality? Those of us who are gay are far more targets than those of you who are not. Yes, we value your affinity and support. That goes without saying. But the reality is that we are the direct targets of this sort of hatred.

I guess one way to put it is this: if a (hetero) rapist is terrorizing your city, it affects everyone. And everyone should be up in arms about it. But it personally affects 51% of the population--personally in that only that part of the population need fear attack. Yes, of course the rest of the population would have to help deal with the results of the attack, but only part of it would be the actual targets.

That's how I feel about these sorts of people. Of course you see it as an attack on rights in general that could affect you. That's reasonable and welcomed. But me and those like me, we are the very specific targets of this hatred. While we welcome and appreciate your support, this kind of attack can never hit home for you in the same way it hits home for us. Nobody is attacking you. Nobody is telling you that you are a second-class human being.

As much as I hate comparing gay rights to the racial rights movement, you are (for the purposes of this argument; I have no idea, nor do I care, what your skin colour is) the white person who supports the black liberation movement. You can support and commiserate, but the bottom line is that you are not the target, and thus you are able--luckily, and I'm not judging you--to be a step removed from the attack.

I understand where you're coming from, and I really appreciate it. But you're not a personal target in the way that I, and people like me, are. Please try to understand that difference, and understand why it matters.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 2:43 AM on July 30 [7 favorites]

dnab, ever been punched in the face by a skinhead because you happened to be standing next to a gay man having a conversation? Ever walked with your kids down the street and have them scared shitless by the same sort of assholes threatening two women holding hands? Ever have to explain to your terrified kids, "Daddy's got to do this" before you walk across the street to confront them?

No, but I have been threatened directly by them. Not threatened by association. The thing is--and I really do commend you for not doing this--you have the choice to walk away and not be bothered.

We don't.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 2:45 AM on July 30 [8 favorites]

And all of this "he hates gays so he must be a self-hating gay" in this thread, might well be true, but it seems to me that those would would demonize him by (in effect) subtley calling him "faggot" are totally missing the fucking point

No, not missing the point. Demonizing him for being a hypocrite points out that he is worse than your run of the mill bigot. Is he gay? I don't know. But the evidence would suggest, very strongly, that he is.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 2:47 AM on July 30 [5 favorites]

Right now I'm going to go and read all the Ursula Le Guin stories where people have six genders or no gender at all, or change sexes periodically, or engange in three- or four-party marriages. That'll get the nasty flavour out of my mouth, I'm sure.
posted by Jilder at 2:49 AM on July 30 [5 favorites]

So... Ender's Gayme.... Amirite!
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 3:16 AM on July 30

Dammit... I knew I should have read ALL the thread...
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 3:17 AM on July 30 [3 favorites]

Do we really have to give the crazy people so much attention?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 3:24 AM on July 30 [1 favorite]

The first and greatest threat significance from of court decisions in California and Massachusetts, giving legal recognition to "gay marriage," is that it they mark s the end limit of democracy in America.

See, I thought, "I'll just edit two words and have it make sense." Hah. Crappy writer indeed.


At least he doesn't need to start his own religion.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 3:44 AM on July 30

Now having read the article... Wow, I wish I could actually unread the two Card novels I have read previously...

Actually, now I remember, I only read the original novella version of Ender's Game. I can't remember any gay undertones in it... was that only added for the novel?
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 3:47 AM on July 30

OSC's attitude toward homosexuals is freaking bizarre. On one hand, you have these angry, seemingly-homophobic screeds, and on the other hand totally at odds with this are his mentions of gay characters in films or literature, where he almost always complains about how offended he is that the gay characters aren't given enough depth or mention. Cases in point:

Mamma Mia

"I enjoyed it. Except for the appalling moment when Colin Firth's character suddenly reveals himself to be gay. No, it's not because I'm anti-gay. It's because they trivialize and ridicule him and homosexuality. His developing relationship with a gay Greek man is never shown or hinted at -- it is revealed only as a punch line. As a joke. It's a slap in the face to all gay people."

Dumbledore

"She wants credit for being very up-to-date and politically correct -- but she didn't have the guts to put that supposed "fact" into the actual novels, knowing that it might hurt sales. What a pretentious, puffed-up coward. When I have a gay character in my fiction, I say so right in the book. I don't wait until after it has had all its initial sales to mention it."


The really damning one is School of Rock. He spends more words condemning the portrayal of the "gay" character than he does reviewing the film. Here's an excerpt, and I'll be danged if I can find a better indication of OSC's closeted homosexuality:

I've known a lot of guys over the years who were quite effeminate or spoke with a whispering lisp (not to mention a lot of guys who can switch on these mannerisms quite convincingly when the moment requires). But only a few of these guys ended up living as gay men.

In other words, the supposed markers of homosexuality in our society are ludicrously not markers of anything at all, except that inside the gay community there are those who exaggerate these traits, often to the embarrassment of other homosexuals.

I remember watching In & Out, the Kevin Kline movie about the high school drama teacher whose former student "outs" him at the Academy Awards -- even though the character never suspected himself of being gay. When they listed all the markers of homosexuality, I had to laugh, because of course almost all of them fit me and most of my heterosexual friends -- because I'm a theatre guy who grew up loving show tunes (including Streisand), and I tend to hang out with people who share those tastes.


So yeah, pretty gay, this is fairly old news though.
posted by Ndwright at 4:06 AM on July 30 [2 favorites]

The errors:

1. The courts are making law.
Not so. The court is recognizing that the State cannot limit the ability of citizens to enter into contracts based on gender.

2. Society gains no benefit.
Not so. Gay marriage creates the opportunity for contracts between gay couples. As we all know, contracts and property are the foundation of the economy.

3. It isn't good for the kids.
Not so. Having potential parents that may not be able to procreate increases the demand for adoptive services. More parents with the same number of kids=good for kids.

I think there goes Romney's shot at the vp slot.
posted by ewkpates at 4:07 AM on July 30 [5 favorites]

It frightens me to imagine what an America where the courts were overruled by popular vote would look like.

I would think, for a start, that Mormonism would be illegal.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 4:27 AM on July 30 [6 favorites]

Every time Card's right-of-Atilla views get the spotlight, there's always a lot of jumping on the hater bandwagon: "I always thought Ender's Game sucked, anyway!".

I think Card's politics are super looney, but I loves me some Ender's Game.
posted by zardoz at 4:27 AM on July 30 [4 favorites]

Card's (wide) stance on gay marriage doesn't surprise me. ENDER'S GAME = GREASED MEN.
posted by emelenjr at 4:38 AM on July 30 [13 favorites]

you go, orson!
posted by quonsar at 4:38 AM on July 30 [1 favorite]

Well, this is a guy who writes stories in which bloggers change and take over the world because of their, uh, blogginess? I mean, I can accept a 12 year old saving the world via a complicated video game, but a 12 year old writing a blog that quakes the very foundation of established nations? That was around the time I threw the book across the room.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 4:51 AM on July 30

I started this thread very happy that I had never read any of Orson Scott Card's books, and firmly intending to keep it that way.

Now I discover that OrsonWorld is all about the greased naked guys touching each other PLUS exploding spaceships, and as such I'm beginning to reconsider that position. Way to encourage a boycott, guys.
posted by flashboy at 4:53 AM on July 30 [4 favorites]

Surely this is not the first time some of you have run into the concept of an author who's an asshat yet writes good books?
posted by elfgirl at 5:26 AM on July 30 [1 favorite]

Every few years, I re-discover I was right to run far, far away from Card after just 3 pages of Ender's Game.
posted by DU at 5:37 AM on July 30

I look forward to hearing Alan Dean Foster's views on stem-cell research.
posted by ColdChef at 5:39 AM on July 30 [9 favorites]

democracy in amerika ended in 1962
posted by kitchenrat at 5:41 AM on July 30

It's easy to dismiss this rant by substituting 'interracial' for 'homosexual/gay'. *shrug*
posted by plinth at 5:41 AM on July 30

One of the other boys in Ender's Game has his terminal thingie locked with a cock-n-balls screensaver.

I still think it and Speaker are fantastic books.
posted by Skorgu at 5:42 AM on July 30

Which appears to feature a small boy threatened by, um, vagina beasts

Wow, for reals.

Note to Card: When your shaman is telling you stuff that biology is telling you is false, believe the facts, not the superstition. Give in to teh gay.
posted by DU at 5:52 AM on July 30

I was initially very surprised when I heard this sort of frothing homophobia from Card because I had read Songmaster which seemed (to me at least) to be an exploration of the pain that is caused by the fact that we can't just choose who we love, or even what gender they will be. Now, it has been many years since I've read the book, and maybe I got it all backwards. But the fact that he wrote that book but can spout this kind of crap still causes some cognitive dissonance for me.
posted by Lazlo Hollyfeld at 5:57 AM on July 30

Kadin2048 writes "It frightens me to imagine what an America where the courts were overruled by popular vote would look like."

But... but that America would have a President Gore!
posted by caution live frogs at 6:07 AM on July 30 [4 favorites]

In one small aspect, he's right- homophobe is a word that should be reserved for people with mental illness. The correct words to describe him are "bigot" and "asshole".
posted by jenkinsEar at 6:08 AM on July 30

But the fact that he wrote that book but can spout this kind of crap still causes some cognitive dissonance for me.

Think of the problems he must have! Speaker (my favorite) was all about love and forgiveness. He's got to be twice the bigot to make up for that goof.
posted by cmyk at 6:09 AM on July 30

you go, orson!

That's "you go, Your Immensity!"
posted by octobersurprise at 6:11 AM on July 30

You know what I blame this on the breakdown of? Society! [/Moe Szyslak]
posted by captnkurt at 6:12 AM on July 30

Say what you will, but the longer we allow the court system to simply strike down laws enacted by a democratic majority purely on the basis of those laws being unconstitutional, the more people are going to think that's exactly what the court system is supposed to do.

That's actually a much more interesting topic than the pathetic ramblings of a closet case who wants to dress up his homophobia as a nuanced discussion of constitutional law. I've always been vaguely uneasy about our relationship with the courts, because it's a system practically begging to be abused. Most of us left-of-center types are pretty happy with a judiciary that can run roughshod over populism, because the courts have been really good to us in the last two centuries. For every Plessy v. Ferguson, there have been three Loving v. Virginia, and the general trend of civil rights has been that, once the trend toward equality for $MINORITY starts, the courts carry the knuckle-draggers kicking and screaming into the new century. But I would posit that this has been an extraordinary bit of luck on our part, because it has everything to do with the personal whims of an extremely powerful group of nine men and women over whom we have absolutely no control. That should scare us shitless.

It's a system that has tended to self-correct in the past (we'd be in a world of hurt if Souter hadn't gone renegade on Bush I, for example, and that's not the first time it's happened), but again, it's all situational, and there are no safeguards in place to prevent it from becoming a really powerful tool of enforcing systematic discrimination, or from it becoming a regressive influence in law and culture. We're becoming far too complacent with the court overstepping its bounds, and we should probably remember that we'd have a lot more credibility and ability to effect change if we were to complain about creeping judicial authority when it's working in our favor. We can deride OSC for crying foul in this case, because it's obvious that he's just dressing up his bigotry as righteous democratic outrage; what's to keep us from being pigeon-hold in exactly the same way if the pendulum swings the other way in a few years?
posted by Mayor West at 6:26 AM on July 30 [3 favorites]

Folk of the fringe is only one of Card's books I've ever read and I've never had the urge to read any more of them, but it wasn't bad if you like (Mormon) apocalyptic fiction. And as a bonus, there's a hot, kinda S&M-y scene near the end where an older mestizo woman has wild, bestial, sex with a young, self-loathing, puritanical, American Mormon guy (in order to conceive a child who will grow up to save Norteamérica after the cracker-ass Whiteys screw everything up).

So, Card: thumbs down. Card's weird, strangled, slash-fictiony kitsch: thumbs up.
posted by octobersurprise at 6:28 AM on July 30

"This coming from a writer whose books are so replete with adolescent homoeroticism I almost came in my dry goods reading Ender's Game in ninth grade.

...

You know, its funny: I first read EG when I was 20 or so and still coming to terms with my own sexuality. I couldn't point to anything in particular -- nothing that I could really put my finger on and say "Yes, this is it" -- but I remember having the strangest feeling that Ender just wouldn't be into girls when he grew up.

Also, the aliens are called "buggers", so there you have it."

Also, Ender's Game is an anagram of greased men.

I'm sure that's not an accident.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 6:41 AM on July 30 [2 favorites]

We can deride OSC for crying foul in this case, because it's obvious that he's just dressing up his bigotry as righteous democratic outrage; what's to keep us from being pigeon-hold in exactly the same way if the pendulum swings the other way in a few years?

it's already happened with the upholding of forfeiture laws that require the target to prove his innocence to get his property back; the only difference being is that the majority think it's a good idea

in fact, the majority only seem to object to what our courts do when they attempt to expand people's rights - when they constrict or ignore them, they're just fine with that
posted by pyramid termite at 6:47 AM on July 30 [2 favorites]

And I see emelenjr already anagrammed it.

That's what I get for sleeping late.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 6:50 AM on July 30

Religions channel libido. They establish taboos and lay down laws that direct sexual energy away from its immediate expression. Secular judicial bodies do the same thing with aggression. Way back when, these sorts of redirections were crucial for the emergence of culture and fragile, complex forms of human interaction that would be catastrophically undone by rampant fucking or killing. Roman Catholicism, for example, opened up tremendous spaces for speculative thought by mandating a class of professional eunuchs. Mormons (like many contemporary orthodox jews) do their thing by channeling all that libido into the family in order to increase membership through internally controllable means. But over time traditions take hold and institutional authorities come to believe that the sine qua non of their institution was the redirection of libido, or aggression. So they begin engaging in ever more baroque practices of restriction and prohibition whose central function is to conceal their own arbitrariness.

When someone subject to those sorts of strictures looks out and sees others living without a care for the arbitrary rules under which he or she labors, fear is the inevitable result. The freedom of others is an immediate testimony to your own meaningless sacrifice. The happiness of others rebukes your own discipline. I don't hate Orson Scott Card. Honestly, I feel sorry for him. I can understand why gay people would react with revulsion to this sort of ugliness. But honestly, remind yourself that somewhere down in the bowels of his fear-addled heart his envy for you is a white-hot thing.
posted by felix betachat at 6:54 AM on July 30 [38 favorites]

No, he's right. The vote of the people *should* override everything. Therefore, I humbly offer the following motion.

RESOLVED: That no member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints be allowed to reside in the United States of America.

Funny how democracy works, isn't it?
posted by eriko at 6:55 AM on July 30

The Gay Marriage thing surviving past November is basically a coin-flip the last I checked.

51% oppose, 42% favor the amendment to ban marriage equality in a July 18 Field poll.
posted by kirkaracha at 6:57 AM on July 30

Mayor West: Well, here I think you can thank Marbury vs. Madison. The court can't preemptively decide cases, its only the court of last resort, and we do have control over the judicial system leading up to the Supreme court. Take for example, Kitzmiller, et. al. v. Dover Area School Board which was promptly dropped out of the system when the offending School Board failed to be reelected.

And isn't deciding whether a case is consistent with the Constitution what the Supreme Court is supposed to do?

Ndwright (quoting Card): When they listed all the markers of homosexuality, I had to laugh, because of course almost all of them fit me and most of my heterosexual friends -- because I'm a theatre guy who grew up loving show tunes (including Streisand), and I tend to hang out with people who share those tastes.

Well, on this one, Card is right in the same manner as a stopped clock. One of the really sad things about pervasive anti-gay prejudice is how many straight guys will go to ridiculous lengths to edit their behavior to avoid being seen as gay, and if, heaven forbid, they actually do something associated with gay men, there is always a rushed little speech disassociating themselves from it.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 6:58 AM on July 30

"When gay rights were being enforced by the courts back in the '70s and '80s, we were repeatedly told by all the proponents of gay rights that they would never attempt to legalize gay marriage.

It took about 15 minutes for that promise to be broken."

This quote even SOUNDS gay. While reading it, a lispy Orson appeared in my head, and can't you just SEE his wrist flapping when he throws out the "15 minutes (or 38 years...)" rebuttal? His mormon editors must have decided that leading off with a sassy "Girlfriend!" was a little TOO much.
posted by youthenrage at 6:58 AM on July 30

Religions channel libido. They establish taboos and lay down laws that direct sexual energy away from its immediate expression. Secular judicial bodies do the same thing with aggression.

Very interesting. Military organizations do something similar with thought (i.e. turning it off to make an obedient killing machine).
posted by DU at 6:59 AM on July 30

A while back I saw a list of famous science fiction authors who didn't turn out to be shitheads, but I can't remember which two guys were on it.
posted by Legomancer at 7:01 AM on July 30 [6 favorites]

OH JOHN RINGO ORSON SCOTT CARD NO!
posted by cowbellemoo at 7:11 AM on July 30 [2 favorites]

Ok, this might sound weird but..... he is right. (me/ ducks a brick). This is a sensitive issue but look past the anti-gay statements and look at what he is saying. A judge is saying what is what and is not looking at what the majority of the population wants. Sorry but face it the majority of the population does not want gay marriage. Forcing it down the throats of people is not going to help. Forcing it down the throats of children is not going to help. Forcing it period is not going to help. Look at it this way:

A christian group is against liquor and has a judge rules that no one can drink in their state. The majority says screw that we want beer... but the ruling states no more alcohol period. Would this be wrong?

A vegan group in California is against eating meat and they know a judge that will rule slaughtering and eating meat of any kind will be illegal. The majority of the population wants to eat meat. Is this wrong?

A group of gay activists have a judge make a ruling making it legal for them to get married. The majority of the population does not want this.... Again is this wrong?

All three of these are minority groups forcing their views on the majority of the population. Face it the majority wants to drink, eat red meat, and does not want gay marriage. Stepping over our rights as Americans and silencing our voice is not the way to go about this. I am all for individual rights as long as you give me mine in return. But if I am part of the majority and I'm saying no I don't want this, don't go to a judge and silence me to get your own way. However if 51% of the population wants gay marriage then so be it.

Anyways I got off topic... sorry. Also the author made a good point saying this (minus the anti gay stuff):

Judges taking minority views and turning them into laws that the majority does not want is a threat to democracy. NOT Gays are a threat to democracy. Personally I agree with this statement. This is pretty much saying one man can make a law that everyone has to live with regardless of how they feel or voted. There is a form of government that does just this.... communism.

Personal I think it is a great idea that gays and lesbians get the same marriage rights as traditional married couples get. It is only fair. However I am against it being known as a marriage. A marriage is between a man and a woman. Sorry that is how I and the most of the population feel about it. You could easily have the same rights as marriage but call it something different... a union, a life long commitment... etc. By insisting that it is called marriage you are just pissing people off. It is like you are trying to force your views on the population, or if we don't accept it, you are going to get a judge to make us.

In closing, don't think I'm a hater or anything but don't force your views on me. I will tolerate your views because they are your rights as fellow Americans. You can be whoever you want to me here. As I can. I would die for these rights. Please return the same to me, don't silence my voice by pressuring the courts to rule in your favor.
posted by Mastercheddaar at 7:19 AM on July 30 [1 favorite]

I found Farnham's Freehold by Robert Heinlen waaaaay more disturbing than Ender's Game.

For true. "In the far future, black people rule the world! Damn you! Damn you all to hell!"
posted by EarBucket at 7:22 AM on July 30 [1 favorite]

Card wrote awesome books, and I will continue to read them and promote them and not give a shit about his personal politics.
posted by where u at dawg at 7:22 AM on July 30

if we don't accept it, you are going to get a judge to make us.

Sounds like the best use of the legal system to me.
posted by robself at 7:25 AM on July 30

Mastercheddaar, 50 years ago, it was still illegal in some states for people of 2 different races to marry. This law was struck down by the courts. Did they make a mistake when they did that?
posted by garlic at 7:27 AM on July 30 [1 favorite]

You can be whoever you want to me here.

Except married, by your standards.
posted by gaspode at 7:30 AM on July 30

I guess the first mistake was making the religious bond of marriage a legal institution. Maybe Orson would be happier if we dissolved that and gave any sexual grouping the same legal rights. So if your threesome lived together they could all share insurance benefits and tax benefits, etc

Orson writes passable fiction, maybe he should stick with the pulp.
posted by JJ86 at 7:33 AM on July 30

where u at dawg, wrote is the correct tense. Card's latest Alvin Maker and Bean books are nearly unreadable. A real shame, too, because the Alvin books were really good up through book three.
posted by infinitewindow at 7:38 AM on July 30 [1 favorite]

the majority of the population

just because the majority of the population harbors antiquated beliefs does not make them right.
posted by M.C. Lo-Carb! at 7:38 AM on July 30 [3 favorites]

making the religious bond of marriage a legal institution.

The legal institution of marriage existed under English common law for a long time before Christianity got involved.
posted by rodgerd at 7:41 AM on July 30

Wow, Mastercheddaar, that's some very strange thinking there.

A christian group is against liquor and has a judge rules that no one can drink in their state. (...) Would this be wrong?

Yes. Influencing a judge to impose the arbitrary rules of your religion on the general populace would be wrong. The judge is supposed to determine whether a law is constitutional, not to listen to various lobbying groups. Also, in this case, a Christian group would be forcing christian behavior on other people. So, yes. Wrong.

A vegan group in California is against eating meat and they know a judge that will rule slaughtering and eating meat of any kind will be illegal. The majority of the population wants to eat meat. Is this wrong?

Yes. Again, you're talking about a group lobbying a judge to rule in their favor rather than judging something by whether it is constitutional. And again, you are talking about a judge forcing the behavior of a specific minority group onto the populace. Very wrong.

A group of gay activists have a judge make a ruling making it legal for them to get married. The majority of the population does not want this.... Again is this wrong?

First of all, you're phrasing the scenario wrongly. To follow your other examples, you should ask, "A christian group have a judge make a ruling making it illegal for a particular minority group to get married based solely on their sexual preferences. Is this wrong?" The answer to that question is "yes."

However, to answer the question you actually asked: It's wrong if the activists "have a judge" do anything. However, if the judge examines a law and decides that it is unconstitutional (which a law banning gay marriage is) then it is absolutely not wrong that he would strike it down, no matter what the majority of people wanted.

It's also worth noting that unlike your first two examples, this third example is not forcing anyone else to do anything. In your first example, a small group is conspiring to change the behavior of everyone. In your second example, same deal. In your third example, a group of people is working to be left alone and to have the same rights as everyone else. Their freedom to marry doesn't require anyone else to change their behavior at all and doesn't harm or affect anyone else except in the small positive ways people might be affected by living in a free and equal society.

How does gay marriage force anything on you? It doesn't. You're asking for the freedom to be intolerant and to rob other people of their rights. No.
posted by The Loch Ness Monster at 7:43 AM on July 30 [32 favorites]

MasterChedder, you've got it backwards. In your first two examples, a small group of people are restricting the rights of a larger group. In your third example, a small group is expanding their rights to match those of the rest of the population.

Opposing gay marriage is much more like your first two examples than allowing it is.

Even so, it's still a silly argument. Restricting alcohol affects you. Restricting meat affects you. Restricting or allowing gay marriage doesn't affect you at all- just like restricting or allowing alcohol or meat won't affect your Christian group or vegans.

Whether there's a law or not, your example Christian group won't drink alcohol. Whether there's a law or not, your example vegans won't eat meat. Whether there's a law or not, you won't be getting a same-sex marriage. You're not arguing here for majority rule, you're arguing for YOUR majority to rule. If the majority decided to ban alcohol or meat, would that be right?

This is what Card misses and this is what you're missing. 51% of the population can't vote to enslave the other 49%. The majority can be wrong. That's why we have judges and that's why they are (ideally) independent and neutral- so they can enforce the rules without bias or pressure.
posted by The Man from Lardfork at 7:44 AM on July 30 [2 favorites]

Mastercheddaar: Basic civics.

A christian group is against liquor and has a judge rules that no one can drink in their state. The majority says screw that we want beer... but the ruling states no more alcohol period. Would this be wrong?

I'm scratching my head trying to think about how this would work in a way that is plausible within the legal system we have, and completely failing. But if a local law prohibits the sale of alcohol, and there is no constitutional reason to overturn said law, then a judge would be right to uphold that law.

A vegan group in California is against eating meat and they know a judge that will rule slaughtering and eating meat of any kind will be illegal. The majority of the population wants to eat meat. Is this wrong?

This is slightly more plausible but still unlikely. If the state or the federal constitution is amended to include animal rights (unlikely), AND there is a law banning slaughterhouses, then the judge would be in the right to uphold that law.

A group of gay activists have a judge make a ruling making it legal for them to get married. The majority of the population does not want this.... Again is this wrong?

But that's not what happened in California. The California constitution guarantees equal rights. California law also grants a domestic partnership that differs from marriage primarily in semantics and a handful of privileges. The California Supreme Court was right in ruling that a law creating an arbitrary distinction between same-sex civil union and marriage was incompatible with the equal rights protection of the California Constitution.

Personal I think it is a great idea that gays and lesbians get the same marriage rights as traditional married couples get. It is only fair. However I am against it being known as a marriage. A marriage is between a man and a woman. Sorry that is how I and the most of the population feel about it. You could easily have the same rights as marriage but call it something different... a union, a life long commitment... etc. By insisting that it is called marriage you are just pissing people off. It is like you are trying to force your views on the population, or if we don't accept it, you are going to get a judge to make us.

But clearly this battle is not about the semantic distinction between civil union and marriage, as many of the counter-amendments prohibit giving any legal rights to civil unions.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 7:44 AM on July 30 [1 favorite]

I tried to read Ender's Game twice and never got very far. I didn't find it very well written or engaging at all, and I've always wondered why it is fawned over so much. I always assumed it was due to some deficiency of mine.

But of course the quality of his writing has nothing to do with if he is a douchebag or not (and he is a douchebag). But it is at least interesting, and comforting, to see other people didn't think EG was some sort of holy tome.
posted by Ynoxas at 7:46 AM on July 30

Judges taking minority views and turning them into laws that the majority does not want is a threat to democracy. NOT Gays are a threat to democracy. Personally I agree with this statement. This is pretty much saying one man can make a law that everyone has to live with regardless of how they feel or voted. There is a form of government that does just this.... communism.

A fellow of most excellent wit and fancy!

don't silence my voice by pressuring the courts to rule in your favor.

Look on the future Mastercheddaar. Look on it and feel funny (in your pants)!
posted by octobersurprise at 7:46 AM on July 30

A lot of people are saying the same thing about gay marriage right now. I think they think if they fix this one thing they think is broken, all the other problems will go away. It's so much easier to look at this one scary thing and blame everything else on it than it is to look at the bigger picture.

It's scary.
posted by Tehanu at 7:50 AM on July 30

you go, orson!

You really don't have anything to contribute besides your contrarian schtick, do you?
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:00 AM on July 30

Actually, I'm in favor of separating marriage from law altogether. Any two consenting adults can get a civil union. They can get married in a church as well if they choose to, and if the church will allow it. But the two procedures are independent. The church is free to deny marriage to whomever they choose, but the benefits (insurance, power of attorney, etc) that we currently associate to marriage would only be granted to partners in a civil union.

So a typical Christian wedding would be like: We're getting married on Saturday, and we have to go to the county office on Friday afternoon to get our C.U. paperwork done. Various religious groups would be free to have whatever beliefs about marriage they choose, but marriage would only have to do with religious doctrine rather than law. Marriage would have the same legal status as a Bar Mitzvah.
posted by The Loch Ness Monster at 8:02 AM on July 30 [19 favorites]

EarBucket writes "For true. 'In the far future, black people rule the world! Damn you! Damn you all to hell!'"

Well, there was the Happiness. Oh and the tiny matter of them rngvat gur juvgr crbcyr.
posted by Mitheral at 8:04 AM on July 30

State job is not to redefine marriage…Marriage is older than government.

There's a glaring irony in this coming from a Mormon. The LDS embraced polygamy, and then renounced it before Utah could become a state. Now, of course, the LDS party line is that their president had a revelation that God told him "Oh, that whole polygamy thing? Sorry. My mistake." Those of us inclined to a more temporal interpretation would say it was the U.S. government twisting arms, redefining marriage for the Mormons.

There is also a real lack of intellectual rigor at work here. If we tacitly or explicitly grant our government the authority to define marriage, we are granting it the authority to redefine it. Much though some might like, we can't get the law looking the way we want, and then remove the government's authority to modify that law in the future.
posted by adamrice at 8:05 AM on July 30 [2 favorites]

Sorry that is how I and the most of the population feel about it. You could easily have the same rights as marriage but call it something different... a union, a life long commitment... etc. By insisting that it is called marriage you are just pissing people off.

I don't doubt that is how you feel about it, but that is assuredly not what "most" Americans think.

In states where it has come up and been defeated, it was purposefully framed as "gay marriage" by the people opposing it, to make sure it was handily defeated, due to what you said yourself.

Louisiana Constitutional Amendment 1[1] of 2004, is a so-called "defense of marriage amendment" that amended the Louisiana Constitution to make it unconstitutional for the state to recognize or perform same-sex marriages or civil unions. The referendum was approved by 78% of the voters

Similar results were in other states in 2004.

This is clearly not over a semantic difference between "gay marriage" and "civil unions".

As I've said over and over and over, your "average American" is an ignorant bigot. The polls and the actual voting results prove this again and again.

The only way there will ever be a new progressive movement in this country will be if people get enough of a backbone to start calling their friends, family, and neighbors on their bigotry, and stop trying to defend it as simply wordplay.

Also, Loch Ness Monster, I've approved of a similar notion for years. I don't even see why there should be any resistance to it. It's just paperwork. If you're not a bigot, then why could you ever care even a tiny iota as to if two other people buy a house together or share health insurance?
posted by Ynoxas at 8:06 AM on July 30 [1 favorite]

I've always wondered why it is fawned over so much.

Because it's designed to appeal to adolescent nerdish males. (And the adolescent nerdish male inside many adults.) The lead character is brighter than everyone else, more talented than everyone else, but has difficulty in making friends, and is constantly picked on by bigger bullies. However, in spite of not wanting to hurt anyone, the bullies are always defeated. In the end, his superior talents are recognised and he's hailed as a hero.

It's a cunning book - it's difficult to read it and not respond in some way to the power fantasy.
posted by daveje at 8:07 AM on July 30 [4 favorites]

Barney Frank on "Real Time With Bill Maher" | March 2005

"I try very hard to be a responsible citizen and as a gay man I try very hard to keep track of the marriages I have destroyed, and there really aren't that many. I may have some secret admirers out there and I may have wreaked more havoc than I realize, but they haven't called."

posted by ericb at 8:12 AM on July 30 [2 favorites]

daveje writes "Because it's designed to appeal to adolescent nerdish males. (And the adolescent nerdish male inside many adults.) The lead character is brighter than everyone else, more talented than everyone else, but has difficulty in making friends, and is constantly picked on by bigger bullies. However, in spite of not wanting to hurt anyone, the bullies are always defeated. In the end, his superior talents are recognised and he's hailed as a hero. "

You missed the war games. In space. Using computers (OK it was a big deal when it came out). And Lasers.
*faints*
posted by Mitheral at