Join me on Facebook!
Follow me on Twitter!
More 'toons here!
Or subscribe here.
1. The constitution does not give you the freedom to vote away anyone else's rights. In fact, it created a bill of unalienable rights that no one can take away from anyone else. So screw off on any "majority rules" angle.
2. I am married, but not in a church. We took at a Marriage License from the state and were married by a Justice of the Peace. Of course, it is perfectly legal. So screw off on any religious claptrap.
3. I've had a vasectomy and my wife is past menopause, but we are still 100% legally married. So forget the procreation nonsense.
4. A horse does not have the capacity to give informed consent as can any two adult human beings, so drop your bestiality red herring.
Now, is that all you've got? See, you got nothing, man - you got nothing...
Game, set, match, checkmate!
Many thanks for not bucking the trend of concluding your post with a preemptive declaration of victory.
It's starting to make me feel "at home".
re: 1. What about institutions which support gay marriage?
COTO, you're so silly - horses don't eat eggs, they're vegan. And you're also just silly about trying to differentiate *your* bigotry against LGBTs from racism "in the 1940s".
Defining the civil (not religious) legal act of marriage as limited to people of different sexes is pretty darn close to identical to identifying it as only for people of the same race. That seemed just as *obvious* to the people who argued against interracial marriage in 1967 when Loving vs. Virginia was decided.
We as a society draw lines, and this one is moving (again). We say marriage is for adult, humans, who are not closely related to one another. Those lines don't have to change because we stop including "of different sexes" any more than they moved when we stopped saying, "of the same race".
Your bestiality/incest fixation needs to end. It clearly says more about you than about gay marriage.
> Defining the civil (not religious) legal act of marriage as limited to people of different sexes is pretty darn close to identical to identifying it as only for people of the same race.
A claim which Mr. Fiore has made again and again, and which I contend demonstrates your complete ignorance of my reasons for opposing gay "marriage".
I'll tell you what: go back to Quasi-Marriage, dig up any one of my ten thousand arguments there, and show how it was/is/could be construed as support for miscegenation (provided "gays" was replaced with "blacks").
If you can find one, by all means repost it as a response to this comment and I'll kindly point out the "*obvious*" differences.
> We as a society draw lines, and this one is moving (again). We say marriage is for adult, humans, who are not closely related to one another.
No. "We" say marriage is between one man and one woman, as decided by a democratic vote.
Judge Walker was the one to decide that the line should be moved.
> Those lines don't have to change because we stop including "of different sexes" any more than they moved when we stopped saying, "of the same race".
...where you say "yes", and I say "no", and provide you with my reasons. Hence, the whole premise of our debate.
> Your bestiality/incest fixation needs to end. It clearly says more about you than about gay marriage.
I'm curious now.
Perhaps you'd like to publicly declare, in the midst of your peers, whether you believe bestiality, incest, polygamy, and/or mechaphilia (I'll leave out some of the even less palatable ones) are morally wrong.
Do you believe any of these acts are wrong? A simple question.
Your insinuation that they "say (something) about me" as a thinly-veiled insult would indicate that you do find them, at the very least, depraved. But heaven knows I've had more than one run-in with "it's all OK" moral relativists in QM that have gone so far as to defend necrophilia "under certain conditions".
And if you're willing to give a clear, committal response to that question, here's a tougher one: Would you vote to prevent legalization of any of these acts?
Cool piece, but not what I expected based on the title (probably yours is better :) ). I thought it would be a piece about how activist judges are the ones who pursue the whims of the people without regard to the constitution or law, and then this little conundrum that crops up because a judge construed the Constitution to say something some folks didn't want it to say.
Chuck Asay explains it rather well:
Except that marriage is NOT a new right for gays. It has been there at least since the 14th Amendment has been there. The difference is that states (starting with California) will no longer be permitted to violate the federal law by trampling on that right.
If you read the constitution (ANY constitution) you'll find that it doesn't exhaustively list every right that citizens have, or even every controversial right. Rather, it lists general principles that all laws must follow. This is why illegal laws get struck down by courts just doing their job.
If you don't like courts striking down illegal laws, then you need to make the judiciary dependent on the other branches of government instead of being a co-equal branch, or you need to amend the constitution that governs them.
My problem comes in when judges rule on the limits of their own constitutional power.
If this were any other issue, 95% of the people in FioreLand would be screaming "Err on the side of democracy! Let the people decide and not one man!"
But, since man will fight more for his interests than for his rights, as Napoleon sagely pointed out, this same 95% are endorsing the happy, happy precedent of divesting themselves of their democratic right... for the oh-so-well-thought-out reason that Judge Walker is telling them what they want to hear.
It's funny... but we haven't seen an attempt to actually codify this right/denial-of-right in an amendment to the Constitution... I won'der why that is. Could it be that even the Republicans (the only ones crazy enough to pull such a stunt) are willing enough to tell gays to piss off and be second class citizens quietly, but aren't brave enough to bank their political futures on it? But that would be calculated! Sneaky! Devious! And right up their alley.
That sounds like a dare.
Look what happens when the people (and various judges) violate the Constitution by combining (instead of separating) religion and the state...After all, we also wouldn't let Utah become a state until they made polygamy a crime...and some religions still don't approve of any mixing of races (including the human race?)...gotta wonder what we're opposed to right now that later ages will question...
Only 1 daddy: Even if a kid has a stepdad, he only has one biological father, so why do you say he has two daddies in "Whose Marriage is it?"
And about the "hypocritical oath": You're smart enough to know that not even misconduct and improper actions commits with his will should descredit truth that a person intellectually understands with his mind and stands by because he can do no other - black is black even if you call it white, and even if you've stained your hands red.
Except black usually isn't black. It usually just dark grey, because until this year we didn't have the ability to make any material truly black, nor did any exist on earth naturally. So when does "black" become grey? Even the night sky on earth isn't truly "black". "Black" people are really brown. Some of them are even light brown. Some printers make "black" with dark blue or green. It seems one of the only ways to get true black is to go deep into a cave and turn off the light. It places like these I believe the anti-marriage forces get their ideas from.
As the evidence in the Perry trial showed (from BOTH sides, by the way) biology is irrelevant when it comes to raising a child. Children do best when they have two parents, regardless of gender, and regardless of biology. In fact, biological parents sometimes do a poorer job, because there is no evaluation or screening to become a biological parent. It often happens accidentally.
Two guys already can wake up and have breakfast together for the rest of their lives. Who institutionalized marriage in the first place? It wasn't the State. No country has ever introduced the concept of marriage, marriage is an existing phenomena that the State acknowledges, recongnizes and respects. The State cannot define marriage any more than it could create it. If guys want to have breakfast, they can, if they want to have breakfast with a civil union framed in their kitchen, they can. But it cannot redefine marriage any more than you can open a locked door without sticking the key in the padlock.
Except of course, when they do. Sorry you have to still be alive when people get civil rights, we really were trying to hold it off until the ignorant people died off.
The State may not have originally defined marriage, but it has for a long time granted rights automatically to married couples. In 2009, the General Accounting Office of Congress enumerated over 1,100 Federal benefits alone. And many states also offer benefits to married couples. These benefits are denied to gay and lesbian couples.
Some of the more important benefits: automatic right of inheritance (i.e., without a will). Automatic right to visit your spouse in the hospital and make health care decisions for your spouse when he/she is incapacitated. Automatically adding your spouse to your company provided pension and health care plan. Extension of Social Security benefits to surviving spouse. Automatic assumption of leases and many other contracts originally granted to your spouse. I could go on & on. This isn't a religious issue -- your church can still refuse to marry a gay couple -- it's a matter of equal treatment under the law.
Now if you straight couples want to give up those 1,100 rights, and take marriage out of government laws and regulations then, as a gay man, I'd be perfectly happy with a civil union.
I would explain all the reasons why your argument is nonsense, but why bother; arguing with bigots is a pointless exercise until they themselves recognize and acknowledge their bigotry.
You mean they cant redefine marriage like interracial couples did in late sixties?
If you think about it logically, and rationally, marriage is not being redefined. Marriage has never meant "one man - one women" that connotation wasn't added until the defense of marriage act was passed in 1996. And you are incorrect in your assumptions that marriage is not state owned. If you would so kindly read up on the history of marriage you will find out that marriage within the United States has been held as a fundamental right, for all people (this does include LGBT couples as well) fourteen times by the supreme court since the middle 1800's. You will also find out that the Christian faith, wanted nothing to do with marriage until the early 1200's because it contrary to the proliferation of the christian dogma. Only when they realized they could gain control of people through marriage is when they adopted it.
Marriage was never created by religion, and it was never intentionally created by state. It was created by "families" (same-sex couples are also families) to protect themselves from both the despotism of the church, and the tyranny of the state.
> If you would so kindly read up on the history of marriage you will find out that marriage within the United States has been held as a fundamental right, for all people (this does include LGBT couples as well) fourteen times by the supreme court since the middle 1800's.
..."marriage" being the cornerstone of the nuclear family and well worth "fundamental" protection.
With gay marriage, the whole notion of "nuclear family", with a mother and father bearing and rearing offspring, goes right out the window, along with any precedents for "fundamental protection".
Precedent out the window? Not specifically addressed by the constitution?
Put it to a vote.
Society says "no".
> You will also find out that the Christian faith, wanted nothing to do with marriage until the early 1200's because it contrary to the proliferation of the christian dogma.
This is... not quite the dumbest thing I've ever read on Mr. Fiore's site.
I'll simply nod and agree with you that the pages upon pages of scripture in the Old Testament and New Testament concerning marriage, as well as the role of marriage in establishing of the Holy Roman Empire, Medieval Europe, and virtually every power or principality in existence at the time, were sweet nothings that "the Christian faith" wanted nothing to do with until the 13th century.
> It was created by "families" (same-sex couples are also families) to protect themselves from both the despotism of the church, and the tyranny of the state.
...in the 13th century
...under the supervision of leprechauns
...in a time when magical unicorns still roamed the Earth.
This was humorous! Curse those darn Activist Judges!!! :)
Judges stand in the way of people's freedom to take away other people's freedom.
Thanks again for a wonderful POV. Glad you got your pulitzer prize because you sometimes make people think and view themselves different.
YOUR BIGGEST LONGTIME FAN!
So what law prevents two or more homosexuals from going to IHOP for breakfast? Is that what homosexuals want? I had no idea they were prohibited from eating breakfast together. So, do they have to eat breakfast alone, in shifts, or what?
changing our world, one case at a time --
nice animation -- great detail where it counts (e.g., for rent, open house signs, marriage certificate....)
As one who has always loved your cartoon I'm surprised to see this one. Are you really against 'Activist Judges?'
superb - thanks - best cartoon maybe that I have ever read, seen.
Same old hash from quasi-marriage.
Might as well direct those with an appetite for a dissenting view to my 20-some cumulative pages of commentary there. ;)
Ah, California. A paradise open to people of any religion or persuasion... just as long as you don't promote or act in accordance with your views, exercise your ability to discriminate, acknowledge demographic truths, or expect your vote to have any significance.
Awh Champion, your views on this are well known - Not that your wrong on the very stratified modern nature of the Californian state.
I wish Mark Fiore just focused on the constitutional illegality of denying gay/lesbian couples a marriage license. His analogies to past racist/religious battles isn't as good as just focusing on the main issue here. I think the wrongness of denying a marriage license speaks enough for itself. At least in our country north of the border we realized this some time ago.
> His analogies to past racist/religious battles isn't as good as just focusing on the main issue here.
Well, we can agree on this point.
As far as I'm concerned, "marriage" under the term "marriage" has a copyright dating well back before the U.S. constitution.
An argument about constitutionality at least has prima facie validity. (You'll find my 'constitutional' arguments among the pile in QuasiMarriage.) Mr. Fiore's approach of likening my views to miscegenation, on the other hand, borders on insulting.
In Fioreland, there's apparently no difference between racism in the 1940's and preserving the definition of "marriage" today, never mind the glaring discrepancies between the two.
And in Fioreland 2.0 (only slightly less delusional that Bush's OppositeLand), gay couples sit in their house eating eggs all day rather than actively propositioning laws, disseminating literature, throwing perverse celebrations, promoting wrong lifestyles, championing pro-gay curricula, influencing government, militantly infesting anything to do with arts or culture, and flaunting their right to spread destructive and immoral ideas in spite of what anyone thinks.
Maybe Mr. Fiore will care to throw in his views on polygamy, incest, and bestiality? After all, I can picture a man and his horse sitting down to eat eggs all day too.
> And in Fioreland 2.0 (only slightly less delusional that Bush's OppositeLand), gay couples sit in their house eating eggs all day rather than actively propositioning laws, disseminating literature, throwing perverse celebrations, promoting wrong lifestyles, championing pro-gay curricula, influencing government, militantly infesting anything to do with arts or culture, and flaunting their right to spread destructive and immoral ideas in spite of what anyone thinks.
You got raped by a priest... is that where this boogeyman nonsense is coming from?
> Maybe Mr. Fiore will care to throw in his views on polygamy, incest, and bestiality? After all, I can picture a man and his horse sitting down to eat eggs all day too.
Polygamy? What the hell do I care? What's the percentage on adultery? Let's face it, the paragon you're trying to defend doesn't exist. If people are happy living in a polygamous relationship, who am I to interfere between consenting adults? This is a free country after all. And there's thousands of years worth of data supporting that one. Monogamous relationships are the recent biological aberration. Or maybe you're a creationist, too? Oh, that would be wonderful. How quaint!
Incest? Well, at least it wasn't pedophelia. I think this would actually be a cause for worry if a significant percentage of the population actually practiced it. They don't. But thanks for playing! :)
Bestiality? 'Cause raping a horse = marriage between two consenting adults. Yeah. Not even a starting point on that one. Thanks for playing! :)
> the paragon you're trying to defend doesn't exist
It does. Adultery and divorce are an affront to it, but they fall outside the ideal along with everything else.
> ...if a significant percentage of the population actually practiced it...
This one of those "we don't have homosexuals in Iran" moments?
Ask anyone fifty years ago whether they felt homosexuals were a "significant percentage of the population".
> Bestiality? 'Cause raping a horse = marriage between two consenting adults.
Since you're the third person to get hung up on this, I shall clarify. Bestiality is one form of adultery. Homosexuality is another form of adultery. I have at no point stated or implied that the two are equivalent. And in fact, my expectation is that Fioreites will consider the former to be wrong.
But nice cop-out attempt.
The question was: Do you believe bestiality is wrong?
The second was: If so, would you vote to keep it illegal?
The same goes for the incest question, rather than a "significant percentage of the population" cop-out.
For polygamy, it would seem that legalizing it is acceptable to you, given monogamy is a "recent biological aberration".
(I love these debates. So far, I've learned that "romance" was invented in the 1800's, "families" were invented in the 13th century as a response to persecution by the Church, and monogamy didn't exist until the Holocene. :P)
I'm not quite sure what that means...
Bestiality is one form of adultery. Homosexuality is another form of adultery.
And? I was making the distinction between animal and human. I don't really see your point unless you're suggest adultery itself be criminalized. And that would be *fantastic*. :)
The question was: Do you believe bestiality is wrong?
The second was: If so, would you vote to keep it illegal?
Nope. There's simply far more important crimes to devote our legal resources to. Render child rape nonexistent in your state and then I'll rally behind your attempts to stop Joe Bob from raping another goat. Until then, goats < children. I simply cannot manifest the will to give a sh!t.
And my answer is still the same. Your rights end where mine begin; two consenting adults should be able to engage in whatever relationship they want. Since such a union is so maladaptive to the species (well, only if offspring are involved) there's enough biological safeguards in place to make such an occurrence rare enough not to warrant wasting state resources defending against it in order to protect the species. Try as I might, I'm just not narcissistic enough to believe that a pair of siblings banging themselves raw somewhere in the woods in Tennessee is going to have any effect whatsoever on my relationship with the missus here at home.
For polygamy, it would seem that legalizing it is acceptable to you...
Yup. I may think the Mormons are a bit looney and all... but so long as it's consensual, wtf do I care? This is a free country after all.
I love these debates.
So far, I've learned that "romance" was invented in the 1800's, "families" were invented in the 13th century as a response to persecution by the Church, and monogamy didn't exist until the Holocene. :P
See? You could have paid attention during an introductory anthropology course and saved yourself the embarrassment. But at least you're learning. ;)
Combined Reply to the Following Three Responses
> If you want to deny marriage rights to certain segment of the population, then what's to stop someone else from deciding that some of the rights YOU hold dear should no long apply to you
Very little, save the society I live in.
Hence why wars are fought, blood is shed, and 'nations' exist.
> So, if I applied the same twisted logic you're using to justify your position, I could say that you shouldn't be allowed to marry or have sex or even reproduce.
Firstly, believing an act is wrong is not summarily "twisted logic".
Secondly, if you had the power to enforce your above sterilization policy, you could indeed "say that..." whatever you wanted.
Finally, since it isn't painfully obvious, democracy was/is implemented so that I can vote for legal activities, you can do the same, and we agree to function under the resulting contract rather than hacking each other apart to enforce our views.
The "moral absolutes are double-edged sword and are therefore flawed" argument was visited by me half a dozen times in QM. Here's the link to QM again, for anyone interested. Mr. Fiore unfortunately doesn't provide permalinks to specific comments.
The rest of your tirade... well, at least it demonstrates there are some moral absolutes that even you believe in. ;)
> Conversely, this is not true of all gay couples. I have several gay friends that just live their lives and don't actively campaign for anything.
I do too. Since I live in downtown Toronto, maybe 15% of the individuals I interact with on a day-to-day basis fall into the LGB crowd, presumably.
This doesn't change the fact that homosexuality is immoral. I do not want educators teaching my children that homosexuality is "acceptable" and "inevitable". I do not want people parading in the streets to demonstrate their pride and iniquity. I do not want editorialists falsely claiming that homosexuality is harmless, "all natural", or exclusively "practiced in the comfort of one's home".
And on this particular issue, I do not want homosexuals claiming that an ancient sacrament can be stripped of all religious and moral significance by a group of people who are not content with a secular "civil union".
> As a psychologist for many years I have seen and come to accept that the human race is surprisingly resilient to open mindedness and general altruism towards one another.
Have you considered, sir, that opposing wrong practices in one's society might in fact be a greater kind of "altruism" than indulging in a laissez-faire "let it all go to pot" mentality?
> ...'Constitution' but they always devolve into 'militantly infesting' and 'a man and his horse'...
Perhaps because the constitutional arguments have been flogged to death in QM, because 'militantly infesting' is both poignant and accurate, and because 'a man and his horse' is the first step in assessing how far gone one's opponent is.
For example, if a bigot poses the question on whether sir believes polygamy, incest, bestiality, or mechaphilia are "wrong", sir's response ("yes", sir acknowledges the existence of moral absolutes, or "no", it isn't worth the time to debate sir) helps those hilarious bigots to filter out dead weight opponents.
Regards to All,
So, you think gay couples promote "wrong lifestyles" and "spread destructive and immoral ideas", do you? You mean ideas like equal protection under the law and equal rights for all?
You know, your way of thinking is a double-edged sword: If you want to deny marriage rights to certain segment of the population, then what's to stop someone else from deciding that some of the rights YOU hold dear should no long apply to you? I mean, you're a homophobic person, yes? How would you like it if Californians passed a law that denies homophobes the right to marry? I mean, I disagree with your "lifestyle." I think you "spread destructive and immoral ideas." So, if I applied the same twisted logic you're using to justify your position, I could say that you shouldn't be allowed to marry or have sex or even reproduce. I could propose a law that requires that all homophobes be chemically castrated because your lifestyle is "deviant" and "offends nature" and all the usual talking points that homophobes like you regularly use to support your homophobic nonsense.
Thank goodness there's a constitution that prevents people like me from denying people like you your constitutional right to reproduce. Can you imagine what would happen if we had to chemically castrate all the homophobes? Imagine the expense!
I'll have to go over some of your arguments as found in Quasi-Marriage again, if I recall you wrote quite a lot there.
From what I understand, the main argument in favor of allowing state sponsored marriages is that the marriage license implies certain freedoms that "Civil Union" does not. Thus, the state would be actively discriminating based on two people's personal private life. This of course would be an interferrance of government in an area to which it has no logical reason to interfere. I'm sure you would agree that such governemnt interferance would be a violation of freedom and thus unconstitutional.
I'm not a lawyer myself and can't speak with any real athority on the law in regards to marrage. Nevertheless, I have yet to hear an arguement (backed up by facts) as to why the state should discriminate against gay Marrage.
As to your Fiorland 1.0 comments, I agree. I find sometimes Mark over extends himself in his comparisons. Racism and Relgion are seprate issues. Period.
Gay couples are sometimes active because a large segment of society actively pushed back. This is just like the varying protests and militancy of feminists or African Americans (I'm comparing here to racial and gender conflicts! - I just did a Fiore). Conversely, this is not true of all gay couples. I have several gay friends that just live their lives and don't actively campaign for anything.
See, these are your ideas of destruction and immorality. After living downtown Toronto for a year I got to know a lot of gay individuals. Some were very friendly and easy to get along with, some were not - just as in any straight individuals. My views of the world were turned around when I even made friends with a few of these guys. We went to the gym, went out for a drink, I got to know their significant others', and we shared some common interests together. After I got over my own prejudices, I never felt threatened. These guys understood I was straight and treated me like any other individual.
I encourage you to get involved with the Gay community Champion, it might change your ideas when you actually get to know some of these guys. You might even find yourself second guessing your original views!
A child has a better and more mature outlook on others than yourself COTO. So sad that an innocent and ignorant child can see who others are, while a supposedly mature adult with an opinion, and only an opinion, cannot.
Let me leave you with a quote that I hope you will not forget when you, like others before you, will be found on the wrong side of history in only a few short years.
"It takes little to no effort to accept reality for what it is, but it takes a great deal of effort to fight against it."
As a psychologist for many years I have seen and come to accept that the human race is surprisingly resilient to open mindedness and general altruism towards one another. The more I study the more I realize that if we keep allowing satisfaction and gratification with our own thoughts, our own beliefs, and our own traditions; instead of studying the questions in our hearts and in our minds; we will never win the war on oppression; or any minority. If we continue to fear that for which we should question, those questions in our hearts and minds, our end as humanity… is inevitable.
Bigots are hilarious. They may begin their argument with allusions to the 'Constitution' but they always devolve into 'militantly infesting' and 'a man and his horse'.
Look what happens when those Activist Judges do their meddling!
More information about formatting options