July 25, 2010

Liberty Isn't Their Concern

Justin Katz

Somehow the headline "Voicing their views" feels a bit discordant over an article that includes this detail:

Speakers from the New Jersey-based National Organization for Marriage seemed startled as they were encircled by counter-protesters who yelled, sang and waved the rainbow flag associated with the gay-pride movement. Then, as some 170 protesters — most wearing red T-shirts — rattled plastic bottles filled with coins as a distraction, the group's president pointed to their tactics as yet another example of why same-sex marriage should not be legalized.

Two days earlier, the same-sex marriage advocacy group Marriage Equality RI had held its own rally, got its free publicity, and if there was any counter-protesting on the scene, it wasn't so overt as to be noticed by reporter Randal Edgar. But allowing the opposition that much courtesy is apparently a step too far for SSM activists. For them, those who disagree must be silenced — driven from the public square.

I'd ballpark the likelihood that legalized SSM will satisfy that aggression at zero percent. The next movement to be drowned out and intimidated will be that seeking permission for traditionalists to hold to their views of marriage in their private capacity — in the way they conduct their businesses, associate in groups, and offer their charity.

Not to make too much of a theme of it, but once again, one can observe that the urge to be on "the right side of history" is easily manipulable to put well-intentioned citizens in league with those who would oppress others because they've woven a translucent cloak of victimhood from conflicts of the past. That force that we've personified as Evil is perfectly happy to switch from oppressing homosexuals to leveraging homosexuals to oppress traditionalists and knock down the social structures that enabled our society to advance to its current state.

(Indeed, a traditionalist, myself, I'm inclined to see that as the intention all along.)

Comments, although monitored, are not necessarily representative of the views Anchor Rising's contributors or approved by them. We reserve the right to delete or modify comments for any reason.

"in the way they conduct their businesses"

You think you can conduct a business however you want?

That hasn't been true since about 1964.

Posted by: Dan at July 25, 2010 12:26 PM

Justin lives in fear of homos! He does not want anyone telling him how to run his business or live his life. He has no problem however telling the gays and lesbians how they can live thiers.

Posted by: Triplerich at July 25, 2010 12:58 PM

One major point is MERI is a RI group, NOM is an out of state group.
I do think people who are living in RI count more than people who come from out of state to try to stop state legislation.

Posted by: Swazool at July 25, 2010 1:21 PM

It must really take effort, Triplerich, to be so thoroughly incorrect on every point.

I do not fear homosexuals. I fear the death of civil rights as substantive liberties, rather than as a political weapon to silence others.

I make no claims to tell people how they may live their lives. I'll offer my opinion, as I expect them to offer theirs of mine. When it comes to societal institutions, I'll argue the reason that they should be as I believe that they should be, but that marriage should have a particular definition does not at all negate other relationships nor require their suppression.

Posted by: Justin Katz at July 25, 2010 1:23 PM


NOM-RI is a Rhode Island group. That it brought in national speakers to speak at this rally hardly indicates an imposition of outside forces.

Furthermore, if you read the article about the NOM rally, particularly the picture captions, you'll note that at least a high percentage of the counter-protesters were not Rhode Islanders, either. Indeed, the national SSM movement is targeting Rhode Island, much as it targeted New Hampshire with big money donations from outside of state for local legislators.

Posted by: Justin Katz at July 25, 2010 1:26 PM

Justin if one group of people has rights that are denied to other groups that is a denial of civil liberties. Should those rights be denied to people who want to be married but don't want children, or to converted catholics. Be secure in your own life and fear not the gay lobby. The only thing that most of them want is to lead a happy life and have the same rights to life liberty and property that you and I have.

Posted by: triple richard at July 25, 2010 1:45 PM

And as for the effort it takes to be wrong on so many points I guess we would both be unable to understand that. I mean you and your crew have never been wrong. (how about that 22% increase we in Tiverton were assured was going to happen.

Posted by: triple richard at July 25, 2010 1:49 PM

Gay marriage is the biggest non-issue in the history of US politics - on both sides.

If I were gay, I honestly wouldn't care whether I qualified for some BS government filing in recognition of my relationship or not. I know this because I wouldn't care of government got out of all marriage tomorrow. In fact, I wish that it would.

Of course if Republicans stopped opposing it, it would be the best single thing they ever did for the future of their party. It's a prioritization problem if nothing else.

Posted by: Dan at July 25, 2010 3:25 PM

Justin writes:

"I do not fear homosexuals."

I have often wondered who invented the term "homophobic" with its connotation that such people fear gays. I have wondered while people of a moderate disposition could not be simply "homo averse"? Ah, the wonder of words.

Posted by: Warrington Faust at July 25, 2010 4:47 PM


Homosexuals are not being denied the right to marry. They are being denied the right to redefine the institution in such a way as to explicitly exclude a qualification that was previously integral to its meaning: a man and a woman, by which biology allows us to loosely regulate a link between marriage and childbirth.

As to the desire for a happy life, well, the point of the post was that the behavior of a vocal contingent, at least, suggests that it isn't a live-and-let-live movement, and other evidence in current events over recent years suggest that it is reasonable to expect final implementation of SSM not to be the end, but rather the beginning of the next phase of pushing traditionalists out of the public square.

And as for the 22% increase, now you're just being plain dishonest. We remain liable for an amount of money that would amount to a 22% increase, and that's always been the statement. That's why the school committee and friends wanted to make sure that we voted on "a total appropriation" including expected state aid, so that they can subsequently bill the town for any losses in other aid.

Posted by: Justin Katz at July 25, 2010 5:01 PM

Respect, I guess the Tea party and the anti immigration people never yell and always show respect.

Posted by: Swazool at July 25, 2010 6:57 PM

Justin, I have seen and heard many nasty homophobic and insulting things from the people on your side of the argument. Should I then assume that you feel the same as they do and that you won't be happy until all the gays are converted or somehow else vanish from the face of the earth. There are some on the same side as you who want the gays to go away and who think they are vile nasty sinners. I guess it could be deduced using the logic you do, that all anti- gay marriage feel the same way.

As for that 22% increase, could you please tell me where it will be on my tax bill. You know as well as I do that 22% was a scare tactic that back fired on the TCC in a huge way.

Don't be afraid of the gays, from what I here they either like highly feminine men or big brawny tough guys.

Posted by: triple richard at July 25, 2010 7:13 PM


I've no doubt that there are people with vile ideas on "my side" of the marriage issue, just as there are people with vile ideas on every side of every issue. Their significance changes, though, when they begin showing up at peaceful rallies with a clear intention of intimidating, disrupting, and silencing their opposition... and then when none of the ostensibly more reasonable co-ideologues step forward to decry their approach.

Posted by: Justin Katz at July 25, 2010 7:23 PM

A further comment because I note that there have been repeated allegations here that those opposed to SSM "fear gays". This is a tremendous leap of reasoning. Further, among certain groups, "homophonic" has reached the same level of social gaffe as "racist". It also requires a belief that "they are born that way" and that you dislike them because of something for which they are not responsible. While accepting that some cases may be congenital, I have seen too many mid life conversions to be readily accepting of that in every instance. While they frequently assert that "they always knew it, but feared to "come out", that does not go down all that easily with me. Too many have reported that they "realized it when they were 7, or 8". I have some difficulty in believing a child of that age has sufficient understanding of sexuality to come to that conclusion. I suspect the conclusion is arrived at by reviewing their childhood through a filter of desire to reach that conclusion. And, the earlier the age at which they realized it, the more forceful the argument that it is congenital. If that conclusion is not reached, they might feel required to conclude that their behavior is a "choice". If it were choice, that you march to a different drummer is not a strong argument for altering a societies core beliefs. Until some hard evidence is found of genetic disposition, please do not trouble me with such ridiculous "science" as the finding that left handedness is more common among lesbians than the general population. (so far as I know, there has been no such finding among male gays)

I am wondering if we are seeing history repeat itself. While it is frequently commented that homosexuality was tolerated in ancient Greece and Rome, it is rarely observed that this was followed by periods of repression. It is rarely commented on that the governments fostered this situation. Greece forbade its soldiers from marrying before age 35, I believe Rome had a similar rule. We are seeing the same now in the Catholic Church which forbids marriage to priests. In the wake of recent news coverage and photographs, Vatican officials acknowledge that it would be difficult for the Church to function if all gay priests were forced out of the Vatican. That they have some grasp on the number, suggests that it is a situation of long standing.

More recently than ancient Greece or Rome, we have the Weimar period in Europe. German gays frolicked in the streets, European military officers wore rouge and propositioned each other in the streets. I suspect this led to some acceptance of the "order" instilled by the Nazis and the harsh "socialists/communists".

Some may take this as "homophobic". If it strikes you that way, please give some further thought to your reasoning before commenting on it in that manner.

Posted by: Warrington Faust at July 25, 2010 9:22 PM

I see your point but don't see the Republicans and conservative speaking out against some of the extreme ideas and people in the party.

Posted by: triplerichard at July 25, 2010 9:50 PM

Extremity is a subjective measure. I've found that the request made of reasonable conservatives is often to seek out and decry the extremists in our midst no matter where they speak — TV show or blog. Not doing that isn't really comparable to remaining silent as activists invade a peaceful gathering prepared with noisemakers to drown out opposing speakers.

Posted by: Justin Katz at July 25, 2010 9:58 PM

sorry about the multiples. the comp is acting funny tonight.

once again it seems that you want people to act one way if they have different ideas than you. There are many shouting screaming folks on both sides. You seem to think that it only occurs on the liberal side. I was at the Tiverton Meetings and saw bad behavior by both sides. I saw several TCC members threatening to take someone outside after they spoke and saw Jim O'Dell tell a young lady to shut her trap. I know that bad behavior happens on both sides or all sides of the political spectrum you seem to view the world through rose colored glasses in regards to your political allies.

Posted by: triplerichard at July 25, 2010 10:28 PM

The folks at NOM should change their name, they are not a pro-marriage group. They a just another anti-gay right-wingnut hate group, similar too the conservative Rev Fred Phelps tribe.

You never hear NOM condeming serial adulterers like Newt Gingrich,Rush Limbaugh, Bob Barr, Bob Dole,
George Bush Sr, Bill Oreilly, John McCain David Vitter, Mark Sanford, Henry Hyde, Rudy Guilianni or Gary Bauer, instead NON welcomes their support

Posted by: Sammy at July 25, 2010 10:43 PM

I think noise makers to drown out the opposing side is less offensive than the Tea Party at the White House yelling things like faggot and nigger at Senators when they were walking in to pass the Health Care legislation.

Posted by: Swazool at July 26, 2010 8:59 AM

But Tea Partiers didn't do that. It was a fabricated claim.

Posted by: Justin Katz at July 26, 2010 10:10 AM

Justin, do you really believe that there was not one racial or homophobic slur at that rally? Do you think that national news fabricated stories and faked a tape?

Posted by: Swazool at July 26, 2010 1:37 PM

Justin did you and this blog come out against Andrew Breitbart and his clumsily propped up claims of racisms in the Obama Admin. He is a conservative blogger and clearly an unethical reporter. since you area conservative blogger you need to speak out against his sort of crap or clearly you are in support of it.

Posted by: triplerichard at July 26, 2010 4:53 PM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Important note: The text "http:" cannot appear anywhere in your comment.