As yesterday’s vote in the House showed, Minnesotans don’t tolerate putting civil rights through popularity contests.
The message was loud and clear – if you oppose civil liberty (even for something that’s not a civil liberty, but a private contract that society has over the years turned into an entitlement), you are a bigot, and will be called a bigot until you shut up and go away.
Excellent!
Now that all you newly-minted libertarian absolutists have won your battle, you’ll need something to occupy all that energy; you’ll need new targets for they keen-eyed intellectual nimbleness you’ve developed over the past 18 months of shouting over your opponents that they are bigots.
There is a small minority of Minnesotans who, operating from a racist, sexist, paternalistic, authoritarian notion of the social order, have been working to systematically working to deny Minnesotans of a vital civil right that is not only enshrined in the constitution but one that we were all born with an instinct to practice, one every bit as powerful as the instinct to procreate, and much stronger than the urge to mate – self-defense.
These bigots – whose intellectual lineage traces back to the slave-owners’ desire to neutralize his property – want to force you to deny how you’re born.
So I urge you to join my new group, “Minnesotans United For All Liberties”, and help drive bigotry from our state.
Will you join?
Or are you a bigot?
(Written with a nod to Dave Thul, whose wisecrack sent me off to write this…)
Bigots are defined by two criteria – 1. believing in something that is factually inaccurate (like the range of assertions about LGBT people made by the opposition to marriage equality) AND those beliefs have to be derogatory or negative in some way towards that group of people – which those assertions definitely were, ranging from your WWTC buddy Bradlee Dean calling gays pedophiles, to claiming the destruction of marriage or religious inequality, to the claims about parenting and children. Of don’t you find the claim that same sex marriage is all about same-sex couples being over-sexed rather than about their families and children to be both false and derogatory?
And YES, all of our rights have been determined through popularity contests. Originally only property owning white men had the vote — you didn’t own a home when you first voted. That changed through a “popularity contest” between those who wanted to expand the franchise and those who did not. Ditto slaves getting full citizenship rights, women’s suffrage, the civil rights legislation of the 60s, and rights accorded to those with disabilities. This is just one more in a long line of “popularity contests”. The nice thing about history, which conservatives seem to continually miss, is there is a right side to history, and a wrong side; conservatives are consistently on that wrong side.
More false statements:
“These bigots – whose intellectual lineage traces back to the slave-owners’ desire to neutralize his property – want to force you to deny how you’re born. ”
Every other civilized and comparably developed country has more stringent gun control regulations than the US. They are free and safe not because of guns but because of an effective civil society that limits guns, and because they have representative government. They are AS free as we are, and for the most part far more safe, if protection is genuinely your concern.
Bigots are defined by two criteria . . .
No, they are not.
Your assertions are not facts, ma’am.
They are free and safe not because of guns but because of an effective civil society that limits guns, and because they have representative government. They are AS free as we are, and for the most part far more safe, if protection is genuinely your concern.
You are wrong. You are wronger than wrong. Dog Wrong. You know what? I’m not even going to give you the credit of being wrong. I am NOT going to give you the benefit of the doubt. YOU ARE LYING. 100 % Goebbels propagandist LIAR. You have NO intellectual honesty. You are a SHILL FOR THE TYRANTS. You are so stupid you can’t even see that you are helping them try to turn this country into the USSR.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html
conservatives are consistently on that wrong side.
Except for that pesky 1964 Civil Rights act that every single democrat voted against. Damn those inconvenient facts.
Mitch Berg wrote:
even for something that’s not a civil liberty, but a private contract that society has over the years turned into an entitlement.
Marriage is not a private contract. The state sees it that way. Individuals do not. A person who commits adultery is not committing the same offense as someone who walks away from a mortgage.
I was taught that a bigot was a person who holding on strongly to poorly formed opinions. This alines closely with how the online Merriam-Webster defines it:
a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
According to DG’s definition, it is not bigotry to say that all blacks are good dancers or all Jews are smart., because neither statement is derogatory.
Get a grip, DG. You can’t change the plain meaning of words to suit your ideological goals.
Doggone, you need to revisit your history. Gun control in Germany was largely put into place from 1933 to 1938. In the Soviet Union, under Lenin, and in China under Mao. All of Europe, of course, tended to restrict the right of gun ownership from those at the bottom economic rungs, and the 1688 English Bill of Rights testifies to that. In Japan and China–really most of Asia–arms were denied to the peasants to prevent rebellions.
In the United States, Akhil Reed Amar notes that the first cases to incorporate the 14th Amendment against the states were cases of the southern states denying this right to freed slaves, and prior to the Civil War, all states that allowed slavery carefully denied this right to those who were owned by someone else.
Like it or not, this is the pedigree of gun control, and let’s face facts; those unfortunate nations which have strong gun control may have been spared a pretty bad fate because they were under the U.S. nuclear shield.
I stand with Mitch in seeking an end to bigotry, an end to discrimination, and the understanding that my lifestyle isn’t a choice-it’s who I am, who I was born to be, and part of my DNA.
My name is Dave Thul, and I support the Freedom To Carry.™
This has as much to do with civil liberties as the seat belt law has to do with public safety. This is about forcing recognition on those that oppose same-sex couplings. Which, in my view, is wholly anti-libertarian.
I am not gay, have no problem with gay people…count many of them as friends, and I have no problem with the concept of (as DG puts it) “LGBT people” being able to marry.
However “marriage” predates most forms of modern government. It originated in the church. And people mating (I would guess even same-sex mating) predates even the church.
So if I find a partner that I commit to, and they with me, regardless of gender…I am not without any perceived benefit due me by virtue of marriage that doesn’t come from another (forced recognition).
What would these “benefits” be?
The obvious, wedding gifts…well the are “gifts”, so I have no entitlement to them.
Tax breaks? Well, I would opt for lower taxes for all without breaks for wedded couples…I really don’t think we need to worry about propagation of the species at this point.
Insurance…employer benefits? Again, comes from another, there can be no assumption of entitlement and would be a simple matter of contract law.
Hospital visitation? Wouldn’t that be up to the individual?
So what other magical benefits that the LBGT people are missing out on because their paring, at present, their coupling isn’t recognized by the state as a “legal”marriage? What benefits, I should ask, that don’t come from another that may or may not…for whatever reason they have…agree that two people of the same gender don’t belong as a couple?
And, again, how is this not forced recognition? Does the law, if passed, guarantee that schools won’t be teaching that this is acceptable to kids whose parents don’t see it as acceptable?
My solution would have been to take it out of the state altogether, and the only thing the state would “define” would be contract law with regard to divorce, estates etc. And put it back where it originated…with the church. Want to marry? Find a church that will marry you…straight, gay, bisexual or transgendered you have no civil “right” to have yourself or your marriage “recognized” by anyone accept the ones involved. Or don’t marry, simply commit to one another.
I, for one, am not threatened or offended by whom you live with, marry or even have sex with…and I’d prefer government stay out of my bedroom (and household), I was under the impression that the LBGT people did too.
“Bradlee Dean calling gays pedophiles”
Mongrel Cur has made two mistakes there.
1) Homosexual men are most often, in fact by definition are exclusively, connected to pederasty (ie: Roman Catholic Church scandals). Homosexual females may engage in pedophilia, but the incidence rate must be so small as to be invisible.
2) I believe Dean knows the difference.
The poor creature isn’t even trying anymore.
if a man can marry a woman or a man…and a woman can marry a man or a woman…this kind of leaves bisexuals out in the cold, doesn’t it?
Oops, almost forgot a critical point. It is almost always homosexualists themselves that connect gay men to pedophilia in a misguided (naturally) attempt to act as apologists for the perpetrators.
http://moreintelligentlife.com/story/the-sex-diaries-of-john-maynard-keynes
Thanks to DG’s diligent scholarship and insight into the categories of human sexual expression, we now know that John Maynard Keynes was, in fact, heterosexual.
Thanks to DG’s diligent scholarship and insight into the categories of human sexual expression, we now know that John Maynard Keynes was, in fact, heterosexual.
QED. Then again, QED might be someone else on Keynes’s itemized list.
From what I’ve read, Keynes was more OCD than QED.
Dog Gone asserts that if I oppose amending “marriage” to include gays, then I oppose civil liberty so it is right and just that I be called a bigot until I shut up and go away. I reject the premise.
Civilization exists in developed countries because we figured what organizational structure works best to give the most people a chance at life, not to be slain by war, pestilence or famine. Western civilization works because we figured out what economic system works to give the most people the best chance at liberty and prosperity, again. Gays are able to survive and even prosper in Western civilized countries because we our organizational and economic systems generate enough stability and prosperity to tolerate people who deviate from the norm. By contrast, see gays in the Middle East or Socialist countries.
No civilization has long endured when women and gays were in charge and the aftermath – commonly called The Dark Ages – is a dreadful price to pay for a fleeting time of “equality.” I realize correlation doesn’t prove causation but when the downside is the collapse of civilization, a hint of caution is warranted.
I wish to preserve Western civilization. Dog Gone, you wish to make changes that, throughout history, have heralded its destruction. I may be a bigot. But you’re a fool.
Dog Gone makes up stuff and then believes it.
It is not surprising, new, or original that she does this with word definitions.
The lessons of 1984 (http://www.amazon.com/dp/0451524934/) are lost on her. Or well learned and put into practice constantly.