It appears that same-sex marriage is being groomed for a major issue in this election. With Jay Carney insisting that President Obama remains clear that his views are unclear, Newt Gingrich and Michele Bachmann stepped forward this weekend to put the issue front and center in their campaigns. Gingrich this weekend announced that he will lead the fight against same-sex marriage to stop the nation from “drifting toward a terrible muddle.” He said that he would be looking for ways to “defend that view as legitimately and effectively as possible.”
Critics are likely to charge that Gingrich certainly has more experience in the area with three prior marriages — making the campaign sound more like a pitch that marriage should be restricted to a man and a woman and a woman and a woman.
The decision of New York to become the sixth state to recognize same-sex marriage guarantees that it will be a hot issue in the campaign. Bachmann is calling for a constitutional amendment.
For the purposes of full disclosure, I have long argued that the states should uniformly adopt a civil union standard and leave “marriages
Source: Reuters
Mike S:
” You, however, are a dishonest poster and therefore fair game for ridicule.”
******************
You are sounding positively Jeffersonian:
“Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them ….”
~Thomas Jefferson (Letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp, 30 July, 1816).
Mike A:
Thanks, Mike. I look forward to reading them.
Sadly you’re right about the preamble. I think all constitutions should begin with Voltaire’s famous acknowledgement of an obvious truth:” Il est bien malaisé … d’ôter à des insensés des chaînes qu’ils révèrent.” (It is quite difficult to remove fools from the chains they revere.)
Roco, they use that card almost as much as the race card.
The second sentence is also an ad hominem because Mike A is trying to prove Palin’s statement was inaccurate because she allegedly is not a literate and coherent person
kderosa:
I recognize the distinction between morals and religion. But I do believe that the distinction is frequently lost on opponents of gay marriage. I say that because I have not come across instances of opposition expressed by secular groups or by means of secular arguments. In addition, most of the opposition has been advanced based upon biblical denunciations of homosexuality, justified on the grounds that the Founders envisioned a Christian nation and that Christian traditions are part of the fabric of society.
The difficulty with this argument, aside from what I believe to be a false construction of the religious beliefs of the Founders, is that Christianity is not a monolithic set of doctrines. There are numerous varieties of Christian experience and teaching, and additional permutations arise with regularity. Indeed, the Christian organizations most vehemently opposed to gay marriage represent minority Christian views. Therefore, it is incorrect to use the “Christian nation” argument when what is actually being promoted are values and beliefs of specific sub-categories of Christianity.
Setting aside the religion issue, the argument that prohibition of gay marriage is merely reflective of community standards that regard homosexual relationships as immoral runs headlong into the Fourteenth Amendment. That is because prohibitions directed to an identifiable but disfavored class are inherently suspect, which raises the rational basis test bar to the strict scrutiny level. So the correct formulation of the constitutional issue would be whether there is a compelling and legitimate state interest in treating homosexuals as a distinct class for determining eligibility to enter into the marriage contract. The argument that homosexuality violates community standards of morality is neither a compelling nor legitimate state interest under the law.
mespo:
“How about the state’s interest in promoting education and rational thought over superstition and fantasy… ?”
I get your point, but I don’t ever expect to see a statute containing those words in the preamble.
BTW, your blog on Gage is an outstanding example of a thought provoking topic. I haven’t had time to put my two cents worth in on any of those issues, but plan to do so. Great post.
kderosa:
it is the stealth ad hominem. It is used very often by the left. Look what happened to poor Juan Williams at NPR, he was bat shit crazy by the time he left and now he is making bat shit crazy money at Faux News.
Wait a minute, aren’t they a far right wing propaganda org? I guess Juan is bat shit crazy, but he sure speaks his mind and I find myself disagreeing with most of what he says on Faux News.
Isn’t Geraldo a left winger too? And Kirsten Powers and Elise Wheil? What the hell am I doing listening to that left wing propaganda organ? Is there no place where the left is not present?
By the way, I still think I know you. Your writing has a certain style to it. Are you a big Kahuna somewhere?
Bob, Esq.:
You’re correct of course. It’s useful to be reminded from time to time which way the river actually flows.
The issue at bar was whether Palin said something inaccurate.
And trying to prove that by characterizing the person as illiterate and incoherent is about as ad hominem as you get.
Also the initial premise is faulty, but we don’t even need to get into that.
“Right, and that “observed fact” is the basis of the ad hominem argument.”
Not if the observed fact addresses the issue at bar.
=====
“A literate, coherent person does not need “legions of fans to translate his or her words”
Palin needs “legions of fans to translate his or her words”
Therefore, Palin is not a literate and coherent person.”
====
Unless you can show that the premises leading up to the conclusion are counter-factual, then you you haven’t illustrated an ad hominem, but a valid argument.
The first premise is aximatic.
Instances of the second premise can be verified on Google News and Youtube.
Your premises support your conclusion. The fact that you refuse to accept the results of your own reasoning is another issue entirely.
@Bob Esq
“Comes in as habit evidence. Nothing ad hominem about it.”
No, it was based on Mike A’s opinion. The allusion to previous similar acts has not reached the level of evidence yet to establish that habit. So, as is, it is character evidence, and, as such, an ad hominem.
“To imply that Palin has a habit making statements that require her fans to translate her words for her is not ad hominem; merely observed fact.”
Right, and that “observed fact” is the basis of the ad hominem argument.
A literate, coherent person does not need “legions of fans to translate his or her words”
Palin needs “legions of fans to translate his or her words”
Therefore, Palin is not a literate and coherent person.
And, because she is not a literate and coherent person, her statement on Revere must have been inaccurate.
Classic ad hominem.
“The first sentence is an ad hominem because Mike A is trying to prove Palin’s statement was inaccurate because she allegedly has said many Palinisms”
Comes in as habit evidence. Nothing ad hominem about it.
“The second sentence is also an ad hominem because Mike A is trying to prove Palin’s statement was inaccurate because she allegedly is not a literate and coherent person.”
No, Mike made a truthful general statement. The claim that “A literate, coherent person does not require legions of fans to translate his or her words ” is axiomatic. To imply that Palin has a habit making statements that require her fans to translate her words for her is not ad hominem; merely observed fact.
@Bob Esq.
The issue was whether Palin said something inaccurate.
The first sentence is an ad hominem because Mike A is trying to prove Palin’s statement was inaccurate because she allegedly has said many Palinisms, which is apparently something that is not a positive thing, probably something said inaccurately.
The second sentence is also an ad hominem because Mike A is trying to prove Palin’s statement was inaccurate because she allegedly is not a literate and coherent person.
@Gyges
“Also, read the article, it contains statistics. That’s why I chose it.”
I would have, but you said you were done.
Also, your charcterization of re-re-peating, there’s actually no repeats in that last response. But, if that’s how you want to end it, who am I to argue.
how ‘does’ the second sentence…
kderosa: @Mike A This is the ad hominem
“An entire book could be written (and someone is undoubtedly writing one) on Palinisms. A literate, coherent person does not require legions of fans to translate his or her words ”
=======
Which of the foregoing sentences attacks Palin the person?
What is a Palinism; the sentence doesn’t specify.
And how is the second sentence rise to anything more than an axiom?
@Mike S
Your post proves my points.
KDE,
You’re re-re-repeating yourself. I’m done. If I to read the same text over and over again, I’ll read The Shinning. Mr. King’s worth it, you’re not.
Also, read the article, it contains statistics. That’s why I chose it.
@Mike A This is the ad hominem
“An entire book could be written (and someone is undoubtedly writing one) on Palinisms. A literate, coherent person does not require legions of fans to translate his or her words ”
not the “gotcha” question part.
Mike Appleton: “But too many people believe that the freedom I have not surrendered to the federal government I have surrendered to the state government by virtue of the Tenth Amendment. I reject that view.”
Of course you reject the idea because it’s absurd. The very inception of the constitution lacks privity between the individual and the Fed. It’s not about ‘we the people’ but all about ‘we the states.’
The true privity of contract (and privity of estate, since sovereignty runs with the land) between the people and the government exists at the state level. To truly determine the status of one’s rights, one must look to the constitution of the state he or she lives in first and then the fed constitution; not vice versa. This is why we have the equal and independent state grounds doctrine, a.k.a Dual Constitutionalism:
http://www.nycourts.gov/history/elecbook/kaye_cardozo/pg2.htm
The Fed sets the floor, but the states set the ceiling of rights. And if the state decides to raise the ceiling of rights to ensure that all people are treated equally with regard to marriage, then there’s nothing the Fed can do about it.