The marshy headwaters of Greenwich Cove known as the Dish. (Photo by Bob Plain)
Saying there are too few profiles in courage at the State House, Rhode Island’s best political pundit tells why civil unions didn’t work here, as well as offering some wisdom to elected officialswho might settle for the status quo rather than pushing for change.
“Sometimes when one walks down the middle of the street in politics, he or she gets hit by both sides,” wrote RIPR’s Scott MacKay. “This is precisely what happened with civil unions.”
Certainly this is what happened to House Speaker Gordon Fox, who I think saw that writing on the wall and recently said he’d push harder for marriage equality next session. That combined with the fact that the rest of the country is coming to see the social value in supporting same sex marriage at epic speeds (h/t @tednesi), and we’ve got the right ingredients to get this done in 2013.
It all depends on how stubborn Senate President Teresa Paiva Weed and Senator Michael McCaffrey, who chairs the judiciary committee, decide to be on the issue.
McCaffrey, for his part, has to run for reelection against Laura Pisaturo, a very electable former assistant attorney general who also happens to be a lesbian. I’m dying to see this debate.
Speaking of Scott MacKay’s wisdom … on Political Roundtable this morning he said legislators would be wise to reinstate the money they and former Gov. Don Carcieri took away from them.
Another issue that heating up here in Rhode Island is public education reform, and leading that charge this week has been a letter to Diane Ravtich about a Rhode Island program to train new teachers that doesn’t seem to be meeting students needs. Aaron Regunberg posted her letter here and wrote more about it for GoLocal this morning.
Best lede of the day: “Attention, criminals: There are no more marijuana plants to steal at 12 Hyat St. in Olneyville.” Turns out the pot farmers who lived there had been robbed 17 times in five years, so they have decided to relocate. The Projo didn’t publish their new address, but I’m guessing that moving truck might just have someone tailing it to the garden’s new locale.
Effects of voterID laws: “2.7 million living people who voted in 2008 have since been purged from the voter rolls.”
Here’s how Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman sizes up 2012 presidential politics: “There has been plenty to criticize about President Obama’s handling of the economy. Yet the overriding story of the past few years is not Mr. Obama’s mistakes but the scorched-earth opposition of Republicans, who have done everything they can to get in his way — and who now, having blocked the president’s policies, hope to win the White House by claiming that his policies have failed.”
Awesome tweet: @benschwartzy: KFC v Chick-Fil-A — gay marriage deserves a better battleground. Are we going to settle immigration at Chipotle?
Happy birthday, Uriah Stevens.
I like Scott MacKay, but much like Obama, his views on this issue seem to have evolved. When the civil unions bill was working through the Assembly, Scott was editorializing about what a good compromise it was. All the while, those of us in the gay community were telling him things would turn out exactly as they have, and that compromising on civil rights was never a good idea.
There is an interesting article in this week’s Time Magazine linking the legalization of same sex marriage to the inevitable legalization of other forms of marriage like polygamy and polyamory. Once you remove the objective traditional definition of marriage as a union of a man and a woman, and only a man and a woman you open the door to any group to lobby for their own form of civil right based upon..whatever. The process of normalization in society happens over time. As various groups with their own behavior, rules or practices lobby for normalization they gain traction and support from other like-minded “progressives”. And here we are.
At the end of the day defining personal sexual preferences and other like “personal cultural choices” “civil rights” has and will continue to lead to the erosion of society and its inevitable collapse.
Traditional thinkers and activists are thankfully not just standing around and letting this happen. There is a real debate about these issues and the cultural divide will grow wider and wider as election day approaches.
A pretty shallow, fear-mongering argument. The same was said about letting women vote, ending Jim Crow laws, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera…..through centuries.
Can you be more specific? What parts of the argument are shallow and which are fear mongering?
“Traditional thinkers and activists are thankfully not just standing around and letting this happen.”
True. Traditionalists have long been advocating for polygamy, which is a much longer-standing practice than marriage between one man and one woman.
“ There is an interesting article in this week’s Time Magazine”
Wow. I’ve never seen this sentiment expressed before.
“the objective traditional definition of marriage”
‘objective traditional’ strikes me as an oxymoron.
“personal sexual preferences and other like “personal cultural choices” ”
I’m not sure what you mean here. What are the scare quotes for?
Turbo, it sounds like anything you don’t agree with either makes you angry or scares you?
This is not an argument, but rather a personal attack.
In light of your refusal to have a civil conversation, I offer instead the Word of the Lord:
King Solomon, however, loved many foreign womenbesides Pharaoh’s daughter—Moabites, Ammonites,Edomites, Sidonians and Hittites. 2 They were from nations about which the Lord had told the Israelites, “You must not intermarry with them, because they will surely turn your hearts after their gods.” Nevertheless, Solomon held fast to them in love. 3 He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines…
Turbo
What does this mean? What are you trying to communicate?
For the record:
Your scripture ref above:
1. 1 Kings 11:11 Therefore the Lord said to Solomon, “Since this has been your practice and you have not kept my covenant and my statutes that I have commanded you, I will surely tear the kingdom from you and will give it to your servant.
2. “True. Traditionalists have long been advocating for polygamy, which is a much longer-standing practice than marriage between one man and one woman.”
Genesis 2:18 Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” 19 Now out of the ground the Lord God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adamthere was not found a helper fit for him. 21 So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. 22 And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. 23 Then the man said,
“This at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called Woman,
because she was taken out of Man.”
24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
One man one woman came before polygamy.
3. ‘objective traditional’ strikes me as an oxymoron.
If it is an oxymoron, which I would argue it is not, what difference does it make to the discussion at hand?
4. I’m not sure what you mean here. What are the scare quotes for?
What do I mean? Just read the sentence over and over a few times. That’s what I do when I don’t understand what someone is saying. The second part of your statement (the question) is why I responded the way I did in the first place. You made the erroneous assumption that my quotation marks were designed or intended to “scare” someone, when in fact they were only meant to emphasize or focus attention on the word in quotations.
Have a nice day.
SV
“For the record”
No. The Lord was not angry with Solomon for polygamy. The lord was angry with Solomon for building temples to the gods of his wives.
“One man one woman came before polygamy.”
No. There is no prohibition against polygamy in the pairing of Adam and Eve. Nor is there any prohibition against polygamy in the numerous instances of polygamy approved by the Bible.
“what difference does it make to the discussion at hand?”
It makes the difference that you are saying something that is nonsensical. It actually is important to avoid nonsense when you make an argument.
Objectively speaking, marriage is not defined as between one man and one woman, because other kinds of marriage are recognized. The traditional definition you refer to comes from one particular tradition, which is more or less the opposite of ‘objective’.
“You made the erroneous assumption that my quotation marks were designed or intended to “scare” someone, when in fact they were only meant to emphasize or focus attention on the word in quotations.”
Nicely played. I like how you’re pretending never to have encountered the term ‘scare quotes’.
I’ll play along.
Quotation marks should not be used to indicate emphasis. If you meant to use them in this way, then you used them incorrectly.
Quotation marks indicate either direct attribution to another speaker, titles, or that the words enclosed have a meaning different from their usual one.
Clearly, you know as much about punctuation as you do about scripture, which is why your use of quotes around the word ‘scare’ is confusing.
“That’s what I do when I don’t understand what someone is saying. ”
Another thing you could do is look up terms unfamiliar to you–terms like ‘scare quotes’ and ‘marriage’.
Turbo:
The LORD was angry with Solomon for both his marriages to foreign women and the resultant idolatry. 1 Kings 11 states this explicitly.
“which the Lord had said to the people of Israel, “You shall not enter into marriage with them, neither shall they with you, for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods.” Solomon foolishly disobeyed the LORD and his sin naturally followed.
You never said anything about prohibition in your first post. You did say, “which is a much longer-standing practice than marriage between one man and one woman.” This is not true. Hence my quote from Genesis.
If what I said was an oxymoron then be sure to never order jumbo shrimp. An oxymoron is not necessarily irrational or nonsense. It is a figure of speech where seemingly contradictory terms are used on purpose or not for literary effect. An oxymoron by definition is not nonsensical.
In a civil discussion it would be wise not to publicly call your opponent a liar. I am not a liar. I have never heard of the term scare quotes. I accept your apology.
I did look it up. Looks like scare quotes would describe what I previously thought you were describing as a provocation but were not. Sorry about that. Ignorance is not bliss.
On the other hand, marriage, by most definitions is a serious and abiding commitment between a man and a woman for life. Lately some dictionaries have included same sex marriage as 2. under the traditional definition. Most mention polygamy as well, yet the vast majority of cultures and societies around the globe do not sanction such marriages. Why? One reason is because traditional marriage is between a man and a woman.
“Solomon foolishly disobeyed the LORD and his sin naturally followed.”
Solomon’s sin was not polygamy, nor does the Bible establish polygamy as a sin. Your namesake was a player, and God loved him for it.
“This is not true. Hence my quote from Genesis.”
Genesis is not a historical record.
“An oxymoron by definition is not nonsensical.”
Untrue. ‘Oxymoron’ literally means “sharp dull” which is nonsensical. As a term of criticism, ‘oxymoron’ does indicate nonsense, because it identifies a usage that is not intentionally paradoxical. You didn’t intend to deliver a paradoxical meaning with the phrase “objective, traditional” and so you unintentionally produced an oxymoron, which is nonsensical.
“I accept your apology.”
What apology?
“On the other hand, marriage, by most definitions”
Not objective definitions.
“the vast majority of cultures and societies around the globe do not sanction such marriages. Why?”
Because they have done away with their traditional, polygamist marriages.
“One reason is because traditional marriage is between a man and a woman.”
On the contrary, in many societies, polygamy is traditional, and monogamy is a radical departure from tradition.
Debates of the use of quotations marks and the term “oxymoron”… is this an example of the imporved discourse banning a certin member was going to bring about?
“is this an example of the imporved discourse banning a certin member was going to bring about?”
Yes. You’ll note that neither Solomon, nor I, has accused anyone of committing crimes or planning to commit crimes or of being the heads of criminal organizations.
Thanks for your meaningful contribution to our discussion.
I guess it’s not vitriol if you only politely insult people. Careful turbo, Solomon might be baiting you into an RTW like word count or even worse…
“I guess it’s not vitriol if you only politely insult people”
What does vitriol matter? RTW wasn’t banned for vitriol.
“Solomon might be baiting you”
I take responsibility for the arguments I participate in.
“Thanks for your meaningful contribution to our discussion.”
No problem. Enjoy your “relevant, productive and enlightening” debate!
“Enjoy your “relevant, productive and enlightening” debate”
We shall! Let us know if there’s anything we can do to win more of your approval!
Turbo:
You refuse to face the facts. Typical of someone who is found out to be wrong but remains in denial.
The scripture couldn’t be more clear. I won’t quote it again (1 Kings 11). The LORD forbade the marriages and the consequent idolatry. Both are clearly sin.
Polygamy deserves some significant effort on my part since it is just another brick in the tumbling wall brought about by a liberal granting of divorce decrees and the rampant moral relativism of our day. I will say this; in the OT the cases of polygamy are few and far between and without exception they all turn out badly. The writers of the scriptures do not candy coat the behavior of the patriarchs or kings. Like it says several times throughout the sacred scriptures, “None are righteous. Not even one.” I think we are both included in that group. The NT, in the words of Jesus himself, in Matthew 19 states: “3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” 4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” 7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” 8 He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.” Jesus also quietly rebukes the men who brought to him the woman caught in adultery. They all walked away. He says to the woman: John 8:10 Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” 11 She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”
Polygamy is still against the law in these United States. A felony offense in Utah and Arizona.
Jesus uses the quote from Genesis I used. You say Genesis is not a historical record. Jesus says it is. On several counts and for many reasons I will go with Jesus. Genesis is historical fact.
The apology I accepted was for calling me a liar publicly. Since you remain uncivilized I’ll leave it at that.
You need to purchase a handbook of English Grammar. In any one of them you will find that an oxymoron is a rational figure of speech under the order of tropes. It is used with literary license for various reasons by the various authors who use oxymorons in their literature. Look it up for yourself. I actually didn’t this much about oxymorons before this debate. So something good can come out of butting heads with an idiot:) (just kidding)
FYI-I did not use “Objective traditional definition…” as an oxymoron. That was your erroneous interpretation. The objective (dictionary) traditional (common tradition) definition of marriage can be viewed on any number of public web sites like dictionary.com and wikipedia, etc. Most of which state that only recently has the issue of same sex marriage been included as a secondary definition. Prior to that the vast majority of the world’s population understood that a traditional marriage was between one man and one woman. You can say otherwise. You will be wrong again.
These are simply the facts. You can deny them if you like. You have the ability to discern within yourself whether you will or you won’t. I won’t venture to guess which way you will go.
From reading the posts of some who know you (Sully and DogDiesel) it sounds like you like to fight and argue. I do too. That must be why I like you even though the best we may ever do is agree to disagree.
Hope you enjoy the day.
“The LORD forbade the marriages and the consequent idolatry”
The Lord forbade Solomon’s marrying foreigners. The Lord never forbade polygamy.
“Polygamy deserves some significant effort on my part ”
Then why are you making no effort to show that the Bible forbids it?
“ Polygamy is still against the law in these United States.”
So? And why are you using the antebellum “these”?
”You say Genesis is not a historical record. Jesus says it is.”
Huh. I’ve never encountered anyone who will actually come out and say something like this.
“The apology I accepted was for calling me a liar publicly”
I made no such apology.
“an oxymoron is a rational figure of speech”
You’re saying now that you intended “objective, traditional” to be an oxymoron? Meaning what?
“You need to purchase a handbook of English Grammar.”
“I actually didn’t this much”
Right.
“The objective (dictionary) ”
“Most of which state that only recently has the issue of same sex marriage been included as a secondary definition.”
Which means that the objective definition is now at odds with the traditional definition, in your own formulation.
“the vast majority of the world’s population understood that a traditional marriage was between one man and one woman”
Based on your reading of the the Bible and English dictionaries.
Here’s the thing: other societies exist that neither follow your reading of the Bible, nor speak English. In many of these societies, polygamy is the traditional form of marriage.
Turbo:
Should I gather from the fact that there is no reply link on your last post that someone has ended our discussion? Or that you have ended it?
Inquiring minds want to know. Maybe its just a computer glitch or a bug or human error.
Have a nice evening.
SV
How would I know?
Perhaps Baby Jesus did it.
Solomon is correct when he remarks that there is real debate about these issues and that the cultural divide will grow wider in the run up to the election. Where I would object to his analysis, however, is in the idea that “tradition” upholds society. Traditions are, taken literally, politically uninflected, so neither the right nor the left has any monopoly over them. Memorial Day parades are traditions; so are Gay pride parades. Traditions anchor all sorts of communities and societies, not just conservative ones.
I think that maybe the real source of disagreement is not the foundational role played in society by traditions on the one hand or civil rights on the other – traditions, like civil rights, emerge from social consensus at a variety of levels – but rather a deeper disagreement about metaphysics (don’t laugh! disagreements about metaphysics – thought about reality – underlie most of the world’s truly volatile issues).
What IS marriage? THAT is the problem. After all, some aspects of Islamic tradition allow a man to have more than one wife, and this view of marriage is no less traditional to Islam for that. No, what we are all dividing over, arguing over here in RI and elsewhere, is what marriage really is. This cannot be solved by appealing to tradition in general or one tradition in particular; the way we do things in a certain place at or over a certain time. It is way more complicated than that. And perhaps this is the nature of the divide and its consequently impassioned positions.
You say your objection is based upon an idea in my analysis. The problem is I never said “tradition” upholds society. I do agree with your idea that disagreements about metaphysics underlie most of the world’s truly volatile issues. Ideas have consequences and as finite beings we need to be careful which ideas we base our beliefs on.
“Ideas have consequences and as finite beings we need to be careful which ideas we base our beliefs on”
Then let’s start by abandoning the notion that gov’t should have any involvement in marriage beyond the the contract side of things.
That is a bad idea with many unforeseen consequences. In this country the government is an entity that is empowered by the very people it governs. Various special interest groups can campaign and lobby for or against various agendas and legislation. Hence we can say we live in a “free country.” That has never meant that we can do whatever we want. This has always been the main issue behind our debate.
The larger debate is the greater question i.e., where do our standards (legal, moral, personal, etc.) come from and on what are they based? The second question is, how does the government manage these issues and on what does it base its values and legislative decisions? The entire idea of “law” or “legality” is based upon a standard of some kind. Where does that come from?
“That has never meant that we can do whatever we want.”
That’s a strawman… no one is arguing that people should be allowed to do whatever they want. But either way, none of what you said is an argument to continue with government involvement in marriage beyond the contract. Government is set up to protect the rights of all of the people, and it’s a very arguable position that the gov’t not allowing homosexuals to get a marriage license violates their rights protected under the 1st Amendment (extending to the states via the 14th).
Are you not arguing for what you want? Using the all inclusive “whatever” may be hyperbole but it is not a strawman. Even the Federalists agreed that without virtue and virtuous people the republic would crumble.
Your arguable position is based upon some form of rule or standard that you have constructed based upon the information you have and choose to use. What is the basis of your rules and standards? How you think about these things and the ideas you construct from them are either self generated or they come from something or somewhere else. That is the question you need to answer here or in your own mind. Without the establishment of some kind of common ground we are babbling in the wind.
We both start with macro level presuppositions. What are yours?
“Even the Federalists agreed that without virtue and virtuous people the republic would crumble.”
Virtue is not reserved for the married. Even though some of the founders had strong religious feelings, they didn’t mention or define marriage in the Constitution.
“What is the basis of your rules and standards?”
My arguable position, for purposes of this discussion, is based on the US Constitution.
jgardener you seem to be a gentleman. I try to do the same. It is difficult at times due to the very nature of these discussions.
I agree that virtue is not reserved for the married. But virtue is based on something, and that is the point of my question. The Constitution would seem to embody what the founders thought would be virtuous in a government.
I know you said that for the purposes of this discussion your position is based on the US Constitution. I appreciate that. Again my question goes deeper. On what do we base our basic values. What is virtue and how do we figure out what ideas and acts are virtuous and which are not? Are there standards society can rely on and who or where do they come from?
Here’s my unabashed answer. God is the sovereign creator and He makes the rules. The alternative is man is sovereign. With that said, moral relativism sounds good but it doesn’t work. As personal freedom expands and eventually reigns supreme chaos ensues. This is the end game of post modernity when you take it to its logical conclusion.
Mea culpa. Should have indicated the link between “objective traditional definition” and “traditional thinkers,” to your assertions about crumbling society.
I humbly accept. You are very kind.