House of Eratosthenes

Read the remarks of a left-winger, who I assume is a self-identifying out-and-proud left-winger, who used the word “enlightened” to refer to states that allow gay marriage.

Hmmmm…this made me think. You have God saying what a marriage is. We have some states that contradict this, embarking on this experiment of allowing same-sex marriages. By-and-large, the history of this is not: The people of the state voted to allow gay marriages. Rather, it’s more like this. A bunch of pushy people put it on the ballot and then the people of that state voted the measure down. In some states, the people actually approved measures that said the opposite, that the jurisdiction would not allow gay marriages. Then, the pushy people put the matter before the court, because the “Will of the People” was plenty good enough to overrule God when they thought the people would go the “right” way, but since it went the other way, they started filing motions. Then the court ruled it was “unconstitutional” to define marriage the way God defined it, and that is how the state came to recognize same-sex marriages and/or civil unions.

So. You have mortals seeking to pull rank on God. You have them investing all this faith, that they should be investing in God, on the Will of the People, then they show all the faithfulness of an alley cat when it turns out the Will of the People is not on their side after all. Then they file motions to force the issue after they find out they’re in the minority.

Next up, start suing cake decorators to do it your way. Now then. Putting aside the questionable wisdom of consuming a food product prepared by someone who did not want to prepare it, and was forced to…

Looking at it all put together like that, with all the arrogance, the shiftiness, the control-freakishness, the pushiness, the manipulation, the lack of foresight…it seems to me to be a festering stew of un-enlightenment. I struggle in vain to imagine any human deed, historical or imagined, less enlightened. I’d have to go into teevee-land and think about cartoon characters, like one who was lopping off the limb of a tree while sitting on it. Something like that.

mkfreeberg: Then they file motions to force the issue after they find out they’re in the minority.

Only six states legalized same-sex marriage through court decisions. Eight were by state legislatures, and three by popular vote.

In any case, in the U.S. system of government, courts do have the authority to rule on constitutional issues.
- Zachriel | 01/18/2014 @ 19:43
Might want to skip the state-by-state overview, pick one state, zoom in and look at the history of what really happened. Start with California.

Mortals seeking to pull rank on God: Not enlightenment.
- mkfreeberg | 01/19/2014 @ 04:23
mkfreeberg: Might want to skip the state-by-state overview, pick one state, zoom in and look at the history of what really happened. Start with California.

Sure, the California Supreme Court ruled that the ban on gay marriage violated the state constitution. Five other states also allow gay marriage based on judicial findings, including Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New Mexico. Meanwhile, eight states; Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont; legalized gay marriage through the legislative process. Three states legalized gay marriage by popular vote; Maine, Maryland, and Washington.

This was your claim:

mkfreeberg: By-and-large, the history of this is not: The people of the state voted to allow gay marriages.

About ⅔ of the states with gay marriage did so by either popular vote or through legislative action. Only about ⅓ through judicial intervention.
- Zachriel | 01/19/2014 @ 06:48
By the way, most national polls now show majority support for same-sex marriage.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/162398/sex-marriage-support-solidifies-above.aspx
- Zachriel | 01/19/2014 @ 06:50
Oh. The OCD Asperger trolls have jumped into another thread. How tedious.
- Severian | 01/19/2014 @ 07:15
If my claim were false, there would have been no need for anyone to short-circuit the popular will by going to the courts, anywhere.

This is the disadvantage of looking at everything through a straw. Y’all missed the primary point of the criticism, which is: Incoherence. Just like, waitaminnit, if Star Wars is all about Darth Vader being redeemed, then it must be about finding redemption after slaughtering a whole temple full of defenseless “younglings,” which to any Star Wars fan who possesses some actual capacity for moral reasoning, seems quite irredeemable. Same problem here — what exactly is the problem with bans against same-sex marriage? That they violate constitutions? Or that they are contrary to the evolving and real popular will?

If one of those complaints holds true, the other becomes superfluous. But it’s hard to explain this to anyone who looks at things through straws, since it requires consideration of two ideas at once.

Rather ironic that a plurality of anonymous people cannot bring that, while named individuals can. To those who can, the conclusion is rather obvious — this isn’t about equality, it’s about sub-selections of the population winning arguments, all other objectives becoming secondary. That is what is expected to happen when ordinary, mortal, flawed people start playing God.
- mkfreeberg | 01/19/2014 @ 08:05
mkfreeberg: If my claim were false, there would have been no need for anyone to short-circuit the popular will by going to the courts, anywhere.

Your claim at issue is the one that says “by-and-large”.

By-and-large, the history of this is ~~not~~: The people of 17 states, largely through their elected representatives or through popular vote, have legalized gay marriages.

mkfreeberg: what problem with bans against same-sex marriage? That they violate constitutions? Or that they are contrary to the evolving and real popular will?

It can be both.

mkfreeberg: If one of those complaints holds true, the other becomes superfluous.

No, because the state constitution of California, and judicial findings by the courts of California, have no authority in Minnesota.
- Zachriel | 01/19/2014 @ 08:11
Your claim at issue is the one that says “by-and-large”.

Okay.

Why Does Gay Marriage Keep Losing at the Ballot Box?

32 times since 1998, voters have gone to the polls and voted against gay marriage.* Thirty-eight states prohibit gay marriage in some fashion. Even in “blue” states like California, Oregon and Delaware, gay marriage bans stand. North Carolina’s Amendment One Tuesday night was just the latest in a long line of failures at the ballot box for proponents of gay marriage.

Gay marriage has had more success in courts and state legislatures.

Is gay marriage something we should allow because that’s the direction the popular sentiment is taking? Or because our constitutional principles require that we allow it? If one of those is confirmed to be true, then the other becomes superfluous.

But the gay activists are determined to win by any means necessary. So let’s just put aside the “you misspelled so your point is mute” thing and ask ourselves seriously: Is this a model of enlightenment?
- mkfreeberg | 01/19/2014 @ 08:19
mkfreeberg: Is gay marriage something we should allow because that’s the direction the popular sentiment is taking?

Popular will seems to have changed just in the last several years.

mkfreeberg: Or because our constitutional principles require that we allow it? mkfreeberg:

State constitutions vary, so your statement is wrong. “Our constitutional principles” vary from state to state. Meanwhile, you have yet to correct your “by-and-large” statement. You are relying on out-of-date information.
- Zachriel | 01/19/2014 @ 08:28
Popular will seems to have changed just in the last several years.

People have free will in selecting how they will vote, and how they will respond to polls, so this could be called “popular will.” But it’s a questionable assertion when they’re moving in lock-step, especially when it’s in response to a determined and driven effort engaged by a much smaller crowd.

But y’all said previously:

Your claim at issue is the one that says “by-and-large”.

Are y’all making a counterclaim that, by-and-large, this change is the result of votes? Would y’all go so far as to say these end-runs around the ballot box have been unnecessary?
- mkfreeberg | 01/19/2014 @ 09:01
mkfreeberg: People have free will in selecting how they will vote, and how they will respond to polls, so this could be called “popular will.”

Sure, and the popular will is moving in the direction of support of same-sex marriage.

mkfreeberg: Would y’all go so far as to say these end-runs around the ballot box have been unnecessary?

Not in every state.
- Zachriel | 01/19/2014 @ 09:06
How many states can y’all offer as examples of where the popular will said, let’s allow gay marriage, and the people actually voted that in?

Do y’all have 38 examples? Because I’ve offered that many of the people saying no-way.
- mkfreeberg | 01/19/2014 @ 09:08
mkfreeberg: How many states can y’all offer as examples of where the popular will said, let’s allow gay marriage, and the people actually voted that in?

We already provided that information:

6 by court ruling
8 by legislation
3 by popular vote

That’s only about a third through judicial intervention, the other ⅔ of the states did so by either popular vote or through elected representatives.
- Zachriel | 01/19/2014 @ 09:13
Okay, so the problem here is that y’all have no way of evaluating the claim y’all seek to challenge: “By-and-large.” Y’all can only evaluate this by way of detecting whether a fraction ≥ 0.5.

So I’m introducing y’all to a new concept: When we reduce a great many events down into a single observation to be made about all of them, we can do our inspection by way of prerequisites. As in: What is indispensable? Is popular will expendable to this goal of legalizing gay marriage? Well…it sure has been, right? Thirty-eight times it was voted no, and it kept on truckin’.

What about the courts? Would the legalization have been achieved without the courts stepping in, and helping the gay activists ram the agenda through? Doessn’t seem like it. The gay activists certainly didn’t feel that way when they brought their cases. So…one of these was indispensable, the other one not.

“By-and-large, the history of this is not: The people of the state voted to allow gay marriages.”
- mkfreeberg | 01/19/2014 @ 09:23
mkfreeberg: Would the legalization have been achieved without the courts stepping in, and helping the gay activists ram the agenda through?

In about ⅔ of the states that have legalized same-sex marriage, it did not require court action.
- Zachriel | 01/19/2014 @ 09:35
By-and-large, the history of this is not: The people of the state voted to allow gay marriages.
- mkfreeberg | 01/19/2014 @ 09:36
mkfreeberg: By-and-large, the history of this is not: The people of the state voted to allow gay marriages.

How is that consistent with “In about ⅔ of the states that have legalized same-sex marriage, it did not require court action”?
- Zachriel | 01/19/2014 @ 10:13
“Did not require court action” is something y’all injected into it, so y’all could debunk it falsely.

Here is my complete statement:

You have God saying what a marriage is. We have some states that contradict this, embarking on this experiment of allowing same-sex marriages. By-and-large, the history of this is not: The people of the state voted to allow gay marriages. Rather, it’s more like this. A bunch of pushy people put it on the ballot and then the people of that state voted the measure down. In some states, the people actually approved measures that said the opposite, that the jurisdiction would not allow gay marriages. Then, the pushy people put the matter before the court, because the “Will of the People” was plenty good enough to overrule God when they thought the people would go the “right” way, but since it went the other way, they started filing motions. Then the court ruled it was “unconstitutional” to define marriage the way God defined it, and that is how the state came to recognize same-sex marriages and/or civil unions.

Your own stats:

6 [states legalize same-sex marriages] by court ruling
8 by legislation
3 by popular vote

Looks pretty consistent to me. Where’s the inconsistency that troubles y’all so? Specifically?
- mkfreeberg | 01/19/2014 @ 13:41
mkfreeberg: Looks pretty consistent to me. Where’s the inconsistency that troubles y’all so? Specifically?

Your phrase “by-and-large”.
- Zachriel | 01/19/2014 @ 14:08
Alright, well we’ve now evaluated it, together, and word-for-word, it’s accurate. I said “By-and-large, the history of this is not” — the way y’all’s statistics show it was done, 3 times out of 17. That’s accurate. Then I said, “it’s more like” — the way it actually did turn out, at least here in California, along with many other places. Then I said, “In some states, the people actually approved measures that said the opposite,” which my source says happened 38 out of 50 times. Then I said “Then, the pushy people put the matter”…the way y’all’s source said it was done, 6 times out of the 17. Six > zero.

severian is right, y’all have a learning disability. Not sure if it’s Asperger’s, though. More like, ,y’all get it in y’all’s heads that things might be construed a certain way, and it doesn’t even register in y’all’s radar that a) some other people might look at it differently, or b) reality might have a different viewpoint to offer. Think it would be mind-expanding for y’all to build some applications, throw the switch on the compiler and see some error messages y’all might not have been expecting to see.

But this case is special. Usually, one can at least see “If you want to get super sticky and technical about it, and look at it the way they do, they might have a point..” Not so here. I said by-and-large when by-and-large fit. I said “some” when “some” fit. The statements are all accurate. Y’all have been given many opportunities to say why they upset y’all, and y’all haven’t delivered.

Think we’re just back to one of those many, many situations where something got pointed out, and y’all didn’t want it to be.
- mkfreeberg | 01/19/2014 @ 16:46
And then there’s the fact that the appeals process when it came to Prop 8 wasn’t exactly pure as the wind-driven snow.
- Rich Fader | 01/20/2014 @ 13:10
mkfreeberg: the way y’all’s statistics show it was done, 3 times out of 17.

You had suggested that judicial rulings were the norm. So you don’t consider laws passed by an elected legislature to be representative of the people? That’s how most laws are enacted.
- Zachriel | 01/20/2014 @ 13:57
Uh huh. Sorry, but the claim y’all are trying to falsify was this: “By-and-large, the history of this is not: The people of the state voted to allow gay marriages.” If the hip and with-it legislators have to jam this down the constituents’ throats, that gets recorded in my column not yours. That’s not a matter of opinion. That’s a conclusion based on a literal reading of what I originally said.

Now, let’s get un-literal and allow ourselves the latitude of speculating, just a little bit. Here’s what happened. Y’all got hold of a piece of propaganda, some delicious left-wing talking point designed to help win arguments against the slope-foreheaded wingnuts — for the left-wingers who have lots of trouble doing so. The crib sheet has helpful statistics, like:

6 [states legalize same-sex marriages] by court ruling
8 by legislation
3 by popular vote

And it is supposed to be deployed against those annoying reactionaries who say something like this:

“In most of the states that allow gay marriage, the courts had to force the issue, the voters did not have a say in the matter.”

Y’all ERRONEOUSLY thought of my statement as equivalent with that one. Which it isn’t. And, probably, although we’ll never know, y’all and I had exchanged only a few messages about this before the reality sunk in that y’all’s magic bullet wasn’t going to work that way for y’all here. But, y’all have that “concede nothing, ever, under any circumstances” rule, no exceptions allowed. So, it being too late, y’all followed through and doubled down.

And now here y’all are, dangling away. Looking foolish.

Meanwhile, my statement was accurate. And y’all can’t wriggle out of this, any more than a fish can reach up and extract the hook from his mouth. Nothing for y’all to do but dangle, dangle, and dangle some more. Looking foolish.
- mkfreeberg | 01/20/2014 @ 21:02
mkfreeberg: If the hip and with-it legislators have to jam this down the constituents’ throats, that gets recorded in my column not yours.

Heh. That’s funny. Fair enough. Thought you were saying something else.

By and large, the people did not vote the end of racial segregation. By and large, the people did not vote for war against the fascists. By and large, the people did not vote to end child labor. By and large, the people haven’t voted for most anything—other than representatives who voted to end racial segregation, war against the fascists, and the end of child labor.
- Zachriel | 01/21/2014 @ 06:28
By and large, the people did not vote the end of racial segregation. By and large, the people did not vote for war against the fascists. By and large, the people did not vote to end child labor. By and large, the people haven’t voted for most anything—other than representatives who voted to end racial segregation, war against the fascists, and the end of child labor.

So y’all’s point is that the people do not have what it takes to vote for these enlightened new rules for enlightened new societies — they have to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into enlightenment?

Do y’all not agree that laws should be representative of the public sentiment? Is this not one of the goals of representation in a constitutional republic?
- mkfreeberg | 01/21/2014 @ 07:11
For the record: Either way, I’ll take the answer as an admission that my statement was correct. “By and large, the history of this is not: The people of the state voted to allow gay marriages.”
- mkfreeberg | 01/21/2014 @ 07:12
mkfreeberg: So y’all’s point is that the people do not have what it takes to vote for these enlightened new rules for enlightened new societies

You mean representative democracy?

mkfreeberg: Do y’all not agree that laws should be representative of the public sentiment? Is this not one of the goals of representation in a constitutional republic?

Sure, which is why your original essay was so confusing. You go from direct vote to judicial intervention, leaving legislative mechanisms aside. Most people would consider legislative action to be a reflection of popular will.
- Zachriel | 01/21/2014 @ 07:14
mkfreeberg: For the record: Either way, I’ll take the answer as an admission that my statement was correct. “By and large, the history of this is not: The people of the state voted to allow gay marriages.”

Sure. Legislative action has also been important.
- Zachriel | 01/21/2014 @ 07:15
Most people would consider legislative action to be a reflection of popular will.

Which is why y’all’s protest is so confusing. If these enlightened states are allowing same-sex marriage and this is a reflection of popular will — which is drifting in that direction in a breakneck pace anyway, we’re constantly told — why not let the people vote on it?

Wouldn’t that just make sense?
- mkfreeberg | 01/21/2014 @ 07:20
mkfreeberg: why not let the people vote on it?

Because laws are normally passed by legislators, not direct vote.
- Zachriel | 01/21/2014 @ 07:21
Heh! That’s a funny comment to read, here in California.

Anyway, glad we agree. By and large, the history of this is not: The people of the state voted to allow gay marriages.

Hey everybody, when The Zachriel are wrong about something, eventually they do admit it. It CAN happen.
- mkfreeberg | 01/21/2014 @ 07:31
Wow… I wonder how much psychic pain went into that admission. And it only took, what? two years? No wonder people stay in therapy so long.
- Severian | 01/21/2014 @ 08:27
Because wouldn’t you agree that only “enlightened” folk can see the cutting edge trendiness of The Emperor’s New Clothes?

OK, here’s the excruciating invisible minutia of non sequitur to prove… Squirrel
- CaptDMO | 01/22/2014 @ 07:35
mkfreeberg: That’s a funny comment to read, here in California.

California is only one of seventeen states that have legalized same-sex marriage. Most have done it through democratic means, either legislation or popular vote.

mkfreeberg: The Zachriel are wrong about something

It’s an everyday occurrence, actually.
- Zachriel | 01/23/2014 @ 08:51
[…] brings us back around to World War G. As Morgan has pointed out in some detail, the usual pattern is: State holds a referendum; voters come down on the side of […]
- Lawfare and World War G | Rotten Chestnuts | 03/24/2014 @ 08:37

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

EnlightenedSaturday, January 18th, 2014

Enlightened
Saturday, January 18th, 2014