I'm just going to put this here...

[Wind Swept]

[Boothby]

Around halfway through, when that young man is through saying his piece, the screen goes black.

What I find interesting, however, is that there's exactly 18 hours of blackness.....


BTW, if you're that opposed to putting money into anyone's pockets for the "Ender's Game" movie, you can always pay to see "Hunger Games Part II" and sneak into "Ender's Game", I guess (not that I would recommend that, of course...no, never!)

[Jayelle]

I really, really hate what OSC stands for these days. I love Ender's Game, I love many of his other books, but I don't support him anymore. I don't buy OSC books new. If I buy them, I get them used or from the library. I will see the EG movie, but that's the extent to which I'll support him.
I am not going to lie, I've even thought about leaving pweb over this issue. But I tell myself that this board is in support of his work, not the man.
Honestly, though... I just don't even want to think about him anymore.

[Boothby]

It would be one thing if he were just some run-of-the-mill Internet Troll, and published screeds that justified "typical american families" threatening to overthrow the US government if the government accepted homosexual marriages (which he did).

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7002 ... riage.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


It would another thing if he were a famous author, with a movie in the works, who published books that said things like Hamlet's father was a raging homosexual pedophile, which is why Hamlet was so screwed up (which he also did).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/se ... paedophile" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


It would be yet ANOTHER thing if Card contributed money (nominally 10% of his income--however he makes it) to a religious organization that acts to prevent homosexual marriage. He does this, too.

http://mormon.org/faq/church-tithing" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/15/us/po ... d=all&_r=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


But Orson Scott Card is also a MEMBER OF THE BOARD of the National Organization "for" Marriage (NOM...but not as in "nom nom nom"), who "work against legalization of same-sex marriage in the United States." He has been a board member since 2009.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_O ... r_Marriage" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


I've met him, I've communicated with him, I've even (sort of) worked with him (on "The Authorized Ender Companion", and the Marvel Comics). When I met him at Endercon, he was a great guy! Same for when I met him at some book talks on the East Coast. He's a great public speaker, and comes off as a very likable guy. I really do not like what he stands for now. What I can do about it is try to weaken his position (well, not his stance on it, but the effect that he might have), and strengthen mine. But I'm not going to do that by ad hominem attacks--if his position is weak, then I will try to point that out. If my position has merit, I will try to prove it, and gain greater support for it. Such is politics, done (I hope) right.

[Wind Swept]

BTW, if you're that opposed to putting money into anyone's pockets for the "Ender's Game" movie, you can always pay to see "Hunger Games Part II" and sneak into "Ender's Game", I guess (not that I would recommend that, of course...no, never!)

I may have to try this.

[Boothby]

I was going to say, "pay to see the SMURFS movie," but there are none coming out at that time.

Maybe there will be a film about a positive homosexual relationship? That would be ironic!

[elfprince13]

It would another thing if he were a famous author, with a movie in the works, who published books that said things like Hamlet's father was a raging homosexual pedophile, which is why Hamlet was so screwed up (which he also did).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/se ... paedophile" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I've met him, I've communicated with him, I've even (sort of) worked with him (on "The Authorized Ender Companion", and the Marvel Comics). When I met him at Endercon, he was a great guy!

There's a great explanation for this, and he said it best himself:

But the lie is this, that "the focus is primarily on linking homosexuality with ... pedophilia." The focus isn't primarily on this because there is no link whatsoever between homosexuality and pedophilia in this book. Hamlet's father, in the book, is a pedophile, period. I don't show him being even slightly attracted to adults of either sex. It is the reviewer, not me, who has asserted this link, which I would not and did not make.

Because I took a public position in 2008 opposing any attempt by government to redefine marriage, especially by anti-democratic and unconstitutional means, I have been targeted as a "homophobe" by the Inquisition of Political Correctness. If such a charge were really true, they would have had no trouble finding evidence of it in my life and work. But because the opposite is true -- I think no ill of and wish no harm to homosexuals, individually or as a group -- they have to manufacture evidence by simply lying about what my fiction contains.

The truth is that back in the 1970s and 1980s, when it was definitely not fashionable to write sympathetic gay characters in fiction aimed at the mainstream audience, I created several sympathetic homosexual characters. I did not exploit them for titillation; instead I showed them threading their lives through a world that was far from friendly to them. At the time, I was criticized by some for being "pro-gay," while I also received appreciative comments from homosexual readers. Yet both responses were beside the point. I was not writing about homosexuality, I was writing about human beings.

My goal then and today remains the same: To create believable characters and help readers understand them as people. Ordinarily I would have included gay characters in their normal proportions among the characters in my stories. However, since I have become a target of vilification by the hate groups of the Left, I am increasingly reluctant to have any gay characters in my fiction, because I know that no matter how I depict them, I will be accused of homophobia. The result is that my work is distorted by not having gay characters where I would normally have had them -- for which I will also, no doubt, be accused of homophobia.

But Hamlet's Father, since it contained no homosexual characters, did not seem to me to fall into that category. I underestimated the willingness of the haters to manufacture evidence to convict their supposed enemies.

You may not like his political stances or opposition to gay marriage (I disagree with his politics, even as I agree with him that I don't want the government redefining marriage, I just take it a step farther and say government shouldn't be defining marriage at all - for anyone, ever), but the man is by no reasonable definition a "gay-hater" (or hateful at all).

Same for when I met him at some book talks on the East Coast. He's a great public speaker, and comes off as a very likable guy. I really do not like what he stands for now. What I can do about it is try to weaken his position (well, not his stance on it, but the effect that he might have), and strengthen mine. But I'm not going to do that by ad hominem attacks--if his position is weak, then I will try to point that out. If my position has merit, I will try to prove it, and gain greater support for it. Such is politics, done (I hope) right.

This is politics done right indeed. As I like to say: "I like to argue, I just don't want to quarrel over it".

It would be yet ANOTHER thing if Card contributed money (nominally 10% of his income--however he makes it) to a religious organization that acts to prevent homosexual marriage. He does this, too.

Just to reiterate: you may not like, or even be comfortable with, the Mormon church's stance towards homosexuality, but, like Card's personal views, it's by no means a hateful one.

[Boothby]

Apparently, the Guardian article was the LEAST critical of Card's supposed link between pedophilia and homosexuality of all of them!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamlet's_Father" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But even if Hamlet's father is not gay and is "just" a pedophile, apparently, this pedophilia turns all the male characters he molested gay (which is, itself, yet another typical anti-gay premise).


And, yes, Card wrote about homosexual characters in the 70's and 80's. One of the characters in Homecoming is gay, though he sucks it up, marries a woman (as is--according to Card--what all homosexuals can do if they want to get married: have a Potemkin Village of a heterosexual marriage) and has children. The lead character in Songmaster is also gay, but suffers horrible torments every time he thinks sexual thoughts--sort of a nice punishment for the gay guy, eh?

You quote Card as saying "The focus isn't primarily on this because there is no link whatsoever between homosexuality and pedophilia in this book", yet ignore the fact that Card has Hamlet's father's pedophilia as the cause of so many of the male characters' homosexualization. That's no longer a "great explanation." That's "apologia."



This is an interesting article about the nuances of how the Mormon Church reacts to homosexuality: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual ... day_Saints" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Some plusses, some minuses. Apparently, if you are a homosexual, but don't have homosexual sex, you can be accepted (in very simple terms).

But Card, I hate to say, does get hateful in some of his articles, primarily this article: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7002 ... tml?pg=all" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (same as my previous link, but ALL four pages show up as one)

“How long before married people answer the dictators thus: Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn.”

“Biological imperatives trump laws. American government cannot fight against marriage and hope to endure. If the Constitution is defined in such a way as to destroy the privileged position of marriage, it is that insane Constitution, not marriage, that will die.”

Of course, I as a Liberal believe that homosexuality is, itself, a "biological imperative" for those that are homosexual. Therefore, the desire by homosexual people to be accepted as equals..."trumps laws"?? Card seems to get his foot snared in the trap that he, himself, set.

This article also has a nuanced take on all of that: http://www.nothingwavering.org/2013/03/ ... lized.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Boothby]

And you've also got this:

http://www.nauvoo.com/library/card-hypocrites.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Within the Church, the young person who experiments with homosexual behavior should be counseled with, not excommunicated. But as the adolescent moves into adulthood and continues to engage in sinful practices far beyond the level of experimentation, then the consequences within the Church must grow more severe and more long-lasting; unfortunately, they may also be more public as well.

This applies also to the polity, the citizens at large. Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.

The goal of the polity is not to put homosexuals in jail. The goal is to discourage people from engaging in homosexual practices in the first place, and, when they nevertheless proceed in their homosexual behavior, to encourage them to do so discreetly, so as not to shake the confidence of the community in the polity's ability to provide rules for safe, stable, dependable marriage and family relationships.

So, I guess it's OK for the Church to OUT homosexuals in their midst.

But he also goes on to say (I guess) It's OK to be gay,as long as no one has to watch you kiss or hold hands.

But "cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society"??? Really? This reminds me of George HW Bush's statement that Atheists are neither citizens nor patriots.

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the atheists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't an atheist.

Then they came for the homosexuals,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't homosexual.

Then they came for the blacks,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't black.

Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Catholic.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.

The Mormons, too (for those of you who might not know) have also seen persecution at the hand of the US Government: http://www.historynet.com/utah-war-us-g ... ttlers.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

They've also fought back (at times, mercilessly): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Meadows_massacre" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Syphon the Sun]

Full disclosure: I do not believe the government has the right or ability to sanctify any marriages, nor do I believe it should interfere with an individual's right to contract with other parties over the secular issues of civil union.

That said, I can't quite understand how the quoted passages from the Deseret News essay are "hateful." They're not even "extreme," if you actually bother to consider the context.

He's complaining about courts not giving legislatures (enough) deference, which is rhetoric that liberals have claimed as their own for decades, now. Conservatives still use it, too, when it suits their fancy. Funny how liberals and conservatives alike want more deference to (unconstitutional) "democratically enacted laws" when they like the policies underlying those laws, huh? (For the record, I've always hated this rhetoric, as it implies that individuals are not free from having any of their rights trampled by majority-rule.)

So, he doesn't like how courts (e.g., California) were overturning state laws prohibiting SSM. And he says he will fight to bring down and replace the governments that try to, in his words, redefine marriage. And that any constitution establishing SSM would "die."

What happened in the late 2000s? Voters in many states did the only thing they could think of to block (or reverse) court decisions permitting SSM: they brought down and replaced the governments that would permit SSM. They made sure the state constitutions, which were being used in many cases to authorize SSM, were dead. They didn't do this by overthrowing the government. They did this by amending their constitutions.

Funny, how something like Prop 8 does exactly what Card is saying he'll fight to do: it "destroys" the government (in this case, the old Constitution of California, as interpreted by the California Supreme Court) permitting SSM and replaces it with a government that bans SSM (in this case, the new Constitution of California, as amended by the people). The (old) Constitution of California did, indeed, "die."

[Dr. Mobius]

I am not going to lie, I've even thought about leaving pweb over this issue. But I tell myself that this board is in support of his work, not the man.

To me, this board is only even tangentially related to his work. To me, the board is in support of the community of people - most of whom have read a certain book at one point or another - who have shared their lives with each other for over a decade.

I'll see the movie (though now that I think about it, I kinda wish my friend was still a manager so I could get in free), but I haven't paid any attention to the man in years and I have no interest in his more recent works.

[Mich]

To me, this board is only even tangentially related to his work. To me, the board is in support of the community of people - most of whom have read a certain book at one point or another - who have shared their lives with each other for over a decade.

Troof.

[Boothby]

Syphon,

Seriously?

Where's the hate in:

How long before married people answer the dictators thus: Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down

Dictators
Mortal Enemy
Destroying Governments


Electing NEW officials that support your side is not--by ANY stretch of the imagination--"destroying" a government. No more than changing the oil filter in my car is DESTROYING THE ENGINE.

"Honey! You know how the Subaru's been vibrating at anything over 70? I'm going to take the car to Goodyear and have them DESTROY THE SUSPENSION SYSTEM"

[elfprince13]

Of course, I as a Liberal believe that homosexuality is, itself, a "biological imperative" for those that are homosexual. Therefore, the desire by homosexual people to be accepted as equals..."trumps laws"?? Card seems to get his foot snared in the trap that he, himself, set.

I suspect he's talking about reproduction rather than sex, but that sets an even worse trap, which is legitimization of any behavior which results in conception.

[Boothby]

I really don't think that homosexuals having children is what tweaks Conservatives' sensibilities. First off, as we should all have figured out by now, it's not the guys actually having children. And I really don't think there's much difference at all when a baby comes out of a heterosexual woman's birth canal, or a lesbian's birth canal.

I think what REALLY tweaks them is the...wait for it...sex.

But, as you well know, God struck Onan dead for pulling out. God had Lot's daughters get him drunk and have sex--repeatedly--with him. Joseph Smith created a religion so he could have sex with a bunch of underage teenage girls (all at the same time).


Added: http://www.i4m.com/think/polygamy/JS_Po ... meline.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

William Law files a formal complaint with the Hancock County circuit court charging Smith was living "in an open state of adultery" with Maria Lawrence, Smith's foster daughter and polygamous wife. Maria Lawrence was a teenaged orphan who was living in the Smith household. In fact, Smith had secretly married both Maria, age 19 and her sister Sarah, age 17 on 11 May 1843 and was serving as executor of their $8,000 estate. William Law apparently hoped that disclosing Smith's relationship with the young girls might lead him to abandon polygamy, but Smith immediately excommunicated Law, had himself appointed the girls' legal guardian, and rejected the charge in front of a church congregation on 26 May 1844, denying that he had more than one wife.

Earlier on that page: The next morning, Joseph Smith finally appeared himself to explain the "law of Celestial Marriage" and claim his teen bride. In her memoir, Helen [14 years old at the time of her marriage to Joseph Smith] wrote, "After which he said to me, 'if you take this step, it will ensure your eternal salvation and exaltation and that of your father's household and all of your kindred.' This promise was so great that I willingly gave myself to purchase so glorious a reward."

However, it seems that the thought of two men, or two women, making love just really turns their stomachs. So they would like to see it banned, or hidden, or made illegal (Card would have homosexuals thrown in jail, just for being homosexual. But, no...that's not hateful. No, not at all).

But based on the history of the Judeo-Christian religions (and their derivatives, such as Mormonism) and sexuality....I'm not planning on taking my marching orders from them.

[neo-dragon]

The way I see it, OSC is an author. His job is to write stories. If he does that well, and I enjoy his work, I have no problem compensating him for his work. What he does with the money that he earns is his own business. He still deserves to make a living if he's good at his job.

[Syphon the Sun]

Electing NEW officials that support your side is not--by ANY stretch of the imagination--"destroying" a government. No more than changing the oil filter in my car is DESTROYING THE ENGINE.

Happy to discuss this, but first, you might want to actually read what I said. Because it's clear you didn't.

Who said anything at all about electing new politicians? How would electing new politicians deal with the problem he saw? He was complaining that judges were overturning legislation passed by politicians that agreed with him? He didn't have a problem with the legislative branch. He had a problem with the judicial branch.

Amending state constitutions in order to ban SSM does in fact destroy the governments that permit SSM and replaces them with ones that prohibit SSM. The constitutions (as interpreted by the courts) supporting SSM died in those states and were replaced by ones that didn't.

Like I said: context matters.

[Boothby]

Syphon,

Again: Seriously?

Amending a Constitution destroys governments? Amending Constitutions KILLS them? Changes, them, yes. Kills and destroys? No. You are being ridiculous. Hence my analogy stands; your argument is invalid.




It reads to me as if you are bending over backwards to reinterpret the words that Card used, in order to soften his stance for him.

[Syphon the Sun]

Replacing a constitution that permits SSM with one that prohibits it doesn't "kill and destroy" the constitution that permitted SSM? It doesn't render the constitution that permitted SSM useless, now that it's been superseded?

But hey, you've got an internet image macro. So you must be right.



It reads to me as if you are bending over backwards to reinterpret (and ignore) the words that Card used, in order to harden his stance for him.

[Boothby]

Replacing a constitution that permits SSM with one that prohibits it doesn't "kill and destroy" the constitution that permitted SSM? It doesn't render the constitution that permitted SSM useless, now that it's been superseded?

Well, sure, I guess....if that was the sole object of that particular constitution. But it's not, is it? They didn't replace the constitution ("replacing" really does imply "replacing the whole thing," as in, "Honey, if you peed in the Thompson's punch bowl, you're going to have to replace it"); they amended it. I know you're smart enough to know this--so why are you busy pumping bullshit?

And I'm not "bending over backwards to reinterpret (and ignore) the words that Card used, in order to harden his stance for him." I read them, I refer to them, I post links to articles that try to favor him. But his stance is pretty damned hard, without my help.

What I'm trying awfully hard not to is rely on hyperbole to make my point. You? Not so much, apparently.

Hey, here's the constitution of the state of California. Care to tell me WHAT SMALL PERCENTAGE of that document was modified to allow or disallow same sex marriage?

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/const-toc.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It includes such classic lines as:

SEC. 8. (a) The initiative is the power of the electors to propose
statutes and amendments to the Constitution and to adopt or reject
them.

HOLY MURRAY, BROTHER OF GOD! The document allows for its own AMENDMENTS! That means you can AMEND it without actually having to REPLACE, BREAK, KILL or DESTROY it!

Who knew?!?

(Here's a hint: I did)

[Syphon the Sun]

con·text (noun): the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect.

(Does he talk about any part of the government other than that part which recognized SSM?)

Like I said: context matters. But go ahead and keep pretending it doesn't. I'm done here, anyway.

[Boothby]

Yeah, except...

http://codesmithy.wordpress.com/2008/07 ... -marriage/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Did he read the California decision? Here is the copy.

In considering this question, we note at the outset that the constitutional issue before us differs in a significant respect from the constitutional issue that has been addressed by a number of other state supreme courts and intermediate appellate courts that recently have had occasion, in interpreting the applicable provisions of their respective state constitutions, to determine the validity of statutory provisions or common law rules limiting marriage to a union of a man and a woman. These courts, often by a one-vote margin, have ruled upon the validity of statutory schemes that contrast with that of California, which in recent years has enacted
comprehensive domestic partnership legislation under which a same-sex couple may enter into a legal relationship that affords the couple virtually all of the same substantive legal benefits and privileges, and imposes upon the couple virtually all of the same legal obligations and duties, that California law affords to and imposes upon a married couple. Past California cases explain that the constitutional validity of a challenged statute or statutes must be evaluated by taking into consideration all of the relevant statutory provisions that bear upon how the state treats the affected persons with regard to the subject at issue. Accordingly, the legal issue we must resolve is not whether it would be constitutionally permissible under the California Constitution for the state to limit marriage only to opposite-sex couples while denying same-sex couples any opportunity to enter into an official relationship with all or virtually all of the same substantive attributes, but rather whether our state Constitution prohibits the state from establishing a statutory scheme in which both opposite-sex and same-sex couples are granted the right to enter into an officially recognized family relationship that affords all of the significant legal rights and obligations traditionally associated under state law with the institution of marriage, but under which the union of an opposite-sex couple is officially designated a “marriage” whereas the union of a same-sex couple is officially designated a “domestic partnership.” The question we must address is whether, under these circumstances, the failure to designate the official relationship of same-sex couples as marriage violates the California Constitution.

Marriage wasn’t redefined.

[Syphon the Sun]

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, or what point you think the author is making.

Is the point you're trying to make is that reasonable people cannot disagree about what constitutes "redefining marriage?" Surely it's not. There are people who oppose SSM and still support civil unions, after all. There are people out there who think gay couples should have all the same rights and responsibilities, but (for whatever reason) don't want them to call their relationship a "marriage" because they feel it would define what the term means. President Obama used to be one of them, before his position evolved enough to match Dick Cheney's (after immense political pressure).

Is your point that it's not "redefining marriage" to call civil unions (that have the same rights and responsibilities) "marriages?" This seems to be the quoted author's point, which is kind of an odd argument. If the only difference is what you call it, then it seems that the only thing that the case is deciding is the definition of what constitutes "marriage."

Is it something else entirely?

And, of course, he wasn't just talking about California in particular. What happened in Massachusetts, which he called out in his opening paragraph, was completely different.

[Boothby]

So, he doesn't like how courts (e.g., California) were overturning state laws prohibiting SSM. And he says he will fight to bring down and replace the governments that try to, in his words, redefine marriage. And that any constitution establishing SSM would "die."

...

Funny, how something like Prop 8 does exactly what Card is saying he'll fight to do: it "destroys" the government (in this case, the old Constitution of California, as interpreted by the California Supreme Court) permitting SSM and replaces it with a government that bans SSM (in this case, the new Constitution of California, as amended by the people). The (old) Constitution of California did, indeed, "die."

You were mostly talking about California. I thought I'd keep things in context.

The point I was making (through that other author's attempts) was that the California issue was really a minor one. Same-sex and opposite-sex couples could enter into an "officially recognized family relationship that affords all of the significant legal rights and obligations traditionally associated under state law with the institution of marriage, but under which the union of an opposite-sex couple is officially designated a “marriage” whereas the union of a same-sex couple is officially designated a “domestic partnership.” The question we must address is whether, under these circumstances, the failure to designate the official relationship of same-sex couples as marriage violates the California Constitution."

Both "classes" of couples were able to legally enter into a "relationship" that, if they were straight, would be called a marriage. Homosexuals were only allowed to call it a "domestic partnership" It was a matter of semantics.

Card mentions California, you and I (mostly you) spoke of California, and I found a link that actually dealt with what happened in California. Seems like reasonable CONTEXT to me.


But if all this nonsense is about the WORD one uses to describe marriage, or domestic partnership, and Card (and others) claim that it "MARKS THE END OF DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA," then holy frick, you've really got something wrong with you. If the use of a word will destroy your marriage, and your country, and send us all on a road straight to hell, then you really don't have that much faith in ANY of those institutions, do you?


But, we're really talking about Card, after all. He doesn't want homosexuals marrying homosexuals. He's stated as much. They can enter into heterosexual marriages, but only if they stop acting gay (so believes the Mormon Church, so believes Card). What one calls it appears to be window dressing. It seems to me to be a way for him to make the fight without having to express his actual views.

I honestly don't care what it's called. Heterosexuals being bothered by homosexuals claiming they're "married" seems to fall along the same lines as a heterosexual feeling that he or she must sell off their Ford F-150 because they saw one of them gays driving the same damn truck! I have a low tolerance for having to do things simply to appease idiots.

[Syphon the Sun]

con·text (noun): the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect.

Did you bother to read the sentence immediately following the "end of democracy in America" line? In his words, it's not the "end of democracy" because SSM is being recognized. It's the end of democracy because "judges are making new law without any democratic process; in fact, their decisions are striking down laws enacted by majority vote."

Which, as I noted in my early posts, is pretty common fare among both liberals and conservatives alike. They love judicial deference to the political branches when the political branches enact (unconstitutional) policies they like. Striking down the policies they like is judicial activism. But if it's a policy they don't like, there should be no deference and it's their duty to strike it down.

The idea that the courts shouldn't protect individual rights from mob rule is a pretty silly one. But it's not exactly uncommon, either.

And, like I said, reasonable people can disagree about what constitutes "redefining marriage." Maybe that was enough for Card. Maybe it was the straw that broke the camel's back. Maybe he thought California was more like Massachusetts. Maybe he just referenced California because Prop 8 was in the air. I have no idea.

But I do know that there a many people who support extending the same rights and responsibilities to gay couples entering civil contracts with one another, but do not support denoting that with the marriage label, for whatever reason they may have. Apparently, a bloc of CA voters thought that way, because they were okay with domestic partnerships but not with SSM. Obviously not everyone who voted against SSM are pro-DPs. But at least a sizeable chunk of them are, or CA wouldn't be in the unique position it's in.

Of course, the simplest solution is to have the government stop defining the loaded-term marriage altogether. Give everyone civil unions, domestic partnerships, spousal contracts, or whatever new term you come up with. And let people define marriage amongst themselves, outside of government.