I'm just a dork with a blog, but this dude is supposed to be a real "writer". So how come he sucks so much?

::sigh::

I just read a very stupid article by Orson Scott Card in the Mormon Times. And I am so sick and tired of people talking out of their butts when it comes to gay marriage. If you oppose it, fine, but at least have the integrity to have real, valid reasons for it, even if your reasons are simple bias or even just a desire to not talk about it. Whatever, I can deal with that. But relying on half-truths and distortions and, sorry, hysteric stupidity, is just too annoying anymore.

So I'll grit my teeth that he likes to put gay marriage in quotations, as though the thousands of gay couples that ARE married in Massachusetts and California are somehow just a illusion. As a matter of fact, I don't like the term gay marriage either, I think plain old marriage is more accurate, but I don't think that is what he meant.

He starts off with

The first and greatest threat from court decisions in California and Massachusetts, giving legal recognition to "gay marriage," is that it marks the end of democracy in America.

These judges are making new law without any democratic process; in fact, their decisions are striking down laws enacted by majority vote.

Oh no! The end of democracy! We are doomed! The sky is falling, the sky is falling! Except that, well, it isn't. Lets see, so what exactly is the job of judges? They look at laws, and either a) decide if people broke the laws, or b) decide if a new law is compatible with all of the other laws that were passed before it. That is pretty much it. Sometimes they decide a very popular law is incompatible with current law like, say, rules meant to deny minorities the vote, or to ban interracial marriages. That isn't anti-democracy. That isn't "judicial activism". That is their job. If we don't agree with their opinions, then there are legal recourses to take: appeals, or in many jurisdictions where judges are voted into office, you can not vote for them, or not vote for the legislators who appointed them, or whatever you want. Forgive me, but that sounds an awful lot like democracy to me.

Secondly, these "judicial activists" in Massachusetts and California were hardly acting all by themselves in a little bubble of activism, forcing their will on the masses. In Massachusetts, the Legislature voted to uphold the ruling. Several times. The same legislature that was voted into office by, gasp, the people of Massachusetts. Which, again, is exactly how democracy is supposed to work. We don't have popular votes on every single question our government has to answer, we elect people to answer them for us. Again, if we don't like the way they start answering, then we have the recourse to vote for someone else the next time around. The thing is, not a single person who voted for marriage equality in Massachusetts was voted out of office. On the other hand, several people who voted against it, were voted out. Sounds like the voters of Massachusetts had their voices heard to me.

In California, their elected legislature voted TWICE for marriage equality. The elected governor vetoed it both times, saying, in a bit of irony, that instead of having the elected legislature make the move, he wanted to wait for the judges to decide. The double talk was pretty silly, but whatever, it was his right to make that call, and if I was living there and was annoyed enough by it I could have voted for someone else the next election. So how do you call the decision by the judges "the end of democracy in America"? They did their job, the legislature did their job, the governor (who is standing by what he said and now opposes the new ballot initiative) did his job.

Even the ballot initiative, which I obviously oppose for all sorts of reasons, is STILL the way democracy works. So, Mr. Card, and all other lazy, lazy writers on morality out there, get a grip.

The rest of the article is similar, and makes me wish I had a valium to give Mr. Card, as his hysteria seems to know no bounds. If I could just use a marker to indicate every time I had to roll my eyes as I read the article, it would be a lot easier. Especially funny is when, talking about the one man, one woman model of marriage he says "These two premises are so basic that they preexist any known government. In most societies through history, failure to live up to these commitments has led to extreme social sanctions -- even, in many cases, death." Why does he mention that? Does he think it is an appropriate punishment? That is somehow bolsters his argument? I'm just curious what he thinks of his own heritage then, was Brigham Young an "activist prophet"? I know, that is just a snark, but c'mon.

Finally,

With "gay marriage," the last shreds of meaning will be stripped away from marriage, with homosexuals finishing what faithless, selfish heterosexuals have begun.

I guess I just don't get this magical meaning some people put into a word. To me, marriage is a union designed to maximize personal happiness, establish financial responsibilities and protections, provide some stability to assist with the raising of children, and so on, but mostly to help a couple stay together through good times and bad and to encourage families to take care of each other as we get older. That is why we give one spouse the social security benefits of the other after death. That is why we let them inherit each others money without crazy tax consequences. That is why we let them visit each other in the hospital when they are sick without having to call in a lawyer first. (And I personally know people this has happened to, in New York City no less, so don't say that it doesn't.) We want to encourage them to stay together and take care of each other. I just don't get how giving these same CIVIL protections and responsibilities to gay people is going to destroy our democracy, or whatever. But tell you what Mr. Card. You vote for your guy, I'll vote for mine. And how about you stop advocating for civil war if you don't get your way.