Geoffrey R. Stone, currently a Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor of Law at the University of Chicago Law, and the author of “Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime from the Sedition Act of 1798 to the War on Terrorism” once wrote an article on what it means to be a liberal. The number one meaning was this:
Liberals believe individuals should doubt their own truths and consider fairly and open-mindedly the truths of others. This is at the very heart of liberalism. Liberals understand, as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once observed, that “time has upset many fighting faiths.” Liberals are skeptical of censorship and celebrate free and open debate.
Sounds fabulous right?
But liberals in action are something entirely different:
Should there be boycotts, blacklists, firings or de facto shunning of those who supported Proposition 8?
That’s the issue consuming many in liberal Hollywood who fought to defeat the initiative banning same-sex marriage and are now reeling with recrimination and dismay. Meanwhile, activists continue to comb donor lists and employ the Internet to expose those who donated money to support the ban.
Yes indeed….should there be firings and blackballing of individuals who supported Prop 8?
The answer is a resounding YES from the liberal left.
Most conservatives have seen the liberal left become unyielding to any viewpoint not their own. They call those who supported the liberation of Iraq “warmongers” and “criminals”. They love debate, so long as you have the same views as their own.
There is no “celebration of free and open debate.” Recall the rushing of the stage while a Minuteman stood up to talk at a college. They shut down his speech, and forced his viewpoint to be smothered. A liberal doesn’t agree with you, they will just shout, scream, and yell to drown it out. How dare a opposing viewpoint get out into the public realm.
And so it is with Prop 8. The people of California voted, for the second time, to define Marriage as between a man and a woman. Because they don’t agree with that, they take to the streets, they blackball filmmakers like Richard Raddon of Film Independent:
Raddon has been a particularly polarizing figure because Film Independent’s board includes many independent film stalwarts, including Don Cheadle, Forest Whitaker, Fox Searchlight President Peter Rice and Oscar-winning writer Bill Condon. One of the group’s explicit missions is to promote diversity.
Last week, Raddon offered to resign. According to one board member, a conference call was hastily arranged, and after much discussion the board voted unanimously to keep him.
Yet the anger continues to stew.
“There is still roiling debate within the organization,” says distributor Howard Cohen, an advisor to the film festival who is gay. “Is it OK to let this go? There are a lot of gay people who work at Film Independent. The issue has not been closed.”
No one is certain how the current protest will affect Film Independent’s Spirit Awards in the spring, a popular event recognizing work that “challenges the status quo.” And there are already indications the Los Angeles Film Festival could be affected.
Gregg Araki, director of the critically acclaimed gay cult hit “Mysterious Skin” and an influential figure in “new queer cinema,” has said he won’t allow his films to be shown there, while others, such as “Milk” producers and gay activists Dan Jinks and Bruce Cohen, say they’re going to “study in depth all the facets of our specific situation before making a decision.”
Araki says Raddon should step down. “I don’t think he should be forcibly removed. The bottom line is if he contributed money to a hateful campaign against black people, or against Jewish people, or any other minority group, there would be much less excusing of him. The terrible irony is that he runs a film festival that is intended to promote tolerance and equality.”
Hateful campaign against black people? Huh?
It was a Democratic campaign to have the citizenery of this State decide whether marriage should be between a man and a woman. There was no hateful campaign. Gays already have the same legal rights as those who marry by joining together in a civil union. They may have to do a bit more paperwork by putting their partner on their will and so forth, but all in all….legally, its the same.
Mataharley has done a great job describing the agenda of the gay community in this debate. It’s to re-educate the public on what is and what isn’t traditional rites:
A marriage between a man and a woman follows natural laws of conception and procreation. It is the way our world evolves and grows. Were any animal species of this inclination to any serious degree, it becomes extinct.
I can easily agree with the 50-60% of the population that feels civil unions gives same sex partners legal benefits that are enjoyed by married couples. But marriage and civil unions are not “equal” in the laws of nature… unless you think premature extinction from the lack of ability to conceive is “natural”. They should be equivalent in benefits, but in no way considered equal as a traditional family.
Marriage is, and will always remain, a union between a man and a woman. It is only by the two, combined, that a child is borne of natural (not petrie dish) conception… a natural order to procreation. Just as animals will not continue to exist without the natural order of procreation, neither will man. I do not want my granddaughter taught anything different.
If same sex unions needs to be “blessed” by govt in order to achieve their benefits, that is their choice. There is no reason to muddy the waters by the govt redefining what is not theirs to define. The meddling in the traditional rite of marriage is unconcionable. Civil unions… fine. Marriage? An insult to the rite…. and to it’s traditional history.
~~~If I choose to be married… whether “in the eyes of God”, or perhaps just a vow spoken between myself and another on a remote beach somewhere… the vow and intent bind me in a way far more powerful than a govt contract. Marriage was not created to be a govt contract, but a very personal vow between a man and a woman before God… or the powers they believe exist.
So my question to you would be… why does the govt have to sanction it as “marriage” for your “right” to be recognized?
I cannot, and will not, put govt on a par with God – enabling them to define a religious (and intensely personal) rite on this issue. The govt does not grant us rights. They pre’exist and usurp govt power.
Again, you still miss the true agenda. This is not about govt benefits for the LGBT community. It is about reeducating the public as to what is “marriage” in order to tear down traditional rites. Otherwise, they’d go for the civil unions.
That reeducation of the public is all that matters. If they have to go back to the McCarthy era and start blackballing people, then so be it.
Professor Stone wrote that to be a liberal means you “consider fairly and open-mindedly the truths of others.”
In a alternative universe maybe, but not in this one.
See author page
Typical leftwing fascist behavior. You are free to vote as we tell you to. All others will be destroyed in any way that we can do so.
Sounds fabulous right?
But liberals in action are something entirely different:
——–
What that other guy was saying is that Other people should listen openly to what liberals are saying. Nothing else.
Curt;
Thanks for the link to Geoffrey R. Stone’s “10 Commandments for Liberals” (My words not his). I chose to refer to it in those words because the differences between the Liberal ideologies he presents, and what is put in practice mainstream is the cult-like fundamentalist rigidity and stubbornness. Opposing view points are often met not with debate and consideration of the arguments presented but with venom and vigor. As has been with this “Gay Marriage or else” campaign in California and this election.
They don’t see that what they in fact do, is react in the same manners as Puritans did long ago against anyone who did not believe as they did. If you do not agree with their dogma, they threaten to take away your freedom of speech. That in essence is their revised version of the “Fairness Doctrine”. Not to allow for opposing views, but to silence any opposition. If one does not fall in line with their narrowly defined beliefs one is immediately branded or compared to hater, racist, antisemitic, fascist, Nazi, etceteras. In the case Curt presents, they threaten to blackball someones employment merely based solely on their donation to a single political policy. They even practice these same measures against those who whom agree with them in all other areas except for one particular issue.
I admit that the Nazi comparison was also used by posters here in reference to this election, yet the differences were that it was not made as a blanket statement with nothing to back it up, but in pointing out distinct similarities in actions and what has historically occurred with fascist and socialist movements:
– A relatively obscure individual with little practical experience other than the powers of oration is suddenly advanced to the highest position of control with little vetting.
– Use of propaganda to mislead the people, to include biased national media presenting one candidate more favorably than the other to effect the election
– Abuse of power to target any and all opponents; 1) Sending masses of lawyers to Alaska to dig up dirt on Palin and partisan efforts to spin the Manehan firing as a violation of ethics, 2) Versus Joe the Plumber for practicing his own free speech for pointing out to Obama that his wealth redistribution plan sounded to him like socialism.
– The wholesale circulation of libelous and slanderous rumors in an attempt to discredit opponents. I think at last count there were over a hundred such accusations created about Palin that were proven false.
– Other attempts to censure free speech, such as making certain words taboo to even include a candidate’s middle name.
– Blocking access to prevent the review not only of a candidate’s legal proof that he is a citizen as required by our own Constitution, but to any and all documents concerning his past.
– Distancing himself from former acquaintances and even family members often ‘throwing them under the bus’ when they began to appear to be political liabilities.
– Mobilization of thug-like tactics to control the election process at the DNC primaries and via all supporters throughout the elections. Example; “I want you to get in their faces…”
– We’ve seen those supportive of violent protests and destructive actions similar to those used in revolutions to overthrow authority when normal methods of redress and free speech fail to provide their desired results.
Can’t they see what is fundamentally wrong with these types of actions? Don’t they understand they can never sway the minds of the American public fully by resorting to such practices? They might have swayed a single election, yet now their candidate has to deliver. They invested in a war, not one single skirmish. Yet, they are so quick to jump from one issue to another they can’t possibly see how everything evolves into the “Big Picture”. Too often, they seem to have concern for only current cause de’jour, are blind to the ultimate effects of setting such courses, and express denial when past failings are pointed out.
It is this lack of foresight which disturbs the rest of us. Yet when we present our concerns to proponents, we are frequently discounted out of hand as obstructionists to “progress”. The point is, if you want to win over support for an issue, you have to convince people why it is such a great idea and answer the questions. Not insult them for having the audacity for asking, “Why?” If you can offer nothing to justify your positions, which is something we frequently do, you can’t expect us to take you seriously.
Curt, I read this blog faithfully because I view you and others as conservative in the old fashioned sense of classical liberalism. You argue primarily for truths and freedom and family values. Those of you who call yourself “conservative” besmirch the meaning of “liberals” or “liberalism” by giving it away to those who argue for leftist, marxist, socialist policies and these by definition include the destruction of the family and portrayal of debased sexuality — and proudly, purposefully so. The more libertine, diabolical and demented a society that Hollywood movies portray, the more conservatives put forward the epithet “liberal”. There is nothing liberal about most of these people or this industry. I am not for censorship, but if there was more truth in labeling and discusion, more individuals would be able to be more discerning. And I believe that fascism comes fundamentally from the left”, too, as does Hard Right.
The gay and lesbian community might calm down if a couple is given all the privileges AND RESPONSIBILITIES that are given to heterosexual couples through marriage for their entire life together. Let homosexuals in the privacy of their own homes and bedrooms work out what works for them — they have not been permitted this right of citizenship up to this time. Marriage has become something very different from what social conservatives envisioned, many of whom in the privacy of their homes have deviated from their moral ideals. Develop “domestic partners” or some such designation that honors the life-time committed couple for gays and lesbians and be done with it. Establishing one’s own family has been a right of American citizenship and for which many have immigrated to the U.S.
Hmmm…I wonder what you guys think about Dan Cooper’s firing.
Boycotts, shunnings and blacklists are merely tools. We’ve seen them in use for decades, and will continue to see them for as long as we’re around…*laugh*
Well, at least you provided links to the entire debate, and didn’t just cherry pick the parts you agree with.
There are several law suits, based on the grounds of my exact arguments in the aforementioned debate – that the Constitutional rights of an unpopular minority, as protected in the Establishment Clause of the 1st and the Equal Protections Clause of the 14th Amendments, cannot be stripped away by a majority vote. They also add that changes in the Constitution need to be implemented by legislation.
http://www.dailycal.org:8080/article/103642/prop._8_suits_win_supreme_court_review
I’m sure this’ll eventually play out quite fairly. So, I’ll add nothing more as you all banter.
Well, the problem is that this debate, while certainly inflammatory, doesn’t really get to the crux of the interaction of “marriage” and the state. If you stop to think about it, we have quite a few variations on the general theme; there are:
* Marriage performed by the state (e.g. Justice-of-the-Peace),
* Marriage recognized by the state but performed elsewhere (e.g. “church wedding” with state license), and
* Marriage IMPOSED by the state (e.g. common-law marriage statutes in several states).
On top of that, we have the other end of the spectrum: no-fault divorce, annulment, zero secular penalty for adultery, and the like. There seems to be a great deal of concern about “preserving marriage” on the front end, but precious little interest in fixing up the back end. Why is that?
Someone argued a relationship between marriage and procreation. In that context, how are we to consider questions such as that presented in Griswold v. Connecticut, in which the State actively prohibited the use of contraception by any persons? We’re walking a tightrope, here, between saying that marriage is for the purpose of procreation and saying that marriage MUST include procreation (or, at least, the possibility thereof), aren’t we?
I keep coming back to the notion that, as far as government is concerned, they should recognize “domestic partnerships.” That might be a traditional marriage, it might be a same-sex marriage, it might be heterosexual cohabitation, or it might be two elderly folks pooling their resources to maintain a standard of living. Otherwise, for the government to pick and choose which aspects of “marriage” it wants to “protect” would seem to require a certain willful blindness and a good deal of hypocrisy.
Entirely appropriate. They wanted to remove a company president that publicly advocated wanting to vote for presidential candidate that was diametrically-opposed to the best-interests of the company he was the president of. O’Bama is expressly anti-gun, what sense does it make for a gun-company president to vote for someone that would seek to do that very company, harm?
Had he have just shut his mouth, instead of publicly proclaiming his intentions, it wouldn’t have been an issue. Sucks to be him…
So, thebronze, you don’t see a problem with firings/boycotts/whatever around Proposition 8? One of the cases discussed in the linked article was a leader of a group with an explicit goal of diversity. For a leader of such a group to support Proposition 8 would be “diametrically opposed to the best interests” of said group, yes?
As I said, this is a tool used with some regularity by folks across the political spectrum.
It depends. Do I have a problem with boycotts? No. Boycotts are a personal decision and people can boycott whatever/whomever they wish. Should a person be fired? That’s a different story.
Re: Cooper – It was a business decision, not a political decision. There’s a difference.
Should a Board of Directors of an automobile manufacturer ask for the resignation of a CEO/president that voted for someone that was against the economic best-interests of that manufacturer? Absolutely. It’s a business decision, not a political one.
Cary, Curt, Mata,
Yes, Curt provided a link to the whole article, but he also cherry-picked his excerpts. In contrast to gay filmmaker Gregg Araki cited by Curt, we have gay filmmaker Bill Condon:
Condon, the gay writer-director of “Dreamgirls” and a Film Independent board member, offered this retort to what he calls the “off-with-his-head” crowd: “If you’re asking, ‘Do we take discrimination against gays as seriously as bigotry against African Americans and Jews?’ . . . the answer is, ‘Of course we do.’ But we also believe that some people, including Rich, saw Prop. 8 not as a civil rights issue but a religious one. That is their right. And it is not, in and of itself, proof of bigotry.”
And Dawn Hudson:
Dawn Hudson, executive director of Film Independent, says, “Are we happy with his donation? No. But he has a right to his religious and personal beliefs.
“The very cornerstone of our organization is diversity, and diversity includes sexual orientation. Rich’s actions have always been in accordance with those principles”
Curt asserts:
“Yes indeed….should there be firings and blackballing of individuals who supported Prop 8?
The answer is a resounding YES from the liberal left.
The liberal left like the conservative right is not monolithic. A review of the full article Curt cites will show that. I am a liberal, but if you asked me that question my answer would be a unequivocal “NO.”
On another note, Re: the cite to Mata Harley:
“It is only by the two, combined, that a child is borne of natural (not petrie dish) conception… a natural order to procreation.”
Many heterosexual couples use what, by that definition, would be “unnatural” methods to procreate, e.g. in vitro fertilization, sperm donors, surrogate mothers, fertility drugs. Are they violating the natural order of procreation?
WesMorgan, I agree with most of what you say. But my entire thought is founded on my opinion that the govt has, and had, no business defining marriage to begin with. They did so, using the religious rite originally, in order to dole out benefits and tax breaks.
Thus it follows that the “back end” you worry about is also a govt creation to nullify a govt contract that they themselves imposed upon those who wished to marry. Only they who had the power to “bless” (govt) could “unbless” the same.
Government… always the problem, and rarely the cure. What they begat, they generally mutilate beyond all original recognition.
INRE your comment:
I’m going to get to the procreation bit in a second. But first, this entire paragraph again is premised on the same foundation… that government holds the power to define and limit what started out as a religious rite.
There’s an interesting article by a Pastor Matt Trewhella called Five reasons Christians should not obtain a marriage license that argues much from the same position. My own personal opinions are not necessarily religious in their entirety, and actually are more laissez faire in their foundation, so I don’t necessarily hold with all his viewpoints. But Trewhella agrees with my own opinion that marriage is a right that the govt cannot grant or take away.
Nor should the govt should have the power to “bless” a union, thereby making it illegal if they don’t. Afterall, George Washington did not have a marriage license. In colonial America, it was required to have the parents permission, and public notice had to be posted a certain length of time prior to the ceremony.
Since govt entered the picture, they acquired a legal “jurisdiction” over the couple’s lives by the nature of the govt required contract. With a birth certificate, they acquired the same over their children. Then remember, it used to be illegal to issue licenses to interracial couples. Is your child “illegal” without a birth certificate (may not be able to run for POTUS… oops, maybe they can). If parents of interracial couples all agreed upon the union, did the govt have the right to say no?
Which all comes back to the basic… if the govt says no to a couple who wants to be “married”, is that marriage illegal? I say no personally… but you will be denied the govt benefits that are involved with their legal definition.
But I see marriage as two entities here… the traditional religious rite between a couple, and what the govt has decided is the criteria to grant benefits. Since so many of you think this is about benefits, there is no reason why those same benefits cannot be applied via a civil union status.
But the interesting thing is because the LGBT community, a distinct minority, is adamant and unrelenting about calling it “marriage”, the answer from so many of you is to either redefine marriage, or strip away the word “marriage” from the majority so no one is “offended”.
And what is wrong with “separate but equal”? We live with it just fine for gender. Man and woman are not the same… they are separate but equal in the eyes of the law (theoretically…)
So the counter is creating a blanket, nondescript “domestic partnership” status for those who apply. We again come down to the same problem under a “unisex” name… what is the criteria for a domestic partnership?
If an adult child lives with a single parent, do they qualify? How about an individual and their pet(s)? Why not a trio of people who own property by tenants in common? That’s a legal contract binding them together in a “domestic partnership” by the nature of their holdings. We again come back to the reason the govt intended the benefits…. to encourage a traditional family and to repopulate the nation.
Which brings us to the family and procreation part. No doubt, when the govt pushed it’s nose into our lives, they were assuming a traditional family of mother, father and children would receive whatever tax breaks and benefits they intended.
No where in my opinions, nor my original comments that Curt excerpted from other threads, did I suggest that the mandate of procreation be applied to marriage status, WesMorgan. And to clarify, I shall also answer Dave Noble’s question… as it pertains to the same.
Yes, Dave Noble. Without casting a personal judgment on the right or wrong of medical advances, I do consider all the above an unnatural order of procreation… i.e. that without the intervention of man and technology, procreation would not be possible.
Under these circumstances, the man and woman would be married, but unable to procreate naturally. In that same vein, I do not consider adoption unnatural. And prior to medical advances, that was the traditional method for an infertile couple to have a child.
And even that was fraught with “govt” mandates….