Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Spirituality » Bill O’Reilly Doesn’t Like Prop 8 – The Musical

Bill O’Reilly Doesn’t Like Prop 8 – The Musical

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

I was looking for an excuse to write about this, and the inimitable Bill O'Reilly provided it on his show last night when he devoted a segment to expressing his outrage over the web release of a short video production called Prop 8 – The Musical. "Oh my, oh my," opined the balding, Brobdingnagian blowhard, "these mincing, sarcastic Hollywood elitists are calling us all bigots! That's not funny, that's not Christian, they're just promoting the radical homosexual agenda of Hollywood liberalism. The people have spoken on Proposition 8 and democracy matters more than civil rights." Or something to that effect.

His reaction is really a perfect expression of what's wrong with O'Reilly. He's a classic morally conservative populist masquerading as a Republican. At the heart of republicanism is the idea that the rule of law and institutions like the courts exist to protect the rights of minorities from the abuses of majority rule. O'Reilly consistently rejects the idea that minorities or individuals have rights which should be protected and advocates ceaselessly for basing policy on what the majority of the "folks" want. Pure populism. 40 years ago O'Reilly would have been right at home in the Democratic Party. In fact, 40 years ago O'Reilly was writing for leftist underground weeklies and teaching kids to save the future like any good 60s liberal.

His reaction on Proposition 8 is typical, siding with the majority against the rights of the minority, and getting in a dig or two at the Hollywood elite whom he so despises while he's at it. What O'Reilly misses is that the message of this bit of video propaganda is dead on, and that he is exactly the kind of bigot this is directed toward.

The video itself is amusing and very well done, though it arrived about a month too late to make any difference in the election. It also features an amazing cast who you may recognize, including the leading singing comedians of our age. It's the best original Internet musical production since Joss Whedon's Dr. Horrible and you can watch it right here.


On the dark side you may notice John C. Reilly as an interloping Morman moralist with Allison Janney (cat, meow) and Kathy Najimy as his two wives. Among the good guys are Neil Patrick Harris (star of Dr. Horrible), Maya Rudolph (of SNL), Lake Bell (from the much lamented Surface), unfunny lesbian comedienne Margaret Cho, and Andy Richter. Jesus in a bad wig is Jack Black in fine vocal and sarcastic form.

This is gentle but pointed satire, and while it doesn't come out and accuse the religious right of bigotry it certainly plays up their hypocrisy very effectively, including getting in digs at both the Mormons who played a big role in promoting Proposition 8 and African American voters who turned out for Obama but also strongly against gay marriage. O'Reilly's offended reaction is perfect, almost putting him on stage with the melodramatic villains of the mini-musical and reminding us that one of the reasons bigotry exists is that the bigots are usually self-righteously unaware of the depth of their own prejudices.

Powered by

About Dave Nalle

  • http://ex-conservative.blogspot.com Glenn Contrarian

    At the heart of republicanism is the idea that the rule of law and institutions like the courts exist to protect the rights of minorities from the abuses of majority rule.

    Dave, in today’s political world, then, all Democrats would actually be holding truer to ‘republicanism’ than do Republicans…and to an even greater extent considering the Democrats’ greater degree of fiscal responsibility since 1980 – or at least their lesser degree of fiscal irresponsibility as compared to that of the Republicans.

    But instead of comparing Democrats and Republicans, I would rather compare liberals and conservatives, for throughout American history it has been American conservatives of every party that has tried to impose its will on minorities of every kind, and it has been liberals of every party that has stood up (with varying degrees of success or failure) for the rights and protection of minorities.

    All your other articles aside, your article here looks like one that a liberal might write. If you’d think about it, we liberals have always welcomed almost anyone…but the same cannot be said of conservatives. C’mon, Dave – grab your lightsaber and join us against the forces of puppetmaster Darth Cheney and his apprentice Darth Karl…and may the First Amendment be with you….

  • http://www.fontcraft.com/rod/ Dave Nalle

    Dave, in today’s political world, then, all Democrats would actually be holding truer to ‘republicanism’ than do Republicans…

    Not really, because Democrats are interested in the rights of groups and are generally too populist to look out for the interests of anyone but their favored minority constituencies.

    and to an even greater extent considering the Democrats’ greater degree of fiscal responsibility since 1980 – or at least their lesser degree of fiscal irresponsibility as compared to that of the Republicans.

    We really have no evidence of this greater fiscal responsibility. The frugality of the Clinton years was largely the doing of Gingrich and his Republican Congress and their Contract with America. Clinton was just smart enough to go along with it.

    But instead of comparing Democrats and Republicans, I would rather compare liberals and conservatives, for throughout American history it has been American conservatives of every party that has tried to impose its will on minorities of every kind, and it has been liberals of every party that has stood up (with varying degrees of success or failure) for the rights and protection of minorities.

    Can’t argue with that. It’s a pity there are so few liberals left in either party.

    All your other articles aside, your article here looks like one that a liberal might write.

    Glenn, all of my articles look like ones a liberal might write.

    If you’d think about it, we liberals have always welcomed almost anyone…but the same cannot be said of conservatives. C’mon, Dave – grab your lightsaber and join us against the forces of puppetmaster Darth Cheney and his apprentice Darth Karl…and may the First Amendment be with you….

    Cheney and Rove are hardly of current concern. I’m more concerned about the very illiberal leanings of Obama’s appointees right now.

    Dave

  • John

    Liberals always poke fun and call conservative bigots when they don’t agree with them. However, liberals you forget that by poking fun of people who don’t agree with you, you’re being hypocritical. Each individual has a right to their own opinion and we need to respect it. There is no one truth in this world. You want peace? Well, it’s time to start respecting the conservatives and their rights as well.

    As for Marriage. The term and meaning of “Marriage” stems from religion. A holy union between man and woman. Not a right, but an honor. The state only got involved in the ceremony of “marriage” to make money and to charge a tax. As for making fun of religious people who follow their religion and want to protect the church from future law suits against gays who want to be married in a church, it’s hypocritical. They have their rights to follow the laws they believe of their lord.

    The world is made up of hypocrites. And those who poke fun of conservatives are part of that world.

  • John

    “But instead of comparing Democrats and Republicans, I would rather compare liberals and conservatives, for throughout American history it has been American conservatives of every party that has tried to impose its will on minorities of every kind, and it has been liberals of every party that has stood up (with varying degrees of success or failure) for the rights and protection of minorities.”

    Who ever wrote this comment doesn’t know their history. If it wasn’t for the conservative/republicans we’d still be living in a divided country and still have slaves. If it weren’t for the conservative/republicans, many countries would still be under communist rule.

    Who ever wrote this comment, needs to revisit their history books and fast. I’m what you call a conservative-liberal. I’m smack down in the middle. We like to compromise, and realize that all successful relationship are built on compromise. Far right liberals always think their way is better, and they do as much imposing on people as the far right conservatives. COMPROMISE is key. Not everyone wants to live in a country filled with Ilegal Aliens, and a country they instead of teaching people how to get off the couch and get a job, they give them hand outs. A majority of people want Illegal Aliens to get out and stay out, and feel that people need to work hard and learn the value of a dollar instead of getting use to food stamps.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    John: As for Marriage. The term and meaning of “Marriage” stems from religion. A holy union between man and woman. Not a right, but an honor. The state only got involved in the ceremony of “marriage” to make money and to charge a tax.

    Nonsense. Etymologically, the word ‘marriage’ has no religious meaning at all. For most of recorded history, and even for many cultures today, marriage was and is purely a business arrangement. The (usually) two people involved had little or no say in the deal. Holy my ass.

  • Prop 8

    I love this video. It is funny in a sad way, reminding the world of the ignorance, and intolerance in CA today. I love the fact that Bill’O was so bothered by it. I think he is probably a latent gay, just saying. But honestly, prop 8 passing was one of our darkest moments in recent California history. Sad and pathetic that a group of people would IMPOSE their religious beliefs on a group of people who did not agree with them. This is unjust, unfair, unconstitutional and disgraceful. It will only be a matter of time before anyone that wants to can marry, be they black, white, gay, straight, bi whatever. And don’t use try and bring up the point that people will start marrying their children or siblings or pets. Bull.

    I hope and pray that the CA Supreme Court, (the same judges that voted FOR gay marriage this past summer and legalized it) overturn Prop H8. There is a very good chance that they will see it as a REVISION of the CA Constitution, needing 2/3 vote from the legislature, and not merely a Proposition that the average Joe Six Pack could vote for. I am pretty sure that it wasn’t meant to take AWAY civil rights, I am pretty sure it was the opposite.

    Please, please stop spreading hate and intolerance for people and lifestyles that you don’t understand. You wouldn’t make interracial couple’s marriage illegal, which they would have tried to some 40ish years ago. Think of the future generations ahead that will look back at this time of war, fear and hate of things different that the “usual.” Future generations will not understand how some like this could have happened.

    I commend these actors and performers (aka Hollywood elitists, haha) for going out on a limb and standing up for what is right and trying to educate the world against this injustice. What can I say, truth in comedy.

  • Dan

    I watched the segment. O’Reily did not express “outrage”. He even tempered his analysis with the acknowledgement that there does exist bigotry toward gays.

    The only calm and measured swipe he took was to say that gay marriage activists were hurting their cause by demonizing as bigots those who voted for prop 8.

    O’Reily isn’t a Republican either. He is currently registered as an independent.

    Not that it matters, it’s just one more example of how Dave is self-righteously unaware of the depth of his own prejudices.

  • http://ex-conservative.blogspot.com Glenn Contrarian

    Who ever wrote this comment doesn’t know their history. If it wasn’t for the conservative/republicans we’d still be living in a divided country and still have slaves. If it weren’t for the conservative/republicans, many countries would still be under communist rule.

    John, did I say in my post that conservatives didn’t serve any patriotic purpose?

    No, I did NOT. If it weren’t for conservatives, as you indeed say, we’d still be living in a divided country and the Cold War might still be going strong – but you are COMPLETELY inaccurate in that slavery would still be here, for it was CERTAINLY the conservatives who kept slavery and Jim Crow going for so long.

    Was it the liberals who were against women’s sufferage? Or Conservatives? Was it the liberals who stood against the Civil Rights struggle in the sixties? Or the conservatives? You know the answer.

    Examine the name ‘conservative’, John. It refers to those “who resist change, who want to keep things as they are”…but very few are fully conservative or fully liberal.

    Lincoln was a CONSERVATIVE who sometimes acted as a liberal (he made the final effort to free the slaves). Jefferson was (for his day) a liberal who sometimes acted as a conservative (he OWNED slaves).

    I agree with you wholeheartedly that COMPROMISE is what is needed to make a great democracy. Liberals aren’t right about everything (like nuclear power, my pet peeve against liberals) and conservatives aren’t right about everything (like equal rights for ALL people (which they have historically opposed) – and Universal Health Care (my pet peeve against conservatives)).

    So I would admonish you to not make assumptions as to whether I’m far left or whether I think conservatives are wrong in everything. I’m not and I don’t. Assumptions are a BAD thing – I know, because I have to fight from making them, too.

  • Larry Linn

    Government should stay out of marriage, a religious ceremony. The government should just issue partnership agreements. If people want to get married, let them get it through there Church, Temple, or any House of Worship. Our country was based upon Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Why deny it to our citizens, when a partnership is not threat to others?

  • Larry Linn

    P.S., If Bill O’Reilly, the liar, says it is wrong, it must correct.

  • Tom

    Interesting comments. I take exception with your opinion of Margaret Cho, however. She is neither “unfunny” nor “bisexual,” as far as I know. But, perhaps the source of your information is better than mine.

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    Once again, I find myself in the awkward position of agreeing with Dave.

    O’Reilly is an embarrassment. It is also an embarrassment that Prop 8 was even put on the ballot, let alone passing.

    Then there’s John’s comment regarding “liberals always pok[ing] fun and call[ing] conservative[s] bigots.”

    Are you then, John, implying that conservatives don’t “poke fun” and find names to derisively refer to liberals? You don’t listen to Rush or watch Billo or Hannity? You don’t slobber over Ann Coulter?

    You haven’t read any of the right wing posts or comments here at BC and seen any barbs aimed at the left? Or are your eyes blind and your ears deaf to all that? I’d say so.

    B

  • http://www.fontcraft.com/rod/ Dave Nalle

    Dan, the opening paragraph of this piece uses a literary technique called ‘hyperbole’ – look it up.

    The main point of bringing O’Reilly was to establish a starting off point for posting the video and getting it further disseminated.

    As for calling conservatives bigots being an issue, I have to point out (as I did in the article) that the video does NOT restrict itself to attacking conservatives. It goes after Mormons and black Obama supporters as specific targets. While the Mormons may be conservative, the Obamaphiles are likely at least Democrats, if socially conservative as well.

    Dave

  • http://www.prop8isgay.com/ noon8_noon8
  • Lumpy

    glenn seems to have confused conservative with evil and liberal with good.

  • http://ex-conservative.blogspot.com Glenn Contrarian

    Looks like ‘lumpy’ didn’t read my post #8….

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Lumpy:

    If you don’t have a website or blog of your own that you wish to link to, could you please take out the “http://” from the URL box below your name before you post comments?

    Thanks,
    Dr D
    Asst. Comments Ed.

  • wdufkin

    As a Christian, I too found this “musical satire” offensive. If Christians were to satirize this issue in the opposite direction all hell would break loose. Smart hip looking Christians and a bunch of little weird stereotypical effeminate/butch looking gays dressed in s&m attire…what would you say then?

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    “If it wasn’t for the conservative/republicans we’d still be living in a divided country and still have slaves.”

    Whoever that comment has no common sense. To think that if it hadn’t been for conservatives/republicans, society would have been frozen in amber is awfully ignorant.

    “…what would you say then?”

    If homosexuals were trying to deny Christians equal rights, I would say that was wrong as well.

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    I see O’Reilly was at Marist college 40 years ago. Any proof that he was a Democrat then?

  • G. Allen

    As a Christian I personally believe that at times we should be made fun of when anything but the cross of Christ is an offense. That is the problem with the poltical dialogue on this issue. Has any ever thought that a solid Christian has ever sat by and watched a gay friend in a violent gay relationship or a relative dies of Aids. THAT IS THE REAL REASON THE VIDEO IS AN INSULT.

  • Truth

    Bill O’Reilly is a bigot.

  • CallmeMaddy

    Saw the musical in school and thought it was great, clever, and very amusing. However, I am against gay marriage and I think Bill O’Reilly is awesome. :)

    Maddy

  • http://www.futonreport.net/ Matthew T. Sussman

    I supported Prop 8 until celebrities told me what they thought about it, and now I’ve changed my ways!

  • http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com Christopher Rose

    I opposed Prop 8 until Matt Sussman changed his ways!

  • http://ex-conservative.blogspot.com Glenn Contrarian

    “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”

    For the oh-so-hetero conservatives here, what would it take to change you so that you could be attracted to the same sex?

    Impossible, you say?

    Then why do you think that true homosexuals can somehow ‘choose’ to become hetero?

    Add that to the growing amount of scientific evidence of genetic differences between homo- and heterosexuals – AND the fact that there ARE those who have sex organs of both sexes – and that begs the question:

    If homosexuals and hermaphrodites have NO genetic CHOICE but to be what they are, then what right do we heteros have to tell them they cannot marry those whom they love?

    “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” – That’s an American RIGHT, people.

  • Baronius

    Lumpy – Dead-on about Glenn’s use of liberal/good and conservative/evil. The current definitions of “liberal” and “conservative” really can’t be applied before 1964 or so. The abolition of slavery and registration of black southern voters have a liberal religious thread running through them, but even that gets confusing. Religious causes in the US have been many and varied, and rarely do all faiths land on the same side.

    I think this Prop 8 protesting is another example of how the left will say or do anything rather than accept a loss.

  • Cannonshop

    Of course, if the anti-prop 8 people were serious about this as anything more than a cheap shot at religious people, they’d be devoting some of this boundless energy to writing a counter and getting it onto the ballot. California’s got a 50%+1 rule on their State Constitution, after all…

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    G. Allen,

    Does it occur to you that there are literally millions of heterosexuals living and dying of AIDS in the world? AIDS is a tragedy which transcends sexual orientation.

    I’ve lost a number of friends to AIDS over the years. Only two, as far as I know, were gay.

    There are a number of people here at BC and elsewhere all in a dither about their expectation of being deprived of their gun rights by the evil Obama hoards. Heaven forbid!

    Most people would be more than a little disturbed if a “proposition” sprang up in an election that would, if approved, limit or deny people their right to possess things that they can shoot people with?

    Is it really any less disturbing to have one group of people dictating with whom others may love, marry, and raise children? Does it not occur to people that other’s personal relationships are none of their damn business? Apparently not.

    B

  • http://www.fontcraft.com/rod/ Dave Nalle

    Glenn, your last comment shows a fundamental fallacy in the discussion of gay rights. Just like with abortion, reducing it to science rather than principle is a cop-out which just drags out arguments and is ultimately self-defeating. It’s a meaningless distraction.

    It does not matter whether homosexuality is a choice or a genetic predisposition. In America we believe in freedom of choice as well as freedom of genetics.

    It does not matter why you want to marry someone of the same sex, you should have the right to do it regardless of your motivation, since it harms no one else.

    Dave

  • http://www.futonreport.net/ Matthew T. Sussman

    “one group of people dictating with whom others may love, marry, and raise children”

    Almost certain nobody’s saying that. The other two, yes.

    Also: What Cannonshop said. Prop 8 supporters went about the democratic process of writing a measure and sinking money into supporting it. A group of Prop 8 opponents responded by making an Internet video four weeks after the polls closed.

    And, of course, like any ballot measure, this is far from over. Methinks this one goes back and forth for about 20 years, just like smoking bans.

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    Christians have this stupid notion the the words “marry” and “marriage” are somehow their exclusive property. As someone noted above, that is simply untrue. At any rate, they are just words.

    Government should stay the hell out of people’s personal lives. Again, it’s none of anybody’s damn business!

    I’ll tell you social conservatives what. You let the left take your guns, regulate every aspect of your business (including that of your church,) and tax you into oblivion (also including your church – no more exemptions,) and we’ll let you tell everybody who they can and can’t marry. Does that sound like a fair exchange?

    B

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    In a social conservative theocratic America, B-tone, there would still be elections, but there would always only ever be two choices on the ballot:

    1. My way
    2. The highway

  • Cindy D

    Dave,

    Great article. Excellent video–loved it!

    People against gay marriage…(sigh)

  • http://www.fontcraft.com/rod/ Dave Nalle

    Baritone, you sum up perfectly (and I think unintentionally) in your last paragraph, exactly what’s wrong with the thinking of so many on the left.

    That you think there’s some desirable trade-off in violating a bunch of rights on behalf of the left against violating a bunch of rights on behalf of the right, shows the fundamental disconnect of the political mentality of so many in this country from the reality that ALL rights need to be protected equally.

    Dave

  • http://ex-conservative.blogspot.com Glenn Contrarian

    Baronius –

    The current definitions of “liberal” and “conservative” really can’t be applied before 1964 or so.

    Would you please expound upon that, on exactly how ‘conservative’ somehow did NOT mean ‘keep things the way they are’ and how ‘liberal’ did NOT lend itself to ‘change’.

    Please explain how, since women’s sufferage came LONG before 1964, this was somehow NOT a liberal action.

    Dave – I disagree with your proposition that introducing science into a discussion about gay rights is self-defeating. If it is scientifically shown that a certain segment of the population is genetically predisposed to homosexuality, then IMO that nullifies any argument – moral or religious – against gay rights. It would show that any argument against gay rights is every bit as bigoted as arguments against racial or gender equality.

    But I am glad to see that you do not oppose gay marriage. At least there you and I agree.

  • http://ex-conservative.blogspot.com Glenn Contrarian

    Baronius and Dave –

    You let the left take your guns, regulate every aspect of your business (including that of your church,) and tax you into oblivion (also including your church – no more exemptions,) and we’ll let you tell everybody who they can and can’t marry.

    You’re both comparing apples and oranges. Guns, business, and taxes are NOT human rights – you canNOT claim one or all of those are in any way comparable to the right of a human being to be in every way equal to other human beings.

    And where you got the idea that ‘church’ is being regulated I have no idea – because America is NOT a ‘Christian’ country. We were founded upon the idea of SEPARATION of church and state. It is NOT right for people to force their religion on me and my family…and it happens EVERY year in school and in the workplace. I am a strong Christian, and we in the Church of which I am a member know that ‘Christmas’ is nothing more than a mishmash of not-so-primitive ‘Christianity’ and strictly pagan ritual.

    So don’t give me any bovine excrement about the government regulating church – if anything, the government allows YOUR ‘Christianity’ to be pushed on those of us who don’t share your beliefs. If you don’t believe me, then OPEN YOUR EYES and pretend just for one day what it’s like to be someone who believes that ‘Christmas’ is NOT a Christian holiday, and go around to see how much this half-pagan holiday is pushed on us at every turn even by the government…

    …and then go home and talk to your child who’s in tears because so many of the other kids at school tease him for being ‘weird’ for not celebrating Christmas, and have NO choice but to sing Christmas songs if he wants to sing in the taxpayer-funded public school chorus.

    I am VERY Christian, but can you imagine what O’Reilly would do if I demanded that we place a placard in the Washington state capital about how wrong Christmas is?

    And you complain that the government’s regulating YOUR church. You, sirs, have NO clue.

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    Maddy,

    Really, Maddy, you should be more discerning. I realize you are young, but looking upon Bill-O with awe is really not cool.

    Dave,

    I did not suggest the “deal” above seriously. In fact, I don’t believe that our rights can be “traded off.” It was simply used to make a point.

    I don’t equate gun rights with a person’s rights to marry whomever they chose.

    B

  • http://www.futonreport.net/ Matthew T. Sussman

    “At any rate, they are just words.”

    Yep. Which means that most of every discussion on this topic is irrelevant — everyone should be talking about rights, not marriage.

    If you’re comfortable with gay marriage, then congratulations. Awesome on you. But it seems that 60 percent of the country isn’t. I would suspect that the general topic of applicable rights to couples are much more supported (could be wrong, not the first time). So why aren’t gay rights advocacy groups and Hollywood celebrities gathering volunteers to petition for these rights to be inalienable in states across the country?

    This really makes more sense. Because then two lifetime roommates and confirmed bachelors (Jay and Silent Bob, for example) can become a union, look out for each other, perhaps raise a child if they want, and obtain all those other rights.

    Now then. Back to all the clamoring about gays and Christians and conservatism vs. liberalism.

  • http://www.futonreport.net/ Matthew T. Sussman

    “I realize you are young, but looking upon Bill-O with awe is really not cool. “

    That reminds me. I have to fire off about 10 million e-mails to teenage girls saying it’s a bad idea to go see Twilight.

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    It is the “words” that Christians harp on. It is Prop 8 and other state laws and constitutional ammendments which use the words “marry” and “marriage.” By using them, they have negated and/or abridged the rights of those who desire a legally enforcable union with rights, privileges and responsibilities equal to everyone else.

    These are people’s lives – their right to “pursue happiness” in their own way. Government and self-righteous religious assholes should mind their own business.

    B

  • http://www.fontcraft.com/rod/ Dave Nalle

    Would you please expound upon that, on exactly how ‘conservative’ somehow did NOT mean ‘keep things the way they are’ and how ‘liberal’ did NOT lend itself to ‘change’.

    Neither of those terms has ever meant what you suggest. Conservative does not mean just ‘keeping things the way they are’, it means proceeding with appropriate caution and not engaging in excess or unnecessary risk. Liberal certainly does not mean an endorsement of change. We were founded as a liberal society, so preserving liberalism would be opposing change. Then as now, to be liberal is to stand up for liberty and rights and equal opportunity. None of this is incompatible with conservatism.

    The problem here is that liberal and conservative are NOT opposites despite the way they are often misused. Trying to make them opposites is like comparing apples and oranges. The opposite of liberal is something autocratic or oppressive and the opposite of conservative is probably progressive.

    Dave – I disagree with your proposition that introducing science into a discussion about gay rights is self-defeating. If it is scientifically shown that a certain segment of the population is genetically predisposed to homosexuality, then IMO that nullifies any argument – moral or religious – against gay rights. It would show that any argument against gay rights is every bit as bigoted as arguments against racial or gender equality.

    You’re missing the big picture. If the science goes the wrong way, then by relying on the science you are saying that if homosexuality is NOT exclusively genetic then it’s reasonable to take away rights for gays. If you stand on the principle of individual rights, then the science is irrelevant and you don’t run that risk.

    Common sense suggests that while there may be a genetic component some homosexuality is also a matter of choice. It’s also a choice whether to act as genetics urges or to resist that urge. Part of being human is the ability to make choices and overcome genetics. So even if the science comes down on the side of genetics as the cause of homosexuality, those who are against gays can make the argument that just as those with a genetic predisposition towards alcoholism can avoid drinking, those with a genetic urge to be gay can resist and suppress that urge for the ‘good’ of society.

    So your science argument can NEVER win and you should stick to the rights argument which cannot lose.

    Dave

  • http://www.futonreport.net/ Matthew T. Sussman

    “It is Prop 8 and other state laws and constitutional ammendments which use the words “marry” and “marriage.””

    So what course of action should opponents take? “Fuck you, you Christian bigots, stay out of people’s private lives!” That might be an effective argument.

    Or maybe they can try a different approach, since name calling and equally self-righteous reverence doesn’t seem to be working all that well. Find common ground. I keep hearing how the opposition is a more rational bunch. Distance the Prop 8 supporters from the concept of gay sex, because they’re going to get hung up on this, and steer them toward the concept of two people — who are struggling financially but since they’re best friends they live together — able to benefit from a civil union. They don’t even have to bang each other. They can bang their girlfriends, their boyfriends, or their Fleshlights.

    And/or: skip the discussion entirely, and — I’ve alluded to this twice in this thread alone — write their own ballot measure. It’s a process that, hey, the Constitution says is okay, and it seems to work for those who try it.

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    Gosh Matt, why don’t they all come to you for your obvious superior wisdom in all this. Your solution to it all sounds nice and neat, a simple little packaged formula for an easy, uncomplicated resolution. What’s wrong with everybody?

    It’s a wonder that the entire world hasn’t broken down the walls surrounding the BC fortress to suck all the great wisdom from our collective superior brains.

    It seems whether its the economy, the war in Iraq, or as in this case, same sex marriage, that any number of us sit in our little cubicles, plunking away on our lap(or desk)tops with what we assume to be the clear and obvious solution to every damn thing.

    But when one gets into a room with people on various sides of an issue, or one begins reading magazine articles and/or books on some topic or other, then the lines begin to blur. The obvious, simple solutions suddenly don’t seem to fit quite right – a consideration here, an exception there, a roadblock somewhere else.

    If the problems surrounding the issue of same sex marriage were clearly defined, if the issues at hand leant themselves to simple, concise solutions, there more than likely would not be the controversy that we have seen brewing for many years.

    To me, the simple solution is that gays and lesbians who desire to marry another of the same sex, that government and society in general shouldn’t have much if anything to say about it.
    Obviously, many feel just the opposite.

    But, it’s not all that cut and dried, is it? There are any number of permutations, differing view points, a plethora of conflicting beliefs, opinions running through pretty much the entire spectrum.

    Nothing is simple.

    B

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    B-tone, there are simple questions of right and wrong. Treating one group of people differently because of something they do in private which hurts no one is just wrong. There is no counter argument which has any validity.

    We can argue around and around about how to assure that they have equal rights, but any argument that they don’t deserve equal rights has to be ruled out on principle.

    Dave

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    There’s no need for a counter measure on the ballots until the legal challenges get decided upon. But don’t let the facts get in the way of your opinions on the matter.

  • http://jetspolitics.blogspot.com/ Jet

    There was a time not so long ago when being left-handed meant you were evil. Desparate and shamed parents went so far as to punish their children for using their left hand to write with and many suffered psycholocial consequences because of it.

    To this day physicalogical causes of left-handedness are only “theories” but it’s been proven beyond doubt that someone can be born left-handed, so today’s society accepts “south paws” as equals, or better yet doesn’t even notice a difference.

    Being gay is the same way, but you have to live through it to understand it. I was never molested as a youngster, no one recruited me. I’ve felt the attraction to men all of my life and didn’t really understand what it was until I hit puberty.

    Then suddenly I was taught that it was evil and perverted, and I began hating myself because I couldn’t be a “normal” christian. As the prejudice developed and grew amongst friends and people I respected around me, it invaded my soul, until I had to either reject what “they” said I was, versus what I knew I was…

    … of kill myself because no matter how hard I tried, I couldn’t change, I couldn’t control those urges that came so natural to me. I had to fight, and fight hard to accept myself as who I am, and not who they said I was and it’s a fight I wage to this day.

    If the promoters of hate only knew the damage they were doing to hundred of thousands of gay teens just learning to accept themselves…

    …but you all have heard this many many times before

    …but you all have rejected and derided this many many times before…

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    Dave,

    I don’t deny what you say, and I agree, but the reality is that there are a large number of voices in this matter that demand to be heard. It’s easy to strip an issue down to its bare bones in theory, but that rarely happens in the trenches.

    You know that I have been a strong and vocal advocate of gay rights since I began posting here. Prop 8 and all the other measures that have been enacted in states across the country are in my view an abomination (to steal one of the oppostion’s favorite words.) This issue has gathered a great deal of momentum over the past several years. It may be that with the public scrutiny that Prop 8 has garnered the momentum for such things will abate. Perhaps then, the job of undoing these propositions, state laws and constitutional amendments will gather its own speed. I imagine that a complete reversal across the country will take years, perhaps decades – especially where states have amended their constitutions in this regard. Some of the more recalcitrant states may never come around.

    I haven’t read it, but there is apparently a good article in the current issue of “Newsweek” magazine regarding Prop 8.

    B

  • http://ex-conservative.blogspot.com Glenn Contrarian

    Dave –

    On the ‘scientific’ approach – perhaps the disconnect ‘tween thee and me is my tendency to be more objective than most people. That’s not bragging, just a simple statement. But it’s for that reason I think you’re probably right in that the ‘scientific’ approach would not work with most people, because many (and perhaps most) people place more importance on their personal ‘values’ rather than on scientific principle.

    Thanks for pointing out my naivete. I’ll work on another approach.

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    Just an editorial aside: I sometimes find comments written here at BC to be lacking in thought and/or veracity.

    But, if one goes elsewhere and plows their way through the litany of comments made on pretty much any given subject, it becomes clear that most of us here are mental giants by comparison.

    I just went to the Newsweek article I made note of above. I read through a number of comments and whoo doogies!!!… Enough said.

    B

  • Baronius

    Glenn, thanks for telling us that you’re not bragging. I would have misread your comment otherwise.

    Dave pointed out one of the problems with the labels of liberal and conservative, that both words can indicate respect for the same American founding principles. Another problem regards the role of government. The modern conservative opposes government regulation for reasons other than national security. International relations are another area where the traditional meanings of “liberal” and “conservative” don’t work. There’s nothing inherently illiberal about war.

    I think that the regulatory aspect of the con/lib divide really became an issue in 1964. The identification of liberalism as anti-war probably dates to 1968. The interesting thing about practical, daily language usage is that it works well, except when it doesn’t at all.

    If you push the modern usage of political labels back any further, things don’t make sense. The antebellum North was religious, wanted to conserve the Union, was liberal about personal freedom, and wanted war. The South was religious, wanted to conserve its culture, was liberal about states’ rights, and wanted war.

  • Baronius

    Baritone, I think that the average BC comment shows more insight than that Newsweek *article*.

  • http://ex-conservative.blogspot.com Glenn Contrarian

    Baronius –

    Thanks for understanding. Being too objective, I’ve found over the years, often leads to distrust by other people…and I can’t really blame them – it’s hard for others to trust someone with whom it’s hard to connect emotionally.

    But that’s something I can’t help. Again, thanks for understanding.

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    Bar,

    Well, Bar, I respectfully disagree. The article is, despite comments to the contrary, well researched and thoughfully presented. It’s author, Lisa Miller, is apparently a christian herself and has respect for its traditions.

    While she doesn’t go far into many of the social ramifications of the issue, she does, IMO, deal both thoroughly and fairly with biblical considerations.

    B

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    B-tone, any idiot can find the Newsweek website and spew all over it. BC, being a smaller site, requires more discernment to find and is more personal – which may go some way to explaining why the majority of our regular commenters hardly spend any time at all drooling and throwing rocks at each other.

    I think it’s mainly just Politics though – if you go and read the threads on an article or two in the TV/Film or Music sections, you’ll see that a far greater proportion of the comments there are written without any hindrance from such pesky baggage as brain cells.

    That said, the few comments I read on the Newsweek article didn’t seem all that bad.

  • Baronius

    I dunno, Bar. Maybe I was too tough on the author of the Newsweek article, but I don’t think so.

    Any Christian I know wouldn’t be swayed by the “shrimp cocktail” argument. There’s a difference between Old Testament ritual law and OT moral law. Clearly, when Jesus established a new law, he wasn’t overturning essentials like “thou shalt not kill”. So how do we know which particular laws Jesus overturned? As a Catholic, I have the church’s tradition of teaching to help me understand. Sometimes it’s tough to tell. It’s not too difficult to tell, however, in cases which are addressed by the OT and NT. Paul was inclined to ignore all ritual law, so when he holds to an OT teaching, it’s clearly more binding than the law against eating shrimp.

    Next, the author’s treatment of Paul’s writing is hardly persuasive. The vast majority of Christianity has taken marriage to be a natural good, and part of God’s plan. In fact, that’s why we’re discussing marriage in a religious context in the first place. The author’s depiction of Paul as (let’s be honest) a creep doesn’t match with the Christian understanding of Paul.

    Likewise, the “love everyone” argument falls on its face. This shows up in our BC curmudgeon’s Christmas article too. It argues that the message of the Bible is “love your fellow man”. If you can sum the Bible down to a single message, it would be “love God with all your strength, heart, mind, and soul, and love your fellow man as yourself”. I don’t see how you can drop the God part from religion without consequences. In this case, it sets up a false dichotomy, as if God and love were opposites, and flouting God’s will were somehow the good thing to do.

    Anyway, none of my comments are written to convince a non-Christian, and they don’t argue for theocracy. I’m just saying that if the Newsweek article was written to persuade Christians to support gay marriage, it cannot be considered a success.

  • http://jetspolitics.blogspot.com/ Jet

    In any case guys you’re dealing with a moral guidebook that is over 2000 years out of date, and over the centuries has been very edited, diced and sliced, by whomever’s moral codes and agendas at the time.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Baronius, I wasn’t that convinced by the Newsweek article either. Unfortunately, the Bible says what it says… although it quite often says something completely different depending on who’s doing the translating!

    I think that attempting to persuade religious folk to favor gay marriage based on an interpretation of scripture is rather playing into their hands – allowing them to dictate the terms. So it’s not going to get very far, as you observed.

    That said, I do have one observation. Jesus claimed that his intent was not to strike a single one of the laws from the books – so his intervention in the (at the time) perfectly legal stoning of an adulteress is somewhat questionable, even if his motive is plain enough. That, for sure, was not a ritual law.

  • http://www.fontcraft.com/rod/ Dave Nalle

    The vast majority of Christianity has taken marriage to be a natural good, and part of God’s plan.

    Which is a fine thing in and of itself, and should have no bearing whatsoever on marriage as a civil institution, which ought to be completely separated from marriage as a religious sacrament, under the 1st amendment which was created primarily to protect the interests of minorities, including religious minorities from interference by the government.

    Dave

  • http://jetspolitics.blogspot.com/ Jet

    As I recall the base of it was made out of porcelain that had been fired twice and then hand painted

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    I did not consider the Newsweek article as an attempt to sway christians. It is simply a statement of her position citing her proofs via the bible.

    While I agree with Ms. Miller, I rarely use the bible as a source supporting my position regarding same sex marriage and gay rights in general. Neither the bible nor any other supposed “holy book” have any meaning for me other than the occasional confirmation it provides for historical events.

    And remember: Watch out for those evil “blends.”

    B

  • Joey

    Good video, yes on the fringe and in the face of the religious right but hey, it caught their attention so I guess it accomplished something.

    I’m 23 year old homosexual male who graduated this year with a masters degree in chemistry from SDSU.

    I work 60 hours a week as a research administrator developing drugs for MS victims.

    I own my own home, I pay taxes, I dont drink, smoke, or party. I have never even seen marijuana in real life.

    I vote republican on most issues.

    I also donate to my alma mater each year and provide a $3,000 scholarship each year to purchase musical instruments at my old highschool.

    I am in a committed monagamous relationship with my boyfriend of 3 years and would one day like to marry or at least have any and all possible benefits of a marriage bestowed upon us.

    Its depressing knowing I can’t have what any heterosexual can because of my sexual preference which really has nothing to do with anyone else.

    Please let me live my life as I see fit.

  • http://ex-conservative.blogspot.com Glenn Contrarian

    Oh, NO!

    A homosexual is living in San Diego! And he’s working with medicine! He’s going to turn all the MS patients into homosexuals!

    AND a hurricane is going to strike San Diego because there’s a homosexual there, just like what happened to New Orleans! You know that was the ONLY reason Katrina hit New Orleans – I know this is true because the Reverend Parsley told me so!

    Okay, I’ve done my civic duty by warning all Evangelicals of the danger to their very lives by living in the same city as a commie-pinko-homo who pretends to be a human being by voting Republican. I tell you he’s just as Republican as Alan Keyes! Now let me go back to what’s important – there’s this really interesting web site with photos about Paris Hilton and Britney Spears and the things they were seen doing while out in town – oh, wow, wouldja lookit that! And that too! And look where Paris put her hand!

    Ohhh…uuummmmmm.

    Oh! I’m only looking at it to verify the depravity of the world. Those EVIL vixens….

  • Andrew

    I don’t like Christians, but I don’t go around trying to ban them from doing anything. You have your right to practice your own religion, and I’m not going to interfere with that. But why do you want “special” rights to tell everyone else what to do, and how to live their own lives?

  • Clavos

    I don’t like Christians

    I can dig it, Andrew, I feel the same way about humans…

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Clavos, be careful now. Your misanthropy is showing.