And what about a person who wants to enter a union with two members of the same sex? They’re being arbitrarily deprived, too.

This mindless yet tendentious blithering reminds me of a science-fiction story written by a certain obscurity, in which the Andrew Sullivans of a faraway future world successfully agitate for same-self marriage - clonal matrimony.

And what legal principle could one argue anymore to prevent it?

Mr. Hagen is of course right — the same arguments (if you can use the word “arguments” to refer to the contents of a paragraph filled with nothing but begging the question) could be used to justify uniting all three members of a same-sex ménage à trois in holy matrimony with one another.

In the teens or twenties, I think it was, of this past century an early striving in the direction of what amounted to a kind of nihilism-lite called Dadaism (fur-lined tea cups, etc.) flourished briefly in the arts, sculpture, and literature of Continental Europe. One day a couple of the pioneers of Freudian psychoanalysis — I forget which ones; it might have been Jung, Adler, Wilhelm Stekel, Freud himself, or another of those early giants in that field — happened to be chatting when the Dada movement was mentioned and one of them asked the other what sort of neurosis he thought Dada represented. The other immediately replied, “Dada’s too idiotic for any *decent* neurosis.”

This shamelessly partisan intellectually incompetent high-school level left-liberal judges’ screed pretending to be lofty jurisprudence is too idiotic for any serious point-by-point refutation.

Un brings home the essential point: there is no legal argument here, it is the pure assertion that it be so. (In other words, the decision itself exemplifies the radical freedom of human desire that it upholds as a constitutional principle.) Therefore it is not to be debated with, but to be condemned and stopped. Why can’t state legislatures and the Congress just fire—impeach—judges who step so far out of the bounds? If the Mass. legislature does not act in 180 days to change the laws, the Court may simply start ordering state officials to isssue marriage licences. What then? Can NOTHING be done?

Well, only in a pathetic, dead country can nothing be done!

Can you imagine how Americans would have reacted to a usurpation like this in the 1760s!

Or remember when that group of Republican vote-count watchers reacted with yells and protests in a Florida courthouse in 2000 when the counters improperly went into a closed room?

That ALL that’s needed. Life, spirit, indignation, refusing to take it. THAT’S the basis of FREEDOM. Without that spirit of resistance, there can be no freedom. And that spirit has been leached out of modern people by liberalism and comfort.

A second point: let us not overemphasize the slippery slope argument, that “THIS” could lead to some worse “THAT.” Guys, THIS is bad enough. The slippery slope argument implies that THIS is not so bad, that we’re only really concerned about THAT. And that is exactly the way conservatives have lost all the time, by surrendering to the most recent leftist victory, and then just going on to fight the next leftist challenge and surrendering to that as well. The slippery slope divides our attention. It’s a legitimate argument, but it should be strictly a secondary argument.

Finally, on Dada, Fr. Rose lists Dada among the Vitalist movements in modern art.

Mr. Auster incisively dismantles the Slippery Slope argument as mere cravenness. I had not considered this before, but I think he is right.

If Massachusetts possesses something similar to the Federal Constitution, then the Legislature most certainly can do something. In any constiutional struggle, Congress almost always has the upper hand. It can remove something from the jurisdiction of the courts (Article III, Section 2), it can impeach judges, or merely cease to pay them. The rarity of the impeachment tool is a dismaying fact of constutional history; it is imagined that it should only be used in ethical or moral cases, rather then in cases of abuse of the law, or misinterpretation.

The spinelessness of our august representative bodies is among the more glaring outward signs of our decay as a nation.

Mr. Auster is right. The U.S. Congress can impeach and remove overmighty federal judges. I do not know whether the Massachusetts constitution confers on the legislature the same power over the commonwealth’s judges; I suspect it does. The problem is that there is neither the will among the overwhelming majority of Americans who are not homosexuals to suppress the homosexualist “marriage” movement, nor the courage among our elected representatives to fight this fight. The homosexualists are well on the way to winning - they are a passionate, focused, determined and very well-funded minority who know this affects them personally, and who have the complete support of the law school establishment that tells judges how to think. They have already co-opted too much of organized religion, which should be at the heart of opposition to the debasement of marriage. The numbed and distracted majority do not feel that this question concerns them personally. History, including American history, is replete with examples of determined and impassioned minorities forcing changes that the majority find unpalatable, but cannot or will not pull themselves together sufficiently to resist successfully.

In the world of liberalism, the fractured society we live in, what is most important in society is what makes people feel comfortable. Modern liberalism has enshrined the comfort of minorities as morally weightier than that of the majority, who must always yield. In America today, whose secular saint is Martin Luther King, most Americans have adopted this belief, often without entirely realizing it. In that respect, even though it has no basis in law, Mr. Auster’s quote from the Massachusetts court is an expression of our zeitgeist and hardly surprising.

In such an atmosphere fights over points of principle (unless the principle is among those enshrined in the PC canon with which we are all too familiar) seem uncharitable at best, oppressive and hateful at worst, and rather gauche to “conservatives” who want to be accepted in what passes for polite society today: Why can’t we all just get along? What business is it of ours if “gay couples” want to be married after their fashion? Are they really hurting anybody else?

We may know that they are hurting others as well as themselves by undermining the most foundational institutions of society, marriage and the family. (Note in passing that the Massachusetts court deprecates the limitation of marriage to unions of men and women as merely “arbitrary.”) But because the basis of our objection is traditional and religious, we are making an inadmissible argument within the guidelines of modern liberalism. Indeed, those who defend the family and marriage as they have always been understood become oppressors.

To reiterate a point I have made elsewhere, the Massachusetts court also lied in saying that homosexuals are denied the benefits of marriage because they are homosexuals. They are as free to marry someone of the opposite sex as anyone else. Presumably they should overcome their disordered inclinations first, but that, as they say, is a personal problem.

Forgive so negative a post, but I do not see today’s America as a society that will rise in opposition to the idea that states will elevate homosexual liaisons to the status of marriage. Having swallowed so much else (abortion on demand, mass immigration, multiculturalism and diversity, affirmative action, confiscatory taxation, federal overreaching in every area of life) calculated to destroy American society as it was until about 1970, what reason is there to think that the American majority will balk at this? HRS

A few nights ago, I was watching MSNBC. A poll on “Gay Marriage” was shown. It had 59% against, 32% for. There are three points I would make about this poll:

1. That 32% contains people in the Professional, Political, and Media classes.
2. Would 32% have supported homosexual marriage in 1970?
3. What will be the numbers ten years from now?

And as proof for what David says, look at the Democratic candidates who have already chimed in to support the Massachusetts decision.
And as for impeachment of judges, I wrote my conservative Republican senator about this, and he replied by reassuring me that difference of opinion in the judiciary is what makes America great. Can you believe it?

Mr. Wall’s “conservative” senator is the true-blue liberal. The Left has a substantive goal, while the “right” (i.e. right-liberals like the Senator) only believes in a level playing field for all opinions. Just pathetic.

Who is the senator, if I may ask?

Who’s been excluded from “the full range of experience?” Lesbian and gays are not prevented from marriage and have engaged in marriage through-out time. Allowing same sex marriage limits the full range of experience.

LA:
“A second point: let us not overemphasize the slippery slope argument, that “THIS” could lead to some worse “THAT.” Guys, THIS is bad enough.”

I agree with Mr. Auster. Consider this redefinition of marriage.

“We construe civil marriage to mean the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others.”

The court claims that this reformulation is ‘refinement.” Yet, refinements should bring clarity. The courts circular claptrap only sows confusion. This new definition makes marriage indistinguishable from many other types of relationships. This definition could as easily apply to high school sweethearts going steady or roommates in college.

That’s just great. All these HOMOS are going to be running around thinking they are married now. Maybe they can go to wal-mart and try on some dresses MADE IN CHINA while the illegal aliens working there tell them how great they look. Soy el un gado taco un hecho nuevo el leon. I love America! Sorry, I’m just trying to learn our new language.

Question: How many perversities can be squeezed into a single situation?

Answer: America is about finding out!

Yes - I think I want ten wives too. These IDIOT judges had better accomodate me. I am a minority in this matter! I deserve extra special treatment. I think I will go to Mexico for a month or two and become a resident and then swim back over here so I can get free food and healthcare. Maybe I will break my leg or poke my eye out so I can be a crippled minority. Then I will be worsipped as a GOD FIGURE. I love America!

Of course I’d be stupid to marry any white women. I will marry all Asian women so my kids will be considered minorities and will go to the best schools. Oh wait, Asians are too “smart” aren’t they? What about Phillipino’s? Are they one of the “smart” groups or do they get to skip to the front of the line?

I’m reminded how the fight against liberalism is a fight over fundamentals — even something so basic as the meaning of _words_. The term “marriage” denotes the union of man and woman, period.

The great prophet of liberty George Mason stated that “no free government, or the blessing of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by … frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.” Never have Col. Mason’s words been more apropos than now.

The decision of this rogue ‘court’ amounts to an assault on language itself.

Mr. Auster is correct that we have hit bottom and worrying about slippery slopes is useless. So we don’t give up, we get moving. Let’s put our fingers to the keyboard, our signatures to checks, and our labor to work for candidates for change. We still need to return here often for education, but we do need to get moving.

I work primarily with immigration reform groups because I perceive the silent invasion as our gravest domestic problem. Immigrants are fueling the Democratic Party and, to some degree, the Republican Party. We cut off that fuel, we can then do even more about these liberal judges.
We, the tiny few, have stopped a lot of pro-amnesty and pro-immigrant legislation. Now we need to turn the situation around. We need all the help we can get; so if you value your race, culture, country, or whatever, please help.

I guarantee you that your seemingly pitiful presence can make a huge difference. There is no “other guy” to do it for you; you are the other guy. One more person is like one more fully outfitted Marine; and wars, even political wars, are fought by relatively small groups of people called soldiers. But in a political war after a defeat in battle, you get to rise again, dust off the dirt, get back into your M1A1 tank, and continue fighting the war!!! Marines don’t let setbacks overwhelm them with feelings; they never stop regrouping and charging. So let us honor their physical bravery by emulating them with spiritual bravery.

” … political wars are [often] fought by relatively small groups of people … “

That’s true and worth keeping always in mind.

Mr. Murgos, thanks very much for that excellent and inspiring post of 7:53! It’s just the thing to perk up flagging spirits.

No offense to Mr. Murgos but he is wrong about one thing. He is not part of the “tiny few” but part of the GREAT MAJORITY. 70 or 80 percent of the population realize that we need to start shipping all these little brown people back to wherever they came from. How is it that a group of people who are BREAKNG THE LAW can silence a whole country full of honest citizens? This is nonsense. Viva Mexico! - I mean ‘I love America’!

I wrote my conservative Republican senator about this, and he replied by reassuring me that difference of opinion in the judiciary is what makes America great. Can you believe it?

No, I can’t. I thought it was immigrants that made America great!

One more thing about “gay marriage”. I want to remind everyone that violence is NEVER the answer. When you see two HOMOS walking around together you should never stare at them or walk really close behind them like you want to RIP THEIR SPINE OUT for trying to destroy your country and spitting on the institution of marriage.

To Johnny Rotten,

Please refrain from using violent language, which is not welcome at this website. Also, I question where you’re coming from, with your e-mail address “love4hire@earthlink.net” which sounds like a prostitution business.

Yes, that’s fine it is your website after all. But who’s side are you on anyway? I thought this was a decent AMERICAN website. I thought maybe I finally found a website where people had their heads screwed on straight but who knows.

According to Mr. Rotten, the only way to oppose homosexual liberation is to talk about “ripping their spines out.” Furthermore, according to him, if I exclude such language from discussion, that suggests I’m really siding with the liberationists.

This website is a place for discussion of ideas and politics in defense of our culture. It is not a place for people to unleash thuggish instincts. If the only way Mr. Rotten can express his views on homosexuals is to threaten to tear their bodies to pieces, and if he insists, furthermore, that his fellow opponents of homosexual liberation must accept his use of such language or be accused of being traitors to the cause, then he has nothing to contribute to any serious political, intellectual, or cultural movement to oppose homosexual liberation. He would only discredit and marginalize such a movement.

Adding to my last comment, it’s understandable that when people see their society being destroyed by perverts and their supporters, they would be tempted to use violence or the threat of violence, or at least very strong language, in defense of it. Years ago, when there was some gay pride parade and a group of protesters were yelling at them, Patrick Buchanan came to the protesters’ defense, saying that such behavior is the sign of a healthy society that wants to preserve itself. I agreed completely with that. But at the same time, someone who talks about “ripping people’s spines out” is just indulging in his own sick and violent fantasies.

In any case, that kind of language has no place here.

Not really I was saying violence is wrong from the very beginning. I just have one more question for Lawrence Auster. Sitting around yapping about “homosexual liberation” is just great but who is actually going to DO anyting about it? Since violence is wrong what can acutally be DONE to stop this? I’m saying other than just sitting around talking and complaining for seven or eight more years while “Johnny has two daddies” what is on the agenda?

First I’ll ask Johnny Rotten his own question: What good are you accomplishing by posting comments indulging in extremely violent thoughts toward homosexuals? You’re not accomplishing anything more toward saving America from this scourge than I am.

Second, apart from your language, what are you actually proposing? Gangs roving around beating up homosexuals? I’ll grant that in a traditionally ordered society, public intimidation including violence might be effective in suppressing socially undesirable elements. But given what America has now become, with widespread support for homosexuals, and an army of police ready to prosecute people for hate crimes, such gangs would only end by strengthening the pro-homosexual establishment.

At the same time, I’m not excluding the possibility of some kind of conflict in America. America is splitting apart into two irreconcilable camps (at least I hope it is—since the alternative is the completely surrender of our side), and where there are two irreconcilable camps there is the possibility of civil war. Things may become so bad that we will have no choice but to use force in self-defense. For example, imagine the government attempting to force a community against its will to have pro-homosexual teachings in its schools, or (which is not impossible) threatening to close down a church which disapproves of homosexuality.

Such things may happen, but it’s not something we _seek._ In the meantime, threatening mere thuggish attacks on homosexuals is both wrong in itself and totally counterproductive to any anti-gay-rights movements.

Just today, David Brooks, the NY Times’s house “conservative,” has a monstrous op-ed supporting homosexual marriage, and pretending to base his support on conservative arguments. It is the fullest “conservative” justificaton for gay marriage yet advanced. We are facing a social apocalypse, brought to us by the ruling powers of our society. Threatening vigilante action against homosexuals is not going to turn that situation around.

Here’s the Brooks article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/22/opinion/22BROO.html

I don’t care what “Brooks” says. To hell with him. Gays cannot get married no matter what sort of “paper” you give them. It doesn’t make any sense. Just like two dogs cannot get “married”.

I’m really asking what CAN be done? Of course I don’t think there should be any “gangs” smashing gays or anybody else. Does Mr. Auster have any ideas?

It is your website, Mr. Auster, but this “Johnny Rotten” character strikes me as a manufactured persona. Either way, I do not think that he has so far shown himself to be the type that many of would be interested in having a discussion with.

The immediate issue is homosexual marriage, and it appears the only sure way to stop it is through a federal amendment. So someone who cares about this issue could devote himself to that.

On the larger issue of the whole leftward course of society of which homosexual marriage is just the latest step, that’s what this website is about.

However, I suspect that Thrasymachus is right.

Well I guess your real name is “Thrasymachus” anyway? What do you think should be done about “gay marriage”?

We do what we can do, but at the same we have to recognize that the society is so far gone that it’s possible that only some kind of cataclysm will turn things around.

O.K. I’m a fraud. Points to Thrasymachus. I believe I had Mr. Auster going for awhile? All the best. -Lord Fluff

Johnny Rotten behaves like a gay agent provacateur. I agree completely with Mr. Auster’s comment about the nation spitting in two and the real possibility of civil war - something no rational person wants to see. The kind of vigilantism so coyly suggested by Johnny Rotten would serve only to turn the clueless majority against the defenders of tradition. There is a point at which we’ll have no choice but to openly revolt - but only after all legal means are closed.

I evidently was naive in taking Johnny Rotten straight as it were, and in not picking up on what Thrasymachus saw, especially after I myself had remarked on JR’s e-mail address which was not something a sincere person would have used. Part of my reason for responding to him at length was that he did seem sincere in his later replies to me. In any case, the question of violence was something I wanted to address, because frankly when one sees the out-and-out evil being done now in this country, it is impossible not to have violent thoughts come into one’s head from time to time. I feel my responses to JR on this issue were valid, even if he didn’t mean what he was saying.

This incident makes me consider adopting the policy I’ve seen at some other blog (I forget which), where posters are required to use their real names. But we’ll let that pass for now.

I finally obtained a copy of “Civil War II” by Tom Chittum, which reads like “The Path to National Suicide” actually coming to pass. It’s just more bad news.

I wonder if the individual signing as Lord Fluff and Johnny Rotten wasn’t also Roger in the thread associated with the following blog entry?:

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/001855.html

(I apologize to Lord Fluff and to Roger if I’m wrong about that.)

Lord Fluff doesn’t give the impression of taking consistent positions on things (certainly not on immigration reform which he seems, between his posts here and elsewhere, alternately to call for and to caustically ridicule), with one exception: he appears broadly to take the Palestinian side in questions relating to the Israel-Palestinian situation (again, I apologize if I’m wrong).

Whatever his true views are, perhaps he’d do well to consider Richard Poe’s advice to readers who post comments on forums and blogs. Mr. Poe wrote, in response to a comment I’d posted on the forum there,

“If your ideas are bad, they won’t get any better just because you manage to fool some people on a Web site into thinking that you have them ‘outnumbered’ [by using different pen names]. If you lack confidence in your ideas, then go get better ideas.”

http://www.richardpoe.com/forum.cgi?s=Levophobia

I very much hope Mr. Auster does not require real names. Our jobs are at stake, and things might get a lot worse before they get better. Never in history have so many people been able to meet and discuss so many ideas and thus learn so quickly without fear of retribution by the Thought Police or their thuggish supporters. Someone in Mr. Auster’s position is able to influence a great many people, but the opposite is not true. Ideas are true, false, partly true and false, or nonsense. We have people here that can detect truth and the alternatives. Thrasy proves it. We have absolutely nothing to fear from infiltrators as long as we have the bright (not me) people we rely on here. (By the way everyone, be thinking of joining the million man immigration reform march next September. We could all meet, even if it is first names only.)