Orson Scott Card: Homophobe or Homophobic Jerk?

Mr Card writes comics and homophobic diatribes

Well, Orson Scott Card, science fiction and comic writer, is at it again in another of his columns. I’m going to write a series of posts on Card’s column because there is really just too much in it to tackle in one post. And there are some interesting details that really deserve a closer look. Once again, he fails to understand that he can be diagnosed as a homophobe because he is clearly deathly afraid of homosexuals. He mistakes religious objections to homosexuality (which is not homophobia) with the hysterical fear that he has been mongering for years (which is in fact, homophobia.) Let’s take a look, shall we? I’m going to be examining a recent article of his found here. It’s chockfull of paranoid panic that he’s trying to infect the rest of with. Here we go!

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

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

See? This is hysterical fear mongering. Courts have been striking down laws that they believe are contrary to state and the federal constitutions for centuries, all of which were enacted by majority votes by either the public in general or by legislatures. The Supreme Court began their judicial review of laws in Marbury v. Madison (1803.) Usually, we call the act of judicial review part of the famous “checks and balances” that we have been taught since we were wee children were part of what made America’s governmental system strong. We think of this as one of the safeguards of our democracy that not only has made it work very well but may actually be essential to keep legislatures from being swayed by bias and moments of hysteria when the public reacts fearfully or with anger or spite against minority groups. But apparently, this time when they strike down existing laws as courts have done for over two centuries, it is the end of democracy. And why is it the end of democracy this time when it hasn’t been for over two centuries? Well, I guess it’s because it gives gay people equal rights. If Card said he was opposed to gay marriage because of his religion, that would be a religious objection. However, saying that democracy has ended in the US because courts have given gays the right to marry is an absurd and fearful response. That’s not a religious objection to homosexuality. That’s an irrational fear of homosexuality and the mongering of that fear. That, ladies and gentlemen, is homophobia.

The pretext is that state constitutions require it -- but it is absurd to claim that these constitutions require marriage to be defined in ways that were unthinkable through all of human history until the past 15 years. And it is offensive to expect us to believe this obvious fiction.

 

It is such an obvious overreach by judges, far beyond any rational definition of their authority, that even those who support the outcome of the decisions should be horrified by the means.

Well, that’s just not true. First, let’s note that we are expected to believe that a comic book, sf writer, and play write knows more about the law than judges and lawyers. We are expected to believe that he knows so much about the law that he can tell that this is an obvious fiction, not a tough legal question in which we might disagree, but an “obvious fiction,” an “obvious overreach.” Here, Card displays a kind of arrogance that is frankly shocking. It would be the equivalent of him telling doctors that their diagnoses are obviously wrong because, you know, he writes fiction … obvious fiction. It shows no knowledge of due process or constitutional law.

Second, the California Constitution was not written nor was it expected to be interpreted based on all of human history. It’s a fairly modern document that has all sorts of things in it that would have been unthinkable for virtually all of human history like equal rights for the sexes.

Third, the right to marriage for same-sex partners is not based just on the Constitution but on laws that were passed in just the last few years. Not laws from the beginning of human history, but recent laws. If the California legislature had not created the right to a type of marriage for gays, California’s civil unions, there would not necessarily have been a right to gay marriage for the California Supreme Court to recognize. The right was not based so much on the entirety of human history but on recent laws passed by the California legislature.

Fourth, and this is important, same sex marriage is much older than the 15 years Card seems to accept. It was mentioned in the Theodosian Code, Roman legal text, in the year 342. Here is the section:

When a man marries and is about to offer himself to men in womanly fashion, what does he wish, when sex has lost all its significance; when the crime is one which it is not profitable to know; when Venus is changed to another form; when love is sought and not found? We order the statutes to arise, the laws to be armed with an avenging sword, that those infamous persons who are now, or who hereafter may be, guilty may be subjected to exquisite punishment. (Theodosian Code 9.8.3)

Of course, it bans gay marriage, but let’s note that we don’t ban activities that don’t exist and certainly not activities that are “unthinkable.” If it was unthinkable, who thought of banning it? It is very clear that the Roman’s thought that that gay marriage was thinkable and doable (you know, because it was done) and gay marriage has been thinkable and doable at least since that time. Gay marriage was not “unthinkable.” It was “unspeakable.” To express the desire for gay marriage or even the acceptance of gay marriage if you aren’t gay was punishable by an “avenging sword” or by societal contempt. Again, Card is showing a startling lack of imagination and empathy. Think for a moment – is it even possible that gay marriage has ever been “unthinkable?” Don’t we know that there have always been gay people who wanted to be married to the people they loved? Oh, I’m sure Card hadn’t considered the realistic possibility of gay marriage and probably didn’t think a lot about it in his Mormon home, but Card is not “all of human history.” He is perhaps someone who hasn’t studied human history or even given much thought to the idea that human history has included all sorts of people who think things that he doesn’t.

We already know where these decisions lead. We have seen it with the court decisions legalizing abortion. At first, it was only early abortions; within a few years, though, any abortion up to the killing of a viable baby in mid-birth was made legal.

Ah, the slippery slope argument. If we allow this thing that doesn’t seem so bad, we will have to allow all sorts of other terrible things later. You know, like if we allow 16 year olds to drive, we will have to allow even younger children to drive, and soon babies will be driving! We already know where these decisions lead! The slipperly slope argument is never used by fear mongers like Card against the things they are for. For instance, they don’t complain that making laws against gay marriage will lead to jailing and killing homosexuals. (P.S. Card has also suggested that laws against gay should be enacted so that some of us will be jailed and that will scare the rest of into the closet. Jeepers! There’s no way that could slip into something terrible as it has many times in the past.)

 

Do not suppose for a moment that the "gay marriage" diktats will not be supported by methods just as undemocratic, unconstitutional and intolerant.

No, whatever you do, don’t suppose that because if you do, you won’t be as afraid as Card wants you to be. Whatever you do, you must be terrified by the fact that gay marriage means that you’re freedoms will be destroyed!

Already in several states, there are textbooks for children in the earliest grades that show "gay marriages" as normal. How long do you think it will be before such textbooks become mandatory -- and parents have no way to opt out of having their children taught from them?

How long? I’m going to guess that that never happens. I know there must be people who are trying to limit parents’ freedom, but I’m going to guess that religious freedom and freedom of speech will always allow parents to teach their kids whatever they want to teach them. I’m willing to bet that religious schools will always be allowed. But don’t let that get in the way of the fear that Card is trying to instill in you! BTW, let me come out as a gay man and say that I am opposed to the very fear scenario that Card is proposing. I will gladly help him fight this development.

And if you choose to home-school your children so they are not propagandized with the "normality" of "gay marriage," you will find more states trying to do as California is doing -- making it illegal to take your children out of the propaganda mill that our schools are rapidly becoming.

While I am sure there are people trying to do that, I am equally sure that there are people trying to deport all blacks, jail and/or murder all homosexuals, and forbid women from working. There are people trying to get the flat earth theory taught in school. But I don’t think they’ll succeed because I am not afraid of crackpots like Card would like us to be.

And that's about as much as I can take today. More later.