4 posts tagged “orson scott card”

One more look at Orson Scott Card’s diabolical screed against gay marriage.

Here's the irony: There is no branch of government with the authority to redefine marriage. Marriage is older than government. Its meaning is universal: It is the permanent or semipermanent bond between a man and a woman, establishing responsibilities between the couple and any children that ensue.

Oh, for heaven sake, its meaning is universal? Let me start with my favorite meaning of marriage that does not fit Mr. Card’s supposedly universal definition. It can be seen coming the Franciscan Sisters, T.O.R. of Penance of the Sorrowful Mother in their answer to this question:

Q. Why do some sisters wear a uniform?

A. A sister's "uniform" is called a habit. It is sort of like a school uniform because it identifies which community a sister belongs to, although it is much more than a uniform. A religious habit identifies a sister as a bride of Christ. People know that she belongs to God and His Church in a particular and special way. It allows people to know that she is not available for marriage, because she is already married to Christ. The wearing of a religious habit can tell people that there is something (actually SOMEONE) worth living for beyond the world that we see. It often speaks to people of the life to come in eternity. Let's begin at the top. Some sisters wear a veil over their heads. They do this primarily to signify that they are eternally married to God; they are forever brides. Traditionally, religious women wore a white veil during novitiate (to know about novitiate look at the New Members page) and took a black veil when they professed their vows. In our community, we wear white veils for the whole of our lives, signifying the purity of bridal love, and our desire to remain always as beginners or novices in the Lord's school of love.

Nuns are married to God, eh? Many wear “wedding rings.” So let me see – according to Wikipedia, Roman Catholics make up a sixth of the world’s population. So just how universal is Card’s definition of marriage that excludes a definition that is held by a sixth of the world’s population? Rather, more than a sixth because there are people like me who are not Roman Catholic who would say that nuns are indeed married to Christ/the Church (as peculiar as I might think that is.) And mind you, this definition of marriage that includes marriage to a spiritual being is not a definition of some wildly liberal group. This is the conservative Roman Catholic Church and these nuns have the blessing of the Pope … who is ever so vocally opposed to gay marriage. Btw, “catholic” means “universal.” And it seems that some of the Orthodox Christian denominations also believe in monastic marriage to God/the Church and that’s a few hundred million more people.

And there are other marriages that don’t fit Card’s definition. For instance, some people in India apparently believe that marriage, and it’s accompanying wedding is a mystical ritual that can be done to create good luck for a community, like when that woman married a snake and 2000 guests showed up to celebrate the event or the custom in which the groom is required to marry with a plant called Tulsi before a second marriage to overcome ominous predictions about the health of the husband. And there is the practice of living people marrying ghosts found in Taiwan or living people marrying the recently deceased found in France.

And what about marriage by abduction? It seems that some people think this is marriage. It was in the Bible, so is it marriage or is it a criminal act, kidnapping and rape and perhaps even child abuse? Speaking of child abuse, are those instances were underage girls are forced to marry older men marriage or are those crimes? Does marriage require the consent? Card’s definition doesn’t include an element of consent like my definition and the Roman Catholic Church’s do, so I’m guessing those things that most of us would consider “human trafficking” or “sexual slavery” or “child abuse,” are things Card would call marriage. But that means that his definition is not “universal” because we wouldn’t call those marriages, we’d call those horrific crimes.

We might note that Card’s definition fits some things that would not be considered marriage. For instance, Card’s definition fits the relationship between a man and a concubine, and yet a concubine is not a wife. She is not married.

Of course, Card would say this and that about those definitions to parse them but then say that no matter what we say about those marriages or marriage-like definitions, gay marriage does not fit anyone’s definition. But of course, it does. We already know that there was gay marriage mentioned in ancient Roman law. And of course, there have been same sex marriages in many cultures throughout history. Take a look at Wiki’s entry here and below is a favorite passage of mine:

Same-sex marriage has been documented in many societies that were not subject to Christian influence. In North America, among the Native Americans societies, it has taken the form of Two-Spirit-type relationships, in which some male members of the tribe, from an early age, heed a calling to take on female gender with all its responsibilities. They are prized as wives by the other men in the tribe, who enter into formal marriages with these Two-Spirit men. They are also respected as being especially powerful shamans.

Moreover, we know that there are countries and states in the world today that believe in gay marriage, who define marriage in such a way that they include the possibility of same-sex partners. For instance, my definition includes gay marriage. Card is trying to win the argument by claiming that no one disagrees with him, that we are universally in agreement with him. If that were true, there would be no reason for him to write his fear-mongering lying diatribe. The fact that he felt the need to claim that marriage was universally defined as straight proves that it is not.

Orson Scott Card and his little friend

OK, now let’s look at Orson Scott Card as the goddamn liar that he is by examining this statement found here:

 

Remember how rapidly gay marriage has become a requirement. When gay rights were being enforced by the courts back in the '70s and '80s, we were repeatedly told by all the proponents of gay rights that they would never attempt to legalize gay marriage.

It took about 15 minutes for that promise to be broken.

This is a lie. While there were (and are still) some gay activists saying they didn’t not want marriage, it is also true that there have always been gay activists wanting gay marriage. I know I was thinking about gay marriage in the 70s and went to a group meeting on the subject in the 80s. Denmark began having gay marriages in 1989, so surely, someone was saying they wanted it at least in the 80s if not much sooner. And it was much sooner. For instance, Rev. Troy Perry performed the first public gay wedding in the United States in 1969, but it was not legally recognized, and in 1970, his Metropolitan Community Church filed the first-ever lawsuit seeking legal recognition of same-sex marriages. They’ve been performing “marriage” ceremonies since then. Apparently, they do about 6000 annually. I remember seeing a sitcom in the 70s where a character sued in a New York Court to have a gay marriage and he won. It was a rather pro gay marriage show, but you didn’t have to watch that show to know there had been a movement in the American judicial system in the ‘70s and ‘80s. Below is a list of cases from the ‘70s and ‘80s where someone in the United States sued for the right to same sex marriage:

1. Baker v. Nelson, 191 N.W.2d 185 (Minn. 1971)
2. Jones v. Hallahan, 501 S.W.2d 588 (Ky. 1973)
3. Singer v. Hara, 522 P.2d 1187 (Wash. App. 1974)
4. Adams v. Howerton, 673 F.2d 1036 (9th Cir. 1982)
5. De Santo v. Barnsley, 476 A.2d 952 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1984)

So who told Orson Scott Card that '70s and '80s homosexuals promised not to try to get legalized gay marriage? It couldn’t have been anyone who had studied the history of the gay marriage movement or anyone who had even googled it. So it is possible that Card isn’t lying when he says that there was a promise not to seek gay marriage. It might be that  Card just didn’t know that gays were trying to get married in the ‘70s and ‘80s, but Card couldn’t be bothered to look up the information. Instead off even hitting Wikipedia or Google or a book, Card decided to say that gay people were liars. Of course, it could be that he thought he was educated on the subject. But does even that hold up?

Mr. Card, you are a goddamn liar!

In order for Card not to seem like a complete lair when he says that gays promised not to ask for gay marriage, it has to make sense that someone could make that promise for gay people. But that can’t possibly be the case. Seriously, who made this “promise”? Did the King of Homosexaulvania enter into some kind agreement with the American government that I never heard of? If not him, who could have made this promise? Who would have made this promise? Which the "all the proponents of gay rights" thought to him or herself, "I can make this promise for all of the homosexuals in the United States!"? Not only don’t I think anyone made this promise, I think it is ridiculous to think that anyone would make this promise and if someone had made this promise, it is ridiculous to think that the person making the promise had the authority to do so.

Think about this for a moment: is it even possible that there weren’t a significant number of gay people who wanted to get married way back in the ‘70s and ‘80s? Or the ‘60s? Or the even 1860s? How could it even be possible that some gay people didn’t want the same kind of relationship that they’d seen everywhere when they grew up, the marriage their parents had, that their siblings had, that virtually everyone they’d ever known had? Hell, gay people did marry, but they married the only people they were allowed to marry, people of another sex, instead of whom they wanted to marry. So where in the hell is Card getting this idea that there was some kind of deal between gay activists and mainstream America not to ask for marriage if they’d allow us to live without being arrested or fired or beaten?

Can someone tell me who signed this contract with America and how that person got to represent me? Even a moment’s thought reveals this story of a “promise” as a lie, an obvious fiction. This lie that Card is spreading is truly ironic because his is using a lie about us to suggest that we are liars. Nice.

And you can guess how long it will now take before any group that speaks against "gay marriage" being identical to marriage will be attacked using the same tools that have been used against anti-abortion groups -- RICO laws, for instance.

Umm. I can see how that would work for anti-abortion groups that target business and harass and even murder abortionists, but how would this work for gay marriage? Is Card suggesting that he or others are planning on using illegal activities to harass or murder people who perform gay marriages? Or is this another scare tactic? First, gay marriage will destroy democracy, then it will cause people to be classified as having mental illness, and finally, it will cause you to be arrested … like it did in Denmark. Or Massachusetts. Yes, Card would have us believe jails and asylums are full of gay marriage opponents. Oh, and ignore the fact that gay people have been persecuted for years, actually thrown in jail and in asylums. The fact that we have been tossed in jail and asylums is irrelevant. What’s important is Card’s hypothetical, but so far completely nonexistent gay marriage opponents in jail and asylums. And that way, you can pretend you aren't a slanderous bastard.

Putting the STRAIGHT in straightjacket

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. This is the second part. Let's take a look at his latest rant.

How dangerous is this, politically? Please remember that for the mildest of comments critical of the political agenda of homosexual activists, I have been called a "homophobe" for years.

Yes, Mr. Card, you have been called a homophobe because you are afraid of homosexuals as you keep proving when you say think that gays will destroy life as we know it even though gay people have always been a part of life as we know it. And how dangerous is this, politically? If a man says he thinks gays will destroy democracy and families and you call that man a homophobe, how dangerous is that? I’d say it isn’t all that dangerous. I’d say it was accurate. I think there are more important questions. How dangerous would it be to not call a guy who thinks gay are dangerous to democracy a homophobe? How dangerous would it be to not call a guy who says homosexuals should be jailed a homophobe? And how dangerous is calling homosexual activists dangerous? I might add that “homosexual activists” to Card seems to mean any person who advocates gay rights. He’s fine with those of us who hide in fear, but those of us who aren’t afraid, to him we are the danger. We should be jailed. Again I ask, how dangerous is it to not call Card a homophobe?

This is a term that was invented to describe people with a pathological fear of homosexuals -- the kind of people who engage in acts of violence against gays. But the term was immediately extended to apply to anyone who opposed the homosexual activist agenda in any way.

 

A term that has mental-health implications (homophobe) is now routinely applied to anyone who deviates from the politically correct line. How long before opposing gay marriage, or refusing to recognize it, gets you officially classified as "mentally ill"?

 

There are several things wrong with this line of reasoning.

First, it is used by some people to apply to anyone opposed to the homosexual agenda, but it is not used that way by everyone. But just because people have used the word incorrectly does not mean that people will be locked up or stigmatized. People have been using the word “crazy” to describe all sorts of behavior, and yet, I’m not sure that we’ve seen people locked up by psychologists just because the general public misuses the word.

Second, if someone has a fear of homosexuals that is irrational, that fear is homophobia, and that person is at least a little neurotic. For instance, if you think that courts allowing gay marriage means democracy has ended, families are in danger, and that you will be classified as mentally ill because of your religious objections, you have an irrational fear of homosexuality and that is a neurosis. Mind you, simply being opposed to gay marriage does not make you mentally ill, but believing that gay marriage marks the end of democracy and that you’ll be locked in an insane asylum for opposing it, well, that’s a different matter. That slides into the realm of paranoia. Oh, not the kind of paranoia that will get you declared incompetent, just the kind that gets you declared a crank.

Third, it is more than a little ironic that someone is brining up being classified as mentally ill in a discussion of homosexuality where the writer opposes calling homosexuality “normal.”

Fourth, how long? Well, it has been decades since we started calling people racists who were opposed to interracial marriage, but are we calling them mentally ill yet? Looks like it going to be quite some time before Mr. Card is measured for a straightjacket.

Fifth, let’s look at the fear mongering again. Seriously, Card is now telling us that gay marriage will lead to normal folk being classified as mentally ill. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

And finally, to really understand how poor Card’s reasoning is, we have to look at another article he wrote called The Hypocrites of Homosexuality. In that article we find the following:

The hypocrites of homosexuality are, of course, already preparing to answer these statements by accusing me of homophobia, gay-bashing, bigotry, intolerance; but nothing that I have said here -- and nothing that has been said by any of the prophets or any of the Church leaders who have dealt with this issue -- can be construed as advocating, encouraging, or even allowing harsh personal treatment of individuals who are unable to resist the temptation to have sexual relations with persons of the same sex.

...

 

Within the Church, the young person who experiments with homosexual behavior should be counseled with, not excommunicated. But as the adolescent moves into adulthood and continues to engage in sinful practices far beyond the level of experimentation, then the consequences within the Church must grow more severe and more long-lasting; unfortunately, they may also be more public as well.

 

This applies also to the polity, the citizens at large. Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.

 

The goal of the polity is not to put homosexuals in jail. The goal is to discourage people from engaging in homosexual practices in the first place, and, when they nevertheless proceed in their homosexual behavior, to encourage them to do so discreetly, so as not to shake the confidence of the community in the polity's ability to provide rules for safe, stable, dependable marriage and family relationships.

 

Jail what you fear

The goal isn't to put homosexuals in jail. It's to discourage them from being homosexuals by putting them in jail. Umm, yeah.

What Card is apparently saying is that if I did not publicly renounce my husband and live separately from him, I should be jailed. And given that I might never renounce my husband, I might be put in prison for life. Similarly, if I continued to advocate for gay rights, the government should let me rot in prison for the rest of my life. Note that Card does not think that what would amount to a life sentence is “harsh personal treatment;” even though, it is the very sentence we give murders and pretty much only murderers. I’m having trouble thinking of any method of enforcing laws that the U.S. dishes out that is harsher than imprisonment with the exception of executions, so I guess we are supposed to believe that anything less than execution, including a life sentence, can’t be harsh ... if it's applied to gay people.

Which bring us back to this statement of Card’s:

This is a term that was invented to describe people with a pathological fear of homosexuals -- the kind of people who engage in acts of violence against gays.

When the government ends someone’s life as dictated by force of law, we call that an execution. When a private citizen does it without the force of law behind it, we call that murder. I would suggest that both are violent acts even if the government’s actions would be considered legal acts. Card suggested that homosexuals be jailed. When the government uses force or the threat of force to take away someone’s ability to move, we call that jailing or imprisoning. When an individual does it, we call that kidnapping. Now, if someone were kidnapping homosexuals because he thought they were a threat to society, I think even Card would call that person a homophobe. But what if someone advocates that the government do the kidnapping, the imprisoning? Is that really so much different that the person should no longer be considered a homophobe?

Card may not engage in acts of violence against gays, but he appears to be advocating for acts of violence to be committed against homosexuals. After all, how else are we going to be put into prison? Does he think we will turn ourselves in and march into the prisons? Or maybe sashay into them? Would he suggest that we could be thrown to the ground and handcuffed to force us into prisons? If we tried to escape from the prisons he’d put us in, could we be shot? In short, how does advocating for the imprisonment of homosexuals not amount to the advocating for violence against them? And if advocating violence against homosexuals is a sign of homophobia, what does that make Mr. Card?

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.