Like you think Mr. Card is a “Motherfucking Bigot”, I quote. Other people might think that he is one of the best writers they have seen.

Both these things can be true at the same time. Clearly, he’s an anti-gay bigot, and I’ve also heard from other people (I’ve not read his works myself), that he’s quite a good writer. These two things are not mutually exclusive.

And with the marriage part, the law is just saying they can’t call it marriage. They can make up a new word for it.

So gay marriage is ok as long as it isn’t called marriage? But then that means the only reason not to call it marriage is discrimination against gays. That’s been the basis of at least a couple court rulings that have allowed gay marriage in this country, including one in California.

The Constitution doesn’t appear to allow that sort of blatant legal discrimination. If you’re going to allow marriage in anything but name, and there’s no compelling reason other than “lots of people don’t like it”, not to use that name, then that’s not allowed.

Just the majority wants marriage to mean only including a male and female.

Well, here’s the way the government works in this country (I’m assuming you’re from the USA, but I don’t know for sure): Basically the Constitution exists in part to protect the minority from the “tyranny of the majority”.

As an example, even if 90% of the country thinks it would be a good idea to, say, ban construction of all minarets outside mosques in this country, still be illegal for the government to do so. There would need to be a Constitutional amendment and those are (rightly), very hard to do.

What the majority wants matters, but only to a point. The majority has, in the past, wanted slavery, denied women the right to vote, believed that a man’s family was his property and forced children to pray in public schools.

The majority is often wrong.

this is a free country other than the laws that our forefathers set down

Yep, and one of the things Mr Card says in the article is that, basically, he doesn’t care what the law says and he seems to support the idea of armed insurrection against the legitimate government should gay marriage be allowed. He honestly seems to believe that gay marriage is a threat to democracy. On this issue, at least, he seems to be several miles over the madness horizon and accelerating.

I’m not saying that I am correct about everything but I’m just expressing my feelings

Hey, that’s fine. That’s what the internet is for. Well, that plus porn, illegal music downloads and Wikipedia.

this all came from a 12 year old seventh grader and have done a good job at keeping my language fairly decent
sorry if I have offended anyone
yeah a 7th grader

You did fine. I hope I see you on the blog again soon.

no i am not a morman

Fear not. I’d never accuse someone of something like that without proof.

this is a free country other than the laws that our forefathers set down
I’m not saying that I am correct about everything but I’m just expressing my feelings

this all came from a 12 year old seventh grader and have done a good job at keeping my language fairly decent
sorry if I have offended anyone
yeah a 7th grader

this is a free country other than the laws that our forefathers set down
I’m not saying that I am correct about everything but I’m just expressing my feelings

this all came from a 12 year old seventh grader and have done a good job at keeping my language fairly decent
sorry if I have offended anyone

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/diagram.html

that’s a true sell out.

I’d forgotten Card’s claim that there’s only one definition of marriage, which is bullshit coming from a Mormon. (And not just because of the religion’s history of polygamy.)

Because even if we forget the FLDS, even if we pretend polygyny and polyandry and women taking wives in their deceased husband’s name don’t exist, and pretend that Canada, the Netherlands, and all the liberal religious groups that have been marrying gays longer than Massachusetts don’t exist… heck, even if we pretend the world consists of no one but heterosexual Southern Baptists and Mormons, it’s still not true. And that’s because of celestial marriage.

Mormons recognize two types of marriage: marriage outside the Mormon church, which ends at death, and a marriage performed at a Mormon temple in which the bride and groom are eternally sealed to each other and which continues into the afterlife.

Now, it’s entirely possible for individual Mormons to reject this distinction, and it’s possible OSC is one of them. However, his article is written for The Mormon Times, and hence a presumably mostly-Mormon audience. So even if the majority of Mormons happen to personally reject the celestial marriage/ordinary marriage distinction, it’s an audience that will be aware that the official religion’s doctrine holds this distinction.

So it’s outright dishonest of Card to suggest that his audience should take arms against the “tyranny” of equal rights on the grounds that marriage has only one definition.