I read this:
Also puzzling was that Rogers wrote on Facebook on July 18 what they believe is a motive for faking the attack, according to The Associated Press: "So maybe I am too idealistic, but I believe way deep inside me that we can make things better for everyone. I will be a catalyst. I will do what it takes. I will. Watch me."

I read it here:
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/21/13397580-lesbian-who-alleged-nebraska-hate-crime-charged-with-lying-about-attack

And now I'm going to go write "I will not be cynical about hate crimes against gays." 1,000 times on the nearest whiteboard. This'll be the umpteenth time I've had to do it since, oh, 1986 or so. (Used to use chalk, on a blackboard.) See y'all again when I'm done.

Oh, thank you Gina.

Lee, that article was not the use of violence for political reasons which phenomenon was described in Shakespeare who lived long before Mussolini as you should know and Gina definitely knows.

That article was however about the unfortunate habit of opportunistically seizing upon violent incidents and using them as propaganda.

Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism" was about the taking away of the proper barriers between statecraft and the lives of sensible people. Propagandizing spectacular criminal incidents are indeed an example of "Liberal Fascism". But "using violence for politics" is not what Goldberg meant by Fascism.

Well said, Jason.

Gina, I'm waiting for Jason to educate me more, but that's exactly what I meant. Seems to me that dissent is the hallmark of a free society, and the absence of dissent marks a fascist one. Recasting it in religious terms is roughly equivalent, in my mind.

Jason, what's your take on this?
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/315050/politicization-violence-maggie-gallagher

Kevin, you've reminded me that I forgot to pack my aviator goggles for this trip. Drat.

Ironic, but it makes sense when you think about it. Ultraautonomy naturally shifts to hegemony simply because the only way to completely preserve autonomy without becoming a hermit is to infringe on the autonomy of others.

It's interesting how selective some people can be, Gina. When President Obama was still on record opposing gay marriage--and that was, what, just a few months ago?--he wasn't accused of "hate" and he wasn't publicly declared persona non grata in Chicago and Boston.

LeeQuod said earlier: "I think the gay rights movement so often invokes the civil rights movement because they want representatives with the same courage." That may be part of it. But I think the main reason that most of them do it is that it makes it easier to shut down debate and claim automatic victory. If they can successfully make gay rights and same-sex marriage into civil rights issues, who could possibly argue against them?

When I was participating in one such not-really-a-discussion this weekend, it dawned on me is that what many gay rights advocates really want is to make it into a religion. And not just any religion, but the kind of religion they've always believed that Christians adhere to: the kind where no questioning is allowed and everyone must swear unending allegiance to the central tenets of the faith. They deplore this tendency whenever they think they see it in us, but it's exactly what some of them now want for themselves. How ironic is that?

That is a pretty wide definition, it is an activity all governments engage in, and I rather think you misread Jonah.

I hope I haven't been at your throat. We don't need to be too rough with each other when there are so many in our society willing to do it for us.

A secular case against gay marriage, like a religion-based one, would leave many people unsatisfied, but I think it's at least conceivable that one could be built based on negative impacts on others. For example, while I think marijuana laws are pretty much indefensible in a reasonably free country, I can still make a case for keeping the harder drugs illegal based on the dangerous climate they can create for the rest of us. There's far too much of a tendency for people on the hard stuff to be dangerous to anyone around them, and it's not unreasonable to consider the general welfare. It's similar to DUI laws. You might not actually hurt someone, but the risk you're posing to others is unacceptable.

If you followed a recent discussion here, you saw that I am skeptical of some of the anti-gay marriage arguments and have yet to hear one that I would take into the secular world. (A certain ignorant congressman recently demonstrated how much harm can be inflicted on a cause by someone making a fool of himself.) So I'm not saying that such an argument has been formulated yet.

I have run one up the flagpole here regarding religious liberty. The more legitimized gay marriage becomes, the greater the likelihood of our freedom being infringed upon. We've already seen public officials banning a fast-food establishment because the "wrong" things were said. We already have calls for any criticism of homosexual behavior to be declared hate speech. And it is very easy to imagine the fast pace this issue is on resulting in churches being told they can't refuse to conduct such a marriage.

Even though the victims would be religious people, some secularists could at least respect an argument that religious liberties should not be threatened in this way. I'll also concede that they more likely would argue that we needn't worry about all that because we still have the First Amendment, and besides, we shouldn't deprive people of rights based on speculation and scenarios. Still, it's possible.

My state has a vote on gay marriage coming up in November, and whatever decision I make is going to leave me uncomfortable.

It's interesting to know that my neighbors to the east are still waging the recall battle. Yes, I'm in Minnesota, home of pop-culture institutions recently referenced here: MST3K and a certain moose and squirrel. As a matter of fact, Lee, I am about 15 miles from a store called Frostbite Falls.

Kevin my friend, I'm delighted that we at least agree on *something*. It seems like "abortion" is one of them fightin' words, so much so that even people who are on the same team can be at each others' throats over even the slightest suggestion of heterodoxy.

In that regard it's like another word: "Calvinism". (Wow - the YOD begins to vibrate and move before Gina even reaches for it - like Thor's hammer Mjollnir does, sensing its owner's thoughts. Moving on *quickly*.)

There's a powerful secular argument against gay marriage? Let's hear it. Could a non-Christian have replaced Brown in debating Savage, then? Who?

I define "fascism" in the same terms Jonah Goldberg used in _Liberal Fascism_ (a book title that no doubt by itself made Anthony's eyebrows shoot off the top of his head). Nationalism isn't the most important factor; it's the use of force (by police, the army, or a sanctioned mob) to intimidate the opposition and thereby create conformance to government policies. It seems to me that the violence against Mormons and Christians and other supporters of Proposition 8 in California qualifies (and it's happening with many other issues as well - I was in Wisconsin recently, and saw lawn signs still out supporting their governor Scott Walker). I'll be interested to see how harsh a sentence is imposed on the FRC shooter; what message might it send? How will the media report it? What will Savage say about it?

(The YOD at rest
is always best.)

No, Lee, I don't believe the law should be about enforcing Biblical principles per se. (In fact, my views on such things as teacher-led prayer in public schools would disappoint many of our friends here.) I also, though, don't go along with the contemporary notion that if a proposal coincides with Biblical principle or even originates in a sponsor's faith it should be dismissed or disqualified.

Abortion is an example of that. Many folks are indeed driven by their Christianity to oppose abortion. There are, however, non-Christians and non-believers who are against abortion, because opposing the killing of an innocent person doesn't require faith in Jesus. Outlawing abortion would hardly represent the establishment of an official state religion.

Regarding gay marriage, I don't believe "Because God is against it" is a sufficient argument for making laws against something in a country like ours with its establishment clause. I actually believe God is a supporter of that clause, because He wants us to come to Him and follow Him by our own free will and not by force of government.

However, if there's a perfectly secular argument to be made against gay marriage, is that not allowable just because the goal is shared by Christians?

You really might want to rethink bring fascism into the conversation. Not only is there no hint in this debate of the nationalism that is a centerpiece of fascism, it's also not accurate to use that term to characterize our system of government. Even if you believe the government should do every single thing the popular will of the moment calls for, that hardly makes it fascist if it doesn't. And if your definition of "fascism" includes trying to legislate against an evil before the public is entirely ready, then William Wilberforce was a fascist.

Would abortion decrease significantly if it were outlawed? Well, I did hear of a study once that indicated that abortion is much less likely if not paid for by insurance, which would be the case if it's illegal. Beyond that, I would consider it a significant step simply for us to cease our official sanction of killing babies. What legalized abortion says about us is horrifying.

We do agree on something, Lee. In a country with our rules against a theocracy, our approach to many societal problems should be winning people over to the side of Christ.

Of course decreasing abortion by one is radically decreasing it.

But aside from that, it is a matter of honor. A government is given it's power to protect and avenge it's citizens. If it officially decrees that some citizens are not worthy of protection it has shamed itself. Any self-respecting godfather had the minimal good quality of looking after his clients.

And abortion was one of the circumstances he cited in saying we should "choose to change society first...."

I respectfully disagree with that.

Hi, Kevin! I don't think we've squared off toe-to-toe before. I feel quite honored.

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other." -- John Adams, 2nd President of the United States

I agree with the irascible Mr. Adams, in that I believe abortion would continue, illegally, even if Roe were overturned. Would I *like* to see it overturned immediately? Wholeheartedly YES! Do I think that would cause abortions to radically decrease in number? No, not really. But if a majority of people insist that it be overturned - and not those who respond to polls, but those who put real pressure on their legislatures - then it will be overturned. And the trend is heartening.

But I see Gina is thoughtfully fingering the YOD, since this post was about same-sex marriage, not abortion. Moving on.

My point about fascism is that is a state using its power over people irrespective of how the people feel. (And power can be extra-legal, as in when mobs do the government's bidding.) In a truly representative government, the representatives accurately represent the will of the people - for good, or for ill, hence the John Adams quote. If enough voters believe same-sex marriage should be legal, then at some point it will be.

I think the gay rights movement so often invokes the civil rights movement because they want representatives with the same courage. (Hmmm - the GOP in 1860, and the GOP in 1960, hmmm . . .) The big difference is that gays don't face lynchings, fire hoses, dogs, jail, economic disparity, social ostracism, and a lot of other ills. But they do understand how once something becomes law, it's very difficult to repeal.

I understand the difference between a politician (whose goal is to obtain and maintain power) and a statesman (who is willing to relinquish power if they can right a moral evil). We seem to keep re-electing politicians. Their buffer against the worst of sinful nature seems to be a narrow one at best. (A half-dozen Oregon Republicans just got outed for going to a topless bar. Sigh.) I know Congressman Frank Wolf is a powerful, wide buffer (Thank you, Anne Morse!! And yes, it's "Reference PFM Authors Day" for me), but he stands out because he's rare. For every one of him in office, there are several Chuck Colsons who would walk over their own grandmother to maintain power for their group. (And I know the history of that quote, so don't jump on me.) Shucks, they might even waffle on same-sex marriage if they thought it would help them keep the presidency - or if their running mate forced the issue . . . (What will happen if many of the black churches, who generally are very against same-sex marriage, threaten to vote Republican, or stay home, in November? I like my waffles with lots of syrup.)

As to popularity, one of the reasons I'm so attracted to www.breakpoint.org is that the writers here have the courage to voice their opinions, irrespective of the opposition. But they don't simply get a bigger megaphone than the other guy; they use Scripture and reason to convince. (I heard that someone insisted on the same criteria, about 500 years ago or so. Here I stand.) Not only that, they do so with gentleness and respect. (1500 years earlier than Luther.) I believe that's the best model for us.

You're not seriously suggesting, Kevin, that the law be used as a cudgel to enforce Biblical morality on an only marginally willing populace, are you? Won't that drive thoughtful, open-minded people like Anthony to bring up the Inquisition? And even if you and I know that the Inquisition was a very mild abuse of state power compared to those abuses done for non-religious reasons, it's still a strong argument in favor of changing hearts and minds prior to changing laws. I'm always amazed at how a person who undergoes an authentic Christian conversion will also change where they stand on the big issues. I've rarely seen it in reverse order, where laws or arguments on issues led to conversions.

Interestingly, in Gina's last paragraph she notes that Savage's position is based on emotion, while Brown's is based on reason. And, this difference led to a stalemate - so Savage did not prevail, as Brown predicted he wouldn't. Perhaps that says we should be equipping the young to reason, rather than to act on emotion. And hey - Eric used to write for VeggieTales. (One last plug.)

That would obviously depend on the circumstances Kevin. For instance a law forbidding mass human sacrifice to Cthulu is more urgent then a law forbidding littering even if both are equally a part of the culture.

When you talk about the law getting too far ahead of culture, Lee, are you saying we should delay acting on what we believe to be objective right vs. wrong if the polls don't show much support for our side at a given moment?

There are actually many pro-choice folks who would agree with you that timing needs to be considered. These are people who argue that Roe was a mistake because too many people in our society weren't ready for it, which is why there's still such acrimony. They believe that there should have been a winning of America's hearts and minds rather than ramming that ruling down our throats.

My response to that is to say that there NEVER would have been a good time to legalize abortion, even if it were popular.

Turning the above around, would you say it's a good thing that the courts have upheld Roe, because too many people would be irate if it were struck down? Because I've got to tell you, I wish Roe would be reversed tomorrow, regardless of whether that would be too far ahead of much of our culture.

And I don't think that's fascism. One of the benefits of having a representative form of government is that elected officials can act as a buffer against the worst desires of the public. Civil rights legislation wouldn't have passed without the support of some politicians who had the courage to go against the wishes of their constituents. By the way, some people still say that civil rights, too, moved too quickly. That's easy to say if you weren't black and living under Jim Crow.

Hypocrisy may not be the word, Anthony, in the pedantic sense, as hypocrisy implies the deliberate pretence of righteousness that one is knowingly indifferent to. Michael Corleone was a hypocrite for claiming to be a devout Catholic. He wasn't a hypocrite for running a crime empire but being outraged at internal treachery. He was just being a gangster.

What would the word be? Selective outrage? Phariseeism? Just plain irritating? Whatever.

I suppose it's no more inconsistent then gay-rights activists who think incest should be illegal.

Anthony, my friend, the difference is between making something legal and making something illegal. In the case of same-sex marriage, making it legal would require adding new laws, and/or changing existing ones. Divorce laws are on the books and have been for decades; the damage has already been done. (One of PFM's own wrote a book, "Child of Divorce, Child of God", about that damage. You may be away, Kristine Steakley, but you'll never be forgotten.)

There are many of us who would like to make divorce illegal, to stop the damage. But we recognize that law cannot get too far ahead of culture. For example, smoking was at one time completely socially acceptable. There's nothing quite like the shock of switching the channel to Turner Classic Movies and seeing Fred Astaire light up, but back then it was no big deal. Today, many buildings have signs that say you can't smoke within XX feet of the entrance - it's illegal. And I would not be surprised to see the sale of cigarettes made illegal, were it not for the large portion of our economy driven by it, and the enormous tax revenues. But driving smokers outside into the rain, wind and cold had to wait for most people to approve of that level of ostracism. (Personally I think our smoking laws are an unreasonable intrusion on personal liberty. But if they help someone to quit, they have some good in them.)

For gay marriage, it's simply too soon. Even President Obama opposed it until a few months ago.

And if gay marriage is ever legalized, there are those of us who will still think it, and divorce, and abortion, and many other things are wrong. But we'll continue to choose to change society first, and let the law follow. Call us hypocrites if you want, but in non-fascist societies, that is how it should work.