Orson Scott Card Blacklisted for Christian Faith

From the pen of David Blount over at the site Moonbattery

There’s a price to be paid by countermoonbats with courage enough to stand up for decency and sanity in a culture that is swirling down the toilet. Ask Orson Scott Card.

After pro-homosexual activists promoted an online petition demanding the firing of award-winning speculative fiction writer Orson Scott Card from an upcoming Superman comic anthology, DC Comics confirmed that Card’s portion of the project has been shelved indefinitely.

An online petition collected some ungodly (I use the word advisedly) number of signatures, and DC comics caved.

Although it did not receive as much media attention, there is a petition asking DC comics not to go along with the brownshirt blacklist:

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/we-support-orson-scott-cards-superman-comic/

If, gentle reader, I have ever written a story or essay or joke or even a word that pleased you, in the name of all that is kind, just, wholesome, true, bright and good in life, take the moment to go and sign the petition.

If they succeed with Orson Scott Card, who is much more mild in his views than I, they will succeed with driving stories I write out of the market as well. So I am motivated, in part by self interest.

I motivated more by indignation that Politically Correct perverts have managed to besmirch the reputation of Superman. He now stands for Truth, Justice, and Censorship.

Mr Blout of the Moonbattery site expresses my sentiments:

For the first time in human history, a society has degenerated to the point that advocating the preservation of children’s innocence and the family unit can get a famous author blacklisted.

In case you don’t know this him:

Orson Scott Card is the bestselling author best known for the classic Ender’s Game, Ender’s Shadow and other novels in the Ender universe. Most recently, he was awarded the 2008 Margaret A. Edwards Award for lifetime achievement in Young Adult literature, from the American Library Association. Card has written sixty-one books, assorted plays, comics, and essays and newspaper columns. His work has won multiple awards, including back-to-back wins of the Hugo and the Nebula Awards-the only author to have done so in consecutive years. His titles have also landed on ‘best of’ lists and been adopted by cities, universities and libraries for reading programs. The Ender novels have inspired a Marvel Comics series, a forthcoming video game from Chair Entertainment, and pre-production on a film version.

And if you do know him, go immediately and buy one or more of his books, and show support for this man. http://www.amazon.com/Orson-Scott-Card/e/B000AQ3SS0/ref=ntt_dp_epwbk_0

111 Comments

  1. Ping from The New Blather » The coming blacklist?:

    [...] (via Orson Scott Card Blacklisted for Christian Faith) [...]

  2. Comment by Tom Simon:

    I signed the petition and left a comment, to the effect that if the folks at DC did not think Card was a good enough writer for them, they should not have hired him, and if they did think he was good enough, they had an obligation not to be dissuaded by a pack of censorious wowsers.

    Unfortunately, I am in straitened circumstances, and cannot justify buying any of Mr. Card’s books for more than the price of the cheapest edition. I would be delighted to buy some of his ebooks if they were cheap; instead, they are more expensive than the mass-market paperback. I do have every intention of buying at least one, as soon as I am in a position to place a big enough order for physical books to get free shipping. That won’t happen, alas, till after the first of the month.

  3. Comment by dangerdad:

    And thus ends any future purchase from DC by me. Any company that caves to these loonbats (the pro-Gay lobby, who Card rightly called out) will never see my business.

    It was Salon that published the hit piece on Card by an agenda-driven liar. Salon hasn’t seen my traffic either.

    It’s certain that neither company will care about my non-business, just as an online petition is useless. I don’t know of any outlet that will air the full story of this scurrilous campaign. I wonder how it will affect the Ender’s Game release?

  4. Comment by Matthew:

    Worse is better. We ought not petition Withers, let alone Fairy Hardcastle.

  5. Comment by Sean Michael:

    I too signed the petition asking DC Comics not to cave in to the demands of Politically Correct fascists that Mr. Card be censored. And I have read some of Mr. Card’s books despite them not being quite my cup of tea. But I did like WYRMS.

    Truth to say, I’m not a fan of the Superman comics, altho I’ve read some as a child. My tastes in comics were more low brow and plebeian, I preferred Scrooge McDuck and Donald Duck comics! (Smiles)

    Sean M. Brooks

  6. Comment by pawel_z_wrocka:

    Dear Sir,

    Thank you for bringing this up. I grew up reading “Ender’s Game” and, moreover, I know Mr. Card is a friend of Poland, so I was pleased to be able to sign the counter-petition.

  7. Comment by Eric:

    I’m not much of a fan of either Card or Superman, but I’ll sign it for the principle…and because the author of “The Last of All Suns”, my favorite novella of all time, is asking me to do so.

    However, with all due respect, I must take exception to part of this article. Mr. Card is not a Christian; he is a Mormon. Now he, like many of the Mormon faith, is on our side of the culture war, and we’re all the better off for having him, but he is no closer to salvation than a conservative atheist would be.

    Christianity believes in an eternal God and salvation through the grace of Jesus Christ; Mormonism does not believe in either of these things; they instead believe in many Gods and that their God has a definite beginning and that salvation is achieved through works. There are other discrepancies between the two, sure, but these are the main ones.

    That said, I’ll definitely sign that petition, as I gladly would for any conservative author. What has happened is an injustice, and if I can’t correct it, I’d at least like to say I did everything in my power to correct it.

    • Comment by Zach:

      I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: if you don’t believe Mormons are Christian, then you are either not familiar with LDS theology or with the New Testament.

      You do not understand “works” or their relationship to saving faith in Christ. You do not understand our doctrine of God the Father and His origins. You do not understand LDS revelation on what “eternal” means. Perhaps your God is dead, entombed in the dusty traditions of a closed canon, never to reveal Himself again.

      In short, you’ve hijacked a thread to make an ignorant sectarian attack on another faith. Call that behavior “Christian” if you want to, I guess. Luckily for you, my theology is a lot less strident about who is going to hell or not than many of today’s ostensibly Christian creeds. So I pray for you to have as many opportunities to repent as needed. God is merciful through the grace of His Son.

      As regards Mr. Card, he has done innumerable good works (as a Christian living in the Grace of Christ ought to do) both for science fiction and for the world at large. I support his courage the same way I do Mr. Wright’s; I buy their books and recommend them to my friends. I also don’t waste much time condemning others or arguing semantics, as to who is “christian” or not. Mr. Wright is a Catholic; as a faithful Latter-day Saint, I do not believe the Pope to be infallible, though I believe him to be a very good man and an influence for good in the world, as I believe that God has put him in his position as the leader of so many of the world’s Christians. But as I said, my theology is perhaps more merciful than yours.

    • Comment by Foxfier:

      That Mormons are not Christian would be shocking news to my neighbors, with whom I’ve said standard Catholic prayers and whose religious teachings to their kids that I have heard would not be objectionable in any generic Christian group– including agreeing with my three year old when she pointed at the Jesus statue and said “that’s God!”

      Like every other non-Catholic group of Christians, I disagree with some of their theology, but they are followers of Christ– thus, Christ-ians.

    • Comment by John C Wright:

      Mormons are Christians, even if their baptisms are not valid. If I may use the technical term without giving offense, what they are, are Heretics. A nicer term might be heterdox

      A heterodox believes one or more of the same principles as the orthodox, but dissents from orthodox either in another principle, or in an implication of a principle. It is like the difference between an invasion from an external enemy and a civil war. The other side in a civil war is still a member of your nation by definition.

      In this particular case Mr Card is being punished by the politically correct FOR HIS CHRISTIANITY and for nothing else. He did not offend them by believing in the specific teaching of Joseph Smith, or because he believes in a Telluric Heaven as part of an afterlife, or because he believes ten of the tribes of Israel relocated to the New World or any other Mormon belief.

      He is being punished because he spoke out in defense of the common decency which Christians, Jews, virtuous pagans and all non-libertines hold in common.

      You shame me by taking this opportunity to widen divisions between the Catholics and the Mormons. I am happy to settle any disputes between the two assemblies with a round of deathball in the thunderdome or some other gladiatorial game involving radioactive dinosaurs, provided only that we first ally as brothers against our mutual enemy, the nameless philosophy that leads to the HHS mandate as well as to the blacklist of Orson Card.

      Please do not spit on my allies when I need their friendship. If I were as good a writer as Card, or as famed as he, that would be me.

      Besides, one with more authority than I has remarked on the matter:

      “And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us; and we forbade him, because he followeth not us. But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is on our part.”

      • Comment by Vicq Ruiz:

        “He is being punished because he spoke out in defense of the common decency which Christians, Jews, virtuous pagans and all non-libertines hold in common.” Agreed, and I signed this petition because the tolerance thugs roil my bowels.

        • Comment by John C Wright:

          Once again, I am pleased and delighted to find an area where you and I agree. Bravo and well done. I salute you.

          The barbarians are within the gates, and it is the time for all civilized men to rally to the bright banners of civilization.

          • Comment by Vicq Ruiz:

            I am in complete agreement with the consensus on this thread that an author (or anyone else) should not be bullied into self-censorship of an honest opinion, and that said bullies should never be given encouragement.

            I can’t say that I am quite agreed that Card is under attack because of his “Christianity and nothing else”. He is, after all taking a public position on a volatile political issue – should state sanction be given to homosexual marriages – and I suspect that if he were joined on the podium by a Jew, a Rastafarian, an agnostic, and a Hindu who spoke out similarly on the same issue, they would likewise face the wrath of the P.C. enforcers.

            • Comment by John C Wright:

              And yet again, you make the same basic error in logic you have made twice before. In logic, if I say “Some A is B” it is no contradiction to say “Some B is not A.” If I say I will get wet if it rains, it is no argument to say I will also get wet if I fall in a pond.

              All Christians should hold lust and sex outside wedlock to be sins. There is no homosexual act which is not an act of lust outside wedlock. Hence, all Christian should hold homosexual acts to be a sin. Hence if Mr Card, a Christian, expresses what Christian should hold, he does and he must express the idea that homosexual acts are sins. When Mr Card is being punished for speaking out against homosex, he is being punished for being a true Christian.

              And now you rush in to say that some other people of other religions if expressing the same thought would suffer the same blacklist. So what? This does not contradict anything I said. It does not even speak to anything I said.

              It is also false. Those other religions are not in competition with PC, whereas Christianity is. I sincerely doubt you will not find any but a few statistically insignificant outliers of the PC enforcement arm seeking to smear and denounce Jews and Hindus. Unless you have a counterexample in mind?

              Let us not assume that the PC thought police actually stand for any principle which they apply consistently. Indeed, I note also you wisely did not rush in to say that if a Muslim spoke out against homosexuality, or advocating stoning them to death, or did stone them to death, the PC enforcer would punish them also.

              • Comment by Darrell:

                But isn’t it the assertion that is being put forth that Mr. Card is attempting to prevent homosexuals from having sex within wedlock? I thought that in this particular debate that the sinfulness of sex outside of marriage has not been the focus.

                • Comment by Tom Simon:

                  On the contrary, it is still about the sinfulness of sex outside of marriage; there is merely a transparent subterfuge to redefine the term ‘marriage’ so as to include forms of sexual activity that are sinful per se.

                  In Christian doctrine, ‘within wedlock’ means ‘within a validly contracted marriage consisting of one man, who has only one wife, and one woman, who has only one husband’. By definition, it does not allow for a man to have a husband or for a woman to have a wife. If you wish to redefine the term ‘marriage’, you do not thereby alter the doctrine, because the doctrine is based upon the liceity of particular actions, not upon the language used to classify them. You merely introduce the need to describe at length what a Christian means by marriage, since the word itself loses the power to denote that.

                  • Comment by Darrell:

                    Fair enough. My question then is, can someone be married outside of a Christian sacrament? For example, are two atheists, or even Chrstians, married when declared so by a notary public or a retired circuit court clerk so long as the ceremony is between one man and one woman?

                    I ask, not because I am seeking to redefine marriage, but because in, for example, the Orthdox Christian Church some who come to the Church must be baptized even should they believe that they have been baptized before. This is because we claim that their baptism was invalid — not a real sacrament — and yet we don’t, at least in the United States, take political action to prevent their churches from baptizing people under the argument that it is redefining baptism or Christianity.

                    The theological question that I find interesting is, what is the difference between the sacrament of baptism and the sacrament if marriage?

                    • Comment by Tom Simon:

                      I hope I may be forgiven for speaking up when there are others more knowledgeable than I; but since nobody has done so yet, here is my understanding of the matter, such as it is:

                      The Catholic position is that Christians ought to be married only in a Christian sacrament, but that civil marriages are nonetheless valid if they meet the other requirements for marriage between Christians. So, for instance, both participants must be of marriageable age, both must give their free and informed consent to the marriage, and there must not be any other impediments to their being married. A bigamous or incestuous marriage, for instance, is held by the Church to be illicit no matter where or by whom it is performed. If both participants are of the same sex, that is by definition an impediment to their being married to one another, and no such marriage can be either licit or valid.

                      As for the difference between the sacrament of baptism and the sacrament of marriage, it does not actually lie in the identity of the celebrant. In exceptional circumstances, laymen are permitted to baptize; indeed, in those particular circumstances, even an unbaptized person can validly baptize another. In the normal course of events one goes to a priest to be baptized, just as, in the normal course of events, a Catholic is expected to go to a priest to be married. Still, it is theoretically possible to be baptized by an atheist, just as it is practically possible to be validly married by one. In practice, of course, it would be hard to find an atheist who believed in baptism and was willing to do it; whereas many atheists believe in marriage and are willing to officiate at weddings.

                      The essential difference between the two sacraments is simply that all Christians are called upon to be baptized, and all baptized persons are called upon to live as Christians; whereas not all Christians are called upon to marry, nor are non-Christians expected to refrain from marrying.

                    • Comment by Darrell:

                      Ms. Rousseau

                      I don’t know what you mean by “natural instituition” so I am unable to agree or disagree with you. I do know that there have been a number of types of marriage throughout history which most modern Westerners would find extremely problematic. That said, it isn’t my point that the state (or community) has no stake in determining the subjective validity of a marriage — a community might find multifarious reasons for placing parameters around the institution of marriage. In the modern United States religion has a vanishingly small place within those parameters. Whether this is good or bad I have not commented.

                      The Church (and I suppose the Roman Catholic Church as well) does not by neccessity consider marriages in other faith traditions to be invalid but it certainly has sacramental concerns as you would quickly find if a Mormon groom tried to marry a Roman Catholic bride in an Orthodox Christian church with an Orthodox Christian priest. My point being that within the Church marriage is not simply a natural institution or a secular contract but a particular gift bestowed by the Holy Spirit in the sacrament of Holy Matrimony.

                      I would disagree that the state has no business recognizing baptisms as invalid but would agree that the modern democratic state as divorced from the Church does not. Is this the best possible state? I would say no, but it is probably the best possible state that can be expected.

                  • Comment by Darrell:

                    I unintentionally obfuscated my question. Hopefully my more explicit reconnoiter of the question will not be offensive for such is not my intent.

                    I recognize that sacraments may be administered by non-priests within certain circumstances. I also recognize that some sacraments outside of the Orthodox Christian Church fully exist or exist in a limited manner. Which brings me back to my question which I will attempt to make more specific and therefore perhaps clearer.

                    If an LDS were to join the Orthodox Christian Church they would need to be catechized and baptized even were they to have been baptized within the faith tradition that they are leaving. This is because their baptism is considered invalid by the Church. Yet there is no, as far as I am aware, political movement to outlaw LDS baptisms and there is no campaign, again so far as I am aware, to educate the LDS that they are redefining baptism. If Mr. Hutchins, Mr. Petersen, or Mr. Card say that they are baptized then I recognize that they have been baptized within their church and don’t feel any urge to tell them that they are redefining baptism — perhaps the cornerstone sacrament of Christianity — because their baptism lacks the criteria of an orthodox baptism.

                    What I am seeking to understand is why the concern over redefining marriage when there seems to be a lack if concern over redefining baptism. To your point, not all men are called to be married but I would argue that all men are called to be baptized, even if they refuse to heed that call. A few commentators here have expressed that the don’t believe that LDS are Christians while others, such as Mr. Wright, have indicated that they do believe them to be Christians. Yet Mr. Wright understands that the baptism of the LDS is considered completely invalid by the Roman Catholic Church. Why then the focus on one sacrament over another?

                    I have concerns over same sex marriage in how it might change elements of the current culture and more so in how it might impact the Church legislatively but I don’t know how we say that a fully secular (invalid) marriage (which is what I was trying to show that we already essentially have by discussing atheists being married by civil authorities) is a step to far when we recognize, and almost endorse, invalid baptisms with none of the same concerns. Is it because the state (at least within the United States) does not recognize baptisms but leaves it solely to the discretion of individuals and their faith traditions?

                    • Comment by Sylvie D. Rousseau:

                      Baptism is not a natural institution as old as man but marriage is. As you say, the State has no business recognizing baptism as valid but it may confer to ministers of the church (Catholic priests almost always had that secular capacity) the keeping of official records of births (not baptisms), marriages (not the sacrament but the natural institution) and deaths.

                      For the same reason that marriage is a natural institution that no state or church has the power to change (even if they imagine they have), the Church does not necessarily consider any marriage not blessed in the Church as invalid: converts are not always required to be married again, particularly if they don’t have to be baptized and they were married in a Church whose baptism is considered valid.

                    • Comment by Robert Mitchell Jr:

                      Well, first, there is no movement to redefine baptism. Anywhere or in anyway.

                      Second, what part of the law is involved with baptisms? As opposed to marriage, which can be cleanly argued is the reason the state exists. There is no reason for the state to be involved in baptisms (in the eyes of the State, what is Baptism, other then the joining, with no legal responsibilities, of a private club?), and every reason for the state to be involved in Marriage (Children, Crimes of Passion, Inheritance, etc.).

                      Third, their baptism is not considered “invalid”, they are not considered baptized in the Catholic faith, which is quite a different thing. If the Satanists tried to use the Law to force the Catholic Church to accept their “baptisms” as valid and binding in the Catholic Church, then people would probably be quite upset…….

                      Forth, there was and is no notable movement to stop atheists being married by civil authorities. There is an overt attempt to steal the value and reputation of Marriage, by keeping the title but changing what it means. And a very sloppy one to boot, insofar as none of people seem to have given any thought to how “common law” marriages will be affected by the change, for example.

                    • Comment by John C Wright:

                      What I am seeking to understand is why the concern over redefining marriage when there seems to be a lack if concern over redefining baptism.

                      I cannot answer the theological question because I am not a theologian but a lawyer.

                      The legal question I can answer: redefining marriage to include non-marriage as marriage, and to include sodomy as sexual reproduction, will hold as a matter of law that marriage has no meaning aside from whatever the momentary will or whim of those who chose to use it choose. Marriage will be a contract, indistinguishable in the eyes of the law from hiring an employee or forming a partnership to open a store. It will ne dissolvable at will. The law will no longer be able to regard marriage as pertinent for deciding such questions as child custody, support, who has the right to discipline the child or the duty to raise him. Trusts, wills and estates will likewise be decided on utterly arbitrary bases, merely a determination of a judge as to how a dead man’s property should be distributed.

                      Now, that problem with putting so much arbitrary power over the property of the dead and the lives of the children into the hands of courts of law is that it creates uncertainty, chaos, unfairness, unhappiness. The other problem is that the family unit will no longer exist as a legal entity, and the type of dysfunctional and violent male-female alliances of mutual exploitation as we see among the very poor in England and America will replace it. It is a sad fact that human nature is not sufficient, without the threat of the law and the sanction of society, to maintain the sacred nature of marriage.

                      This will effect the vast majority of society. In return, we get what? Social pays a purely ceremonial and symbolic honor to an infinitesimal minority of sodomites and sexual deviants who wish to engage in what is basically a masquerade of pretending they are a married couple.

                      As a lawyer, I know that legal consequences flow from the logic of what the law says, no matter what the intentions or hopes of the reformers might be. What injustice is being done to the sexual deviants when society refuses to help them play pretend at being married? No one calls it injustice if a pederast cannot pretend to marry a child, a necrophiliac pretend to marry a corpse, a practitioner of bestiality pretend to marry his bitch or ewe, or an incestuous lover marry in truth his sister, daughter, or mother. (One might argue that only in the case of incest and homosexuality is the valid consent of an adult involved, and this distinguishes this perversion from all the others. To that I say that only in the Christian religion is the consent of the woman required. One can logically have marriage without consent but one cannot logically have marriage without a sexual dyad. Consent is non-essential. Two sexes is essential.)

                      If any injustice is done when a woman decides she should be able to become a father, or a man decides to be a mother, and attempt to perform the sexual act without the sexual organs needed, it is an injustice imposed by nature, not by man, and men cannot cure it.

                      The “argument” in favor of sodomy marriage boils down to calling sane people and decent people “bigots” and pretending a sexual addiction to a deviant and unnatural behavior is a racial characteristic of a new race which exists alongside homo sapiens called homo sexual sapiens, and that to deny this new race every honor and flattery their tortured consciences unrealistically demand is a product of race-hatred for this newly invented race. At that point is it not an argument at all, but a figure of rhetoric: addiction to sodomy is the new Black.

                      Anyone who does not see this rather strained analogy as valid is utterly unmoved by all the vituperative rhetoric which occupies the empty spaces where a rational argument is supposed to go: and that is why the rhetoric is so vituperative. The argument consists of shrieking “SHUT UP!” to the normal, sane, decent and non-perverted people. That is not persuasive, but it is unfortunately, in this cowardly age, rather effective.

                      Saying that the baptisms of a heretical sect are invalid have no common properties with these arguments. There is nothing for you to understand, since the two things you are trying to distinguish have no common property to distinguish, aside from their nature as sacraments.

                      And the Left does not care about the poor souls afflicted with the mental disease of same sex attraction any more than they care about women living under Sharia. The point is to sue Churches, demonize church-goers as bigots, and heap legal penalties and social opprobrium on the faith, as we have already seen take place in many smaller cases. The Left cares very much about destroying the Church. They are incompatible rival sects.

                    • Comment by John Hutchins:

                      ” perhaps the cornerstone sacrament of Christianity”

                      There are a very large number of Christians that believe that baptism is completely unnecessary, as they consider it being a dead work. The infamous CARM for instance make some twisted arguments based on scriptures saying the exact opposite of their position that baptism is not necessary because Jesus said we need to be born of water and Spirit.

                      I am not sure why anyone LDS should be offended that orthodox don’t recognize our baptism because we don’t recognize any other groups baptisms as being valid as, according to our doctrine, they lack the correct authority.

                    • Comment by Darrell:

                      Mr. Hutchins

                      And yet Mr. Mitchell has responded to me that, “[T]here is no movement to redefine baptism. Anywhere or in anyway.”

                      Whatever I write on this blog is from an Orthodox Christian perspective. The fact that I link to my (woefully neglected) blog and have been posting here for years with regular statements to my Orthodox Christianity should give people everyone some insight into what I mean when I write “Christianity”. Some faith traditions, such as Unitarian Universalism, have moved so far from Christianity that to call them Christians is an ecumenical act that essentially robs the term Christianity of meaning. Buddhists, for example, who believe that Jesus Christ was a Buddah are not in fact Christians from my point of view.

                      At any rate, my point was not that there are no heretics. My point was that those of us who adhere to Orthodox Christianity or Roman Catholicism or “traditional” expressions of Christianity if you will believe that baptism is an important sacrament. In a certain real sense more fundamental than even the holy mystery of marriage as not all men are called to be married but all men are called to be baptized. Yet there is ample evidence that baptism is regularly redefined (one need only look up your aforementioned CARM and baptism to see specific evidence) but there is no hue and cry about how men can’t redefine it.

                      My question is why is marriage more important than baptism and not what is the relationship of baptism to heretical and crypto-Christian organizations?

                    • Comment by Darrell:

                      Mr. Mitchell

                      Well, first, there is no movement to redefine baptism. Anywhere or in anyway.

                      Your statement is simply at odds with reality. Such movements have existed and currently do exist. Without becoming lost down a rat hole of specifics the Orthodoc Christian Church holds marriage to be a sacrament or holy mystery that bestows through the Holy Spirit a charism. Other faith traditions hold baptism to be a symbolic act of discipline or even a diabolic priestly accretion that intentionally obscures salvation through faith alone. Different faith traditions even differ on what constitutes a valid baptism even where the intent of the baptism was essentially the same.

                      Second, what part of the law is involved with baptisms?

                      You are arguing with me by making the same point that I made? My argument is that marriage (and divorce) and baptism have particular sacramental meanings to “traditional” Christianity that are not cleanly or necessarily aligned with their meanings to a state. Marriage has nothing to do with tax laws, estates, or hospital visitation rights. These are accretions to marriage that are wholly divorced from the Christian meaning of the sacrament.

                      As opposed to marriage, which can be cleanly argued is the reason the state exists.

                      I await the aforementioned clean argument. I have not put much thought to the matter but I would have thought that cooperative mutual protection is the fundamental reason that state’s exist.

                      There is no reason for the state to be involved in baptisms (in the eyes of the State, what is Baptism, other then the joining, with no legal responsibilities, of a private club?), and every reason for the state to be involved in Marriage (Children, Crimes of Passion, Inheritance, etc.).

                      Christianity is not a private club, but that point aside there is certainly a reason for a state to be involved in baptisms. To reduce heresy and therefore promote a more homogenous and therefore internally peaceful society. Just as there are accreted laws built around marriage do you really doubt that the same could be done for baptisms?

                      Third, their baptism is not considered “invalid”, they are not considered baptized in the Catholic faith, which is quite a different thing.

                      Yes, their (let’s use the LDS for the moment) baptisms are considered invalid by the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Christian Church. No one is baptized into the “Catholic faith” and this is simply an example of the redefining of the meaning of baptism which you earlier denied. I’m not certain what your faith background, if any, is, but marriage within Christianity is a holy mystery and not a state contract. We now almost exclusively think of marriage as inextricably bound to the state but this is simply untrue.

                      Forth, there was and is no notable movement to stop atheists being married by civil authorities. There is an overt attempt to steal the value and reputation of Marriage, by keeping the title but changing what it means. And a very sloppy one to boot, insofar as none of people seem to have given any thought to how “common law” marriages will be affected by the change, for example.

                      I don’t think that I am following your train of thought. Marriage has already been grossly redefined. The very point where you concede that a male and female atheist being married by a notary public or a man and woman cohabiting for an arbitrary number of years are marriages illustrate this.

                      The idea behind same sex marriage is two-fold. To provide people in such a civil contract the same civil (government) rights as have accreted around marriage as well as to normalize homosexuality within US culture — and possibly create the basis for discrimination lawsuits. I can understand concern about the second and contingent third ramifications of same sex marriages. I can also understand people being opposed to same sex marriage. I simply don’t see how this has any connection to concerns about “redefining” marriage. A redefinition that long ago occurred. I also claim that the redefinition of baptism has had greater ill effect on society and on mankind but that is a more overtly theological argument.

                    • Comment by joeclark77:

                      Darrell, the “crime” is not the redefinition of marriage itself (except in the sense that lying or bearing false witness is a sin). The crime is that the Left is redefining the word “marriage” in order to legitimize a gross perversion, destroy souls, and fabricate an excuse to persecute Christians.

                      Marriage pre-dates the sacrament of matrimony. Indeed it is a “thing” which predates the English language. And we know what it is. To claim that the word now “includes” a new and vastly different meaning does not change the meaning of the word “marriage” as used before the current date.

                      Here’s an analogy: let’s say that the drug-legalization crowd managed to pass a ballot amendment that said, for the purposes of state law, the word “banana” now refers to either a banana or to cocaine. And then they declared that by virtue of changing the “official dictionary”, cocaine was now legal. You see the problem, right? They’re declaring that a word means something it has never meant before, and then presuming that this changes the true meaning of texts that use that word even if they were written before the change.

                      The lie is a sin, but it’s extra sinful because it is in service of a great evil – legitimizing cocaine. Actually, on second thought, both the lie and the drug use are madness.

                      With regards to baptism, yes, a number of heterodox Christians believe false doctrines, but that’s hardly the same thing. There’s no deliberate lie behind it, they are merely in error. And it certainly isn’t done to advance some great crime. Nor is it done with the power of the state. Now… if you’re advocating a return to a medieval and explicitly Catholic (or eastern Orthodox) form of government in which the preaching of heresy is forbidden, well, count me in! But that’s really a separate debate from the “gay” “marriage” thing.

              • Comment by Vicq Ruiz:

                Constructing a mental Venn diagram here…..

                Is therefore the class of entirely contained within the class of ??

              • Comment by Vicq Ruiz:

                Well, -that- really made my point, didn’t it…..

                What I meant to ask was

                Constructing a mental Venn diagram here…..

                Is therefore the class of “Christians” entirely contained within the class of “those publicly opposed to homosexual marriage??

                except that I used angle brackets to avoid the implication of snarky “air quotes”. Won’t do that again!!

                • Comment by John C Wright:

                  The catechism of the Catholic Church reads:

                  ” 2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

                  2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

                  2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection. ”

                  Is your question whether or not Protestants, Orthodox and the Mugwamp Valley Universalitarian Groove Church of What’s Happening Now loyal followers of the teachings of the Holy Mother Church? Despite our best efforts, alas, they are not. Does that make them members of the class “Christians”? I am sure a Mohammedan with dynamite in his underwear would call them Christians, and kill them for being Christian, so I hesitate to say otherwise. Christian heretics by definition are Christian, and by definition reject some of the principles and teaching of the Christian faith.

                  Do that parishioners of the Mugwamp Valley Universalitarian Groove Church of What’s Happening Now publicly oppose homosexual marriage? That I do not know. Should they? Indeed so, both for the sake of sanity and for Christ’s sake.

                  Does that answer the question?

    • Comment by John C Wright:

      Thank you for the signature, and thank you for liking LAST OF ALL SUNS. You are the first person I’ve heard of who has read it, much less liked it. I am grateful.

  8. Comment by erik1880:

    The world of comic books these days has become VERY left-wing (DC is releasing a new superhero comic book based on the occupy movement called “The Movement” after all, and superheroes have contracted gay marriages in X-men and up coming in Batwoman). This also doesn’t seem to have stopped at this issue but is poring over onto the film adaption of Mr. Card’s Ender’s Game- http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/enders-games-orson-scott-cards-422456

    I’m wondering at what point you will have to sign a political manifesto just to be employed, as well as to receive services, in this country.

  9. Comment by Tyrrell McAllister:

    I am a liberal and a leftist (as I understand the term to be used around here). I strongly disagree with Card’s views on the morality of homosexuality, and I agree with the views held by many of his strongest critics. Nonetheless, I wish that more people would read their J.S. Mill. From On Liberty:

    Complete liberty of contradicting and disproving our opinion, is the very condition which justifies us in assuming its truth for purposes of action; and on no other terms can a being with human faculties have any rational assurance of being right.

    (From elsewhere in the essay, it is clear that J.S. Mill means “complete liberty” from social discouragement as well as legal sanction.)

    [E]ven if the received opinion be not only true, but the whole truth; unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and earnestly contested, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds.

    And even granting that someone’s views deserve the strongest contempt, that does not justify punishing him just for holding those views:

    There is a degree of folly, and a degree of what may be[Pg 145] called (though the phrase is not unobjectionable) lowness or depravation of taste, which, though it cannot justify doing harm to the person who manifests it, renders him necessarily and properly a subject of distaste, or, in extreme cases, even of contempt: a person could not have the opposite qualities in due strength without entertaining these feelings. Though doing no wrong to any one, a person may so act as to compel us to judge him, and feel to him, as a fool, or as a being of an inferior order: and since this judgment and feeling are a fact which he would prefer to avoid, it is doing him a service to warn him of it beforehand, as of any other disagreeable consequence to which he exposes himself. It would be well, indeed, if this good office were much more freely rendered than the common notions of politeness at present permit, and if one person could honestly point out to another that he thinks him in fault, without being considered unmannerly or presuming. We have a right, also, in various ways, to act upon our unfavourable opinion of any one, not to the oppression of his individuality, but in the exercise of ours. We are not bound, for example, to seek his society; we have a right to avoid it (though not to parade the avoidance), for we have a right to choose the society most acceptable to us. We[Pg 146] have a right, and it may be our duty, to caution others against him, if we think his example or conversation likely to have a pernicious effect on those with whom he associates. We may give others a preference over him in optional good offices, except those which tend to his improvement. In these various modes a person may suffer very severe penalties at the hands of others, for faults which directly concern only himself; but he suffers these penalties only in so far as they are the natural, and, as it were, the spontaneous consequences of the faults themselves, not because they are purposely inflicted on him for the sake of punishment.

    (Emphasis added.)

    Similarly, I strongly disagree with many of our host’s views. I think that they would do great harm if they were implemented. But he will hold those views whether or not I buy his novels. And the world is surely better with his novels in it than it otherwise would be. They have at least brought enjoyment to my life. So, however distasteful I find his politics, he makes his living making the world a better place. Why would I want to discourage that?

    If I disagree with your politics, then I will (a) oppose your efforts to implement them, (b) encourage your efforts to critique my politics (since I will benefit from any flaws you find), and (c) encourage you to do whatever else you do that I think is good. This last point makes the attack on Card seem particularly misguided. After all, any time he would have spent on the Superman story would have been time that he couldn’t spend on advancing his harmful political agenda. As a political opponent of his, why wouldn’t I want that?

    • Comment by John C Wright:

      Nobly said! There is hope for democracy yet.

      Will buy one of Mr Card’s books, then? Sign the petition? Write to DC comics telling them exactly what you have told the readers here?

      • Comment by Tyrrell McAllister:

        On your suggestion, I will write to DC with what I wrote here.

        To the best of my recollection, I have never signed an Internet petition, and I am unlikely to start now.

        As for buying Card’s books, I just don’t like his writing enough, personally, to spend time reading them. Reading time is scarce, and your books are all ahead of his in the queue :).

        • Comment by Darrell:

          Have you tried his TALES OF ALVIN MAKER series? It is a fantasy series but, in my opinion, the best novels that he’s written.

          • Comment by Tyrrell McAllister:

            I read several books from that series years ago (the first three, I think, in the mid-nineties). I did enjoy it, but I had more time in those days. These days, I have one-year-old twins and a long reading list :).

        • Comment by John C Wright:

          I am not asking you to read them, but to buy them. Unless antichristian boycotts and blacklists like this fail, and are seen to fail, my career is in jeopardy. I am both not as famous as Mr Card and am more abrasive in my views.

          • Comment by Tyrrell McAllister:

            I am not asking you to read them, but to buy them. Unless antichristian boycotts and blacklists like this fail, and are seen to fail, my career is in jeopardy.

            I don’t yet see sufficient reason to buy Card books that I won’t read.

            (1) The amount that would go to Card would essentially be an anonymous charitable contribution. Even when aggregated with other people’s purchases, it would not effect at all the success of the Superman blacklist, so far as I can see, not even symbolically (because of the anonymity).

            Further, I don’t see how it would ameliorate what I consider to be the harmful effects of the blacklist. As I intimated above, these are the following:

            (1) A Superman comic that would have given people joy won’t be published.

            (2) There will be a chilling effect discouraging people who share Card’s views from arguing for them. Card himself, I expect, will not be “chilled” in the least, but others who don’t feel as secure will be.

            I agree that I ought to take steps that would help to offset effects (1) and (2). That was why I wrote to DC, as you suggested. But I don’t yet see how buying a Card book would do that.

            As for you and your career, whether or not it is jeopardy, I will be buying your books and reading them.

    • Comment by Foxfier:

      When I was growing up, not so many years ago, my folks would describe your stance as “acting like an adult.”

      Kind of sad that it’s become something that has to be worthy of comment– and that is worthy of being singled out for special complement.

      Thank you for being a reasonable person, no matter how much we disagree.

    • Comment by Stephen J.:

      I applaud your fairmindedness and salute you, and appreciate the quotation of J.S. Mill, whom I’ve always enjoyed.

      I’ll ask, though, about the last of your emphasized points, which strikes me as possibly knottier than it may seem at first glance; Mill draws a very clear distinction between a man suffering for what others judge to be faults “only in the natural and… spontaneous consequences of the faults themselves,” and a man suffering penalties that were “purposely inflicted on him for the sake of punishment.

      Clear as the distinction is when phrased this way, I can’t help but wonder if the demarcation is perhaps a lot harder to apply in practice. At what point did the campaign against Card explicitly cross the line into organized, purposeful infliction of punishment, rather than spontaneous mass rejection? Is there a significant difference between saying, “Fire this author because we despise his beliefs,” and saying “You may as well fire this author, because we despise his beliefs so much that we will buy nothing you publish while you employ him”? The former may be a direct demand while the latter is simply a statement of planned refusal, but when they amount to the same thing and everybody knows they do, how meaningful is it to speak of “spontaneous consequence” vs. “organized punishment”? (Especially given how easily the Internet facilitates what may be called the “spontaneous organization” of the mob.)

      Mill speaks of the right “to act upon our unfavourable opinion of any one, not to the oppression of his individuality, but in the exercise of ours.” But what do you do when nobody recognizes any valid distinction between these — when any exercise of one person’s individuality is held by definition to be an oppression of another’s?

      • Comment by Tyrrell McAllister:

        I admire Mill’s essay tremendously, and reading it actually did change my mind about the morality of boycotting people over political disagreements unrelated to their businesses. But he never entirely resolves difficulties like the ones you raise to my satisfaction. Nor do I know how to resolve them myself as generally as I would like.

        But, in this particular case, I think that Mill is on firm ground. There is a principled distinction between (1) privately writing to DC and telling them that you personally will not buy anything written by Card, and (2) working to amass a large number of people to do the same thing.

        On Mill’s view, which I accept, doing (1) is acceptable only if you won’t buy the work because you find the prospect of “associating” with Card to be distasteful. No desire to “punish” Card by shunning him or shaming him can play into your justification for doing (1). But, so long as you just want to avoid associating with him, it would be fair to write to DC and tell them of this fact about yourself (and any other like-minded readers), because it could potentially impact their business.

        It is even fair to tell other people about Card’s views, so that they too can make an informed decision about whether they want to associate with him — not to encourage them to decide one way or the other, but just to give them facts that they might find relevant to their decision.

        But once you have done this, you have done everything plausibly necessary to avoid associating yourself with Card. The only additional motive for organizing a boycott would be to punish him, and that would not be right, on Mill’s view (and mine).

        Now, speaking for myself, I don’t think that even just doing (1) (refusing to read Card just because of his views) is justified in this case. If you think that the Superman comic, considered apart from its author, would make the world a better place, then you ought to encourage Card to write it. Even if Card is a Very Bad Man, writing this comic would still be something good, something which he ought to be encouraged to do.

      • Comment by Foxfier:

        At what point did the campaign against Card explicitly cross the line into organized, purposeful infliction of punishment, rather than spontaneous mass rejection?

        At no point did in the response to Card did I see any spontaneous rejection.

        It can be supposed that someone that usually buys DC heard that Card was invited to write, went “hm, I disagree strongly with him, so I’ll not buy that” and thought no more on it, but every single example of response that I saw was “Card is an evil bigot, punish him!” in format.

        Given the common phrasing in many of the rants I saw, I would guess that it’s another example of folks having him on their enemy list and throwing a fit every time anyone hires him, and DC just happens to actually be big enough to get some attention.

        (The irony of screaming about Card being a bigot while demanding he be punished for being an observant member of a group is pretty head-poundingly bad.)

    • Comment by Dirigibletrance:

      Bravo! This post you made warms my heart.

  10. Comment by False_Keraptis:

    Sorry Mr. Wright, I may be a big fan of you and Mr. Card, and I may agree with you here 100%, but I’m also a coward and a slave. I’m not about to sign my real name to a document that might offend my masters.

    • Comment by John C Wright:

      I cannot tell if this is a jest or not. If not a jest, keep in mind that your masters are not your masters, but your enemies. By that I mean a ‘master’ has at least an economic interest in keeping a slave alive. Stalin had no interest in keeping the Kulaks alive, nor Hitler in keeping Jews alive, nor Mao in keeping Chinamen alive. These tyrants were not tyrants in the normal sense of the word, but were something more: ideologically motivated enemies of the people they ruled, scourges and plagues and executioners.

      We cannot live a peaceful life by giving them what they want since what they want is to rob our peace and ruin our lives.

      • Comment by False_Keraptis:

        Sure, in the long run our betters probably wouldn’t mind seeing me exterminated like the cockroach they think I am, but that day is long way off, and I don’t want to jump to the front of the line. When I look at America’s leadership, I see no shortage of fools and traitors, but I don’t see any Hitlers, Maos, or Stalins yet. Right now, the Beast operates a little more subtly and humanely: it controls employment, so if I want to work, I’d be wiser not to draw its gaze. Is my cowardly silence equivalent to approval? Am I just another orc in the armies of Evil? Yeah, I guess so.

        • Comment by John C Wright:

          It is not to late to change your mind and be good. Cowardice is a terrible thing, and in a hundred years, you will be dead anyway, whether you live bravely or cravenly, so it is better to defy darkness rather than submit. And more fun. And the Holy Ghost will help you.

  11. Comment by Nate Winchester:

    Because I’m almost librarian in my record keeping…

    Hube @ colossus and Avi Green have been following a lot on the OSC controversy and the reaction of those in the industry.

    If you’re actually curious about the other side, the best presentation of the view I’ve found so far is located here. (you can also read this one)

    However…

    It’s not censorship; you’ll still be able to buy the book if you want. Even if you’re someone like me who only has one local comic shop nearby and your shop refuses to carry it, it’s still a digital first book, so you’ll be able to get it before any of those shops have the opportunity to not put it on their shelves. Not to mention that none of the large scale online retailers have announced a refusal to stock it. If you want to buy it, fine, have at it, but we don’t have to and don’t want to and if that somehow changes DC’s mind on publishing future stories under Card’s pen, tough luck, that’s how the free market works. Even if the organized boycott is too small to make any meaningful difference, we still have a personal choice to buy or not to buy something for whatever reasons we choose.

    Looks like the author ended up being disproven by time. Now nobody will be able to buy the book if they want to.

    My suggested compromise? Find out from these people which character they WOULD be ok with OSC writing. Green Lantern? Batman Beyond? DC has a large stable of comics.

    • Comment by John C Wright:

      There is no compromise with Political Correctness.

      It is Cultural Marxism, that is, it uses the methods and the mind-set that Marx brought to economic issues and applies them to cultural issues. Where Marx identifies “capitalists” as a class (which it is not) that oppresses (which they do not) the proletarian as a class (which they are not) and from that says all evil springs, and says this evil is so evil that any acts, including revolution, in service to oppose that evil are licit if not inevitable — so here the enemy identifies Christianity, including the Church’s teachings on chastity, temperance, and plain fairness in the realm of sex and family union, as an absolute evil (which it is not). It then identifies those who indulge in sodomy and sexual perversion as a race of beings separate from men who reproduce sexually (which it is not) and says that disapproval of the act of sodomy is the same as race-hatred against this new race (which it is not) on that grounds that no possible reason exists for upholding public decency aside from race-hatred (which is beyond untrue and deep in the realm of rabid-crazy). And then it excuses its partisans of any restraint or courtesy or need to compromise with the idea that any act or word is licit if done for the sacred and most holy cause of promoting public celebration of male inserting their male members into the anus holes of catamites.

      The leaders of Cultural Marxism do not use logic, do not accept civilized standards of behavior, do not believe moral rules exist (except as a trick to oppress the victims of an unjust social order) and have excised their consciences as much from their souls as it is possible for a human being to do. Compromise is not possible.

  12. Comment by Mario Herrera:

    Maybe I’m paranoid or simply have an Eeyore disposition. Either way, I don’t relish the thought of having to protect and provide for my family in the midst of a society that appears to be on a course toward madness…and accelerating. We seem to be at a point where not conforming to illogical propositions (redefining marriage) elicits virulent/violent reactions. In Orwellian terms, you MUST accept that 2+2=5. Any suggestion that mathematical principles support your position that 2+2=4 and there is no logical basis for saying that 2+2=5 is met with open hostility. And the madness seems to be growing exponentially.

    I mean no offense to other Christians but I’m growing more grateful every day that I belong to the Catholic Church. I keep reading and re-reading Jesus’ promise in Mathew 16:18

    “And I tell you, you are Peter,and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.”

    I’m clinging to that promise for dear life.

    Even if I were not Catholic, I would still have to take a hard, honest look at whether any other institution offers hope of turning back this madness.

    One last, uncharitable thought. God loves us, his en-souled creatures, too much to interfere with our free-will. So, I think he will allow the militant gay-activists, militant infant-murderers and other like minded people to achieve their fondest dreams, at least for a time. But, my God is also a God of irony and, to paraphrase R.A.H., irony is a harsh mistress.

    • Comment by John Hutchins:

      I think the first thing to point out is that the militant whatever generally believe that they are doing what is correct. They are generally trying to be good and moral people as they see it and their errors are often not from intentionally being evil but out of ignorance. There are certainly some that are doing what they do out of evil but many are not attempting to do so. They are just as much loved children of God as anyone else and God will extend His love, His mercy, and His grace to them both now and later, just as He did during the time of the flood. We should be praying for their souls and doing all that is in our power to show them the true light of Christ and the errors of their ways, and, even if not personally, we, as Christians, are responsible for their sins as we have failed to articulate, explain, and defend the true belief in God and Christ as we should of.

      Next, God has not given us the spirit of fear but of hope and of a sound mind. If the background is appearing darker then we need to look for the true light, and then be that true light. We are called to be the light that can not be hid, and to arise and shine forth such that others see our good works and glorify God. God is preparing His jewels and by placing us against a dark background He is allowing us to shine all the brighter. The Rock is Christ, the only sure foundation upon which we can build, like wise the light we are to shine is the light that we receive from Christ.

      Only faith in Christ, who has prevailed against death and hell and won the battle already, can overcome the madness of the world.

      • Comment by Mario Herrera:

        John,
        Thank you. All excellent and true points. Your perspective is correct. I cannot (should not) respond with fear but with prayer and love. It is far to easy to confuse evil intent with ignorance. But, when ignorance is lauded as wisdom and Truth are attacked as evil, it becomes progressively harder to not fear the madness.

        But you are right. Christ already won and fear and despair is a denial of that Truth. (still kinda wish He would do things my way sometimes.) LOL No, strike that. I would make a terrible Creator.

        • Comment by Suburbanbanshee:

          The reason Abraham can be the “father of nations” is that God is Father and gave him that name. Similarly, Jesus as the Rock had every right and reason to rename Simon as the Rock. Similarly, all Christians bear the name of the Anointed One because He called them to become anointed themselves, by Him. These are important guideposts to the history of salvation, and so these changes of name are mentioned by me.

          Hope is a virtue for a reason. Let us not lose hope.

      • Comment by Vicq Ruiz:

        “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

        C.S. Lewis

  13. Comment by robertjwizard:

    Signed – with pleasure.

  14. Comment by Malcolm Smith:

    Let’s not forget that Mr Card is being blackballed by DC solely for his opinions, not for anything he is doing for DC. In other words, it is not as if he is writing a story in which the villain is a homosexual, or is otherwise expounding the philosophy his enemies object to. They are merely trying to prevent anything he writes being published because of a stance he made on another issue. Where is this all going to end? Are we going to blackball books written by outspoken Republicans, followed by a counter-blackball of books by outspoken Democrats? Personally, I would hate to see a time where a word from me could make one of you lose your livelihood.

  15. Comment by Malcolm Smith:

    Let’s not forget that Mr Card is not being blackballed for anything he did for DC. In other words, it is not as if he is writing a story in which the villain is an open homosexual, or otherwise goes against the DC philosophy, or which they might consider too controversial. Rather, he is being blackballed simply because of his stance on an unrelated issue. Where is this all going to end? Are we going to blackball authors who are outspoken Republicans, followed by a counter-blackball of outspoken Democrats?

  16. Comment by David_Ellis:

    “Where is this all going to end? Are we going to blackball authors who are outspoken Republicans, followed by a counter-blackball of outspoken Democrats?”

    He’s being treated much the same way we treat outspoken racists. As he should be. I don’t care a whit that his bigotry is based on his religious beliefs. It’s still bigotry. Just as it was when the LDS church refused the priesthood to black Mormons for so much of it’s history.

    • Comment by Tom Simon:

      I am quite certain that marriage between persons of the same sex is illicit. Are you going to start a campaign to prevent me from ever publishing any of my writing again?

      If the answer to the first question is ‘No’, then why not? Why should you accord me any more favourable treatment than you give to Mr. Card?

      If the answer to the first question is ‘Yes’, then I can only ask: Why do you have such hatred of free speech, that you must silence not only the expression of opinions you disagree with, but silence all speech by anyone who holds an opinion you disagree with?

    • Comment by John C Wright:

      You lie. You accuse an innocent man, and do this with a disgusting sense of smug moral superiority: but your moral superiority come from the fact that you side with sexual perversion, censorship, and antichristian bigotry and against morality.

      Hypocrite, liar, slanderer, and jackass. How can you not be ashamed of yourself, sir?

      • Comment by pdrax:

        Mr. Wright, polite conversation is rare among comment threads on the internet. I come here because I often find it even amongst those who disagree. It is distressing to find it so undermined here, and by none other than yourself. Even if Mr. Ellis may correctly be called a jackass, does it further the conversation to call him one? If so, please disregard this sentiment. Perhaps, like myself, my sense of etiquette is a little outdated.

    • Comment by Malcolm Smith:

      Again, if an author writes a comic in which racist attitudes are displayed, the publisher may very well refuse to publish it, on the grounds that it (a) goes against their policy, and (b) would upset their readers. However, that is quite another matter from refusing to publish his the most reasonable and non-contentious story simply because he has expressed racist attitudes in other contexts.

  17. Comment by David_Ellis:

    “If the answer to the first question is ‘Yes’, then I can only ask: Why do you have such hatred of free speech, that you must silence not only the expression of opinions you disagree with, but silence all speech by anyone who holds an opinion you disagree with?”

    I entirely support Card’s (and your) right to free speech. I just don’t have any obligation to give him any money for it and I have the right (free speech again) to tell publishers that I won’t give them my money when he works with one of their characters.

    • Comment by Tom Simon:

      Sorry, but you are not stopping at ‘not giving him any money for it’. You are leaning on publishers to refuse to publish his work even when it has nothing to do with the point in contention. You’re working to try to silence the man and deprive him of his livelihood.

      Also, it does not speak well of you that you automatically interpret any difference with your own position on a politically contentious issue as ‘bigotry’. That, too, is an attempt to stifle free speech — in this case, by shaming your opponents into remaining silent. It is, of course, not censorship, but positive censorship is not the only thing opposed to free speech. There are at least three ways of skinning that cat, and you are clearly showing your support for two of them.

      Of course, I don’t expect you to acknowledge that this is what you are doing, since you are only hearing it from me — and I am one of those people that you instantly dismiss as bigots. How charming it is to be told that I am no better than ‘outspoken racists’.

    • Comment by Patrick:

      You are a metabigot.

  18. Comment by Pierce O.:

    Signed, and I think it’s time to write a letter to the folks at DC. Something to the effect of “Attached you will find a penny. It is the last penny you will ever receive from me. Also attached is a picture of a $20 bill. I was going to spend it on Batman comics, but will instead take it my local booksellers and buy Ender’s Game. *insert spiel on free speech, hypocrisy, and whatnot here, ending with noting the irony of the superhero comics industry lining the pockets of cowards here*, Sincerely, etc.”

  19. Comment by David_Ellis:

    “Sorry, but you are not stopping at ‘not giving him any money for it’.”

    I know, hence the second half of the sentence in which I speak of telling DC why they won’t be getting my money for a project he’s involved in.

    “You’re working to try to silence the man and deprive him of his livelihood.”

    He’s welcome to spout his anti-gay bigotry all he likes…..he and other artists:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501119&objectid=10872258

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/20/michelle-shocked-apology-gay-remarks_n_2917244.html

    are beginning to find that this has consequences. If they feel the pinch as a result, they’ll get no pity from me. Especially Card, who has said in an interview that he opposes making it illegal to fire people for being gay (even with his disclaimer that he doesn’t think the power should be used in most circumstances—what a peach).

    “Also, it does not speak well of you that you automatically interpret any difference with your own position on a politically contentious issue as ‘bigotry’. ”

    This comment is utter nonsense. I’m for gun rights. I don’t consider people who oppose all gun ownership bigots. On most issues where I disagree with others politically I don’t consider them bigots. But being anti-gay rights is bigotry and I will call it what it is whether you like it or not.

    “How charming it is to be told that I am no better than ‘outspoken racists’.”

    Indeed, that is how I view you. Same club, different chapter.

    • Comment by John C Wright:

      I hereby to apply to you the same rules you apply to Mr Card: you have spoken your slanders against me and mine, and you should “find this has consequences” and be blackballed. You are banned.

      Had you spared any pity for him, I would have had pity for you.

      It is not in my self interest to help you spread your venom against me, by lending you a public forum to advocate that thought police should punish science fiction writers for questioning conformity, and it is beyond the bounds of reason that you should presume on my good nature to think I should.

      What makes you think you have the right to be patiently heard, when you are advocating denying that right to other men, men by any measure better than you? Better than you, indeed, by your own admission.

      For what is the political correctness you support? It is a cult. What do you worship in this cult?

      You worship your phallus.

      You support the sexual deviants because you correctly see that any hindrance, even so much as a polite word in opposition, to the prodigious indulgence of sexual vice which forms the backbone of your — I cannot call it a philosophy — your phallus cult would show your own vices in a true light.

      Not even nature, not even reality, can be allowed to form a barrier to your almighty phallus that you bow and serve and any cruel or vile or unnatural impulse you seek to indulge, or see others indulge. Your only enemy is temperance.

      You correctly see that if men stuffing their members into the smelly rectums of other men is even so much as frowned upon, that your own member-stuffing into whatever harlots or trollops you seek to conquer and exploit would be condemned.

      Your enemy is chastity, virginity, romance, beauty.

      But you dare not admit this.

      And so you lie, and so you take up the banner of intolerance, injustice, indecency, with the zeal of the witch-hunter. In this case, the witches are not accused of selling their souls to the devil, but failing to do so.

      You think you will never pay for your lies and hypocrisies to that Power which gave you power of speech. You are sadly mistaken.

      • Comment by pdrax:

        Oh, please do disregard my earlier comment. I should have finished reading before posting. I think I am wasting my time here.

        • Comment by John C Wright:

          If you are wasting your time because you feel I am too far gone into the feverswamps of rudeness, I apologize and regret the loss of your good opinion. A sharp reminder that I should be more polite is always welcome. It is a weakness of which I am aware, and I always strive to correct.

          If you are wasting your time because you think Mr Ellis was a jackass, and merited the response I wrote, again, perhaps it could have been done with more courtesy, albeit I am not sure how.

          In either case, I admit your comment is in the right, and I regret my display of bad temper.

          • Comment by Tom Simon:

            I have a terrible suspicion that pdrax feels that way because you are so obviously on the Wrong Side that it is impossible to carry on a Nice conversation with you. (One of the tenets of Political Correctness is that it is better to be Nice, i.e., to go along with the approved sentiments of the hour without fuss or argument, than to be rational or right. The other tenet is that anyone who will not be Nice on those terms must be reviled and ostracized — as we have just seen with Mr. Ellis.)

            I hope I’m wrong about pdrax, but I’m not prepared to bet the rent on it.

            • Comment by John C Wright:

              The problem with Political Correctness is that they want Christianity without Christ, that is, they want the brotherhood of man and the infallibility of the Pope and compassion for the poor and downtrodden, but they also want to be of and in the world, to be disobedient to God and indeed to all forms of authority, and to have the Kingdom of Heaven without the meddling interference of Heaven.

              Hence, they do not side with the REAL poor and downtrodden (when is the last time you heard a PC type stick up for the poor in China, or speak out against modern slave trafficking?) but only with the easy targets. The Black are downtrodden only after the Civil Rights Act, and all the Pro-Jim-Crow Dems in their pointy white hoods suddenly became fans of Martin Luther King, once Nixon broke the ice and made the waters safe to swim in. They feel sorry for the victims of the bombing at Hiroshima and even Dresden, but only after the war is over and the world-conquering armies of the ruthless tyrants were broken.

              Because PC is based on emotion rather than logic, they flee from rational conversation.

              I hope you are wrong about pdrax, and that he was saying the antichristian bigot who had the astonishing gall to tell me on my own [expletive deleted] blog that I had no right to express my views in public because I am a Christian, and therefore cannot in good faith believe sodomy is a sacrament or that marriage is not, was served right by being called out, told what he was, and banned.

              If, on the other hand, he was saying that I, paragon of logic that I am, could not hold a rational conversation on the topic? It is an article of faith with the death cult of PC that they are more rational than any who disagrees with the arbitrary and ever shifting dogmas of the cult.

              Doubly ironic, because I used to be quite pro-homosexual, and, for that matter, pro-anysexual of any kind. I was a libertarian. We hold that anything is licit unless it harms another.

              I was reasoned out of the position by a logical argument, and rather against my own inclination and self interest. It took superhuman mental honesty for me to face the issue and abide by the cruel and stark outcome of logical reasoning, because I was led where I did not want to go. But, for all my flaws, I have one virtue: I love the truth more than I love my own ego, and so my ego had to take a severe beating when I realized the libertarian position toward romance, sex, love and marriage was illogical. I also had to amend my life, not something which is pleasant or easy. And I offended and alienated friends. But logic is logic, and philosophers love the truth, and so I paid the price.

              No member of the cult to date has made even a token effort to reason me back into the position. None. Not one. All they do is call me names, like schoolchildren.

              You will understand why, after all that intellectual agony and cruel honesty, I am more than a little bitter at the bigoted Christophobes and softheaded self-indulgent panderers and pimps of various unnatural vices dare to call me irrational.

              It is an unseemly bitterness I hope Christ’s love will overcome. Socrates was far inferior to Christ in nearly every way, but even he serves to prove that the world loves philosophers as little as the world loves saints.

          • Comment by pdrax:

            Thank you in turn! It is always so refreshing to be met with civility. I apologize in turn for the sharpness of my rebuke.

            You have quite captured my good opinion, Mr. Wright. All the best to you and yours.

    • Comment by John Hutchins:

      Card is LDS. There is a very strong libertarian streak among LDS, something about having extermination orders, multiple armies, forced flights in the dead of winter, now recognized as being unconstitutional laws being passed and upheld as constitutional, missionaries shot and killers going not only unpunished but lauded in newspapers, being dis-incorporated by the federal government such that the “church” is not legally such in the US but a set of associated holding companies designed to very hard to shut down by the government (which would probably be criticized as being LD$ or some such thing), leaders arrested and jailed, leaders being killed while under government protection and the perpetrators not being punished, multiple continuing threats of government interference and lose of tax exemption for standing up for morals seem to make people think, for some odd reason, that perhaps having a powerful government might not be such a good thing because “it will never happen here” already has way too often and in some ways still is happening here (see Texas raid of FLDS on a known prank call with the parents having to fight for a long time to get their children back even when they themselves did nothing wrong, committed no crime, and were charged with nothing, or other similar state and federal government actions over the last two decades against small religious minorities (at least the FLDS weren’t “accidentally” slaughtered in that raid)).

      As in Mr. Card isn’t saying that he would not employ someone that is homosexual but that he would rather not have the government tell him (or anyone else) that they must employ homosexuals, perhaps in a church adoption charity that thinks homosexual marriage and/or adoption is against their beliefs for instance.

    • Comment by John C Wright:

      In one of my books, I had a character being inducted into a secret occult conspiracy within the US military realize that the conspirators were supernatural rather than natural, sea-witches rather than people, because they insisted on having him trample the crucifix.

      This reminds me of that. I can think of no natural, non-occult reason to ask students to trample on the name of Jesus.

    • Comment by Nostreculsus:

      Professor Doctor Poole explained, “Faculty and students at academic institutions pursue knowledge and engage in open discourse. While at times the topics discussed may be sensitive, a university environment is a venue for such dialogue and debate.”

      Perhaps the good professor can pursue further dialogue and debate by taking the word “Muhammad” written in Arabic and publicly trampling it in front of a local mosque, or the school’s Islamic Student Society. I am sure he would learn a great deal from this sensitivity exercise.

      Sorted.

      • Comment by John Hutchins:

        What is interesting is that the student that refused to stomp on the name Jesus was suspended from the class for refusing to do so; meaning that the class really wasn’t a place of open discourse because actually attempting to have debate or dialogue gets authoritatively squashed, thus encouraging free thinking I am sure.

        • Comment by Tom Simon:

          You find that interesting? As we’ve just seen from Mr. Ellis, there is NO place of open discourse in the view of the Left. All dissent must be punished, even silent dissent. It is (as O’Brien said to Winston Smith) intolerable to them that a single ‘incorrect’ thought should exist anywhere in the world; and moreover, the definition of ‘incorrect’ changes every day.

          As for universities — that is what they are, with few exceptions: the citadels of the anti-intellectual, pro-censorship, thoughtcrime-punishing hard Left. I am not surprised that a university is suspending students for refusing to trample on the name of Jesus; I am rather shocked that they didn’t think of it years ago.

          The only surprising thing about our enemies, Mr. Hutchins, is their stupidity and mental torpor. If the Devil could give them intelligence to match their malice, we would all be dead already.

  20. Comment by Darrell:

    I already don’t buy DC comics but I just purchased Mr. Card’s ELEMENTS OF FICTION WRITING to help support him in this injustice.

  21. Comment by Pierce O.:

    Update! It looks like DC is going to publish Card’s story, they just need to hire a new illustrator.

  22. Comment by Brian Niemeier:

    “If they succeed with Orson Scott Card, who is much more mild in his views than I, they will succeed with driving stories I write out of the market as well. So I am motivated, in part by self interest.”

    Mr. Wright:
    We recently exchanged correspondence on this subject. I do not begrudge your self-interest in this matter, for a new blacklist based on confessional identity may frustrate the professional writing aspirations I’ve pursued for years.

    I have signed the petition to reinstate Mr. Card and have urged my friends to do the same. I will also be buying at least one of Mr. Card’s books. Are there any other positive steps that you can recommend taking to fight this apparently industry-approved censorship?

    Thank you in advance.

    • Comment by John C Wright:

      I bought one of his books, and I signed a petition I found online. I cannot vouch for the petition, since I have no knowledge of who will be presenting it nor to whom.

      I tried to write to DC Comics, but only succeeded in sending an email to DC Entertainment. If any one has an address, tell me.

  23. Ping from So Who Are The Bigots? | The American Catholic:

    [...] attempted mass murder; those who oppose are met with bullying attempts to silence them and ban their [...]

  24. Ping from So Who Are The Bigots? « Truth Before Dishonor:

    [...] A movement to redefine a basic institution of civilization into a novel form, unsupported by traditional practices or even rational justifications for gov’t involvement. Supporters commit acts of vandalism, intimidation/assault (including by law enforcement), and violence up to and including attempted mass murder; those who oppose are met with bullying attempts to silence them and ban their employment. [...]

  25. Ping from So Who Are The Bigots? | Head Noises:

    [...] attempted mass murder; those who oppose are met with bullying attempts to silence them and ban their [...]

  26. Comment by fabulous_mrs_f:

    The authors of “Girl Genius” sent out the nastiest note on Facebook about this, calling readers to petition to ban Mr. Card. It was far uglier and full of anger than anything written here. I will not be spending any money on them either, not for their difference of opinion, but for their attack on a fellow author. The snide arrogance of people who think they cannot be wrong was stomach-churning.

  27. Comment by Darrell:

    joeclark77

    I apologize for the delay in my response — recently I’ve been having challenges with this blog accepting my posts and alerting me of when I’ve been responded to.
    You and Mr. Wright are not discussing the same matter that I am – or if you are there is a vast gulf between our understandings. Marriage (Holy Matrimony if you like) is a sacrament that takes place within the Church between two Christians who are in communion with the Church. Therefore a Mormon and an Orthodox Christian or a Muslim and an Orthodox Christian or an atheist and an Orthodox Christian cannot be married. If approved by one’s bishop an Orthodox Christian can marry a member of a Trinitarian church such as a Roman Catholic or an Anglican but the sacrament must occur in an Orthodox Church and be performed by an Orthodox Christian priest. From my, admittedly limited, understanding this is essentially the same for the Roman Catholic Church. This means that a Christian already has a fundamentally different definition of marriage than the secular state does.

    For the state, marriage is a civil contract. This is not what marriage is for Christianity – and in all likelihood this is probably not what it is for many other religious traditions.

    Whether marriage is a pre-Christian term is neither here nor there. The Church does not mean by marriage the same thing that pre-Roman druids meant nor what modern Americans mean. Christianity sanctified and redefined marriage. It has a “new and vastly different meaning” than what it once had. Are there connections between non-sacramental and sacramental marriages? Absolutely! Just as there are connections between the marriage of a man and a woman and the marriage of a man and three women.

    The crime is that the Left is redefining the word “marriage” in order to legitimize a gross perversion, destroy souls, and fabricate an excuse to persecute Christians.

    Undoubtedly this is the motivation of some same-sex marriage supporters. There are also people in faith traditions that support same-sex marriage, actively homosexual clergy, multiple spouses, etc. These faith traditions are filled with people that “believe false doctrines” and are “merely in error”. Just as in my comparison of marriage with baptism. The reason that doctrine matters is that false doctrine breeds other false beliefs that takes one further and further from Church teachings and Christian morality.

    To me there is an undeclared social argument that is hiding behind “defining marriage” and that argument is the social acceptance and even celebration of “alternate” sexual behaviors. For example, thirty years ago would a program such as THE NEW NORMAL have been on broadcast television? I would argue that it wouldn’t. However by positioning the argument as many of us have we are damaging our cause. The, at one time, mega popular television program FRIENDS (1994 – 2004) was just as anti-Christian and damaging to Christian morality by depicting popular and attractive characters engaging in out-of-wedlock sexual relationships with the character that had the fewest relationships over ten years having 8 “partners” while the most prolific, Joey Tribbiani, having 17 sexual partners – and he was the character chosen to star in a spin-off.

    If you hold positive depictions of homosexuality to be subversive to the Christian message then I can understand a desire to stop this particular social transformation. However I would argue that this is the natural and inevitable outcome of a market society where personal freedom is the paramount good. The redefinition of marriage from a Christian understanding to the almost purely legal structure that it holds now has been going on for decades.

    Rather than arguing over the definition of marriage, Christians should be making the argument that marriage is not the province of the government anymore than baptism is. The government, even within the United States, has not always certified marriage and I can see little reason that a post-Christian nation (and one that has always been majority Protestant) should. To do so confuses Church and state in an unhealthy manner. Not in the manner in which you probably think that I mean but in the way that the state can trample on religion and religious expression.
    Where most here seem to be arguing that the problem is redefining terms I am arguing that the problem is the celebration of heresy and, to a lesser and more provincial extent, the unbalanced elevation of federalism over state particularism. While I really do try to foster an ecumenical spirit in my writing by your and others glossing over heretical doctrine as mere error as opposed to secular deliberate lies you are overlooking the soil from which the issues that you are concerned with are rooted.

    • Comment by Robert Mitchell Jr:

      Your religious thoughts are incoherent to me, so I will argue from the legal side. Christians can not and should not argue that marriage is not the providence of government, because Marriage is the providence of government. Marriage predates Christianity, and there is no part of recorded history where we can find a “Separation of Marriage and State”, as it were. The reasons for this (Inheritance, Crimes of Passion, Children, etc) are not going to change any time soon. Then there is all the case law involving Marriage. A “Separation of Marriage and State” would not get rid of those cases, which will continue to be used by the legal system. Even worse because of the mess the legal system has made of “Marriage” in the last couple of decades, which is being shamelessly skipped over by the proponents of “SSM”. What is going to happen to “Common Law” marriages? None will say. What about “Palimony”? None will say. What about Wills? Roommates? Claims on children when none of the parties involved has a “biological” claim? “Benefits”? The silence is deafening.

      And a “Separation of Marriage and State” is fundamentally dishonest. They tried that in Canada, and gosh, it turns out that “SSM” will not live and let live, they use the power of the State to force the Religious to serve them on bended knee, at gunpoint, on pain of financial ruination.

      • Comment by Darrell:

        Robert Mitchell, Jr.

        Gosh, I reckon your thoughts are incoherent to me as well.

        You can find a historical separation of marriage and state so I s’pose you might try a bit harder. Also, for example, there is no common law marriage in the state of Florida, which points back to my comment about how part of the problem is unbridled federalism, so there isn’t an issue there but were there it simply points back to my initial contention that marriage has long ago been redefined as a purely secular institution to advance whatever perceived inequalities the government happens to be concerned with at the time. The point where people start claiming that because two people live together that they have entered into a marriage — even when that is objectively against the wish of one party — then we have redefined marriage but curiously this isn’t a point of concern for you.

        If you can contain your snark then I’d be more than happy to discuss but if not then please don’t expect me to respond further to you.

        • Comment by Robert Mitchell Jr:

          I’m not being “snarky”. I do think your starting point is quite incorrect. Marriage has not “been redefined as a purely secular institution”, it started as one and has stayed one. All we have done is add a religious ceremony on top of it, but Marriage predates Religion, and probably started the State. You seem to want to bring Religion into the discussion so that you can just ignore the vast body of case law that needs to be dealt with. Claiming that I am the one ignoring “Common Law” marriages, when I keep bringing them up rises to the level of “willful ignorance” or dishonest. Common Law marriages are part of the Law, and have been for thousands of years. This is not a “Redefining of Marriage”. They may not be required in all states, but they are Recognized by all of them. Much like it’s easy to get Divorced in Nevada, but that divorce is recognized by all. I note you have no answer for what will happen to Common Law case law once Marriage is legally defined to be whatever “feels good”. You seem to just want to ignore the problems, declare the problem is Religion, and demand that the Religious (who seem to be the only ones actually thinking about the problem) surrender the field and let Marriage become a simple matter of Contract Law. “Ta-da! Problem solved!”. Ignoring, of course, that contract law has been a part of our strange new Marriage for some time now, in the form of “Prenuptial agreements”, and they certainly have not been treated like binding contracts in our courts. So what evidence exists argues against your “solution”.

          • Comment by Darrell:

            I’m not being “snarky”. I do think your starting point is quite incorrect.

            I assure you that you are, but lets put that aside for the moment and assume that it is not in fact your intention to do so. I’m also not certain that you actually understand my starting point.

            Limiting ourselves to Western history that primarily inform the US, marriage is two separate phenomena. The first is a secular agreement between families that has at various times been enforced purely by social pressure and at others has taken the form of a state enforced civil contract. Non-state enforced marriages even occurred in the relatively legalistic Roman Republic. Marriages =/= state permitted contracts though in the modern world they often are.

            Marriage is also a religious ceremony that connects two people within a faith tradition. For liturgical Christians this ceremony is a sacrament and is utterly and completely independent of any civil laws. With the rise of liturgical Christianity as a major European religion there were many changes made to secular marriage (and undoubtedly pagan marriage as well) as well as the concept of divorce because of the sacramental nature of marriage (thus my earlier point that Christianity already redefined marriage). Part of this modification came to be families needing Church approval and eventually state approval (licensing) for a marriage to occur. You can see this in the modern US by state’s providing marriage licenses that permit two people to be married. Just as with a drivers license, a marriage license is a permission slip from the state allowing people to do something — in this instance entering into a civil contract.

            Marriage predates Religion, and probably started the State

            I don’t know if this is true or not but I might have some inkling if I understood how you define marriage, religion, and state.

            You seem to want to bring Religion into the discussion so that you can just ignore the vast body of case law that needs to be dealt with.

            I may “seem” that way but I assure you it is not accurate. I am making a point on a heavily Roman Catholic blog in reference to a SF author who is devoutly Mormon (who while I am unclear on their views of sacraments have a seemingly sacramental view of marriage) that marriage has been redefined multiple times (if you want to use that terminology) and I don’t see the reason that government should be in the position to either allow or disallow marriages as they have lost all religious and sacramental nature to the state. Modern marriage is purely a civil contract and should be treated as one. If you are a US citizen do you require state approval to hire on to a job or quit it? Where common-law marriages are permissible it is even okay to move in with someone for a sufficient period to be considered married.

            Also, are you an attorney? I ask because I’m not clear on what your concerns about case law actually are. Laws are created, changed, and (more rarely) eliminated all of the time so it would appear that we have provisions to deal with legal changes. There could be an entire discussion about unintended consequences but, honestly, most of what people do is reaction to unintended consequences. I am a learning and performance consultant and I deal with the unintended consequences of actions daily so I am certainly not blind to them. If point of fact, part of my argument is that much of what is occurring in the US is an unintended consequence of the secularization and rampant federalization of the US.

            Claiming that I am the one ignoring “Common Law” marriages, when I keep bringing them up rises to the level of “willful ignorance” or dishonest.

            You are either confusing me with someone else or misinterpreting what I wrote. I didn’t suggest that you are ignoring common-law marriages. What I have written is that the permissibility of common-law marriage (which is a state by state decision and so, for example, is not legal in Florida) is an indicator that marriage no longer has a religious cast in the US. Marriage is simply the merger of two families (to a lesser or greater extent dependent upon particular laws) based exclusively off of the decisions of two individuals. In those states that have common-law marriage the decision may be based exclusively off of the decision of one individual as my brother could attest.

            Common Law marriages are part of the Law, and have been for thousands of years.

            As I’ve mentioned several times now, common-law marriages are not permissible in the state of Florida — or many other states for that matter. They are a valid way to be married in some states and countries and their validity has changed over time and place. Yes, they are recognized in Florida because of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of Article IV of the US Constitution — without which we couldn’t have a federal system, much less the out-of-control federal system that we have today.

            While I am not, as I presume you are, a lawyer I have read the Constitution and can assure you that it does not assume state licensed marriage as the cornerstone of the state. Marriage has been a convenient hook to hang laws on but licensed marriage is not a pre-requisite for said laws. My son is not married to me and yet I can place him on my insurance and check him out of Kindergarten and look at his medical records. My brother-in-law was never married and yet he has been held legally liable for supporting his out-of-wedlock son that he didn’t even realize that he’d had.

            I note you have no answer for what will happen to Common Law case law once Marriage is legally defined to be whatever “feels good”.

            What are you talking about? You seem to be having an extremely odd reaction to someone that has said that the state should not be licensing marriages — something that common-law marriages presuppose. Laws change all of the time. It used to be illegal for me to smoke marijuana in Colorado. Now it isn’t. What happened to the case law?

            But let me be fair, what three really bad legal ramifications would occur because of SSM?

            You seem to just want to ignore the problems, declare the problem is Religion, and demand that the Religious (who seem to be the only ones actually thinking about the problem) surrender the field and let Marriage become a simple matter of Contract Law.

            You have a poor track record of interpreting what I seem to want.

            If we had what I wanted we would live in an Orthodox Christian nation and everyone would receive the sacrament of marriage in an Orthodox Christian church by an ordained Orthodox Christian priest. That is not, in fact, where I live and I suspect that you would object to living there.

            At any rate, marriage already is a simple matter of contract law. Even with common-law marriage (which for something that is already abolished in 41 states you seem to be very excited about) there is more to it than, Jack and Jill are legally considered married because they lived in the same house or apartment for four years while in college.

            “Ta-da! Problem solved!”.

            This is an example of your snarky attitude that brings out my worst nature.

            Ignoring, of course, that contract law has been a part of our strange new Marriage for some time now, in the form of “Prenuptial agreements”, and they certainly have not been treated like binding contracts in our courts. So what evidence exists argues against your “solution”.

            Once again, your being a lawyer places me at a disadvantage but from my view there is very little “binding” in the sense that you seem to mean about our laws. This is why we have courts, and courts of appeals, and a Supreme Court — a court which even changes its mind about legal matters from time to time. An example is the 14th Amendment has been held by the Supreme Court (since the 1940s) to mean that not just the federal government, but the states themselves, are bound by the Bill of Rights. This was not the original intent but is the current outcome. This sort of thing happens all of the time in law. Laws are constantly being modified and even the US Constitution which is much more challenging to alter has been amended 27 times.

          • Comment by Darrell:

            Since my thesis has been somewhat opaque, it is simply this, “Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.”

            Same sex marriage is not the problem. It is simply the symptom of an underlying secularization of Western society where it makes no sense to disallow SSM.

            If you want to change this otherwise inevitable slide then you should put aside fatuous arguments about etymology and the purported damage to case law and work at changing people’s axioms — I’d suggest doing this through evangelizing Orthodox Christianity.

  28. Comment by erik1880:

    http://www.newsarama.com/comics/rick-remender-uncanny-avengers-5.html

    Another comic creator (now a Marvel one) is being attacked for advocating the brotherhood of man, and people’s worth being defined by their character and not by minority status. Looks like writers better start watching out what they say from now on…

    • Comment by John C Wright:

      Have we really reached the point where a comic book character saying what Martin Luther King said, that we should judge men on the content of their character and not the color of their skin, provokes the criticism that “It’s not a position that any credible spokesman for a minority group would advance.”

      I am numb with anger.

      • Comment by erik1880:

        I remember what was done to your wife previously, which is why I thought to bring this up when I saw it.

      • Comment by erik1880:

        Also, the writer in question is being accused of homophobia because some homosexual readers identify themselves with the characters in x-men comics. So now I guess there will be calls for your firing if you say things about homosexuals that run counter to the zeitgeist, but also if you say things about completely fictional heterosexual characters that homosexuals, by way of analogy, identify with.

        • Comment by John C Wright:

          I had no idea it was this bad.

          I recall the writer Paul Johnson saying that three decades or so ago, for reasons of simple justice and Christian charity, he was in favor of legalizing sodomy and ceasing the discrimination against men afflicted with same sex attraction; but how, in the decades since, the homosexual lobby used the opportunity not to go their own way quietly but insisting with ever increasing hostility and strident demands that first one institution in society and then another and then all be refashioned to accommodate them, including his own Church (he is Catholic) which has since in his own nation been ruled to be in the same legal status as the Ku Klux Klan or the British Nazi Party, a racist hate-group. Paul Johnson feels betrayed.

          The PC Left regards, as a matter of their cult dogma, that Homosexuality is not a disease, not a moral failing, not a choice, not a sin, not a temptation, and not unnatural, but is in every way not difference than a matter of taste, as when one man prefers blondes to redheads — except that it is not a choice and therefore immune from any moral considerations of prudence or self-control in the person, place and manner of indulging it as a desire, except that marriage is a necessary component to restrict the sexual desire to activity between two members of the same sex, who will foreswear all others and cleave only to their avowed partners in sexual desire, and in all other cases controlling the uncontrollable sexual desire. But to liken this to a desire for a seventeen year old girl, which is pederasty, or to marrying a fertile and adult sister or mother is a grievous insult prompted only by the most base motives of bigotry and cruelty.

          You see the problem is that treating blacks as inferior is racism whereas treating the disease or sin or self indulgence of homosexual attraction as natural is not racism or whatever its-is-just-like-racism-word (homophobia? heteronormativeness?) that has been invented this week by the Ministry of Truth to put across that idea without thinking about that idea. A black, if treated like a man, will act like a man, like your equal, and can compete and cooperate on equal footing. The homosexual lobby does not give a tinker’s damn about equality: they are tormented by inner guilt and inner rage because they know that homosexuality is psychologically unhealthy and morally repugnant, and to hide from the furies of their own consciences they demand everyone who might tell them the truth about themselves, such as the Roman Catholic Church, or even DC Comics, flatter them instead.

          But no flattering is ever enough. Nothing is ever enough. They do not want to live in peace and go their own way. They want us to perform their marriages, teach our children that perversion is normal and decency is bigotry, they want our approval and adoration and sanctification, and whoever says otherwise is a damned liar. Otherwise, they would not close orphanages, sue catering services, and comic book writers, and silence or intimidate or destroy everyone who does not roar their full-throated approval.

  29. Comment by John C Wright:

    Rachael Acks linked to this article, but the pingback line contained a swearword or two, and so I deleted it.

    Funny that these creatures who are so offended by honest Christians cannot express their opinions without placing Anglo-saxon naughtiness within ten words of a link.

Leave a Reply