The Federal Prop. 8 Trial / Gay Marriage Catch-All

DP

I wouldn't go out of my way, he'd just be on level ground with everyone else at that point.

RoughneckGeek wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:

I guess from my perspective, a politician running for president on a one woman/one man platform seems like it would have a much more direct affect on Rav/Ed's marriage than supporting or not supporting a sci fi movie, and therefore a more logical lever.

I would agree. And that's why I won't be voting for a republican candidate anytime in the foreseeable future. I also won't support those that are going to use any money I've given them to lobby against me. Your statement here only makes sense if I was an advocate for Mitt Romney while boycotting Ender's Game.

I assume some people here either voted for/donated to Bill Clinton, Obama, Gore, or Kerry when they held anti-gay marriage beliefs.

RoughneckGeek wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:
RoughneckGeek wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:

I guess from my perspective, a politician running for president on a one woman/one man platform seems like it would have a much more direct affect on Rav/Ed's marriage than supporting or not supporting a sci fi movie, and therefore a more logical lever.

I would agree. And that's why I won't be voting for a republican candidate anytime in the foreseeable future. I also won't support those that are going to use any money I've given them to lobby against me. Your statement here only makes sense if I was an advocate for Mitt Romney while boycotting Ender's Game.

I assume some people here either voted for/donated to Bill Clinton, Obama, Gore, or Kerry when they held anti-gay marriage beliefs.

In every instance you list there was not a marriage equality alternate choice. How is that the same as the current political landscape?

But I don't have any other options in films or entertainment!

NormanTheIntern wrote:
RoughneckGeek wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:

I guess from my perspective, a politician running for president on a one woman/one man platform seems like it would have a much more direct affect on Rav/Ed's marriage than supporting or not supporting a sci fi movie, and therefore a more logical lever.

I would agree. And that's why I won't be voting for a republican candidate anytime in the foreseeable future. I also won't support those that are going to use any money I've given them to lobby against me. Your statement here only makes sense if I was an advocate for Mitt Romney while boycotting Ender's Game.

I assume some people here either voted for/donated to Bill Clinton, Obama, Gore, or Kerry when they held anti-gay marriage beliefs.

Is every thread just an opportunity for you to take the conversation to, "Aren't Democrats and/or you just a bunch of hypocrites everyone gives a free pass"?

If you are, isn't it relevant?

But, no more than every thread is an opportunity for you to metapost about someone's true intentions or posting style.

I'll just throw this out there: I'm not the same person I was in 2008, 2004, 2000, 1996, etc. So...yeah...my views on things have changed too. Am I supposed to not do anything about that because I might have made a bad decision in the past? That's such a ridiculous argument I can't believe we're even bothering to respond.

I would argue that voting with your wallet to cut a lobbyist of at the knees is way more effective than voting with your votes. A politician that pisses off 49% of their constituents wins everything. A corporation or businessman that pisses off 49% of their clientele loses half their income and stops paying the politicians to keep pissing off their customers.

It's a ripple affect too, step 1 is denying Card $(X times .2). Step 2 is a later artist self-censoring his homophobic thoughts. Step 3 is the continuing learning of those thoughts being public and acceptable leading to fewer people having fewer of them.

This sort of social change is a long effort that needs to be focused on every part of society. Not just Hillary Clinton, or Dick Cheney, or any other politician who has already come to our side on this issue.
Edit: also step 1b, where the other people who lost the remaining $(X times 9.80) apply their own pressure.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

If you are, isn't it relevant?

But, no more than every thread is an opportunity for you to metapost about someone's true intentions or posting style.

I knew which of those responses you would reply to - the one you felt you could be snappy about rather than the ones pointing out your logical shortcomings. Roughneck is right, though, you're trying to hard to be cute and pithy when you're not making logical connections. About both the issue at hand or my posting, incidentally. While I do point out people's posting style now and again, I like to think I contribute more to this and other threads than just banging the same drum over and over while trollfacing everyone.

Back to the actual topic, my uncle sent me an article doing a bit of interesting prediction - 12 States That Will Probably Legalize Gay Marriage in 2013-2014. Makes an interesting note of where opposition towards same sex marriage still sits.

edit: (the article was written in March, btw)

Yonder wrote:

I would argue that voting with your wallet to cut a lobbyist of at the knees is way more effective than voting with your votes. A politician that pisses off 49% of their constituents wins everything. A corporation or businessman that pisses off 49% of their clientele loses half their income and stops paying the politicians to keep pissing off their customers.

It's a ripple affect too, step 1 is denying Card $(X times .2). Step 2 is a later artist self-censoring his homophobic thoughts. Step 3 is the continuing learning of those thoughts being public and acceptable leading to fewer people having fewer of them.

But that creates a system where artists should only express popular opinions or face economic penury. Put aside for a moment where you stand on this particular issue - shouldn't the artist's work (or anyone's, really) stand separate from their political beliefs or motivations? Unless the subject of that work is inherently political. This bleeds into the facebook/twitter retribution discussion we had awhile back for me.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

But that creates a system where artists should only express popular opinions or face economic penury.

Is that really so terrible? It's certainly not new; it's always been that way. People boycott Polanski films. The Dixie Chicks suffered from conservative boycotts when they talked smack about W.

Am I supposed to feel bad that a bigot will face economic repercussions for his bigotry? Because I don't. I don't want him to have legal repercussions for his beliefs but I sure as hell don't worry about his ability to survive as an artist.

There is another thread where that whole conversation of the ethics of voting with your dollars is hashed out, and ironically it's about the same guy and a different product:

http://www.gamerswithjobs.com/node/4...

NormanTheIntern wrote:

But that creates a system where artists should only express popular opinions or face economic penury.

What's the alternative, I should be forced to buy Card's work?

People can choose to buy or not buy art on any criteria they choose. If I can choose to not buy Ender's Game because I think the cover is ugly, that's an even more arbitrary criteria.

NormanTheIntern wrote:
Yonder wrote:

I would argue that voting with your wallet to cut a lobbyist of at the knees is way more effective than voting with your votes. A politician that pisses off 49% of their constituents wins everything. A corporation or businessman that pisses off 49% of their clientele loses half their income and stops paying the politicians to keep pissing off their customers.

It's a ripple affect too, step 1 is denying Card $(X times .2). Step 2 is a later artist self-censoring his homophobic thoughts. Step 3 is the continuing learning of those thoughts being public and acceptable leading to fewer people having fewer of them.

But that creates a system where artists should only express popular opinions or face economic penury. Put aside for a moment where you stand on this particular issue - shouldn't the artist's work (or anyone's, really) stand separate from their political beliefs or motivations? Unless the subject of that work is inherently political. This bleeds into the facebook/twitter retribution discussion we had awhile back for me.

It's hard to separate this in some cases. Card, specifically, in the case of this movie? Well, it's likely he got the bulk of his payment on this already, and may or may not stand to make significant money afterward. There's certainly a bit of a tangle in here. Let's assume a boycott has some real impact on the movie's gross, who does that affect? The studio, the producer, the actors (assuming any of them get kickback from how well the movie does, I honestly have zero idea on this one), many of which may be very sympathetic to the cause of marriage equality. So there's collateral damage to consider on top of what you're stating.

But let's look at the other part - what are you asking people to do by saying, "Let's not set up this scenario"? It really seems like an either-or situation when we talk about buying things or spending money and considering political beliefs. You either spend the money or don't. You can't say "I'm buying this book, but please don't let any of the profit go to the jerk at the publishing house who edited it, I hear he has a sweatshop somewhere." So it assumes that people shouldn't be considering where their money is going.

I'm with you on the point where I would hate to live in a society where every artist, author, or any sort of vendor who has their name tied to someone is effectively forced, through economics, to voice popular opinions or keep silent. But let's be clear about something, here, we're not talking about something in this specific instance that is or isn't really popular opinion. We have a society right now where people are very happy to line up and have their pictures posted to facebook in support of Paula Deen and Chik-Fil-A because they feel like they're supporting someone who is being unfairly persecuted. And these are not small numbers of people. In general, though, there are other examples - people use their political stances to gain popularity all the time. And, on top of that, what about universally reviled things - what if someone wanted to set up a Regional Office Headquarters for NAMBLA? Should we just say, "well, I don't want my politics to taint where my money is going"? I think it's honestly more about levels of offense than anything.

On top of that, the issue here really is that as we get deeper and deeper into the communication age, a lot of folks are making brands of themselves, for good or ill. In OSC's case, he is the author of his books. His name and face are the "brand". He needs to understand that it's not a company, nor is he some cog in a great machine. If he wants to take what he believes is a strong, principled stand, he's doing that as an act of resolve or bravery or however he wants to see it. In his case specifically, it shows an extreme amount of cowardice and lack of actual resolve when he wants to play off things as if they didn't matter. Effectively, "This is what I believe and stand for, but I'd rather not it have any effect on my bottom line." He's the one really mixing the money and politics, there. I mean, there's a difference between saying, "I don't think homosexuals should be able to be married," and supporting that at the voting booth. It's another thing entirely to throw stacks of cash at the problem and sit on the board of a major entity with that as their goal.

I guess what I'm rambling about is that it's not really a universal up-or-down, "every situation is the same," sort of problem. So it's difficult to universally say "shouldn't we act like X in all cases of Y".

Bloo Driver wrote:

So it's difficult to universally say "shouldn't we act like X in all cases of Y".

Especially when someone of the cases are 10-20 years ago.

I was wondering, from our international GWJERS, are OS Card books available for sale in nations with strong hate speech laws like say Germany, or Belgium?

NormanTheIntern wrote:

But that creates a system where artists should only express popular opinions or face economic penury.

No it doesn't, it is an affect that pushes the system in that direction, and in the absence of any other factors, yes, the system may head somewhere like that. One such factor that pushes back is that people want things, so you have to dislike the message more than you want the product. This is why you don't hear about anyone boycotting people who don't think that Squirtle is the best original starting Pokemon, even though those people are obviously wrong.

Put aside for a moment where you stand on this particular issue - shouldn't the artist's work (or anyone's, really) stand separate from their political beliefs or motivations? Unless the subject of that work is inherently political.

I can't put aside my views, as that's the whole point. If I thought homosexuals didn't deserve the rights that heterosexuals had I'd be fine. If I didn't care I'd be fine, if I only cared a little I'd be fine. However I really, really think that homosexuals should be treated equally, that's the whole point.

Now if someone felt really strongly in the other direction, they could boycott too. I don't think that Orson Scott Card should be legally mandated to watch Ellen Degeneres to avoid "unfair judgement of her work" based on her identity. He's still wrong, but he has the same right to share and support his wrong opinions as I have to share my correct opinions. He can boycott me while he's at it.

I totally can judge his works on their own merits at the same time. I actually really, really like Ender's Game, but purchasing things, especially non-essentials, doesn't have to be so simple. Just like I may buy an indie game that is flawed and unpolished because I like the fact that it exists, the developers, and hope for better in the future, I can also not choose to buy something good because I feel negative about parts of the surrounding system.

Put aside for a moment where you stand on this particular issue - shouldn't the artist's work (or anyone's, really) stand separate from their political beliefs or motivations? Unless the subject of that work is inherently political.

Shouldn't the artist have to think that their own public actions (or leaked private actions) can have consequences? Said it before, I'll say it again... Freedom of Speech is not Freedom from Consequences. Part of being an artist is selling your work, and if people consider you unlikable, well then you fail at that part of being an artist.

Would it be nice if human beings were designed not to think ill-things of others based on past actions? Well, given that we might actually be an extinct species that never learned to remember things instinctually that could cause us harm or make us feel bad... no, it wouldn't.

Homo Habilis didn't boycott and look what happened to them.

Yonder wrote:

Homo Habilis didn't boycott and look what happened to them.

I can't tell if you're mocking my joke point or piling on with my joke point.

Demosthenes wrote:
Yonder wrote:

Homo Habilis didn't boycott and look what happened to them.

I can't tell if you're mocking my joke point or piling on with my joke point. :)

I honestly don't know either, I like ambiguous statements because then I don't have to!

"Leave 'em laughing, or leave 'em wondering what the hell you meant." -- Mark Twain

(one of my favorite quotes)

Card is a horrible human being.
That said I love Ender's game. May have been the timing of when I first read it but I like it.

However, I thought the previews were enough reason to not see the movie. Add Card to the picture and I can't understand why anyone would go.

Aside: I didn't get any homosexual tension out of the short story or book.

Also did I mention that Orson Scott Card is a horrible human being?

My original plan was to offset seeing the movie with 2:1 donations to pro-LGBT causes, but maybe I'll just try to find some alternative way to see the movie.

I'm with realityhack - Ender's Game was a formative book for me, I didn't get any homosexual tension out of it, and I think that OSC has become a horrible person.

I hope this doesn't come off as over-dramatic, but you can't offset suicide. There's a lot more to homophobia than not being allowed to marry in some states.

I've lately been avoiding the works of Tim Burton, because while in my youth I found them compelling, I've lately found them to be not worth my time.

AN-Y-ways, amusing as the NtI Show is, I come here shocked, aghast, and more than a little confounded. I live in Utah, home of Prop 8 moneybags the LDS Church, and work for a company headed by the most dedicated, cliched, false-smiling member of that group this side of Mitt, and I believe, barring some legal backdoors and whatnot about Legal Dependents, yes I believe my workplace just extended insurance to domestic partners at our big company rally. They at least did enough to make a straight boy ignorant of all the loopholes say "Holy sh*t...did he just extend insurance benefits to domestic partners!?" and the president mumbled through that slide fast enough to make me think it's so. Imagine you've dealt with things falling up your whole life, and you've been to other places where things fall down, and you have to say "Yeah, well, it's awesome that happens here, but where I come from, things will be falling up for a few decades," but all of the sudden you get a hint that maybe, just maybe, things might fall down around you too. I wish I'd committed the slide to memory so experts could dissect it, but I was too busy doing a spit take.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

I guess from my perspective, a politician running for president on a one woman/one man platform seems like it would have a much more direct affect on Rav/Ed's marriage than supporting or not supporting a sci fi movie, and therefore a more logical lever.

Except for the fact that Card is more than just someone who donates money to the National Organization for Marriage. He is a member of the governing board of that group. And NOM has been the unquestionable leader in trying to forcibly annul my marriage simply because they can't stomach the idea that two men are having sex. Any dollar I deprive from Card is potentially one dollar that won't be used against me or my husband. However, if I do nothing, say nothing, and just act as though Card has no influence, then I know for a fact that Card will continue to give even more generously to NOM.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

But that creates a system where artists should only express popular opinions or face economic penury. Put aside for a moment where you stand on this particular issue - shouldn't the artist's work (or anyone's, really) stand separate from their political beliefs or motivations? Unless the subject of that work is inherently political. This bleeds into the facebook/twitter retribution discussion we had awhile back for me.

Card isn't someone with a garden variety opposition to some government policy, though. Card specifically indicated that he was willing to burn the republic to the ground rather than have to accept a nation where gay marriage was accepted. (Of course, he turned out to be nothing more than a gutless, cowardly gasbag that is currently begging to be treated with kindness now that the public shift in attitudes toward gay marriage places him in a distinct minority.)

You will have to forgive me, Norman, if I find it highly unlikely that you would be racing to the bookstore to purchase my latest treatise on Christian mysticism if I was standing atop my roof with a sawed-off shotgun threatening to kill children until conservative Arizona embraces gay marriage and Sheriff Joe Arpaio agrees to officiate at the first gay marriage in the Grand Canyon State.

Seriously. This is just pathetic.

The people behind California's Proposition 8 have launched a new legal effort to stop the state from permitting same-sex marriages.

It's a long shot, but it gets at an issue that has been lurking in the legal dispute all along. The question is whether they've gone to the right place to get it resolved.

...

Their reasoning: When the U.S. Supreme Court booted the case, it left intact a 2010 ruling by U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker that found Prop. 8 unconstitutional. Walker issued an order -- directed to California's governor, attorney general and state officials who oversee county clerks -- barring them "and all persons under their control or supervision" from enforcing Prop. 8.

But Walker, the Prop. 8 proponents argue, lacked legal authority to order state officials to do anything except allow the four gay plaintiffs to get married. And even if he did have that authority, they say, county clerks are not under anyone's supervision when it comes to issuing marriage licenses because the California Legislature gave clerks -- and clerks alone -- the authority to issue them.

Yup. They want a STATE court to void a FEDERAL court decision.

These people are beyond contempt.

It's pure desperation driving that filing, hon. I can't even see the State court giving them the time of day right now, much less even thinking about taking this case on.