Posted by Brad @ 11:01 am on July 10th 2013

Pleas for Tolerance for Anti-Gay Intolerants

Looks, I’m all for civility in political discourse, but that’s a little different than what Orson Scott Card, like Maggie Gallagher before him, is asking for. For years these folks have been explicitly arguing that the rights of their fellow Americans deserve to be limited for engaging in a lifetyle or being of a class of person that they don’t like. And now, where even they have more or less given up the ghost of success, are falling back to a fear that soon, anti-gay-marriage activists may be discriminated against! And that, America, is a sad, sad thing. Maggie Gallagher made the point most hilariously – where basically her last argument against gay marriage passage is that it would make her look like an asshole – but Card gives it a pretty good run too.

With the recent Supreme Court ruling, the gay marriage issue becomes moot. The Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution will, sooner or later, give legal force in every state to any marriage contract recognized by any other state. Now it will be interesting to see whether the victorious proponents of gay marriage will show tolerance toward those who disagreed with them when the issue was still in dispute.

Of course, as far as Full Faith and Credit goes, this is the same Card that said:

Because when government is the enemy of marriage, then the people who are actually creating successful marriages have no choice but to change governments, by whatever means is made possible or necessary.

To re-quote myself (edited some) when Maggie Gallagher was gnashing her teeth at the grave injustice being done to her:

It reminds me of an argument I frequently have with certain kinds of conservatives.

Namely, it’s always amusing to me that those people who seem preoccupied with the wave of “political correctness” are also the ones most likely to whine to all hell the moment someone treats them like a jerk (for being a jerk). When someone, or a collective of people, treat these people like jerks, they scream bloody murder that they’re somehow being oppressed under the banner of “political correctness” – as if some fascist governing state were putting them in jail and not just other people with opinions of their own holding the opinion (and even acting on it) that they’re jerks.

In fact, all political correctness means is, if you walk around and offend people, they will treat you like you’re a jerk, so it’s usually best walking around trying to NOT offend people. Nobody is saying you CAN’T offend people by using whatever the hell language you want. Go ahead! But if you do, it’s not a sign of oppression or censorship when people react accordingly. You can LEGALLY call people niggers, for instance, until you’re blue in the face. But, if you do, don’t be surprised if people choose not to do business or hang out with you, or even treat you civilly. You don’t have any right to having your opinions rubber stamped by everybody you come across. “PC” is nothing more than a loaded word for social courtesy. You CAN decided that “African American” is a stupid phrasing. But if you run into a guy who prefers to be called “African American”, you don’t get to make that decision for him, no matter how much you want to. That’s all “PC” means.

Anyway, Maggie Gallagher is gnashing her teeth that, SHOCK, when you are fighting a losing battle to treat an entire segment of the population as sub-humans, people are going to think you’re a jerk, and will treat you accordingly.

Sorry Mags, but just because you live in a free society doesn’t obligate anybody to like you. That’s freedom, baby.

The First Amendment gives you the right to hold whatever opinion you want. It does not dictate how you friends, family, or community members may react when you do. Indeed, it remains silent on that matter entirely.

And, of course, the real difference is that the people organizing boycotts of Orson Scott Card’s movie or socially shunning or even insulting Maggie Gallagher are not asking the government to step in and put the force of law behind their distaste for Gallagher or Card (when they do, incidentally, they are idiots).

So, yeah, the world’s smallest violin for Orson Scott Card.

4 Comments »

  1. Complicating things still further: Card’s novel is arguably the best single work of science fiction published in the last thirty years.

    I won’t be honoring the boycott, because there’s a very good chance that the movie will be awesome.

    Comment by Rojas — 7/10/2013 @ 6:25 pm

  2. Complicating things still yet even further: the main character of the book/movie is Andrew Wiggins, just like incoming KU basketball phenom Andrew Wiggins, who does things like this, and everybody’s gonna be calling him “Ender” after the movie’s released, and the puns about “Ender’s Game” will be, well, endless.

    So, basically, what I’m saying is, you’ve got to choose between the dignity of gay Americans and KU basketball.

    Comment by Rojas — 7/10/2013 @ 6:30 pm

  3. I’ve read a lot of Card’s other early work (Worthing Saga, Songmaster, Hart’s Hope, etc.) and was intrigued at how often homosexuality comes up, and how it is depicted. Songmaster in particular has some interesting scenes.

    Comment by Talarohk — 7/10/2013 @ 6:49 pm

  4. As I keep trying to explain to you, the movie “Schlongmaster” is not in fact based on the Orson Scott Card novel.

    You flunked that book report for a very good reason.

    Comment by Rojas — 7/10/2013 @ 7:16 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.