Comments on: Tales of Hoffman: Electability

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 14:27:04 +0000

I’m not arguing that ‘justice’ is bad at all. As a Catholic the concept of justice is a cornerstone of my faith. What I don’t like is the way that liberals play with the term and use it as a more-important sounding codeword for their rather lowbrow concept of ‘fairness’.

You claim that justice demands that gays be given the right to marry. But what you really mean is that it’s not fair that straight people get to do some things that gay people don’t. It’s sort of the way my youngest daughter says it’s not fair that my oldest daughter gets to stay up an hour later on school nights.

What I am suggesting is that your claim to justice/fairness is not rooted in anything more than contemporary cultural whims. Culture has shifted to the point where a majority of liberals think it’s okay for gays to get maried, so suddenly you have found a Constitutional justification for it. Polygamy does not enjoy widespread support so you claim they aren’t a protected class. It sounds very…convenient. That’s why conservatives, especially those of us who understand where the liberal notion of justice is borrowed from, have little respect for justice/fairness as an argument when it’s so clearly arbitrary.

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 10:25:15 +0000

Weapons grade there, Ames. You FTW.

By: lanfranc

lanfranc — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 03:43:07 +0000

I would note in passing that a certain group of gentlemen back in July of 1776 found the equally elusive and difficult-to-define concepts of ‘equality’ and ‘justice’ compelling enough to change if not thousands, then at least hundreds of years of tradition.

I’m just sayin’…

By: ACG

ACG — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 03:30:54 +0000

Also, I’ll argue that at the point where you’ve abandoned any semblance of an argument on the issues, and have instead resorting to arguing that justice is bad, I think I win.

By: ACG

ACG — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 02:57:43 +0000

By that logic, the ~~Fourteenth Amendment~~ (meant the Preamble) is also a secret liberal Masonic progressive socialist plot to steal Christmas.

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 02:54:29 +0000

‘Justice’ is a liberal code-word for fairness Ames. Kind of like ‘progressive’ is a code word for ‘very liberal’. So is it not ‘just’ that those seeking plural marriages should be able to have them when all partners consent?

By: ACG

ACG — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 02:47:05 +0000

Mike, the law is about justice. Which I've explained before, but you've never gone after the legal argument. Since here you dropped it and chose to go after the "BUT WHAT IS JUTSICE LOL" "argument" instead.

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 02:35:07 +0000

So it’s not about fairness. It’s not about making sexual love the soul criteria for marriage. But it IS about justice. However that ‘justice’ does not extend to plural marriages.

Ames, your case has a lot of cracks in it. I just wish liberals could look beyond the end of their noses.

By: ACG

ACG — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 02:15:44 +0000

It’s farcical to pretend that any of this rests on simple fairness. To get to that argument, you have to ignore the literally hundreds of times each of us have laid out the legal or objective case for gay marriage. Fairness + within the guarantee of equal protection.

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 02:12:04 +0000

You contend that simple ‘fairness’ is enough to change thousands of years of tradition. I say if we set the bar that low, buckle up for what comes next.