Good question from Roger Ailes:
It’s also interesting to see that the Moonie Times has placed scare quotes around “marriage” in Sully’s item on gay marriage and polling. Seriously: why does Sully allow these bigots to tamper with his work product?
(1) If Andrew raises a fuss with the Washington Times then he risks losing a venue in which to voice his opinion as well as the income he gets from them publishing his column.
(2) Since the national gay marriage debate seems to be, at least in part, a debate about the proper definition of marriage, it’s not clear that quotation marks are out of place.
(3) Are opponents of gay marriage automatically bigots?
Are opponents of gay marriage automatically bigots?
No, and no one said, or even loosely implied, that there was. There is super-abundant evidence that the Washington Times is indeed run by bigots.
Nat,
1. Yes, he does. But if principles were free, everyone would have them. Not that I’m calling Sullivan unprincipled; he has taken a lot of grief from his companions on the right for his consistent support of gay rights and gay marriage. Why he would stand for it from the WT, I don’t understand.
Also, remember Sullivan was willing to take that risk when he wrote for the New York Times.
2. We’ll have to agree to disagree, because I sure do disagree. Right now, the legal status of gay marriage is very much an issue. But to apply scare quotes to the very concept of gay marriage is disrespecful at best. It’s certainly not the convention, even among mainstream opponents of gay marriage.
3. It should go without saying that not every opponent of gay marriage is a bigot, but I guess it doesn’t. The editors of the WT are free to publish such non-bigoted arguments elsewhere in its pages. They’ve certainly done so in the past, and will do so in the future. But they don’t have the right to doctor Sullivan’s text, under Sullivan’s byline, to make a mockery of his argument. Again, I don’t think Sully should stand for it.
And, as Brian notes, this isn’t a generic publication opposed to gay marriage. It’s the Washington Times, which has a history.
For example, they’ve written about the family of Rosie O’Donnell and her adopted children, applying scare quotes to the term “mother” when describing her. They don’t use quotes when talking about heterosexual parents who have adopted children. The obvious implication is that adoptive gay parents aren’t really parents. I’d have a hard time explaining that without invoking bigotry.
I asked:
“Are opponents of gay marriage automatically bigots?”
Brian Weatherson responded:
“No, and no one said, or even loosely implied, that there was.”
By that, I assume you mean that Ted didn’t even loosely imply that. Certainly others have said as much, including the second person on Crooked Timber’s “Lumber Room” list. See:
“http://amptoons.poliblog.com/blog/000717.html”
Well, I meant Ted and Roger, who were the only salient people. I bet someone somewhere in the world sometime has. I bet somewhere in the world someone sometime has said that everyone who supports gay marriage is bigoted too. No view so absurd that someone hasn’t supported it sometime. (Except for the view that everything in the world is made of fingernails. No one ever has endorsed that. All the other views have been endorsed though.)
Nat, assuming you’re interested in argument, your new trouvaille will become pertinent if you now change Brian’s quote to read “no-one has ever said…”. “No-one said you don’t have to brush your teeth” does not mean “No-one in history has ever said you don’t have to brush your teeth.” That kind of statement would be hard to be sure of.
As for Sullivan, I’d say this course of action is linked to his “ethics.”
Moon’s money keeps that rag afloat. If he and his minions want to define what is and is not marriage ask him (his holy eminence) what massw mariages represent or why his daughter-in-law had to seek a safe house when chased by her crazed hubby, Moon’s son, the abuser.(for which,k see her book)
Brian Weatherson wrote:
“Well, I meant Ted and Roger, who were the only salient people.”
I’d think the person whose name appears in the title of this thread would be salient. On Feburary 25, 2004, Michael Graham (of, er, National Review Online) said: “I’ve asked Andrew Sullivan several times if it is possible to oppose same-sex marriage and NOT be a bigot. I’ve never gotten an answer and I’ve never seen one posted at his site—though it is certainly possible I missed one.”
I’ve searched the archives of both Andrew Sullivan’s blog and NRO’s The Corner for the week in which Michael said this and the week after and can’t find an answer from Andrew to Michael’s question.
Is there a question whether Moon’s mass marriages meet the standard definition of marriage? My dictionary (which was admittedly published in the unenlightened year of 1992) says that a marriage is “The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.” Those mass marriages seem to fit this definiton, as did, I suppose, the marriage of Moon’s crazily abusive son to Moon’s daughter-in-law.
Well, not saying that it is not the case that everyone who opposes gay marriage is a bigot is not the same as saying that everyone who opposes gay marriage is a bigot, I’d say. I’ll grant you that Sullivan may have implicated it, if you grant me similar rights to implicatures.
(I’m treating this as a philosophical discussion about the semantics of Brian’s utterance, BTW. As far as the real discussion goes, I think Ted is clearly in the right—these guys are bigots.)
I’ll go further—it’s not automatically bigoted to oppose same-sex marriage, but no one would oppose it if not for widespread anti-gay bigotry.
I absolutely hate these “X hasn’t said Y, so let’s conclude something bad about X” arguments that seem to turn up everywhere in blogistan these days. I’m normally perfectly happy to conclude mean things about Andrew Sullivan, but I won’t stoop to using that argument form even against him. From the fact that he hasn’t answered your particular question, we can’t conclude a single thing about what he thinks the answer is.
On the other hand, these argument forms are amusing I guess. Looking through the CT archives, I’ve never said that the moon is not made of orange cheese. From that I think it’s a perfectly reasonable conclusion that I do think the moon is made of orange cheese. I never knew I believed that, but there you go.
Sometimes silence doesn’t imply consent, or dissent, it just implies we couldn’t be bothered talking about just whatever it is someone wants us to talk about.
Matt Weiner wrote:
“Well, not saying that it is not the case that everyone who opposes gay marriage is a bigot is not the same as saying that everyone who opposes gay marriage is a bigot, I’d say.”
Well, yes, but not saying that it is not the case that everyone who opposes gay marriage is a bigot is also not the same as repeatedly refusing to answer the question of whether everyone who opposes gay marriage is a bigot. Forgetting to tell your wife today that you love her is, at most, a minor cause for concern. Responding to your wife’s question “Do you love me?” with stony silence is probably another matter.
“it’s not automatically bigoted to oppose same-sex marriage, but no one would oppose it if not for widespread anti-gay bigotry.”
Is this one of those limited “no one”s I’ve heard so much about recently?
Brian Weatherson wrote:
“Sometimes silence doesn’t imply consent, or dissent, it just implies we couldn’t be bothered talking about just whatever it is someone wants us to talk about.”
True. Do you think that Andrew Sullivan can’t be bothered with talking about bigotry and opposition to gay marriage?
In Virtually Normal, Sullivan argues that it’s possible to oppose gay marriage and not be a bigot. (Which is not to say that such a position is easy to pull off . . . only that it’s possible.)
Perhaps rather than seeking answers only on The Corner or in the blogosphere, it might help consult Sullivan’s fullest presentation on this topic?
Sullivan puits up with that shit because queers are pussies. That’s why.
The discussion was getting involuted.
I think Nat and Al should get married.
Oops, I meant, “married”.
Sullivan has linked to op-eds from his blog with the words “Confronting bigots” - the op-eds in question dealing specifically with a Georgia measure to define marriage clearly in law as the union of a man and a woman. To those who criticise him for being so closed-minded as to think only bigotry could provoke disagreement with him, Sullivan has sneered “Am I allowed to call those who wanted a constitutional ban on inter-racial marriages bigots? Or were they just concerned about the ‘sanctity’ of civil marriage?”
Of his argument for same-sex ‘marriage’ he has even said: “I think most reasonable people, if they take the time, will find the case impossible to refute.”
Nat,
What I mean is that, if not for widespread anti-gay bigotry, people wouldn’t see same-sex marriage as a BIG DEAL. And if people didn’t see same-sex marriage as a BIG DEAL, then no one would oppose it. Since people see same-sex marriage as a BIG DEAL, there are some people who aren’t anti-gay bigots who oppose it—because it’ll be a radical change in the notion of marriage or whatever; but I think that’s unfortunate. (And Peter, I haven’t seen any good arguments against it that don’t rest on a more or less unargued sense that it’s a BIG DEAL; so in that way I agree with Sullivan.)
As has been pointed out on this blog before, divorce (and contraception) involve much greater changes in the concept of marriage than same-sex marriage does. And the Rev. Moon certainly does more to make a mockery of marriage than Gavin Newsom.
Anyway, I’m glad that you’ve come to recognize the importance of conversational context; I refer you to our previous argument, so you can re-evaluate the statements under dispute in light of the questions to which they were responses.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review