web
counter

serial podcast / the walking dead / snl / mindhole blowers / netflix / celebrity facts / marvel


Avowed Homophobe and Terrible Human Being, Orson Scott Card, Responds to Boycott Campaign Against Ender's Game

By Dustin Rowles | Trade News | July 9, 2013 | Comments ()


el-juego-de-ender.jpg

I read Orson Scott Card’s Ender’s Game for the first time back in January, and I loved the novel so much that I changed my online avatars to a teaser poster from the forthcoming movie. What I didn’t know, however, until someone on Twitter yelled at me for supporting the work of a homophobe, is that Orson Scott Card is a terrible person. I checked with Steven Lloyd Wilson to confirm, and he ended up writing an amazing piece on the fall of Orson Scott Card. It read, in part:

And thus Orson Scott Card’s gradual descent into a poisonous brand of politics has been nothing short of tragic to anyone who has read the masterpiece of Ender’s Game. His main focus has been on homosexuality, though he has ranged across the entire landscape of small-minded and hateful political issues over the last decade. I wouldn’t be terribly surprised if the vicious dreck Card has blathered onto the Internet over the last decade ended up being a performance art demonstration of the hateful populism that Demosthenes used to great effect in Ender’s Game.

Naturally, in light of Card’s homophobia, many have taken to boycotting the upcoming movie, though the studio and people behind the film are trying very hard to distance themselves from the author. Card, a Mormon and National Organization for Marriage board member, finally spoke to the issue in Entertainment Weekly.

Ender’s Game is set more than a century in the future and has nothing to do with political issues that did not exist when the book was written in 1984. 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.

Oh, I SEE. He wants us to afford him — and other opponents of gay marriage — the tolerance that he and those didn’t afford us for supporting gay marriage. How so very hypocritical of the douchebag.

Here’s the thing, too: I know many people who are suggesting that we should separate the movie/book from the author, and in many cases, they’re absolutely right. But maybe they’re not as right when it comes to Ender’s Game because, as Steven noted in his piece, while the book didn’t espouse Card’s views on homosexuality, through his Peter character, he did in a way promote his anti-democratic values,

And in retrospect, it’s Peter who really announces what Card thinks about the way the world works. Peter’s the character who subverts the government, who takes over the world behind the scenes, with pseudonyms and back door deals to gather power like a pile of poker chips, before ruling the world for the rest of his life as a supposedly benevolent dictator. The contempt for democracy, the loathing for the very idea that the people should make their own decisions about their futures, is staggering in Ender’s Game once noticed.

Something to consider.


Your Pajiba 10 Wildcard Entry | The 13 Most Enjoyably Weird Places You Can Encounter The Cast Of "Justified"


Are you following Pajiba on Facebook or Twitter? Every time you do, Bill Murray crashes a wedding.


Comments Are Welcome, Bigots and Trolls Are Not


  • Colin Paddock

    I think we can see clearly now that the Mary Sue in Ender's Game wasn't Andrew Wiggin, but Peter.

    "[W]hen 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… Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down….," he says, then, when he's called on it,"Oh you guys are just super, just the biggest suckers on the planet earth. I can make you guys believe anything. I can make you dance around like puppets."

    "Oh, but please, please watch my movie."

    Notice that the squirrel-killing sadist is cast as saving the world from war. More than Ender, really, who was just bamboozled into killing a bunch of aliens who were no longer a threat.

    Ender was just a wimpy little faggy boy, who, other than just doing one act of pointless horrible violence after another, is pretty much useless. His big brother, the sadistic psychopath... he gets things done.

    Once you make that little cognitive shift, the book makes so much more sense. At least as the product of its batshit insane author.

    Yeah, I wouldn't be at all surprised if OSC's old neighborhood didn't suffer a rash of small dead animals.

  • abell

    Wait, what? I want to clarify, and I know I'm late to the thread, but, anti democratic values are suddenly verboten? The elitism encompanied by film criticism naturally, and, even worse, the politics those individuals tend to support are sacrosanct, but, Card's position on tolerance is somehow the problem. Christ, didn't this site a few weeks ago just publish a piece in direct conflict with the Texas abortion bill, a bill which frankly, is supported by a majority of Texas constituents and lawmakers. You have no standing for democratic superiority over Card.

  • solafidex

    Much love to my Geeks Out brothers and sisters, but I'm not going to see the movie for Mr. Card. I'm going for Ender. If Star Wars has taught us anything, it's once art is put out into the public domain, it can, does, and should (Episode 1 anyone?) exist separately from the artist.

  • Jennifer Schmennifer

    Normally, I'd agree with this, except that the money OSC makes from this is very likely money he gives to anti-equality organizations like the National Organization for Marriage. I suggest buying a ticket for another movie and then sneaking into this one, if you really have to see it.

  • sanity fair

    Maybe I'm missing something, but I cannot agree to be "tolerant" of violent bigotry. And maybe it makes me a bad person, but how tolerant would Card's side have been if SCOTUS had ruled in their favor? And is it wrong that I actually laughed when I read his little quote because it struck me as condescending? Anyone else feeling like this?

    No? Well, OK then. Off to stare at Anna Kendricks on the header pic for the Pajiba 10...

  • theKelz

    Can anyone really take any organization with the acronym "NOM" seriously?

  • manting

    and to make matter worse Card is on the board of directors of National Organization for Marriage. He is also a hard core Mormon (not the most tolerant group in the world)

  • manting

    to anyone who is against seeing this movie as a protest also throw away your thriller album (micheal Jackson fucked little kids which I think is worse than being a homophobe) and also don't ever buy another beatles song on iTunes (micheal Jackson estate owns their catalogue). There are literally tons of artists, writers, athletes and actors who have horrible views on a myriad of subjects. The fact is the book is a part of the sci fi cannon and is a brilliant work of science fiction. Ender Wiggin is a beautifully written character that shoulders a burden too great for his young age, or really anyone of any age.
    I look forward to seeing this movie because the book is amazing and I highly recommend reading it. I truly wish Card was not such a bigot but his book is a must read for fans of science fiction.

  • None of that is reason to give my money to a person whose views I find abhorrent. And there is no such thing as a must-read. I figured that out after being forced to read Silas Marner. It may be a classic, but I hated every goddamned moment of the thing. I'd rather read new authors. They need the money and support more anyway.

  • googergieger

    Tough choice indeed. Do I boycott this because I'm gay or because I hate shitty movies?

  • Slash

    Political issues that "did not exist" in 1984? Seriously?

    His problem isn't that he's a homophobe. His problem is that he's an idiot. Like most Republicans today. I'm assuming he's a Republican, or maybe one of those "Libertarians" who are really Republican but don't want to admit it because calling yourself Republican today is the same as saying, "I'm a registered idiot."

    I've never read the book, BTW. If I did, I'd try to check it out from the library or pick it up cheap at Half Price Books. No reason to give this douche any more money than necessary.

  • foolsage

    So... I keep trying to reconcile this problem: I really enjoyed the book and want to see the movie, but I don't want to give money to bigots.

    What would Henry David Thoreau suggest, in such a case? I think he'd advocate piracy.

  • Yeah, I went through this when I discovered Ian Fleming was a major racist, even for his time. Explained a lot about Live and Let Die, I'll tell you that much. Luckily he was dead before I even knew who James Bond was, so no conflict there.

    As far as Card, damn dude, could you be any more sanctimonious? At least the Chick-Fil-A guy actually hung out with a gay guy in order to convince folks he wasn't all that bad. Then again, he also didn't call for armed insurrection against the government in the case of gay marriage apssing, so he has two on you.

    That's what gets me: the bigotry I can understand. I don't approve of it, but I understand that is what he believes. But the utter GALL to tell his audience they should totally overthrow the government in a second Civil War because "gheys = icky, ghey mawwage = ickiest", and then turn around and passive-aggressively say that he hopes the people he has been vilifying can look past it and let bygones be bygones?

    Just....wow. Talk about projection. I could have cared less about the book or the movie (never read the former, had no interest in the latter), but for that dirty coward crap alone, he won't see a dime of mine. And yeah, it may not matter financially, but the public perception is not going to be kind. So boycott away, you crazy diamonds you. At least your tactics are more peaceful and respectful of the law, the nation, and other people than his would have been.

  • Mark Gundy

    You're the one calling him names... there was a time in the USA when you could have honest debate without being called names. I think Orson's as entitled to his point of view as you are yours & the decent into name calling does nothing to bolster your arguments... by your own words you loved the book and yet are now intent on not seeing the film... that seems pretty silly to me but I'm sure the film will survive, even without your help.

  • foolsage

    Pointing out someone's bigotry is not the same as "calling someone names". The former is an exercise in simple (albeit subjective) truth; the latter is an attempt to evoke an emotional reaction by insulting someone, where the truth is irrelevant and the reaction is all-important.

    Another way to approach this is to ponder why slander/libel laws in America have a common defense: it's not slander if it's true. Think about it.

    As to your statement that OSC is entitled to his views, you're right. Everyone is entitled to their own views. Hateful bigots are entitled to their hateful bigotry, and everyone else is entitled to think less of hateful bigots because of the hateful bigotry. It gets even better! Hateful bigots can also hate the people who hate their hateful bigotry, and can pretend to be the victims. We're all entitled to think whatever we want, in the darkness of our own minds.

    The point is, being entitled to a view does not make that view right, nor does it make that view acceptable to others. There's a kind of moral relativism implicit in what you wrote; you seem to suggest that everyone's views are equally valid. This simply isn't true in any meaningful sense. Yes, we're all entitled to hold our own views, but that doesn't necessarily mean that anyone else will agree with them. We're all entitled to be assholes and idiots, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to do so.

  • Fredo

    What time was this, if you don't mind me asking? When has any honest debate avoided name-calling and worse in America? Civil rights? Women's suffrage? The War of Independence?

  • I can answer this. There has never been a time where name-calling was beyond the pale in this country. The syntax has changed, in part because English is a very fluid language, but also because more people have been afforded the chance to be heard. A very quick google search of 1800s political editorials and cartoons demonstrates that we have always cast aspersions towards people with whom we disagree. Time tends to reveal that the more inclusive viewpoint eventually wins. It's one of the great things about this country: it was designed to progress and change.

  • Not to mention newspapers were usually very clearly partisan.

  • God Of Bal-Sagoth

    I don't want this to come out weird, but sometimes? You're kind of my favorite. That was perfectly stated.

  • Aw, thanks! I'm a history geek, so the silly notion that there was a time when we were all civil and noble of intent in all things practically begs for a reply. This was a country founded on dissent and discussion, and I am grateful we've continued that tradition, as it has wrought great things, albeit often through periods of painful transition.

    That said, we did seem to be a bit more polite in the era of hats and gloves, so perhaps we should re-institute those fashions and see how it goes. (Read: I love hats and people in them.)

  • BlackRabbit

    Except for duels.

  • Yes, but I'm fond of duels. They weed the swaggering idiots out of the gene pool. Well, some of them, anyway.

  • foolsage

    Sadly, duels were also used by swaggering idiots to weed everyone else out of the gene pool. There is not a strong correlation between being a skilled duelist and being a good human being.

  • Mark Gundy

    I know right... such a terrible country... "I won't be tolerant of intolerance" my new bumper sticker

  • Fredo

    Aw, don't get all butthurt now. Honestly, name the period when a major social issue was handled in an objective, mature manner?The Restoration? Prohibition? McCarthyism? When?

    It's perfectly okay to be on Card's side if that floats your dinghy. But ad hominem attacks and mentions of a past that never were don't help your position. And, in return, your condescension only serves to hurt any argument you may try to present.

  • Mark Gundy

    Gee what a colorful metaphor... I've no dog in this hunt, I like Sci Fi and I like films... what you do in your spare time is of zero interest to me.

  • God Of Bal-Sagoth

    Translation: I fucked up and was wrong but don't want to admit it so I'll sidestep the (very valid) question completely.

  • Mark Gundy

    Soooo inciteful.... you see right through my veil... I was wrong, it's always best to demean anyone who disagrees with you by calling them names... actually however the correct translation would have been: it's a Movie... not a cause for me... I know you better than I know Orson so it's hard for me to get too worked up over this... though I know bow this is THE most important issue of our time... sorry guys... not an issue that consumes me... now if you want to discuss Government SPENDING...

  • God Of Bal-Sagoth

    Here's the thing - you're absolutely right, he is entitled to his ideas, and no one is seeking to take that away from him. But it's important to acknowledge two critical items:

    1) We, as consumers and citizens, are equally entitled to call him on his bullshit and vote with our wallets. Similarly, we are entitled to call him an arrogant asshole because, frankly, he's an arrogant asshole.

    2) Just because he's entitled to his point of view doesn't make it right, and the fact is that his point of view is prejudiced, homophobic, hateful, and hurtful. You seem to be OK with that, and it doesn't seem to affect your opinion of either the film or the man himself. Which is fine. It also doesn't have to be an issue that consumes you. That's fine too, even though it's a human rights issue where people are deliberately not granted the same basic rights as their fellow citizens.

    But forgive me if I don't exercise my right to my own point of view by calling both of you out on it.

    Not to mention you still haven't backed up your initial claim.

  • Mark Gundy

    Totally agree with point #1... I exercise that right all the time... point #2 I honestly don't have enough knowledge of Orson... I was only aware of him as a writer... nothing more and a writer I've not ever read, though I am a Sci Fi fan with a 2,000+ book collection... normally the rights to the "story" is purchased and Hollywierd goes on to produce the film with no further involvement of the writer... but this seems as silly to me as Jim Carey suddenly growing a conscious and bemoaning his involvement with Kick-Ass2 due to excessive guns and violence...

    As to the original point... perhaps there never was a time when people could discuss issues without demeaning their opponents... but there should have been... I doubt I agree with the Liberals producing films on ANY issue... but just as I don't like Tom Cruise much in RL... that doesn't prevent me from enjoying most of the films he's done.

    Your rights extend to the point where you trample mine... and vice versa... we'd have a better World and country if more people reflected on that.

  • God Of Bal-Sagoth

    You have an astonishing gift for both missing the point and failing to actually address the issues at hand, and as such, I'm pulling the plug on this conversation. It's making me dizzy.

  • God Of Bal-Sagoth

    Yeah, I'd like an answer to that one too. Hearkening back to nonexistent halcyon days doesn't help your argument one bit, friend.

  • Dennis Albert Ramirez

    Comics Alliance had a really good multi-part series of articles about Card when DC controversially announced he was going to write a Superman story for them, and they interviewed several comic shop owners of varying sexualities and backgrounds on whether they'd order the book and why/why not. One of the points brought up was that maybe he's always been active with his beliefs, but not until the age of internet has a person's activities (especially a famous person's) been so accessible and trasnparent, and in cases like this, volatile.

    I count myself as absolutely being able to separate art from the artist. I don't think political/personal revelations about a person diminishes their work. I think Frank Lloyd Wright was a womanizer, but I also think the Guggenheim is spectacular building. Rosemary's Baby is one of the best horror movies ever made in my opinion, but I also absolutely think Roman Polanski should answer for sexually assaulting a 13 year old and rot in prison.

    Maybe a case could be made for works that are directly tied to their authors' beliefs/attitudes, like Atlas Shrugged, which is essentially fan-fiction writ-large for her Objectivist beliefs, but in those cases the cards are already on the table anyway. I haven't yet read Ender's Game, so I cannot speak to it's themes or relevance to Card's homophobia.

    That said, I totally get it. Perhaps I've just never had an really really favorite artist or personality of mine go rogue, as it were. Like if Neil deGrasse Tyson was all of a sudden revealed to be a virulent racist, maybe I'd change my tune, but so far I think I wouldn't. I do plan on reading Ender's Game, and eventually seeing the movie. They exist to me separately from whatever Orson Scott Card is. Though, as a supporter of gay marriage myself, i'll get the novel from a library, and the movie via extra-legal torrents so my money doesn't go to him (albeit at the expense of everyone else involved in the movie)

  • Dennis Albert Ramirez

    http://comicsalliance.com/supe...

    the first of the five part series at Comics Alliance, for those interested

  • NateMan

    Thanks for posting that!

  • JustTheFacts

    According to IMDB, he is a producer of the film and obviously the author of the original novel. So how is a boycott of the movie going to protest his views on homosexuals and gay marriage? I don't recall any themes to that extent in the novel as the author of this piece states. Mr. Card has already been paid for his job as producer and likely for the story. So low returns is not really going to hurt him either. Does this mean that if I disagree with any artist/director/producer's views that I cannot enjoy their work? I am going to see the film because I loved the book. I choose to fight intolerance in other ways which will actually make an impact. A boycott, in this particular case, is lazy activism and will not advance the cause of marriage equality in the least.

    I would also like an explanation of "Card's anti-democratic stance." How can you say with a straight face that Card was stating his "anti democratic stance" through his character Peter? This is a ridiculous argument because authors/artists/directors create characters that say and do things that they do not believe in or would never do. To say that Card is against democracy because his character Peter was is the same as saying that Dostoyevsky supported murder because a character in Crime and Punishment killed his land lady or that Michael Cunningham promotes suicide because several of his character commit suicide in "The Hours." It is an argument that actually has nothing to do with his views on gay marriage but rather comes across as a personal attack on the author.

  • googergieger

    "I choose to fight intolerance in other ways which will actually make an impact."

    Yes? I'm sorry, please continue your story.

  • Jennifer Schmennifer

    He could very well be earning a percentage of the box office, as producer and original author. A boycott might also discourage them from making films out of the other books in the Ender saga, and discourage this from becoming a big movie franchise, from which he'd also be earning money.

  • GirlWithABoysName

    If the movie is good, he SHOULD earn money for its success- it was his good idea, regardless of what an awful person he clearly is. At its heart, we are a nation built on the belief that a good idea is worth paying for. To deny the value of the idea or product because you don't like the guy who thought of it is, dare I say it, unAmerican.

  • Jennifer Schmennifer

    But it's very American to "vote" with your dollars. And if someone very publicly espouses an idea that you disagree with politically and morally, then why not boycott?

  • Jennifer Schmennifer

    (In all honesty, I hated the book.)

  • God Of Bal-Sagoth

    A boycott, in this particular case, is lazy activism and will not advance the cause of marriage equality in the least.

    Except for the fact that it draws attention to the cause, and there is value in that. Perhaps not as much value as a feet-on-the-ground protest or campaign, but don't think that it doesn't have an effect.

  • NateMan

    Card actually announced his interest in armed revolt through his own words, rather than his characters. My iPad doesn't want to allow me to link for some reason, but just google 'Orson Scott Card armed revolt' and you'll find it in his op-eds.

  • Salieri2

    I believe NateMan is referring to this:

    "How long before married people answer the dictators thus: Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn."

    Enjoy:

    http://www.deseretnews.com/art...

  • Salieri2

    The above link is apparently a reiteration of a long-held position, though getting through that one made me queasy, so I admit I haven't clicked through:

    http://laist.com/2008/08/01/or...

  • csb

    Now it will be interesting to see whether the victorious proponents of
    gay marriage will show tolerance toward those who disagreed with them

    Dafuq does that even mean? Is it a subtle plea not to boycott the film that'll make him a mint if successful?

  • cgthegeek

    All our faves are awful. Alladem.

  • Kurt Vonnegut was a saint.

  • So is Dorothy Mantooth.

  • Rick Snee

    "... while the book [Ender's Game] didn’t espouse Card’s views on homosexuality ..."

    Ender's Game? No. Shadow Puppets -- part of a sequel line that follows Bean -- in 2002, however, includes a gay scientist who decides to marry a woman and have kids because you can't be part of the "Web of Life" if you're gay.

    So, yeah, if you read long enough, you can find his politics in the Ender books.

  • John

    I hate to sound so apathetic about the whole issue but frankly...who cares? I loved this book when I was a YA and have anticipating a film version ever since. I don't share the same views as Card and could really care less how he feels about marriage or any other subject for that matter.

  • chanohack

    If Card was just some casually conservative guy who had different "views" on marriage, this would be a whole different story. I'd see that movie. The guy has BATSHIT ideas about government and he thinks all gay people should be rounded up and imprisoned. Until they stop being gay.

    That's not a political disagreement.

  • God Of Bal-Sagoth

    Out of curiosity, if he was an awful, vicious racist - someone who thought blacks should be shipped back to Africa, that Jews should be put in camps, etc. - would you still feel as apathetic about his work? Would you still love his books and be eagerly waiting for the film knowing that he shared the viewpoints of, say, David Duke or George Wallace?

  • Dennis Albert Ramirez

    Would the degree of racism count? For example, I was disappointed find out H.P. Lovecraft was a racist in life after getting into him, but he is still my favorite horror author. Some people say he was a product of his time, I say racist is racist all the same. Now, I don't know of any mention calling for genocide or anything, but his works are full of miscegenation fears, dark skinned cultists, and really anything that didn't fit his mold of Olde English culture.

    To answer your question though, if, in fact something came out where he did in fact call for genocide, armed revolt and all that based on his racial beliefs, well, my opinion of him as a person would certainly nosedive, but At The Mountains of Madness would still be one of my favorite stories.

  • God Of Bal-Sagoth

    Thanks for the honest answer. And yes, both the degree of racism AND the time/place makes a difference to me. That's what makes Card's issues so grotesque is that he is a product of modern times, and yet his opinions are still absolutely repellent - see Chanohack's response below - he's right, Card isn't just a casual, ignorant homophobe who doesn't know better - he's actively terrible and once thought that homosexuality in and of itself should be illegal, although he's since modified that and now is "only" opposed to things like gay marriage, civil unions, and gays adopting children.

    The HP Lovecraft is an excellent comparison because it differs both in degree of virulence as well as the fact that he was a product of his time. So yeah, Lovecraft gets a "still appreciate him, but with honest reservations," while Card gets a "he's a terrible, hateful person and so I regretfully cannot see his books the same way anymore." I appreciate that they are well-written, but my conscience simply weighs too heavily.

  • chanohack

    The thing I love most about Card's books (my three or maybe four very favorite novels are by him) is that he could write with what I thought was such empathy for other religions, nationalities, ages, genders... planets of origin... his "voice" never felt foreign, no matter which point of view he was using. It broke my heart to find out he's totally devoid of empathy to such a cruel extent. (I can't see this movie.) (Maybe when my brother inevitably buys it?) (Is that hypocritical?)

  • idiosynchronic

    OSC had this moment from in the 80's when he wrote with the voice you describe. And then it all went out the window - I couldn't guess why without knowing the man personally.

  • It feels wrong to me to deprive yourself of joy because an asshole created the thing that brings you joy. Just don't give your brother a birthday gift this year and call it square.

  • lia

    But Peter is the antagonist. He's meant to invoke distaste in the reader.

  • Enarra

    That was my thought as well, I didn't like Peter and neither did the main character, not in Ender's Game and not in the many books that followed. Standing on it's own Ender's Game does not, in my opinion, promote OSC's views. So I'll treat Ender's Game the same way I treat C.S Lewis' The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe... on it's own, as a work of fiction that I love.
    Look, my Grandmother is a horribly racist bigot too, but I still love her, I just try ignore the parts of her personality that I am powerless to change. (And yeah, you can not change the opinions of an 86 year old, not possible, I have tried)

  • blorft

    I always thought he was a villain, if a complex and interesting one, but I suppose that could be my own bias. It honestly never occurred to me that OSC might consider him... aspirational?

  • Red Green

    And yet you don't bat an eye when Alec Baldwin goes off. Interesting you let liberals get away with it, but not a conservative.

    Pajiba has really started showing its true colors lately.

  • googergieger

    I'm pretty sure a lot of people let Baldwin have it the other day in the Deen/Baldwin post. Cause you know, it is hypocritical to chastise someone and ignore someone else that do the exact same thing. Not that those two people were "guilty" of the same thing, but still, stop with the fox news crying bull shit hypocrisy yourself.

  • Maguita NYC

    I don't know which site you've been reading, but this one has pretty much decimated Alec Baldwin for the human feces he has proven himself to be.

    And just so we're clear, when someone disagrees with my POV, it doesn't matter if they're left, right, center, or coucou land: It's an on-going dialogue, and the poorest of excuses is feeling persecuted because of your political affiliations.

    'Cause this place is pretty much 50/50, and it more than shows in the comments.

  • Please check the archives before posting. Baldwin was criticized multiple time for his unchecked assholery. Also, I'm fairly sure we're a multi-true-colored community. Just because someone doesn't like homophobes doesn't mean they're liberal - or are you implying that one cannot be conservative and dislike bigots? Because that would be painting with a very broad brush indeed.

  • Not just multiple times, there was an entire article comparing Baldwin to Paula Deen, with a similar focus as this one JUST THE OTHER DAY.

  • anikitty

    Alec Baldwin is an angry jackass. Is that the liberal pass you were talking about?

  • Malky

    What a ridiculous comparison. Suggesting the two are, in any way, equivalent is utter nonsense.

  • Red Green

    Suggesting a man who has a history of angry racial and homophobic slurs should get off scott free cause he has been seen at your rallies is even more ridiculous than chastising a man who in his personal life disagrees, but has yet to put it into any of his works.

    Please, keep believing the shit you are shoveling.

    I don't agree with either of them. I just love that the liberals get a pass. The double standard of Pajiba is hilarious anymore.

    Remember when you guys wrote funny articles and didn't try and impose political or social commentary into all your articles? Pepperidge Farm Remembers.

  • Malky

    Framing complex situations and individuals in simplistic ways to illustrate a silly point is, well, a bit tiresome. We're all been on the Internet for years now, right? This is a little old.

  • Jerce

    You gonna start upvoting your own comments now, as well as replying to them?

    Why don't you go troll Jezebel or someplace?

  • chanohack

    That's a Discus error, so why don't you relax? And if I can add my two cents here, we batted plenty of eyes when Alec Baldwin showed his colors. I remember feeling sad and disappointed, sort of EXACTLY LIKE NOW.

  • Artemis

    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.

    This may be my very favorite of all the dumb things that have been said about the fight for gay rights, because it so perfectly illustrates the fallacy underlying the opposition to those rights. Memo to Card: no one who is advocating for or supporting gay marriage has any ability, nor any desire, to do anything bad to you once they get them.

    Seriously, what "tolerance" does he think he will require if gay marriage becomes legal across the country? No one has ever tried to deny us straights the ability to access the legal and emotional benefits of marriage. No one has beaten up or killed heterosexuals for not being gay enough. No one has fought--and won--elections using "come shit on the heterosexuals" as a get-out-the-vote strategy. No one has tried to stop heterosexuals from being able to adopt children, or has applied existing laws in ways that limit their parental rights as compared to gay parents. There is no one protesting at heterosexual marriage ceremonies. There is no slur that means heterosexual.

    If by "tolerance" you mean "you're not allowed to dislike me for loudly espousing views that you disagree with and that are actively harmful to people who have never done me any wrong," then no, fuck tolerance. Otherwise, you really don't have anything to fear from the all-powerful gay lobby, asshole.

  • ,

    *Raises hand*

    Well, let's see what happens when this happens, because you know it will: There will inevitably be a gay couple that demands to be married by a priest in a Roman Catholic Church, or maybe a Baptist Church or some other close-to-fundamental denomination, either because of religious convictions or as a test case or just to fuck with 'em. They're just not all going to go the Unitarian route. And the priest or church will refuse. Then it will be interesting to see: Can churches be forced to perform marriages that run counter to their doctrine? Does freedom of religion mean freedom to refuse to bestow a sacrament? Whose rights win? No matter what, there will be people who are assholes about it on both sides, and it will end up in court again and SOMEbody is gonna lose. I don't have a guess who, unless, say, Clarence Thomas croaks and Obama gets to appoint a justice.

  • foolsage

    No. The right to be married is a civil right; the state issues marriage licenses. If you seek to be divorced, you apply to the state, not to a church. Our Constitution says that our federal laws must treat everyone equally, and by extension it's unacceptable for the government to deny one group of citizens a civil right.

    The right to be married under the rites of any specific church does not exist. All churches have the ability to decide whom they will and will not administer rites to. They can choose not to marry gay people. They can choose not to marry people who have been married before. They can choose not to marry people who have prominent moles on their faces. They can choose not to marry gingers.

    Similarly, a church can deny communion to those they think are insufficiently holy. There's no legal requirement, nor should there be, that a church give out communion, or baptism, or marriage rites, or any other rites. Those rites have nothing to do with civil rights, and nothing to do with the government.

    Denying a sacrament is not a crime, nor should it be a crime.

  • Jennifer Schmennifer

    "All churches have the ability to decide whom they will and will not administer rites to."

    Except in Indiana, where gay-friendly clergy face fines and jail time for marrying same-sex couples.

  • ,

    So maybe in retaliation the city of San Francisco makes it a crime for clergy NOT to marry same-sex couples.

    Hey, any governmental entity can pass a law, no matter how absurd, and then see how long it takes for a court to strike it down. How long did it take to strike down DOMA?

    You think the GOP is the only party that can ram through bad legislation?

  • Jennifer Schmennifer

    Of course I don't think the GOP is the only party who can ram through bad legislation. But lately, it seems like the GOP is the only party who *has* been doing that.

    My point was that the claim to care about religious rights is bullshit if they're going to pass a law that takes that freedom to choose away from the churches. They don't care about religious freedom or letting religious bodies make their own decisions; they just care that gay people are getting married. "Religious freedom" is just an excuse to make their bigotry seem reasonable.

    And this is a real law that passed, not some hypothetical one that they use for fear mongering.

  • foolsage

    Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I looked it up, and Indiana is indeed wacky in this regard. Anyone who "solemnizes" a gay marriage can face criminal charges. Good catch.

    I don't know of any other exceptions that limit a church's ability to provide rites where and when they wish to. Certainly in general they're free to, and exceptions like the above will follow civil law; if it's unlawful for gay people to marry, it might also be unlawful to marry gay people.

  • Artemis

    What Reba said. People like to bring this up because they literally can't think of a single other possible way in which gay marriage could hurt people who don't like gay marriage, but none of them seem to understand that this is literally the dumbest possible parade-of-horribles example for them to put forward because the courts have already repeatedly ruled that religious institutions have a TON of leeway to discriminate if said discrimination is plausibly related to religious doctrine.

    Most recently, this came up with regard to employment discrimination laws. Which don't apply to religious institutions so long as they meet the very low threshold of showing that religion is remotely relevant to the particular job about which they are being sued. Which has allowed them to, for example, fire someone who teaches primarily non-religious subjects in a religious school because she had narcolepsy and took the school to court when they tried to fire her for it. If they can fire someone with NARCOLEPSY because it's somehow a violation of their religion, then 100% they can refuse to marry gay couples.

    So there are literally zero concievable scenarios in which the scary mean gays are going to find some court that will force a Catholic church to marry them. I don't even think anyone will bother trying to bring a case about it.

  • ,

    That seems naive to me. If a case can be made about it, someone will make a case about it. Not everyone is going to acquiesce. Not everyone is going to shrug and say, "Ah, well, I don't want to belong to a club that won't have me as a member." Somebody is going to make a federal case out of it. If the court's intention was to create not just a "separate but equal" status for gay people but full marriage equality, then how can a church, legally, deny anyone?

    Plus, times sure change, don't they? As the people who point to public opinion polls about the acceptance of gay marriage insist on noting. So there's going to be increasing pressure on churches to conform, to get with the times. Can you imagine a church now that would refuse to bless the union of, for instance, a black man and a white woman? Churches now are going to face the same pressure, certainly from the general public, and possibly from the legal community, about gay couples.

    Court compositions change, too. One court upholds the Voting Rights Act; another court throws it out. So just because the courts have thrown out these cases forever doesn't mean they will throw them out forever.

    BTW, if I haven't made it clear from several other comments on this issue, I believe the Supreme Court ruled correctly. Since the government insists on tangling itself with legal marriage, I don't see how, under the Constitution, you can deny the legal rights involved to anyone.

    So I'm not arguing against gay people. I am trying to see both sides. And what I see is, the tide is certainly flowing in a definite direction now, and that spells trouble for churches whose doctrine opposes homosexuality in some form or other. It's not a strawman argument. It's not a slippery slope fallacy. It's where these institutions are headed. They're headed for a showdown. Maybe not this year, maybe not in 20 years, maybe not in my lifetime, maybe in yours. The issue will have to be settled at some point. And even then it won't be, for the reasons I stated above.

  • tatertot

    I don't think these churches are headed for a "showdown" - I think they're headed for irrelevancy. As the tide of public opinion turns toward gay-acceptance (and other things such as female clergy) churches will either have to choose>/i> to change or have their flocks go elsewhere while they slowly disappear.

    And churches already get to refuse marriage to all sorts of people. There are churches who won't marry divorced people, and there are even Baptist churches who won't allow black people to marry in a church where the are members of the congregation - They have to go down the street for their weddings. The courts have consistently upheld the right of religious organizations to be self-righteous, judgmental, small-minded douche-bags. That's not going to change because we're moving toward marriage-equality.

  • ,

    Part of my point is, those judges will eventually retire or die, and if you have a couple liberal presidential administrations back-to-back -- say, if we get eight years of Hillary after eight years of Obama -- that's plenty of opportunity to rearrange the thinking of the federal courts. And all it REALLY takes, in the end, is five justices on the SupCo to decide the churches need to get with the times or, maybe, lose their tax-exempt status, or face some other pressure tactic, for things to get ... interesting.

    Your argument is, basically, something like saying in 1860, "Well, the courts have ALWAYS upheld slavery ..." * Or, in 1915, "Well, women have NEVER had the right to vote." The way things are now, they way they have been, is not necessarily the way they will always be.

    *--I don't know that they did, I'm just trying to make a point.

  • tatertot

    Damn html tags!

  • No, the church will not be forced to conduct the service, because the religious service is irrelevant to the legality of a marriage, and there are other options to marry in a religious service. Most courts would throw it out, but if it got that far, the Supreme Court would not hear it, based on the separation of church and state, I would guess. Which, you know, would be sort of ironic, considering the current state of politics, but I digress...

  • Jennifer Schmennifer

    And while opponents to marriage equality were wringing their hands about churches' rights to refuse same-sex weddings, Indiana went and made it criminal for churches to *accept* same-sex weddings. So I feel they just lost the argument. You (general "you") can't keep harping about religious freedom when you're in favor of removing that choice from the religious institutions yourself.

  • Fredo

    As someone posted on Twitter: You're not a "homophobe" because you don't suffer from a phobia of homosexuals. You're just an asshole who wants a fancy term to cover your asshole nature.

  • foolsage

    http://www.snopes.com/politics...

    "I hate the word homophobia. It's not a phobia. You're not scared. You're an asshole." - falsely attributed to Morgan Freeman but still hilarious

  • anikitty

    "There is no slur that means heterosexual." Breeders?

  • Artemis

    Not really. Breeders can be used that way, but it's primarily used to refer to people who actually have kids, regardless of their sexuality. I've heard it applied to gay men who adopt, for example, and I've heard it used a lot by heterosexual child-free women who definitely don't think that it includes them.

  • googergieger

    Whatever you say, no pride parade.

  • Malky

    OSC has become a nightmare figure for me, illustrating that my heroes can fall, not just stumble. To a kid who grew up on Terry Pratchett and Douglas Adams, it was a painful lesson.

    Now I feel betrayed. That part of it isn't really OSC's fault, though. He didn't try to hide his beliefs, or secretly convert me.

    But there's not really much room for sympathy for the oppressors, for those doomed to the wrong side of history, is there? He could always change his mind, and I'll welcome him back.

    The bit with Peter taking over the world through secrecy and manipulation is still great, of course. These days, who doesn't have contempt for democracy?

  • NateMan

    The day Pratchett is demonstrated to be a bigot, to be deeply different than the shining pillar he is to me, I'm going to lose every vestige of faith in humanity I have. That man means the world to me.

  • foolsage

    I've read all the Discworld books and most of Pratchett's other stuff; I know of no evidence supporting any sort of bigotry on his part at all. Quite the contrary, he attacks all sorts of bigotry, from racism to sexism to nationalism, continually.

    I've also met him. Pratchett is the sweetest and most down-to-earth person imaginable. He's also hilarious. And he likes video games, especially sandbox stealth games like Thief.

    It's been 8 years now since I met him and that's how I'm choosing to remember him. Damned Alzheimer's.

    Dusty in here today. Got something in my eye.

  • kinnat

    my oldest son has read Pratchett since childhood. I have heard him speak (TP I mean) so many times and I think he is one of the most charming genuine intelligent and funny human beings ever created.
    The writer I find hateful (not in the same league as OSC but he shits me sideways) is George RRRRRR Martin. I find him ultra arrogant, completely disinterested in his readers' passion for his books, and most tellingly - he is a fat 60 something man who may very well die before finishing a books series that has already taken 16 years to write 5 fucking books. If he could restrain his ass from going to the opening of everything from an envelope on up and actually WRITE, surely even a man who giggles like a moron can finish the story of characters now loved by twice as many people - thanks to the superb GoT !!
    ::: end rant :|

  • emmalita

    Did you share your story of meeting him on the Weekend Comment Diversion? I don't remember seeing it.

  • foolsage

    The one about being geeky? I didn't post to that; I'm far too geeky, and would ruin the calibration of everyone's geek sensors.

  • emmalita

    The week before that the CD was "your brush with greatness" stories about Pajibans meeting famous people.

  • foolsage

    Oh, no, I missed that one as well. I rarely post to the weekend comment diversions. I've met a few famous people over the years but Pratchett was the niftiest.

  • emmalita

    The man who gave this speech could not be a bigot: Why Gandalf Never Married http://ansible.co.uk/misc/tpsp...

    However, Pratchett does have Alzhheimer's. If he does say something bigoted, or deeply different than the shining pillar he is to you, you can blame the disease.

blog comments powered by Disqus