Orson Scott Card's Superman Story Shelved After Homophobia Controversy 1174
An anonymous reader writes "A controversy has been brewing in the comic community for the past month. Orson Scott Card, author of Ender's Game and its many sequels, was tapped to write a story for the new Adventures of Superman comic. The controversy arose because Card has become an outspoken opponent of gay marriage, going so far as to say giving it legal recognition could mark 'the end of democracy in America,' and suggesting 'traditional' married people will eventually have to overthrow the government. Many fans of the series objected, and some retailers decided they wouldn't stock the issue Card's story appears in. Now, the illustrator for Card's story, Chris Sprouse, has walked away from the project, saying he wasn't comfortable with the media surrounding the story. Because of that, Card's story is being replaced in the Adventures of Superman anthology. 'The news has inspired speculation about whether or not this could mean that DC will quietly kill off the controversial Card story entirely, with some suggesting that the story remaining un-illustrated gives the publisher an "out" to avoid any potential breach-of-contract legal response.' Personally, I'm not sure what to think about this. I enjoyed Ender's Game as a kid, and it tarnishes the experience a little to know that its authors can say such hateful things. On the other hand, Card seems to have kept his personal views out of his fiction, and it's unlikely DC would let him put those views into a Superman comic even if he wanted to. It's a free country; people are free to believe stupid things. On the third hand, he is actively advocating his views outside his fiction, and what better way is there for readers to fight back than organizing a boycott and voting with their wallets? What do you think, Slashdot?"
I'm not even a fan, but (Score:5, Insightful)
Always thought he was overrated, but nonetheless I still think this is BS. I've always believed in separating the artist from the art. And I honestly don't give a rat's ass about the politics or social views of any given writer. Applying litmus tests like this is just the kind of thing that can come back and bite you in the ass if you're not careful. After all, you never know when YOUR views may become the unpopular ones.
OSC has the right to say what he wants (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'm not even a fan, but (Score:5, Insightful)
Card's view is not an "unpopular" one; it is discriminatory. Unfortunately, it is much TOO popular.
Re:I'm not even a fan, but (Score:1, Insightful)
Always thought he was overrated, but nonetheless I still think this is BS. I've always believed in separating the artist from the art. And I honestly don't give a rat's ass about the politics or social views of any given writer. Applying litmus tests like this is just the kind of thing that can come back and bite you in the ass if you're not careful.
The problem is that he's using his fame achieved from his art to gain a larger audience for his message. That's when it's time to start to actively deny him his fame.
After all, you never know when YOUR views may become the unpopular ones.
This isn't Star Wars versus Star Trek. This is something that is rapidly becoming a fundamentally ethically right and wrong decision. Two people are in love and somehow that jumps across time and space and negatively affects you? Do us all a favor and go take a flying fuck off a bridge.
Re:This is just stupid. (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you understand what an anti-gay witch hunt looks like?
A bunch of people saying, in effect, "We are so deeply uncomfortable with the loudly expressed policial views of this author that we won't buy work written by him," is not it. Not even if they do so in an organized fashion.
Picture worth 1000 words (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:An Old Discussion (Score:5, Insightful)
A question, then: is it possible for a famous person to openly state a viewpoint without "using their own popularity" to further said viewpoint? How might someone in such a position go about doing that? Or should they simply be silenced, for fear of their fame leading people to agree with them?
Re:I'm not even a fan, but (Score:5, Insightful)
The interesting thing here is that the story Didn't push his agenda yet his story was still rejected. Does that not simply lend credence to his claim of "the end of democracy in America"? Have his opponents not heard of Barbra Streisand?
Freedom works both ways (Score:5, Insightful)
He's free to say what he wants. I'm free to choose to boycott his work. His publisher is free to choose not to publish his work. His illustrator is free not to work with him. I'm sick and tired of people acting like free speech means speech without consequences. It doesn't. The government can't throw you in jail or treat you differently because of what you say (some exceptions to that rule of course), but everyone else is free to react as they see fit (within standard legal boundaries).
Now, one could argue that publishers have some sort of moral obligation to publish things regardless of controversy, but that's a different argument entirely.
It's a free country... (Score:5, Insightful)
Similarly, Sprouse is allowed to refuse to work with Card. Retailers are allowed to refuse to stock Card's work. DC is allowed to refuse Card's story. And comic book buyers are allowed to refuse to buy stuff by him.
Boycotts are not an attack on your freedom - they're someone else getting to also exercise their freedom.
Re:I'm not even a fan, but (Score:5, Insightful)
Does that not simply lend credence to his claim of "the end of democracy in America"?
No, what would lend credence to his claim would be a US state enacting a same-sex marriage law without the necessary majority support from elected representatives.
Re:An Old Discussion (Score:5, Insightful)
Later in the story, Anton has *gasp* married. No, not to a man, but to a woman. In fact he is going to be a father. He is happy, talkative, and engaging. He mentions in passing that his homosexual tendancies have made his marriage harder but that with work they are able to get through it and live a full and happy life.
That is actually mainstream thought within religion-based anti-gay groups. It is their implementation of "hate the sin, love the sinner" - it is OK to be gay as long as you never act on it. Kind of like staying celibate until marriage except you never get married.
There are a lot of religious people trying to live that way - it comes down to a choice for them, they can repress their sexuality and live in a supportive community or they can accept their sexuality and be cast out all alone. For them they do not perceive it as a bunch of sanctimonious jerks repressing them, instead it is a choice between keeping the life they've spent decades building or giving that up for what may or may not turn out to be a life with more inner peace. It is not an easy choice - both options have major pros and cons.
I haven't read much, if any, of Card's books in the last two decades, so I don't really know any of the context of this Anton character. But I have to wonder if he is at least a little bit autobiographical - expressing an ideal that Card is trying to live up to himself.
Re:I'm not even a fan, but (Score:5, Insightful)
Does that not simply lend credence to his claim of "the end of democracy in America"
No, because the government didn't stop him from publishing anything. He's still got his right to vote for whatever/whoever he wants to in elections. He's free to say whatever idiotic things he wants. He's free to submit his work to whatever publisher he wants. No part of democracy is harmed.
The market has spoken and individuals have spoken that they don't want to deal with a bigoted ass.
Re:I'm not even a fan, but (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that he's using his fame achieved from his art to gain a larger audience for his message. That's when it's time to start to actively deny him his fame.
Do you say this when it is a Hollywood celebrity that is saying something you agree with, or is using fame as a soapbox allowed for people you agree with but not for others?
This is something that is rapidly becoming a fundamentally ethically right and wrong decision.
Applying the word "marriage" to a couple is not an ethical issue. Who cares if you call a couple married or not? Why is being called "married" becoming such a crisis? Isn't the real issue the legal status, which can exist without marriage just as easily as with?
Do us all a favor and go take a flying fuck off a bridge.
Oh, sorry, I guess that answers that question. Your way or death.
Re:Boycott is a valid choice. (Score:5, Insightful)
What *is* wrong with polygamy. Provided everyone is in agreement/consenting, and no one is cheating on anyone else?
Re:This is just stupid. (Score:5, Insightful)
why is someone so up in arms about an openly anti-gay guy?
Why is someone so up in arms about a guy who openly doesn't want black people to be free?
Why is someone so up in arms about a guy who openly doesn't want women to be able to vote?
Why is someone so up in arms about a guy who openly advocates against interracial marriage?
The times, my friend, they are a-changing. Gay rights is a civil rights issue, plain and simple. The question is whether or not it is acceptable for society to discriminate against gay people. A quick glance back at history will tell you which side is going to be the winning side, in case you want to ignore the obvious trend in public polling. Card is actively advocating in favor of discrimination, and that's what people have a problem with. I don't need to claim to be a fan of Queen or have a black friend to be in favor of civil rights, regardless of which group we're talking about. I'm in favor of civil rights because it is objectively the morally right thing to do. So, naturally, I have a problem with people who openly advocate against the right thing to do.
Re:This is just stupid. (Score:5, Insightful)
Hell, I'm a fan of Queen. I'm friends with gays, atheists, hell, at least one murderer.
One of these is not like the others.
Re:I'm not even a fan, but (Score:5, Insightful)
"... separating the artist from the art" is excellent in theory, but a collapsium-plated bitch in practice.
I once had an email exchange with S. M. Stirling about piracy wherein the sequence went:
He: "The police should have the right to search everyone's hard drive over the net without a warrant and erase anything they deem suspicious. Anybody who objects to this is a thief or thief wannabe."
Me: "I object to that, and aren't you being rather harsh toward someone who has bought copies of everything you've ever written?"
He: "Big deal. All the royalties I've gotten from you wouldn't even take me out to dinner at my favorite restaurant."
I haven't been able to bring myself to read his stuff since, and the formerly-complete collection became pulp fiction.
As I said, separating the artist from the art sounds simple but isn't.
Do YOU understand? (Score:3, Insightful)
A bunch of people saying, in effect, "We are so deeply uncomfortable with the loudly expressed policial views of this author that we won't buy work written by him," is not it.
And if the same people follow whatever potential work he might have and try to kill off his ability to do any writing at all over time?
Looks like an irrational with-hunt to me (the irrationality of it is that his actual story had nothing to do with gay marriage).
I have a number of gay/lesbian friends, have even been part of some ceremonies, but I see no reason why OSC should be drummed out of writing because of what he believes. If it enters the work at all, sure then I can see a basis for complaint. It's when they attack him just for being him I have an issue.
Banning Books Before They're Written (Score:4, Insightful)
It's the left that kills, you know (Score:0, Insightful)
I know this is modern slashdot, so rational thought and intellectual honesty are something of a premium here, but again many of the comments here are out of bounds. They can be summed up in the following:
1: throughout history, leftist governments have killed far, far more than the right counter parts. The left has killed more gays, more Jews, more dissenters than anyone. Again, I know the modern slashdot is king of ignorant, but what exactly do you think NAZI stands for? Perhaps that ahold socialist thing escapes you. Take them, through in communist Russia, the African socialists, and a dash of China for spice, and you pretty much cover all the intolerant psychotics of history. So, can we please stop this shit about right wing hate mongers killing? Look in the mirror, the enemy is you.
2. Most people across the world are against homosexuality. Even in vaunted progressive Californua if us voted down by a large margin. People disagree with it for many reasons. None if these can be discussed within the shrill hostility that you call the slashdot environmnent. Home sexuality is accepted and cheered here because, well, a minority told you to think a certain way and you simply do. Being weak willed is nothing to be smug about.
Now, you go back to your unsupported, illogical group think now.
Ps. Firefly sucked ass, and all the nerds of slashdot seeing the movie still lead it to fail. Your boycott threat is laughable
A stupid issue (Score:3, Insightful)
People always get all offended when I say I'm against gay marriage. Before they even inquire as to why I feel this way, they start asking me irrelevant questions such as, "Would you deny gay people the right to love one another?" or "Would you deny them the right to visit each other in the hospital?"
Then I explain that I think those questions are irrelevant, and that I'm not just against gay marriage, I'm against marriage. Why would I support expanding marriage when I'm against marriage in the first place? This is when they roll their eyes, they laugh. It's funny to hear the hopeless womanizing bachelor be ridiculous. Kind of like how they like to listen to my sex stories. Married people get a real kick out of living vicariously through their single friends. I have to repeat myself and clarify for them to realize that I'm being serious. Yes, I'm opposed to legal marriage.
What does that mean? It means the state has no business in the affairs of marriage. Marriage is a ceremony where two people make an oath to be true to one another for the rest of their lives, and then they usually break that oath at some point. Then they take the oath with another person, and then they usually break it off, too. Third time seems to be the charm.
Married people pay less taxes than I do, although their combined incomes allow them to live better. If they have kids they pay even less. How's that make sense? I pay taxes so their little snot-nosed kids can go to school, and they get a tax break? Why isn't there a kid tax?
But I digress. Marriage should be whatever people make of it. If you can get a priest, rabbi, shaman, or witch doctor to marry you and your significant other -- of whatever sex they may be -- go for it. If you want to share your finances with your loved one then go to a lawyer and draw up a contract. If you want to legally change your name to your spouse's name, then go to court and have it changed. If Mormons want to have ten wives, let 'em. There's no law against having ten girlfriends, why should there be a law against having ten wives?
Basically, a monogamous relationship is a monogamous relationship. I consider the couple who has been together for ten years, had a child together, and share everything except the title of 'husband and wife' to be more married than the couple who have known each other a couple hours in Vegas and drunkenly got married. The only thing legal marriage does is make breaking up a pain in the ass. The only people legal marriage provides any benefit to are divorce lawyers and gold diggers.
Re:I'm not even a fan, but (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't the real issue the legal status, which can exist without marriage just as easily as with?
I would be all for the government giving civil unions only, and not touching marriage at all, hetero or homo. If marriage is such an important religious institution, why is the government involved in it when it doesn't really need to be? Why would religious people want the government touching and managing their religious institutions? Just let the government handle things in the minimal legal sense needed, e.g. default behavior of inheritance, taxes, etc., and leave marriage and its definition to churches.
Re:An Old Discussion (Score:2, Insightful)
If they want to run from their homosexuality, that is their business. Not yours.
If a person has to run from their homosexuality, it's most likely pressure from the outside forcing them to. For those people, it was never their business alone in the first place. So pipe the fuck down.
Re:I'm not even a fan, but (Score:5, Insightful)
another thing that would lend credence to the end of democracy would be the majority enacting laws to punish the minority.
Actually, thats almost the textbook definition of democracy (in a true democracy, the majority is always right). It's also why the US isn't a pure democracy.
Re:Freedom works both ways (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I'm not even a fan, but (Score:3, Insightful)
I get the same sense of tedium whenever Richard Dawkins appears on the TV. Whatever his qualifications as an evolutionary biologist, proselytising atheism makes him seem almost as much a religious nutjob as those he seeks to liberate.
Re:I'm not even a fan, but (Score:2, Insightful)
Funny thing is Card is a registered Democrat, often thought somewhat out of step with the very conservative majority of his faith.
Re:I'm not even a fan, but (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, exactly that. The most effective way I can fight his message is to not fund him, so good author or not he's not getting any of my money.
The most effective way to fight any message is the basis for the first amendment. Make a better argument and show why he's wrong.
Trying to silence someone in whatever manner does not remove the message, it only drives it into hiding where it festers and becomes a rallying cry for others. Trying to remove someone's means of making a living because he doesn't agree with you on a certain issue isn't the best way to do anything.
I was horrified to know my money was connected to that effort...
It wasn't your money. It was theirs. You traded your money for their product in what you felt was a fair trade. Would you accept the quid pro quo in this matter? I.e., you say something they don't agree with and they refuse to serve you their product. "We are horrified to know that this kind of person would eat our ice cream...".
Re:I'm not even a fan, but (Score:5, Insightful)
What about when the opposite happens; when the majority of state voters decide to not allow same sex marriage but the unelected judiciary orders it allowed anyway? Is that a failure of democracy?
It would be an awakening that what we have here in America is not exactly a democracy (nor in most of the civilized world, though mechanisms vary). If the judiciary system determines that banning gay marriage is somehow unconstitutional (at the state or federal level, and i have little hope or respect for most state "constitutions"), then you may seek to get the constitution changed. At the federal level that requires an amendment to the constitution, which means getting 2/3's of both houses to agree, then passing the vote to the voting public and getting 3/4ths of the states to pass it. Before it is democratic, it is first representative, and even when it is democratic, it is quantized by state.
All of this is what we idol worship in civics classes in school. At no point has the US been a direct democracy, and in almost no cases does "democracy" mean sampling the public and passing laws based on simple majority of opinion at random times.
Changing ANYTHING is very hard to do if people don't agree or adopt polemic positions (and honestly that is very descriptive of many pro and anti-gay marriage supporters). This should be obvious to those bitching about how their "government has failed" when we hit fiscal cliffs or sequestrations or whatever the media wants us worked up over. The judiciary system is no different, in highly contentious debates they can act arbitrarily or by reading of law, it hardly matters as a large portion of us will hate them anyway. If the majority of us do agree on something, we can get it fixed. But since we cannot agree on this issue, it really doesn't matter what they do, lots of people will be unhappy either way.
None of this makes me look for the four horsemen, this is the system created for us, and that has served us well.
Re:I'm not even a fan, but (Score:5, Insightful)
I am having a hard time getting my head around your response, and also icebike's post.
Democracy is a majority rules system of government, involving elections as the means of learning the will of the majority.
So, in order for the "end of democracy" to be brought about, this process of having elections and allowing the results of those elections to determine laws would have to stop.
Am I right here? End of democracy = end of voter-controlled policies?
So.....how does this public disapproval of Card's opinion, and the subsequent story-suspension on the part of a single private business, constitute the end of democracy? Private businesses are generally not voter-controlled, but remain beholden to the laws that ARE voter controlled. Since they are within their legal rights to not publish a story, they are in no way violating or blocking the democratic processes of their government. So, I can't see how this private response to public criticism lends credence to any claims of "the end of democracy."
Further, Kyosha's example of something that WOULD be indicative of an end of democracy (laws being enacted apart from the election process) seems to be a simple observation of the proper scope of the statement "end of democracy." So I don't understand why you are accusing Kyosha of being a one sided pig. I just don't see enough material in the post to even suggest such a thing.
Think you could make this clear to me, perhaps with the same level of detail and respect as I have tried to make this clear to you?
the entitlements of civil union (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a simple separation between art and the artist.
If I were reviewing one of his novels, I wouldn't pay the least attention to his toxic views on homosexual marriage, unless it's there in the book. I would be happy to write: This is a fabulous book written by a mid-grade asshole. Your call. I'm not advocating that anyone else boycott his lame ass on my behalf. I have myself borrowed two of Card's books from the library because I respect his contributions to the genre.
On my own account, I'm sure as hell not forking over so much as loose change from under the sofa cushion to purchase anything the man has written. His views on gay marriage are toxic squared. Now if I were the artist (and this is a prospect I'm seriously considering in a mid-life fit of career suicide) I have no problem with gay marriage bigots boycotting financial support of my endeavors. (I'm generally opposed to winner-take-all market dynamics in the first place. If some moral market Balkanization would slow the Amazon borgship down, I'm all for it.)
Seriously, what's toxic about Card is failing to distinguish marriage as a social institution from marriage as a deeply personal institution: a commitment by two people to stand by each other. I don't give a damn if the later is redefined as civil union, so long as it entitles those who enter into it to all the traditional secular spousal benefits: insurance, primary beneficiary, power of attorney, etc.
If Card had an honest bone in his body, he'd document his views on the entitlements of civil union. Tell us, do we still need a revolution if the government endorses civil union as the secular equivalent of metaphysically sanctioned procreative marriage?
No, he just grabs onto marriage in its guise as a social institution as if there's no other reasonable claim.
He also conveniently assumes there's no such thing as a heterosexual person who wouldn't have been happier in a gay relationship except for some adverse childhood influence. No wonder all the identity regret flows in a single direction, when the countervailing direction is defined as zero by aggressive logical neglect. I have heard of people leaving straight relationships for the other side, but not yet have I heard a story where the heterosexual phase was attributed to sexual abuse (as opposed to moral abuse). With the moral abuse so pervasive, and far easier to talk about—among the people who aren't actively advocating toxic views—it's hardly surprising the "deflected into normalcy by sexual abuse" category is rarely run up the flag pole.
Apparently he never got the memo on secular democracy. He's living in a country alongside a lot of people who actively reject metaphysical first claim, and far more who passively distance themselves from the bullshit, without bestowing upon themselves any inconvenient social labels.
America is constitutionally a secular democracy. Religion in America is an aggressively individual freedom. A clarifying essay by Card on the errors of the founding fathers would also be welcome. Why doesn't he just admit he believes he's actively insurgent against the original framing of American democracy? That would double my respect for his views, right there.
Really, what need did he have to take up the subject in the first place? How was it his issue? Because when you're religious, it's all your business? How sick is that?
Re:Boycott is a valid choice. (Score:4, Insightful)
Polygamy is no easier to abuse than a monogamous relationship except in the context of laws that don't recognize the rights of the additional wives/husbands.
Re:I'm not even a fan, but (Score:2, Insightful)
"This is something that is rapidly becoming a fundamentally ethically right and wrong decision."
And if by that you mean supporting a Federal "gay marriage" law, this is something that is pretty obviously head-up-the-ass thinking.
Because, you see, it ISN'T just a matter of whether gay people should be married or not. Unfortunately, a shitload of bonehead do-gooder not-quite-thinkers want to get the Federal government involved. And if that isn't the worst possible thing they could do for their cause, I don't know what is.
Historically, the Federal government has had NOTHING to do with marriage (except for influencing it via taxes, which is arguably unconstitutional). It has been a State issue since before the Federal government ever existed.
But a whole bunch of people want a quick fix, and aren't thinking about the consequences. These are people who want the Federal government to get involved, and pass a law saying that gay marriage should be legal in the entirety of the Union.
But see, there are some VERY SERIOUS FLAWS with that approach. Frankly, I don't give much of a damn who marries whom. But I *DO* care whether people hand the Federal government power over marriage on a silver platter. Because a government that is given the power to give you "rights", can also take them away. A government that is given the authority to decide who CAN marry, is also given the authority to decide who CANNOT get married.
So these so-called "rights" activists (they are actually anything but), are shooting themselves in the feet. They are so determined to get a Federal law TODAY that will "fix" this issue, that they don't realize that they are trying to give government the power to turn right around and take that "right" away on the merest whim. When they should be working from the ground up to change society's rules at more of the state and local levels. That is the only way they will make it stick.
A Federal "gay marriage" law is such a massively bonehead thing to do that I am actually in awe of its stupidity. I'm not "homophobic", or anything of that nature. I'm simply saying that if LGBT people want equal treatment, rather than a "quick fix" that will likely be disastrous for them eventually, they should take the longer view, and work toward a lasting solution.
And yes, any such marriage law WOULD eventually affect me, and everybody else. There would be nothing stopping the Government, for example, from saying "From this day forward, nobody is legally married." Far-fetched, you say? Well, the Federal government has done even dumber things. Don't put it past them.
Not Surprised (Score:1, Insightful)
As a white-ish american male, I'm told I have to accept constant assaults on my religion, that a jar of urine with a crucifix in it is indeed art, that I have to treat lifestyles I do not agree with as acceptable by society, that I should accept every view no matter how absurd has some form of merit and thus tolerate it, that sexuality is both something one is born with and a also a choice depending on the person, regardless of the genitalia they were born with.
Yet let a person stand for their principals, that openly speak out of their beliefs, fiscal or social, that go against the wave of "social justices", and they shall be shouted down, ridiculed, and driven from any endeavor by a foaming mob.
Card is a renowned story teller. To have his story killed off because of his personal beliefs is a testament to what is wrong with any society.
It's the same as labeling a heretic of Galileo or Copernicus and dismissing their works simply because their points of view differ from the pervading mob consciousness.
It's the use of political correctness to enforce censorship of unpleasant view points by permanent "victim classes".
A sad thing indeed.
Re:I'm not even a fan, but (Score:5, Insightful)
Applying the word "marriage" to a couple is not an ethical issue. Who cares if you call a couple married or not? Why is being called "married" becoming such a crisis? Isn't the real issue the legal status, which can exist without marriage just as easily as with?
It's not a question of the use of a particular word. It's a question of equality under the law. That's what makes it an ethical issue. Every bit as much as equality for blacks and equality for women.
No "homophobia" (Score:3, Insightful)
>"Orson Scott Card's Superman Story Shelved After Homophobia Controversy"
Just because someone doesn't support gay marriage doesn't make that person a "homophobe". Some people against gay marriage have absolutely nothing against gay people or gay couples. And some even support legal gay coupling, with the same rights as marriage, just not called "marriage".
Now, Orson Scott Card might well indeed be a homophobe, but I keep seeing articles that automatically equate non support of gay marriage as homophobia, which is it not.
Re:I'm not even a fan, but (Score:5, Insightful)
In about half the states, the marriage between Obama's parents would have been illegal back when he was born. Such bigotry now seems quaint, although I assure you that in some of those states there are still people for whom the sentiment is still very much alive. In a few decades, our current bigotry will also seem quaint, I'm sure. I'm also sure that when that day comes, even though we're no longer oppressing homosexuals and Latinos, we'll still be oppressing someone.
Re:I'm not even a fan, but (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, since the judiciary can't write new laws, but can only decide which of two contradictory laws is more important, then no: it's not a failure of democracy. It's a demonstration that legislators can not produce a consistent set of rules and that sometimes, being true to your principles means putting down a bad habit.
Technically, the judiciary can't write new laws.
In reality, they've sometimes stretched the law beyond all recognition to come to some crazy conclusions. Such as Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce being a power to regulate a farmer growing crops for his own use, which has been the basis for new regulations far outside the scope of the original Constitutional language.
Re:I'm not even a fan, but (Score:5, Insightful)
Does that not simply lend credence to his claim of "the end of democracy in America"?
No, what would lend credence to his claim would be a US state enacting a same-sex marriage law without the necessary majority support from elected representatives.
What about when the opposite happens; when the majority of state voters decide to not allow same sex marriage but the unelected judiciary orders it allowed anyway? Is that a failure of democracy?
Yes, it's a failure of pure democracy. However, it may not be a failure of constitutional democracy, depending on what the constitution says.
Ancient Athens was a pure democracy. Also an evil empire. They voted genocide for the whole population of some island on account of some action they didn't like, and of course voted a choice between exile or death on Socrates for "corrupting the youth" with his crazy gadfly questions.
I wouldn't want to live in a pure democracy. Thank all the gods the USA is a constitutional republic, with a mild seasoning of direct democracy (at the state level and lower) via the proposition mechanism.
Re:I'm not even a fan, but (Score:5, Insightful)
A bit off topic but this troubles me and I never manage to get really good answers to this one.
Supposing that "All citizens have the legal right to marry a member of the opposite sex" is both the letter and spirit of the current law...how does one resolve the following edge cases:
1) A naturally-born hermaphrodite who can pass equally well for either gender based upon dress. Can such a person marry someone of either gender, thus being a direct contradiction to the spirit of the law? Or can such a person just not get married, thus suffering a grave injustice? Must the person choose a gender and stick with it for his/her entire life (which seems a bit arbitrary), and will the person be forced to get a divorce, by the state, if (s)he changes his/her gender-facade after getting married?
2) If a man has a gender-changing surgery and becomes a woman, what gender can she then marry? Can she marry a man now that she is a woman? Or must she marry another woman and have an ostensibly homosexual relationship due to being genetically heterosexual?
Reflection upon these edge cases makes it seem to me that the distinction between men and women isn't quite as absolute as the law would make it out to be. Since these things can be a bit ambiguous or even change, it seems like the law should just not take gender into account (at least for the issue of marriage).
Re:I'm not even a fan, but (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, it's quite interesting.
What's even more interesting, though, is that the same rebuttal we get to see here on /. every time there's a story about $big_company yanking an article or refusing to sell things about $controversial_topic still applies. Free speech only applies to the government etc.
Now please help me to understand why Card's opponents, which apparently make up a good amount of the demographic of people who purchase Superman comics, would need to worry about Barbra Streisand?
It seems that what happened here is that what happened to me when I started reading Ender's Game a few years ago is now happening to many, many more people the more vocal Card gets with his bigotry. I found out he was a Mormon, and knowing what Mormons do to transgendered individuals who have the rotten luck to be born into such of a vile, regressive, and sometimes just bizarre "faith," I was unable to read any more of it.
Card has his free speech to say whatever he wants. However, if he can't tell the difference between a transgendered person (me), a homosexual man or woman, and a farm animal, I see no reason to give him any of my money, especially these days now that money is speech.
I mean, what the hell could I possibly be thinking giving money to an individual who fosters an agenda that wants to make the country I own property in a very not-so-nice place for me? I don't care if he's written the next Les Mis FFS! He ISN'T getting my money, because I know that he has an agenda and folks like me are the target.
Let's face it. If folks who were opposed to gay marriage really were about preserving the sanctity of marriage, I've got bad news for them. They're going to need to refocus quite a lot of their efforts on some very basic things such as the divorce rate. Marriage is no longer important, the idea that all the protection you need is a ring is becoming old-fashioned, and gays have nothing to do with it. In fact, these people have nothing to lose! Nobody wants to dissolve their marriages!
All it seems is that the publisher has noticed that I'm not alone and decided that they'd rather not send bad money after good and go through with publishing something that will flop for no other reason than the person who wrote the story is a complete bigot.
All that seems to have happened here is that against all odds the invisible hand of the free market seems to have done something useful for a change. Fortunately, Card lives in a democracy, and as much as I wish he would shut up, I'm not sure I'd like to live in a country where he could be shut up. All he doesn't have is the right to be heard. Rather perhaps, the trouble is that he has been heard, and now enough people have a bad taste in their mouths that they'd rather he just take his ball and go home.
In fact, it's rather refreshing to know that there are enough people who are disgusted enough with Card that it would cause something he worked on to flop. Maybe the blurb I read on Advocate.com the other day that homosexuals are no longer an effective political bogeyman was true. Maybe things really might change. Not that I'm holding my breath.
Re:I'm not even a fan, but (Score:5, Insightful)
From this day forward, nobody is legally married.
That is actually the correct answer. The big problem with the whole gay marriage debate is that our governments have made the stupid mistake of mixing church and state. Give us 'civil unions' for everyone, and let church by church decide who they are going to recognize as 'married'. Give legal status to everyone who has a 'civil union', and give no legal status to the religious title of 'marriage'.
Re:This is just stupid. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm friends with gays, atheists, hell, at least one murderer.
And the fact that you lump these all together makes you a terrible person.
Re:I'm not even a fan, but (Score:4, Insightful)
Which is why our system has built-in checks and balances to protect us from the "tyranny of the mob" (I forget which Federalist mentioned that)....
But by the same token, why are the people who are against what Card says so willing to censor his work? Isn't that a bit of irony? Why would someone who thinks that everyone deserves the right to get married also think it's perfectly okay to suppress someone else's opinion that doesn't jive with theirs?
I find it mind-boggling that his story was not put into print based on other things he said. Even if the story was rampantly anti-gay, it wouldn't matter (just don't buy the issue, or as the progressives say... "turn the channel"). What matters is if it's any good. We have some of the most vile works about the basest of human evil in both print and other media, but that doesn't mean it's an endorsement of those things.
Publishing Card's story is not an admission that he's right on Gay Marriage. (I for one think the government needs to be OUT of the marriage racket.)
Re:Boycott is a valid choice. (Score:5, Insightful)
Within the confines of a single family unit, there is absoltely nothing wrong with poligomy as long as all are fully willing participants for each major adjustment in their 'family contract' so to speak.
The problems poligomoy:
1. They only ever exist in deeply patriarical societies where women are generally repressed or at least marginalized
2. Its almost always forbiudden for Women to take multiple male partners, which would at least allow for some aspect of equality in the mix
3. The practice is also quite commonly associated with with child brides (where much older men marry children/teens) which has its own set of moral and ethical problems to deal with
4. The scarcity of partners in one sex or the other causes deep social issues where the uncoupled are deprived of a 'fair' chance to procreate, which is one reason why on a genetic level, poligomy is a problem (another is less diversity in the gene pool with a single dominant sex coupling many)
The only notable areas of poligomy I know of are in Muslim nations and in small pockets of the US/Canada where they barely escape the laws that firmly define their rights within those nations (often skirting or breaking society's laws). If someone could point out a stable large scale poligomist culture, I'd be interested in it as a purely academic perspective, because it doesn't seem to be a good poster child for a poligomist tolerant society to model itself off in terms of its legal bound regulations.
Re:I'm not even a fan, but (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not censorship. They are exercising their right to express their own views by not supporting a bigot. Why is it okay for Card to spout this crap but it's not okay for people saying they don't want to be associated with it?
Re:I'm not even a fan, but (Score:5, Insightful)
They can... but they can't tell ME I can't read or watch it. They can do like we always say on ./ ("turn the channel")... if they want to voice their opinion on the matter by complaining, fine. If they want to boycott it themselves, fine. But pressuring the company to avoid running it (or showing it on TV...) gets into MY rights to decide for myself.
Censorship does exist outside of the government's will... when someone tells ME I can't watch or read something.
Re:I'm not even a fan, but (Score:5, Insightful)
While most humans are male or female, not all are, and demanding that everyone be categorized as one, or asserting that your determination as to category is better than theirs, seems pretty arrogant.
Life is full of rough edges where theories don't quite work.
Re:A stupid issue (Score:3, Insightful)
Married child-bearing people pay less taxes, because they provide important thing that you are likely not:
Future taxpayers.
You know, people who will in 20 years start paying for your roads and public infrastructure and all those nifty things that goverment provides you. And most likely for your retirement home or some other shit that you will eventually need.
So fuck you, in eyes of goverment (and in mine) you are dead-end and freeloader. Paying full amount of taxes and chipping in is least you can do to offset that.
So shut up about how unfairly you are taxed because in the end, those married people are subsiding you.
This is selfishness of stunning degree. Guess comes with your lifestyle.
Re:Nothing more than McCarthyism (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh my, that is serious! They even got to the summary, which only talks about comic book fans considering not buying a comic book written by a crazy douchebag and entirely omitted the part about said douchebag being called before the Senate. Oh the humanity!
Escape the hive mind. (Score:2, Insightful)
The hive mind, which is based on socialization and not science, wants you to see the world in a Boolean measurement: what We approve of, and what We don't.
This is mind control of the oldest type, namely peer pressure and social coercion. There's no reason to pay attention to because it's unscientific and as history shows us, usually wrong.
However, a lot of people are afraid of those who don't follow the hive mind. They fear these people who are not controlled, 'civilized' and neutered by hive mind morality.
Stay free, stay independent, stay clear: avoid the hive mind.