http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1595230092/103-5449605-0685461?v=glance&n=283155

I probably wouldn’t have bothered if it had been by any other right-wing homophobic hack, but the fact is I’ve had so much respect and so much admiration for Orson Scott Card’s SF writing over twenty years. And in this one article, he did a considerable amount of damage to that respect - for reasons which I outline in my dissection.

I’m not sure how that can be considered an opinion piece worth publishing. I’ve always thought that opinions don’t count without at least *some* backing, and all he has is prejudice. Discrimination much? Sounds like blatant homophobia to me. And to think how much respect I had for the man before this.

Courts have interpreted laws to give them meaning and have stricken unconstitutional laws for 200 years, since Marbury v. Madison.

Under Card’s reasoning, Brown v. Board of Education is “judicial activism.” After all, Plessy v. Ferguson stated that “separate but equal” facilities for Negroes doesn’t violate the 14th Amendement….and those people want to be in *our* schools!

We will once again be performing a potentially devastating social experiment on ourselves without any attempt to predict the consequences and find out if the American people actually want them.

Shelley v. Kraemer. Brown v. Board of Education. Spiuel v. Board of Regents of the State of Oklahoma. All initiated potentially devastating social experiments on America without an attempt to predict the consequences and find out if the American people actually want Negroes in our public schools. Not to mention Loving v. Virginia and all those quadroons and octoroons and macaroons that decision has produced. (Sarcasm off, for the very sensitive among us.)

Card goes in about reproductive security, but fails to state why marriage’s ideal “calming effect” shouldn’t apply to same sex-couples as well. Card decries heterosexual men’s “broadcast strategy of reproduction,” yet ignores the fact that same-sex couples are also better child-raisers if a gay man stays at home with his husband instead of going to the bathhouse.

Why would men submit to rules that deprive them of the chance to satisfy their natural desire to mate with every attractive female?

Substitute “male” for female.

Because civilization provides the best odds for their children to live to adulthood. So even though civilized individuals can’t pursue the most obviously pleasurable and selfish (i.e., natural) strategies for reproduction, the fact is that they are far more likely to be successful at reproduction in a civilized society — whether they personally like the rules or not.

You just answered your own question, Orson. And this is one reason why same-sex marriage is GOOD. I am assuming that “reproduction” also means “child-raising”.

Card says that parents have a responsibility to raise their children to responsible adults. Undoubtedly, responsible parents are more likely to raise responsible children, and who would you rather have raising a child, a stable and responsible gay couple, or an opposite-sex couple whose prime recreational activity is snorting meth?

Card goes through fundie claptrap about how all homosexuals are the result of sexual abuse, and that heterosexuals are a stigmatized class. What poppycock. I’ve never gone onto Stark Street or in San Francisco and been chased out by a gang with baseball bats yelling “Breeder!! Get out of here, you breeder-ass breeder!”

And his statement that America’s military will crumble without conservatives? Well, I’m tempted to invoke Godwin, but I’ll say that an army of GODLESS COMMIES held off a furious invasion of their country by Germany in World War II, sometimes fighting hand-to-hand to gain mere feet in Stalingrad.

I’m all for same-sex marriage. My partner and I live in a little bungalow on the po’ side of town. Evidently we’re part of the “elite,” while a million-selling author swimming in royalties isn’t.

Card goes through fundie claptrap about how all homosexuals are the result of sexual abuse

Well, I was told that if it’s not sexual abuse, then it’s the WWF/WWE/whatever professional wrestling is called these days. Yes, someone actually told me that makes people gay.

I’ve never gone onto Stark Street or in San Francisco and been chased out by a gang with baseball bats yelling “Breeder!! Get out of here, you breeder-ass breeder!”

That was a hilarious image, even if it’s never happened.

Evidently we’re part of the “elite,” while a million-selling author swimming in royalties isn’t.

You know it’s just one big fag conspiracy. (Pssst, don’t forget our Gay Army meeting on Monday!)

Yeah, great “commercial”. I’m looking forward to the rest of ‘em…

The Massachusetts Supreme Court has not yet declared that “day” shall now be construed to include that which was formerly known as “night,” but it might as well.

It apparently does not occur to this dimwit that there is already a universally accepted meaning of the word “day” that includes “night” [as in, day of the week]. it is quite correct to say that the mass sup ct “might as well” say that day includes night. in some contexts, it does. and since this debate is all about context [i.e., religious context as against civil/legal context], mr scott card can make no meaningful contribution.