Eugene Volokh is “delighted” that Maggie Gallagher is guest-blogging at his site to debate same-sex marriage.
I’m “delighted” that I de-blogrolled him well over a year ago. It saves me having to do it now.
Gallagher, a notoriously vicious anti-gay bigot, is not a constitutional law scholar (in fact she’s not even an attorney) and has nothing jurisprudential to bring to any debate on same-sex marriage. This “debate” will really be about the “pros and cons” of anti-gay bigotry, rationalized as a legal debate on same-sex marriage.
Perhaps next Volokh will invite some of those Ohio Nazis to guest-blog to discuss the “pros and cons” of anti-Semitism and rationalize it as a debate on the heckler’s veto.
POST SCRIPT: Judging from the various independent analyses, it appears fairly obvious that I was right after all (invalid “Godwin’s Law” histrionics notwithstanding). Perhaps the better heuristic would have Occam’s Razor: Rather than rationalizing Gallagher’s self-humiliating performance as the work of a brilliant but compository-writing-challenged “expert” on marriage, perhaps the easier explanation was the correct one, namely that Gallagher is simply an anti-gay bigot trying to defend an indefensible position.
12 responses so far ↓
Link FaerieWizard // Oct 18, 2005 at 11:26 am
Heh, she shows her lack of knowledge in the first question answered about when the government got into the marriage liscense business. She says back when church and state first separated. I believe the correct answer is either during or right after the civil war to regulate the marriages of African Americans.
Link Antonin // Oct 18, 2005 at 8:10 pm
Amen. Good for you.
Link podraza // Oct 18, 2005 at 10:27 pm
Well, you started a long thread over at Volokh with this post. Most people seemed to agree with you. Not Volokh's finest moment.
Link Aaron // Oct 18, 2005 at 10:51 pm
Perhaps you can clarify something for the Conspirators who stop by. I read your comment as a reductio ad absurdem on the notion of a reasoned debate of same-sex marriage, whereas Prof. Volokh asserts that you are suggesting that "disapproval of same-sex marriage is analogous to Nazism"
The introduction of Nazis into any debate tends to quickly move it outside the realm of rational discussion, so either way your choice of words could have been better.
[Kip replies: Given how bizarre Volokh's comment is, shouldn't you be asking him for the clarification and not me?]
Link cal85 // Oct 19, 2005 at 8:18 am
Boy, Godwin's law kicked in pretty quick on this one. I don't fancy that there will be much reasoned debate going on here.
[Kip replies: Godwin's law requires an analogy to Hitler, which I did not make. I cited a quite recent, quite analogous news story.
Under what circumstances do we get to invoke a "Meta-Godwin's Law," in which people race to draw false analogies to Godwin's Law itself?]
Link Downtown Lad // Oct 19, 2005 at 9:43 am
Are we surprised? Volokh is one of the most prominent anti-gay bigots out there. He tries to mask his views by saying that he favors gay-marriage, but at a personal level – he displays extreme contempt for gay people, hinting that they are disease-ridden pedophiles.
Sounds like a closet case to me. Volokh is a self-loathing gay person and he needs to be outed.
Link Gordon // Oct 19, 2005 at 12:21 pm
Maggie Gallagher, for all her faults, is not an Ohio Nazi. When you use ludicrous Kos-type hyperbole your credibility goes down to ZERO.
[Kip replies: I did not call her an Ohio Nazi. When you evidence a failure to read the actual post, your credibility goes down to zero (oh, sorry -- "ZERO").]
Link jimbob // Oct 19, 2005 at 12:35 pm
Downtown Lad and Kip:
Can someone explain why many gay rights advocate insist on attacking opposing positions by asserting that anyone who doesn't share their views must be a) a bigot, b) a homophobe, c) a closeted homosexual, or d) all of the above.
Isn't it possible that someone simply disagrees with your policy without being a horrible person? Or is it easier to call people names?
[Kip replies: Since I'm only referring to Gallagher, who has a very long paper trail of anti-gay commentary, and not "anyone who doesn't share my values," I have no answer to give you. Don't fault me for something I'm not even doing.]
Link Downtown Lad // Oct 19, 2005 at 4:27 pm
Let's rephrase that question:
Can someone explain why "straight" people who focus so much of their energy on condemning gay people and making sure that they are treated as second class citizens within the law are also the same people who are adamant that they are not a) a bigot, b) a homophobe, c) a closeted homosexual, or d) all of the above.
I wonder if members of the KKK get upset when people call them racist? I would be willing to bet a lot of money that they ARE offended by such statements. They probably say something like "How dare you call me a racist? I'm not anti-black, I just think it's against the Bible for the races to inter-mingle…."
Link Gekkobear // Oct 19, 2005 at 6:11 pm
Well, I'd post my thoughts here, but I'm "not a constitutional law scholar (in fact [I'm} not even an attorney) and ha[ve] nothing jurisprudential to bring to any debate on same-sex marriage" so I guess I'm not allowed to have a rational opinion on this topic.
Sorry you feel that way about what I assume to be 99% of your viewers. But at least you get to feel elitist and superior, so you do have that going for you.
[Kip replies: 99% of my viewers were not invited to be guest bloggers on Volokh's site as supposed "experts" on same-sex marriage.
If I didn't value other people's opinions, then I wouldn't open my posts up for comments.
This is not about you ("Who's being elitist and superior, Kaye?"), it's about Maggie Gallagher.]
Link Carina // Oct 19, 2005 at 8:04 pm
Kip-
I hate to get too technical about old Usenet conventions (Such a lie. I revel in it.), but Godwin's Law is definitely not restricted to mention of Hitler. It refers to Nazis or Hitler. Whether neo-Nazis really count is open to debate, but let's be accurate about something so well-documented.
Relatedly, I think your comments section suffers from your hypercriticism. If you want strict standards for accuracy, maybe you should be equally tough on those on your side. "Volokh is one of the most prominent anti-gay bigots out there"? Whatever evil one suspects him of harboring in his secret heart, Volokh is not explicitly anti-gay. Dozens of much more famous and influential people are.
Also: here's a grain of salt. Take my opinion with it.
Link Downtown Lad // Oct 19, 2005 at 9:35 pm
Volokh has implied that gay people are disease-ridden pedophiles. If that doesn't count as an anti-gay bigot, I don't know what does.
Not to mention the fact the he bans gay people from leaving comments on his blog.