Orson Scott Card Is Kind of a Dick
Which may not be news to you, but it was to me.
Ender’s Game author Orson Scott Card has identified the greatest threat ever to plague mankind, and you shall know it by its exceptional fashion sense and fondness for all things Judy Garland. From the Mormon Times, via laist.com:
The first and greatest threat from court decisions in California and Massachusetts, giving legal recognition to “gay marriage,” is that it marks the end of democracy in America.
So, you know, that’s it. Democracy: resistant to Nazis and Communists; totally fucked against Willow and Tara.
Fortunately, once you get through the volumes of obtuse, factually incorrect, and fucking insane prose, Orson’s got a solution:
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.
That’s right. Orson Scott Card wants to overthrow the government because he’s a homophobic asshole. Oh wait…no he’s not:
How dangerous is this, politically? Please remember that for the mildest of comments critical of the political agenda of homosexual activists, I have been called a “homophobe” for years.
This is a term that was invented to describe people with a pathological fear of homosexuals — the kind of people who engage in acts of violence against gays. But the term was immediately extended to apply to anyone who opposed the homosexual activist agenda in any way.
So to be clear, acts of violence against gays: homophobic. Acts of violence against the government because you are scared shitless that they will somehow turn everyone you know into rampaging ass-rapers: totally not homophobic. Gotcha.
What is truly confounding to me is that a brilliant writer with such a vivid imagination and grasp on what makes different cultures unique and interesting, is also such a complete and utter ignoramous when it comes to understanding anything beyond the most narrow and fundamentalist interpretations of a very un-Christian doctrine. Pity.
August 12th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
There is an actual point to what he said that is easily missed; Judges do not make law. Judges SHOULD not make law. It is not their job. I don’t care if this law is “No Killing Wide-Eyed Orphans For Fun”*, judges shouldn’t be making it. Lawmakers should be making it, whomever they are, and if you want them to make such a law you should be petitioning them.
That is, in fact, arguable as a blow against democracy (or at least the specific instance of democracy that is in place in the US)– the PROCESS by which it occurs, and not the specific content.
Of course, I’m in the crazy group that thinks the government shouldn’t be “recognizing” ANY form of marriage, so what do I know? Also, I’m not a lawyer, so not only are my views suspect, I can’t charge you $600 for reading them.
* I highly support the No Killing Wide-Eyed Orphans For Fun law. They should only be killed for food or to use up extra ammunition safely.
August 12th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Judges should, and do make one specific type of law. It’s called “case law.” This is as opposed to legislatively-created laws, which are “statutes.” It’s part of the whole checks-and-balances system. If the case law is believed wrong, then the legislature or executive can challenge it.
I just find it unbelievable rhetoric to state that a local government (and I’ll call states “relatively” local) making a decision supported by the majority of its people un-democratic. It’s the very definition of democracy. And it’s sad, because I really loved the Ender’s Game series so much…
August 12th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
I disagree, Amber. “Kind of” is putting it way too lightly. “Total dick” is, I think, closer to the truth.
There are things I feel so strongly about that, yes… if my government condoned them, I would feel compelled to oppose it; first, through peaceful and non-violent protest/activities, then through getting up and leaving (I’m a total pacifist, so taking up arms is kinda out). But the idea that what the government says somebody else can do in a consensual, adult relationship could have an effect on how I raise my kid? Pah! If what I teach my son isn’t taught well enough to survive the onslaught of popular, cultural and governmental crap that we all go through… then that’s my fault. I think the Electoral College is crap… but I’m not worried that my son will be less of a free-thinking, liberal Democrat if he buys into the scheme.
As to judges making law… they don’t; the interpret that. “Case law,” as Amber rightly says, is one way that happens. Another way they do so is by comparing new laws to the ultimate law; in this case, the State Constitution. What they’ve said is that they will interpret *any* law that discriminates based on sexual orientation as being against the current State Constitution; ie, that the new laws aren’t consistent with the ultimate law. That is exactly what they’re supposed to do.
Californians are now free to change their constitution if they like. At which point (in some state, if not CA), someone will challenge the decision to do so based on the US Constitution. And ’round we go again.
It is tough when our literary heroes aren’t our heroes in real life. It’s been easier, for me, in this case, because Card is really (imho) a one-trick pony who’s been making his entire career off the success of one, albeit terrific, plot trick. The rest of his stuff is, while not awful, pretty average sci-fi/fantasy fare.
August 12th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
People have different tipping points (gays, guns, religion). To me only females should hate gays, because they reduce their mates, and man should be friendly with gays because they are not their competition.
Anyway, to the point. Judges should not make laws, but sometimes they do. The most recent case is on eminent domain, where they allow the government to take personal property away, not for schools or governmental buildings, but to increase tax. It is definitely against the original meaning of constitution, where by it allows rich people to screw poor people by taking their property through the means of government.
August 12th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
I guess “Orson Scott Card Is Kind of a Mormon” doesn’t have the same snap?
Anyway, if you assume homosexuality is a sin (and, I suppose, that the concept of being a sin has any real meaning, specifically that it is “bad”), his arguments start to make more sense. That is, I propose that his premise is more faulty than his logic. Your deconstruction of his logic doesn’t work because you’re simply starting from a different premise.
Discussions of gay rights would be a lot more interesting if people would say things like “I believe you shouldn’t be allowed to marry because of a book written by some Jews a couple thousand years ago who said they got it from an invisible superbeing and which also says about 1000 other inconsistent and otherwise fucking ridiculous things”, or whatever. But no, we skip that part, as if that’s not a major issue and we just might be able to get somewhere with reason.
August 12th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Slight correction here, the “Case law” quote should be attributed to Tachevert, not me.
August 13th, 2008 at 7:10 am
If you assume homosexuality is a sin, does it really change the argument? The simple fact that these religious zealots seem to overlook is that it is not ours to judge. God is in the judgment business. We’re supposed to be in the forgiveness business. If homosexuals who wish to have a committed, monogamous relationship are really committing a sin, then the joke’s on them, as they’ll be facing an eternity in a pit of flames. It won’t effect me one way or the other if two gay people get to file joint tax returns and inherit one another’s property. That’s another big problem. The religious zealots see this as a religion issue (in which case, SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, MOFO’s!!), but it’s really a legal issue, because not being allowed to be legally joined poses all sorts of problems.
August 13th, 2008 at 8:30 am
“females should hate gays, because they reduce their mates, and man should be friendly with gays because they are not their competition.”
Well it’s not people, it’s genes. Reading Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene, we realize it’s genes that are propagating, and animals are mere vehicles.
And to a gene, if you’re stuck in the body of an animal that won’t propagate, your line dies out. So a gene that kills the gay gene will be more likely to succeed. So from the gene’s perspective it’s not even irrational, but completely rational. They have no morality they just propagate. In fact there are plenty of genes who are deadly when combined with others, though usually just killing the animal not other animals…
So I believe that there is a lot of nature involved, not just nurture. I think racism to a certain extent as well has origins in our genes, you can see xenophobia in some animals like chimps.
Of course, as humans we need to rise above our instincts and genetic programing, since unlike most animals we can. We aren’t beholden to evolution along those lines anymore and should only use our “conscience” or “gut feelings” to a certain extent, because what helped people survive as barely sentient hunter gatherers often is harmful to us now.
August 13th, 2008 at 9:48 am
“Well it’s not people, it’s genes. Reading Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene, we realize it’s genes that are propagating, and animals are mere vehicles.”
Ideas (memes) propagate the same way genes propagate, and humans are mere vehicles for this. The ‘homophobe’ and ‘religious nutjob’ memes are very strong these days.
August 13th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Huh. I read this entry and I walked away with is, someone wants to start a civil war.
Woot! Let’s do it! Wait what are we fighting for? Shit, but I like gays. But I hate the government more. Damn. Should we promote this fight just so we can overturn the goverment and start from scratch?
I am so torn, I don’t know what to do.
August 13th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
The same arguments were used against inter-racial marriage.
“It’s against God.”; “It will destroy marriage.”; “It will lead to polygamy and beastiality.”; “It’s icky.”
Yep, all there.
If you think something is a sin, then just don’t do it. Wow, that was easy. Telling everyone else that they can’t is where it becomes bullshit. There are simply no rational or legal arguments to be made against gay marriage. Keep your religion in your marriage, your church and your behavior. Leave the rest of us alone.
As for “activist” judges “making laws”, that’s bullshit, too. The CA S.C. was interpreting existing law (i.e. the State Constitution) to mean that it doesn’t matter if 100% of the people vote to deny someone equal rights, they still can’t do it.
If the citizens of CA allow the zealots to amend their constitution to do just that, as so many other states have, then they’re a bunch of useless fuckers, just like OSC.
August 13th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
“It is tough when our literary heroes aren’t our heroes in real life.”
Too true. I don’t really care about the specifics, a let down is a let down.
August 13th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
quote bullet: “It will lead to polygamy…”. I once had a long discussion on the forge with Matt on that, and somehow it struck me that polygamy is not that bad.
However I am still conflicted with polygamy. On each individual case when I heard about the case on polygamy and incest (Jeff of Taxes and a couple in Germany), I would vote to leave them alone, but I have a hard feeling on officially legalize Polygamy and incest.
Maybe it is just my education, Polygamy is always associated with the dark ages when woman are exploited and burned by churches/mobs. I think if polyandry became common, I will have much less problem with polygamy.
Also I do believe a lot of CA laws are unconstitutional, i.e the bans on fast food restaurants, plastic bags etc …
September 9th, 2008 at 11:03 am
The Ender’s Shadow series takes an odd turn when an author-mouthpiece character explains that, though he is gay, having children is so important that he married a woman and has sex. This takes place in a series where the protagonist was conceived in a petri dish and had a jar for a womb.
September 10th, 2008 at 8:00 am
“What is truly confounding to me is that a brilliant writer … is also such a complete and utter ignoramous”
I don’t agree. Yes, O.S.C. is a kind of dick - I agree about that. But after reading all of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orson_Scott_Card#Homosexuality , rather than only the snippets you gave in the OP, I got a different impression.
O.S.C. is a sad artifact of his ubringing/culture. It’s sad that he is unable to break out of the limiting views imposed by his education.
But he is not a violent man and he is consistent in his beliefs - he does not try to justify violence against gays, indeed he is against it. He simply believes they are sinners and should not be encouraged and that society (*his* society) should “protect itself” against them.
Hmm reading what I just wrote I have to stress, O.S.C is a serious dick, someone I would walk out of the room when he came in (once I knew of his opinions). I don’t want to give the impression I support his views in any shape, way or form.
But I don’t hold his failings against him too much - how many people manage to rise above their upbringing/society? He is a moron only in that he cannot see beyond the falsehoods he has been fed. We all know humans are good at lying to themselves - it seems he is just good at it.