![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
On agreeing to disagree
Mar. 16th, 2010 04:56 amSee, here's the thing, Mr. Hayworth. When you say,
However, here's what you're just plain not allowed to do. When someone confronts you about the fact of the matter, pointing out at length that the phrase "the establishment of intimacy" appears nowhere at all in the SJC's decision, you're not allowed to say "You and I can have a disagreement about that". This is a question of empirical fact. You weren't asserting your opinion; people are not allowed to have opinions about whether the phrase "the establishment of intimacy" was used by the Court to define marriage, or about whether Chicago is the capital of Illinois, or whether pigs have wings. You made a true-or-false assertion about the world, and your assertion was false. You lied, in one of the most easy-to-check, indisputable ways possible. Hell, you even said the word "quote".
I am so damned tired of the lying. Flipflopping on positions? Fine. Bald emotional appeals? Whatever. But if you think that the American people, or in this case the good people of Arizona, will only support you if you hide the truth from them, if you think that voters will only vote for you if they're kept from having all the information, then you do not deserve a leadership position. And, unemployed as I am, I have little better to do than fly to Arizona and go door to fracking door, explaining to voter after voter personally that you lied about the facts. Maybe some of them will listen, and we can start to have a better country.
You see, the Massachusetts Supreme Court, when it started this move toward same-sex marriage, actually defined marriage - now get this - it defined marriage as simply, quote, 'the establishment of intimacy.' Now how dangerous is that? I mean, I don't mean to be absurd about it, but I guess I can make the point of absurdity with an absurd point. I guess that would mean if you really had affection for your horse, I guess you could marry your horse.I don't really care that you're equating gay marriage with bestiality. We've heard it before, and I believe some internet commenter or another said it best when they suggested not taking political strategy tips from Rick Santorum.
However, here's what you're just plain not allowed to do. When someone confronts you about the fact of the matter, pointing out at length that the phrase "the establishment of intimacy" appears nowhere at all in the SJC's decision, you're not allowed to say "You and I can have a disagreement about that". This is a question of empirical fact. You weren't asserting your opinion; people are not allowed to have opinions about whether the phrase "the establishment of intimacy" was used by the Court to define marriage, or about whether Chicago is the capital of Illinois, or whether pigs have wings. You made a true-or-false assertion about the world, and your assertion was false. You lied, in one of the most easy-to-check, indisputable ways possible. Hell, you even said the word "quote".
I am so damned tired of the lying. Flipflopping on positions? Fine. Bald emotional appeals? Whatever. But if you think that the American people, or in this case the good people of Arizona, will only support you if you hide the truth from them, if you think that voters will only vote for you if they're kept from having all the information, then you do not deserve a leadership position. And, unemployed as I am, I have little better to do than fly to Arizona and go door to fracking door, explaining to voter after voter personally that you lied about the facts. Maybe some of them will listen, and we can start to have a better country.