Orson Scott Card's endgame
Most people who read novels like Ender's Game are unaware that its author, Orson Scott Card, is intensely homophobic, writing any number of anti-gay opinion pieces, generally for publications affiliated with the LDS (Mormon) Church, in addition to his much better known works of science fiction. Last year, he joined the board of directors of the National Organization for Marriage, a group that lobbies against same-sex marriage and civil unions.
My partner ran across this 2008 editorial by Card in which he steps very close to the precipice of saying the government of the United States ought to be overthrown if the federal courts conclude that same-sex marriage is a right.
If America becomes a place where our children are taken from us by law and forced to attend schools where they are taught that cohabitation is as good as marriage, that motherhood doesn't require a husband or father, and that homosexuality is as valid a choice as heterosexuality for their future lives, then why in the world should married people continue to accept the authority of such a government?
What these dictator-judges do not seem to understand is that their authority extends only as far as people choose to obey them.
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.
Biological imperatives trump laws. American government cannot fight against marriage and hope to endure. If the Constitution is defined in such a way as to destroy the privileged position of marriage, it is that insane Constitution, not marriage, that will die.
Emphasis mine.
I knew Card had written homophobic opinion pieces long ago, but I was surprised to find him still fulimating against homosexuality, in even more shrill terms, in 2008. Twenty years ago, Card wrote an infamous piece in which he endorsed jailing homosexuals. But twenty years is a long time, especially in the world of gay rights. After all, twenty years ago, one of my US senators, Dianne Feinstein, then mayor of San Francisco, opposed even a mild domestic partnership bill; today she's done a 180° pivot and supports same-sex marriage.
Here's what Card was saying in 1990:
This applies also to the polity, the citizens at large. Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those whoflagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.
The goal of the polity is not to put homosexuals in jail. The goal is to discourage people from engaging in homosexual practices in the first place, and, when they nevertheless proceed in their homosexual behavior, to encourage them to do so discreetly, so as not to shake the confidence of the community in the polity's ability to provide rules for safe, stable, dependable marriage and family relationships.
In an undated postscript to his Sunstone editorial calling for jailing gays, Card characterizes criticism of his statements as efforts to suppress free speech (a particular pet peeve of mine in anyone) and congratulates himself for how moderate and tolerant he is:
Oddly enough, even as I am attacked by some as a homophobe, I am attacked by others as being too supportive of homosexuality, simply because I cannot see individual homosexuals, in or out of my books, as anything other than human beings with as complex a combination of good and evil in them as I find within myself. In my own view, I am walking a middle way, which condemns the sin but loves the sinner.
Oh, please. At least when Fred Phelps marches around with his kooky, brightly-colored signs, he's being honest about what he thinks; there's no deceptive packaging, no "aw, shucks" attitude, no artfully deceptive positioning, no pretending he's anything but what he is.
My partner ran across this 2008 editorial by Card in which he steps very close to the precipice of saying the government of the United States ought to be overthrown if the federal courts conclude that same-sex marriage is a right.
If America becomes a place where our children are taken from us by law and forced to attend schools where they are taught that cohabitation is as good as marriage, that motherhood doesn't require a husband or father, and that homosexuality is as valid a choice as heterosexuality for their future lives, then why in the world should married people continue to accept the authority of such a government?
What these dictator-judges do not seem to understand is that their authority extends only as far as people choose to obey them.
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.
Biological imperatives trump laws. American government cannot fight against marriage and hope to endure. If the Constitution is defined in such a way as to destroy the privileged position of marriage, it is that insane Constitution, not marriage, that will die.
Emphasis mine.
I knew Card had written homophobic opinion pieces long ago, but I was surprised to find him still fulimating against homosexuality, in even more shrill terms, in 2008. Twenty years ago, Card wrote an infamous piece in which he endorsed jailing homosexuals. But twenty years is a long time, especially in the world of gay rights. After all, twenty years ago, one of my US senators, Dianne Feinstein, then mayor of San Francisco, opposed even a mild domestic partnership bill; today she's done a 180° pivot and supports same-sex marriage.
Here's what Card was saying in 1990:
This applies also to the polity, the citizens at large. Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those whoflagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.
The goal of the polity is not to put homosexuals in jail. The goal is to discourage people from engaging in homosexual practices in the first place, and, when they nevertheless proceed in their homosexual behavior, to encourage them to do so discreetly, so as not to shake the confidence of the community in the polity's ability to provide rules for safe, stable, dependable marriage and family relationships.
In an undated postscript to his Sunstone editorial calling for jailing gays, Card characterizes criticism of his statements as efforts to suppress free speech (a particular pet peeve of mine in anyone) and congratulates himself for how moderate and tolerant he is:
Oddly enough, even as I am attacked by some as a homophobe, I am attacked by others as being too supportive of homosexuality, simply because I cannot see individual homosexuals, in or out of my books, as anything other than human beings with as complex a combination of good and evil in them as I find within myself. In my own view, I am walking a middle way, which condemns the sin but loves the sinner.
Oh, please. At least when Fred Phelps marches around with his kooky, brightly-colored signs, he's being honest about what he thinks; there's no deceptive packaging, no "aw, shucks" attitude, no artfully deceptive positioning, no pretending he's anything but what he is.