Prop H8er fails to protect sanctity of his own marriage

Aug 13 2009 Published by under General Politics


BikeMonkey Guest Post
The San Diego CityBeat has a fascinating article posted about one of the early supporters of California's Prop 8 which was passed by the voters last November to prevent gays from marrying in California.

In July 2008, hotelier and developer Doug Manchester donated $125,000 to help gather signatures for a proposition that would ban same-sex marriage in California. The early money was crucial to getting the initiative--which ultimately passed--on the ballot. At the time, he told The New York Times that he made the donation because of "my Catholic faith and longtime affiliation with the Catholic Church," which preferred that marriage remain between a man and a woman.

Those familiar with the immutable laws of being a loud, braying social conservative will anticipate the latest news.

On Oct. 9, 2008, Manchester ended 43 years, eight months and nine days of marriage to Elizabeth Manchester by moving out of their La Jolla abode. The couple spent the next several months trying to reach a quiet settlement on how best to distribute millions of dollars in cash and other assets. In July, those talks totally broke down, and Doug started playing financial hardball with Elizabeth, allegedly draining the couple's shared accounts and stealing her mail. On Aug. 6, Elizabeth filed a petition for redress in family court. All of the information in this story comes from those petitions.

The article then goes on to detail a serious of allegations which suggest ol' Dougie played nasty hardball to keep tens to hundreds of thousand \( (out of the couples' apparent multi-million \) in wealth) away from his spouse as the divorce proceeded.
Real upstanding supporter of marriage and family, this guy.
As always, this is not just about personal schadenfreude. It is to illustrate the fundamental hypocrisy that underlies the arguments of the social conservatives in support of their position. There is no merit there. None. They have no belief in sanctity of marriage themselves. No commitment to strong families, no willingness to make a life promise, no sacrifice of personal whim or fortune for the institution of the nuclear family. This is obvious.
They just don't like gay people. Why don't they just admit it and be honest about their political posturing? The we can point and laugh, kick their antediluvian sentiments to the curb and move on.

17 responses so far

  • Curt Fischer says:

    Let's turn this around.
    If two gay marriage activists got divorced, would a social conserative then be justified in opining that the divorce proves that all gay people "have no belief in sanctity of marriage themselves[...] [n]o commitment to strong families, no willingness to make a life promise, no sacrifice of personal whim or fortune for the institution of the nuclear family." ?
    I sure don't think so. So why does it seem that you are saying the opposite?
    Also, your blanket comment that social conservatives "just don't like gay people" is unbelievably juvenile. I am ashamed to have even read it. In the year or so I have been reading this blog, this post is perhaps the low point.
    (And, to quell any speculation, my personal views about SSM are that complete disinvolvement of the government in any and all marriage would be the best policy, but if that is off the table, permitting SSM is the next-best thing.)

  • becca says:

    *insert Nelson here*
    HaHA!
    "As always, this is not just about personal schadenfreude." Oh wait, it isn't? My bad.

  • bikemonkey says:

    It only seems that way because you are intentionally misconstruing the point here. When social conservatives go on, and on, and on about supposed reasons for promoting a given policy and then turn around and fail to live up to or by that policy themselves, it questions their honesty about the original reasons.
    I have yet to hear gay marriage rights activists take a position of similar hypocritical basis. They want the same rights as anyone else but I don't tend to see them being against divorce rights, insisting marriage is only for childrearing and other nonsensical rationales trotted out in opposition to gay marriage.
    As far as just don't like gay people goes, I'm all ears. Please do explain the reason once you peel away the canards about supposed historical precedent, aforementioned child-begetting, permanent non-divorcing marriage, obligation against religious beliefs, etc. One consistent reason that explains why we need to withhold the concept of marriage from same sex couples.
    When you can't find a consistent or logical reason that holds up, and a person is willing to deploy any-old dumb argument that any six year old can dismiss you are left with one thing...unthinking emotional bigotry.
    That is no basis for secular policy in the US.

  • Curt Fischer says:

    In my view, most opposition to SSM stems from religion.
    The strained arguments that social conservatives make about historical precedent and child-rearing that you mention result, in my view, from social conservatives realizing that "but its against my religion" is not a public policy argument, and trying to invent arguments that are. Such poor argumentation is lamentable, but it doesn't mean that their religious beliefs aren't sincerely held. I'm not sure why you think religion is a "canard".
    I have met social conservatives who did not harbor an inherent dislike of gay people. If you really were "all ears" I think it would be quite easy for meet some too. I don't see why the burden is on me to pick apart your caricatured stereotype of social conservatives.
    When you can't find a consistent or logical reason that holds up...you are left with one thing...unthinking emotional bigotry.
    One problem with your analysis is that it is quite easy to find a consistent and logical reason for the social conservative stance on gay marriage: sincerely held religious beliefs.

  • caricatured stereotype of social conservatives.

    Dude, "social conservatives" are nasty hateful vicious greedy hypocritical assholes. That ain't a "stereotype"; it's just a fact. Their lives are distorted by fear, guilt, disappointment, and a sense of lack of control of their own destinies, and their reaction is to do everything in their power to try to make other people suffer too.

  • bikemonkey says:

    Curt, I would be overjoyed to have the social conservatives be this honest. Happy to have people hide their "gay people squeek me out" truth under "It's my religion". Because this is the underlying reality of the of the matter. And it would be relatively easily resolved. Does individual theology get to dictate policy for all? Not in the US, no. Done.

  • "Dude, "social conservatives" are nasty hateful vicious greedy hypocritical assholes. That ain't a "stereotype"; it's just a fact."
    HA! That just made my day. Good stuff.

  • Curt Fischer says:

    bikemonkey -
    Agreed that individual theology does not get to dictate policy for all, and that social conservatives are wrong to either say that it does or to invent poor arguments to substitute for their true views.
    But your post (and now also your co-blogger CPP) goes alot farther than just saying that: it just attack social conservatives and lob insults. Maybe this is effective if your goal is to lower the quality of discourse on your blog and to rally the troops around some poorly thought-out, emotional rallying cry. Maybe it is just fun to type insults and enjoy the schadenfreude inherent in the particular episode you wrote about.
    But if you're trying to persuade any undecided minds, I don't think you're doing well. I know from your posts on other issues that you (and sometimes even CPP) can be critical and insightful on many issues. Perhaps it is too much of me to expect it on a regular basis.

  • But if you're trying to persuade any undecided minds, I don't think you're doing well.

    AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    LOON ALERT LEVEL BAJILLION!!!!111!!1!1!!1!!

  • Word, my friend. Word.

  • John Swindle says:

    Mr. Fischer - How can you deny that bigotry plays a role in politics? It is evident in the issues of civil rights (including who gets to marry whom) and in the current attempts to ruin programs that would benefit all Americans because they are proposed by our first non-caucasian president. If you really think it's not about bigotry, you're just not paying attention.

  • It'd be just as easy to say that religion dictates that we treat our neighbors as we ourselves would wish to be treated--ie, by not prohibiting them from getting married. Why do the fundies choose to forget about that particular religious injunction when it comes to gay marriage? Because they don't like homosexuality. End of story.

  • Why do the fundies choose to forget about that particular religious injunction when it comes to gay marriage?

    Because they're lying hypocritical scumbags who hate themselves, hate the world, suffer horribly inside their twisted psyches, and want to impose as much suffering as possible on everyone around them.

  • wondering says:

    And why to people who purport to follow the New Testament Jesus Christ go all Old Testament when it comes to telling everyone what to do?

  • They love that old testament shit, because it allows them to self righteously make other people suffer.

  • Trin Tragula says:

    #4 Curt Fischer: In my view, most opposition to SSM stems from religion.

    No! It's all the fault of Richard Dawkins and the New Atheists.

  • SurgPA says:


    "One problem with your analysis is that it is quite easy to find a consistent and logical reason for the social conservative stance on gay marriage: sincerely held religious beliefs.

    Posted by: Curt Fischer | August 13, 2009 5:13 PM"
    Problem is, those same sincerely held religious beliefs were used not too long ago to justify preventing interracial marriage... Are you going to try to defend their right to racism based on deeply-held belief?

Leave a Reply