Let us by all wise and constitutional measures
promote intelligence among the people
as the best means of preserving our liberties.
James Monroe
Rich Lowry, "Justice Anthony Kennedy's Contempt", Thumbs UP
I have some differences of opinion with the National Review editor, whom recently published yet another flattering biography of Abraham Lincoln (see movie trailer below for a less sympathetic portrayal).
Going on a related rant, I'm very disappointed when someone I respect, like John Stossel, engages in politically correct, nonsensical verbiage like "ban gay marriage". Not a single state recognized gay "marriage" when DOMA was passed into law in 1996--during the entire history of their statehood, spanning up to centuries. The idea of a "vast anti-gay conspiracy" is ludicrous on its face; traditional marriage reflects religious and social norms across cultures for thousands of years. The fact is, gay couples cannot reproduce; society developed conventions and institutions that serve to promote its own survival and stability. Whether or not many societies approved of homosexuality is irrelevant, but certainly in some ancient cultures (e.g., Greece) homosexuality was celebrated, not condemned. (That dawned on me when in college I unknowingly read some translation of an ancient Greek text, and the author kept mentioning 'beautiful boys'; at first I thought it was merely an odd translation, but when the phrase kept recurring, the author's intent was clear.)
None of the states with ballot constitutional questions intended to "ban gay marriage"; the ones I read were simply designed to protect against judicially activist state courts from a backdoor legalization of nontraditional marriages, such as what happened in Massachusetts and California. Most young people seem completely uninformed, for instance, California had a domestic partnership construct which protected legal rights of gays, including hospital visitation and inheritance. I was living in California at the time and voted for the original propositions. When California's Supreme Court set aside the traditional marriage proposition, they argued that the proposition wasn't written to modify the law beyond their scope of review and they struck it down--on a legal technicality, although the intent of the people was clear. So proposition 8 was written in a way to get it past California court review. I never really believed Obama believed in the traditional definition of marriage; he opposed DOMA in 1996. How do I explain his equivocation on the issue? His original base was the black community, which largely favors traditional marriage. In fact, Proposition 8 looked like it was heading to defeat when a very heavy turnout of blacks, out to elect Obama, carried the proposition. I'm convinced Obama's "evolution" on marriage was more of a political calculation with Obama not wanting to alienate his power base. Maybe because I lived in the Chicago suburbs for more than a decade, I was aware of Obama's DOMA opposition--which made me a little contemptuous when Hannity kept repeating Obama supported traditional marriage, clearly inconsistent with his DOMA opposition. Obama unprincipled doublespeak was a way of having his cake and eating it, too, just like he modified his oil exploration rhetoric with nearly $5/gallon gasoline, but he continued to push his climate change agenda, which is anti-fossil fuel.
Going back to the intellectual dishonesty of the "ban gay marriage" soundbite, I wasn't aware of an initiative to ban gay relationships, civil unions, etc. Occasionally you have some old sodomy law on the books, like in Texas; when I lived in Irving, I needed to go to another county to buy a six-pack of beer; this is part of the Bible belt, and some religious prohibitions got passed into local or state law. But for example, when I moved to Houston, work colleagues warned me that Montrose area was the gay hub of the city (I lived in the straight suburbs); most people, including myself, had an attitude of "live and let live". I wasn't aware of any government crackdowns on the gay population, say enforcing an anachronistic sodomy law. Given ubiquitous gay pride parades, sympathetic treatment in the mass media, various class status protections, etc., I think it's pathetic that John Stossel, normally a skeptic, buys into the misleading hype.
If John Stossel had researched the issue, he would have known that nontraditional lifestyles had been a national issue far before DOMA--the practice of polygamy in the Utah territory was an obstacle to statehood. So why Stossel and others are referring to the confirmation of traditional marriage as "banning gay marriage" versus "banning polygamy" or even weirder relationships (such as adult/child marriages) is beyond me. There's also a difference between say, busting a minister performing gay "marriages" and that state legally recognizing said marriages.
Lowry points out the Feds have had a long-time interest in assessing marriages, predating DOMA; take, for instance, marriages of convenience with foreign aliens looking to reside legally in the US. Even if the marriages are legal, say, in the eyes of Nevada, INS may disagree; the Feds may not regard separated spouses as married for tax purposes. And if states have differing standards of marriage (say, age restrictions), how do the Fed's evaluate marriage--by the former state's rules or the current resident state's rules?
Lowry then points out the opportunistic migration of politically motivated Dems whom a decade ago opposed gay "marriage" but supported comparable civil unions, particularly President Zipper, that paragon of marital virtue, whom signed DOMA into law. These political whores stayed on the sidelines until they detected a shift in attitudes due to cultural and academia brainwashing that redefined marriage as a mix-or-match relationship and portrayed those whom stood by the traditional definitions of marriage and family as morally contemptible.
Who is really contemptible is an empty robe like Justice Kennedy whom thinks that he has the moral authority to condemn traditionalists and millennia of history. That he applies presentist criteria is sheer hubris, and this piece of work is more interested in impressing the god of hedonistic culture than the God of Abraham.
Reason Nanny of the Month: Unconstitutional Politically Correct Speech Codes
Whereas I believe in civility, government's stealth attempts to suppress critical speech (if say someone in a politically preferred group feels offended) reflects a morally bankrupt double standard, one which is intrinsically subjective. If the honest critical analysis of someone whom happens to be in a politically favored group "feels" it is motivated by darker motives, the result is a society where freedom of speech is arbitrarily recognized.
Before "The Life of Julia", "Tax the Rich" et al, There Was....
Busting the Myth of Saint Abraham Lincoln
In the Wake of Gay Self-Esteem Day at SCOTUS, Let Us Take a Moment to Celebrate REAL Marriage and Family
Political Humor
The Girl Scouts announced that their pension plan has a $347 million deficit. The Girl Scouts are $347 million in debt so in addition to teaching girls about camping it also is preparing them for careers in government.- Jay Leno
[They promised to pay out 77 cents on the dollar...]
If you really don't want gay people to get married, you shouldn't ban gay marriage. You should ban gay divorce. - Craig Ferguson
[And miss those child custody disputes?]
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Lisa Benson and Townhall |
The Beatles, "Can't Buy Me Love"
