Month: July 2004

Here’s an interesting sentence in Senator Sam Brownback’s piece in favor of the Federal Marriage Amendment:

If the movement for civil unions and same-sex marriage succeeds, we may well be dealing a fatal blow to an already vulnerable institution.

(My italics). It’s a gaffe because Brownback let out of the bag what the FMA is really designed to do. Those FMA advocates who claim that they have no problem with civil unions but only draw the line at marriage are lying. The FMA will bar all civil unions, domestic partnerships and any civil arrangement that gives a modicum of dignity and security to gay citizens; and the religious right is as opposed to such arrangements as they are opposed to marriage rights for gays. Their goal is to strip gay couples of any and all civil protections. That is why they will never criticize the hideous law in Virginia which strips gay couples of even the right to set up private contracts to protect their relationships; that’s why they refuse to say that they support civil unions of any kind. It’s a fundamentally dishonest position, designed to cloak profound animus against gay couples under the rubric of “protecting” marriage. I guess I’m glad that Brownback has now admitted what’s really going on. Meanwhile, blogger Jane Galt, examines the latest gambit by the anti-gay forces: the notion that gay people make bad parents.

Roger reflects on how two liberals from the same generation ended up supporting different candidates for president this time around. As often, Roger is subtle and persuasive as he begins:

When I read Mickey Kaus, a man I know and like, was voting for John Kerry, a man he pretty much despises, in the coming election, I was reminded again what painful times we live in (sometimes even more painful than most of us realize). And, yes, I know politics is about compromise (triple duh with a brass ring on top!), but the compromises people are making now are of a substantial nature.

This is my defense, I guess. I am passionately in favor of an aggressive war against the Islamo-fascists, but I’m open to debate about tactics and strategy. I certainly don’t believe that a pro-war position means some kind of blind fealty to Bush-Cheney. And, of course, as a small government, balanced-budget, libertarian homo, Bush Republicanism is anathema in so many ways. But every time I listen to Kerry, I cannot help but feel that he is hopelessly out of touch with the threats we face and might make our budget problems worse with his healthcare proposal. So I am stuck between a president whose party now officially wants to purge itself of gays and a senator I cannot trust to fight the war we need. These are painful times indeed.

Now we know.

It’s becoming clearer and clearer what the Federal Marriage Amendment is really about: the purging of gay Republicans and any Republicans who do not follow the dictates of the religious right. Listen to the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins in the New York Times today: “Social conservatives are looking at this issue so we know who needs to be educated on this issue or removed if that is possible.” (My italics). I love that idea of “educating” politicians and, if they fail to be “educated,” removing them. You know that a party has become a sect when that kind of language is used. Then there’s the always charming Paul Weyrich. When asked whether he was concerned that stripping gay couples of any legal protections might alienate gay Republicans, he replied, “Good riddance.” That, of course, is the president’s message as well: get out of the party. Right now, the fundamentalists are organizing an unprecedented campaign, fusing religious dogma with political organizing, to write gays out of the Constitutional protections of this country. It’s a seminal moment. Soon we’ll see who has the courage to stand up to them.

EMAIL OF THE DAY: “I myself am a heterosexual Christian who falls into C.S. Lewis’ camp. And I particularly appreciated your post-C.S. Lewis quote comment. I don’t begrudge anyone his politics. But when he chooses to slap the name of Christ into the title of his political organization (i.e. The Christian Coalition), well now, THAT becomes a more serious issue. I won’t go so far as to say that Christianity itself risks being “corrupted” by a mere political movement of Man, but the manner in which the Christian Coalition carries itself DOES impact the way the secular public perceives Christians as a whole. While Christians such as myself try to answer Christ’s call to spread His Gospel, it seems to me that organizations like the Christian Coalition are busy erecting barriers of communication between the Church I love and the World.” – More feedback on the Letters Page.

“There are three things I know about John Kerry. First, that he speaks three or four languages, and one of them is French. Second, that he’s married to an ex-senator’s wife who’s worth a billion dollars. And third, he is supposedly a Vietnam vet.” – Randal Vinson, Tennessee resident, as quoted in Slate.

QUOTE FOR THE DAY II: “Before leaving the question of divorce, I should like to distinguish two things which are very often confused. The Christian conception of marriage is one: the other is the quite different question – how far Christians, if they are voters or Members of Parliament, ought to try to force their views of marriage on the rest of the community by embodying them in the divorce laws. A great many people seem to think that if you are a Christian yourself you should try to make divorce difficult for every one. I do not think that. At least I know I should be very angry if the Mohammedans tried to prevent the rest of us from drinking wine. My own view is that the Churches should frankly recognize that the majority of the British people are not Christians and, therefore, cannot be expected to live Christian lives. There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her on her own members. The distinction ought to be quite sharp, so that a man knows which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not.” – C.S. Lewis, “Mere Christianity.” I’ve cited this passage before, but it’s worth citing again in the days before the Federal Marriage Amendment vote. It comes from a Christianity that sees a critical distinction between church and state, that respects the rights of unbelievers, cares about minorities, and seeks to keep faith free from politicization. What a contrast with the religious right of this new millennium. My anger at them is not simply because of their contempt for gay people, but because of their corruption of Christianity.

This struck me as a particularly sharp George Will column.

A LILEKS CLASSIC: Forgive me for not linking sooner. Money quote:

[Michael Moore]: Are you proud that the rest of the world, which poured out its heart to us after Sept. 11, now looks at us with disdain and disgust?

[Lileks]: Let me see if I can find the right way to put this:

No.

Again, the high-school-level thinking: “the rest of the world.” It’s simplistic to identify Iran, Iraq and North Korea as evil. It’s simplistic to state in the immediate wake of 9/11 that nations are either with the terrorists, or the United States. But it’s a sign of complex nuanced thinking to say that “the rest of the world . . . looks at us with disdain and disgust.” Yes, the world poured out its heart; it cost them nothing. Hearts are easily tipped and just as easily refilled. When the French newspaper said “We are all Americans now” it sounded nice, and I suppose it was, but in retrospect it looks as if there was an undercurrent of appeasement and surrender: we are all Americans because we are all victims in a sense, non? We ceased to earn the precious coin of French approval when we fired the chief procurer for their favorite customer, Iraq. C’est dommage. We can live with it.

Wait until France gets a hard shot in the nose. Wait until France reacts with some nasty work. They’ll get a golf-clap from the chattering class over here and a you-go-girl from Red America. France could nuke an Algerian terrorist camp and the rest of the world would tut-tut for a day, then ask if the missiles France used were for sale. And of course the answer would be oui.

Damn, I love James in a temper.

BLACK AND WHITE: I’ve been getting mor emails than usual complaining about the color scheme of the blog. I know it’s hard on some eyes. But that’s why we have a little button at the top of the Dish titled “Black and White.” Click on it if you want to change the color scheme, m-kay?

Now the war continues in the House. This is the July Rove strategy I predicted – to gay-bait to rally the right-wing base, and to purge the Republican leadership of any tolerance of gay relationships. They don’t believe the FMA will pass, they know that it’s unnecessary, but they need to use it now to blunt the Kerry advance. Meanwhile, another low blow from Maggie Gallagher, whose latest column takes a single anecdote of one child of a gay couple and argues that the debate is therefore over. Money quote:

Cassidy’s story is not science. It’s just her own feelings. Many researchers say most kids do just fine in these alternative family forms. Cassidy doesn’t buy that research, though. “I don’t think a fair study could be conducted because children currently in that family wouldn’t necessarily be open to speaking their true feelings about it.”

Oh, so that settles it. You don’t need science or research, you just need one anecdote! Don’t you think, for example, that you could find a child of a mixed race couple who feels and felt socially isolated in childhood or the object of peer pressure as a kid? Would that make a mixed-race marriage a “selfish” proposition for two adults in love? Yes, that was exactly the argument used in the 1950s and 1960s against inter-racial marriage: think of what it does to the kids. Blogger KipEsquire also weighs in.

Here’s the full Le Monde review of “Fahrenheit 9/11.”

“For a simple and compelling reason, traditional marriage has been the norm in every political community for 5,000 years.” – Senator Orrin Hatch, National Review. Hatch is a Mormon.

IF YOU LIVE IN VIRGINIA: Give Senator Warner a call. He hasn’t made his mind up on the religious right amendment to the Constitution. He’s a good conservative and so should be able to see the trashing of federalism and stripping of civil rights that this amendment entails. 202 224 2023.

EMAIL OF THE DAY: “It is not just foreigners who now endure indignities at the US border, it is also native born US citizens. My partner and I just returned from a trip to South Africa and Zambia. We had no trouble entering either country and were met with friendly faces at all borders. Our passports were all we needed to show overseas (and they are not even biometric). There was no assumption of guilt that we were there to cause problems. That is until we got back to Atlanta. Upon returning to Atlanta, it took almost 45 minutes to get through immigration (separately of course since we are not a family). I can’t imagine how long actual foreigners had to wait, their lines were much worse.
Additionally, our anti-terrorist measures are something of a joke overseas. We were on a 17 hour plane ride in which we were not supposed to hang out in the aisles or near the bathrooms. I guess we should all stay in our seats and get deep-vein thrombosis instead. In fact, when the pilot announced the rules the FAA had in place, you could feel the derision and sarcasm dripping in his voice. The US has lost almost all respect overseas.” More feedback on the Letters Page.

If there’s one thing the U.S. could be doing right now, it’s thinking about how it can improve the country’s image abroad. So what does the Bush administration do? It imposes a new immigration rule that will make life extremely difficult for foreign journalists to cover this country adequately, forcing them out of the country for long periods (up to four months) in order to renew their visas. It’s already a nightmare to enter this country, because of the new security regulations. British journalists have been jailed, humiliated and deported for the most minor of details, immigration officials at the borders now have powers that defy judicial review and act accordingly. Many of my European friends tell me that they simply won’t visit the U.S. any more because of the experience of entering what appears to be a police state at the border – and the risk of summary arrest for no good reason. This is bad enough when it affects millions of ordinary people – tourists, business-people (I’ve noticed a big decline in European tourists on the Cape this summer). But when you target the group that is responsible for conveying what the United States is to the rest of the world, you are only hurting yourself.