Month: September 2010

Steinglass thinks that the American public has grown cold-hearted:

In 2004, Americans reacted with shock and horror to the news that soldiers were torturing and killing captives in Iraq and Afghanistan. The stories dominated the headlines for months, and engendered a dismally predictable and virulent reaction seeking to justify or explain away the torture and murders. Six years later, the Bravo Company death squad story has scarcely been picked up by other media organs. Apart from Spencer Ackerman, the blogosphere has been largely silent. We've accepted the fact that American soldiers are committing atrocities, and we don't want to think about them anymore.

A reader writes:

“What the institution and policy of marriage aims to regulate is sex, not love or commitment.” – National Review

At the risk of awkwardness, clearly the editors of National Review have never spent an hour in a divorce court. There they would find judges mediating all-out wars in which sex and children are just two forms of ammunition, along with money, houses, jobs, travel rights, and every kind of material possession. Most of the parties are not there because of sex, per se; they are indeed driven by love, commitment, jealousy, envy, and emotions more dark or inscrutable.

Marriage is entirely about emotion and commitment. A marriage without children (or even sex) can survive, often quite beautifully. But a marriage without love or commitment is doomed. Here again, divorce court can be instructive.

By elevating biology above emotion or even values, the NR editors have advanced a strikingly adolescent view of marriage.

Another reader:

You wrote: "If your concern is children, why does the process by which a couple obtain a child matter more than the quality of that child's upbringing?"

We have wrestled with this for years. I am a married, heterosexual man born sterile. We conceived our children via IVF using donor sperm. When we learned that the (Catholic) church would not recognize our children because they represent a "gravel evil act" we instantly removed ourselves from anything remotely connected to the church. We were not going to contribute/participate in a community that recognized our children as EVIL.

The church was not, is not interested in helping its members raise children. The church is not interested in knowing my kids. The church is not interested in teaching. It is interested in its place in history and itself.

And THAT is why we are out of the Catholic Church. It sees itself as the thing to be praised as opposed to god, good works, charity, compassion, etc.

Another:

As a married man (twice divorced) on his third marriage, in a marriage that will never have children I wonder what the “defenders of traditional marriage” have to say to me?

More to the point, what would they say to the fact that my marriage is not traditional in another way since it would have been illegal in the state where it was contracted had it been contracted before 1967. Similarly, my parents’ marriage, in London, back in the 1950s would also have been illegal in Georgia for the same reason.  I find the idea that there’s some “traditional” marriage which must be defended from you both pathetic and annoying.  It’s under much more threat from me (and I’m the father of two grown children, both born in wedlock).

A final reader:

I just read your post about the NR cover story. Linked to the article and read it. I wonder what the NR has to say about my marriage ? My wife and I were married 10 years ago the end of this month. We had kicked around the idea of having children but in the end we BOTH decided that we do not want to have any children. I underwent a vasectomy in May of this year and just got the "all clear" today from my Dr.

Does this mean that my marriage is null and void since we are not procreating? Not being gay I was able to marry the person of my dreams without a hitch. When we applied for our marriage license no one asked if we were planning on having children and it was a requirement to getting married. Marriage is about one thing. Love. That is what the other side of this argument is fighting against. Love. That is why they are loosing the argument because Love will always win in the end.

"This is virgin territory for you," – Dancing With the Stars judge Bruno Tonioli, addressing Bristol.

Implicit in this Mary Katharine Ham post is the realization that the conservative reaction to Sarah Palin is coming back to bite the movement:

O'Donnell is not exempt from this perfectly natural political process simply because she's a conservative woman in the mold of Sarah Palin, just as Mike Castle was not exempt from a conservative challenge from her simply because he was an incumbent. To suggest she is exempt comes close to conferring liberal "special rights" upon conservative women, who as Thompson and Palin and I all agree, are plenty strong enough to do without them.

That post was prompted by an American Spectator essay arguing that opposition to O'Donnell makes the GOP establishment look sexist.

Bret Stephens makes a powerful case in the WSJ today. And if you have a minute this morning, please call your Senator (202) 224-3121. The vote to break the filibuster is at 2.15 pm. Money quote from Bret:

“…In the meantime, it's worth noting that there are an estimated 48,000 homosexuals on active duty or the reserves, many of them in critical occupations, many with distinguished service records. If they pose any risk at all to America's security, it is, paradoxically, because DADT institutionalizes dishonesty, puts them at risk of blackmail, and forces fellow warfighters who may know about their orientation to make an invidious choice between comradeship and the law. That's no way to run a military… Republican senators are now bellyaching that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid intends to jam the repeal amendment into a bill they have no real choice but to vote for. They should be silently thanking him. He's giving them the chance to do the right thing while blaming the Democrats for it. It's a GOP twofer, plus a vote they'll someday be proud of.”

These servicemembers are risking their lives for you. Do something to support them.

The key senators on the fence are: –George Lemieux (R-FL); –Susan Collins (R-ME); –Olympia Snowe (R-ME); –Mark Pryor (D-Ark.); –Richard Lugar (R-IN); –Judd Gregg (R-NH); –Jim Webb (D-VA); –George Voinovich (R-OH); –Kit Bond (R-MO). More here.

Paterson, New Jersey, 3.30 pm

David Axe is itching for the US to wipe out Congo's Lord's Resistance Army, a group that "began in the 1980s as a Ugandan rebel movement with actual grievances [but] is now just a roving tribe of killers":

Serwer connects the shift to the tea parties:

[C]onservative traditionalists deploying "individual liberty" as an argument against Democratic policies now have to deal with the consequences of winning the argument. Hard to say you want the government out of your life and then argue that it should tell loving, consenting adults they're not allowed to marry.

From Chad Stone:

[T]he widespread decline in economic activity that defines a recession ended over a year ago, and the expansion of economic activity that defines a recovery began. But as [The Business Cycle Dating Committee] … was quick to note, “economic activity is typically below normal in the early stages of an expansion, and it sometimes remains so well into the expansion.” That’s certainly true this time. We expect both unemployment and poverty rates to continue to rise in the next few years.

Lt. Col. John Nagl (US Army, ret.) tells the story of Jonathan Hopkins, a former student of Nagl's who was booted from the Army for being gay:

Jonathan is the third combat veteran I personally know who has left the Army under the terms of DADT. Collectively, they represent almost a decade of combat experience, a big handful of Purple Hearts and Bronze Stars, service as aide-de-camps to general officers and as platoon leaders and company commanders in combat, and the investment of millions of dollars in taxpayer funds. They have offered blood, sweat, and tears in defense of a nation that discriminates against them for no good reason.

This policy must end.