Author: Andrew Sullivan

I found Ed Kilgore’s comments on Mel Gibson’s upcoming movie about Jesus’ Passion very apposite. Kilgore comments on the applause for the movie from evangelical Protestants thus:

These are people, for the most part, who don’t place much stock in the liturgical calendar, and the particular relevance of the Passion to the annual cycle of meditations about Christ. Moreover, these are people who often think St. Paul’s comments on gender relations or homosexuality – or for that matter, the entire Old Testament – are as central to Revealed Truth as the gospels themselves. Presumably, most conservative evangelicals would be as interested in, say, a movie about the cursing of the Cities on the Plain as with anything specifically about the Passion.
And third, I’m a bit concerned, though not surprised, by the sort of Popular Front thinking that has so many conservatives from every religious background expressing total solidarity with Gibson’s faith, which is by any standard a bit eccentric, and by Catholic standards specifically, heretical or at least schismatic. I realize that many conservatives share the Left’s eagerness to transfer political and cultural ideological labels into every realm of life, including religion … conservatives should beware embracing just anyone who calls himself a conservative.

Popular Front thinking! Now that captures some of what is going on within the American Right these days. I reserve judgment on the movie till I’ve seen it. But everything I’ve heard worries me. Gibson is not in the mainstream of Catholic thought; his emphasis on the Jewish priests in the Gospel narrative violates official Catholic concern about fomenting anti-Semitism. And his focus on the physical suffering of Christ may be excessive. Jesus suffered terribly – but so did many, many others in his day, on exactly the same lines. The point of the Gospels is to relate the Passion to the rest of his teaching and, of course, to the Resurrection. It is not to engage in portraying blood-curdling violence for dramatic or shock value. I will wait and see the thing myself. But I don’t trust Gibson an iota.

NEWSOM AND MOORE: Thanks for the emails pointing out some important distinctions between the actions of Judge Moore and Mayor Newsom. Here’s one of the most succinct:

Judge Moore did not get into trouble for violating the law. He got into trouble for defying a final court order holding that he had violated the law.
Newsom has clearly violated Family Code Section 300, although whether that is OK, in light of the equal protection clause of the California Constitution, remains to be adjudicated. The difference is that, unlike Justice Moore, Newsom will not defy a final court ruling on the issue.
American history is replete with public officials who “violated the law” out of principle. (Lincoln, Truman, for example.) The difference is that, unlike Moore, they respected the authority of the courts to find them in violation.

There you have what I think is a significant difference. But I’ll be happy to post cogent opposing arguments.

QUOTE OF THE DAY: “I performed for Howard Dean about a month and a half ago, and I really loved him. So I’m very disappointed he f***ed it up … It’s over. He’s finished. He lost his cool. He’s too reactive and he blew it. He has terrible Scorpio anger and he hasn’t learned how to harness it yet. So this will be a great spiritual lesson for him.” – comedian Sandra Bernhard to the Portland, Ore., gay newspaper Just Out (courtesy of Rex Wockner).

UNILATERALISM IN HAITI: The French are thinking of sending a “peace-keeping force” to Haiti. Without the U.N.’s approval? How could they? But the really lovely part of this BBC report is how they delicately refer to the U.S. intervention that brought Aristide to power:

Mr Aristide – a former priest who was restored to power with foreign help in 1994 – is under pressure to quit from opposition politicians and armed rebel groups, who accuse him of having rigged the 2000 elections.

My italics. Priceless.

Another email from a conservative faculty member:

“I survived, and have become moderately successful, in academia by keeping silent about my political opinions, something I learned early in my graduate career at the University of Michigan. Most of my criticisms of Democrats or veiled praise of Republicans are couched in terms that suggest personal distance from conservative points of view. Last year, I came up for tenure, and I realized then how thoroughly I self-censor. I was in the car with a close long-time friend and fellow academic (at another institution), and I told her how difficult it was for me to overcome this compulsion not to speak. I then spent half an hour telling her what I’d bottled up for thirteen years – that I voted for Bush, that I watch Fox News, etc. At the end of it, she said, “I knew your husband was a conservative, but I never realized you are, too.” In fact, I’m fairly confident that this self-censorship is not necessary; my department has a live-and-let-live attitude on many things. But I continue to self-censor, largely out of habit, but partly because there are a few people in the department who could never get over it.”

I hear very similar stories from many academics when I’m on lecture tours of colleges. It just strikes me as a terrible shame that at universities of all places, people are censoring themselves from expressing their actual opinions. It’s not healthy for anyone.

MORE DUKE: A lefty prof argues that there is indeed too little ideological diversity at Duke:

Where are the Greens, Labour, the Christian Democrats, the Socialists, the Communists, the Workers Party, the Black Panthers, Puerto Rican independistas, etc…? Where is the truly wide range of partisan organizing that, across the globe, offers diversity in imagining options for the future?

No I’m not making this up.

EMAIL OF THE DAY: “I’d been mulling over this option and although Valentine’s Day isn’t the most opportune time to suggest it, I took advantage of a long car ride this morning to run something past my wife. “If they passed the FMA or if Colorado (where we were married) or Virginia (where we now live) passed some same sex marriage ban, would you consider opting out of our marriage in favor of a civil union.” Before I could explain my rationale she answered, “Oh, absolutely.” Reminded for the 10,000th time why I married her.” – more feedback on the Letters Page.

The marriages will continue. Most people seem to agree with me that the gay couples getting married in San Francisco are engaged in a classic example of civil disobedience. They do not know the legal validity of their marriages, and San Francisco has advised them as such. The marriages are almost certainly legally unenforceable. They are doing this primarily to demonstrate their desire for marriage and the justice of their cause. It’s the symbolism they’re after; and the symbolism is having a huge impact (look at the hysteria it is provoking on the right). I think there would be no more perfect move than to jail some of these couples for daring to get married. It would be a spectacle of civil disobedience that would, I think, help their cause even further. Bring on the fire-hoses and police dogs! Newsom is in a different position as a public official, and that’s a distinction I don’t mean to gloss over. But in his case, he is arguing that he is not violating his oath by giving marriage licenses to gay couples, since, in his view, the bar on such marriages, as he understands it, violates the California state constitution. And it is the constitution that he has sworn to uphold as mayor. Money quote from the NYT:

City and county officials acknowledge that the state’s family law forbids same-sex marriage, but they argue that the state’s Constitution protects equal rights and takes precedence. Legal experts said the new licenses held only symbolic value because California law defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. City officials advised the couples to seek legal advice about their status.

Now, I’m not a constitutional lawyer, let alone an expert on California’s state constitution, so I don’t know how valid Newsom’s argument is. But if he is found in violation of his oath of office, then I see no reason why he shouldn’t be prosecuted, or impeached or face any other sanction for behaving illegally. And court hearings and challenges will continue to determine this. He should not be above the law, just as Judge Moore wasn’t. But Newsom is also entitled to act according to his conscience and to his own reading of the state constitution’s guarantees of equal protection, just as Moore was. If he is found guilty of violating his oath of office, he should face the consequences. Somehow I think one of them might be re-election in a landslide.

Drudge is reporting strong numbers for Edwards in Wisconsin. Edwards should definitely stay in. You can feel the support for Kerry ebbing out there, especially given his awful debate performance. And voters in later primaries will feel the need to prove they’re still relevant. Once Dean drops out, the Kerry-Edwards contrast will be all the more vivid – and to Edwards’ advantage. Edwards has also moved to the left of Kerry on trade, which might work in a few Dem primaries, but could hurt him if he’s the eventual nominee. Worth watching closely. Of course, exit polls have been wrong before. And so, ahem, has Drudge.

My fisking of John Kerry’s performance in the Wisconsin debate is now up at The New Republic Online.

I missed this interview with Saddam-supporter and anti-war campaigner George Galloway. But this exchange is priceless. Galloway is speaking first:

“I don’t – and I don’t think many readers of The Independent on Sunday – consider Castro or Guevara a rogue. These people are heroes.”
— But Castro is a dictator, and you just said. . .
— “He’s a hero. Fidel Castro is a hero.”
— He’s a dict. . .
— “I don’t believe that Fidel Castro is a dictator.”
— I honestly can’t think of anything to say to this.
— “Fidel Castro is a great revolutionary leader. But for 40 years or more of siege, undoubtedly Cuba would have developed, democratically speaking, differently. But when the enemy is at the gates, spending billions to destroy the revolution, you have to accept that there will be restrictions on political freedoms in a place like Cuba.”
— You’ve met El Presidente, I take it.
— “Yes. Magnificent. He’s the most magnificent human being I’ve ever met.”

Galloway is beyond parody.

I concur with John Derbyshire that one possible response to the civil disobedience in San Francisco is the mass or singular arrest of married couples or the mayor. Some on the Christian right agree and want to arrest Newsom. Go ahead. Make his day. I’m sure many of those newly married couples would also gladly go through the arrest procedure. Being thrown in jail for loving and committing to another person for life would highlight much of the injustice that now exists. The arrests would further the groundswell of empowerment that is now dawning on gay America. So bring it on. We shall overcome.

He was bankrolling parts of the anti-war movement. The Guardian has new details. Yes, the Guardian.

DEMOCRACY IN IRAQ: It can work. Of course it can. Don’t miss this astonishing story in yesterday’s Washington Post about how a young American is making history.

Part of the argument against marriage rights for gays has been that Massachusetts will change the entire country’s legal position. Such marriages will be forced onto other states, some argue. But this is simply untrue. First, the law and the constitution have always allowed states to refuse to recognize marriages in other states, if such marriages violate the public policy of said states. That’s why we had different standards for inter-racial marriages across the states for decades; and why we had different age-requirements; and different divorce standards. Marriage has never been federal in America. That’s particularly the case now because 38 states have their own “Defense of Marriage” laws, underpinning this fact. Think of it like a law license: it has to be re-credited in every state it is enforced in. Secondly, the federal Defense of Marriage Act makes this even more explicit. Thirdly, and less noticed, so do the regulations for marriages in Massachusetts itself. Here’s an obscure but vital provision in Massachusetts marriage law:

GENERAL LAWS OF MASSACHUSETTS PART . REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS TITLE III. DOMESTIC RELATIONS

CHAPTER 207. MARRIAGE CERTAIN MARRIAGES PROHIBITED

Chapter 207: Section 11 Non-residents; marriages contrary to laws of domiciled state

Section 11. No marriage shall be contracted in this commonwealth by a party residing and intending to continue to reside in another jurisdiction if such marriage would be void if contracted in such other jurisdiction, and every marriage contracted in this commonwealth in violation hereof shall be null and void.

So a couple from out of state wanting to take their Massachusetts marriage and make it legal in, say, Alabama, won’t even have a legal marriage to carry! Federalism, in other words, works. In a country as culturally polarized as this one, I’d say federalism is an essential safety-valve for cultural conflict. Why not have different rules for marriage in San Francisco and Provincetown than in Missoula or Baton Rouge? Can’t we live with diversity? We do not need this federal amendment. We do not need it at all. And true conservatives – those who believe in states’ rights – should be in the forefront of opposition.

New research on the ways in which monogamous mammals form their bonds is beginning to reveal dopamine-related addictions triggered by various odors in the selected mate. Throw away that deoderant! In other words, monogamy is a form of chemical addiction, and that might have lessons for humans. One experiment analyzed the brains of students who described themselves as madly in love:

The results were surprising. For a start, a relatively small area of the human brain is active in love, compared with that involved in, say, ordinary friendship. “It is fascinating to reflect”, the pair [of researchers] conclude, “that the face that launched a thousand ships should have done so through such a limited expanse of cortex.” The second surprise was that the brain areas active in love are different from the areas activated in other emotional states, such as fear and anger. Parts of the brain that are love-bitten include the one responsible for gut feelings, and the ones which generate the euphoria induced by drugs such as cocaine. So the brains of people deeply in love do not look like those of people experiencing strong emotions, but instead like those of people snorting coke. Love, in other words, uses the neural mechanisms that are activated during the process of addiction. “We are literally addicted to love,” Dr Young observes.

Fascinating. And depending on your particular chemical make-up, monogamy might be easier or harder. What the ancient philosophers understood – that lust, romantic love and friendship are very different states of being – is being slowly borne out by science. Friendship or long-term bonding is the most complex and important for social stability. But as humans, we are bound to screw it up – or at least be tempted to.

THE ‘M-WORD’: The marriage debate has come down to a word: who owns “marriage”? Here’s why I think it should be available to both straights and gays.