Category: Old Dish

TOWARD THE PERFECT STORM

It seems clear to me that we are now headed toward a terrible and possibly definitive tempest on the issue of gay equality. President Bush said yesterday, in so many words, that he is considering amending the constitution to deny gays legal equality in their relationships – indeed to enshrine second-class citizenship for gays in the sacred words of the founding document. It is very hard to think of any act any politican could endorse that would alienate and marginalize gay citizens and their families more. The Republican leadership in the Senate has signed on:

The pace of the gay marriage activists’ campaign through the nation’s courts is uncertain, but it is not at all certain that DOMA or other legislation will stop determined activists and their judicial allies from pursuing this agenda – only a constitutional amendment can do that. The Senate should evaluate the Federal Marriage Amendment seriously and consider whether it, or any other constitutional amendment, is the appropriate response.

That’s directly from the Senate leadership, under John Kyl. (What Kyl ignores is that “gay activists” have been the last people to endorse this. The fight for marriage began and continues because of ordinary gay couples refusing to accept second-class citizenship. We had to battle most activists to get it on the agenda at all.) The Weekly Standard has run a cover illustration depicting gays as some sort of barbarians intent on destroying society. National Review views polygamists as preferable to gay couples. Next up: the Vatican will declare that giving gay people equality under the law will also destroy society.

CAN WE AVOID IT? Of course this is one side of the ledger. On the other are polls showing growing support for gay equality and a revolution in attitudes toward gay people. The popular culture suggests that the battle for gay acceptance is over – and tolerance has won. The world – including America’s closest friends and allies – is moving fast toward integrating gay people fully into society. Big majorities in the younger generation support gay equality. The two states contemplating equal marriage rights both have majorities in support of the move. Many principled conservatives balk at amending the constitution on an issue that’s clearly highly volatile in public opinion – and will continue to change in the years ahead. I have faith in this country and the fairness of its people. I cannot believe that they will ostracize gay citizens for ever in an impulsive and explosive constitutional amendment. I also cannot believe that this president wants to marginalize an entire group of citizens for good simply because of who they are. Certainly, if this amendment is pursued by this administration, it’s the end of any relationship between the gay community and the Republican party. Those of us who have tried to build a bridge between the two are watching helplessly as the White House mulls burning it. They won’t, will they? Or will they?

ONE OPTION: Okay, so here’s something that I don’t support but offer to the president as a suggestion. He wants to reserve marriage to heterosexuals but he doesn’t want to hurt, wound or marginalize gay people. I’m prepared to accept that is his genuine position. But it won’t be convincing if all he does is back the FMA, as currently worded. How to avoid that nightmare? He could back an alternative amendment that says merely that no state should be forced to recognize the marriages in any other state. That essentially codifies federalism and prevents a nationalization of gay marriage through the courts (a highly unlikely scenario, in my view anyway). And it doesn’t tell states what they can and cannot do for their own residents. It doesn’t impose a single definition of marriage on the whole country. And it preserves state autonomy. That seems to me a sensible compromise if some kind of amendment looks impossible to stop. It’s conservative in the right sense. I, for one, want to see federalism work on this matter. Why? Because I think the experience in one state will reduce the fear and panic elsewhere. But those who predict disaster also have a chance to prove their case. Isn’t that the way this country is supposed to work?

AN OMBUDSMAN AT LAST

More good news at the New York Times. They’re getting an independent ombudsman to field reader queries and complaints. The report on what went wrong in the Blair catastrophe pulls no punches either:

“No single person, no single mistake, no single policy is responsible for the embarrassment of plagiarism and fiction that stained the journalism of The New York Times in the spring of 2003,” the three outsiders wrote, based on their interviews with many of the people who had overseen Mr. Blair’s career. Mr. Blair declined to be questioned, citing “health reasons,” according to the outside journalists. Instead, the outside journalists concluded, “a series of management and operational breakdowns made it possible for a junior reporter in his mid-20’s to get past one of the most able and sophisticated newspaper editing networks in the world.” “Behind the Blair story,” they wrote, “lay a misguided pattern of tough supervision and lenient forgiveness that led to retaining him, and in fact promoting him, when at several points he was demonstrating that he was not yet ready to join the staff of The New York Times.” Indeed, less than a year after receiving “a particularly negative evaluation,” the outside journalists found that Mr. Blair was given a merit raise while covering the Washington-area sniper case.

Mr Raines, he partly responsible. If this is Bill Keller’s first real decision, it’s deeply encouraging. But Keller still seems in some denial about the role of race. He writes in a memo that the charge by “partisan” critics that race may have had something to do with Blair’s promotions is “wrong.” But Raines himself admitted it was a factor in his own tolerance of Blair. And the report says that “diversifying the staff was only one of a collection of factors” that had “propelled Blair upward toward journalistic disaster.” So it was a factor – if only one of many. Why would Keller deny something the report affirms?

DAVID HOROWITZ ON MEL: A bumper crop of new letters on the Letters Page.

DEAN’S YEARBOOK ENTRY: It’s great. And it’s real!

BACKLASH TALK

Some of you have chided me for not noting the USA Today poll showing a backlash against gay equality in the wake of Lawrence vs Texas. I didn’t because I think it’s a blip not a trend. The long run shows clear and growing acceptance. And it’s routine that backlashes like this occur. Take Vermont. In November 1999, the polls showed 47 percent against gay marriage and 40 percent in favor. Two months later, after the civil unions legislation passed, the opposition went up further to 52 percent. But a year later, polls showed that number down to 46 percent again and support for civil unions rose to 52 percent – a majority for the first time. A full 27 percent actually described themselves as “enthusiastic” supporters of the new law. Once people realize what this actually means, they calm down. And move on.

THE BBC VERSUS BLAIR: Here’s how they spin quotes. What Tony Blair said at his press conference yesterday was: “There is a big job of work to do – my appetite for doing it is undiminished.” Here’show the BBC described it: “Tony Blair has fended off questions over the death of weapons expert Dr David Kelly – but acknowledged that trust in his government was an issue which he had to confront. Mr Blair, who said his appetite for power remained ‘undiminished’ despite his recent troubles, said he understood the ‘very legitimate questions’ to be asked over Dr Kelly’s death.” The war continues. (Via Oxblog.)

“A LAW?”

I’m befuddled by what the president has just said about equal marriage rights. The AP says the following:

“Yes, I am mindful that we’re all sinners. And I caution those who may try to take the speck out of the neighbor’s eye when they’ve got a log in their own. I think it’s very important for our society to respect each individual, to welcome those with good hearts, to be a welcoming country. On the other hand, that does not mean that somebody like me needs to compromise on an issue such as marriage. And that’s really where the issue is headed here in Washington, and that is the definition of marriage. I believe in the sanctity of marriage. I believe a marriage is between a man and a woman. And I think we ought to codify that one way or the other. And we’ve got lawyers looking at the best way to do that.”

I have no idea what he’s talking about. We already have a Defense of Marriage Act. “Codifying” marriage as a federal matter? Huh? Is this an endorsement of the Federal Marriage Amendment? Or is it an ingenious way to mollify the far right without the FMA? No clue here.

IS FREDRIKSEN ANTI-CATHOLIC?

A reader pens a long evisceration of Paula Fredriksen’s evisceration of Mel Gibson’s new movie about the death of Jesus. Worth a read. Money quote:

The bane of political correctness has always been its unconscious predilection to zealously overreach, eventually attempting to replace pesky facts with more helpful, albeit fabricated, ones and simultaneously condemning all who refuse to succumb to this indoctrination as bigots or racists, just as guilty of nefarious intent as those who are actively racist or misogynistic or religiously intolerant. Thus, if I agree with the evangelists and with Mel Gibson’s and my own intellectual interpretation of the scriptures, I am, in Fredriksen’s world, an anti-Semite (a revelation that would certainly startle my Jewish wife). The fact that Mr. Gibson has employed lawyers to protect his right to portray the truth as he (and many other Catholics) perceives it is not, as she would have us believe, some sort of admission of wrongdoing on his part. On the contrary, it is a perfectly intelligent and justified measure by which to resist the extortion of secular pietists. Thus, Fredriksen’s melodramatic comment, “Lawyers were in the saddle; reason was dying” (aside from delivering the second part of the 1-2 insult to this Catholic lawyer) demonstrates yet again her unwillingness to make her peace with reality: reason never lived in her efforts at extortion… The reason Catholics and other Christians like me are so anxious to see this film is for precisely the reason that she cannot grasp: because it is not being made to pander to the mood of the day or to any special interests. It is intended to be a depiction of the excruciating agony suffered by a loving God who did not need to do this, but, out of love for His miserable and undeserving creation, suffered so that we might recognize Him. What Mr. Gibson intends with this film is to demonstrate that love, and one who truly recognizes that love is incapable of the horrible acts of anti-Semitic violence that Fredriksen so fears.

Nicely put.

LETTER FROM IRAQ I

Another letter from a soldier who witnessed the Iraqi response to the deaths of Uday and Qusay:

“You may read many things about the recent deaths of Salaam’s two sons here in Iraq.- Let me tell you, as an eye witness, what occurred here in Baghdad.
About 2130 hours (9:30 p.m. for you civilians) last night, about six of us were huddled around a DVD player watching a movie.- Sustained, small arms gun fire was heard outside.- We all put on our flak vests and helmets, grabbed our weapons, and headed outside.- What we saw was amazing.
The entire down town Baghdad area skies was full of red and yellow tracer gun fire.- It looked like the 4th of July celebration we had all missed a few weeks ago.-
The use of weapons in this manner, for the Iraqis, is an expression of celebration.-
The level of this celebration was obviously intense for they had just heard the news that the two sons were dead and their reign of terror was over, for good.- The celebration lasted well into the night.
As mayor of this installation near the Baghdad International Airport, I employ about 18 local nationals to work on our electricity, plumbing and to do manual labor.- This morning, they were obviously tired from no sleep, but very happy, they had been celebrating all night.- They offered their supervisors extra locally made bread and several kinds of fruit, their way of saying thank you from them and their families.
In one short day, the atmosphere and attitude of those locals around us has changed, for the positive.
For those of you or your colleagues who still question why we are here, they should have the opportunity, like I have, to look into the eyes of a people who were truly repressed and now sense that their liberation is really at hand.-
In the last war, the U.S. let them down by not ousting the dictator. In this war, they did not trust us because their tormenters were still at large and they were not sure that the military would close the deal. Yesterday, the military proved that this liberation is for real.”
If you are asked why we are still here, yesterday’s action is the reason. We are still here because the mission that we started is not over, but it will be soon.- If you think our presence here is not warranted, you have the misfortune of not being able to see the faces of a liberated people. I have complained about our presence here, I am going to stop doing that now because last night gave me renewed hope that our actions are having a tangible affect on the lives the Iraqi people.- I am not naive enough to believe that the violence is over and that the resistance is dead. Instead, every American fighting in this country has seen with their own eyes the fruits of their sacrifice.- And for that, I am proud to be here.

And I’m proud to reprint the letter. The full text of the previous letter, blogged yesterday, can be found here.

LETTER FROM IRAQ II: Chief Wiggles lets another soldier in intelligence share his blog. It’s a fascinating cri de coeur, mainly against Western journalists and their attempt to undermine the liberation of Iraq:

I would recommend that the journalists who so perversely attempt to conceal and eradicate the knowledge of the good we have done examine their purposes for doing so, and weigh once again the awesome responsibility they have in crafting perceived reality for millions. Reality is often not what we wish it to be, and frequently contains elements we wish it did not, but where is the value in embracing a world of falsehood, however we prefer the lie? Now that the sword has done its job, it is time for the pen to convey, in brilliant ink unspoiled by the tainting hues of ignorance or malice, the ongoing work in its most objective truth, so that the deeds of history, good and ill, may be more fully judged, and the world we and our children shape be founded on pillars of truth.

He’s particularly incensed by a piece in the Times of London, decrying allied treatment of Iraqi prisoners:

His account of living conditions for prisoners was almost laughable. He attempted to paint a picture of misery and abuse through his description. You know what? He may have been right . . . but there are several hundred thousand Americans and allied soldiers living in the same conditions or worse that he cares absolutely nothing about. Spoken of are prisoners who are held in tents with temperatures reaching “up to 122 degrees” with no relief. There’s a reason why it’s 122 degrees inside the tent, and that’s because the outside ambient temperature is 131, and there are precisely the same temperatures in my tent, and every soldier’s tent in this country. I know well what it is to wake up in the morning lying in a pool of sweat that the taut material of my cot cannot absorb. There are soldiers even now who don’t have tents to provide shade, who are rationed two MREs a day, who preciously horde their allotment of water, trying to figure out how keep enough water in their bodies when anything they drink immediately sweats out. For well over two months at the camp here, latrines consisted of ditches with wooden planks and tubes half-buried in the sand for urinals.

Read the whole thing.