The Dish

"Party of Death is obviously inspired by religious belief. The philosophical passages strictly follow the Golden Rule of religious apologetics, which is: The conclusion is known in advance, and the task of the intellectual is to erect supporting arguments. It would be an astounding thing, just from a statistical point of view, if, after conducting a rigorous open-ended inquiry from philosophical first principles, our author came to conclusions precisely congruent with the dogmas of the church in which he himself is a communicant. Yet that is the case, very nearly, with Party of Death. Remarkable! What if, after all that intellectual work, all that propositional algebra, all those elegant syllogisms, the author had come to the conclusion that abortion was not such a bad thing after all? I suppose he would have been plunged into severe psychic distress. Fortunately there was never the slightest chance of this happening," – John Derbyshire, elegantly fileting his NRO colleague, Ramesh Ponnuru, in the New English Review.

A reader writes:

Having just watched George Bush speaking in his desultory way about gay marriage, I felt a secret glee rise up within me. I think we just watched the death of the opposition to gay marriage.

When a hugely unpopular President rises and speaks with the megaphone of the Presidency about an issue that most consider to be deeply personal, he drags this issue from the realm of family, morals, and religious tradition, into the crass world of politics. By tying gay marriage to the fading star of contemporary ‘conservatism’, the President has given many people who may otherwise be uncomfortable with the idea of same-sex relationships the concrete reason they need to change their minds. ‘If these guys are so hard against it,’ millions of Americans without a direct stake in this debate must be thinking, ‘it may be a good thing’.

Just as George Wallace’s extremism nailed shut the sarcophagus of Jim Crow, so this George will be trotted out as the personification of the bigotry of an era passed. Sometimes, a man’s reputation rings louder then his arguments. George Bush’s failed Presidency will drag this issue down as does a drowning man a healthy swimmer.

You might be surprised by the diversity of opinions on Fox News’ website on the federal marriage amendment. Check it out. Money comment:

"What we have here is a too obvious political play that unfortunately scapegoats a minority as a means to gather votes. This is unkind, manipulative and divisive. My wife and I are Christians. We are not remotely confused abut our own marriage. Are we supposed to care about this because some other Christians are offended? Does this really threaten traditional marriage? Are there truly couples in traditional marriages who are personally confused and threatened by this? Fear not! We know two women who both earlier had children from a traditional marriage. They later lived with one another. They’ve also made sure their children have male influences. Why not let them and all their children have health insurance benefits and no extra problems? I say this to President Bush: We as a nation ought not impose particular religious beliefs on strangers doing no harm in the name of gathering votes."

A comedy flash animation cartoon. The premise? That Americans treat Mexico’s soveriegnty the way Mexicans treat the United States’. Has its moments.

Johann Hari:

I am not inclined to take lectures about defending Muslims from people who utter not a word in condemnation of the systematic slaughter of gay Muslims across the world, nor a splutter of condemnation about the violation and battery of Muslim women across the world. As Tatchell asks, "Since when has being oppressed given anyone the right to oppress others?"

The American Bar Association has set up an investigating committee to review this president’s unprecedented refusal to faithfully execute the laws passed by the Congress and signed by him. Republicans and Democrats are on the panel. The focus will be Bush’s extraordinary use of "signing statements" to retroactively invalidate parts of over 750 statutes. If this president were a Democrat and had such a record, you can bet your life Republicans and conservatives would be in the forefront of resisting this executive over-reach. Thank goodness some have the integrity to do this even though the president is nominally a conservative. John Cole has more.

Just check out these two quotes and make your own mind up:

"Eskridge and Spedale want to blame the substantial acceleration in Dutch out-of-wedlock birthrates entirely on the opening up of registered partnerships to both gay, and especially straight, couples in 1997." – Stanley Kurtz, on NRO’s Corner today.

"The nonmarital birth rate in the Netherlands has been increasing exponentially since the 1970s. It galloped up in the 1980s, and continued that gallop in the 1990s and the new millennium. The rate doubled between 1982 and 1988, doubled again between 1988 and 1997, and is on the way to another doubling. These are significant increases, but registered partnerships, not to mention same-sex marriage, came right in the middle of this demographic trend. Neither institution seems to have exacerbated the trend," – Bill Eskridge and Darren Spedale, in the posting he’s "responding" to.

Marty Peretz notices a New York Times euphemism: "of South Asian descent." It means fanatical Islamists who are Canadian citizens and interested in murdering infidels. Just a clarification in case you don’t read other papers that report the news.

The whole point of the marriage amendment b.s. in the Senate this week is appeasing the Christianist base of the GOP. At least that’s the theory. It has its costs. By spear-heading the FMA again, Bush has alienated a vast swathe of socially inclusive suburbanites, the veep’s daughter, every gay person and many of their families, libertarians, constitutional conservatives and principled federalists. But he’s won over the fire-breathers, right? It turns out: Not even them any more. When you’ve lost LaShawn Barber, things aren’t looking too good. When the Family Research Council, Jonah Goldberg, Peggy Noonan and Laura Bush think the president is being cynical, the entire Karl Rove shell-game is looking a little hollow. Meanwhile, check out the latest Gallup poll on what people think the priorities for their government ought to be. Gay marriage doesn’t even make the one percent mark. When the base is really mad about the spending explosion and the immigration mess, Karl Rove condescendingly spoon-feeds them an amendment they cannot win. The first push for the FMA was a tragedy. This second time is a farce. Even its supporters know it.