The Dish

A statement on the California decision – which naturally doesn’t mention it explicitly:

"The union of love, based on matrimony between a man and a woman, which makes up the family, represents a good for all society that can not be substituted by, confused with, or compared to other types of unions."

Actually, I agree with this in large part. I revere heterosexual unions and heterosexual marriage. When such a union produces biological children, it also reaches mystical, powerful heights of human experience. I wouldn’t want it substituted by or confused with anything else. In Catholic theology, you can easily see why the sacrament of matrimony is exclusively heterosexual – because this newest sacrament is all about reproducing.

But as a civil matter, in an institution not intrinsically linked to procreation any more, I don’t see why the secular law should forbid others enjoying the same rights and responsibility in the same civil institution, regardless of fecundity, children or sexual orientation. It isn’t either-or. It’s both-and. Of course, this Pope rejects the distinction between secular law and Catholic theology. But the correct civic response to this is to tell this guy to take a flying jump. Religious authorities should not control secular law.

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 1.53 pm.

More naval porn tradition, courtesy of Flickr.

A reader writes:

I am disgusted with the theocon reaction to Doug Kmiec’s endorsement of Obama. I have, for my entire adult life, been both pro-life and a Democrat. I have wrestled with the contradictions of that, been frustrated by the party’s fundamentalism on the life issue, and struggled with my conscience for decades.  When I see Republican Catholics confidently assert their absolute comfort with everything their party stands for, I want to scream.  Do they struggle at all, ever with the policies of an administration that has demonstrated disdain for human rights? With a party that dismisses concerns about torture as somehow being a weakness? That runs counter to the Church on the very war that has come to define being a Republican? 

I wouldn’t mind if there was ever any evidence of some hand-wringing before landing on the Republican side, but they all seem to behave as if everything that comes out of Bush’s mouth is infallible holiness.  Doug Kmiec has helped me see why, despite my concerns, Obama is the person we need in the presidency right now. And for that apostasy against the church of Bush, he is being vilified.  I hope he sees the contempt of such people as an honor.

What’s amazing in this is that very, very few public figures have done as much for the pro-life cause as Kmiec. He was denied communion for supporting a political candidate. That’s all. And that is also grounds for investigating and removing that church’s tax exempt status. This priest went way over the line.

(Photo: Jose Cendon/AFP/Getty.)

David Corn likewise thinks that Bush’s words have helped Obama:

Bush probably thought, "Well, I showed him." But any Bush versus Obama narrative assists Obama tremendously. Most Americans clearly would relish voting against Bush, were they able to. If Bush makes it seem that a vote for Obama is a vote against Bush, McCain is screwed.

Nate is more hesitant and suggests watching the McCain Obama tracking polls over the next week or so. I find it hard to credit the notion that anyone would take this president’s views on foreign policy seriously.

Marc cites CNN’s Ed Henry:

While the words Barack Obama were never used White House aides privately admit the President referring not just to Barack Obama but other Democrats like Jimmy Carter, for example, who has recently suggested himself has sat down with Hamas leaders and has suggested that the U.S. government to should sit down with Hamas. So, the inference is clear. Although the President didn’t name names, administration officials are privately acknowledging this was a shot at Barack Obama and other Democrats.

Gillespie, meanwhile, said that Bush was aiming at Carter and not Obama. Which is it?

A reader writes:

"On Tuesday the group Colorado for Equal Rights submitted 131,245 signatures to place an initiative on the November ballot that would define a fertilized embryo as a person."

Does this mean that I can move to Colorado and get Social Security benefits nine months sooner?

"What happens to the Republicans in 2008 will likely be dictated by what didn’t happen in 2005, and ’06, and ’07. The moment when the party could have broken, on principle, with the administration – over the thinking behind and the carrying out of the war, over immigration, spending and the size of government – has passed. What two years ago would have been honorable and wise will now look craven. They’re stuck.

Mr. Bush has squandered the hard-built paternity of 40 years. But so has the party, and so have its leaders. If they had pushed away for serious reasons, they could have separated the party’s fortunes from the president’s. This would have left a painfully broken party, but they wouldn’t be left with a ruined "brand," as they all say, speaking the language of marketing. And they speak that language because they are marketers, not thinkers. Not serious about policy. Not serious about ideas. And not serious about leadership, only followership," – Peggy Noonan.

Some of us tried – and were vilified for it. Others chose to write books about "liberal fascism." Over here! Over here! Shiny silver things!

 

Hong Kong, China, 3.09 pm.