Archives for 2004

I am now officially fed up with the whole BUSH/AWOL non-issue/smear. It is clear that Bush served honorably, did what was required of him, and was honorably discharged. Only the winguts continue to assert otherwise. I also say that John Kerry deserves to be commended for his service during Vietnam.

Now having said that, I want no more discussion of it, particularly from you Democrats who just hate Bush. After all, this newfound soldier worship is just a touch transparent. Besides- if you are trying to make the case that the best soldier should be elected in order to create and administer the best foreign policy, why the hell didn’t anyone in the Democratic party vote for FOUR STAR GENERAL AND DEMOCRAT Wesley Clark?

Just curious, you know.

BUSH AWOLPost + Comments (44)

It has become clear that there are many on the left, when posed with a choice between embracing someone who mostly agrees with them on an issue, or slightly disagrees on a procedural way in which to achieve a goal or issue, the choice is simpey. Don’t engage in honest debate- engage in a scorched earth policy so that the doctrinal purity of liberal goals remains constant.

For example, take this post from Jesse Taylor (and the charming remarks from the readers), in which he does everything but call me John Derbyshire, all in response to this post yesterday. To be fair, Jesse takes on my characterization of marriage- it is his readers who really make this a personal attack.

For the record:

I am in favor of ‘homosexual marriage.’ I am even in favor of such crazy ideas (/sarcasm) as homosexual adoption. I do not think the greatest problem facing our nation is a rush of people coming forward publicly professing their love for one another. Probably a family with a mother and a father is the ideal for raising children, but I can think of a whole helluva lot of families that would be better off under the roof of two daddies or two mommies.

In fact- this is not a new development:

(I am in favor of same sex civil unions- well, more honestly, I don’t care- if homosexuals who love each other want to get hitched, more power to ’em- except it is currently against the law). I am not sure what is wrong with same sex civil unions, particularly if they grant all the legal benefits of marriage.

I also have wondered about the views of some in the GOP:

I will never understand the homophobia of some in the Republican party. I am not sure why, if two consenting adults love each other, why is it any of the business of anyone else what they do?

There are plenty of other examples of my position in the archives. I mocked the Texas Sodomy Laws. I mocked Bush’s recent proposal for ‘marriage promotion,’ my logic being that if marriage is so good some are kicking and screaming to keep it from the gays, why do we need to spend 25 million to promote it? At any rate, I am no virulent homophobe, and I find it offensive that Jesse and his ilk would assert otherwise.

At any rate- my point(s) in the post that got Jesse’s knickers in such a twist were:

1.) It seems to me the rush to get married with fraudulent documents is pointless. I understand civil disobedience, but it seems to me that the Mayor of San Fran isacting illegally and in bad faith. What happens when those documents don’t stand up?

And please- I understand WHY the couple want to get married- I would assume for the same reason that anycopuple wants to get married, heterosexual or homosexual- they are in love. And no, Jesse, you vile twerp, it doesn’t upset me that all of the couples are not “flamboyant fire-breathing hetero-killers whose unions will lead us into a new age of depravity and destruction.” If they were, I would remain similarly unfazed, and still in favor of their right to be together. But I am in the minority, you gutless punk.

2.) The concept of marriage, the definition of marriage, is pretty entrenched in the American mind. IF you ask the great majority of people, they will have no qualms defining it as between a man and a woman. That was the point of the DOMA- to codify it, to entrench it legally as well as popularly.

I may have not spoken clearly- this phrase in particular is sloppy to the extreme (and conveys the exact opposite meaning than what I intended- I apologize for the lack of clarity):

“Clearly, marriage is not just what society decides it is- at least not in the sense that it is some malleable man-made construct that can be whimsically changed.”

Clearly marriage is what society determines it to be- but the idea that these changes just happen is absurd. Changes like this happen at a glacial pace. You don’t just simply change the institution, and everyone’s understanding and belief systems change with the touch of the pen. My disagreement with the Calpundit was that this is something that happens overnight- these changes to man made institutions take years- just as the current levels of tolerance for open homosexuality took years to achieve. This is particularly the case when you have the majority of the population aligned against the proposed change,as iscurrently the case.

So why, then, are civil unions such a bad next step? Leave marriage to those who want to retain it in its current form, and over time, just like every other advance made by gay rights groups, attitudes will change. And, for the criminally stupid such as the readers at Pandagon, I have no idea why people are opposed to gay marriage. I have never felt that if I were to be married to a woman, it would some how be cheapened by two men down the street getting married. But that is me, and like it or not, I am in the minority.

The New Scorched Earth PolicyPost + Comments (23)