August 11, 2011 – 9:00 am
George Weigel writes about the attempt to dismiss those who believe in marriage as "homophobes" -- and proposes what is actually the heart of the matter:
The Washington Post’s culture critic, Philip Kennicott, recently took to the pages of his paper to note the “cognitive dissonance” between ingrained “habits of homophobia” in American culture, on the one hand, and a recognition that “overt bigotry is no longer acceptable in the public square,” on the other.
... Philip Kennicott’s line of attack nicely demonstrates the truth of Oscar Wilde’s famous observation that the only way to rid oneself of temptation is to yield to it. For crying “homophobia” is a cheap calumny, a crypto-totalitarian bully’s smear that impresses no serious person.
Here's what Weigel says is actually happening in the debate over marriage:
The 21st-century state’s attempt to redefine marriage is just such an attempt to redefine reality — in this case, a reality that existed before the state, for marriage as the union of a man and a woman ordered to mutual love and procreation is a human reality that existed before the state. And a just state is obliged to recognize, not redefine, it.
Moreover, marriage and the families that are built around marriage constitute one of the basic elements of civil society, that free space of free associations whose boundaries the just state must respect. If the 21st-century democratic state attempts to redefine something it has neither the capacity nor the authority to refine, it can only do so coercively. That redefinition, and its legal enforcement, is a grave encroachment into civil society.
If the state can redefine marriage and enforce that redefinition, it can do so with the doctor-patient relationship, the lawyer-client relationship, the parent-child relationship, the confessor-penitent relationship, and virtually every other relationship that is woven into the texture of civil society. In doing so, the state does serious damage to the democratic project. Concurrently, it reduces what it tries to substitute for reality to farce.
August 11, 2011 – 8:00 am
The Washington Times reports:
[Maryland Sen. Allan Kittleman] was the only one of 55 Republican state legislators who spoke out in favor of a gay-marriage bill that passed the Senate but died in the House because of seemingly unanimous Republican opposition and resistance from nearly one-third of Democrats.
... Party colleagues have expressed disappointment in mostly reverent tones, but Mr. Kittleman has insisted that feedback has been about 60 percent supportive within his mostly Republican district. He says much of the support has come from younger Republicans.
But:
... Delegate Warren E. Miller, Howard Republican who serves two-thirds of Mr. Kittleman’s district, said the residents who contacted him during last session’s debate “overwhelmingly” opposed to gay marriage.
“It wasn’t a bunch of form letters. It was probably one of the highest amounts of contact for any piece of legislation i’ve ever dealt with,” said Mr. Miller, a delegate since 2003.
Maybe Mr. Killteman should make sure he's checking his messages.
August 10, 2011 – 3:18 pm
Thanks for helping to get our Values Voter Bus Tour off to a great start yesterday!
Joined in Des Moines by Governor Tim Pawlenty, one of our Presidential Marriage pledge signers, the day included rallies in Oskaloosa, Washington, Muscatine, and Davenport before wrapping up in Iowa City.
As the 22-stop tour continues, we look forward to having Rep. Michele Bachmann, Sen. Rick Santorum, and Rep. Thaddeus McCotter join us, as well as Congressmen Steve King (R-IA) and Louie Gohmert (R-TX).
If you haven't already done so, I hope you'll find a tour stop near you and come out and join us as we hear from these national leaders first-hand about the importance of protecting marriage and the family everywhere from rural Iowa to Washington, D.C. Together, we are rallying Iowans to stand up for marriage, urging them to support pro-marriage candidates at the Ames Straw Poll on Saturday. So bring your friends, grab a lawn chair, and come stand for marriage!
Here's the list of tour stops – a complete and updated list can be found at www.valuesbus.org.
- Wednesday, August 10th
- 8:30 – 9:00 AM: Cedar Rapids
Cedar Rapids Marriott, 1200 Collins Road NE
- 10:30 AM – 11:00 AM: Dubuque
Washington Park, 351 W 6th Street
- 12:45 PM – 1:15 PM: Waterloo
Lincoln Park, 451 E 4th Street
- 3:00 PM – 3:30 PM: Mason City
Central Park, 75 1st Street NW
- 5:45 PM – 6:15 PM: Dickinson County
Barefoot Bar, 24457 178th Street, Okoboji
- Thursday, August 11th
- 8:30 – 9:00 AM: Sioux City
Holiday Inn Express Sioux Center, 100 Saint Andrews Way
- 9:30 AM – 10:00 AM: Le Mars
Bob's Drive Inn, Highway 75 South
- 10:45 AM – 11:15 AM: Sioux City
Sergeant Floyd Monument, 2701 S Lewis Blvd/Old US Highway 75
- 1:30 PM – 2:00 PM: Council Bluffs
Bayliss Park, 159 South 6th Street
- 3:15 PM – 3:45 PM: Atlantic
Atlantic City Park, 51 W 6th Street
- Friday, August 12th
- 10:00 AM – 10:30 AM: Webster City
Wilson Brewer Park, 280 Ohio Street
- 11:15 AM – 11:45 AM: Fort Dodge
City Square Park, 120 N 5th Street
- 1:30 PM – 2:00 PM: Carroll
Carroll County Courthouse, 595 Court Street
- 3:15 PM – 3:45 PM: Boone
Pizza Ranch, 1703 South Story Street
- 5:00 PM – 5:30 PM: Marshalltown
Susie Sower Park, 60 N 2nd Avenue
And if you spot the bus on the road this week, be sure to give a friendly honk and a wave!
August 10, 2011 – 12:00 pm
Ken Blackwell writes in Town Hall about the true rainbow coalition - the coalition of people of good will who believe marriage is between one man and one woman:
Look behind these numbers [of people supporting marriage in the south]. What you see is clear: A black-white alliance. In addition, the South is increasingly welcoming Hispanic and Asian immigrants. You could not rack up 86% of Mississippi voters, 81% of Alabama voters, and 78% of South Carolina voters without considerable black and white backing.
This is because marriage is not a wedge issue. It’s a bridge issue. That’s why liberals fear it on the ballot. They know that the people do not want marriage abolished. They know it creates a formidable grassroots coalition. How else can we explain the Maryland legislature’s last-minute decision? Lawmakers in Annapolis shelved a bill to force citizens of the Free State to recognize same-sex couples as just-marrieds.
The South was surely wrong on slavery and Jim Crow. For far too long, black Southerners had to endure oppression, violence, and discrimination. White Southerners, too, found their region held back by this historic injustice. It is certainly a hopeful sign when blacks and whites join hands to protect the most important of our civil institutions.
Marriage wins in liberal states, conservative states, and moderate states. It’s not a red state/blue state issue. It’s a red-white-and-blue issue and it wins all over. And that’s not just whistlin’ Dixie!
August 10, 2011 – 11:00 am
A self-identified gay republican activist warns in the Portland Press Herald that gay marriage will go down again if it is put to the people of Maine in 2012 (he would prefer that government "get out of the marriage business altogether"):
If they follow through on their plan to put same-sex marriage on the November 2012 ballot, EqualityMaine and their left-wing followers will be ensuring that Maine will be a red state in the 2012 election cycle.
I say this because by putting this lightning-rod issue on the ballot, they will be bringing all of the socially conservative voters out of the woodwork to vote against it.
... the liberal progressive establishment is showing how clueless they are about the Maine electorate with this move [to put marriage on the ballot].
They think that putting this on the ballot in a high-turnout year is the tonic to cure the ill of getting around the groundswell these ballot questions generate. The problem is that they are going to hit their target yet again, yet miss the goal. In 2009, they planned for a victory with 265,000 votes. They got 267,000 votes. Their problem was that the opposition got 300,000 votes.
August 10, 2011 – 10:00 am
Do Muppets have an orientation? An online campaign tries to get Sesame Street to "marry" Ernie and Bert:
An online campaign to pressure the producers of "Sesame Street" into having lovable roommates Bert and Ernie get married is gathering steam.
Getting hitched would change things for Ernie, who has long sang about how his bath toy, Rubber Duckie, "was the one."
More than 700 people have signed on to the petition, posted at change.org.
"We are not asking that Sesame Street do anything crude or disrespectful," reads the petition for the muppet merger. "It can be done in a tasteful way. Let us teach tolerance of those that are different." --New York Daily News
August 10, 2011 – 9:00 am
Patrick Murray at Central Jersey comments on the media coverage of PPP's new poll describing New Jersey opinions on marriage and civil unions:
"...if you combine the 40 percent who prefer civil unions with the 17 percent who say that no status should be recognized, you arrive at a majority of 57 percent who oppose gay marriage when civil unions are available. Based on this question, a reasonable person — or at least an astute reporter — could conclude that most New Jerseyans do not support legalizing gay marriage.
Unfortunately, the media outlets that chose to report this poll — not everyone did by the way — took the pollster’s headline at face value. They did this even though contradictory results were included in the very first paragraph of the pollster’s own press release.
... The media love reporting on polls and the public love reading about them. That’s because well-conducted polls reflect who we are as a society. But we are being inundated with more and more polls from pollsters and organizations with specific agendas.
Unfortunately, when these less legitimate polls make it into the mainstream media, it stokes the public’s distrust of all polls. And if the media do not distinguish between the good and the bad, how can we expect the public to do the same?
August 10, 2011 – 8:00 am
The Knights of Columbus, the largest association of lay Catholics in the United States (now with a record 1.8 million members) approved a resolution (see the full text here) at their annual convention last week to strongly support the institution of marriage.
Carl Anderson, head of the Knights, writes in his annual report:
Today, the very nature of the family is being threatened in many places and in many ways. And during the past four decades, even our most fundamental right – the right to life – has been undermined.
I don’t have to tell you that in many ways, society has lost track of the things that are most important: the sacredness of human life, and the right of every child, not only to be born, but to be raised by a mother and a father.
As faithful Catholics and Knights of Columbus, we know that among the most important tasks ahead of us is the need to shape our culture according to Gospel values, and to bring the Christian message of hope to all.
He calls it "gutsy" to betray your constituents' views. Well, that's one way of looking at it:
“There are many times when you have legislators who stand up and take gutsy positions that they’re penalized for,” said Cuomo, drawing a parallel to Congress members ousted over their vote for the assault weapons ban in 1994. “That’s why it’s gutsy.”
Although popular with Republican voters, Cuomo can’t, or won’t, say whether he would endorse those four Republican senators. He did, however, commit to vouch for their character.
“To the extent they have political trouble, it’s from the conservatives in their district,” he said. “I’m a Democrat. I’m not much help politically with conservatives. But to the extent my saying what they did, and explaining what they did can be helpful, I’ll do that.” -- The Advocate
And it all goes back to Lawrence v. Texas:
Jonathan Turley is probably not the most popular man right now with supporters of same-sex marriage. The George Washington University law professor has filed a suit challenging the constitutionality of Utah's anti-polygamy laws — and his argument is based on a landmark 2003 Supreme Court gay rights decision. That's not good news in the view of most gay rights supporters, who don't want their cause linked to that of polygamists any more than they want to see parallels drawn with people who engage in incest, bestiality and other taboo sexual practices.
... The 2003 gay rights case, Lawrence vs. Texas, was also a criminal matter unrelated to same-sex marriage. The court overturned the conviction of two men found to have violated a state law against same-sex sodomy. But in reaching that conclusion, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy offered a paean to intimate relationships defined by sexuality that easily can be transferred to the context of same-sex marriage, and potentially to polygamous marriages as well.
... like Lawrence, a ruling sympathetic to unconventional sexual behavior could plant the seeds of a future campaign for full marriage equality. In that case, governments would have to prove that it's rational to limit marriage to two individuals, homosexual or heterosexual. That might seem obvious, but so, at one time, did the argument that marriage should be confined to opposite-sex couples. --Los Angeles Times
August 9, 2011 – 12:45 pm
Governor O'Malley's office reportedly released his private correspondence with Archbishop Edwin O'Brien of Baltimore at the media's request:
Two days before Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) announced plans to sponsor a same-sex marriage bill, a Catholic archbishop strongly urged that he reconsider the move, suggesting the governor was acting out of “mere political expediency.”
Edwin F. O’Brien, the archbishop of Baltimore, said in a letter late last month that sponsoring the bill would “deeply conflict” with O’Malley’s Catholic faith and that he should resist pressure to do so after New York’s recent legalization of same-sex marriage.
... O’Brien’s letter also signals that the Catholic Church is gearing up for another fight on the issue in a state where the governor and both presiding officers of the legislature are Catholics.
O’Malley, who often attends weekday Masses and has sent his four children to Catholic schools, until recently advocated civil unions as an alternative to same-sex marriages. --Washington Post
August 9, 2011 – 12:19 pm
Along the way, they agree with many points raised by those suing to overturn the law:
By the standards of good government [...] the case [against NY's SSM law] is a dead-on indictment of Albany dysfunction. Lawmakers negotiated crucial changes in last-minute secrecy, disclosing the exact wording only moments before passage.
The public was also shut out of the only debate that really mattered - among the Senate's majority Republicans - which dragged on for hours behind closed doors.
Final deliberations on the Senate floor, meanwhile, were shamefully cut off after a few minutes.
Cuomo abetted the sped-up process by granting an emergency waiver that let pols pass the bill without the usual three-day waiting period.
Meanwhile, deep-pocketed supporters of gay marriage poured cash into the campaign accounts of friendly lawmakers.
The four GOP senators who decisively voted yes, for example, reaped $10,000 each from Mayor Bloomberg.
Unseemly? Yes. Unusual or against the law? Not in Albany, 2011. --New York Daily News
August 9, 2011 – 11:11 am
A Texas columnist proposes an odd combination, which is plausible because Rick Perry endorsed Rudy Guiliani in 2008:
Bloggers and other chatterers are already writing and talking about a Perry-Giuliani ticket, one of those balanced-ballot concoctions that asks the political diners if they’d like some octopus on the plate to offset the sweetness of the strawberries. Sometimes a strange pairing works — try praline bacon at Elizabeth’s next time you’re in New Orleans — while sometimes it merely alarms the diners.
Everybody in the presidential race is trying to pick off voters, and every contestant has some appeal. Michele Bachmann is after the Tea Party folk and social conservatives. Ron Paul wrote the handbook for small-government conservatives. Rick Santorum is after the social conservatives. Each can be expected to shoot at Mr. Perry or anyone who comes poaching for votes. Their ammunition will be anything that attaches to the opposition that is offensive to those voters.
It’s a two-step. First, attach Mr. Perry to Mr. Giuliani. Second, use Mr. Giuliani’s positions to raise doubts about Mr. Perry’s.
They can couple it with Mr. Perry’s own goofs, starting with his states’ rights flip-flop.
But it could work the other way, too. Rick-Rudy bumper stickers, anyone?
