Posts Tagged ‘gay marriage’

I was approving comments today and a fellow named Billy asked what I think is a very fair question:

If “Kagan has to stand or fall on her record,” why has every single one of your posts about her been related to her sexual orientation?

It’s a good point worth answering, particularly since I’ve claimed that it has non bearing on her qualifications for the court.

First Two people I like, Robert Stacy McCain and Cynthia Yockey wrote stories on the issue. I thought that Cynthia’s was particularly good and I found it a good reason to link to them. I must not be alone in that opinion since she has been invited on two radio shows since her PJ media piece.

Second: Frankly the Elena Kagan nomination story is… well boring. Very important mind you, will affect the country for decades but boring nonetheless. You have a liberal president with a 59-41 Senate nominating a supreme court nominee. Barring a revelation that she was working secretly for the Taliban there is a greater chance of this president naming me to replace her in the solicitor general’s office than there is of her being defeated. If the Senate was closer it might be different but with these numbers, until the hearing it is just a giant yawner.

Third: We have been told over and over again that republicans and conservatives are “homophobic” and the democratic party is the one place that is welcoming for gays, yet during the course of the year this administration has stuck their finger in the eyes of Gay groups on more than one occasion. Thus how the administration handles the first “Gay” nominee to the court is significant.

Fourth: The reactions themselves have been telling. The suggestion that she is a lesbian is being treated by Democrats and the administration as a slur. This totally contradicts the image the democrats have of themselves as Gay friendly. It is that phoniness that is the only interesting story at this point, at least until the hearing start, then you never know.

Finally: It gave me a chance to quote Andrew Sullivan. For reasons that will be clear in just under three weeks I wanted an excuse to link to and quote Sullivan. This story provided it.

I hope this is an adequate answer to your question.

So he can ask my questions to Lindsay Beyerstein too.

According to Beyerstein, then, ”blind prejudice” has defined human society since the dawn of history, and continues to do so except in a relative handful of industrialized Western democracies.

Ms. Beyerstein must find her smug self congratulatory superiority over most of the humans who ever lived very comfortable. Lets listen to some.

You can use religious language to express your belief that gays and lesbians are disgusting second class citizens unworthy of rights that heterosexuals take for granted, but it doesn’t make your position any less bigoted. Logically, there is no reason to put same-sex relationships on a lesser legal footing than opposite sex unions, unless you think there’s something wrong with them.

I think we should pray for her.

Given that 20 years ago the whole idea of “Gay Marriage” was considered nonsense was practically everyone in the country a bigot at that time?

When the subject of civil unions came up and we were assured by those pushing for them that it would not lead to Gay Marriage where those people making said assurances bigots? If not why?

When the Massachusetts supreme court mandated gay marriage by a 4-3 vote did that suddenly make the braking point where people who disagreed with the decision were now formally bigots?

If a person is age 60 or above at what age in life did they have to publicly support gay marriage to prove they are not a bigot? How about age 40?

Since gay marriage was considered a bad joke 20+ years ago can we assume that all members of congress and pols of the 20th century were bigots?

The question that the main stream media needs to ask is this? Is there any reason why you give any credence to this fool?

Update: Robert Stacy makes a similar point.

…unless those views make the wrong people uncomfortable.

It this was a secular organization that would be bad enough but that it is Notre Dame it boggles the mind. The quote from American Papist seems apt:

“Truly the late great Professor Ralph McInerny was correct in his styling of Notre Dame’s ‘truly vulgar lust’ to be accepted by the secular academy and the secular world.”

Read the e-mail exchange and the column that it was over. If it column sounds familiar if you read this blog it should be, and his logical conclusion is the same secular argument that I’ve been making for years on the subject:

Personally on a religious level I can’t support gay marriage but this is not a valid argument for a non-religious person. On a non-religious level it seems to me you can not rationally say that gay marriage is ok and should be legal without also allowing either polygamy and incest between consenting adults. Both have a longer and more accepted cultural history worldwide.

And PLEASE don’t give me the “ick” factor argument about these other things being accepted. Ick is just an argument about culture. It is the same argument that one would have heard concerning gay marriage less that 20 years ago. It is particularly galling when gay people are subject to state sponsored murder in places like Iran and ick is invoked beside Islam.

It is a pet peeve of mine when Catholic institutions try to apologize for being Catholic or run away from Catholic teaching or raise money touting their Catholicism while downplaying it in person. It disgusts me. If you want to be Protestant, be Protestant, if you want to be secular be secular, but don’t pretend to be Catholic when you are not.

Let’s finish with two quotes: The First from Professor’s Rice’s letter of response:

In a university that claims to be Catholic, I am not willing to restrict my presentation of Catholic teaching to a format that treats the authoritative teaching of the Church as merely one viewpoint or “side” among many. If you require that future columns of mine on homosexuality comply with a format such as you propose, it will be inappropriate for me to continue writing the column for the Observer.

The first quote implies that he knows the second.

Whoever is ashamed of me and of my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of when he comes in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels. Luke 9:26

My youngest son is going to be of college age in two years. If you are the president of a Catholic College that is ACTUALLY Catholic I’d love to hear from you. Consider that an open invitation.

Update: The Curt Jester is unhappy too.

Update 2: “In the Land of Believers” is being touched on today at Morning Joe. It is a good parallel.