Kevin Williamson hits it out the park again. I’m going to have to memorize this one for locavore preening conversions.
I am actually pro Gay Marriage. I am all for more commitment vs less. More steady relationships vs fewer. I am for easier rules for businesses to live with….(how come that same sex couple get to have health insurance, by my long term live in boyfriend/girlfriend does not?), etc, etc.
But it keeps coming back to the issue of redefining what marriage is. I’ve always thought it was a commitment between 2 people backed up by the government for the purposes of keeping it together and splitting it fairly if need be. All for the sake of the children.
So, once again, since old people can marry and gay people can have children, why structure it to a man and a woman?
CC Pecknold of the National Review argues against this redefinition and convinces me further that I’m right.
One crucial argument, however, has been curiously absent. It takes a step back from the question of sexuality and the right to certain benefits under law. One reason why marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution is that the Founders recognized that the institution of marriage was a common good of the society and prior to politics. Put differently: Constitutional silence on marriage indicates a commitment to limited government that has so far eluded our debates about marriage in this country.
Augustine was probably the first great theorist of “society” as something that is “pre-political” and that finds its most basic unit in the family. But as Thomas Aquinas notes, Aristotle also recognized this. The Philosopher says in the Nichomachean Ethics that man is more inclined to conjugal union than political union. Human beings are “social animals” before they are “political animals.” This provides the West with an anthropology for understanding that future citizens come into the world through the union of a man and a woman and that therefore the state has a stake in recognizing and protecting the institution of marriage. The family belongs to our social nature, and it is how a civil society continues to flourish and self-govern. The political union is subsequent to this prior reality. A properly ordered state will recognize and protect conjugal marriage precisely to the extent that it believes in pre-political limits to the exercise of its power.
Assuming all is true, then it’s also true for same sex couples. They too are before politics. They too are creating a family. They too have a stake in their family. They too are social animals. Sure people come into the world with sperm/egg but adoption is common as is surrogacy. The family is powerful and it deserves the protection of govt.
After more than three hours of testimony, the city council voted unanimously to pass a resolution giving the city’s urban renewal authority the power to use eminent domain at a 42-acre site slated for a $175 million dining and entertainment complex on the banks of Cherry Creek, but not before requiring the city to negotiate and engage in mediation with private property owners.
“Tea Party” is an overused term that is often claimed by those who have no freaking clue what it means.
Thanks Mike for being yet another abuser of that term and the term “conservative”.
Tanya Cohen must be one of those “jaywalkers” caught by Jay Leno because she’s an idiot.
For many decades, human rights groups around the world – from Amnesty International to Human Rights First to the United Nations Human Rights Council – have told the United States that it needs to pass and enforce strong legal protections against hate speech in accordance with its international human rights obligations. As of 2015, the US is the only country in the world where hate speech remains completely legal. This is, in fact, a flagrant violation of international human rights law. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) both mandate that all countries outlaw hate speech, including “propaganda for war” and the dissemination of any “ideas based on racial superiority or hatred”. The ICCPR and ICERD are both legally-binding international human rights conventions, and all nations are required to uphold them in the fullest. By failing to prosecute hate speech, the US is explicitly and flippantly violating international human rights law. No other country would be allowed to get away with this, so why would the US? The United Nations has stated many times that international law has absolute authority. This is quite simply not optional. The US is required to outlaw hate speech. No other country would be able to get away with blatantly ignoring international human rights standards, so why should the US be able to? The US is every bit as required to follow international human rights law as the rest of the world is.
I have always been a major champion of the unalienable right to freedom of speech.
Just a couple of tasty morsels below, but yes, I am madly in love with Ace of Spades.
Bill Quick is fightin’ angry about thoughts that I don’t have.
He quotes me:
The New Intolerance: We Are Now Required To Embrace Just About Everything, Except the Gutter Religion Christianity
Incidentally– Are there any beliefs on the left which have not been sacralized?
That is, do they have any beliefs which are open to question without inviting their typical full-spectrum punishment regime, from group coordinated stigmatization to pursuit in the courts?
Then he asks, rhetorically, because people with few answers like to believe they know all the answers:
So, Ace: You okay with Muslim owned businesses refusing to serve women not “properly” covered — ie., bagged in a burkha, because Religious Liberty?
The business aspect
This is an easy one. What the fuck do I care? A shop owner has the right to set a dress code. Especially if this were a store geared towards Islamic identity — an Islamic bookstore, say, or a restaurant — this one isn’t even a question.
But even absent that– what should I care what the dress code is here, or whom he wants his clientele to be? He doesn’t want to serve me, and get this — I don’t wish to be served by him.
How about the Muslim cab driver refusing to transport passenger with dogs or alcohol, because Religious Liberty?
This is trickier because in the case of the store, I have to seek that out. I have to go to the nuisance, as it were. In the case of a cab, I could call for a cab, wait 25 minutes for it, and then, only upon his arrival, be told “Well I’m not going to take you because of these crazy restrictions I never warned you about when you hailed me.”
In other words: In the case of the cab, the nuisance comes to me, and that’s more of a problem.
Leftwingers do this all the time — they employ the rhetorical gambit, “How silly it is for you to ever care about this trivium!”
So you say: Well, Old Man, if it’s trivial, surely you wouldn’t mind conceding the trivial point to me, eh?
At which point they say: “Are you mad? This is an important matter of principle!!!”
Just like this dummy did right here. Right after he chided me about this not being so important, he informed me that it was terribly important to about a dozen gay couples.
Well, it’s probably also important to a dozen Christians in the baking business.
Michael Tanner put in writing what I’ve been thinking.My friends are po’d at Boehner and McConnell. Cussing this, kicking that, but here’s the deal someone needs to look at the long game. Republicans will always lose these short games of chicken. Always. The press is not on their side and those are the people with the narrative.
Washington is sooooooooo complex it gives the press full leeway to explain things as simply as possible.
“OMG – DHS is going to be unfunded because Republicans don’t want to fund Obama’s latest immigration plan!!!!”
But two things….
1) from Michael Tanner – we should be defunding DHS and getting rid of the whole thing. How best to do that? I don’t have a clue, but theoretically those in charge could if they considered it.
2) How on earth can there be in this budget a big piece to be unfunded to NOT deport illegals immigrants? That doesn’t make even a little sense, yet that’s how it’s presented. I suspect if the presentation was more about creating a new bureaucracy to fund new green cards and pass out refunds and past due relief checks the argument has a chance.
If you can’t do that, you cannot win, so let it go.
Instead, start trying to change the narrative. Not about cutting taxes for the rich but reducing the size of government.
I don’t mean the climate.
I do mean the world.
The US has stepped out of the leadership position. Others no longer await our word before acting. And now, after a direct refusal to help against the murderers of 21 Christians for being Christians the rest of the world will begin to create their own methods to find out the information they need to do this acting.
(recap, Egypt requested help in targeting ISIS. The US refused.)
We are out of the picture. We have at the very least 2 more years in this spot. 2 years where Egypt, Israel, Yemen, Libya, Nigeria, etc, etc, etc all will need to increase their military sizes and their information gathering abilities. At the end of that time we will live in a world of mutually assured destruction once again.
I believe in the future of mankind, but these moments are telling and right now it’s telling all other countries that the US is no longer a leader of the free world and that if they intend to protect themselves they will need to do so for themselves. We are not to be counted on.
Kudos to Jordan. May they continue toward the path of freedom.
Kudos to Egypt. I would not have thought that protecting/avenging her Christians was a step she would take. Yet they did.
Kudos to the Kurds who won back Kobani (with air support).
And frankly lets give credit where credit is due. Iraqi militias need help from somewhere and if Iran will give it, then kudos to them for taking a step in the direction that may lead to the defeat of ISIS who needs to be ended once and for all.
Obama believes that climate change is the biggest threat to the world. He doesn’t treat ISIS as a threat and in some ways he’s correct. We CAN wipe them off the map. But we won’t. And so the threat remains. Directly to Longmont? Probably not. But to the entire wobble of the planet. Everything is changing now and we need to get used to it.
From Jonah Goldberg of the National Review….I would say “read the whole thing” because his writing is enjoyable, but what Obama said yesterday was so stupid and insulting I see no reason to bother getting worked up by reading further about why it was so stupid and insulting. But, again – read it because he’s a great writer and deserves all the support he can get.
We are all descended from cavemen who broke the skulls of their enemies with rocks for fun or profit. But that hardly mitigates the crimes of a man who does the same thing today. I see no problem judging the behavior of the Islamic State and its apologists from the vantage point of the West’s high horse, because we’ve earned the right to sit in that saddle.