Big Lizards:Blog:Entry “Bostonizing America”

« A Specter Is Haunting America | Main | Descent Into Dissent on Operation Rushbo »

March 3, 2009

Bostonizing America

Hatched by Dafydd

A number of Massachusetts same-sex couples, not content with their judicially decreed right to marry in that state, are now suing the federal government to force them to offer the same benefits to same-sex couples -- income-tax filing status, Social Security, federal pensions, and suchlike -- that they offer to opposite-sex married couples. Surprise, surprise on the Jungle Cruise tonight.

The Associated press story quotes numerous advocates of exactly such a change, including President Barack H. Obama:

President Barack Obama has pledged to work to repeal [the Defense of Marriage Act] and reverse the Department of Defense policy that prevents openly gay people from serving in the military. [DOMA says that states and the federal government cannot be forced to recognize same-sex marriages (SSMs) from other states, despite the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution.]

Only one opponent is quoted... at the very end of the article. AP quotes Mathew Staver, whom I've never heard of, from the Liberty Counsel, which I've also never heard of, making a weak counter that amounts to nothing more than a statement of purpose:

"Massachusetts has made benefits available on a state level, but Massachusetts can't force the federal government's hand or the other states to accept same-sex marriage," said Mathew Staver, founder of the Liberty Counsel, a nonprofit that says it's dedicated to advancing religious freedom and the traditional family.

Wikipedia tells me that Liberty Counsel is a husband and wife pair of attorneys, possibly with others, who defend or prosecute cases involving religious liberty; they have some sort of affiliation with Jerry Fallwell's Liberty University and clearly base their opposition to SSM on religion -- which is a very unconvincing argument, since everyone knows we have religious liberty in this country. (There are much better secular arguments against SSM; see many previous posts here on Big Lizards.)

Lost in the non-debate is any nuance. For example, I strongly support the second policy change attributed to Obama above -- allowing gays to serve openly in the military and in combat; but I adamantly oppose SSM. Yet according to the elite media, I don't exist.

There are two classes of people, as seen from Liberalville:

Positive people who support omnibus legislation to remove each and every policy, public or private, that treats same-sex couples differently than opposite-sex married couples or gay men and women differently than heterosexual men and women... from marriage to adoption to renting a room to military service to being a Scoutmaster in the Boy Scouts of America;

Negative people who hate anybody who is different, want to see all gays killed, think gays are all going to Hell, are violent bigots, are probably racists and sexists as well as being homophobes (a given), and are vile, disgusting people who should be locked away for the good of America.

No room for Mr. In-Between!

This is the worst form of mass judgmentalism -- which is supposed to be the greatest crime anyone can commit, if you believe liberals believe their own rhetoric. (Personally, I think it more likely they believe in the power of their rhetoric, rather than in its accuracy or honesty. Liberals know the impact of pointing at some poor schnook and crying "Witch!")

The Left does not even recognize individuals, only interest groups; and justice to a liberal or a socialist means a firm understanding of which groups have the power and which can be trodden on.

Gay activists and SSM advocates are tiny in numbers; but as a group, they have tremendous power, because they tap into the authority of the judiciary, where there are many liberal judges willing to prostitute their oaths in order to bring about what Thomas Sowell calls "the Vision of the Anointed."

Such powerful groups must be placated. By contrast, conservatives have emasculated themselves in the last eight years by falling upon and devouring each other -- as we just saw the new Chairman of the Republican National Committee, Michael Steele, do by taking the bait and attacking Rush Limbaugh. Fortunately, when Steele realized he had painted himself into a hole, he stopped digging; but it was a stupid, unforced error... which fits right into the conservative and Republican playbook, alas.

Our greatest problem today is that we seem congenitally unable to get our message out and across the nation, whether it's opposition to statism and socialism, support for traditional virtues, or the urgency of national security and the deadly peril posed by the Iran/al-Qaeda axis.

There is obviously room for some disagreement: I support abortion in the early phases of pregnancy; Patterico supports SSM; and both of us (I believe) support allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military. If the GOP were restricted only to those people who Limbaugh would call conservatives, it would soon go the way of the Constipation Party, the Rewarmed Party, and the Libertine Party.

But we must insist upon vocal support for at least the solid center of the principles of Republicanism:

The importance of marriage (whether or not one includes SSM under that definition);

Support for a culture of life (at least where nearly everyone agrees on personhood);

Defending the nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic (including defending it from arrogant and elitist journalists, who believe in "outing" any classified program they dislike);

The essential Americanness of individual, mind-your-own-business, personal liberty (as much as possible; but my right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins);

Capitalism (with some obvious safeguards built in so the whole shebang doesn't collapse);

Due process and the rule of law (with the conscience of the people being the ultimate safeguard).

Most liberals and Democrats oppose all of these principles in principle, though there are of course exceptions: They scoff at marriage and take every opportunity to undermine it; they support what can only be described as a culture of death (which may be why they find Islamist terrorists so congenial); they oppose individualism in general and individual liberty in particular -- except the "liberty" to be a libertine; they support naked socialism (as we see in the economic policies of President Obama and the Pelosi/Reid axis); and they believe in brazenly abusing due process to achieve their political goals.

Including suing the federal government to force it to de facto recognize SSM -- knowing full well that the Obama Department of Justice is very likely to throw in the towel, since it supports the underlying policy, SSM, anyway, and to hell with any precedent that might set. That's justice and due process... liberal style.

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, March 3, 2009, at the time of 10:14 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/3513

Comments

The following hissed in response by: Karl

That move was almost inevitable. Once you define a right to same-sex marriage, the obvious next step is to erase any differences in treatment anywhere in the country.

Dennis Prager testified before the Senate in favor of a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman. Many Senators who oppose SSM didn't see the need for such an amendment. What they didn't realize, and couldn't be made to see, was that as soon as SSM is legalized (or judicially mandated) in any one part of the country, the rest of the country will inevitably be forced to recognize SSM, despite the wishes of the legislatures or people of the other states.

Massachusetts has legalized SSM. Now, same-sex couples are suing for idental treatment as opposite-sex couples on a federal level. The next step is to erase any differences at the state level outside of Massachusetts. Once state laws quit distinguishing between same-sex and opposite-sex couples from Massachusetts, one can argument can be made that we shouldn't insist on seeing that same difference between couples from any other state, either.

And before too long, it will be so -- legislatively or judicially.

The above hissed in response by: Karl at March 4, 2009 8:57 AM

The following hissed in response by: Bart Johnson

People who have never been in the military have different ideas of what is the right way to run
things and what are the wrong ways.
When you have shared your living quarters with 70 of your best friends, with whom you have shared
toilets, showers, and dining arrangements, then let us rejoin the conversation.
Would you similarly suggest co-ed sleeping quarters on one building-sized open room?

Further, mixed-sex arrangements are dangerous when the men are distracted from their jobs,
and feel they need to protect the women. That is why women are not supposed to be in combat
assignments.
Yes, the Israelis make it work. That in no way makes it a good thing for us.

Now, let's discuss the ssm question.
I can't afford it on any level. Why is it so important to the [pejorative deleted]? The treatment of a single
case of AIDS costs about $100,000, or so I think I've read. AIDS occurs much more often in [same pejorative deleted] than in the regular population. How many cases would it take to jack up the costs of health
insurance for us all? Not many, and I predict that the "pre-existing condition" exclusion would be outlawed for this special group.
Never mind being allowed spousal arrangements for people in the hospital. It is much more
important to gain access to survivor pension rights, to keep the SS money company.
I know who is going to get stuck for the bill, and it's not the lesbigay crowd.
GET OUT OF MY POCKET!

[Please avoid obvious epithets. Thanks. -- the Mgt.]

The above hissed in response by: Bart Johnson at March 4, 2009 6:03 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Bart Johnson:

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point, but it seems as if you're saying women shouldn't be allowed in combat, regardless of how good they may be -- even if the best women are better than the worst men already assigned to combat positions -- because during an attack, some men might run over to protect Bertha rather than do their jobs.

Doesn't this mean it's those men who are the problem? If such a thing happens, wouldn't disciplining the men be more appropriate than denying women -- who didn't shirk their duties -- their God-given right to defend their country... and denying our country women like Sgt. Hester to defend it?

It doesn't seem to me that it would be that difficult to segregate women from men under most circumstances. And if soldiers or Marines are just catching a few Zs before a likely engagement, where sleeping arrangements are less formal, then I doubt they'd be that interested in hooking up. They'd rather sleep.

(Does your position also apply to female officer pilots and flight officers serving aboard a carrier, where even the male pilots and FOs sleep 3, not 70, to a cabin -- and in which there are already cabins reserved for other female ship-force?)

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh at March 5, 2009 3:03 AM

The following hissed in response by: Bart Johnson

Dafydd,
I don't know whether you are just looking for a discussion or enjoy debate no matter the subject.
I do infer from your comments that you have never been there and done that. You will get a different viewpoint if you find someone who had and spend an evening in discussion of how things really work.
Running to conditions at the limits,
"even if the best women are better than the worst men..." is a good approach to mathematics, but
sucks when dealing with people. I assume it was
a rhetorical question.

Conditions in the military and especially combat situations really are too different from anything you have experienced to discuss rationally. One of us might as well be from another planet. I can only say that logic does not work there.
Rush Limbaugh's "Amazon Brigade" approach might work, but it would be very difficult to control.

Bart

The above hissed in response by: Bart Johnson at March 5, 2009 3:34 PM

The following hissed in response by: RFYoung

Hey,

I don't know why you are being so exclusive. I am a conservative and I believe in abortion on demand, same sex or any kind of marriage, open boarders, and reducing the military to a domestic disaster relief program.

In short I think there is no criterion at all that justifies drawing any line. Principles are just a narrow social construct of the ignorant past.

The above hissed in response by: RFYoung at March 9, 2009 8:02 AM

The following hissed in response by: RFYoung

Hey,

In short I think there is no criterion at all that justifies drawing any line. Principles are just a narrow social construct of the ignorant past.

The above hissed in response by: RFYoung at March 9, 2009 8:03 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

RFYoung:

Your comment appears to be irony in search of a point; will you explicate?

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh at March 9, 2009 2:49 PM

The following hissed in response by: RFYoung

I guess it was this paragaph that triggered my sarcasim.

It was then followed by a call to support the solid center of conservativism.

I would suggest that it has been the most successful tactic of the left to reduce conservativism by picking away at the edgeds or less than core beliefs by turning our owm willingness to acommodate and be fair to the "lesss than fully conservative".

It is my observation that they do not extend this flexibility of thought and position to either those on the right or to persons in their own group. Note the treatment of Pa. govenor Casey.

It is my opinion that a major reason for the advancement of the left is that they are willing to take a doctrinaire stance and to demand the group confirm.

The above hissed in response by: RFYoung at March 10, 2009 7:01 AM