The British prime minister has “come out” with a commitment to gay marriage, arguing that it is not despite being a conservative, but because he’s a conservative, that he favors it. He is not the only one to have voiced this idea, but of course he is by far the most influential since ideas in the heads of politicians are quickly transmuted into law. What David Cameron means (but cannot quite say) is that the blatant promiscuity of homosexual relations might be brought under control if homosexuals are encouraged to make vows of lifelong fidelity. To which I think the response should be: fat chance. Of course there are life-long homosexual partnerships, and these were often socially acceptable even before they were entirely legal. Just think of Benjamin Britten and Peter Pears, or Samuel Barber and Gian Carlo Menotti. But any attempt to reconfigure the institution of marriage ought surely to be founded on statistics rather than individual instances, and ought to consider what that institution means and has meant in the history of our communities. To base a radical change merely on wishful thinking is, in these circumstances, an evasion of responsibility. But here is the difficulty. Although the facts about homosexuality are well enough known, you cannot safely allude to them. You cannot discuss the radical difference between male and female homosexuality—the first tending toward promiscuity and sensual pleasure, the second toward emotional dependence and home building—without attracting irate accusations of “homophobia.” You cannot point to the effect on the emotional development of children, of a culture in which homosexuality is treated as a legitimate way of life, nor can you allude to the correlation between male homosexuality and pedophilia. Some writers have gone public on these issues—Jeffrey Satinover, for example, in Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth (1996)—and paid a predictable price for it. Others have simply turned a blind eye and hoped that it will all go away or decided that in any case, in our promiscuous world, it hardly matters who does what with whom. But it does matter, and it matters most of all not to you and me, who are grown up enough to deal with it, but to our children. This is where the real issue has been fudged in the European debates and is being increasingly fudged in America. Marriage is not about endorsing a sexual attachment between adults. It is about creating the conditions in which children can come into the world fully protected and with a fair chance of being loved. Marriage does not exist for the benefit of the present generation but for the benefit of the next. It is a rite of passage in which two people set out on a path whose meaning lies not in their present emotions but in their future family. As in all rites of passage, the meaning of marriage is not individual but social, and any attempt to rewrite marriage as a deal between the living is a negation of its real meaning, as a bond between the living and the unborn—a bond in which the dead too have an interest. If David Cameron really were as conservative as he claims, that would be the language he would use in giving voice to his views about marriage—the language of Edmund Burke. As for the relations between the living, it is not as if these are in any way hampered by the existing legal order. In most European countries there are already ways in which homosexual men and women can ratify their relations in the form of “civil partnerships,” which confer the legal benefits and burdens of marriage without implying the radical change of status that marriage has traditionally signified. The activists are not content with this arrangement, not because it does not provide the security that true love requires, but because it still implies that there is a difference between heterosexual and homosexual relations. So offended are they by this implication that they are prepared to level the charge of homophobia against anyone who gives voice to it. In the current climate of opinion in Europe, no politician, no journalist, and no churchman can risk inviting this charge. Like other “thought crimes,” homophobia lacks a definition and has no identity in law; you don’t know how to avoid committing this crime, since all lines of inquiry might suddenly turn a corner and land you in the midst of it. The only safe option is to keep your mouth shut, or else to join the crowd and shout “homophobia” in your turn at whichever victim has been currently singled out for persecution. We are already seeing this among the Church of England bishops, many of whom seem more anxious to avoid the charge of homophobia than to speak out on behalf of the biblical idea of marriage. I cannot help thinking that the decision of the Archbishop of Canterbury to step down is not unconnected to the inevitable martyrdom that his office would impose on him, were he to defend the Christian conception of sexual love. On the other hand, archbishops are made for martyrdom and ought not to avoid it. In a way, of course, the Christian view of marriage cannot really be changed by reforms of the secular law. When, in the wake of the French Revolution, the state began to take over the business of authenticating marriages, it did not affect the Christian view that marriages are made by the Church. Catholics still regard marriage as a sacrament—in other words, as a relation sealed in the presence of God, which cannot be undone merely by an agreement between the partners. The Anglican Church has never decided whether marriage is a sacrament or not; nevertheless it does not regard marriage as a secular institution, or a “church wedding” as merely a ceremonial addition to a deal whose terms are entirely exhausted by a legal contract. There is hardly a religion in the world today that does not regard marriage as an existential, rather than a contractual, move—a step out of this world of self-interested agreements, into the transcendental realm where commitments are eternal and consequences unforeseen. The reason for this is plain. Rites of passage are inherently religious occasions. They are the “points of intersection of the timeless with time,” the places in human life where the eternal meaning of what we are and do is made clear to us. Birth, coming of age, marriage, and death are metaphysical transitions, which concern not the individuals involved in them only, but the whole community of which they are a part. We all have an interest in them, and our desire to mark them with rituals and blessings is a deep sign of our commitment to each other and of our desire that the world should continue along its ancient and authorized path. That is why, for ordinary people, the introduction of gay marriage is not simply a matter of terminology but a decision that affects their whole outlook on the social world. It signifies the downgrading of marriage from status to contract. Marriage, conceived in this new way, loses its character as a social institution, through which the commitment to future generations is endorsed and made real, and becomes just another temporary negotiation. We can hardly deny that things have been moving in this direction for some time, and that easy divorce has made secular marriage into little more than a contract in any case. Why then make such a fuss about gay marriage, which simply completes a process that has been under way since at least the middle of the 20th century? I suspect that this is the argument that will eventually prevail, and it will naturally have the effect of finally excluding children from the equation. Moreover, once that argument has prevailed it will be difficult to prevent the extension of marital rights to “polyamorous” partnerships, or to incestuous relations. It is already somewhat surprising that bigamy and incest are regarded in most Western countries as serious crimes. Maybe we have to prepare ourselves for an entirely new social order, which may be neither social nor a true order, in which any kind of sexual relationship can be transformed into a marriage, simply by signing on the dotted line. My suspicion is, however, that this change, which will be announced as a great step forward for human freedom, will in fact be experienced as a loss of true commitments, and a disinheriting of children.
The rest is here:
Made in Heaven
On rare occasion, my wife and I get some kid-free time, long enough to take a short trip somewhere. So it was for the past several days with her parents, in from Australia, watching the kids at our home while we drove down to Santa Fe and a nice, relaxing few days at a hot springs “resort” in northern New Mexico. It’s an interesting part of the country, sparsely populated, with intricate reddish cliffs crossed by canyons small and enormous, and occasional rivers and streams traversing an otherwise very dry landscape dotted with shrubs and cacti. It is peaceful, and although I can’t claim to be a big fan of Georgia O’Keeffe’s art, I understand her attraction to this area; her home and studio of nearly forty years are about half an hour away. It’s great to have even a few days to relax. One doesn’t realize how tense one’s life is until the tension is given a chance to dissipate, even if briefly, and even if I avoid making the most of it by checking on the stock market during the day. This morning, we took a hike through some hills to some old mica mines. Quite fantastic seeing gigantic intrusions of the often paper-like mineral, jutting out from dark, white, and rose quartz, gleaming in the sun. I’m bringing some pieces home for my daughter who is the most amateur of mineralogists, thinking most pretty rocks are some form of diamond. I don’t have the heart to correct her, especially as she collects diamonds to feed her collection of unicorns. Many of you have seen the beer commercial featuring “The Most Interesting Man in the World.” I’m having dinner tonight with a man who is the most interesting I’ve ever met. I’m very glad that Eddie — who will turn 90 this year — is my friend, and if you ever have the chance to read his story , you will agree that it is remarkable that such a life has existed in modern America. Last night, my wife and I had dinner in Taos, about 45 minutes north of Santa Fe. If you’re ever there, I can offer a wholehearted recommendation for a little restaurant called the Dragonfly Cafe . The interior is like a cozy dining room in a small, old European house. Karen, the chef and owner, takes great pride in her cooking, not just the quality (which includes home-grown herbs, her own chickens’ eggs, even home-cured pancetta), but also the creativity. These meals are labors of love (and reasonably priced for the high quality.) Our waiter, Joel, was quite a character, showing us some of his work doing hand-set letterpress type to making greeting cards, business cards, etc., under the business name ” Cowboy Printer .” Even if he couldn’t quite remember whether a particular dessert had blueberries in it or not — which he more than made up for by offering us some fresh berries and cream on the house, which we somehow also managed to eat — Joel is a colorful, ultra-friendly guy and made the evening that much more memorable, not least due to his Salvador Dali-style mustache. Next paragraph for foodies only… Our dinner started with a salad of lettuce leaves topped with lentils, crostini, a poached egg, grated Parmesan, and truffle oil. Next was a big bowl of mussels in a light Indian curry sauce reminiscent of tikka masala. We ordered two extra baskets of bread and soaked up and ate almost all the sauce, before moving on to a “Moroccan lamb” plate, sort of like a fancy deconstructed gyro, with local lamb, home-made tzatziki, hummous, diced tomato and onion, and pita bread. While all that was great, the desserts really take the cake at Dragonfly Cafe. My wife’s was a tart, but more of a scone/shortbread consistency, made with orange marmalade and cheddar cheese. I think it’s technically called a “crostata” and it was fantastic, served warm with fresh whipped cream. And my desert was a dulce de leche creation: gooey caramel inside a hard chocolate shell, served with creme anglaise. I may have literally licked the place clean (or maybe just thought about it.) Really, the trip to Taos might be worth it just for this restaurant; the food is fantastic, and the ambience is the food’s equal. Monday night, as my wife and I were eating dinner at the bar in the hotel (does it seem like our lives revolve around dinners?), the couple who were sitting next to us stood up to leave. The guy, perhaps in his early 40s, said to me “you look so familiar…where could I know you from?” After figuring out that we probably wouldn’t have met in any place I lived, my wife mentioned that this was my second time in New Mexico, with the first being our wedding, near Santa Fe almost 8 years ago. The gears clicked in the man’s brain: “I photographed your wedding!” he said, and he proceeded to tell us that although he photographs about one wedding a month, our wedding still stands out in his mind as one of the best he’s ever been involved with. I didn’t disagree — our wedding was small and beautiful and designed to bring people together, not overwhelm them with glamor. It’s still one of the best days of my life, second only to when my children were born…and barely second to those. Speaking of children, I’d like to share a moment with you that only a four year-old child could create. My wife and I were talking with my son on the phone last night before he went to bed. He was telling us about the new toy cars his preschool got, including two convertibles and a race car and a truck. I said to him “Mom doesn’t like convertibles because she thinks they’ll mess up her hair.” My son, without missing a beat — and without trying to be funny — said “Tell mom don’t worry: convertibles don’t drive on her hair; they drive on the road.” Is that not one of the best pieces of toddler logic of all time? I’m off to enjoy my last day of vacation, wishing I could completely put aside markets, writing, business, and the various worries of daily life. But even though I may not be relaxing as completely as my wife is, and even though life remains somewhat stressful, days like the past few remind me of how fortunate I am with the life and family that I have.
Go here to read the rest:
Thoughts From New Mexico
“Every person in Indiana who wants me to continue, every person wherever they might be at this point, I encourage them to come out,” the six-term senator exhorted. “Come out immediately, as fast as you can.” So the Indianapolis Star quotes Richard Lugar, first elected to the Senate in 1976, as saying the weekend before his state’s Republican primary. Are those the words of a confident candidate? The Star reports : As a bell rang each time a volunteer won a commitment from a voter, Lugar pleaded with groups that he has helped over the years to now help him salvage his political career…. He appealed to veterans, Jewish voters who cared about his work to help Russian Jews, women who might have benefited from his program to build political networks and minority students who were helped by his scholarship program. Most of all Lugar is hoping for an inflow of Democratic and independent voters to rescue him from the Republican base. “I’m not asking anybody to cross over,” Lugar said. “I’m just saying positively, ‘Register your vote, because if you do not, I may not be able to continue serving you.’ At this point, help.” How the mighty have fallen. Six years ago, Lugar was returned to the Senate with 80 percent of the vote. The Democrats didn’t even bother to run a candidate against him. Now the Democrats are looking past him entirely. In a Jefferson-Jackson dinner speech to 1,200 party activists Friday night, Rep. Joe Donnelly, the presumptive Democratic nominee for Senate, didn’t even mention Lugar’s name. He trained all his fire on the longtime senator’s primary challenger, state Treasurer Richard Mourdock. “Richard Mourdock has said he is opposed to bipartisanship. I am the fifth of five kids. As the fifth of five kids, if you are not bipartisan, you do not eat at night,” Politico quoted Donnelly as saying. This country works best when we work together as a family.” Peggy Noonan also stressed family ties when making the case for sending Lugar back to the Senate: “What Washington needs is sober and responsible adults.” Noonan didn’t disclose who the children were in this relationship. But it is the sober and responsible adults who have accumulated a national debt larger than the country’s economy. There are two ways to demonstrate one’s sobriety and responsibility in Washington: to be as supportive of druken sailor-style fiscal irresponsibility as possible or to be as timid as possible in opposition to it. Noonan’s brief misses a larger point: The very reason Lugar is in trouble is that many Hoosiers see him as a creature of Washington, not Indiana — to the point where his residency has actually been challenged. Perhaps the handwriting was on the wall when Dan Coats, a former senator turned lobbyist, was barely returned to the Senate when two Tea Party candidates split the conservative vote in the Republican primary. This time, there is no split. Mourdock has Lugar’s right flank to himself. Lugar has recently been aggressive in defending his own conservative credentials and casting doubt on Mourdock’s. The Democrats are already keying in on Mourdock’s resistance to the unfunded Obama stimulus package. Lugar has specifically hit Mourdock on the flag-burning amendment and a comment in which the state treasurer seemed to open to consolidating military service branches. A late April Lugar statement asks: “Which military branch do you think is no longer necessary in the 21st
Alternate post title: Frivolous Lawsuit of the Day 2 : When she plucked a winning lottery ticket out of the trash, Sharon Jones’ luck changed instantly. The $1 million prize let her pay off debts, give thousands of dollars to her children and buy a gleaming new pickup truck. But now her jackpot is in jeopardy. A judge ruled this week that the money belongs to another woman, who says she threw the ticket away after a lottery machine incorrectly told her it was a loser. The Arkansas Lottery Commission insists there are no problems with its equipment. A discarded lottery ticket is at the center of a million dollar dispute in Arkansas. A woman who found the ticket in the trash received the prize from the state lottery commission, but a judge says the ticket belongs to the woman who bought it. The winner in the lawsuit says she threw away the ticket after an electronic scanner told her she had lost: Sharon Jones claimed the $1 million prize last July, turning in a scratch-off “Diamond Dazzler” ticket that the other woman, Sharon Duncan, said she purchased earlier at the Super 1 Stop convenience store in Beebe, about 35 miles northeast of Little Rock. Duncan told a judge she discarded the ticket after an electronic scanner told her it was “not a winner.” “And then the next thing you know, 10 months later, you’re fighting for something that was trash,” William Jones said. It’s not clear how Duncan proves she bought the ticket, especially in light of this: White County Judge Thomas Hughes concluded that Duncan bought the winning ticket, even though lottery records and store security video didn’t synch up to the precise timing of the purchase. He ruled that Duncan never abandoned her right to claim the winnings. “The $1 million was never found money,” the judge said Tuesday. My favorite part of the story isn’t in the linked article, but I know I saw it the other day and just can’t find the link: the store owner also sued for ownership of the ticket. Hey, why not? If this doesn’t provoke a lively debate then I have no idea what could.
…Mind you, Chris Matthews thinks that he’s complimenting the President by comparing him to William Shakespeare’s Henry V. The context is the President’s not-a-naked-campaign-ploy-at-all visit and speech in Afghanistan yesterday, and it predictably caused Chris Matthews to start up with the sycophancy. Precise quote? “ It was right out of Henry V actually, a touch of Barry, in this case, in the night for those soldiers risking their lives over there ” (H/T: Hot Air Headlines ). :pause: Henry V. Oh, dear. See, this is why literary references should be reserved to the professionals. ‘Professionals’ being defined as ‘people are who not Chris Matthews,’ of course. It is a pity that I interviewed Jonah Goldberg about The Tyranny of Cliches before this story came out; uninformed references to the St. Crispin’s Day Speech collectively make up a cliche all of their own. But that’s not actually germane to the conversation at hand. What is germane is ‘the touch of Barry in the night,’ which is clearly a reference to Act IV, Scene I of Henry V . Since Matthews apparently has never seen the play, let me correct the man’s literary ignorance and reproduce the relevant section : John Bates, “a soldier” He hath not told his thought to the king? King Henry V No, nor it is not meet he should. For though I speak it to you, I think the king is but a man, as I am. The violet smells to him as it doth to me; the element shows to him as it doth to me; all his senses have but human conditions. His ceremonies laid by, in his nakedness he appears but a man, and though his affections are higher mounted than ours, yet when they stoop, they stoop with the like wing. Therefore when he sees reason of fears, as we do, his fears out of doubt be of the same relish as ours are. Yet in reason, no man should possess him with any appearance of fear, lest he by showing it should dishearten his army. Bates He may show what outward courage he will, but I believe, as cold a night as ’tis, he could wish himself in Thames up to the neck. And so I would he were, and I by him, at all adventures, so we were quit here. King Henry By my troth, I will speak my conscience of the king: I think he would not wish himself anywhere but where he is. Bates Then I would he were here alone. So should he be sure to be ransomed, and a many poor men’s lives saved. King Henry I dare say you love him not so ill to wish him here alone, howsoever you speak this to feel other men’s minds. Methinks I could not die anywhere so contented as in the king’s company, his cause being just and his quarrel honorable. Michael Williams, “a soldier” That’s more than we know. Bates Ay, or more than we should seek after. For we know enough if we know we are the king’s subjects. If his cause be wrong, our obedience to the king wipes the crime of it out of us. Williams But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads chopped off in a battle shall join together at the latter day, and cry all, “We died at such a place,” some swearing, some crying for a surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left. I am afeared there are few die well that die in a battle, for how can they charitably dispose of anything when blood is their argument? Now if these men do not die well, it will be a black matter for the king that led them to it, who to disobey were against all proportion of subjection. King Henry So if a son that is by his father sent about merchandise do sinfully miscarry upon the sea, the imputation of his wickedness, by your rule, should be imposed upon his father that sent him. Or if a servant, under his master’s command transporting a sum of money, be assailed by robbers and die in many irreconciled iniquities, you may call the business of the master the author of the servant’s damnation. But this is not so. The king is not bound to answer the particular endings of his soldiers, the father of his son, nor the master of his servant, for they purpose not their death when they purpose their services. Besides, there is no king, be his cause never so spotless, if it come to the arbitrament of swords, can try it out with all unspotted soldiers. Some, peradventure, have on them the guilt of premeditated and contrived murder; some of beguiling virgins with the broken seals of perjury; some, making the wars their bulwark, that have before gored the gentle bosom of peace with pillage and robbery. Now if these men have defeated the law and outrun native punishment, though they can outstrip men, they have no wings to fly from God. War is his beadle; war is his vengeance. So that here men are punished for before-breach of the king’s laws in now the king’s quarrel. Where they feared the death, they have borne life away; and where they would be safe, they perish. Then if they die unprovided, no more is the king guilty of their damnation than he was before guilty of those impieties for the which they are now visited. Every subject’s duty is the king’s, but every subject’s soul is his own. Therefore should every soldier in the wars do as every sick man in his bed, wash every mote out of his conscience. And dying so, death is to him advantage, or not dying, the time was blessedly lost wherein such preparation was gained. And in him that escapes, it were not sin to think that, making God so free an offer, he let him outlive that day to see his greatness and to teach others how they should prepare. Williams ‘Tis certain, every man that dies ill, the ill upon his own head; the king is not to answer it. Bates I do not desire he should answer for me, and yet I determine to fight lustily for him. King Henry I myself heard the king say he would not be ransomed. Williams Ay, he said so to make us fight cheerfully, but when our throats are cut he may be ransomed and we ne’er the wiser. Actually, let me translate all of that out of English and into “something that Chris Matthews can understand*.” Soldier Dude Hey, did your commanding officer tell the king that he thinks that we’re all walking dead men, mysterious stranger? King dressed up as mysterious stranger NO. That’s because he’s a smart guy who knows that the king’s on the ragged edge of hysteria as it is, what with this entire ‘unilateral war of foreign conquest’ thing and ‘we’re hideously outnumbered’ thing and ‘the king was until quite recently off in his own private Idaho drinking and whoring’ thing. Don’t push the king, man: he’s got enough to worry and be brave about. Soldier Dude Brave? HA! He secretly wants to be home, and so do I. F*ck France. King HEY! The king wants to be here. Soldier Dude Fine: he can stay here by himself. The frogs will snap him up: sell him back to us; and then the war’s over and nobody dies. I like this plan. This plan speaks to me. King That’s really cold, man. Me, I’m ready to die for this good cause of His Majesty’s. Other Soldier Dude ‘Good cause?’ Above my pay grade, mysterious stranger. Solder Dude F*cking-A. Me, I subscribe to the “Orders are Orders” philosophy, because I have no idea what “National Socialism” even means . Other Soldier Dude Yup. It’s the king who has the problem there. If it turns out that, say, invading France just to have another nifty title on formal occasions is actually not the spotlessly moral crusade that various propagandists keep telling us, then the king is going to be put through the wringer on Judgement Day. Particularly since he’s going to get stuck with the moral bill for all the soldiers who ended up going to Hell because they didn’t repent in time… King Now HOLD ON RIGHT THERE. I’m going to ignore the bits about whether this war is just or not – largely because, yeah, the king is trying to resolve his daddy issues, pick up a bunch of property that wasn’t actually his in any meaningful sense of the term, and generally act like every other schmuck out there who thought that ‘getting religion’ equals ‘license to get all self-righteous” – but the fact that… we’re… all a bunch of unwashed depraved sinners isn’t his fault. Probably he wouldn’t have brought us along if we were singing hymns all day, but the king isn’t a sin-eater. If your soul’s cruddy, that’s all you . You’re still here to do what the king tells you to do; and if you survive it, good on you. Other Soldier Dude. Point taken. Soldier Dude. Yeah. Look, just because I despise the REMF, that doesn’t mean I’m not going to shut up and soldier. King The king says that he’s in this as much as you are. Other Soldier Dude. Ha. I’ll believe it when I see it. No, wait, I won’t, because I’ll be dead. So, let’s recap: Chris Matthews equated Obama’s speech and presence in Afghanistan to those of Henry V’s. Which is to say, Chris Matthews told the world that Barack Obama is an untested, insecure, and untrained monarch who has initiated an imperial war of expansion in order to hide from his own sense of inadequacy when faced by the specters of his predecessors; and when his own troops point out that they’re the ones that are going to end up doing the dying Obama essentially tries to whine and insult them into agreeing that he was right all along about this. Tries and fails , by the way: the troops ain’t buying it, but they’re professionals who will fight for the cause anyway. See what I meant by ‘viciously attacks,’ there? If you accept the basic argument by Matthews, he’s pretty much trying to administer a poison pill to the entire Afghanistan situation whose rigor would satisfy even the most rigorous antiwar progressive. That he’s incompetent at such administration is merely a minor detail; the important point is that it was tried . Alternatively, Chris Matthews is simply an illiterate buffoon. Moe Lane ( crosspost ) PS: For the record: I reject the antiwar movement’s decade-old arguments against the liberation of Afghanistan. *I am fully aware, by the way, that I am not as good a playwright as William Shakespeare. No need to point that out. Really.
Link:
Wow. Chris Matthews viciously attacked Barack Obama’s Afghanistan speech!
