The Argument for Outlawing Gay Marriage

Maggie Gallaghers latest article is about Gay Marriage and how wrong it is that people argue that homosexuals should be allowed to get married.

For these Americans, gay marriage does not merely expand marriage to more people, it abolishes the historic core conception of marriage and replaces it with a new government-mandated genderless marriage. Gay marriage means that our maleness and femaleness does not matter, our capacity to create new life is irrelevant to the public project of marriage. Henceforth by government decree marriage will mean a commitment of any two people; marriage will become a product of individual desire not rooted in any natural order, not rooted in our history or traditions . . .

I don't know what that means except for I don't like Gay Marriage and therefore it shouldn't exist. And that's the core problem with those who oppose Gay Marriage - their argument never answers the key question; what gives you the right to say Gays can't get married? How does Gay Marriage actually hurt you?

The only answer is that it upsets traditional religious values. That's not enough. That should never be enough. And I don't understand my countrymen who say that that is enough.

Then there's this hilarious bit.

Ted Olson will talk in court this week like a civilized man. But Ted Olson, as much as any one man, is responsible for the idea that there is no real debate to be had about gay marriage, that all the legitimacy, all the arguments, all the good will and good reasons are on his side.

Yeah as opposed to those who are in favor of proposition 8 or who oppose Gay Marriage - they certainly are giving their opponents the benefit of the doubt. You certainly aren't arguing that all the good reasons are opposed to gay marriage.

It would be funny if it weren't so sad that conservatives can argue for treating homosexuals like second class citizens and then act like they are the persecuted ones, merely because people disagree with them.

Problems for Obama

Hopefully this won't turn out to be much, but Maggie Gallagher has written an article today that might give the Ayers story a little bit more of an edge.

She interviewed John Murtagh, who's house was firebombed by Bernardine Dohrn, wife of Bill Ayers. This was, for the record, an awful thing that Dohrn did, as were the other bombings by Bill Ayers. Also for the record, Obama has condemned these actions by Bill Ayers, calling them detestable. For more information on the shakiness of these connections, check out this post by John K. Wilson.

These attempts to connect Obama to Ayers are pretty weak, but I think John Murtagh might give this story more legs. For one thing he's running for the state senate on a GOP ticket, so presumably he can present himself well, and presumably he would like to play a role in the national campaign. For another he puts a human face on this issue. The actual connections to Obama are slim to non-existent, but the claims of the Swift Boat Liars in 2004 were pretty slim too. And they got through.

The End of an Era

Maggie Gallagher's latest article basically says that Conservatism, as inaugurated by Barry Goldwater, is pretty much over, a victim of it's successes.

The Reagan coalition, that combination of anti-communist hawks, pro-growth low-taxers and social conservatives, has achieved great things: the fall of the Soviet Union, the resurgence of faith in market economies, a permanent reduction in the federal tax rates (including taking millions of Americans off the federal income tax rolls altogether), a striking reduction in crime rates, welfare reform and the largely unsung doubling of the per-child tax exemption that each year protects the incomes that families (especially larger religious families) need to raise their kids.

But all that is so yesterday.

Gallagher downplays the role of President Bush in weakening the Republican Brand, which I guess is par for the course. She also has this interesting line.

Meanwhile, the left never was defunded, creating a huge structural mismatch in the process of "culture creation": Massive government dollars fuel their organizations and ideas, while even tiny social conservative funding streams like abstinence education are under intense assault.

I guess she's talking strictly about Government spending. Most government spending, by definition, funds the left (since the right is opposed to government funding). But in the universe of funding, the Right certainly hasn't gone hungry in this country; organizations like the Heritage Foundation have done quite well for themselves.

That said, I do find myself wondering how Gallgher would defund the left if the right regains power.

Presented with Comment

This is from Maggie Gallagher's latest article.

Rudy Giuliani has now made it perfectly clear: Electing him for president (given a Democratic Congress) will likely mean taxpayer-funded abortions and Supreme Court justices with some truly odd and unreliable views of our Constitution. No pro-lifer in good conscience can vote for Rudy.

I was initially going to present this without comment, but think it's worth noting that Guiliani is, at the moment, the most formidable Republican nominee. So it's certainly a treat to see our Republican friends determining he's not for them.

Rudy Guilliani

I get the sense that the Conservative Punditry has settled on Rudy Guilliani as their current candidate. He doesn't have the history McCain does of bucking the party, and he's got more name recognition than Mitt Romney. Of course if Gingrich comes in that will change the equation, and it's clear that a few of the big boys are waiting to see if that will happen. But I've heard Guilliani on Hannity a few times (where they didn't have the decency to talk about Soccer or something else gratifyingly insane). And today Maggie Gallagher writes about how she is considering voting for him, even though she never has in the past, as she explains.

I never voted for Rudy when I lived in New York City for one simple reason: abortion. I don't look for purity in politicians, just for some small pro-life reason to vote for a guy: Medicaid funding, parental notification, partial birth abortion. Throw me the slightest lifeline, otherwise I assume he just doesn't want the vote of people like me. Rudy never did. So I never gave him my vote.

Kind of whiny there, Gallagher. I mean I get that he didn't stand for what she believes in so she didn't vote for him. Fair enough. But then saying that he could have thrown her the slightest bone and she would have ponied up? If abortion is wrong, isn't it wrong? But maybe I don't entirely understand.

Anyway she gives the standard reasons to vote for Guilliani (or McCain if it comes to that) - National Security and the Court. National Security is there way of saying "Look selling out to these centrists we've always hated doesn't mean we're pansies. It means we are putting America first." Actually that ties right back into her comments on Abortion doesn't it?

I mean let's imagine Gallaghers dream candidate - presumably he would not only be strong on National Security, willing to appoint Conservative Ideologues to the bench, but he'd also be opposed to abortion, opposed to Gay Rights, opposed to welfare, opposed to public schools, opposed to Social Security and opposing anything else Gallagher wants her to oppose. So why not go out and find a guy who fits those criteria?

I guess cause politics doesn't work that way (I need only consider my past votes for Kerry and my future possible vote for Hillary Clinton to realize that I'm largely in the same vote (although I will at least pick the best candidate in the primary to support (The Monster, in case you are wondering))). Still I can't deny that it's gratifying to see Gallagher abandoning principals a year from the primaries and a year and a half from the general election.

More on Jim Carrey and Bruce

Well, it's hard to hold onto this story. Now Maggie Gallagher, also a Conservative, has suggested that Jim Carrey's movie proves that America is on the right track.

"Holy cow, Bruce, have you seen the new Jim Carrey flick? What do you get when a movie crosses a) respect and reverence in a cinematic portrayal of the God most Americans worship and b) fart jokes?

You get $135 million bucks in less than two weeks, that's what."

Ms. Gallagher also comments on how great it is to see Jennifer Aniston playing a women Gallagher describes as "the adorably blond good girl who works with children, volunteers for her community, cooks (!) for her boyfriend, and wants nothing more than to settle down, get married and make babies with the man she loves." She even compares Aniston's character to Doris Day. Of course the difference is that Doris Day's characters were never presented with an option. There's nothing wrong with choosing to get married and have children, but she should have the choice.