The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan

Saturday, May 17, 2008

17 May 2008 08:25 pm

Arguing Greenbacks

James Pethokoukis thinks that the falling dollar could be a "dark-horse political issue."

17 May 2008 08:10 pm

Dissent Of The Day

A reader writes:

Count me among the folks who take the President's views on foreign policy seriously.

I believe - and have for some time - that the struggle we face is as much between those of us who believe that there is evil in the world and it cannot - will not - go away with appeasement and those who believe that if we can just find the right words that those who hate us will all of a sudden change their ways OR of we just leave them alone "they" will leave us alone.

President Bush is a good man who has tried to do what he thought was best for the country without regard to the political costs. Calling him a war criminal is an easy and unfortunately popular thing to do these days - but the real debate needs to be over what do we do to both protect ourselves and our allies and gain the kind of rights to which we believe all men and women are entitled in the Islamic world.

A religion that permits - indeed requires - the murder of gays and women who go against the principles of a barbaric code is not a religion and it is time we all deal with this "elephant in the room."

17 May 2008 07:04 pm

Please Don't Go To College

From the new issue, an article on post-secondary education by a professor who fails many of his students:

America, ever-idealistic, seems wary of the vocational-education track. We are not comfortable limiting anyone’s options. Telling someone that college is not for him seems harsh and classist and British, as though we were sentencing him to a life in the coal mines. I sympathize with this stance; I subscribe to the American ideal. Unfortunately, it is with me and my red pen that that ideal crashes and burns.

Continue reading "Please Don't Go To College" »

17 May 2008 06:06 pm

Error Rate

Bradford Plumer looks at the fallibility of forensics.

17 May 2008 04:52 pm

From Crayola to Camera

Childhood drawings remade in real life.

17 May 2008 04:11 pm

The Pathos Of K-Lo

Wolcott:

This explains the almost touching devotion, tinged with desperation, that one can witness almost every day over at NRO's Corner, where one lunchtime slacker or another relays with excitement Rush Limbaugh's latest mouthblast of derision against spineless Republicans and gutless liberals--Rush was "on fire" today, they quiver, sounding like Nanny Hawkins huddled around the wireless marveling how Mr. Churchill just gave that Mr. Hitler quite a talking-to. Rush is the only last troop-rally'er this tired-blood brigade has left and their clinging to the backward tug of his stale certitudes (global warming is an enviromental-wacko socialist sham, etc) only widens the distance between them and the reality of how much damage kneejerk conservatism and blind Bush loyalty has inflicted on the Republican Party.

Wake them up when it's over, will you?

17 May 2008 03:05 pm

Diplomacy And Appeasement

There's a difference.

17 May 2008 02:33 pm

Listening To Whitman

The great gay American made a wax recording back in 1890. Here's what he is reciting

"America

Centre of equal daughters, equal sons,
All, all alike endear'd, grown, ungrown, young or old,
Strong, ample, fair, enduring, capable, rich,
Perennial with the Earth, with Freedom, Law and Love..."

After California's court ruling, I cannot help but think of Whitman and, of course, Lincoln:

17 May 2008 01:25 pm

Ribbons, Flag Pins And Lapels

A Seinfeldian angle on today's vacuous campaign talking points:

17 May 2008 01:00 pm

What It Means To Me

From Time magazine before I actually married my husband, or thought it would ever happen to me:

As a child, I had no idea what homosexuality was. I grew up in a traditional home--Catholic, conservative, middle class. Life was relatively simple: education, work, family. I was raised to aim high in life, even though my parents hadn't gone to college. But one thing was instilled in me. What mattered was not how far you went in life, how much money you earned, how big a name you made for yourself. What really mattered was family and the love you had for one another. The most important day of your life was not graduation from college or your first day at work or a raise or even your first house. The most important day of your life was when you got married. It was on that day that all your friends and all your family got together to celebrate the most important thing in life: your happiness--your ability to make a new home, to form a new but connected family, to find love that put everything else into perspective.

But as I grew older, I found that this was somehow not available to me.

Continue reading "What It Means To Me" »

17 May 2008 11:53 am

Michael Phelps of the USA competes during the backstroke portion of the 400m medley at a preliminary round during the Santa Clara XLI International Swim Meet, part of the 2008 USA Swimming Grand Prix Series, on May 16, 2008 at the Santa Clara Swim Club in Santa Clara, California. By Jed Jacobsohn/Getty Images.

17 May 2008 11:24 am

The Vice-President For Torture

The war criminal who is vice-president received some interesting gifts last year:

He also received an $801 gift package from the Fox television show "24," including director's chairs, coffee mugs and DVDs.

No shackles? Or clubs?

17 May 2008 10:37 am

It's About Choice, Stupid

A reader writes:

One thing that I think is lost in the discussion about the California decision is the implicit rejection by the court (by primarily invoking Loving) that sexual orientation is by and large a choice. For some, it can be (like exploring bi-sexuality). But, by and large, sexual orientation is a culmination of the nature of our beings. Is there a nurture (environmental) element in our decisions related to our sexual orientation? Sure. I'm heterosexual but I also recognize that some of my preferences and lifestyle are/were driven by my experiences as a young adult. Distinguishing between a sexual culture and orientation might be useful in discussing this. That doesn't change the fact that my orientation is hetero. I've never spent a moment contemplating the idea that it was a choice, why should homosexuals be painted with the same brush?

The California decision reduces the concept of gay marriage to two things. First, as in Loving, there is a fundamental right in our society (at least California's) to marry. Second, sexual orientation, at its basic level, is not a choice. The decision by California to reject the ban on gay marriage, in spite of the strict scrutiny applied, affirms both of these principles.

Now its just a matter of the rest of the US waking up to these truths.

And the only advantage that I have in all this is that I know this to be true - more surely than I know almost anything.

17 May 2008 09:53 am

Was Rubin Distorting?

The McCain campaign has been pushing back on the Rubin argument that McCain once supported talking to Hamas and now says such a position is "unacceptable." Here's the full quote that allegedly exposes Rubin:

Rubin: "Do you think that American diplomats should be operating the way they have in the past, working with the Palestinian government if Hamas is now in charge?"

McCain: "They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so . . . but it's a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that."

Rubin: “So should the United States be dealing with that new reality through normal diplomatic contacts to get the job done for the United States?”

Sen. McCain: “I think the United States should take a step back, see what they do when they form their government, see what their policies are, and see the ways that we can engage with them, and if there aren’t any, there may be a hiatus. But I think part of the relationship is going to be dictated by how Hamas acts, not how the United States acts.”

I'd say any fair assessment would show that McCain was intelligently prepared to see whether the US could talk to Hamas, if there could be ways to engage with them. If their behavior made that fruitless, then we shouldn't bother. That sounds perfectly sensible to me, the kind of politics McCain used to be known for, both realistic and pragmatic, and it is clearly not the rigid posture that dialogue with governments like Hamas is always unacceptable. This new position is obviously part of an attempt to paint Obama as unfit for the presidency. It's Rovian bullshit.

And, of course, with respect to Hamas, there is no daylight between Obama's position and McCain's. The only difference is with Iran. I doubt there's any way to talk to Ahmadinejad, if he's still around next year, but Khameini may be different, and other power-centers in Tehran may be different. It would be great to have a president again able to use diplomacy intelligently and pragmatically, with the leverage of military force behind him, prepared to exploit internal divisions within enemy regimes. Both McCain and Obama have this potential, but McCain has now decided to follow Bush and rule it out. That's a pity. Does he really believe Bush's intransigence has been a success?

17 May 2008 09:47 am

Benedict Weighs In

A statement on the California decision - which naturally doesn't mention it explicitly:

"The union of love, based on matrimony between a man and a woman, which makes up the family, represents a good for all society that can not be substituted by, confused with, or compared to other types of unions."

Actually, I agree with this in large part. I revere heterosexual unions and heterosexual marriage. When such a union produces biological children, it also reaches mystical, powerful heights of human experience. I wouldn't want it substituted by or confused with anything else. In Catholic theology, you can easily see why the sacrament of matrimony is exclusively heterosexual - because this newest sacrament is all about reproducing.

But as a civil matter, in an institution not intrinsically linked to procreation any more, I don't see why the secular law should forbid others enjoying the same rights and responsibility in the same civil institution, regardless of fecundity, children or sexual orientation. It isn't either-or. It's both-and. Of course, this Pope rejects the distinction between secular law and Catholic theology. But the correct civic response to this is to tell this guy to take a flying jump. Religious authorities should not control secular law.

17 May 2008 08:56 am

The View From Your Window

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 1.53 pm.

Friday, May 16, 2008

16 May 2008 09:34 pm

Abercrombie And Plebes Update

More naval ~~porn~~ tradition, courtesy of Flickr.

16 May 2008 09:20 pm

Is The Eucharist Now Republican?

A reader writes:

I am disgusted with the theocon reaction to Doug Kmiec's endorsement of Obama. I have, for my entire adult life, been both pro-life and a Democrat. I have wrestled with the contradictions of that, been frustrated by the party's fundamentalism on the life issue, and struggled with my conscience for decades. When I see Republican Catholics confidently assert their absolute comfort with everything their party stands for, I want to scream. Do they struggle at all, ever with the policies of an administration that has demonstrated disdain for human rights? With a party that dismisses concerns about torture as somehow being a weakness? That runs counter to the Church on the very war that has come to define being a Republican?

I wouldn't mind if there was ever any evidence of some hand-wringing before landing on the Republican side, but they all seem to behave as if everything that comes out of Bush's mouth is infallible holiness. Doug Kmiec has helped me see why, despite my concerns, Obama is the person we need in the presidency right now. And for that apostasy against the church of Bush, he is being vilified. I hope he sees the contempt of such people as an honor.

What's amazing in this is that very, very few public figures have done as much for the pro-life cause as Kmiec. He was denied communion for supporting a political candidate. That's all. And that is also grounds for investigating and removing that church's tax exempt status. This priest went way over the line.

(Photo: Jose Cendon/AFP/Getty.)

16 May 2008 09:08 pm

The Bush Assist

David Corn likewise thinks that Bush's words have helped Obama:

Bush probably thought, "Well, I showed him." But any Bush versus Obama narrative assists Obama tremendously. Most Americans clearly would relish voting against Bush, were they able to. If Bush makes it seem that a vote for Obama is a vote against Bush, McCain is screwed.

Nate is more hesitant and suggests watching the McCain Obama tracking polls over the next week or so. I find it hard to credit the notion that anyone would take this president's views on foreign policy seriously.

16 May 2008 08:40 pm

Obama Or Carter?

Marc cites CNN's Ed Henry:

While the words Barack Obama were never used White House aides privately admit the President referring not just to Barack Obama but other Democrats like Jimmy Carter, for example, who has recently suggested himself has sat down with Hamas leaders and has suggested that the U.S. government to should sit down with Hamas. So, the inference is clear. Although the President didn't name names, administration officials are privately acknowledging this was a shot at Barack Obama and other Democrats.

Gillespie, meanwhile, said that Bush was aiming at Carter and not Obama. Which is it?

16 May 2008 08:30 pm

Email Of The Day

A reader writes:

"On Tuesday the group Colorado for Equal Rights submitted 131,245 signatures to place an initiative on the November ballot that would define a fertilized embryo as a person."

Does this mean that I can move to Colorado and get Social Security benefits nine months sooner?

16 May 2008 07:29 pm

Face Of The Day

Army medics and US soldiers from the 2nd Battalion, 30th Infantry Regiment of the 10th Mountain Division carry a wounded Iraqi man after they arrive at their base combat hospital to give him medical treatment on May 16, 2008 in Baghdad, Iraq. A joint patrol with Iraqi National Police encountered a group of three men digging in an area of frequent insurgent mortar activity, when the wounded man started to run and was shot in the leg. He was immediately treated by the US medic traveling with the platoon and is expected to recover. The other two men were arrested and later released. B by Chris Hondros/Getty Images.

16 May 2008 06:24 pm

Yglesias Award Nominee

"What happens to the Republicans in 2008 will likely be dictated by what didn't happen in 2005, and '06, and '07. The moment when the party could have broken, on principle, with the administration – over the thinking behind and the carrying out of the war, over immigration, spending and the size of government – has passed. What two years ago would have been honorable and wise will now look craven. They're stuck.

Mr. Bush has squandered the hard-built paternity of 40 years. But so has the party, and so have its leaders. If they had pushed away for serious reasons, they could have separated the party's fortunes from the president's. This would have left a painfully broken party, but they wouldn't be left with a ruined "brand," as they all say, speaking the language of marketing. And they speak that language because they are marketers, not thinkers. Not serious about policy. Not serious about ideas. And not serious about leadership, only followership," - Peggy Noonan.

Some of us tried - and were vilified for it. Others chose to write books about "liberal fascism." Over here! Over here! Shiny silver things!

16 May 2008 06:15 pm

The View From Your Window

Hong Kong, China, 3.09 pm.

16 May 2008 05:53 pm

Obama On Medijuana

Getting clearer:

It seems to me that Obama now has unequivocally promised to back off and allow states to make their own policy decisions about the medical use of marijuana within their own borders. He also seems to be saying the federal government should consider rescheduling marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act so that doctors can legally prescribe it. Even if that second part never materializes, on this issue Obama is much better than John McCain, who (as the Times notes) has repeatedly flip-flopped between federalism and drug-war dogmatism, with the latter at this point winning out.

16 May 2008 05:35 pm

Gun Rights, Gay Rights

Could it be, as Glenn Reynolds notes, that America is basically reconciling itself to both? And why the hell not?

16 May 2008 05:00 pm

Denying Kmiec Communion

Kmiec was denied communion because of his support for Obama. Here's his account:

Having been drawn to Senator Obama’s remarkable “love thy neighbor” style of campaigning, his express aim to transcend partisan divide, and specifically, his appreciation for faith ("secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square"), I did not expect to be clobbered by co-religionists.

On the blogs, I have been declared “self-excommunicated,” and recently at a Mass before a dinner speech to Catholic business leaders, a very angry college chaplain excoriated my Obama-heresy from the pulpit at length and then denied my receipt of communion.

That's an outrage - and a declaration by some elements in the Catholic hierarchy of a political war. Kmiec has an extraordinary record of pro-life advocacy and passion. Perhaps that's why he was singled out. But this is an extraordinary sign of how extreme the theocons have become.

16 May 2008 04:45 pm

From The Corner

Manzi on the marriage ruling:

I am skeptical that gay marriage is part of a process of social breakdown, but lots of people disagree with me. We have differing theories. I accept that I might be wrong, or at minimum wrong for some times or places. It seems to me that the best way to answer this question is not to yell at each other, or even to see who can write the most elegant and persuasive books, but to let different groups of people voluntarily try different approaches and see what actually happens.

Americans have a healthy aversion to telling other people how to live. Only about 30 percent of Americans support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Why don’t we try letting people live how they want to live, and let others try to impose uniform national rules on a heterogeneous population of 300 million people?

Are two states out of 50 really too much?

16 May 2008 04:33 pm

Be Careful What You Ask For

Danny Finkelstein on John McCain's suggestion of a US-style Prime Minister's Question Time. Danny used to prep John Major and William Hague - not that William ever needed much prep in debating (or jokes).

16 May 2008 04:03 pm

Obama Unleashed

The president pissed him off:

Well I want to be perfectly clear with George Bush and John McCain – if they want a debate about protecting the United States of America, that’s a debate I’m ready to win, because George Bush and John McCain have a lot to answer for.

"...in the Bush-McCain worldview, everyone who disagrees with their failed Iran policy is an appeaser. And back during his “No Surrender” tour, John McCain said anyone who wants to end the war in Iraq responsibly wants to surrender; he even said later on that he would be ok keeping troops in Iraq for 100 years, but yesterday he said our troops could be home by 2013. He offered the promise that America will win a victory, with no understanding that Iraq is fighting a civil war. Just like George Bush, his plan isn’t about winning, it’s about staying, and that’s why there will be a clear choice in November: fighting a war without end, or ending this war. Because we don’t need John McCain’s prediction about when the war will end – we need a plan to end it.

As I said, Bush just gave Obama a gift that will keep on giving. The more that McCain and Bush engage in this dated anything-but-us-is-unacceptable-appeasement nonsense, Obama will win. Do Bush and McCain think we've been asleep for the past seven years? How dumb do they think we are?

(Photo: Spencer Platt/Getty.)

16 May 2008 03:55 pm

In Defense Of Failure

A very American sentiment:

16 May 2008 03:52 pm

Rove vs Obama

They're rattled, aren't they? I'm still baffled that people still take the most disastrous political strategist in modern times in any way seriously.

16 May 2008 03:30 pm

McCain's Climate Ad

His bid for Cameronism works with Democrats.

16 May 2008 03:23 pm

Christianism Watch

From Colorado, another mind-blowing attempt to micro-manage nature:

On Tuesday the group Colorado for Equal Rights submitted 131,245 signatures to place an initiative on the November ballot that would define a fertilized embryo as a person. Voters will decide on the measure that would amend the state Constitution to extend a fertilized embryo equal rights and protections. It would define "any human being from the moment of fertilization" as a "person" for purposes of the state's constitutional provisions "relating to inalienable rights, equality of justice and due process of law."

Do they have any idea how many such persons die of natural causes in one fertile woman in a year?

16 May 2008 03:13 pm

Obama's Cowardice On Marriage

Jonathan Martin makes a point:

Because Obama is not where the far left wants him to be (marriage) and McCain not where the far right wants him to be (a federal ban), this is not something either will probably make front and center.

I see his point but I still bristle at the notion of marriage rights being a "far left" position. No straight person would ever regard his or her marriage as something of which only the "far left" would approve. And many very conservative gay couples who have gotten married because they want to affirm family life, responsibility and commitment would be surprised to learn that these values are now part of the "far left." It's equally true that a federal ban is not meaningfully "far right." There is absolutely nothing conservative about amending the federal constitution to deal with a matter of social policy that is best left to the states. I wish these tired and misleading labels could be put to one side.

I should add that Obama's position strikes me as transparently flimsy. His only defense of his support for full marriage rights without the m-word is a function, in his description, of comfort and religion. But he is very comfortable around gay people, gay couples and our families. And his own church actually favors equal marriage rights for gay couples - and its inclusion of gay people was obviously a reason why TUCC was attractive to Obama. Marriage is the one issue where Obama is still politically afraid, intellectually vacuous, and a moral coward.

This is the civil rights movement of our time. Whatever happened to the fierce urgency of now?

16 May 2008 03:11 pm

Quote For The Day

"Somebody aimed a gun at him and he dove for the floor," - Mike Huckabee, joking about the possibility of shooting Barack Obama. He meant no harm, but given American history, he may regret that remark.

16 May 2008 03:08 pm

"Iraq is where ideologies go to die."

Totten on Yon. I've been struck by a few recent movements in Iraq, especially Maliki's resilience. It seems to me that the core conservative position on Iraq needs to be skeptical and empirical. That means constantly reviewing our judgments in the wake of new facts and a basic truth: just because George W. Bush supports something doesn't mean it's inevitably bullshit. Just likely bullshit. But in Iraq, things appear to be getting more complex and less obviously doomed. It helps no one not to see this, least of all the troops. The long-term consequences of staying there indefinitely remain awful. But the possibility of a less traumatic departure needs to be grasped if we can.

16 May 2008 03:06 pm

Does Boehner Hate America?

Just asking. The way they do.

16 May 2008 02:43 pm

Mental Health Break

A longish piece of stop-motion graffiti:

MUTO a wall-painted animation by BLU from blu on Vimeo.

(Hat tip: Sonny Bunch)

16 May 2008 02:32 pm

Nutty Rick

And yet oddly brilliant:

One thing Obama and McCain have in common is that they each have a Vice-President problem. In both cases the choice is fraught with peril. Do you go for someone who strengthens your base or extends your appeal? Do you try for balance or amplification? How do you avoid saddling yourself with one ingrate and a dozen disgruntled spurnees?

The solution is obvious. Obama should ask McCain to be his running mate. McCain should ask Obama to be his. And both should say yes.

16 May 2008 02:22 pm

Conservatism and Marriage

Doug Kmiec writes:

It is often asked, as Marty's helpful post does, how the acknowledgment of same-sex marriage harms marriage between a man and a woman. The inability to give a simple, secular answer to this explains the California victory in favor of same-sex marriage more than the reasoning of the opinion. That doesn't mean there is not an answer. There is a religious answer and it is anchored in the creation story recorded in the book of Genesis.

The religious answer has a secular side, but it is less articulable.

Continue reading "Conservatism and Marriage" »

16 May 2008 01:52 pm

If It Looks Like A Duck ...

A blog dedicated to pictures of things that look like ducks.

16 May 2008 01:35 pm

A Fundraiser In New York City

A heads up to those of you in New York who support the rights of bi-national gay couples to immigrate as bi-national straight couples do. Immigration Equality - the group that does the lion's share of work in advocating for equal treatment for gay spouses and HIV-positive immigrants - is honoring me, Staceyann Chin and Skadden law firm for work on these issues. Everyone is welcome - for a minimum donation of $250. It's next Wednesday in Chelsea. You can buy a ticket or just donate here. They're a great group and it's a great cause. See you there.

16 May 2008 01:18 pm

Bush's Gift To Obama

That was my first reaction to Bush's Knesset speech. First Read concurs.

16 May 2008 01:06 pm

Posts vs Essays?

A good point:

A blog post is all about getting new ideas and news out there in a timely or spontaneous fashion to kick-start conversations. The writing should be as clear and stylish as possible under the the quick turnaround timeframe that goes hand in hand with posting five days a week. And of course facts should be accurate. But beyond a perfunctory breaking news report, an an article is something that one could think of as growing out of a blog post -- a piece of work that involves more long, hard thinking, in-depth and/or wide-ranging interviews and perspectives, and a refined style.

Some readers have noted a contrast in tone and style between posts on this blog and my columns or essays. You bet. It's a question of different platforms, idioms and ways of writing. I have found that blogging and long-form writing, while distinct, can nonetheless catalyze one another. Many columns have emerged from a week of blogging. And some essays come out of months of blogging. Long-form pieces are deliberately more mellow, considered and less inflammatory than blog posts. But I'm not schizophrenic - just adjusting to the newly varied ways in which a writer can express himself.

16 May 2008 12:50 pm

McCain And Hamas II

A reader writes:

You wrote:
McCain was once in favor of Obama's position.
Actually, that's wrong! Both Clinton and Obama have said we should not negotiate with Hamas until they recognize Israel's right to exist. McCain actually supported a position more extreme than Obama. By accepting the incorrect Republican talking point about Obama on Hamas, you actually do Obama a disservice.

I stand corrected. I was thinking of Obama's willingness to talk to Tehran's leadership. But I'm with McCain then. I do believe that Hamas has some legitimacy as the winner of a democratic election and at some point we will need to talk to them.

16 May 2008 12:37 pm

Thinking Through California

In re-reading and pondering the decision, I keep coming back to this:

In contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation, and, more generally, that an individual’s sexual orientation — like a person’s race or gender — does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights.

People can talk about activist liberal judges all they want. But the simple truth is that what has changed these past twenty years is not the nature of judges, but our collective understanding of what sexual orientation is. Behind all this is a deep, deep shift in our consciousness from thinking of gay people as defective straight people who perform certain sexual acts to their being the moral equivalent of heterosexuals, capable of forming relationships and building families as well as anyone. This is at the core of the generational divide: not that young people are more "liberal" or "progressive" than their parents. On an issue like abortion, they're not. It is simply that the next generation has grown up with a different definition of who gay people are. They see gay people as interchangeable with straight people. They don't think we're inferior to them. Because they know us.

Once you alter that basic understanding, then re-fitting the law to account for it may, at first blush, look liberal or activist, but in fact, it's just removing what now appears a massive anachronism and anomaly. Yes: this means that the court is dong something the first Californians would have regarded as outrageous. But that goes for so many other issues as well, especially race and gender, where our core definitions have shifted with time and knowledge.

Is this shift an ideological one? I don't believe so. It's an empirical one, based on increased knowledge of who gay people are. Once you absorb this knowledge, this evidence, this truth, legislative schemes which arbitrarily separate gay people from straight people - and put gay relationships in a separate and unequal box - seem grossly unfair, and certainly a violation of the equality promised in various state constitutions. I think that's what has really happened in the two decades I've been arguing about this. We have altered our view of homosexuality. And the alteration is not one of degree but of kind. And so the law must adapt. Maybe it has happened too quickly for easy cultural digestion. But it is inevitable if we are not now to replace knowledge with fear, and inclusion with, yes, prejudice.

(Shameless plug: My first book, Virtually Normal, the first extended case for equal marriage rights, can be bought here. My recently updated anthology on all the various aspects of the marriage equality debate can be bought here. My 2000 TNR essay on why civil unions are not enough can be read here.)

16 May 2008 12:18 pm

"Poor Hillary"

The victimologists are out in force. Give me a break. No multi-millionaire with eight years as First Lady and a nepotistically-bestowed Senate seat needs any sympathy from anyone. How these sad psychos still manage to entrap others with their fathomless self-pity is beyond me.