By "end the War on Terrorism" I take you to mean abandon the effort, not successfully complete it.
c matt | 02.24.04 - 2:46 pm | #

You're claim suggests the outrageous thought that Sullivan backed the Iraq War because he thought that introducting "democracy" into the heart of the Islamic world would eventually lead to tolerance (enforced by Western power and influence, if necessary) of gay sex there . . . or would at least blunt any advance of homophobic Islam.

You know, you may be right. But what does this say about the sort values that we will end up planting in the Middle East?
T. Marzen | 02.24.04 - 2:47 pm | #

c matt:

Right.

T.:

It says a great deal.
Mark Shea | Homepage | 02.24.04 - 2:51 pm | #

(1) I'm not sure why anyone cares what Bush's opinion is about the Federal Marriage Amendment other than "the bully pulpit." The ball is entirely in the court of Congress and the states.

(2) Mark, you are on target in his analysis of Sullivan, I'm afraid.

(3) Is Sullivan an American citizen? If he isn't, it probably isn't too smart to declare war on the Bush Administration. There are several putative grounds under which he could be booted out of the United States separate and apart from his over-the-top polemics.

(4) This is not to say that I support the Federal Marriage Amendment in its current form. I don't. I think its an unwarranted expansion of federal power to dictate who and what a state can call marriage. On the other hand, it is firmly within the historical framework of "our federalism" for Congress and the States to prevent Massachusetts or San Francisco from dictating the domestic law of Indiana, Virginia, or Ohio. I would support only enacting DOMA as a constitutional amendment and banning same-sex marriage at the state level.
Patrick Rothwell | Homepage | 02.24.04 - 2:53 pm | #

The Islamofascist threat was the largest threat to gay sex on the radar for the past two years, so he backed Bush.

That's about as rational as Sullivan's posts today.
Christopher Rake | Homepage | 02.24.04 - 3:02 pm | #

As vital as the US Constitution is to the stability of our country--in all spheres of society--and, though it is indeed a remarkable and important document in the history of civilization, I would hardly consider it the "most sacred document" in history as Sullivan does. So much for sacred scripture...Oh, that's right, he does not think much of scripture as it limits his freedoms...
Peggy | Homepage | 02.24.04 - 3:04 pm | #

Chris:

There's only one candidate who takes the war on terror seriously. The Dems don't and certainly their frontrunner, John Waffle Heinz, doesn't. So when Sullivan declares war on Bush, that does rather suggest that there is something more important to him than the war on terror, dunnit?
Mark Shea | Homepage | 02.24.04 - 3:08 pm | #

Andy Sullivan declares war on Bush.

I'll bet Dubya is just a-quaking in his boots about it - NOT!
Bret | 02.24.04 - 3:14 pm | #

I don't know Mark. If Bush takes the war on terror so seriously, why is he so bent on securing a watered-down amnesty plan for illegal immigrants? Surely he realizes that such a plan will only encourage more illegal immigration, as the previous amnesty under the Reagan administration did. And surely he realizes that securing our borders must be part of the war on terror. To be truthful, I don't think any of the Presidential candidates really care about the American people. I've seen no evidence of it.

You're dead-on regarding Sullivan, though. He is a hysterical narcissist.

Marc
Marc | Homepage | 02.24.04 - 3:22 pm | #

...said the man who signs his name twice...
Marc | Homepage | 02.24.04 - 3:27 pm | #

for those who oppose the FMA b/c as an unwarranted encroachment on state self-determination, why not a modification to the Full Faith and Credit Clause such as "Notwithstanding any provision of this Constitution or amendments thereto, no state shall be required to accept the definition of marriage as other than between one man and one woman."

This way, each state can do what it wants, would not be forced to recognize SSM's from other states, and at the same time, the feds would not be encroaching.
c matt | 02.24.04 - 3:43 pm | #

C Matt:

That was along the lines that I was thinking.
Patrick Rothwell | Homepage | 02.24.04 - 3:48 pm | #

I just had a chilling thought: Could some state declair some guy a "woman" and then try to force "her" marriage to a man on the other states? Everything seems to crazy now...
John Hearn | 02.24.04 - 3:50 pm | #

Remember your history, kids. One of the main causes of the Civil War was the Old South's insistence that the free states be forced to adopt the "pro-choice" position on slavery. The Dred Scott decision was only the first step--if Breckenridge or Douglas had beaten Lincoln in 1860, there would have been a federal "slave code" enacted protecting the "property rights" of slaveowners in the free states.

Parallels to the present situation are . . . well, blindingly obvious.
Mike Morley | 02.24.04 - 4:03 pm | #

John Hearn:

Actually, you bring up a good point. There are many people that one cannot easily give a gender to. A boy had his penis cut off during a circumcision as an infant and was raised as a girl using hormone therapy, but still felt like a boy. He was not told by his parents until 15. What about those who have imperfect Y chromosomes and "feel" like a girl with misformed genitalia. Defining what a "man" and a "woman" is can be harder than we think.
Michael | 02.24.04 - 4:09 pm | #

Michael:

Hard cases make bad law.
Mark Shea | Homepage | 02.24.04 - 4:14 pm | #

C Matt, the federal tax code (among other things) requires a definition, so unless "married filing jointly" gets to mean one thing in Massachusetts and another in Montana, it may be better not to leave the definition to the states.
craig | 02.24.04 - 4:26 pm | #

Good point Mark. For some, their sexual freedom is their god. It's just another form of idolatry.

I'm more inclined towards Bush despite his immoral war. At least he does something for the family, for marriage, and against abortion which is worthy of support. From this distance the Democrats appear almost as prowar as the Republicans (didn't notice any mass Democrat vote against the war in Congress).

God Bless
Chris Sullivan | 02.24.04 - 4:31 pm | #

I suggest a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting Idolatry.
larry dvm | 02.24.04 - 4:36 pm | #

Sullivan began his call for "gay marriage" on a principled federalist position that each state (through its legislature & not the courts) should freely adopt his position.
Since that time his retoric has become a self contradictory muddle of agi-prop for his cause.
This has revealed his true motives and his extent & willingness to diregard ALL principle in pursuit of his goal.

He has revealed himself.
he is not and was never a conservative.
He simply adopted the name in order to blur the distinction and paint true conservatives as split on the issue.
Small victory, but still a true one

Thanks
Fitz | 02.24.04 - 4:58 pm | #

Fitz,

It's kinda difficult to call yourself a conservative (ie: one who preserves tradition) when you're an advocate of overthrowing the meaning of a six thousand+ year old institution.
Bobbert | 02.24.04 - 5:06 pm | #

Behind even the Incarnation and the Redemption is the laughter of God. "Satan, did you really think you could permanently pull this off?" I suggest that the ultimate weapon against samesex marriage is our echoing God's laughter. Same sex marriage will always be an absurdity in the way Satan's rebellion against almighty God and co-opting of humanity is an absurdity . Is it time to represent and incarnate the Resurrected Lord as laughing? Is the coming of same sex marrige God's way of teaching us even more than the wickedness of sin the absurdity of sin? A San Franciscan. Pray for us on the fault line.
caroline | 02.24.04 - 5:47 pm | #

Hello c matt,

I could live with that.

We'll see if the idea gains traction. If not, we're stuck with the FMA.

I'll take amending the Constitution democratically over letting the judges do it anyday.

Hello Bobbert,

Andrew is not, by any reasonable definition, a "conservative."

I'd call him a pro-war libertarian. You could even say: America's Pim Fortuyn.
Anonymous | 02.24.04 - 5:55 pm | #

Patrick Rockwell:

Would you support, say, a Human Life Amendment that effectively banned abortion regardless of state law? Do you support the Thirteenth Amendment that bans slavery, again without regard to state law? The principle of subsidiarity does not ban the use of higher (federal) authority when the lower (state) authority is not reasonably able to perform the task at hand.

A ban on federal imposition of non-heterosexual unions through use of the federal 9th or 14th Amendments or the Full Faith and Credit Clause may be all that can be practically hoped for through a constitutional amendment. But I fail to see what compelling moral objection there would be to an amendment that would ban recognition of non-heterosexual unions nationwide. Isn't there a moral case to be made for rescuing the poor people of Massachusetts from the intrinsically immoral conduct of their own government? You know, like rescuing Iraqis from Saddam?
T. Marzen | 02.24.04 - 6:37 pm | #

You are truly a stupid immoral dickhead.
publius | Homepage | 02.24.04 - 6:40 pm | #

If you want to see some of the human costs of banning gay marriage (which is not all about "gay sex") then go to my website for real examples of real litigation.
publius | Homepage | 02.24.04 - 6:41 pm | #

Publius:

One can *easily* argue that American culture is, in the long run, posing a far more grave threat to human beings and human life than Saddam did. T. Marzen's point is rather sensible. If it's legitimate to take out Saddam, why is it not legitimate to take out Massachusetts or San Francisco or Clones R Us, Inc? The only real answer is "Because we are the stronger." Not a particularly encouraging basis to hope for our moral progress.
Mark Shea | Homepage | 02.24.04 - 6:45 pm | #

Hello Publius,

1. Watch the language.

2. I confess I am not impressed by the cites on your website.

This may offend you, but to me they mainly highlight some of the pitfalls of allowing gays of any kind to have custody of children. Period. Children deserve a mother and father to grow up with; studies on the subjct are clear. Sometimes (due to death) this is not always possible but it is in society's interest to make sure it is the case as often as possible. The Church's position* on this issue is clear and I am in full agreement with it.

Parenthood, like marriage, is being thought of more and more as a "right." It's not. It is a privelege, and one which should be conducted primarily with the interests and good of the children in mind. That goes for both institutions. Marriage was first conceived as the most socially viable way to handle procreation and the raising of children.

*You may wish to argue separation of church and state on that point but you know and I know that the gay lobby will not stop with merely civil same sex marriages. They want the full approval and endorsement of everyone, and that must especially include the churches. Which is why they are trying so very hard in so many key denominations to warp and discredit the plain meaning of scripture to allow it.

regards,
Richard | 02.24.04 - 7:47 pm | #

Mark:

I'm afraid that you misread Publius. He isn't resorting to ad hominem because of my analogy to Saddam, but because, as his website puts it, "Christianity - properly understood - actually requires people to accept the rights of gays and lesbians," presumably including the right to legally marry.

The case examples he offers have to do with visitation and custody of children raised by lesbian couples -- visitation or custody which would usually be assured if the lesbians had been married. Of course, legal marriage or civil unions are not necessary to permit custody/visitation of bonded children -- the law could be amended to allow this short of marriage or civil union. And this situation is little different than the far, far more frequent custody/visitation problems that confront unmarried fathers and grandparents who have been involved in raising children later denied custody or visitation. But who cares about them?
T. Marzen | 02.24.04 - 7:53 pm | #

there are some very tough issues with respect to gay couples. there can undeniably be true, self-donative love in these unions. How do we deal with friends in these relationships and still witness our faith? It confuses me that a gay relationship is disordered and therefore a barrier to the individual's relationship to Christ, yet if there is love then Christ must be present and in self-giving one is drawn to Christ.
frank sales | 02.24.04 - 8:40 pm | #

Ah! I see. Well, children are resilient. The emotional needs of adults (especially Baby Boomer adults) must *always* come first. What matters is the "need" gay parent feel for a child, not the needs of a child for a mother and father. Ask any young child of gay parents. You don't hear them complaining, do you? That shows they are happy and, er, give their consent to the experimentation being done on them. (Except, as we are assured by gays saying "Don't stand so close to me" to NAMBLA, children can't be expected to give consent. Oh well. Whatever shuts down argument!)
Mark Shea | Homepage | 02.24.04 - 9:02 pm | #

why is it an equal rights issue. all homosexuals have the equal right all hetersexual have, to marry a person of the opposite gender.

gender is determined by chromosomes. if one has a y chromosome or two or three, that person is a male. no y=female.

The Church has it right. Both the unitive and procreative aspects of marriage must be implicit in the relationship, and neither aspect can be abandoned or refused by the parties without natural consequences.

One of those consequences is that two men or two women cannot by their very nature celebrate their bodies as can a man and a woman. Homosexuals are at war with their own and the opposite sex's bodies, which bodies are "very good".
ann | 02.24.04 - 9:04 pm | #

"Would you support, say, a Human Life Amendment that effectively banned abortion regardless of state law?"

No, absolutely not. It is not the purview of responsibility for the Federal Government to regulate garden-variety murders. That pertains to the police power of the State. I would, however, support an amendment which held that nothing in the Constitution should be construed as providing a right to choose an abortion. In other words, I would invalidate Roe v. Wade and let the states regulate abortions as they see fit.


"Do you support the Thirteenth Amendment that bans slavery, again without regard to state law?"

No. The Thirteenth Amendment was imposed upon the slaveholding states at the barrel of a gun. I have no warm fuzzy feelings for the "peculiar institution" or Jim Crow. Both are abhorent to me. But the history of the Federal Government's Reconstruction program which forced the southern states to free the slaves and grant equality to blacks created a backlash of frightful proportions that ring down to the present."

"The principle of subsidiarity does not ban the use of higher (federal) authority when the lower (state) authority is not reasonably able to perform the task at hand."

No, but it does not require it either.

Let's try a different case. Suppose the UN were in cultural conservative hands. If same-sex marriage were mandated by the Supreme Court, would you support blue helmets from Saudi Arabia, Libya, Russia and China invading the territory of the United States, and violating our sovereignty to force the U.S. to abandon same-sex marriage.
Patrick Rothwell | Homepage | 02.24.04 - 9:39 pm | #

Whoa! Are we EVER over lawyered!
John Palubiski | 02.25.04 - 9:47 am | #

Ann-

What about "men" with androgyn insensitivity? These are genetically male individuals who, due a to a recessive gene disorder, are insensitive to the androgyn that floods the male's system in utero. Thus, they never develop as men, but rather, as females with female secondary sex characteristics. Though they are infertile and don't menstraute, the majority live normal lives as women never suspecting that they are, in fact, genetically male.

So who do they marry?
Marc | Homepage | 02.25.04 - 1:08 pm | #

Marc,

Who ever they want to. As Mark said exceptions do not make good rules. I would think, though, that after never starting thier periods the would realize something was amiss.
Josephine | 02.25.04 - 2:28 pm | #

There must be an answer to Marc's question, even if it is a hard case, because even in a bizarre situation such as that one, the correct answer must logically follow from first principles. Obviously then, the question must be, what makes a "male" a "male" and a "female" a "female." Its hard to believe that someone could have an XY chromosone, but in fact have female genitalia through some sort of defect, but I suppose it is possible.
Patrick Rothwell | Homepage | 02.25.04 - 4:00 pm | #

Patrick,
It is possible, though the case of androgen insensitivity raised by Marc is very rare. It is due to the lack of fetal response to testosterone in development of sex organs. This is secondary to the absence of testosterone receptors on cells. Psychologicall, many individuals with this disorder are content having been raised as females even though they are genetically male.
This is in contast to males who were changed to female after injury due to circumcision or who have congenital adrenal hyperplasia with resultant ambiguous genitalia. In such cases, many parents have chosen to raise these individuals as females. Later in life, they often feel uncomfortable with their femal persona (see the case cited earlier in the thread.)
Why the difference is not clear. The bottom line is that males with very rare exceptions, even if raised as females from shortly after birth, develop male psychological traits.
SteveF | 02.25.04 - 4:36 pm | #

Thanks SteveF. It sure is much interesting to think about this issue at the moment than to interpret the meaning of certain provisions of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States.
Patrick Rothwell | Homepage | 02.25.04 - 5:36 pm | #

What about if a sub-human mental retarded creature NEEDS to marry another one of his/her kind in order to fullfil his/her miserable life with a little fighting in the mud? Would you give them the right to be married? If you do, then you are for same sex marriage. Normal people don't need to copy other's lives in order to be happy, only those sub humans I mentioned earlier.
John | 02.26.04 - 4:24 am | #

John,
First, mentally retarded individuals are not sub-human. Rather they are humans who have not realized their full intellectual potential.
Second, mentally retarded persons do marry and have children of their own. This is more common in those in the mildly or even moderately retarded range. In the severe to profound range this is unlikely due to the severity of the cognitive limitations.
I have no trouble with mentally retarded individuals marrying a person of the opposite sex and finding fullfilment in their relationship. I would argue that two mentally retarded individuals of the same sex should not marry for the reasons others have stated throughout the blog on other occassions.
SteveF | 02.26.04 - 9:28 am | #

SteveF-

Just a guess, but I suspect that the reason that so many genetic males with androgyn insensitivity are fine with their female identity is that the absence of testosterone receptors means that their brains aren't sufficiently masculinzed in utero as a boy's would be. Thus, not only do they have female sex characteristics, but they also have a more feminine brain. Again, just a guess, and perhaps one that I'm not qualified to make...

I didn't bring it up to argue for gay marriage, by the way. I really am curious as to whom androgyn insensitive males are allowed to marry, legally speaking. I imagine that most such "men" end up with other men, especially if they remain unaware of their condition, but could such a marriage be invalidated if the truth were discovered? The situation must be so rare there might not even be a legal precedent.
Marc | Homepage | 02.29.04 - 8:14 pm | #