Jun 272015
 

lovewinsMy dear friends Jennifer and Melissa, life partners since 1993, got engaged yesterday. I am so very happy for them and the many other couples who were similarly unencumbered with this ruling.

I’m also exhausted. Oh, not that I’ve been some kind of tireless activist. I’m just so weary of this being a thing. This has all been settled for me for literally decades—so settled that sometimes when I encounter continued angst over it, I’m caught off-guard.

If you are troubled by yesterday’s decision, please know that I understand that your position can be held by thinking, reasonable people. I know, because I know scores—perhaps hundreds—of said people. Please also know that if you’re interested in discussing rights and wrongs, then I will, but I’m not going to pick a fight with you, today or ever. And if I like you, love you, or both, your position on gay marriage has no bearing on that. I don’t agree with anyone in the world all the time, including myself.

What I will ask you to do is try very hard to take genuine stock of this.

If your objection is a Christian one, then what makes this hill worth dying on? Multiple Bible verses tell us that sin is sin. If homosexuality is one, it’s just another one. Shouldn’t we lead with God’s grace and loving our neighbor? Why must we also torture a piece of Leviticus or Romans and pretend it’s as important as anything Jesus said?

If your objection is a social one, then, sad to say, you just have a bit of bucking up to do. I’m dealing with a bit of the same thing. You know the gigantic gauged piercings that are in vogue right now? I find them grotesque. The very worst are the open rings. They just freak me right the hell out. You know what, though? I’m behind the societal curve on this. It’s my issue. I can learn to deal with it, or I can stay in my house and never come out. That’s life.

How big a deal is it? How big a deal is it really? Is it as important as feeding the poor? As being a person of your word? As doing your best to model good behavior for your children?

I think marriage in this country needs a lot of help. I’m just not so sure taking such severe issue with two people agitating to commit is a productive step.

From a strictly political perspective, I think if the Republicans are smart about this ruling, then it’s a huge blessing. It should be a highly effective card to play. I mean, superseded, right? Gay marriage is the law of the land nationwide, so why even talk about it? Now that’s a bit of a cheat—I would have preferred an epiphany of substance—but I’ll take what I can get. I suspect S.E. Cupp will too.

I hope we’ll be able to look back on this day as the moment this narrative genuinely began settling.

 Posted by at 12:36 am
Jun 232015
 

“…the Confederacy’s primary reason for being was to preserve racial slavery — that is, to violate natural rights rather than to secure them. That is what Confederate soldiers fought for. Whatever else their battle flag may mean, it has to mean that.”

“If your ancestors fought for the Confederacy, I do not respect their ‘service’ or their ‘sacrifice.'”

So said National Review‘s “managing editor” Jason Lee Steorts yesterday.

I’ve been a loyal reader of National Review, and National Review Online, since 2000. I have contributed financially to National Review most of those years—usually with a subscription fee, but sometimes with a pledge drive donation.

I have long appreciated the consistent dignity its editorial staff brings to the discussion, whatever the discussion may be (and however irreverent the writer). It is a dignity that has always been informed by the fact that thinking, reasonable people can come to different conclusions.

This thinking, reasonable person concludes that scare quotes around “service” and “sacrifice” above are not dignified.

Jason Lee Steorts’ National Review association has taken a rather bizarre turn lately. Before this latest chapter, his most recent play was a 7,000-word discursive emesis supporting gay marriage.

Now given my position on such, I was fine with most of the content. However, so little editorial discretion with such high visibility is alarming. Too tame for red meat, yet far too long to reach anyone persuadable, it wears its self-indulgence on its sleeve. It’s a poster child piece for the power of a good editor.

And now we have the above. It is the spitting on of the notion that thinking, reasonable people can find the Civil War, its causes, and its effects complex topics indeed; the wholesale dismissal of the premise that there is room for genuine honor of the fallen on both sides.

It’s perhaps poetic that Steorts is the guy who ran off Mark Steyn from National Review because he wasn’t being polite enough, don’t you think?

As I type Jason Lee Steorts has remained silent in the aftermath of his screed. I presume said silence corresponds to a lack of regret. This stance falls unacceptably short of National Review‘s long-established bar.

Should he continue to be unrepentant, Steorts’ association with National Review should be terminated.

 Posted by at 7:45 am
Jun 172015
 

The U.S. Treasury has announced that the new $10 bill, to enter circulation in 2020, will feature a woman. Who? No idea. By law she has to be dead, and “the theme of democracy” is mentioned at the above link. Other than that? Well, she’ll have a vagina! This is a splendid manifestation of this […]

 Posted by at 11:59 pm

BoWilliams.com is using WP-Gravatar