Commenter Archive

Cascadian, wrong wrong wrong.

Griswald did not stop the Court from upholding sodomy laws in Bowers v. Hardwick. Lawrance specifically overturned Bowers and the Court apologized for Bowers. There is no straight line from Griswald to Lawrance.

Cascadian, both Griwald and Lawrence upheld the right of privacy. Griswald was largely about contraceptives. Lawrence v. Texas overturned the sodomy laws of Texas and hence all sodomy laws.

The following are the first two paragraphs from the NYTimes article reporting the decision. "The Supreme Court issued a sweeping declaration of constitutional liberty for gay men and lesbians today, overruling a Texas sodomy law in the broadest possible terms and effectively apologizing for a contrary 1986 decision that the majority said ''demeans the lives of homosexual persons.'' The vote was 6 to 3.

"Gays are 'entitled to respect for their private lives,' Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said for the court. 'The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime.' ''

The only point I was making was that in message #103 you said the LGBT community had little success in fighting against sodomy laws. Once again, the Supreme Court has overturned all sodomy laws. I would call that very succesful.

Perhaps I miss understand what you were saying.

Ed the following is from your message # 72, "My nature argument is that marriage is an idealization of the male-female relationship that bascally exists in all living things except for rare times like asexual reproduction." You said further on in that message, "Marriage is mans’ codification of that union with additional motivation including bloodline, property, etc. But it is a codification of male-female unions that exist in nature. I am not arguing that marriage is nature but that it is mans’ codifying of behavior that exists in nature."

The above is the reason I say you have a narrow view of nature. There are no "male-female unions" on the flora side of nature. Pollination occurs as blind chance. The birds bees or the breeze that spread pollen is hard to define as unions. Sexual reproduction? Sure. Unions? Not so much. Or take the example of spawning Salmon. The females lay eggs and males swim over the eggs and and release their sperm. Sexual reproduction but difficult for me to see this as any kind of union especially as it might apply to human intuitions.

I just can't accept, do not see, how nature has anything to say about marriage. Nature is diverse.

Ed, this is my last word on this particular subject. I will read any response you might post, but I think I have expressed by position as best I can.

Cascadian you write,"The LGBT community has had better luck arguing that the gov should be out of everyone’s bedroom than sodomy in particular should be legal."

Wrong. The U.S. Supreme struck down all sodomy laws in 2003, Lawrence v.Texas.

Cascadian, I don't think there is a lot of day light between our positions.

"Funnily enough, being the liberal that I am this strikes me as a very conservative approach to the problem."

I don't want to go deep into the woods with this, but classical conservative thought has little to do with the truly loathsome conservative impostor parading as the Religious Right.

Exactly Kyle, a point you made well with your question to the Catholic forced to abide Protestant government.

I went to the trouble to look up the definition of sanctity, a word you use many many times - sanctity of marriage.

1: holiness of life and character : godliness
2: the quality or state of being holy or sacred: sacred objects, obligations, or rights

Sounds to me like church business.

Civil law should content itself with civil matters.

Religious law should content itself with religious matters.

Yogi, it's love not logic. Your daughater has a great Dad.

Casadian, the "gov [can't get] out altogether ." Property is involved. No matter if it is marriage or civil union division of property must be decided upon death or divorce.

Ed, no response necessary from my point of view. We have both had our say. I really do respect what you say. We just don't agree.

Dan, let me me clear. I reject, I said reject, Ed's nature argument. Marriage is a cultural concept. Nature has nothing to do with it. Just ask a plant which plant is the father of the seed. Ed has a very narrow definition of nature. But since I see "marriage" as cultural I see any resolution of the marriage question as a cultural/political question. Hence, compromise. If equal right are granted under the rubric "civil unions" or "marriage" I really don't care. Once again, let me be clear, I would want "marriage" for all, but "civil union" for is a realistic compromise.

Dan, I agree to some extent, perhaps a large extant. There will always be the "dead endears," those that will never accept any sort of gay reorganization, unions. But I hope those dead endears are a minority, and a minority that diminishes as time goes by. Younger people seem more accepting of diversity. So will Kemic's propasial be accepted tomorror? No. Will it be accepted over time? I hope so.

Hey Ed, Hey Dan, I have been enjoying the dialog. Ed, we had many exchanges a few days/weeks back. Enjoyed "talking" with you.

So guys what do you think of this proposal?

Last week, on National Public Radio, Doug Kmiec, a cultural conservative but a supporter of Obama during the election, made this suggestion, an attempt to "end" the culture wars.

States should only recognize civil unions. Marriage should be a religious ceremony. To be clear, both straight and gay couples enjoy government sanctioned unions. Marriage would be optional, a religious choice.

This sounds good to me, as long as Federal benefits follow. Social Security, tax benefits, etc.

Ed? Dan?

This possible populist "backlash" you mention I find very interesting. To refresh memories you wrote, "Pigging backing on ED’s point about the loss of the middle class which leaves the country more open to a populist anti-elite backlash (very serious possibility right now)...."

In a similar passing glance, Frank Rich wrote, in his 2/08/09 column Slumdogs Unite! "The tsunami of populist rage coursing through America is bigger than Daschle’s overdue tax bill, bigger than John Thain’s trash can, bigger than any bailed-out C.E.O.’s bonus. It’s even bigger than the Obama phenomenon itself. It could maim the president’s best-laid plans and what remains of our economy if he doesn’t get in front of the mounting public anger." Rich later tars John Edwards as a "faux populist." (A comment I will not dispute.)

E.D. and I had a few exchanges on this populist question a few day back. To shorten my already short comments I took a look at the populist movement of the late 19th century and the progressive movement of the early 20th century and found that they had positive effects. I see the populist morphing into the progressives in as much as they were both anti-big business. For populists it was railroads and banking, for the progressives it was the social squalor created by industry. (Yes, I know oversimplifying.)

But the point I want to make, America does not have a history of populist revolts in a negative sense. Even during the darkest day of The Great Depression the population did not embrace radical extra constitutional methods to deal with their problems. There were occasional riots but even those events were not aimed at the overthrow of government. America rejected demagogues. Sure you can point to demagogues such as Father Coughlin and a few others but even though they had large followings they did not determine policy. The Communist Party did experience growth but nothing like what might have been expected given the conditions.

Sure, I can imagine a populist revolt that would not be to my liking, say a Sara Palin christian theocracy type of populism.

I try to avoid predictions especially when they involve the future, Yogi Berra, but America's history does not point in that direction.

Philip,

Freddie is the, MAN. But does not qualify as an example of "liberals... championing culture without judgment...."

I'll bet a bizillion dollars that less than .0000000001% of the population has even a remot idea of the identy of Freedie De Boer

Philp asserts, "...liberals for shamelessly championing of a culture without judgment, ..." Please pleas please explain. Examples would be really really really nice. I'm so tired of bold asserations without facts to back them up. Is every one tring to be Will Wilkinson?

E.D.

1. You state your beliefs. "I think...'ownership-society'...problematic." "I think...single-family homes...problematic." "I think [ drifting away] from extended-family living...not direction humanity was supposed to move." This unnatural drifting away from the path humans were "supposed to move" create "burdens" that you do not bother to list. You think Gladwell might hold similar views, "at least a little validation" for your positions. Okay, given your spiritual bent this thinking seems in step with other views you have expressed.

2. You don't really know about the sustainability of "homes for every family." You see "multi-generational efforts" as a possible better way of life. But please keep in mind, A. not all famlies live up to you ideal B. not all indivduals will find this "multi-generational" model to their liking.

3. "...we all want everything." Hyperbole, but again consistent with views you have expressed on other postings here.

4. I'm sure you will have objections to the words, but I see you describing dystopia and utopia.

5. So I am forced to ask, who, or perhaps better, what forces are responsible for these perceived ills? The National Association of Home Builders, real estate agents, Chamber of Commerce, The Lolly Pop Guild?

6. What examples from history do you look to and say, "see, this is what I'm talking about." Brook Farm, the Oneida Community, hippie communes, Amish? Perhaps a European, Jeremy Bentham or Robert Owen?

7. Large historical forces brought about the conditions you seem to dislike. Discovery of agriculture, domestication of animals, division of labor, rise of cities, industrialization, and perhaps the most recent development the micro-chip, which brings both macro and micro results with regard to society.

8. I don't think Wilkinson had any of this in mind in his short post on the evils of home ownership and jobs, but you are certainly within your rights to change or expand the subject.

9. I stand by my criticism of the Wilkinson post. He offered no statistics to back up his claim that home ownership hinders the filling of jobs.

10. I don't want everything.

Andrew S. provides another link of questionable value, "What Was So Wrong With Renting, People?" Andrew links to a Will Wilkinson post at The Week. As Andrew often says, the money quote from W.W.

"Government-subsidized borrowing gave us the housing bubble, precipitated financial Armageddon, helped prompt recession and mass unemployment. But, as the infomercials say, that's not all! By zealously pushing home-ownership, federal housing policy has pinned to the map many now-jobless Americans who otherwise would have moved to find new work."

Wilkinson provides not one fact to prove his assertion, "...would have moved to find work." He sights a study from the National Bureau of Economic Research. The study finds that people are loath to move, give up their homes at a loss, and find it burdensome financially to move but not a single fact, or even one example of some one having the prospect of work in another place but staying put because of home ownership. A shoddy piece of work from Will.

I'm thinking these two examples from Sullivan are just more of the conservative "echo chamber." Will Rush be next to pick up on the glorious life style WalMart affords, and another talking point to disparage home ownership?

Below is a very rough beginning of a long piece I was working on something along the lines of the video you linked. In my notes I have well over 100 examples of government growth. In the examples I wanted to write about I made no distinction between "good" or "bad" government action. For example, establishing land grant colleges, bad, interment of the Japanese, good. I only wanted to show that small government is a myth. Conservatives can complain about big government in theory, but practice and history label any claim bogus.

THE MYTH OF SMALL GOVERNMENT

The post Civil War American conservative movement is largely biased on four concepts: (1) small government, (2) free markets, (3) strong national defense. In the late 1970's Jerry Falwell, at the urging of Robert Grant, founded the Moral Majority and thus added (4) fundamental Christian ideals to the modern American conservatism. Regardless of party affiliation conservatives will generally embrace these four principles as necessary in any attempted definition of a conservative movement.

The ideal of small, limited government, is part and parcel of both classical conservatism and classical liberalism. In short, government should should interfere as little as possible, freedom should be maximized. In classical economic conservatism this takes the form of laissez faire theory, owners, not government, are best equipped to set the rules governing business and setting the conditions of labor. For classical liberalism the ideal rests in human rights and popular sovereignty, both of these can be traced back, at least, to the 16th century School of Salamanca. Humanism and freedom of thought are also concepts associated with classical and modern liberalism.

Ideals are one thing, practice, history, is another. So the question is, Just how how successful, historically, have those touting small government been?

In recent days President George W. Bush admitted that he has had to surrender some of his free market ideals in order to confront the banking crisis, thus growing government interference in that area and leading some conservatives to call it a "nationalizing of the banking system." Maybe so. But this is not the first time Bush and small government types in the Republican Party have grown government. It is not difficult to find other Bushian growth. Expansion of Medicare to include prescription drugs is just one costly example of governmental growth passed by a Republican, and a self defined conservative, administration. This insults the very idea of small government. Now, I am not passing judgment on the rightness or wrongness of those two actions. They are just growth of government instituted by an administration talking but not walking the small government meme. Recent history.

The question, asked above, deserves a longer historical view in the context of America after the Revolution.

THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION AND THE CONSTITUTION

In 1777 the Second Continental Congress proposed the adoption of the Articles, this was broadly an attempt to bring about greater cooperation among the newly established states in the prosecution of the continuing Revolutionary War. Ratification of the Articles was finalized in 1781, the War would end in 1783. The War clearly demanded larger governmental powers in order to successful expel the British army. After the War the Articles proved inadequate to the needs of a functioning government. Shays' Rebellion, 1786-1787, exemplified the internal weakness of government under the Articles. In 1787 Charles Pinkeny proposed that the Articles be revised in order to expand government in the areas of foreign and domestic commerce and in allow Congress to collect money from state treasuries. Delegates were sent to Annapolis, later Philadelphia, to revise the Articles. Any revision would need to be accepted by all thirteen states but as the delegates continued meeting it was decided that the Articles should not be revised but discarded. More important, the delegates decided, in contradiction of their instructions, that only nine states need ratify the new document for it to take force. The result of the meetings was The Constitution. It represented a huge increase in governmental power. The Constitution had its critics. Some feared that it represented a much to large grant of power to a central government. To quell these fears The Bill of Rights were added, limitations on Congress, "Congress shall make no law...." With this addition the Constution was ratified in 1790. This is about the last meaningful attempt to limit government in the United States.

HAMILTON AND GROWTH OF GOVERNMENT

I did not take long for sides to form in the battle over the nature of the new government.

Consumatopia, you write, "Some of the comments ARE crazy enough that I can’t blame someone for not reading them all. I hope I’m not one of them, but who knows?"

Isn't that just the problem, I mean "who knows?" A crude term I first encountered reading Will Durant "one man's meat, another man's poison."

I'm willing to admit that I may not agree with all comments, but "crazy" is in the eye of the beholder. Who knows?

OK, I'm not going to pick at your response, but Willie Boy offers no such qualifier's. He says flat out, “Needless to say, the comments are crazy."

One more point. HufPost publishes all comments, and I bet Huff gets a lot more comments than Sullivan. So I reject that line.

E.D I find it odd that you direct readers and commenter's to Will when he writes this, "Needless to say, the comments are crazy. There are few things that The Internet loves more than a good, sloppy, angry argument about The Atheism. Most of the expected points have been made (although, surprisingly, the C.S. Lewis mimic hasn't made his appearance yet)."

Perhaps the Gentlemen should close the comment section and adopt the Andrew Sullvian mode of selected responses. BTW when you only referenced "Will" I thought Wilkinson. Well that would be bad enough but this guy, Jesus, Mary and Joseph.

The little people have no voice.

Well said. We disagree on the god thing but I'm very close to your stance regarding foreign policy.

I am going to dissent just a tad.

You write, "All these wasted years and wasted opportunities will leave America only more vulnerable, more exposed, and less capable to address new threats when they arise."

I don't see "these wasted years" as being determinative. Wasted? Without question. Determinative? No.

I am very convinced that our battle in the Near East, with Islam, Persia, Arab, whatever short-hand you wish to use, has been baked into the cake. I take Samuel Huntington and his "Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order" as my guide. I see some of Huntingon in what you said. But Huntingon said the the West and Islam are destined to clash, I know, a way to simple shortening of his book, but that is my view. Huntington writes,"...after the Cold War...Global politics began to be configured along cultural lines."

Generally the Left condemned Huntington, way to deterministic for their thinking. The Right pretty much embraced the view. The Right could envision a Manichean argument being made. President G.W. Bush, the preeminent Manichean of our age saw a way to start a phony hot war with Iraq, and bring western values to that country.

Huntigton rejects the notion that the West can accomplish such a task. Islam, to it's very bones, rejects western values. Islam is male dominated. It rejects pluralism. It rejects democracy. It places god's law above civil law. Islam does not value the state, it places value in the religion. It values a sort of pan-Islamic notion where coreligionist are valued more than the artificial nation state where Moslem's reside.

As I said, a clash is pretty much baked into the cake.

So back to the top. W.G. Bush only(?) exacerbated the condition, he did not bring it about.

President Obama will have to deal with the remnants of the Bush policy. I see a policy of limited engagement as best. Stress diplomacy and try, try, try, to avoid military action. If war comes let it be the enemy that forces our hand. No more phony preemptive wars.

E.D. I don't really have a quarrel with you. Your philosophy, "...the purpose of Christianity is not to build wealth but to live simply and good and with as little as possible)….” is
one I share, leaving out the christian thing. You see Christ as an inspiration, I see common sense as my inspiration, the "less is more" argument.

My gripe, well one of them, with religion is that it is totally subjective but the religious refuses to admit it. After all, if god has inspired the writing of holy texts (Bible, Book of Mormon, Kur'an) setting forth his will, well you better damn sure follow it/them, "drink my blood" to holy under ware.

That example, my anti-Jesus post was directed at the very point you used in your defense. I know you are not anti-Jesus, you love Christ, but your Christ is not Benny Hinn's Christ, it is not the pope's Christ, it is not the Christ Andrew Sullivan sees. You said that there are different interpretations of how to spread the Gospels, you have the lead by example model, Billy Graham the proselytize model, the Mormon's the sending out of young missionaries to disturb my Saturday morning, Islam, the knock a few heads together model. But most things in religion are rife with interpretation. Most(?) christians believe that good works are necessary to gain heaven, but Calvin had a different view. Folks were born saved or damned, good works would not change their destiny. The list is close to endless. Religious wars fought because of some minor, my word, interruption of a holy text.

I am not claiming the above criticism is new, indeed it is a quite common critique of religion. But for me it is a valid critique. Religion is subjective.

Now the religious will probably answer with, "these interruptions are minor, we all agree that X is the true god." Well I'm not buying that argument, when you are sending your opposition to eternal flames for not buying "it really does turn into the blood of Christ" it's getting pretty serious.

These inter and intra- disputes diminish religion far more than any some rant by Dawkins.