Lefty rhetoric since Obama's election has been all about resentment and retribution. Organs like The Nation have complained that Obama . . .
- isn't planning punitive taxes on "Big Oil"
- isn't going forward with higher marginal rates on "the rich"
- has appointed people like Hillary who didn't initially oppose the Iraq War
- is holding onto Robert Gates at defense, with a diluted commitment to leaving Iraq
- has appointed too many Clinton-era veterans, who are tainted by that President's so-called moderation
Yes, we know that there are ideas behind all of this: pacifism, socialism and moral relativism. But the energy of the left is now aimed not at the policies, let alone the outcomes to which they lead. It's at the personalities, the ideological "purity" of those with whom the anointed agents of the left associate and the moral turpitude of those whom they are called to punish. The left knows as much as the rest of us what Obama will do after the inauguration. They know that he's the farthest left candidate they could have hoped to have elected. They know that giving the invocation isn't a policy-making position. But they hate Warren and don't want his cooties on the platform.
Never mind that Warren is the most widely read minister in the United States at present. Never mind that he hosted one of the most widely viewed presidential election forums. Never mind that he represents a new, less politically partisan style of leadership in what is imprecisely labeled the Religious Right. Never mind that he's a nice guy who seems pretty unassuming given his success and influence. He supported Prop 8. So let's get him.
Also never mind that Obama has cut himself off from the left wing of American Protestantism by throwing Jeremiah Wright overboard and doesn't dare re-associate himself with that bunch if he wants a clear path in 2012.
So Rick Warren will pray on Inauguration Day, putting forth the controversial supplication that God bless America. If he invokes the Christian God, he'll spark controversy before returning to Saddleback and his Hawaiian shirts. Hours later, Obama will sign an executive order overturning "don't ask, don't tell." Four years and probably eight years later, there will be no constitutional amendment defining marriage as heterosexual and monogamous. States will still be duking it out on this matter.
But will the left ever forgive Obama for his impurity?
We doubt it. They're addicted to indignation. If you aren't angry, you aren't paying attention, right?
Side note: For another example, note the downfall of Bob Kerry as prez of New School University in NYC. Faculty and students are virulently and even violently calling for his resignation, largely because he fails to enforce strict leftist litmus tests of guilt-by-association. No matters of university life and learning are on the table, anywhere that we can see.
8 comments:
Perhaps someone with more knowledge can enlighten me, but isn't Prop 8 merely an exercise in semantics? I was under the impression that "Civil Unions" in California were afforded most, if not all, of the rights of married folks. This is what makes the outrage so laughable in my opinion. The worldview of the radical leftist in this country has indeed skewed to the region of lunacy. The whole Rick Warren outcry reminds me of "calling good evil and evil good."
Have you noticed all the Chicago appointments Obama has made? Arne Duncan made me laugh.
Nick: Civil Unions are a Vermont thing. In California, marriage is still marriage. But it's not clear how much longer that will last. The only religious groups willing to speak out consistently against gay marriage are the Mormon and Catholic churches. And they're taking a beating in the press. Conservative protestant groups—with the notable exception of Saddleback Church—have been mostly silent. A prime example is Pepperdine University. In private, the administration claims to be opposed to gay marriage, but when a member from the Law School listed Pepperdine as his place of employment in a TV commercial in favor of Prop 8, the School requested that a disclaimer for the University appear in the add. In the end, the school's name was simply removed from the add.
First, under the California Family Code, same-sex partners are afforded the same rights as married couples in the state. This past year, they were granted the opportunity to file joint tax returns, allowing one person to file as head of household.
Second, I had no idea about the protests at the New School. That is hilarious. I laughed when I read one of their protest signs which proclaimed, "Cancel all student debt." I wonder if a protest of my mortgage company would work . . .
Steve-o: Are you sure that the CFC grants same-sex couples the same rights as married couples? I was under the impression that domestic partnership rights in CA come up short of civil unions, let alone marriage. But it wouldn't surprise me to find out otherwise. Every year since 1999, the legislature manages to bestow additional rights on domestic partnerships. At this rate, married couples will soon need to take to the streets to demand the same rights as domestic partners.
By the way, I should add that I'm not entirely opposed to the idea of domestic partnerships (suitably restricted). I think the state has a real interest in bringing a certain degree of stability to homosexual relationships. I draw the line at adoption, surrogate motherhood, and artificial insemination rights, however. Children have a right to be nurtured by their biological parents—and, indeed, have a deep and abiding need to be—which, absent one or both parents, implies the right to be nurtured by a heterosexual couple. Unfortunately, both of those rights are currently being violated by California's domestic partnership law.
Family Code 297.5
Steve-o. Thanks for the link. It's notable that a law primarily enacted to ensure hospital visitation rights to gay partners has, within a few years, morphed into a law that grants domestic partners "the same rights ... as are granted to ... [married] spouses." I should add, however, that the rights in question are limited to the jurisdiction of California state law. Domestic partners in California "do not have spousal rights to Social Security benefits, to spousal benefits in the other partner's pension from a private employer (if that pension is governed by Employee Retirement Income Security Act, ERISA), and will not be treated as spouses for purposes of any Federal tax law" (Wikipedia, "Domestic Partnership in the United States").
(It's also notable that a law enacted to grant the same rights to domestic partners as to married couples would be any longer than one relatively short sentence, as opposed to twelve paragraphs. But that's another complaint altogether.)
What I find disheartening about CFC 297.5, along with kindred laws, such as no-fault/unilateral divorce laws, artificial insemination laws, surrogate motherhood laws, and single-parent adoption laws, is that they invariably treat (future) children as commodities to be exchanged in the pursuit of adult happiness by undervaluing the interests of (future) children and overvaluing the interests of (future) parents. There's a great deal of social scientific literature out there about the harmful effects on children raised in non-biological, non-nuclear families. Of course, not all children raised in those circumstances are harmed, but as a society, shouldn't we be enacting laws that guarantee our kids the best family arrangements possible?
Reflecting on JB's last paragraph, we again recommend the masterful and distubing novel Never Let Me Go as a reflection on the commodification of children.
Post a Comment