February 24, 2004

Please Spare Me

Please spare me the cafeteria constitutionalism that is spreading rapidly now that President Bush has endorsed the FMA. Hey, the constitution and the rule of law are great things until somebody tries to do something I don't agree with! Jeez.

Please spare me the ad hominem attacks on all sides calling people that disagree with your preferred position heathens, bigots, fools and/or racists. How about trying an actual argument using logic and facts to persuade, or finally accepting that we may have to agree to disagree because we have different fundamental views about human nature or the human condition and God -- but that we can still get along in a civil manner on everything else?

Please spare me the sanctimonious self-righteousness of those who oppose gay marriage because it involves, gulp, homosexuals! They're here, they're queer. Get used to it. Hint -- you don't have to become one or even condone it, but they aren't going away and it is past time to reach some accomodation with their humanity.

Please spare me the sanctimonious self-righteousness of those who suddenly oppose President Bush because he has adopted what is actually quite a popular position, and one that does in fact have a moral pedigree, even if it's not one you agree with.

Please spare me Andrew Sullivan's painful feigned naivete:

I wonder if the Bush administration even thought about how mean-spirited this was going to appear. And how nakedly political. Some journalists are reporting that White House sources are telling them that they do not expect this to pass but they need to fire up their base. They'd go this far for purely political reasons? I guess I really was naive.

Come on, Andrew. Are you really that naive or have you allowed your desires to overwhelm your otherwise reasonably critical view of the world around you? And then there's this:

HEADS UP: Tonight, I'll be on World News Tonight with Peter Jennings; and on CNN's Newsnight with Aaron Brown.

Gee Andrew, you think they'd invite you on if it wasn't for an opportunity to bash President Bush? How does it feel to be used by people who wouldn't otherwise give you the time of day? Oh, sorry, that sentiment is reserved for President Bush now, I guess. But seriously, Andrew adopted the in-your-face approach recently to gay marriage and then he feels insulted that the other side hasn't just rolled over? By all means, fight for what's important to you, but please drop the pretense that your particular view of where the moral high ground lies is not open to discussion. It tends to make me believe that your faith in your cause must not be quite as strong as your rhetoric indicates.

Please spare me the double standard of skewering President Bush for doing what he believes is right, while letting Senator Kerry, Senator Edwards, and Senator Boxer off the hook for so clearly adopting a politically convenient position that I'm quite certain they do not agree with. Do you prefer honest people you don't agree with or political cowards and cads with whom you agree, even if they won't quite stand toe-to-toe with you?

Please spare me the eye-rolling that accompanies my statement that this just isn't anywhere near the top 100 of what is important to me right now.

Please spare me any comparisons equating "compassionate conservatism" to the Taliban.

Please spare me the endless drivel that we can expect on this topic for the next few months.

Posted by Charles Austin at February 24, 2004 04:23 PM

Good post.

Posted by: David at 06:05 PM

I dunno, you've left us little maneuvering room...


Posted by: Misanthropyst at 06:24 PM

"Mean-spirited" -- aauuuggghhh!! I am afraid it is time for Andrew Sulivan to talk to the hand.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at 09:08 PM

Ok, I'll spare you. :)

Andrew Sullivan has become unreadable. In his narcissistic little world, everything is about little willy. It's a shame really, he is very intelligent, perceptive, and can write very well -- when he's not writing about little willy and his grand adventures.

Posted by: Jon at 09:09 AM

I just don't see it. Marriage is an old construct that is fraught will very well tested rules. You can only marry about 15% of the people out there, as most are too young or already married. You can't even marry the people closest to you (aka your relatives). You can't get married if you're already married. If you get married and decide to marry someone else, you have to go through legal divorce procedings so you don't commit the crime of bigamy, punishable by jail time.

I don't think these people are thinking of any of that, nor legal responsibilities they'll become enmeshed in, because 'responsibilities' probably isn't at the top of the list of things driving this issue.

Posted by: George Turner at 08:47 PM