Actually, there is a good answer to that question, but if Dukakis knew it he probably realized he would just compound his problem by quoting the founder of the ACLU, Roger Baldwin. He was asked just that question, how he would react if his daughter (he was a widower) was raped and murdered. He said: "I would be so enraged I would want to see the man torn apart by wild horses. But under the circumstances I would be the last person to consult on wise public policy."

Why on earth would you attribute to an entire magazine the views of one author (not an editor or anyone in a leadership position at the publication) who has written seven articles for their online version? I'd say The New Republic lacks reading skills.

Perhaps, Apollo, because, as anyone who has read The National Review for any length of time know, such remarks are simply par for the course.

Had it been, John Derbyshire, for instance, he would have left out the sympathy part and gone straight for the jugular.

And KJL probably would have said the same thing, only less articulately.

Also, you have to love how he sees having a lesbian daughter as "adversity" and "personal vicissitude".

Jerry Sanders isn't the first person to wait until a family member was wronged before taking action. He's in the same camp as Cindy Sheehan and, to some degree, Dick Cheney. As much as I appreciate how these people have reformed their views, they are morally bankrupt.

One cannot allow hurtful policies and actions to pervade society, regardless of whether they affect one's family. By reacting only when one's family has been wronged, one is motivated not out of duty but out of empathy for the family member. Even if empathy qualifies as a moral motivator, one's empathy must extend beyond the immediate family to serve as an effective moral compass.

Though our emotional reach increasingly extends globally, it remains unacceptable to wait until problems "hit home" -- by any measure -- before caring.

But the man-woman criterion of marriage does NOT bar the homosexual man, nor the homosexual woman, from marriage.

The nature of marriage, its core, is 1) integration of the sexes, 2) contingency for responsible procreation, and 3) these combined in a coherent whole (i.e. a social institution with normative principles and practices).

The one-sex-short arrangement is sex-segregative and cannot provide contingency for responsible procreation.

So you start with the false premise that the one-sex-short arrangement is 1) always a homosexual relationship, 2) is the equivalent of sex integration and responsible procreation, and 3) there is a right to have such an arrangement treated as if it was both-sexed.

Trouble is, this also entails treating all unions of husband and wife as if they lacked either husband or wife.

As such the SSM argumentation is a direct attack on the nature of marriage. If you deny the core of marriage, then, what is the core of the type of relationship you have in mind?

-- Chairm Ohn

when it comes to the idea that other people's rights might on occassion trump his own agenda. His degree of tunnel vision on this issue is impressive and I suspect (after trying for years) unshakable. He's not in anyway homophobic (and will tell you that himself), except he strongly believes gays and lesbians should know their place and not "selfishly" assert they're as good as he is. So long as we remain at the back of the bus he'll condescend to let us be.

If "as anyone who has read The National Review for any length of time know, such remarks are simply par for the course," perhaps mentioning something other than one article would have helped. And since the assertion here is that it lacks "any shred of human feeling," the fact that they publish pro-same-sex marriage people like Rick Brookhiser and Andrew Stuttaford should meet your standard (since, I guess, "human feeling" is defined as "support for same-sex marriage"). Perhaps "Joshua Trevino Lacks Any Shred of Human Feeling" would be accurate. But why you gotta go overboard? Anyone in journalism should know better than to attribute the views of a single author to an entire publication.

I'm done. You guys can go back to patting yourselves on the back now.

What is the core of the type of relationship that pro-SSM people have in mind?

What would be the definitive legal requirements?

Would those requirements be enforced absolutely?

Would some people be ineligible? Why?

Those who advocate SSM as the new "marriage" ought to answer these questions.

It is a given that the core of the type of relationship they have in mind, and the sort of legal relationship they would impose as a substitution for marriage, is not the core of marriage.

The core of marriage is 1) integration of the sexes, 2) contingency for responsible procreation, and 3) these combined as a coherent whole.

SSMers reject that core. So what is the core of the replacement that would apply to all unions of husband and wife?

If you have a shred of human feeling, perhaps you, as an SSMer, would make the honest effort to answer basic questions about your pet project.

Chairm Ohn
The Opine Editorials

And to follow your convictions. And to worship with others who agree.

But does that mean these convictions should be the law of the land?

And would you hold to these convictions if you'd been born gay?

And the both-sexed nature of human generativity and of human community?

These are not mere "convictions".

Our laws, customs, and traditions acknowledge the core of marriage. SSM argumentation attacks it. Misl

What are your convictions? That is, what are your answers to the questions asked above? If you are certain that society must adopt your opinion on these matters, then, surely, you have in your possession ready-made answers.

As for your question about "born gay" I would ask you if you think that it is impossible for a gay person to agree with what I have said and asked -- without his being a traitor to gay identity politics?

Does a self-identified gay person have the right to object to SSM argumentation and to agree with the core of marriage?

---------

Note: while same-sex attraction may or may not be inborn, no socio-political identity is inborn. The premise of your question is profoundy flawed.

Gay identity politics is not one and the same as same-sex attraction nor is the notion of sexual orientation. The gay identity is socially constructed and chosen. It, like the experience of same-sex attraction, and like the notion of sexual orientation, is far less fixed and monolithic than is assumed in the last sentence of your comment.

Your comment implies that the core of the relationship type you have in mind is, well, simply gay identity politics. And that is nonmarital. What are the definitive legal requirements that would acknowledge this core of that relationship type?

-- Chairm Oh

This thread has taken a disturbing turn toward viewing government as the guardian against moral panic.

And what moral panic? That of the Mayor's about face?