What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

In other news...

square circles have been ruled to be precisely equivalent to circular ones.

Comments (39)

Tsk. How exclusive. You have left out triangular circles. I decry your triangulophobia!

The coming years are going to give conservatives excellent opportunities to black knight the left. I'd suggest that conservatives start by insisting that VAWA be expanded to include all gay couples and to impose draconian penalties on municipalities that don't do things like extend the Duluth model to homosexuals and institute mandatory arrests for the person who is the target of the complaint. Who can oppose that except people who marginalize the horrors of domestic violence?

In other news: Dog's tails ruled to be legs. Finally, justice for Man's Best Five-legged friend!

Also, it is inevitable that my case to be legally recognized as Napoleon will prevail. Why don't you all just start saluting me and saying "Oui mon Général! now?

Of course we shall "oui" the wee General, as long as he doesn't wee all over the place. Whee, this is fun!

Ryan Anderson writes in First things
Five unelected judges do not have the power to change the truth about marriage or the truth about the Constitution.
Question:
Do 320 million Americans have this power?

Social conservatives are NOT disheartened. There is now DOMMA to fight for!
The Defense of Monogamous Marriage Act (DOMMA) to bar polygamy explicitly. We MUST NOT go down the slippery slope! Sanctity of the number 2 must not be violated.

Bedarz Illiaci,

Nobody has the power to change the truth about marriage.

As I recently wrote (shameless plug: http://www.thronealtarliberty.blogspot.ca/2015/06/the-collective-madness-of-age.html), the decision by the American Supreme Court and the decision by our Parliament ten years ago which together make same-sex "marriage" available across Canada and the United States are of the nature of Petruchio's making Katharina say that the sun is the moon. Marriage is what it is and neither government nor popular opinion have the power to change it any more than they have the power to make two plus two equal five. This, of course, is what Mr. Freivald is getting at in the post that begins this thread.

Gerry O Neal,
Then what was the case fought for? It seems to me when one accepts to fight a case in a court, one has accepted the possibility of a defeat and more than that, one accepts the outcome. That is, by going to the Court, one accepts the authority of the Court. Now, Ryan Anderson, and social conservatives in general, if I am not mistaken, told us that they have arguments, very subtle arguments that would vindicate the social conservative cause in the Court.

But now, the cause has lost and they are now saying that the Court had no authority!! Did Ryan Anderson realize it only couple of days ago? Why did no conservative say that the Court had NO authority to try this case and the conservatives will NOT accept any negative outcome?

Bedarz Iliaci,

Dr. Thomas Fleming has maintained all along that the path to same-sex marriage began with the state's usurping authority over marriage from the Church and that conservatives should not support measures like DOMA because they assume the authority of the state to define marriage which implies its authority to redefine it. I remember Sam Francis arguing the same thing in a column years ago (2003 I think) and I think most of the other Chronicles editorial staff viewed the matter similarly.

Suppose somebody were to go to court to try and get two plus two changed from four to five. Suppose further, that the court were crazy enough to rule in their favour. If mathematicians were to challenge this would their doing so mean that they accept the court's authority to change the laws of mathematics? Even if it did mean that, would this acceptance somehow validate the court's authority?

Nonsense. Attempting to get the SCOTUS to say that 2 + 2 = 4 in order to stop the mouths of some lower courts who were saying that it equals 5 and who were attempting to force the states to recognize that does _not_ mean that one is saying that SCOTUS has the authority to declare that 2 + 2 = 5. If the homosexuals had not taken the aggressive stance and had not gotten some lower courts to affirm the absurdity, no one would have appealed to SCOTUS in an attempt to make it clear to the lower courts that they had no such authority. Since SCOTUS (five of them, anyway) have instead chosen to lie and affirm the absurdity, we go on from here. But it's simply illogical to say that the appeal itself meant that those making the appeal were bound to abide by or acknowledge the legal legitimacy of an absurd conclusion on the part of the higher court.

Bedarz, you are projecting all sorts of confusion and ambiguity into a matter that is not itself confused or ambiguous. On the off chance that you are not doing it intentionally and its not a mere pretense:

That is, by going to the Court, one accepts the authority of the Court. Now, Ryan Anderson, and social conservatives in general, if I am not mistaken, told us that they have arguments, very subtle arguments that would vindicate the social conservative cause in the Court.

Who "went to court"? Those who objected to the prior arrangement, who wanted the prior understanding of marriage turned upside-down. Ryan Anderson and defenders of the traditional understanding of marriage did not "go to court" to get a change.

The "battle" in court is of course a logistical and verbal battle, not one with swords or guns. Yet it is just as true in court as it is in real war that it only takes one party to go on the offensive and attempt to conquer others, it doesn't take two parties. The party being attacked can either put up an actual defense and "go to war" that way, or they can not put up a defense and be conquered. If you are sued in court, and you don't show up to defend yourself, the judge generally "awards" the decision to the attacker (plaintiff) regardless of the rational weight of his claim.

Ryan Anderson and the rest of of natural law defenders never said that they had arguments that were likely to persuade the men and women of this Supreme Court of the validity of the traditional understanding of marriage. They claimed something else: that they had rational arguments that do establish the validity of the traditional understanding of marriage. That some men and women simply will not accept the valid reasoning is a completely different matter. There are rational arguments that show the validity of the position that the world is round, but there are STILL people who won't accept the reasoned arguments and insist on a Flat Earth. That they are unreasonable and reject the arguments doesn't say anything about the validity of the reasoned arguments. Similarly, that 5 men and women reject the valid arguments for the traditional understanding of marriage says nothing about the validity of the arguments.

That is, by going to the Court, one accepts the authority of the Court.

You are again equivocating. By showing up in court and defending yourself, you are showing that you acknowledge that the outcome in court will have an effect on you. This is not the same as accepting that the outcome in court OUGHT to have an effect on you. Many times a court takes upon itself to judge in a matter that it should not judge, and has no TRUE authority to judge, and yet it does so anyway. If other men follow that judgment of that court, and enforce its decision with force, arms, prisons and so on, the court's decision has an effect that it shouldn't have. To ignore the ACTUAL effect because the court SHOULDN'T have had that effect is to be out of touch with reality.

If a judge ruled that pi is five, he is ruling on a matter that is not actually under his jurisdiction as a judge. That he has no authority to so rule doesn't prevent his actually stating "Pi is five". If police arrest and other judges convict people who insist "pi is between 3.14 and 3.15", these outcomes will happen regardless of the fact that the judge had no authority to pronounce that "pi is five". To ignore the fact that you are being forcibly pushed into a jail because the judge had no authority to so rule is, literally, a kind of insanity.

The traditional (and natural law) understanding of marriage is that it is a kind of thing that has a "nature" regardless of what men say about it. That is, the position says that some things are true of marriage because of realities that are independent of what men say or how men have arranged social structures - just as some things are true of the lungs (that the lungs help deliver oxygen to the blood, for example) regardless of whether men correctly understand those truths, regardless of whether men speak correctly on those truths, regardless of whether men arrange their society to reflect those truths. That men before the discovery of oxygen might not have been able to appreciate that truth fully is utterly meaningless to whether the lungs really are that way or not. Similarly, the natural law position is that some things are true of marriage no matter how much men might be clear about it or not, and no matter if social arrangements reflect those truths.

If there are such truths about marriage, a judge has no more ACTUAL authority to decide that they are not true than that a judge has authority to decide that lungs shall not help deliver oxygen to the blood. It is nonsensical to claim that whether lungs shall help deliver oxygen to blood is a matter subject to a judge's authority to choose. For a judge to claim that authority is different from a judge actually having the authority.

That men will follow the judge's decision in trying to enforce his conclusion is an observation about power, not about authority. Since he cannot have actual authority to choose what lungs shall do nor to choose what marriage is, men trying to put his choice into effect would be an exercise of power but not an exercise of due authority. In effect, his decision that "lungs shall not help deliver oxygen to the blood" would actually be a directive to officials in government: "you shall arrest people who defy my stance that lungs shall not help deliver oxygen to the blood", and THOSE ARRESTS will be real even if his theory about lungs is empty, his directives to men will have actual effects even though his ruling doesn't change what lungs actually do. That's the result of power, not the result of authority (if he had authority to so rule, lungs would cease to deliver oxygen to the blood because he rules so).

Why did no conservative say that the Court had NO authority to try this case and the conservatives will NOT accept any negative outcome?

It is still possible that some conservatives will say that "we will not accept the court's decision." It is possible that a state or other jurisdiction will have officials who say "we refuse to follow your claim." If they do, the practical results will be very sad for someone, most likely themselves. But THAT process, and its eventual outcome, is a separate matter from deciding to argue in court. If the states refused to go to court at the district level at all, that court would have ruled in favor of the petitioners on procedural grounds - there being no contest. You have to show up in court to even make the case that "this court has no jurisdiction to rule whether lungs shall help deliver oxygen to the blood". And the court has to weigh the ARGUMENT that "this court has no jurisdiction to so rule" in order to find that the court agrees with the argument and decline to rule. So refusing to go to court is not the same things as being RIGHT that the court has no jurisdiction to rule, and being right about that is not the same thing as achieving the effect that the court agrees with you that it has no jurisdiction to so rule and thus refuses to rule.

As a strategic stance, it was implausible that attempting to argue in court that "you have no authority over this subject" was going to persuade most of the judges, so attempting to make the argument was unlikely to achieve a desired outcome. Refusing to make one argument that probably won't persuade even though valid, in favor of making a different argument with slightly more chance of persuading, is a prudential judgment not regarding the underlying truth of marriage but regarding the practical effect on the bench. Plenty of people have been making the argument that judges have no authority to change marriage the ways gays want it changed, so its not like the justices were unaware of the thesis.

In fact, Roberts DID say that the Court didn't have the authority being arrogated to it by the 5-judge majority:

Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be...
Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be...

Unless that law goes by the nickname Obamacare.

Roberts is a shameless hack.

It seems to me when one accepts to fight a case in a court, one has accepted the possibility of a defeat and more than that, one accepts the outcome. That is, by going to the Court, one accepts the authority of the Court.

This is not true. Nobody really believes it to be true.

Liberals would not agree with you, for instance. They're willing to go to court to say that creationism shouldn't be taught in classrooms, but if they lose, they will not say that creationism should be taught in classrooms. They're willing to go to court to preserve "abortion rights", but if they lose, they will not say that abortion should not be a right.

Our beliefs about truths, including normative beliefs, are what drive us to court to ensure that society is ordered around those truths. We may be defeated in court, but that doesn't change the truth itself. Defeat doesn't change our beliefs about the truth, either.

Then what was the case fought for?

To see which way the power of the state would be applied.

Losing means we will see the power of the state used in ways we don't want. That doesn't mean we're obligated to support it if we can resist in appropriate ways.

Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be...
WHERE in the US Constitution is any judge given this power?

Article III, section 2:

"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;"

I hope its ok if I get off topic in order to bring up a previously discussed topic...

“Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered.”

I wonder if Kennedy may have inadvertently thrown a bone to the wedding vendors that do not want be involved in celebrating homosexual relationships with this. Suppose a baker, florist, planner, etc. was approached by a same sex couple to help celebrate their relationship. It seems to me they should be able to take Kennedy at his word and use the opportunity to advocate and teach that marriage is a union of man and woman and what that couple is seeking to do is simply not marriage at all.

The mathematician should declare his denial of the Court's authority; at most, he could demonstrate the mathematical truth. But any assumption of an expectant posture on his part would be fatal to the cause.

The Reaction is not displeased at the outcome. The outcome vindicates the position that to take part in a political process that has an unacceptable outcome as a possibility is to legitimize the unacceptable outcome and then it is best to withdraw from the process altogether. The matter is not to be settled by words.

Plus, the Reaction expects defections to come from the Conservatives.

Liberals would not agree with you,
True but conservatives ought to. For as it has been said, conservatives believe in the Constitution but liberals in power.

No, Bedarz. Believing in the Constitution doesn't mean that I believe gay "marriage" is marriage. The court's decision shows how the machinery of government will turn, for the most part, but it doesn't mean anything about what I should or shouldn't accept.

Conservatives still hoping to continue the game:
"But Obergefell is also embarrassingly bad as a contribution to the political and social debate on marriage. From this I take heart that the battle can be rejoined, with the making of better arguments—each side offering its best against the other’s best—in a struggle that will continue for years to come."
Matthew J. Franck at thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/06/15235/

Does he believe that his opponents have good arguments? And does his side need better arguments?

DR84, the dissent noted that the word "advocate" was used rather than a word like "exercise" or "free exercise." The dissent's sense was that the majority's ruling was carefully worded to _restrict_ the actual freedom of religion acknowledged. The application to the baker would be that the baker can _maybe_ put a sign in his window (as one jeweler did in Canada recently) saying that he supports traditional marriage, but he can't refuse to bake the cake. Even the "advocacy" contained in the sign _might_ still be disallowed under "hostile environment" employment and public accommodation laws, and I have not the slightest doubt that the current justices in the majority would ratify that if it were the decision of some bureaucrat: "You're free to advocate your position, but not at your place of business, where doing so undermines the fundamental right of LGBTQ customers and employees not to suffer a hostile work and purchasing environment." In essence, the only places they really want to let us "advocate" this are inside the walls of our own churches. Until and unless we have to give up those walls because of loss of tax exempt status, of course...

It seems to me when one accepts to fight a case in a court, one has accepted the possibility of a defeat and more than that, one accepts the outcome.

This is a joke, right? Did the proponents of SSM accept the outcome of Baker v. Nelson? Did the proponents of gay rights more generally accept the outcome of Bowers v. Hardwick?

This is a joke, right?

Maybe, but it wasn't funny. However Bedarz's "Sanctity of the number 2 must not be violated" had me rolling on the floor.

Does he believe that his opponents have good arguments? And does his side need better arguments?

Let me put it this way, everyone knew going into this that Justice Kennedy was the only vote that mattered for this case. During oral arguments a lawyer for traditional marriage, John Bursch, pursued a strategy of "the primary interest the State has in marriage is about producing children" which only two of the conservative justices had previously supported as decisive. In addition, when asked by Justice Kagan if it would be unconstitutional to limit marriage to only heterosexuals who are planning to procreate Bursch conceded it would be, undermining his entire argument. Although I believe the major catastrophe was when Bursch managed to exasperate Kennedy by saying that marriage is not, for the State, a dignity bestowing institution, but to be fair he also admitted that culturally it does act in that fashion.

It seems to me they should be able to take Kennedy at his word and use the opportunity to advocate and teach that marriage is a union of man and woman and what that couple is seeking to do is simply not marriage at all.

It is difficult to predict what Kennedy will do, but he might make a distinction between those who are, or normally are, directly involved in the wedding ceremony proper as opposed to secondary 'event' activities. For example photographers and wedding planners would have a stronger religious liberty objection argument than someone who provides flowers or food.

For example photographers and wedding planners would have a stronger religious liberty objection argument than someone who provides flowers or food.

True, but I seriously doubt that Kennedy wants to bog down the Court with myriad picky decisions about this and that element, and will simply wash away the whole mess.

The Reaction is not displeased at the outcome. The outcome vindicates the position that to take part in a political process that has an unacceptable outcome as a possibility is to legitimize the unacceptable outcome and then it is best to withdraw from the process altogether. The matter is not to be settled by words.

What Bedarz is promoting is not merely objection to democracy, but to LAW itself. For every human authority who has the authority to make a law might make a law that you object to as "unacceptable". And so you ought to refuse to accept his authority to make law, period. Every man is a law unto himself.

Such, then, is the mindless barbaric willfulness of "The Reaction".

Yes, Kennedy's words wont help the baker/florist/planner/photographer if the same sex couple presses the issue and demands the service. I only thought they could be used as a defense against charges of discriminatory signaling/hostile environment. Kennedy did not place any limitations on where and when someone could advocate and teach their view of marriage after all. Of course, I do not doubt as you suggest that if it came to it that the court would find that there really are hidden limitations and always were.

True, but I seriously doubt that Kennedy wants to bog down the Court with myriad picky decisions about this and that element, and will simply wash away the whole mess.

Kennedy joined the majority in the Hobby Lobby decision, so it seems like he would need a fairly strong reason to distinguish one valid religious liberty objection from another. At this point it is obvious that he opposes discrimination against sexual orientation as a general principle, so he would want to craft a narrow exemption to discrimination law.

I read a joke today that all the wedding planners are now busy planning their own weddings, so for that profession discriminatory signaling may not be much of a problem.

The question How does that affect me? has no answer within the mainstream conservatism which is wedded to (mindless?) individualism. Non-individualists such as Anthony Esolen have provided cogent arguments against gay marriage which Ryan Anderson & Co won't touch even with a bargepole.

And this was the question millions asked themselves and receiving no answer and no help voted Yes! for Equality.

Tony,
Is Catholic Church for mindless barbarism? She has declared the outcome unacceptable.
Each person, that is not wedded to (mindless?) totalitarianism, has certain propositions and situations that are unacceptable and that person would leave the political compact and resort to extra-political means if faced with that situation.

But if your position is that it is immoral ever to question the American Law (even though it has been subverted and is used to destroy the American people) then you have crossed over to (mindless?) totalitarianism of American Conservative flavor. Further argument is futile.

Conservatives also made great tactical blunder with hyping of gay promiscuity. Promiscuity is irrelevant to the moral disorder of gay behavior and irrelevant emphasis on this point naturally led to the conservative response of gay monogamy to counter gay promiscuity.

The traditional social norms are better served with a closeted promiscuous gayness rather than open monogamous gayness. But social science studies show marriage to be the answer to all social ills. Hence gay marriage, hence polyamory marriage--all promoted as conservative answers.

Tony,
Kindly read
"Further argument is futile."
as
"rendering further argument futile".

Promiscuity is irrelevant to the moral disorder of gay behavior and irrelevant emphasis on this point naturally led to the conservative response of gay monogamy to counter gay promiscuity.

That is a misunderstanding of the point concerning promiscuity. It is not that we should try to make homosexuals be "monogamous" (an abuse of that word) and then all will be well. It is rather that homosexual promiscuity shows a) that they are lying in their claim to desire monogamy, and in fact that promiscuity and "open marriages" will be promoted _to_ heterosexual married people as well by the inclusion of homosexuals in the category of "married" (this is already happening, by the way) b) that the promiscuity arises from the sexual perversion itself. Not absolutely inevitably, but with high probability. With no complementarity to bind the so-called "couple" together, and with no intrinsic teleology in building a stable family, homosexual acts are an expression of the desire to be perverse as an end in itself. Hence there is no great value to homosexuality or in it for exclusivity. The promiscuity, then, is a _sign_ of the perversion of the relationships.

It isn't wrong to bring it up. It just has to be brought up cannily and clearly. I grant you that plenty of conservatives mishandle this and don't connect the dots when discussing homosexual promiscuity (especially male), largely because they are trying to be "scientific" and want to avoid any appearance of being insulting.

But that doesn't mean that promiscuity is irrelevant.

With no complementarity to bind the so-called "couple" together, and with no intrinsic teleology in building a stable family, homosexual acts are an expression of the desire to be perverse as an end in itself.

Thank you for pointing this out, Lydia. It's very difficult to see the point, but maybe it's easier to show than to demonstrate. That is, it's easy to point to the extreme exhibitionism and the celebration of perversion for its own sake that is the defining characteristic of "pride" parades and the like. Those things are the way they are because homosexuality is at bottom about defying the created order and reducing sexuality to an extension of the human will, a thing invented and asserted by the self, rather than being inherited as an aspect of our nature. Homosexual relationships can hardly be a reliable vehicle for stability and sanity for those engaged in them, for the simple reason that they instantiate a willful rejection of truth. Sexual restraint as such just isn't a comprehensible virtue in the context of what people call "gay culture," because it lacks any basis in natural reality, and all the soft-focus insurance ads in the world can't change the bitter reality.

Straight promiscuity has everything to do with the moral disorder of gay behavior. Promiscuous people try to shield themselves from the consequences of their promiscuity, thereby stripping the linkage between sex and children, thereby leading to attitudes toward sex that are fully compatible with gay sex.

Gay "marriage" is a straight-line (ha!) descendant of straight promiscuity.

And it's the other way around, too. Homosexual "marriage" is already increasing calls for more open marriages, and there have already been articles stating that homosexuals, by _not_ being sexually exclusive, have "something to teach" heterosexual married people. Of course there are both male and female heterosexual people out there who will be only to happy to learn this "lesson"--namely, that sexual exclusivity, self-control, self-sacrifice, maturity, and love, insofar as they have taken the first baby steps toward them by getting married and promising fidelity, are now shackles to be thrown off.

How will homosexual "marriage" affect straight marriage? How, indeed.

But if your position is that it is immoral ever to question the American Law (even though it has been subverted and is used to destroy the American people) then you have crossed over to (mindless?) totalitarianism of American Conservative flavor.

Since that is NOT my position, and nobody who reads my words would think so, you are attacking a straw man.

to take part in a political process that has an unacceptable outcome as a possibility is to legitimize the unacceptable outcome

It is one thing to attack an evil law, and to disobey it when it demands you do something immoral. That's what good men do.

It is another thing to refuse to participate in politics because somebody in politics might pass a law that you find offensive. Or, to take it further, because somebody in the process might pass a "law" that is downright immoral. Good men MUST participate in politics precisely because WITHOUT THEM, somebody might pass a law that is downright immoral, and it is their job to get in there and work to prevent it. Participation in the political order can be a duty though you might not succeed in preventing bad men from doing bad things - you MIGHT SUCCEED, too. To forsake the political order because there are bad men involved is to refuse the human condition. You don't get to form a society of only saints - you wouldn't be allowed as a member.

The correct approach is to take part in political matters, and to refuse to comply with evil laws (passed despite all your efforts) that demand immoral acts of you. Working "within the system" when it possible that such laws might not pass is not granting legitimacy to such evil laws that do get passed, when (a) you announce at the top of the lungs that they will not be legitimate if passed, and (b) you don't comply with them.

I have seen a number of articles from gays recently worried about what gay "marriage" portends for gay culture. They are worried that the social expectations of "marriage" will be the end of their culture. Which; of course, is open and very promiscuous. They hope that instead of their culture being consumed, that marriage can be "queered" such that it is normatively promiscuous. Conveniently, these voices did not hit the mainstream until just the days before Obergefell was announced. I think a significant chunk of people who just believed gay "marriage" was just more people wanting to commit themselves to lifelong, exclusive unions may have reconsidered had these voices been a major part of the discussion the past decade or so. Even now, I doubt many can grasp that what gay "marriage" means is an institution of marriage that imparts no moral obligations. A married person is just as free to do as they please as anyone else, they owe their spouse nothing. Any commitments they make are not part of their "marriage", they are mere optional extras.

Working "within the system" when it possible that such laws might not pass is not granting legitimacy to such evil laws that do get passed, when (a) you announce at the top of the lungs that they will not be legitimate if passed,

This is a self-contradictory incoherent position and makes mockery of the political process.
One is not playing the game when one says that he accepts only victories. I suppose that's why you put quotes around within the system. . You realize, as much as anybody else, that there is no place for trad-cons within the system.

One needs to appreciate differences between "offensive"--which are acts or movements within the political compact and "unacceptable"-the movement that takes one outside the compact.

Offensive would be 45% income tax rate. Unacceptable would be 90% tax on wealth.
Offensive would be to nationalize the curriculum. Unacceptable would be to nationalize the children.
Offensive would one to require a people from entering parks. Unacceptable would be to forbid a people from pursuing any occupation.

To forsake the political order because there are bad men involved is to refuse the human condition
No, because there exist extra-political options. For Southerners abolitionism violated the political compact they thought they had. Thus it was unacceptable and they resorted to the extra-political measures --which you are attempting to justify politically, lacking the concept of extra-political measures. You would justify the frank extra-political measures taken by Founders as well.

So, your general point does not hold. The question is whether are we at a point where extra-political measures can be justified.

And is your (b)--you don't comply with them.-sufficient?

If (b) be sufficient, then why do pro-lifers agitate? They agitate because they care, not merely about their own involvement, but about others and about the nation.

So you need a (c)--rollback of the illegitimate law. Does there exist a political process to roll back this law?

The idea that better arguments are needed--this Holy Grail of an irresistible argument that would sway the liberal majority-was already untenable ten years ago. And more so now, since the very same people who are getting ready to craft new and better arguments, they say the next second that the liberals are being entirely unreasoning. So what is the point?

It seems to me that Bedarz's insufficient command of English is getting in the way of successful conversation on this. He says X, and then unsays X, so it is hard to make out whether he meant X or not. Also, maybe if he stopped assuming that I think things that I really don't think, a conversation would be more plausible. Bedarz thinks things so antithetical to my understanding of BASIC, foundational political truths that it is almost impossible to have fruitful exchange anyway. So I am not going to pursue this argument here.

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.