The New Roe v. Wade?

In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, Berkeley law professor John Yoo takes issue with Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling that California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. Yoo says that he favors gay marriage as a matter of policy, but that:

Federalism will produce the political durability that supporters of gay marriage want. If states steadily approve, a political consensus will form that will be difficult to undo.

Consider, by contrast, abortion. Roe v. Wade (1973) only intensified political conflict at a time when the nation was already moving in a pro-choice direction. That decision...poisoned our politics, introduced rounds of legislative defiance and judicial intervention, and undermined the neutral principles of constitutional law.

I don't disagree that relying on courts, rather than the political process, to advance our rights carries the risk of a backlash, and certainly Jon Rauch strikes a similar note in his recent column on the California ruling.

But I suspect abortion and marriage equality really don't resonate on the same level among most conservatives, apart for the hard-core religious right. Consider Glenn Beck's interview with Bill O'Reilly (discussed in my last post), in which Beck refused to label gay marriage as a threat and quoted Thomas Jefferson that "if it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket, what difference is it to me." But when O'Reilly asked him about abortion, Beck responded, "Abortion is killing, you're killing."

For most people who oppose marriage equality, their unease over giving a stamp of approval to gay relationships (and by that they mean gay sex) just isn't in the same league with stopping the abortion mills that result in the murder of unborn babies, sometimes just before birth and at taxpayer expense.

61 Comments for “The New Roe v. Wade?”

  1. posted by Bobby on

    Maybe we need a new slogan: “Gay Marriage: Hey, at least it’s not murder.” ;)

  2. posted by Jeremy on

    Unless you think every sperm is sacred. Then, millions of people have been sent to a dark, colon-ey death.

  3. posted by BradK on

    I couldn’t read the whole piece as I’m not a WSJ subscriber.

    But why choose Roe V. Wade as a corollary and not Brown V. Board? The latter is not only much more on point concerning civil rights, the backlash throughout the former slave states while trying to enforce it was hostile to the point of extreme violence. By the time Loving V. Virgina was handed down though, people at least accepted the notion that blacks were entitled to equal rights — even if they were far from exactly embracing it. And many, many more people were against mixed race marriages then than are against same-sex marriages today.

    After the Civil Rights act passed in ’64, you didn’t see the religious fringe foaming at the mouth to amend the U.S. Constitution and attempt to nullify it. Different tactics today, though still motivated by hatred and ignorance. Such American values are timeless.

  4. posted by Jorge on

    For most people, their unease over giving a stamp of approval to gay relationships (and by that they mean gay sex) just isn’t in the same league with stopping the abortion mills that result in the murder of unborn babies, sometimes just before birth and at taxpayer expense.

    Interesting. I happen to think the reverse is true: abortion has been around for so long, people no longer care about it. That’s not true with gay marriage yet. But I hope we have enough acceptance and neutrality so that the result is not the same.

  5. posted by Debrah on

    See if this link provides the Yoo article.

  6. posted by Debrah on

    Oh, well.

    If you Google John Yoo, gay marriage…….the WSJ article will emerge in its entirety.

    I suppose it just doesn’t do linking without a subscription.

  7. posted by John D on

    When the Supreme Court made their decision in Loving, there was a move to amend the Constitution to protect bans on interracial marriage. Obviously, it failed.

    As for the comparison with abortion, there’s been little movement on the abortion issue over time. Currently, we’re in a swing where voters are less approving of abortion. Young evangelicals care deeply about abortion, yet feel that gay people should have access to civil marriage.

    The poll numbers on same-sex marriage seem to creep upwards by about 2% a year. At this rate, everyone will be in favor of it by 2060!

  8. posted by Bobby on

    “Unless you think every sperm is sacred. Then, millions of people have been sent to a dark, colon-ey death.”

    —Pro-lifers don’t care about sperm, they care about CONCEPTION. While I support abortion, it is a form of murder since you’re destroying a potential life. Spern and eggs alone isn’t a potential life, but once there’s conception everything changes.

  9. posted by dc on

    Why is it that conservatives are against the “murder” of inborn babies, but don’t seem to care about the murder (or deaths, if you will) of innocent men, women, and children that takes place everyday in Iraq and Afghanistan. Well, I guess those people are Muslims, so their right to life doesn’t exist. The shallowness of arguments against abortion are thrown into clarity when looking at how conservatives respond to violence and brutality perpetrated by the American military outside the boundaries of American and international law.

  10. posted by esurience on

    Just look at the states where marriage for gays and lesbians was legalized by court decision. The public support for marriage equality continued to go UP in those states. If anything, it accelerated (with perhaps a brief backlash and then rebound in Massachusetts, if I recall correctly).

    So it seems to me we already know the answer to the question of “will court-mandated marriage equality cause public support for marriage equality to stagnate or decline?” — the answer is no. We know this already.

    Of course having the issue of marriage equality in the news every so often does encourage people to re-examine their prejudices about this issue, which moves both our social and legal equality case forward.

    Once we achieve legal equality, there will still be much progress to be made on the social equality front. But we already know the single best way to do this is by coming out to people, not by having political debates.

  11. posted by Jorge on

    Why is it that conservatives are against the “murder” of inborn babies, but don’t seem to care about the murder (or deaths, if you will) of innocent men, women, and children that takes place everyday in Iraq and Afghanistan. Well, I guess those people are Muslims, so their right to life doesn’t exist.

    It’s been weeks since I’ve read something so stupid. The very reason our military is still in both those countries is because the Muslim terrorist extememists are continuing to send innocent body parts flying. It is a shame that our resources are so stretched that we cannot fight for the lives of even more innocents who happen to be Muslim–although most Americans these days seem to think our good intentions lead to too much quagmirey loss of American life.

  12. posted by John Howard on

    —Pro-lifers don’t care about sperm, they care about CONCEPTION. While I support abortion, it is a form of murder since you’re destroying a potential life. Sperm and eggs alone isn’t a potential life, but once there’s conception everything changes.

    Hi guys! That’s right, thanks for explaining that bobby. Now, the way conception and abortion are connected to same-sex marriage is that it implies the conception of children to same-sex couples, which will certainly involve abortion of experimental fetuses, just as IVF did and still does.

    Even if most people haven’t expressed that connection and don’t even know that same-sex conception is a goal actually being pursued, I contend that the underlying cause of their opposition is a basic understanding that there is a connection between giving same-sex couples marriage and them having children together, and a basic understanding that doing that would involve a lot of abortions.

  13. posted by Debrah on

    “The New Roe v. Wade?”

    **********************************

    Uh, no.

    Even though I am vehemently pro-choice, it can be argued that the reason for such a backlash through the years regarding abortion has been the result of judicial tyranny.

    And even though those of us who came of age after the passage of Roe v. Wade have been its grandest beneficiaries, a few judges should not be allowed to decide such issues for the entire population.

    That’s why we still hear the yelping of extreme right religious pro-lifers.

    And will perhaps continue to.

    Gay marriage is in a category all its own.

    As this country will, no doubt, witness.

    “I contend that the underlying cause of their opposition is a basic understanding that there is a connection between giving same-sex couples marriage and them having children together, and a basic understanding that doing that would involve a lot of abortions.”

    *************************************

    I doubt the abortion issue is entertained by anyone other than ultra-religious conservative pro-lifers.

    The reason gay marriage has had such an obstacle-ridden road to negotiate is because of the whole gay male anal sex reality.

    It’s really quite the elephant in the room.

    But few will admit it openly.

  14. posted by Debrah on

    Someone needs to give Jonathan Rauch a great big wet kiss for his latest in the NY Daily News.

    He’s really one of the most extraordinarily astute people I’ve read on this topic.

    Dare I say it?

    Dare we stereotype? LOL!

    Are all Jewish men just so goddamned brilliant that it should be against the law?

    Whatever it is……lots of other SSM proponents need to get some of what he said.

    Savvy effulgences conquering!

  15. posted by Debrah on

    Bobby–

    You’ll perhaps enjoy this current series by Horowitz.

    Like his extraordinary two-part series on his friend Christopher Hitchens, it’s comprehensive-to-the max.

    I haven’t had time to read all of it yet; however, people such as I who came by Liberalism while growing up, and did so because it seemed more trendy and sexy, not because as a kid I actually spent lots of time studying its true features, will benefit from this series.

    I don’t agree with Horowitz on some things. I’m basically a centrist; however, most of his work chafes the Left simply because he knows them so well and they hate that. He used to be a Lefty.

    Since Horowitz has been around so long and was actually what was called a “red diaper baby”, he can talk about such issues informed by first-hand experience.

    I had always bought into the media’s depiction and thought him to be too strident; however, his writing is far superior to most of his detractors.

    In any case, it appears that he will be a guest on your favorite show soon—Glenn Beck.

    You’ll read about it on “David’s blog”.

  16. posted by Bobby on

    Thanks for the link, Debrah. I didn’t read it all because it was too long. I think length matters in the online world since clicking can get annoying.

    I don’t always agree with Horowitz either, but like you said, he knows what it’s like to be a red diaper baby and growing up with the marxist ideology.

    Anyway, here’s an interesting link about sex education in the Netherlands.

    http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/the_way_we_live/article5208865.ece

    In spite of how shocking it is, it apparently works:

    “This openness seems to work. In Britain the average teenager loses his or her virginity at 16 – more than a year before the Dutch average of 17.7 years. About 93 per cent of young people in the Netherlands use contraception, compared with 53 per cent in Britain. A study of teenagers in both countries found that while boys and girls in the Netherlands gave “love and commitment” as the main reason for losing their virginity, boys in Britain cited peer pressure and physical attraction. ”

  17. posted by Lymis on

    I don’t think it’s an apt comparison.

    The thing that makes abortion unique is that there is a fundamental disagreement on what it is that is happening. For one side, it is a medical procedure involving a significant aspect of a woman’s life that nobody should have the right to have a say in. For the other side, it is the murder of a defenseless human being. There is not a lot of room for compromise there.

    Same sex marriage, however isn’t the same thing. People may disagree on the meaning, morality, or appropriateness of it, but there isn’t a lot of disagreement about exactly what is being discussed. It is about extending the civil (and social) benefits of heterosexual marriage to same-sex couples. Whether that is a good thing, a bad thing, an obvious thing, a dangerous thing, and so on, can be debated, but there isn’t that fundamental insoluble disagreement.

    People already deal with opposite sex marriages they disapprove of, whether that is remarriage with a living ex, or rich old men marrying sexy sirens, or the Brittney Spears drunken Vegas spree, or someone being on their sixth spouse, and so on, without in any way having to invalidate their view of what an ideal marriage is, and what a marriage they want to be in would look like. The fact is, there is no aspect of gay marriage used as a reason not to allow it, including mutual infertility, and yes, the ever icky anal sex, that isn’t part of some valid opposite sex marriages today.

    “So what if you disapprove of the way they run their relationship, they should have the right to do so. If you don’t like it, don’t run your own marriage that way” is more compelling to someone who disapproves than “So what if they murder their baby, if you don’t like it don’t murder yours.”

  18. posted by BobN on

    There’s only one reason abortion remains the hot-button issue it is: the usefulness of the “debate” to the GOP.

    In other countries where it has been legalized, the issue does not hang on and on as a “conservative” cause. Of course, those countries have more centrist right-wing parties that have to have actual policies that appeal to a broad range of people on substantive grounds, instead of relying on hype, fear, and “God”.

  19. posted by BobN on

    And, as far as abortion vs. SSM goes, the huge difference is that there will be publicly visible marriages within the anti-gay GOP and among conservatives and their families. Over time, this will temper the faux outrage. While it is also true that abortion occurs among this same set of people, it isn’t publicly visible, so they can pretend it doesn’t happen.

  20. posted by Me on

    (1) Why does anyone care what George W. Bush’s legal lapdog John Yoo has to say about anything?

    (2) So what is Roe v Wade is still controversial? It is still the law of the land and will remain so.

    (3) This argument also applies to Lawrence v Texas. Does anyone want to bring back sodomy laws and wait to see what federalism might do?

    (4) Let federalism take its course is an overblown way of saying “wait, wait, and wait some more.” Wait for what and why? No more waiting. Period.

  21. posted by Debrah on

    Bobby–

    That’s an interesting article.

    Why the British Should Go Dutch

    I concur with many of the points made and it’s great anytime you have parents so fully involved in the raising of small children.

    But the Dutch aren’t all they’re cracked up to be.

    They are simply missing-in-action on so many significant issues. Very lax people, essentially.

    The loiterers and drug addicts who inhabit the public parks in Amsterdam could also use some attention.

    It’s a rampant mess on city streets and parks over there.

    In many ways, their “openness” translates into sloven European shabby chic.

    No question that the uptight Brits could learn a few things from those in the Netherlands; however, that mindset, unfortunately, doesn’t transpose into all things positive.

    No question that teaching little kids about sex is going to be beneficial; however, I disagree with the woman in the article who thought it was A-OK for her 18 year-old son to still be walking around nude in the house.

    That isn’t healthy. I don’t care who says that it is.

    I like the Dutch, don’t misunderstand……even though Amsterdam is a massive, drug-infested brothel of a city.

    Stereotypical humor usually endures and resonates when buttressed by more somber realities.

    There’s a reason why the phrase “going Dutch” has lasted through the ages.

    LIS!

    Let me tell you my theory as to why teen pregnancy has been so low in the Netherlands.

    They don’t subsidize it as it’s subsidized in Britain and in the United States.

    People always change their behavior when you zip the purse strings.

  22. posted by Jimmy on

    The Dutch have also noticed what it means when a nation equates crime with big business, as we have done in the US. When you take the profit potential out of locking up casual drug users and pursuers of the pussay, societal focus shifts to other, more civil ventures.

  23. posted by BobN on

    It’s a rampant mess on city streets and parks over there.

    When were you last there and where did you hang out?

  24. posted by Bobby on

    Good points, Debrah. The dutch are far from perfect, they have allowed radical Islamists to gay bash while imprisoning their opponents for hate speech. They also have high taxes.

    “People always change their behavior when you zip the purse strings.”

    —I know! Yesterday I heard of a mechanic who rejected 29 job offers because he was happy collecting unemployment. Aside that, a friend of mine got laid off in California, moved to Florida to live with his parents and take classes, complains that his California roommate is forgetting to mail him his unemployment and doesn’t seem to be in much of a hurry to find a job.

    So I agree, we have to zip the purse strings, did you see the section-8 crowds in Atlanta? Obama ran on hope and change, yet those poor blacks don’t seem to have much hope if they’re lining up for hours to collect applications for section-8 housing that will only be available two years from now.

    It’s the same thing when the left wants a free college education. I got friends from Europe who went to college in America because getting accepted to a European college is extremely difficult. A former shrink of mine even told me that studying at Princeton was a joke compared to the strict requirements of La Sorbonne in Paris.

    The hope and change Obama and his progressive friends promise is an illusion.

  25. posted by Debrah on

    Since it’s Friday the 13th, and the only one we’ll have in 2010, here’s a freewheeling topic.

    This guy has a most interesting blog, You Are Not So Smart, which I have even linked on my own blog to remind me to check it periodically.

    His latest is on the idea of Catharsis being good for the body and mind…….or not.

    Read the whole thing.

    I happen to disagree with him on this. There’s even a Penn and Teller YouTube video for illustration.

    I think that venting or catharsis is a very good thing.

    What say you?

    By the way, some of his past topics have been much more interesting. He’s really quite stellar in the insightful department.

  26. posted by Debrah on

    BobN–

    I stayed here for nine days in 2005.

    A branch of Madame Tussaud’s wax museum was nearby.

    Just walking around and observing and talking to residents provided quite an education.

    Cannabis could be bought on the street and in shops anywhere.

    Druggies and loiterers were all about the streets and parks and law enforcement was encouraged to look over it.

    Such a live and let live mindset, you know!

  27. posted by Debrah on

    Bobby–

    Eastern Europeans are infiltrating the Netherlands because it’s such a welfare state.

    You could see them coming off the trains in droves.

  28. posted by Jorge on

    There’s only one reason abortion remains the hot-button issue it is: the usefulness of the “debate” to the GOP.

    Absolutist statements like that are never right.

  29. posted by BobN on

    I stayed here for nine days in 2005.

    I think I would have change to a neighborhood with fewer druggies and loiterers.

  30. posted by Amicus on

    their unease over giving a stamp of approval to gay relationships (and by that they mean gay sex)

    =======

    This is because the Right, in abject apoplexy over everything “gay”, has yet to articulate how to “approve” gay relationships, without issuing a general approval for everyone to have gay sex if they want it.

    It’s a blind spot and a vacuum that it might do to close.

    The backlash from Roe was cynically manipulated for political purposes/votes. To similarly take up a cross for cynical political reasons over gay marriage would cede too many younger voters, except in certain regions of the country…

  31. posted by Debrah on

    “I think I would have change to a neighborhood with fewer druggies and loiterers.”

    **********************************************

    Well…….they weren’t really everywhere, just a very noteworthy addition to the mix.

    As Bobby’s article illustrated, the “anything goes” idea seems to be a premium.

    By the way, I take it the You Are Not So Smart blog didn’t make much of a splash.

    LOL!!!

  32. posted by Debrah on

    Bobby–

    That’s an excellent video.

    Just last evening, Obama made comments in support of building the mosque there. Ha!

    If you read Sacrilege at Ground Zero by Charles Krauthammer, the whole issue is really put into words for any normal person to understand.

    Why is all this so difficult to comprehend?

    If this were about anything other than coddling Islam, the idea of opening such a structure would be annihilated post haste.

    I don’t know what’s up with Mayor Bloomberg. The same with his having attended Charlie Rangel’s birthday party…..as if Rangel and Maxine Waters have not engaged in illegal behavior.

    This is why when I’m home I make a point to catch Krauthammer on the FOX panel every night around 6:30.

    Just listening to him with his calm, cool, always-captivating and sterling analyses of current issues make me feel that a “grown-up” is on the scene.

    What a tragedy that he was paralyzed in a swimming accident as a young man. He was in medical school when it happened and he still went on to become a psychiatrist and then a Washington writer.

    Perhaps he’s able to dissect people and political issues so thoroughly because he was in medicine and psychiatry at an earlier time.

    I really value his opinions and wonder what a formidable character he would have been if the tragedy hadn’t happened. Lesser ones would have folded and taken an easier road.

    Sometimes when he’s talking his speech pattern is kind of chopped while he catches his breath. The result, no doubt, of being paralyzed from the chest on down.

  33. posted by Amicus on

    the whole issue is really put into words for any normal person to understand

    ===

    What’s that? Jews stirring up trouble between Christians and Muslims? I don’t follow.

    9/11 was not a “Muslim event”, was it?

    Therefore, a mosque is not objectionable.

  34. posted by Jorge on

    What’s that? Jews stirring up trouble between Christians and Muslims? I don’t follow.

    What Jews? What are you talking about?

    9/11 was not a “Muslim event”, was it?

    According to then-president George W. Bush, it was not. Question: do you agree?

  35. posted by Bobby on

    “I don’t know what’s up with Mayor Bloomberg. The same with his having attended Charlie Rangel’s birthday party…..as if Rangel and Maxine Waters have not engaged in illegal behavior.”

    —Bloomberg is nuts, he may be a great businessman, bu did you read his latest comment against the Seneca indians:

    “Mayor Bloomberg wants to turn the New York State Thruway into the Wild West.

    On his weekly radio show yesterday, Bloomberg jokingly advised Gov. Paterson to put up his dukes against cigarette retailers on Indian reservations and start collecting the excise taxes that the mayor believes are due the state.

    “I said to David Paterson, I said, ‘You know, get yourself a cowboy hat and a shotgun. If there’s ever a great video, it’s you standing in the middle of the New York State Thruway saying, you know, ‘Read my lips: The law of the land is this and we’re going to enforce the law,’ ” Hizzoner said.”

    Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/mike_to_gov_lasso_them_cig_cheats_LRwTheEbf3keuAq3YupFxH#ixzz0wak8x6IY

    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/mike_to_gov_lasso_them_cig_cheats_LRwTheEbf3keuAq3YupFxH

    If a republican had said that, a real republican as opposed to a former RINO who’s now an independent, there would be hell to pay.

    Yet this bastard thinks his sovereignty includes land outside Manhattan and the five buroughs. What’s next? Telling the Bahamas to stop all that gambling?

    Oh, and another thing, why is it that nobody attacks Charlie Rangel for being obese? With the anti-fat hysteria running at full steam, you’d think that making fun of an 80 year old fat guy would be expected. Could it be that it’s because Charlie is black and liberal? Hmmm.

    Then again, perhaps Rangel proves that you can live to be 80 even if you look like a bag of crap.

  36. posted by Debrah on

    Amicus opines:

    “What’s that? Jews stirring up trouble between Christians and Muslims? I don’t follow.

    9/11 was not a ‘Muslim event’, was it?”

    *******************************************************

    I can only assume that you’ve spent the last decade amid the sybaritic wonder and sand scratching aura of Doris Duke’s Shangri-La.

    “According to then-president George W. Bush, it was not.”

    ********************************************************

    That was GWB’s way of providing an emollient.

    What was he supposed to say given the cultural idiocy of the majority of Muslims?

    Just because the “peaceful” and Western-educated Muslims weren’t in the streets yelping and making animal sounds as their tongues slithered in and out of their mouths…..gleefully celebrating the massive and calculated murders on 9/11 doesn’t mean they are all cuddly and America-loving.

    Aside from what they can mulct from our society.

  37. posted by Debrah on

    Bobby–

    LOL!!!

    You’re so funny.

    I used to think Bloomberg had something going; however, I agree that he seems to be going goofy lately.

    He’s trying to ride the ideological fence and, indeed, as mayor of NYC, he does have to entertain the interests of an uncommon array of diverse cultures and humanoids found on the planet.

    However, in this instance I wish Giuliani was around to shut down this deliberately offensive event.

    Rangel is beginning to look pathetic.

    It’s obvious to even the most partisan Democrat that he and Maxine Waters need to go.

    But I doubt that will happen.

    As you say, we’re talking about ultra-Liberals…….who are also black.

    It’s all good!

  38. posted by Jorge on

    That was GWB’s way of providing an emollient.

    What was he supposed to say given the cultural idiocy of the majority of Muslims?

    Are you saying Bush lied? I cannot tolerate such nonsense.

  39. posted by Amicus on

    What Jews? What are you talking about?

    ===

    Krauthammer.

    It might be better if I had written “conservative Jews eager to whip up votes”?

    Is it off limits? Does he get to see the world through the prism he adopts, but not like the picture that paints, the worldview it implies, when the tables turn?

    I honestly don’t think Charles cares about downtown Manhattan, except for those reasons.

    It’s not a holy place and the square where the towers were was not made holy by two planes and thousands killed. Most people who visit downtown Manhattan will be please with the memorials that are planned.

    Indeed, if one were to take a step back, it could be argued that the world is in need of more spirituality and fewer “holy places” for various religious sects to fight over, without end.

  40. posted by Debrah on

    Let me just say this because mincing words during such a debate wastes an inordinate amount of time.

    I actually just heard a recap of Obama’s words from last evening and his support of the mosque.

    This is our president who not long ago made the most astounding presentation—he was without his trusty tele-prompter, by the way—and disgustingly dismissive statements regarding the horrific decapitation by Muslims of Daniel Pearl at a Pearl memorial.

    I am now convinced that Obama is incapable of supporting Israel and anything Jewish in any authentic and logical way.

    This has to be read in its entirety.

    Hanson’s analysis is superb.

    And this one gives a global view of our president.

    Both of these are must-reads.

    Let me remind you that I supported Obama in 2008, hoping that this detached, insane son-of-a-b!tch would comprehend that he had a mandate to govern from the center.

    That’s why he received support from Independents.

    That’s how he won.

    The “change you can believe in” is going to be brought to his front door along with a special brand of hell in 2012.

    I intend to do everything that I can to get him out of the White House.

    Even many Democrats are saying aloud that he was not yet ready for primetime.

    (Don’t miss what Hanson says in comparing Obama and Clinton.)

    Such a great column.

  41. posted by Throbert McGee on

    why is it that nobody attacks Charlie Rangel for being obese? With the anti-fat hysteria running at full steam, you’d think that making fun of an 80 year old fat guy would be expected. Could it be that it’s because Charlie is black and liberal?

    I’d think that “because he’s 80″ is probably explanation enough.

    While there are certainly 80-year-olds who remain far more active and fit than Rangel is, most people would take it as “only to be expected” that folks often become more sedentary with advancing age.

  42. posted by Jorge on

    What Jews? What are you talking about?

    ===

    –Krauthammer.

    It might be better if I had written “conservative Jews eager to whip up votes”?

    No. It would have been better had you either kept your racist thoughts to yourself altogether or apologized immediately for your remarks.

    For the benefit of open-minded people, many people on the right are opposed to the Ground Zero Mosque, and a majority of the general public is also opposed to it. This is a legitimate issue of controversy and passion on which reasonable and intelligent people disagree. Charles Krauthammer is a brilliant columnist and a conservative who tends to go off on his own in his thinking, and who takes his reasoning to conclusions that many people disagree with. In this situation however we have Mr. K siding with a broad coalition of thinkers and citizens, many of whom actually are engaging in religion-baiting. Mr. Amicus’ choice to use the man’s identity as a club to stir up false hatred and to try to besmirch his credibility is a disgusting action, and should have no credibility in any kind of civilized discussion.

    I say this knowing full well that this kind of standard can easily be used against others, thus I choose my words with some care.

  43. posted by Amicus on

    Apologize? Good grief, no. I’d *reconsider* if and only if CK does the same, with his comments that deliberately paint 9/11 as a Muslim event, pandering to the worst kind of sensitivities. The more he does this, the more he can expect the same in return, no? I mean, it’s just the logical extension of his cynically offered comments.

    Besides, anyone who knows downtown Manhattan would shrug. Seriously, this would be a Mosque with perhaps the lowest attendance in the country…

  44. posted by Jorge on

    I’d *reconsider* if and only if CK does the same, with his comments that deliberately paint 9/11 as a Muslim event

    So you don’t think 9/11 was a Muslim event. So did most of the country back then. But if you think a successful attack on the idea that 9/11 was a Muslim event is to allege bigotry, you have living under a rock in the years since 9/11. Change happens quickly in this country, and you appear to have missed events and ideas that should have (and most likely have) changed independent and conservative thought on the issue. You are unable to acknowledge, much less rebut, the train of research and thought underlying Krauthammer’s position, thus you resort to stone-throwing and bigoted statements. That is your failing. The fact that you are not intellectually rigorous enough to debate an opposing position is no excuse for your bigoted statements. There is no conceivable excuse for you to continue to stand by them.

    Besides, anyone who knows downtown Manhattan would shrug.

    I’d hate to see what happens when people actually try to make a ruckus, then (rhetorical; I actually have seen it). A mosque in such a central location, and with so much publicity, could become as big as St. Catholic’s Cathedral in relative terms. Finally, the story is being driven locally, and in part by 9/11 families. Besides, I don’t think there are that many in the country or city in the first place.

  45. posted by Jorge on

    In any case, what if offensive about your remarks is not how little respect you give to a solidly conservative position. It is your decision to focus an attack specifically on the basis of religious/ethnic identity. You have chosen not to attack dozens of other politicians and columnists of many identities who have said much the exact same thing. So I demand an explanation why it is that you espouse and enact a hatred seeking destruction first and only toward one who happens to be a Jew.

  46. posted by Bobby on

    Islam is a horrible religion, perhaps the worst religion in the world. I’m reading “Infidel” right now by Hirsi Ali and the way Islam treats women is horrid.

    It is not Krauthamer that has declared war on Islam, it is Islam that declares war against Christians, Jews, gays and other infidels. In fact, Muslims are allowed to LIE to gentiles in defense of Islam.

    “Many non muslims dont know about the secret rule called “taqqiya” in Islam. The rule of “taqqiya” is:- Allah will not punish a muslim if he tells lies or “pretends” as an enemy of islam, as long as that action is for the good of islam or to the protection of muslims, So they can cheat the non muslims, by pretending to be angry at the suicide bombers, or the bombings of London,or the Sept.11th.,and issue “fathwa” against their actions.”

    So while they may have the legal right to build a mosque, that doesn’t mean Obama should give them the go ahead and people should shut up and not protest. After all, it may be legal to build an abortion clinic next to a church, but I don’t think pro-choicers would ever be that crazy. Yet when it comes to Muslims, we’re being ask to be more tolerant and sensitive than they’ll ever be.

  47. posted by Jimmy on

    This is a local municipality and local authorities are handing their business as they see fit. Someone else, living somewhere else, doesn’t like what that municipality is doing.

    AND? (blink)

    That you don’t like it, or that you are offended is a pity but it’s also tough bananas.

    As far as the intellectual heft needed for this argument, an elementary understanding of “freedom of religion’ is all that is required. It is that simple.

  48. posted by Debrah on

    The Life and Death of a Radical Mosque

    “This week’s closing of one of Europe’s most notorious mosques, Masjid Taiba, formerly known as the al-Quds mosque in Hamburg, Germany, has significance beyond the continuing saga of a place where several of the 9/11 terrorists were radicalized. It also helps counter a myth surrounding radical Islam: the notion that mosques don’t matter.”

  49. posted by Amicus on

    Deb, don’t you think it would be easy to keep an eye on radical Islam if there were situated right in Manhattan, where … well, where it would be really easy to keep an eye on radicals?

    Bobby, don’t get swept away by Hirsi Ali. Someone went looking for mosques tied to places of learning and found that no one – no one – was teaching taqqiya.

    Jorge, Charles K is an impressive thinker and writer, but I’m not snowed by his “reasoning”. To the extent that he’s free to stir up trouble by making associations that others reject, I think it would be fine to point out the failing of his “logic” by turning the tables, so as to point out how his “logic” fails. His whole argument hangs on “perpetrated by Muslims of a particular Orthodoxy”. Well, we can say the same about him, no? We could say that America’s armies are Crusaders, no?

    The fact of the matter is that terrorists are criminals and shouldn’t be given more status. The people who died in the towers are not akin to soldiers on the Battlefield at Gettysburg, not nearly. Nor were they captives, as so many of the Nazi regime. Again, CK is just making associations that snow the reader.

    So, CK hasn’t written any kind of thought filled analysis. He’s just pandering, in the end. For votes. At the risk of stirring up unwanted animosities. Some Patriot.

  50. posted by Bobby on

    “Bobby, don’t get swept away by Hirsi Ali. Someone went looking for mosques tied to places of learning and found that no one – no one – was teaching taqqiya.”

    —Ali is not the only one who mentions taqquiya, in fact, it comes from the koran itself. By the way, what do you mean “don’t get swept away” by her? You think her persecution is fake? You don’t think she’s gotten death threats? You know, if Muslims are so tolerant why is Theo Van Gogh dead? Why does Salman Rushdie live in fear? Why does the guy who did the Muslim cartoons been attacked? Christians are way more tolerant, in fact, I don’t think Richard Dawkins lives in fear of being assassinated, neither does Bill Maher nor any of the other prominent christianphobes like Rosie O’Donnell.

    This ground zero mosque is an insult to the victims of 9/11. Why is that so hard to understand? I mean, this is the equivalent of building a Klan museum (which does exist, btw) in the middle of Harlem.

  51. posted by Debrah on

    “………this is the equivalent of building a Klan museum (which does exist, btw) in the middle of Harlem.”

    ********************************************

    Great one, Bobby.

    LIS!

    “…….don’t you think it would be easy to keep an eye on radical Islam if there were situated right in Manhattan, where … well, where it would be really easy to keep an eye on radicals?”

    **********************************************

    But that’s not the real purpose that Rauf and his janissaries wish to achieve with this particular mosque.

    There will be no planning and indoctrinating beyond regular Islamic-fare in Manhattan.

    You’re right.

    You see, the sole purpose of this indecent démarche is to stick it to the Western world….and Americans……and Jews.

    It’s analogous to a rapist jacking off in front of the mother of the girl he’s already raped and murdered.

    It makes them feel powerful.

    Amicus, you’re a smart guy and you make a good case for your position regarding Krauthammer.

    But alas, we disagree!

  52. posted by Amicus on

    Well, here’s an all-too-short answer, for both:

    you are talking about certain parts of the world where clerics have far more day-to-day authority over people’s lives than here, in the West.

    Now, you give people power and they become jealous of it. It’s human.

    Accordingly, you get those in power who feel insecure and feel they need to respond to and, sometimes, to squash “dissent”, to eliminate, say, what the Christian church used to call “free thinkers” or “free spirits”.

    Couple that with an economic structure, in some places, that lends itself to highly-conservative politics, and …

    There is more. But, the point would be to understand that people are people the world over.

  53. posted by Amicus on

    the sole purpose of this indecent démarche is to stick it to the Western world….and Americans……and Jews

    ====

    To which I shrug.

    I refuse to be provoked, to play the “cosmic struggle” game.

    If someone calls me “faggot”, I have the choice to smile and walk on with my life, today.

  54. posted by Amicus on

    adding to the above the number of Muslims killed on 9/11 and the realization that al-qaeda’s goal is really not so much America – America is a means to an end, the so-called “wedge strategy”; Qand they are happy killing many, many innocent Muslims as anyone else.

  55. posted by Debrah on

    OK, Amicus.

    I’ll let Jorge handle you on this topic.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    I want to move on to one that I really want Bobby know about.

    Over on “David’s blog” someone posts a quote from one of his books or speeches or whatever, each day.

    When I do a drive-by and see something provocative, I sometimes leave a comment.

    The one today touched on The Black Panthers and what he experienced during his time supporting them,,,,,,,yada, yada, yada……

    So I left a comment……..a general kind of vibe as I usually do by putting some embroidery on the proceedings.

    I checked by later and some guy was on a rant about abortion which was so off-topic I couldn’t believe.

    Naturally, I told him how offensive he was and that kind of discussion was exactly what turned off many people like me who are centrists.

    Then I forgot about it until just minutes ago. I checked and the guy has deposited numerous comments over the afternoon calling me a “murderer” and all kinds of creepy proselytizing, etc……….just because I mentioned that I was pro-choice.

    You see, Bobby.

    That’s what turns people off.

    The guy is unbelievable, really. I can’t associate with nuts like that.

    It’s bad for the Diva image! LOL!!!

  56. posted by Jorge on

    To the extent that he’s free to stir up trouble by making associations that others reject, I think it would be fine to point out the failing of his “logic” by turning the tables, so as to point out how his “logic” fails.

    There is no such action on Krauthammer’s part, there is not even a hint of such action on the part of other Jews, and there is, again, no justification for your attack against Jews or even conservative Jews, especially considering the long and severe history of bigorty toward Jews.

    I’m not willing to debate this with you any longer. Your post was inexcusable, and you have not even attempted to excuse why you have chosen to single out Jews and not conservatives in general.

    This is a local municipality and local authorities are handing their business as they see fit. Someone else, living somewhere else, doesn’t like what that municipality is doing.

    AND? (blink)

    That you don’t like it, or that you are offended is a pity but it’s also tough bananas.

    Someone should have told President Obama that. Or at least that Bloomberg stole the show. There I said it.

  57. posted by Amicus on

    Jorge, But I did explain. Perhaps it was simply too evocative for you?

    It’s odd that you reject the prism by which I chose to reflect his comments back, yet you do not feel nearly as strongly about his finding it “sacrilege” to put a mosque somewhere, because of the actions of some criminals who imagined to themselves they were acting in the name of Allah.

    Perhaps, your sensitivities would have been peeked more if he had said it would be sacrilege for a church to be built somewhere, because of {insert political pander rationale}.

    In any case, moving on.

  58. posted by Bobby on

    “Then I forgot about it until just minutes ago. I checked and the guy has deposited numerous comments over the afternoon calling me a “murderer” and all kinds of creepy proselytizing, etc……….just because I mentioned that I was pro-choice.

    You see, Bobby. That’s what turns people off.”

    —I’m sorry that happened to you, some people on the right behave just as bad as the people on the left. Glenn Beck and the tea parties know this, which is why they have made an effort to keep divisive social issues away from the discussion.

  59. posted by Debrah on

    Bobby–

    Yes, both sides have their extremists and they really unravel any type of consensus on anything.

    That guy was unbelievable.

    You could tell that he keeps a whole cache of longwinded rants on hand just for such occasions.

    LOL!

  60. posted by Jorge on

    Perhaps, your sensitivities would have been peeked more if he had said it would be sacrilege for a church to be built somewhere, because of {insert political pander rationale}.

    He gave a clear-cut example of an idea to build a convent near Auschwitz that was shelved by after the Pope urged the nuns against it. What I happen to think about this example and incident is irrelevant, but you may call me a hypocrite if you wish. Having demonstrated by your own standards that Charles Krauthammer is not a hypocrite, it is now your obligation to apologize for your ill-conceived remarks.

Comments are closed.