The Weak in (National) Review:Byron York's Own Cave-Blindness - In his latest piece on the current status of the investigation into how internal Democratic Judiciary Committee Member memos were leaked to the public calls for tit-for-tat. York, in his admirable quest for equal justice, thinks not only that the GOP should pay a price for its indiscretion, but also that the Democrat collusion exposed in the memos should also lead to a price that the Democratic Party should pay for its antics. York says it best himself:

"If the memos leak merited the intense investigation that has been going on for months, then certainly the behavior described in the memos deserves scrutiny as well.

It's only fair."

York's naivete here is a bit surprising. What York fails to consider is that the GOP is also likely protecting itself by not going after the Democrats here. I would bet the farm that Senate Republicans on the Judiciary Committee are just as guilty of the type of "collusion" with their own special interest lobbies that York wants the Democrats investigated for. To go after the Democrats for their admittedly less-than-admirable collusion with special interests regarding the judicial nominee and approval process that these memos exhibit would make it acceptable for the GOP and its collusion with special interests to be likewise put on exhibit by the Democrats. And if the Democrats have similar dirt on the GOP, its revelation would make the GOP out to be actually more reprehensible in their duplicity and hypocrisy. I happen to think such dirt on the GOP exists (whether the Democrats have it or not), and the GOP thus can't risk having its own dirty behavior potentially exposed in retaliation for an attack on the behavior described in the Democrat memos -- otherwise, why wouldn't the GOP demand the fairness that Byron York calls for?

Lagniappe: I'm going with Edwards - Well, I've finally come off the fence and decided that my primary vote will be for Edwards. I don't think it will matter all that much, because it seems like Edwards is a respectable 3rd/4th, and unlikely to catch up with Dean and Kerry. Not that I have any major problems with either Dean or Kerry, and I can comfortably vote for either in November; but I just can't get enthused by Kerry and, though Dean gets me enthused, he's also a bit too much of a loose cannon for my tastes. I find Edwards very likable and positive; and I count myself among the numbers that believe that neither Kerry nor Dean can beat Bush in the South, whereas I think Edwards can give Bush a run for it down here. In any case, I'll cast my lot with Edwards come Louisiana primary voting time; and wherever the chips fall, I hope Edwards is somewhere on the Democratic Ticket come November.

Lagniappe: The Ugly Right Rears its Head - I enjoy reading and participating in Rightwign blogs. It keeps me honest and helps me both to question and to sharpen my own liberal thinking on a variety of issues. A theme that has made the rounds on such blogs recently is the ad campaign run by MoveOn.org. Apparently, two of the more than 1500 ads submitted in this grass roots, web-based competition unfortunately equated Bush with Hitler and found their way onto the organization's website for public viewing (as did every other submission). MoveOn.org recognized that allowing these ads to run on its site was improper and should not have happened. The organization issued a formal public apology. Not only could conservatives bring themselves to accept MoveOn.org's contrition, they also, for the most part, blew their collective stacks. The bitterness and viciousness of their reaction and attacks on MoveOn.org for the Bush=Hitler comparison were beyond the pale, but to a certain extent justifiable. I myself publicly condemned these ads, but I pointed out that both the left and the right were culpable of this type of nastiness. Conservatives generally argued with me that liberals were much more prone to such incivility. Well ... NOT. For example, John Hawkins posted on his blog, RightWingNews a cute little satirical lampoon of Hillary Clinton as a witch with broom engine trouble. Check out his little blurb and the picture. Now, in his comment board for this post, a nice RightWing fellow wrote:

Wait a minute everyone.....

That object in the photograph isn't her airplane. Her crashed plane was a Cessina Citation (not shown) which crashed due to pilot error. The pilot error was miscalculating the weight and balance properly. Hillary left the center of the fusilage to hit the toilet and the plane augered in. (that's aviation lingo for crashed).

THE OBJECT IN THE PHOTO IS ACTUALLY HILLARY'S SEX TOY. She has named it "Wombbroom Willie". Thank goodnesss it was properly strapped IN unlike Hitlerly!

by eddie on 2004-01-31 08:32:18

I think I'll let that speak for itself. Clearly, the left does not have a monopoly on incivility. At least in the case of the Bush=Hitler ads on the MoveOn.org website, MoveOn.org had the decency to issue an apology and a retraction. This is what I got from "eddie" after I called him on the carpet for his out-of-line comments about Hillary:

My dearest huckupchuck,

I'm not the least bit sorry to have offended your sensitive wittle bitsy liberal ego. As a matter of fact I purposely withheld my more acerbic comments regarding Der Furherina und her pleasure plunger. What are you her personal valet? She's a dirtbag no question about it.

If, and it's highly unlikely, she is elected president they better remove all the mirrors from the White house!

by eddie on 2004-01-31 14:27:05

Give me the "liberal" MoveOn.org and its apology any day of the week over "conservative" eddie and his filth mouth/mind.

Lagniappe: My Travels - As you can see by the following map of my travels through the U.S., I am definitely a Southerner/East Coaster:



create your own visited states map.

And my travels across the world as indicated in the tidy little map below belie my Western Civilization propensities:



create your own visited country map.

Where have you been?

Kingfishery & Kingcakery: Bush Campaign Headquarters at the Archdiocese of New Orleans - Reading the Archdiocese of New Orleans's publication, the Clarion Herald, and especially the political commentary of Fr. William Maestri, it becomes painfully clear that the Archdiocese is a "de facto" campaign headquarters for George W. Bush. First, we have Maestri, in his comment on the "virtues of truth, respect, faith, trust, compassion and justice" comparing GW Bush to Howard Dean. His "unpartisan" thoughts regarding this comparison are the following:

The political world (narrowly defined as those addicted to cable TV news channels) remains abuzz at the verbal meltdown of Howard Dean. We can be forgiven for missing the State of the Union speech, having been drowned out by the "Dean Screech."

Next to the spectacle of Dean making a spectacle of himself was the president offering plain speaking sense about moral values. Yes, Bush's State of the Union speech offered a mini-course on the fundamental virtues which are required of a free people. Liberty requires moral truth, or so the Founders believed. So does Bush - and a good many of his fellow Americans.

When you see such obvious partisanship emanating out of an organization that supposedly represents ALL CATHOLICS (Anti-Bush Democrats among them), you begin to lose faith in your Church leadership. The Catholic Church, as presented by Maestri, is NOT a home for those who don't agree with Bush. Moreover, it really seems like Maestri doesn't want to welcome us Catholic Democrats who think the Bush Administration is against the Social Justice teachings of the Catholic Church in the communion of faithful believers. And when you add Maestri's obvious partisanship to the Archbishop's recent edict that any Catholic who supports or votes for a political candidate who happens to be pro-choice should refrain from communion, you can't help but be disillusioned by the politicization of the Catholic Church. And this is all the more poignant when one realizes that, at the same time the Archbishop is effectively ex-communicating most Catholic Democrats, he's giving a pass to anyone who votes for a pro-death penalty, anti-life Republican. If he ex-communicates those of us who vote for a "pro-choice" candidate who more completely embodies the Catholic Social Justice Teachings in his or her other politics, he is effectively privileging one measure of a Catholic citizen's social and political obligations over another. Furthermore, he's also privileging one measure of respect for life over another.

Lagniappe: Amending the Constitution regarding Marriage - All the recent bluster about the "constitutional process" to codify marriage as exclusive to the relationship between a man and a woman is absolutely incredible. Regardless how people feel about the issue of gay versus straight marriage, is this somethine we want to enshrine in our CONSTITUTION? Imagine, next to all those worthy amendments that seek to outline universal and equal rights relating to liberty and justice for all, we have an amendment about marriage that is "prohibitive" and "exclusive." I think sullying the Constitution with something so clearly partisan and divisive is not the right way to deal with this issue. Bush is foolish for even suggesting as much; and I can only take his SOTU address as nothing more than a pandering to the intolerant fringe of his party.

Lagniappe: Bush's Aversion to Humility - Well, now that David Kay, the WMD inspector-darling of the Conservatives, has tilted pretty decisively towards the No WMD in Iraq position, the rightwing war-mongers are spinning, spinning, spinning, in order to try to salvage something worthwhile out of Bush's clearly false pre-war rhetoric that relied heavily on the WMD argument.

Now, I don't think that Bush LIED about the whole WMD thing; but it is fairly clear that he acted out of what we now know to be seriously flawed intelligence gathering. Moreover, Bush does need to take some responsibility for irresponsibly over-downplaying the available intelligence that did question the accuracy of the WMD claim and presented such claims as sketchy. But that still does not make Bush a liar. He chose to emphasize the flawed intelligence that gave him his justification for war, and he chose to marginalize any (apparently correct) intelligence that raised questions about this justification for war. He got it wrong ... and this is what chafes me most about this whole issue as it relates to Bush.

For whatever reason (and I think it is his hubris), Bush refuses to even acknowledge even the possibility that he got it wrong. There's no shame in admitting this fact. Indeed, 99.9% of all of us, Dems and Repubs alike, got it wrong. The virtue is in accepting this truth, and not trying to spin it away. The more Bush holds out, the worse he appears. And I think this will show up in the polls come November.

Lagniappe: Blister Bombs a Bust - Well, I'm not disappointed that Saddam is gone. That is a good thing. But the WMD claim is getting thinner and more desperate all the time. Folks who supported the war should just fess up and admit that, no matter the justice of the war, the hyped-up WMD threat (potential threat ... whatever) is just that: hyped-up. Sure, based on deplorable intelligence, but still hyped-up nonetheless. I just don't get what the Bush administration and conservative war supporters have to lose by admitting what is obvious.

The "Weak" in (National) Review: Nordlinger's Zingers - Jay Nordlinger, uber-conservative columnist for the National Review, writes glibly in his most recent "Impromptus" column:

Guys, I know I keep calling leading Democrats crazy — or implying such a condition — and I feel a little sheepish about it, because I hate to sound Soviet. But, according to The Drudge Report, Al Gore said to advisers, "The Bush policies are leading to weather extremes." This apparently is what he is also telling MoveOn.org (speaking of crazy).

Look, is it my fault that leading Democrats — including former vice presidents — are saying lunatic things to groups happy to link Bush to Hitler? [Emphasis added.]

I mean, come on!

Imagine this! And from the man who has written a number of times for the New York Post, a supposed "news" outlet that likes to say "lunatic things" that "link Dean to Goebbels." I mean, come on!

Liberal Lighthouse: Matt Bivens and his 'Daily Outrage' - Bush=Hitler vs. Dean=Goebbels - I am a fierce critic of those on my side of the ideological divide who would stoop so low as to equate Bush with Hitler. It is just reprehensible and uncalled for. I am by no means a Bush supporter. I didn't vote for him in 2000 and rest assured that I won't vote for him this year. But I do, at least, think we should be 'civil' in our disagreements and debates. The Bush=Hitler comparison has no place in a civil debate. But Matt Bivens has a great little blurb in his blog at The Nation, an ultra-liberal magazine. This is what Bivens has to say about the hypocrisy of the rightwing outrage over the Bush/Hitler clips run on MoveOn.org's website as part of a Bush in 30 Seconds Contest:

As The Nation's John Nichols reports, MoveOn.org is being pounded upon hysterically by the Republican Party over two ad contest entries -- mailed in from the public, not endorsed by MoveOn and even apologized for and pulled from the website -- ads that compared George W. Bush to Adolf Hitler.

MoveOn notes sourly, however, that none of this indignation was around when Democratic Senator Max Cleland -- a decorated veteran who lost both legs and an arm serving in Vietnam -- was smeared by the Republican leadership with television advertisements comparing him to Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.

And Timothy Karr at MediaChannel.org observes, even as the mainstream media has raised cries of shame at the Bush-Hitler ads -- which were mailed in to a "Bush in 30 Seconds" ad contest and promptly rejected -- there's been silence about the still-truculently defiant decision by The New York Post to run a column devoted entirely to comparing Howard Dean supporters to Hitler's Brownshirts, and Dean himself to Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels.

Kerr suggests you ask your favorite news outlet to explain the double- standard: Two citizens send in speech comparing the Bush Administration to Hitler -- speech that's promptly rejected by progressives, even apologized for, out of embarrassment to even be briefly associated with -- and it's a sordid national news event. But leading citizens and editors at a major metropolitan newspaper craft and print a detailed comparison of Howard Dean to Hitler -- they don't apologize -- they don't back down or disavow -- and there's smug silence.

While you're at it, ask them how it wasn't a national disgrace that a man who left three of his limbs on the battlefield in Vietnam could be called, in Republican Party-sponsored ads on television, an al-Qaeda lover -- just because Republican operatives coveted his Senate seat, and becase he had dared question the president's war in Iraq. That was probably the closest thing we've seen yet to a Goebbels moment -- where was The New York Post's crack Goebbels-watching team then? Maybe if the Republicans policed their own ranks, a minority of the American public wouldn't be entertaining dark fears about homegrown fascism. [Emphasis and links are in the original citation. -- JH]

Reprinted in full for your benefit; but check it out at The Nation anyway. Is Bivens being unfair? Is he trying to fight fire with fire? Not at all. He's not defending MoveOn.org nor is he in any way supporting the Bush=Hitler comparison. What he is doing, however, is pointing out the hypocrisy of the right. What is really ironic is that on the comment boards of some conservative blogs that I visit regularly, this Bush=Hitler subject is met with outrage at the same time that The New York Post's article referenced above is either praised or ignored. Just to give one example ... If you go to conservative blogger John Hawkins's blog entry on the subject, and if you link on the comments section of this blog, and scroll down to my entry at time 2004-01-05 15:07:05, in which I write:

As a leftist liberal, I repudiate such trash no matter where it comes from. Comparing Bush to Hitler is flat-out wrong. For God's sake, the man is our president - agree with him or not, at least give him some respect for his office.

and if you compare this to a response I got on the very same comment board at time 2004-01-06 17:35:12 by a sincerely nice fellow (nom de web: decypher):

huckupchuck, you should read the editorial. It actually makes sense and wasn't in bad taste and made sense. The TWO ads that appeared on moveon.org were trashy and tasteless. They used the holocuast as a political prop. And if Howard Dean doesn't want to be compared to Hitler, he should stop adopting his political methods.

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/4965.htm

Give it a read. I don't see anything that was untrue. And I don't see where in this editorial it says something anywhere near as bad as "What were war crime in 1945 is foreign policy in 2003."

Also, The NY Post is a newspaper, a minor media outlet. It does not raise money for the DNC and is not actively campaigning for a president.

Sorry, kiddo, but you got duped. And now you're doing their deflecting for them. Moveon.org is beneath contempt.

Also, I find it interesting that the left is still residing to typical deflection, trying to detract from their own horrific behavior by pointing out what they perceive to be other bad behavior.

you can see what I mean and to what Bivens is accurately referring. Partisanship blinds even the best of us ... that is, if we let it. Conservatives should see the hypocrisy of their outrage over the Bush/Hitler ad while at the same time giving the Dean=Goebbels article a pass, if not a thumbs up.

The "Weak" in (National) Review: Deroy Murdock's Defense of Marriage - Actually, I have to say this piece by Deroy Murdock on the question of gay marriage and the sanctity of the institution of marriage is actually quite strong. I find myself agreeing with Murdock in spite of myself. A rare occurrence for anything published at the National Review Online. Sample this by Murdock:

Whatever objections they otherwise may generate, gay couples who desire marriage at least hope to stay hitched. Britney's latest misadventure, in contrast, reduced marriage from something sacred to just another Vegas activity, like watching the Bellagio Hotel's fountains between trips to the blackjack tables.

Consider David Letterman. His hilarious broadcasts keep Insomniac-Americans cackling every weeknight. Last November 3, he got a national standing ovation when his son, Harry Joseph, was born. Those who rail against gay marriage stayed mum about the fact that Harry's dad and mom, Regina Lasko, shack up. What message is sent by this widely hailed out-of-wedlock birth?

And then there's Jerry Seinfeld. This national treasure's eponymous TV show will generate belly laughs in syndication throughout this century, and deservedly so. The mere sound of those odd bass notes on Seinfeld's soundtrack can generate chuckles before any dialogue has been uttered.

But while Seinfeld boasts millions of fans, Eric Nederlander is not among them. Shortly after the Broadway theater heir and his then-wife, Jessica Sklar, returned from their June 1998 honeymoon, she met Seinfeld at Manhattan's Reebok Club gym. He asked Sklar out, she accepted and, before long, she ditched her new husband and ran off with the comedian.

Where was the social-conservative outrage at Seinfeld's dreadful actions? Can anyone on the religious Right seriously argue that the real risk to holy matrimony is not men like Seinfeld and women like Sklar but devoted male couples who aim neither to discard one another nor divide others?

Read the whole piece. It's very good.

Cuaderno Latinoamericano: The Rising Tide of Latin American Assertiveness -- The Latin American countries are demanding that the United States treat them with respect. Moreover, they're not only talking this talk, but they're acting the part, too. I think this is good for the L.A.-U.S. relationship. It will force "Big Brother" to finally recognize that "Little Sister" is now a grown woman.

Lagniappe: The Sanctity of Marriage and the Civil Rights that Go with It - Andrew Sullivan really nails it regarding the whole conservative Defense of Marriage movement that really seeks not to "defend marriage" but rather to exclude gays from the institution. First it was convicted parent-killer Lyle Menendez who got to enjoy and parse out the legal benefits of marriage from his prison cell, and now it's Britney Spears who gets married and has the marriage annulled all within 48 hours. What's better for the institution of marriage? What do you think will "defend" the insitution of marriage more? Sanctioning the institution for the whims of people like Menendez and Spears, or counterbalancing their damage to the institution by brining committed homosexual partners into the institution who really seem to actually VALUE the institution seriously. More and more, I see the folly and the hypocrisy of the anti-gay marriage cause.

Cuaderno Latinoamericano: The Bush Immigration Plan - Good for President Bush. He's doing the right thing by working towards legalizing undocumented workers. Not only will this be a way for hard workers from other countries to meet the demand for their services without having to slink around and hide from Immigration Authorities, but it will bring billions more dollars of legitimate tax revenues to the federal treasury. It's good for America all-around, both as a domestic and a foreign policy issue. I hope to have more detailed analysis of this latest development in an upcoming blog posting.

Kingfishery & Kingcakery: LSU! - I am a die-hard Tulane fan, who always wants Tulane to whip up on LSU whenever they play in any sport. But, when the two aren't playing against each other, I pull for both ... And so, I can say with the full pride of a Louisianian: "Congratulations, Tigers!" National College Football Champions. It's a shame that the Tigers have to share the honors with USC, because I think LSU is the better team; but splitting the title doesn't demean at all LSU's incredible accomplishment. Geaux, Tigers! We're all happy for you!

Lagniappe: I Wish You A Merry Christmas, and Hope You'll Wish Me A Merry Something Back. - What does one say to a stranger during holiday times when paths cross and a greeting is appropriate? Is Merry Christmas during Christmas season enough? Or is wishing someone a Merry Day the proper, politically correct, liberal thing to do? Well, I have an interesting take on what the liberal's greeting should be? You'll probably be surprised!

Though I don't get overly agitated at the PC tendency to remove the meaning from holiday celebrations, I do think this growing practice is an unwelcome tendency in our society. In fact, I don't think it is even a liberal tendency. Rather, from my point of view, a true liberal holiday greeting would be the opposite. Let me explain. ...

I don't care if you're Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish, Christian, or Pagan; if you are celebrating something, let me know what it is. I might not celebrate it with you, but at least I know you're not just commemorating a day for the day's sake! Think about it, if someone tells a Christian: "Happy Hannukah" or "Happy Ramadan" of "Happy Solstice", isn't that much more meaningful than a happy "holiday"? So, I never refrain from wishing people a Merry Christmas. It's who I am and I have a right to wish this to people. It's not horrible, you know.

Now, if I know someone is not Christian, then I will make every effort to add "Happy Hannukah" or "Happy Kwanza" after my "Merry Christmas" - but I can only wish people the joy that I experience on days special to me, and if they get offended by that joy because I don't know what is special to them ... well, that is their problem. Does this make me conservative? No, not at all. In fact, I think the multicultural diversity of liberalism should encourage the many blessing that come from all festivals, faiths, and days of celebration. Amen!

And ... Merry Christmas!

Lagniappe: What Does God Know? - What prompts this post is a discussion/friendly debate that I had last night with my brother, who is visiting from Berkeley where he is studying towards his Master's Degree in Theology. (By the way, my brother is a member of the Society of Jesus, a catholic religious order more commonly know as the "Jesuits." My brother is not a priest, but rather a religious brother.) In any event, the discussion we had last night centered around the question: What Does God Know? This is a question that has been discussed around the dinner table at my home many evenings. So much so that my 5-yr-old daughter has memorized my pat answer to the question. Before I give you my answer, I should let you know that both my brother and my wife (not to mention my daughter, who is inclined to side with them) do not agree with me on this issue. So, what is my answer to that interesting question? Well ... I say: "God knows that which is knowable." Seems fairly inoccuous; but its implications are critical, because it implies that there are certain things which God simply cannot know.

I don't believe God knows the future of human behavior. I don't believe God knows from the moment of our birth what our life actions will be and whether we are destined for heaven or hell or purgatory or whatever. I believe that God is omnisicient, but only in term of what is knowable in the context of my faith in the notion of free choice. If God knows our destiny, how is it that we have any choice or freedom at all? Now, my wife and brother say that we cannot understand the mystery of God omnisicience coupled with the existence of true free choice because we think as humans do, and not God; but I argue that even this position is the product of a human thought process that leads one to the notion of mystery and faith. My belief is that we can only know and understand things through the prism of our humanity and our human faculties, and so we must rely on our best efforts to lead us to understanding. For me, this means that we must rely on our faith informed by our reason. And my reason informs my faith that God knows the infinite possibilities of our choices, but he does not know (and does not compromise free will by thus knowing) what it is that we will choose in those moments of our life.

Because, if you buy into the notion that God knows our choices, and where we will be, the possibility of redemption through an act of free choice is not possible. We either have the ability to turn from evil and repent from sin at any point in the eternal existence of our soul (even after death), or we have no choice in the matter. If God knows that from the moment of our creation that we are destined for heaven or hell, then how is it that we are free to choose either the path to heaven or to hell. In a sense, it is already chosen for us because it is predetermined.

My brother argues that God is always with us in the context of our choices, and I don't disagree; but being with us and being in full knowledge of the infinite possibilities of choice does not mean that God knows which of those possibilities we will choose.

Let's move to some examples. We humans may not know if life exists on other planets in other galaxies; but if such is true, then God certainly knows it, since he is the creator. God knows all things that can be known. He knows what will happen to the arctic penguin when the leaf falls from the tree in the tropical rain forest. God knows how the bird's chirp in Louisiana affects the sleeping patterns of the Prime Minister of Japan. All of this, I believe, is "knowable" because it doesn't affect human free choice and will. However, if I get drunk at a New Year's Eve Party and make the mistake of driving home afterwards in bad weather, does God know that 10 minutes later drive into a tree and break my back? If I have free will and free choice, He can't. Why? Because it presupposes that within those 10 minutes, my ability to exercise free choice is no longer operational. I can't believe this. Why is it not possible for me to get into the car, drive for five minutes, realize that what I am doing is dangerous, and pull off into a parking lot to call for a cab or to sleep off the drunkenness. Of course, it IS possible for me to choose this.

Now, my brother would say that God is with me at every instant and every fraction of an instant and so is knowledgable of my choice as I make it. In other words he knows what I am going to do when I do it. But this still begs the question: who makes the choice? Something must come first. Is the choice and God's knowledge of it at the moment of choosing one and the same? It can't be, because then it is not fully free. I must make the choice distinct from God's knowledge in order for it to be fully my own free choice.

So I always end with the compromise: God is omniscient. He knows all that which is knowable. I don't pretend to define that which is knowable; but I do believe that God cannot know the unknowable. I welcome your thoughts on the subject.

Kingfishery & Kingcakery - We fans of the New Orleans Saints are truly patient sufferers with loads of blind faith in God. We've been praying for almost 40 years now to get to Football's promised land, and we are still waiting patiently for God to deliver us. Well, we're not at 40 years yet, so I guess we can't expect deliverance for another couple of years. Let's hope that we receive our just rewards for 40 years of faithfulness like the Israelites did during their Exodus from Egypt and their long 40 year march towards the promised land. How bizarre can it get ... the Saints are delivered a miracle that scores a touchdown to bring us one point from tying the Jaguars and heading into overtime, only to see Carney miss the chip shot extra point. The Saints lose another heartbreaker and season-breaker, 20-19.

Lagniappe: PETA terrorism - I'm all for the promotion of kindness to animals. And I'm even sympathetic to some of the work that PETA does on behalf of animals; but this tactic by PETA is simply intolerable. This is nothing more than psychological terrorism, and is no different than the anti-abortion terrorists who parade around with six-foot pictures of aborted fetuses at family events where children are traumatized. Funny, that! Protect the unborn children by traumatizing the already born kids. [Hat-tip to Conservative Blogger, John Hawkins for bringing this to my attention first.

Kingfishery & Kingcakery: New Orleans Archbishop Alfred Hughes on Gay Marriage - In deference to a a request from one of my very few regular readers, affectionately known as "Pops," and as a member of good-standing in the Catholic faith, I have agreed to blog my reactions on the following editorial written by Roman Catholic Archbishop Hughes in the Clarion Herald, the local Archdiocesan Offical Newspaper. In this editorial, Archbishop Hughes writes:

When the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decided this past week that marriage is any committed relationship between two people of any sex, these judges, whatever their motivation, turned away from the truth and took a step that contributes to a terrible moral darkness.

I just don't see how these judges turned away from the truth. The "truth" of the matter is that a man and a woman can marry for whatever reason - be it convenience, money, love, etc. Even convicted mass murderers are allowed to marry from their prison cells, bestowing all the legal rights, privileges, and blessings on the couple which come from the act of marriage. The other "truth"of the matter is that people are born gay. Gay people are also loving people who may very well be incomplete creations of God without the fulfillment that comes from an intimate relationship afforded by the institution marriage - and not only the legal benefits of marriage, but also the grace that the sacrament of marriage confers upon the partnership. What is morally "dark" in my mind is to arbitrarily deny the grace of the sacrament of marriage to two people of any sex involved in a committed relationship, for that, ultimately, is what marriage celebrates and sanctions. All the other arguments given to exclude gay couples from the institution of marriage are straw man arguments, which I will address at a later point in my reflections on the rest of the Archbishop's editorial. Archbishop Hughes continues:

What does the Church say marriage is? "The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament." This teaching is taken directly from the Second Vatican Council, the Code of Canon law and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It reflects God's revealed word in Scripture, handed down in our tradition. Please note that according to this truth, marriage is rooted in nature and, therefore, not a mere social construct. It involves a man and a woman and, therefore, is heterosexual. It has as its purpose both spousal happiness and procreation and education of children. This natural reality is raised for the baptized to a sacrament as a sign of Christ's spousal relationship to his Church.

Here, Archbishop Hughes narrowly interprets the Church teaching he cites. Of course the matrimonial covenant is something "by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life." But nowhere in this teaching is this covenant exclusive of gay couples. I must assume that the Church, which makes exception for infertile heterosexual couples, doesn't interpret this "covenant" as narrowly as Hughes suggests. Marriage IS rooted in nature. So is homosexuality. So, given this, what is so unnatural about homosexual marriage, especially to homosexuals? In fact, for gays, desiring marriage to their same-sex partner, is about as "natural" as can be. It is only "unnatural" to heterosexuals. Also, if marriage has as its purpose both "spousal happiness" and "procreation and education of children," then the only possible disqualifier here is the inability of gay couples to procreate. Gay marriage certainly can contribute to spousal happiness, and gay people are certainly able to education children well. And even the procreation argument has its flaws. Gay people CAN procreate, though perhaps not with their gay partners. They certainly can mother or father children. And so the procreative power exists, in ways not that much different, for instance, from a woman who cannot give birth herself because of some genetic deformity, but who can procreate through the use of a surrogate carrier. And even if we assume that the procreative power doesn't exist, why then can infertile couples marry? The fact is that there is no argument that can be made within the context of current Church law that proscribes marriage for gay couples that should not also proscribe marriage for certain heterosexual couples. Likewise, there is no good argument that justifies marriage for certain heterosexual couples, that cannot also be used to justify marriage for a homosexual couple. Hughes continues:

Some, of course, will raise the issue of tolerance. We tolerate people, not half-truths or lies. Christ calls us to include all in our lives, to love others with whom we disagree, even our enemies. But he enjoins us to resist untruth that comes from wolves in sheep's clothing. A half-truth is the more deceptive. We are to be wise of serpents, gentle as doves. We are to proclaim the truth in love.

When life and love, even efforts to promote justice and peace, are divorced from truth, then the foundation of our human society crumbles. Guigo, the saintly founder of the Comaldolese, once wrote: "The truth does not need us to defend it. We need the truth. Christ is the way, the truth, and the life." Christ's kingdom is one of truth. Let us pray whole-heartedly: "Thy kingdom come!"

Think about the patronizing tone of Hughes's "tolerance" argument. When Hughes says that we tolerate people, not half-truths or lies, he implies two things: first, there is something about the nature of God's creation of gay people that is somehow perverse, and requires tolerance like we tolerate pesky mosquitoes or the oppressive heat during the summertime; second, he implies that homosexuality in itself is a half-truth and a lie. How is this? Some people are homosexual and they are born that way. That is not half-true, it is completely true. And homosexuality is not a lie. Does God create, sustain, and love a lie? And with regard to Hughes's first implication about "tolerance," I'd just like to say that gay people do not need to be "tolerated," they need to be embraced and loved for the creation that they are, made in God's image. Hughes is treading on shaky ground. He is basically arguing that good Catholics need to reject the essential reality of the human condition and the requirements of intimacy and loving relationships for significant part of God's human creation. Furthermore, Hughes is arguing that God's grace as manifested through the sacrament of marriage is exclusive to people for no other reason than sexual orientation. I honestly don't believe Jesus would deny such grace to loving, monogamous, gay couples.

Well, that's my reflection on Archbishop Hughes's opinion. I know it goes against the thinking of "Pops" who solicited my impressions; but I've got to be honest to my conscience and take issue with Hughes on what I think is his wrong position on this subject. I welcome your thoughts and comments, too.