Hamas may ultimately be destroyed by a Gaza takeover. But long after they're dead, it will be Israel that has to live with a new occupation.Jason:
It's therefore in our interest to make the ceasefire workable, before a messy invasion. Israel ought to concede to allowing Hamas to maintain oversight of its borders, alongside Israeli forces on their respective border, and international forces along the Egyptian border. I don't know what harm there could be in such a concession, as long as non-Hamas monitors still have access to everything coming in and out. And in exchange for this concession, Israel can demand that international forces be stationed within Gaza, rather than Egypt. Egypt, (which has nearly as much of an interest in concluding this mess, as it is nothing but a daily public relations disaster for Mubarak) for its part, should exert serious pressure on Hamas to accept this trade. And if it is unable to do so, Egypt should accept a multinational force in the Sinai, as a good faith gesture to make up for Hamas's intractability.
In exchange for the total cessation of rocket fire from Gaza, Israel should agree to a formalized schedule for lifting the blockade. This is in any case in Israeli interests, as many have pointed out that miserable conditions in Gaza have done nothing to damage Hamas, and may in fact have strengthened the organization.
It's hard to say what will actually achieve peace. I do hope Israel secures Gaza at least to the point that a lift of the blockade will become possible. I hope, also, that Egypt will find some way to clamp down on smuggling over their borders--not bread, but bombs and rockets and machine guns.The message is a clear one. This is the price you pay when groups like Hamas are elected. This is the price terrorist organizations pay when you endanger the lives of citizens of other countries. The lessons and results may be more binding and constructive then permanent evacuations or cease fires that only secure the status quo and, ironically enough, contributes and guarantees more suffering and death in the future.
The region deserves peace and the people of Gaza and Israel deserve to live quietly and securely. I think its time we give war a chance.
I think allowing gay couples to marry does strengthen the institution, because it ensures that everyone in a family has access to the same civil rites and rights, and so the heterosexual marriages are as affirmed as effectively as the gay ones. (It is not my experience that the straight siblings and families of gay people feel their marriages affirmed by excluding some of their own.) By removing the incentive for gay people to enter into false straight marriages, which often end in divorce or collapse, wrecked childhoods and betrayed spouses, heterosexual marriage is also strengthened. And the practical alternative to marriage equality - civil unions for straights and gays - presents a marriage-lite option for everyone that clearly does threaten traditional marriage in a way that gay marriage never could.This is a good take on the subject, and quite close to my own, though I would also advocate stricter divorce laws and other mechanisms to increase marriage success rates. I would also argue that any conservative who has the time to argue endlessly against gay marriage probably ought to be spending that time finding ways to save marriage in general--the culture at present is drifting toward marriage failure. Gay marriage likely won't help or hinder that, so long as our society at large, including not only divorce laws, but also cultural attitudes toward marriage and commitment, remains as shallow and hedonistic as it is now.
"The lack of emotional security of our American young people is due, I believe, to their isolation from the larger family unit. No two people - no mere father and mother - as I have often said, are enough to provide emotional security for a child. He needs to feel himself on in a wold of kinfolk, persons of variety in age and temperament, and yet allied to himself by an indissoluble bond which he cannot break if he could, for nature has welded him into it before he was born."Do you see what I mean? We need a wider net. My mom comes from a family of eight siblings, and when I was younger I was constantly surrounded by family. We ended up moving (several times) and as I grew into those restless, rebellious years I had virtually no (extended) family to speak of.
Well, it's a novel idea. Personally, I like this a lot. I would just add the libertarian caveat that we do away with state-sponsored marriage altogether and replace it with, well, this idea. Then you can take your civil union paper down to whatever priest or pastor or rabbi you might occasionally visit and get hitched, or married, or whatever you want to call it. Two consenting adults--that's the qualifier.I’ve been on record as supporting a form of civil unions for over four years. In fact, in November 2004 I wrote about it on my former blog. I noted that Dr. James Dobson and Focus on the Family Action, supported a bill in Colorado that would facilitate certain contractual obligations or legal arrangements for any two "unmarried persons who are excluded from entering into a valid marriage under the marriage laws of this state." I too supported the bill and believe that an expanded form of the proposed reciprocal-beneficiary contracts is the model for civil unions iin America.
Where Sullivan and I likely differ, however, is on the question of who should be allowed to participate in such civil unions. To me the civil unions should cover a broad range of domestic situations, such as two elderly sisters who share a home or a widowed parent of an adult child who has Down’s syndrome or other potentially disabling condition. Such legal protections should be completely desexualized and open to any two adults who desire to form a contractually dependent relationship.
The heart of Meachem’s argument does not bear much scrutiny, and we have not even come to the question of how entirely divorced Meachem’s entire argument is from a Christian understanding of the purpose of marriage. Procreation is an important part of that purpose, and joining two people from different sexes in complementary relationship is another, but beyond that it is a vocation to unite oneself to a person radically different from oneself. The uniting of complementary opposites as a type of the unity between Christ and His Church is one of the mystical meanings of marriage. The Christian conception of marriage is of two people joined into one flesh, the full expression of which is a child. Nowhere in the “great Judeo-Christian tradition” that Meachem supposedly takes so seriously is there support for his argument.So you see, on a theological basis this will never, ever be resolved. It simply won't. The Bible forbids homosexuality, eating pork, masturbation, and hundreds of other outdated things, and people will focus on that and on the notion that marriage is solely for procreation (the logical conclusion being we should not be allowed to marry even if we are straight if we don't plan on having kids) and not on the more compelling Biblical truths like love and redemption and sacrifice and holiness.
Much has been made recently of the passage of Proposition 8 in California, nullifying the recent court decision to permit same-sex marriage. Now, I am a supporter of gay marriage for many reasons, not the least of which is my belief in the family unit and the societal importance in bringing the homosexual community into the mainstream. We should afford our fellow citizens basic equal rights. It will make for a stronger culture and a stronger nation. It is cruel to deny the foundation of marriage to adults who love one another. That's what I think. Others disagree, and they are welcome to disagree.
There are those, like the Westboro Baptist Church who are most certainly comprised of bigots. They protest at the funerals of soldiers and say that America has brought about the deaths of our brave young men and women through our lax moral code, our acceptance of gays, etc. They hoist signs that say "God Hates Fags." Just check out their website. It is a crash course in hatred and bigotry.
I doubt I'll find much argument on that point.
But a much larger swath of America disagrees with me about same-sex marriage. Many moderates, religious or otherwise, think that marriage is sacred and that it is defined by the union of one man and one woman. (I take issue with both points, citing divorce rates as one major flaw in the argument, but that is neither here nor there...)
One such opponent of gay marriage is our own President-elect, Barack Obama, often described as "the most liberal Senator in the United States Senate" or "in the history of mankind" or something to that effect. Not liberal enough, apparently, Barack Obama has made it very clear that he does not support gay marriage, but does support gay rights.
Is this like saying, "I support civil rights for black people, but not black marriage"? Or should I not touch that with a ten-foot pole?
In any case, the hue and cry out of the gay activist scene now is that bigotry brought about the passage of Proposition 8. Only bigots voted for it. This begs the obvious question: If bigots are the only ones opposing gay marriage (and no argument of tradition or religion has any merit) than does our new President-elect qualify as a bigot?
You tell me. Is Barack Obama a bigot for not supporting gay marriage? Or is it a more complicated issue? Once we start using such black and white language, the obvious flaws in this reasoning become apparent. After all, if Obama is a bigot, then how do we describe the members of Westboro Baptist Church? Do we begin to water down our words when we start to use them overmuch? Or do we hold all accountable equally?
"Ultimately, I believe that marriage will be strengthened if less people marry. This is a counterintuitive claim. But given the challenge inherent in matrimony, it stands to reason that there won't be as many couples truly compatible with marriage, in comparison to the numbers of people who married when marrying was simply something you had to do....My preferred vision of marriage involves a culture that approaches it more slowly, more cautiously, and with a greater appreciation of what marriage really entails. A stronger institution of marriage is one that has less frivolous and ill-considered marriages. (For those who are uncomfortable with the notion of less married couples in our society, I can think of many thousands of Americans who are desperate to join the franchise, if given the opportunity. But this is controversial.)"
