Quote of the Day

If I cannot pray with Rick Warren, I realize, then I am not worthy of being called a Christian. And if I cannot engage him, then I am not worthy of being called a writer. And if we cannot work with Obama to bridge these divides, none of us will be worthy of the great moral cause that this civil rights movement truly is.

~Andrew Sullivan

Scott Payne agrees with Sullivan's conclusions, arguing that "Divisiveness breeds its own and perpetuating stereotypes about those that oppose you only provides fodder for the perpetuation of the stereotypes you seek to address."

I was having this discussion with my wife last night actually. I argued that the gay activist movement had pushed this marriage thing too hard, and she said that while she agreed that it wasn't likely to move very far very fast, that the only way to really get anything done was to keep protesting, keep making noise, and not let the movement die out, or become too passive.

I didn't have an argument against that, though I still feel that the initial, short-term effects of overselling the gay marriage idea is more pain for the homosexual community--like here in Arizona, where the voters have decided to amend the State Constitution to legally define marriage as between a man and a woman.

Er, one man, and one woman. Gotta be careful with those definitions these days...

Essentially where my wife and I do agree is that nothing major will happen until the older generations die out and the newer, more open-minded generations take their place. Think how many more young conservatives support gay marriage than a decade ago, after all...think how much more support there is amongst the youth of today than the youth of yesterday.

Who said that--that most good ideas simply have to wait until their opposition dies out before they can be implemented? I can't recall, but it's very true, and I think we have decades to go before gay marriage becomes a national right in this country. I hope I'm wrong.

Dreher and Jones

Sullivan v Dreher

Andrew Sullivan reacts to Rod Dreher. Nobody said this marriage debate would be easy. I guess it goes to the heart of the question of modernity. Dreher sees it intrinsically bound to the failures of our modern culture. Sullivan says Dreher's vision of a return to an older, simpler past is impossible.

I think both are right to some extent. I am very much in line with Dreher's desire to return the culture to a time of heightened spiritual belief, less materialism, and more simplicity. I just disagree that the marriage debate is a fundamental part of the equation. I think other things, like our consumer culture, our media and its glorification of cheap sex, extreme violence, and ridiculous wealth are all far more dangerous to our values than gay marriage.

Sullivan, on the other hand, is wrong to think we can never return to a more teleological society, driven by common purpose, a higher purpose. He's right in that social conservatives need to focus on what is truly important, and denying gays their basic rights is hardly that. With all the ills of this world, social conservatives should be too busy to care about gay marriage.

Essentially I think that the wrong questions are being asked. Modernity is full of moral qualms, but there are good things that have emerged as well. We need to find a way to determine what is truly good, universally good, that has been, perhaps, uncovered only now--like equal rights for women or gays--and what is bad, morally decrepit, or dangerous to a society.

William F Buckley wrote:

Conservatives pride themselves on resisting change, which is as it should be. But intelligent deference to tradition and stability can evolve into intellectual sloth and moral fanaticism, as when conservatives simply decline to look up from dogma because the effort to raise their heads and reconsider is too great.

In other words, it is best to be conservative. Tradition has great value. We should seek the wisdom of the past. But we should not excuse ourselves any creative effort, or any reconsideration of our values simply because everything modern can be written off. Sometimes tradition is wrong.

Thus my constant call for balance. If we do seek to do away with some of the follies of modernity, let us be wise in our choosing. Few would argue that the advancements in science should be rolled back. Some social advances are equally right and just.

On gay marriage

Also see this thread at Newsvine, on the Conservative case for gay marriage...

Shut-up Michelle

Michelle Malkin: Don't you have better ways to spend your time?

Let me re-phrase: Don't you have better things to bitch about?