Well, Bush did it:
“Today,” Bush said, “I call for the Congress to promptly pass and send to the states for ratification an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of a man and woman, as husband and wife.”
Bush could have endorsed an Amendment that merely held that a gay marriage in one state need not be recognized as a marriage in another — an Amendment that lets the states decide. It would’ve had broad support.* (Indeed, even Rep. Barney Frank, the openly gay Massachusetts Congressman, has endorsed this approach.) Instead, Bush has endorsed an Amendment designed to prohibit the states from conducting their own affairs. Bush — the freely-spending champion of “limited” government — has decided that the federal government should now reach into the bedrooms, town halls, and churches of communities around the nation.
And so Bush feeds a narrow constituency, at the expense of the whole.
von
*I personally didn’t believe it to be necessary, however. The “full faith and credit” clause ain’t quite as full-faithy and credity as it may appear. Even without any amendment, there’s a good argument that a gay marriage in Massachusetts needn’t be recognized in Mississippi.
now where did i put my jiu-jitsu gloves again…i’m going to need them.
So Moe, are you comfortable reneging on your values to vote for Anyone Who Is Bush? 😉
We need a new word for “slimy.”
Sullivan is all over this today. The anger and the eloquence isn’t surprising. But the emails he’s getting are: mostly of the “I’m not gay, but…” variety. And all reacting angrily to the sordid spectacle of a president who is willing and eager to enshrine his own prejudices in the constitution in order to get elected.
At some point, socially moderate Republicans are going to have to get into the game, rather than allow their party to be continually hijacked by the least among them.
Or maybe winning is in and of itself enuf.
The thing is, Harley, socially moderate Republicans don’t have millions of email adresses as part of a robust grassroots fundraising network, nor do they own a media empire.
They’re generals without an army.
Sorry, von, can you update me on your current choice for El Presidente?
Von wrote:
The States will already have a chance to decide, which is how the constitutional amendment process works. Besides which the current form provides greater protection in that prevents another activist court from using the same specious logic as the SCOMA from deciding that “equal protection” must extend to redefining marriage as more than two people (polygamy) or to include minors or whatever.
I doubt that the breadth of support between the two suggested approaches is going to be that much different. If Barney Frank endorsed such an approach, it is no doubt because he believes that the FMA will probably pass in its current form.
This is a pretty specious argument Von considering that the more vocal opponents (sans some libertarians) tend to favor SCOTUS decisions like Roe versus Wade and all sorts of nifty federal programs which “prohibit the states from conducting their own affairs” all without respecting the constitutional process as the supporters of the FMA are doing. Criticize it on the merits if you like, but the argument about federalism is a bogus one because the pro-FMA crowd recognizes that if you want to expand the power of the federal government or place further restrictions on that States at the federal level, then the proper way to do it is by constitutional amendment not judicial fiat.
No, he has not. Constitutional amendments are not binding on private activity. The Amendment only binds the federal and State governments with regards to civil marriage (which is a governmental function). You are simply throwing out hyperbole because you do not agree with the proposal.
How “narrow” the “constituency” is will be revealed by how far the amendment goes and if it gets the two-thirds majority in both Houses and three-fourths of the State legislatures to become part of the Constitution. I am willing to bet though that even if it fails, it will turn out the that “constituency” in favor of it is a lot broader than one opposed to it.
Oh and if you are still upset with why things ever got this far – take it up with the SCOMA and the Mayor of San Francisco. They and not the POTUS are the “fools and knaves” who set the country down this path.
Oh and if you are still upset with why things ever got this far – take it up with the SCOMA and the Mayor of San Francisco. They and not the POTUS are the “fools and knaves” who set the country down this path.
Bush expressed support for the FMA long before the mayor of SF began granting licenses. If anything, Bush is responsible for His Honor’s actions.
Thorley, another learned disquistion — and I’m still waiting for a simple answer to a simple question. Should gay men and women have the same marriage rights as you do? If not, why not?
They’re generals without an army.
Where did my army go? (And I prefer “liberal Republican,” if you must know.)
Sorry, von, can you update me on your current choice for El Presidente?
At this point, I can’t vote for Bush. Whether I’ll waste my vote on the Libertarian candidate remains to be seen.
The States will already have a chance to decide, which is how the constitutional amendment process works.
You conflate majority-state rule with individual-state rule, Thorley. The FMA amendment provides for the former at the expense of the latter — which, of course, was my point.
This is a pretty specious argument Von considering that the more vocal opponents (sans some libertarians) tend to favor SCOTUS decisions . . . .
Interesting. You’re confronting an argument that you tacitly concede to be viable (federalism) by ad homming certain of it’s proponents. And I’m the one with the specious arguments?
I never was a fan of Roe v. Wade, by the by. That decision, too, should have been left to the states.
No, he has not. Constitutional amendments are not binding on private activity.
The FMA purports to be binding as to the definition of marriage, no? And marriages are sealed in churches, licensed in town halls, and consummated in bedrooms, are they not?
How “narrow” the “constituency” is will be revealed by how far the amendment goes and if it gets the two-thirds majority in both Houses and three-fourths of the State legislatures to become part of the Constitution.
The alternative Amendment that I (and Rep. Frank) endorse would easily pass. I think, however, that you are in for a real shock if you think an FMA-style amendment has legs. But we’ll see.
I knew he was going to do it, of course–with or without what’s happened in San Francisco–but I’m still vaguely shocked. “Look at what that bad man wants to do the Constitution, mommy!” That sort of feeling.
It’s an exception to the 14th Amendment, written into the text of the Constitution itself. We’ve never done that before. (We wrote something worse into the Constitution itself, but that was before the Civil War and those three amendments).
My wedding day happened to fall on the same day of the year that the 14th amendment was ratified. That was a coincidence, which I found out about after we’d chosen the date, but I was dorky enough to be excited about it.
The ceremony was conducted by a Reform Jewish cantor. Reform Judaism recognizes same sex marriages–it’s actually much harder to find a clergyperson to marry an Irish shiksa to a nice Jewish boy than to marry a same sex Jewish couple, though we managed.
One of my best friends from college, who is gay, had to be talked out of quitting her new job & paying for an expensive flight so she could be there (she was totally broke, it was absurd to even consider it, but it took a while for me to convince her of that).
It is really quite an experience, to watch the President claim to protect the sanctity of marriage, while dishonoring your own marriage in three separate & specific ways.
The question is not, Will the Constitution be amemded? but, How will the Constitution be amended? Will it be amended by the courts, or by the duly-elected representatives of the people?
Harley asked, “Should gay men and women have the same marriage rights as you do?” There is no “right” to marriage; but even if such a thing existed, it is not being denied to homosexuals — any whom can legally take a husband or wife, of the opposite sex.
What is being asked for here is not equality but privilege.
What privilege would that be, Paul?
Edward wrote:
Actually, Bush didn’t explicitly state that he wanted such an amendment until after the mayor of San Francisco decided to break his State’s laws. And even then, the serious talk of a constitutional amendment began after the SCOMA decision back in November.
Von wrote:
Yes, you are actually. Federalism is the division of power between the federal and State governments as outlined in the Constitution. A constitutional amendment that restricts what the States may define as “marriage” is simply part of this division just like the other prohibitions on what a State may not do in Article I Section 9.
Then you favor overturning it?
Only the town hall of which is relevant to the civil definition of marriage which is obviously the only thing government by the FMA since constitutional amendments do not govern private actions or arrangements nor have they ever been interpreted as such. The rest of it is you reaching.
As I said before, the only reason Representative Frank is even talking about this is probably because he figures that the FMA will pass. I doubt that the alternative language (which does not address the other concerns I listed earlier) is going to be offered up much less pass either House. Still we’ll see if it gets the two-thirds in either House when it comes up for a vote or if this becomes an issue in the fall elections.
Say, Thorley, an answer, maybe? No? Yes? It ain’t that complicated.
The privilege is the expansion of an institution to include vast new components, and transformation of the “social state” (to borrow a term from Tocqueville) of a nation without any republican (small “r” republican) accountability.
Paul Cella wrote:
Bingo. This is all a question of privileges rather than rights. All that civil marriage does is create a default provision for issues such as inheritance, medical decisions, child custody, etc. that non-married people have to set up on their own (an issue of convenience and planning). There is no violation of anyone’s “rights” in creating these default provisions for some relationships but not others.
Katherine wrote:
No it isn’t. Privileges can and are unequal in that they are awarded for some preferred forms of behavior but not others. This has nothing to do with the Fourteenth Amendment.
And we’re not doing that now nor has anyone proposed that we do such a thing.
Katherine wrote:
No it isn’t. Privileges can and are unequal in that they are awarded for some preferred forms of behavior but not others. This has nothing to do with the Fourteenth Amendment.
And we’re not doing that now nor has anyone proposed that we do such a thing.
“Vast new components”? What vast new components? Marriage has come in a wide variety of flavors throughout human history. What’s so special about this particular variation?
“The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival.”
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967). Which also rejected the argument that a law’s symmetry–whites and blacks alike could go to jail for marrying someone of another race–proved that it did not violate equal protection.
(There are ways, of course, of distinguishing Goodridge and Loving–race is a more suspect classification than sexual orientation–but those aren’t the arguments that Thorley and Paul are making.)
Also:
1. the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s interpretation of the Massachusetts Constitution does not do a damn thing to the U.S. Constitution.
2. if any judicial decision that holds a law unconstitutional for the first time is an illegitmate “constitutional amendment” by “unlected judges”–we are going to have to overturn Marbury v. Madison. Which you may want to do, but I don’t think it’s a popular position.
Josh:
Do you deny that this is an innovation? Marriage is not an infinitely-malliable institution. This innovation transforms the logic of the institition so comprehensively as to make it mean whatever two people say it means.
busbusybusy.com offers the Shorter Shrub in haiku:
A state has no right
to disobey the diktat
of my deity.
I find it interesting that Bush and other opponents of gay marriage refer often to the “sanctity” of marriage and to marriage as a “sacred institution”. Am I alone in finding this to be wholly inappropriate language for debate over what is a civil, secular institution?
This debate has never been about whether or not churches, pastors, rabbis, or priests can perform a religious marriage ceremony. No state or federal law can be enacted to compel or deny them in this regard. This debate is about the secular and civil institution of marriage, and the hundreds of specific legal effects it encompasses, being denied to same-sex couples on the basis of an argument which is ultimately religious in nature, and which has no place being used as a basis for law–let alone the supreme law of this country.
The Massachusetts Court did indeed address itself to an audience beyond the Commonwealth, touching even on the U.S. Constitution: “We are well aware that current Federal law prohibits [in the Defense of Marriage Act] recognition by the Federal government of the validity of same-sex marriages legally entered into in any State, and that it permits other States to refuse to recognize the validity of such marriages.” We are well aware and we don’t care: “Courts define what is constitutionally permissible.”
It should be obvious that what is proposed in homosexual marriage is an act of legislation. And it is constitutional in nature because it proposes to transform something older than any of the several State governments, or the Federal government. If a court were to accomplish this proposal, it would be acting as a legislative body of quite sweeping powers. Such powers are not delegated to the Courts by the Constitution; it follows that such action would be unconstitutional and indeed tyrannical.
Katherine, Josh, Von, and all the rest would clearly be in a much stronger position if they could move this legislation through some duly-constituted legislative body. They cannot, and they know it.
From Bush’s remarks:
He is quite correct of course. This was not an issue Bush campaigned on and we should never have had to get to the point of a constitutional amendment. The political GLBT could have just pushed for domestic partnerships or civil unions legislatively and addressed the issues of inheritance, medical decisions, etc. that they did not want to have to address with individual contracts and wills like single people do.
Instead, they tried to short cut the issue with a phony “equal protection” argument (SCOMA) or simply decided to ignore the law altogether (San Francisco). They demonstrated by their actions that they have no respect for the laws and democratic process that the rest of us follow and now the majority of the country, which is socially conservative and moderate, will probably have to amend the Constitution just to protect marriage from the radicalism of the mischief-makers of SCOMA and San Francisco.
On the bright side, this probably will encourage the six million or so evangelicals who sat out the 2000 election to turn out this fall.
Mr. Winston summarizes brilliantly.
Let me add, re: Madison v. Madison, that that famed case is hardly the open-and-shut advertisement for judicial review that so many make of it.
See this essay.
Paul Cella wrote:
I agree, which is why I think that while the current poll numbers might not be so conclusive, the legislative records of DOMA and similar State legislation indicates that the FMA probably will pass.
Until then, it will be a great GOTV effort for Republicans right before a Presidential election.
Do you deny that this is an innovation? Marriage is not an infinitely-malliable institution. This innovation transforms the logic of the institition so comprehensively as to make it mean whatever two people say it means.
I don’t deny it’s an innovation. But your second sentence encapsulates the debate precisely; I *do* think marriage is an infinitely (or close enough) malleable institution. Why do you believe otherwise?
And how does homosexual marriage alter the logic of the institution more than polygamy? (Which has been, historically, probably more common than one-man-one-woman marriage.)
And how does homosexual marriage alter the logic of the institution more than polygamy?
I don’t know that it does, but who here is defending polygamy? Has the latter ever been protected by the laws of this country — even in Utah? The fact that it has existed elsewhere is no more a strike against traditional marriage than the fact of cannibalism is against our repugnance toward the latter.
The Bible contains the definitive refutation of polygamy: “No man can serve two masters.”
I don’t know that it does, but who here is defending polygamy? Has the latter ever been protected by the laws of this country — even in Utah? The fact that it has existed elsewhere is no more a strike against traditional marriage than the fact of cannibalism is against our repugnance toward the latter.
My point is that you’re defining tradition rather narrowly. You were the one claiming that marriage wasn’t infinitely malleable, but the notion that marriage should be between one man and one woman is precisely the sort of change to the logic of marriage you decry.
Really is Paul Cella. I am impressed.
Just heard Jonathan Turley on Hardball say that whether “civil unions” would include Social Security benefits would be a state matter. I guess that, assuming no FMA, a state could say “civil unions shall be considered as marriages” and since US gov’t grants marriage definitions to the state, that would cover it.
I think. Spousal rights for the US military covered here? Somehow, I am sorry, it be a court deciding.
“So Moe, are you comfortable reneging on your values to vote for Anyone Who Is Bush? ;-)”
Now that I’m finally able to join the conversation… if you’re asking me whether I approve of the FMA, the answer is No. If you’re asking me whether I’m still going to vote for Bush, the answer is Yes; I’m unhappy with the specific situation, but I am also unhappy with the idea of the judiciary taking on the responsibilities of the legislature. San Fran’s mayor doesn’t concern me: he’s committing an act of civil disobedience, and that’s fine (of course, I agree with his strategy). But we don’t elect judges to rewrite the laws.
In fact, we generally don’t elect judges, period.
The ironic/disingenuous thing about supposedly wanting to avoid the imposition of judicial fiat is that the FMA (in the Musgrave form, at least) will be sent directly to the courts for interpretation. No one even knows exactly what the damn things means!
To the extent I am defining tradition, I am indeed narrowing it — narrowing it to include the dominant mode of matrimony across the history of Western civilization. But I am not relying on the argument from tradition here — at least not primarily.
Also, I am not sure what Mr. McManus means when he says, “Really is Paul Cella. I am impressed.”
Just curious, has anyone seen the draft of the FMA. Just curious.
“it proposes to transform something older than any of the several State governments, or the Federal government.”
The question of what marital unions the state bureaucracy chooses to recognize for purposes of benefits cannot, by definition, be older than the State or Federal governments.
I believe you’re implying that state recognition of homosexual unions (and the willingness to call them civil ‘marriages’) changes the nature of marriage itself, but this is simply spurious.
The interaction between civil and religious marriage has always been tenuous. . there are religious marriages unrecognized by the state and civil marriages unrecognized by religious institutions. They are clearly not the same thing. Which is why the ‘defense of the sanctity of marriage’ type arguments are misguided. State civil marriage is not old and has little sanctity. The sanctity of religious marriage is something for you to work out with your religious organization, and has little or nothing to do with the issue at hand.
“Also, I am not sure what Mr. McManus means when he says, “Really is Paul Cella. I am impressed.””
Probably something about luminary opinionators dropping by the friendly confines of OW 🙂
“Also, I am not sure what Mr. McManus means when he says, “Really is Paul Cella. I am impressed.””
Embarrassed, and is maybe a matter of my ignorance, but I do visit Mr Cella’s blog and admire him greatly. And without insult intended to my host, I consider the blog world to be minor league and Mr. Cella a major league player.
If I saw Victor Davis Hansen commenting here, I would be equally surprised and impressed. It certainly says more about myself than anyone else.
As far as the word “really”, anyone can write anything in the address lines, and have seen Mozart and Daffy Duck as commenters. I had to check your link.
This was not an issue Bush campaigned on and we should never have had to get to the point of a constitutional amendment. The political GLBT could have just pushed for domestic partnerships or civil unions legislatively and addressed the issues of inheritance, medical decisions, etc. that they did not want to have to address with individual contracts and wills like single people do.
Yeah, boy, those uppity gays, huh? No matter how hard we try to tell them, they just won’t listen when we say that their partnerships are invalid and worthless! Always nattering on about rights and equal treatment, blah blah blah. Good thing George W. Bush is such a fearless leader that he has the political courage to act swiftly and prevent the scourge of 60-year old grandmas able to collect Social Security benefits for their spouse without having previously worked it into their wills from threatening my own heterosexual marriage (which is hypothetical at this point, of course, but at least with this bold new move I know it’s worth even bothering, right?). I’ll sleep sounder tonight knowing the American institution of marriage is 100% pure, that’s for sure.
The ammendment in question for TtWD and everyone else’s perusal:
Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.
So not only am I happy in the knowledge that we have successfully frozen the current semantic connotations of the word “marriage” and propped it up like the embalmed corpse of Lenin in Red Square for all perpetuity, I also don’t have to worry about any future attempts to gain some semblance of legal equality in the eyes of either state or federal governments, either.. sweet! I’ll bet those gays are really ruing the day they thought they could slip one past George W. Bush, that’s for sure.
First off, thanks for dropping by Paul Cella.* Though I disagree with you more often than I’d like, I’d be hard pressed to find a better champion for your causes.
Katherine, Josh, Von, and all the rest would clearly be in a much stronger position if they could move this legislation through some duly-constituted legislative body. They cannot, and they know it.
Actually, I’ve always opposed a constitutional recognition of gay marriage. Make no mistake: I have dear loved ones who are gay — and more commited to one another than most married folks. I believe in gay marriage, for I have already seen it. But the better route to lasting change on this divisive issue is through the slow tides of generational attitude and experience. In fifty years, this debate will seem quaint. And I would have won, without needing to even raise my voice.
In fact, we generally don’t elect judges, period.
In many states judges do indeed stand for election. Indeed, my first in-the-trenches political experience was cold-calling for a Chicago Judge. (He’s now a Justice of the Illinois Supreme Court — and to think, I knew him when he was ensconced in a dingy office at 26th and Cal.)
von
*Sidereal, Paul Cella has one of the better blogs in the blogosphere. What continues to amaze me (given our obvious differences of opinion) is that I understand us both to be Presbyterians. Shocking, to say the least.
To the extent I am defining tradition, I am indeed narrowing it — narrowing it to include the dominant mode of matrimony across the history of Western civilization. But I am not relying on the argument from tradition here — at least not primarily.
So then what *is* your argument? What ills will be visited on our society if gays are allowed to marry?
“ensconced in a dingy office at 26th and Cal.”
Chicago’s criminal courts are concentrated at 26th and California, I should explain.
I recommended Paul Cella to Pandagon (Ezra or Jesse, not sure which) today. I expect I am indulging myself in flattery, for on topic material, Mr Cella discusses gay marriage at his blog.
Almost every blogger is intelligent. There are many with education. A few with erudition. What I find in Cella is rigor and clarity. This is not so common, in our current rushed, irresponsible, and somewhat sloppy discourse.
And I have been visiting political blogs for only a few months, but I have found too much syncretism in modern political philosophy for my tastes. Last week I saw someone call himself a “Christian Libertarian”. I fully expect to soon meet a “Libertarian Conservative” any day now. I think Mr Cella actually understands and honors these terms and their history.
And finally, it is good to see someone define the challenge America and the West face today in terms that remind me of early fifties Buckley and Chambers. Clarity has been sacrificed for expediency. Although I may not accept Mr Cella’s positions, it is useful to have coherent arguments to work against.
Mr Cella is a laborer in a web world of dilettantes. But I fear he would think me wicked.
“*Sidereal, Paul Cella has one of the better blogs in the blogosphere.”
Knew that, thus ‘luminary’, although I have to admit I hadn’t visited until today.
“What continues to amaze me (given our obvious differences of opinion) is that I understand us both to be Presbyterians.”
See what elected elders get you? Too much diversity 😉
To get back to topic, this issue has to have a good chunk of the right tied up in knots. On the one hand, gays are Bad(tm), and any attempt to put a smackdown on them before the imminent demographic shift makes gays Not Bad(tm) is great. On the other hand, dictating law to every state in the union in order to satisfy the will of (some of) the people of Massachusetts is a middle finger to the core principles of Federalism and self-governance.
And a double middle-finger to most libertarians, who are all for both happy gays and self-governance. Guess they weren’t a good constituency.
Bob>>
So-called libertarian conservatives aren’t uncommon…Bill Safire has written columns about being one.
bob, if the post up at Cella’s blog is typical, you’re welcome to him – to me it seems like pure hackery dressed up in fancy language. Clarity my eye.
“bob, if the post up at Cella’s blog is typical, you’re welcome to him – to me it seems like pure hackery dressed up in fancy language. Clarity my eye.”
Well, if it is hackery, then maybe we can hope that Rove and Bush follow their amendment on gay marriage with another amendment banning divorce.
But somehow I am not expecting it.
bob, from another post there:
And elsewhere he notes shrewdly, “The hate campaign against [Mel] Gibson is not about fear of anti-Semitism, but a desire to prevent souls from salvation and hope, or a restitution of respect for Christ in America as the greatest hero of all.” Yes.
I’m fairly convinced Gibson is plainly a holocaust denier and that “The Passion of the Christ” is antisemitic (though apparently the worst scene was recently removed), so I’m inclined to suspect Cella is uninformed, unintelligent, or contemptible.
“I’m fairly convinced Gibson is plainly a holocaust denier and that “The Passion of the Christ” is antisemitic”
I actually do not believe this. But it is hard to see into another’s heart except through the windows of his words. I have heard plenty of reviews of the Passion, including David Ansen in Newsweek, that say the movie is not clearly antisemitic.
As far as the Cella quote, I read it yesterday, and am glad the qualifying third part was there to keep it from being completely unspeakable. I am no ally or enemy of committed religiousness, but I do like it when it speaks in a voice not intended to reassure, disarm, make its opposition comfortable.
And the fact that Kierkeggaard and CS Lewis do not frighten me so has not yet converted this unbeliever.
Forgive, Moe, Katherine, von, if this is a threadjacking.
Allow me to correct myself. I try not to flaunt my unbelief, or use it as a weapon, in large part because a reading of “Sickness Unto Death” raised doubts as to whether my unbelief was disingenuous.
That may seem lazy, or cowardly, and perhaps it is. I am no longer capable of a facile or easy agnosticism. But I try to suspend disbelief and skepticism at least the first time I read a work in order to facilitate communication.
And reading the line by Cella, it is too easy for a non-believer to attribute malice to the man. Look at it, and for a second, believe that Jesus is the son of God. For certainly Cella does.
And how might you then interpret an active opposition to Gibson’s movie. Perhaps, again, as Cella does. And what should Cella then say to those who actively oppose the movie?
I would prefer, not a more accepting or tolerant approach, but perhaps a kinder or more gentle one.
And perhaps (tho I am out of my league here) he would not conflate objective motivations with subjective ones. But I do not find his position as outrageous as you seem to.
” he would not conflate objective motivations with subjective ones”
I think it’s more accurate to say he would not confuse motivations with his expectation of the effects.
And I said as much over there 🙂
(crosspost!)
bob – no offense to the believers out there – if you want to worship the Easter Bunny or anything else that’s fine with me, as long as you don’t mind my iconoclastic viewpoint – but I just don’t have any sympathy for Christians who aren’t painstakingly careful about making pronouncements on these issues, in part because in my view their religion bears some of the blame.
Here’s Gibson pere:
According to a transcript released by the network, Hutton Gibson said, “It’s all — maybe not all fiction — but most of it is,” when asked about his views on the Holocaust.
Here’s Gibson fils:
And then there was his response when pressed, by Peggy Noonan, about the Holocaust. First, Gibson denied that his father was a Holocaust denier. Then he went on:
“I have friends and parents of friends who have numbers on their arms. The guy who taught me Spanish was a Holocaust survivor. He worked in a concentration camp in France. Yes, of course. Atrocities happened. War is horrible. The Second World War killed tens of millions of people. Some of them were Jews in concentration camps. Many people lost their lives. In the Ukraine, several million starved to death between 1932 and 1933. During the last century, 20 million people died in the Soviet Union.”
(above taken from Orcinus).
It’s well-known that the Gibsons are part of a splinter group from Catholicism which repudiates the Vatican II reforms, including the rapprochement with Judaism.
Given this context, and the public fact that many opposing the movie aren’t Jews or worse but Christians, the lack of nuance in Cella’s endorsement above strikes me as dumb, stupid, or scary.
Now, I haven’t seen the evolving transcript or the current version of the movie, but from what I’ve read “is not clearly antisemitic” sounds like the best one can say. Wouldn’t it be nice if the movie were clearly not antisemitic? Should people opposing the film be dismissed as antichristian?
If Cella has a post up saying, “A few synagogues will be defaced, perhaps a few European Jews will be beaten up because of this movie, and that’s awful, and Christians should make preemptive efforts to prevent such actions. However, a few souls may be saved, so it’s worth it regardless.” – if he’s got such a post up, then my impression was probably wrong. I got such a strong vibe of arrogance and condescension from the posts I looked at that I didn’t adequately explore the site – if I’m wrong you can point me to what I should read, perhaps off-thread – I’ve taken up too much space already.
Ok, going into full frenzy mode, I wonder about Cella’s repeated concern with George “Protocols’ Exhibit A” Soros.
And from the NYT:
[/fullfrenzy][shutting up]
Sorry – can someone tell me what has to happen for this amendment to go into law? Is it just up to the President? Who ratifies it?
James, see e.g. this overview. In theory this could happen quickly – in practice, it won’t get out of the Senate.
Mr. McManus:
Thank you for your kind words about me and my blog. I am glad to have you as a reader.
Josh:
My argument against homosexual marriage is essentially an argument from natural law, a philosophy over which we clashed last week on my blog (see the comments to this essay.) The clash ended when you admitted to “tending toward legal positivism.” But at least we had achieved a clarity of disagreement.
Rilkefan:
You have taken words I quoted and attributed them to me. It is true that I endorsed them without comment (and probably too facilely), but they are not my words. Your truck is with Mr. Butterworth. Unless my memory has failed me, that one quoted line is the only mention of Gibson’s film that has appeared on my blog. When I see it, I may post a review.
Von:
We Presbyterians are a notoriously fissiparous bunch. For myself, I like to describe myself as Presbyterian with very strong Roman Catholic sympathies. It makes good psychological sense: my mother is a mainline (read: Liberal) Presbyterian and my father is a Catholic.
My argument against homosexual marriage is essentially an argument from natural law, a philosophy over which we clashed last week on my blog (see the comments to this essay.) The clash ended when you admitted to “tending toward legal positivism.” But at least we had achieved a clarity of disagreement.
But why should it have stopped there? It’s true that I tend toward legal positivism, but that doesn’t mean that I’m unwilling to listen to arguments to the contrary, particularly since I try to take an empirical approach to the issue. If there is evidence that contradicts my point of view, I’m interested in it.
And I’m interested in why you would make an argument from natural law that would seem to be contradicted by the evidence at hand.
Jami Bernard in NY Newsday:
Paul Cella writes,
“Rilkefan:
You have taken words I quoted and attributed them to me. It is true that I endorsed them without comment (and probably too facilely), but they are not my words. Your truck is with Mr. Butterworth.”
Mr. Cella, I clearly placed the quotation from your site in italics – the material from Butterworth is included in quotes. You called his statement shrewd and endorsed it. I suspect he’s a paranoid apologist for antisemitism, but perhaps not – I don’t really care, as it’s not the case that someone I respect has recommended him to me. My truck is with you. Perhaps you wrote hastily and don’t stand by your endorsement – that would in my view only somewhat ameliorate your post, because I believe you as a xtian spokesman have a special responsibility to carefully weigh statements concerning antisemitism.
Could anything be more predictable than that The New York Times would hate this film?
Rilkefan:
I do stand by my endorsement. I understand the fear that some Jews have about Gibson’s film; but I think the overwrought reaction, which actually preceeded the release of the movie by months, is solid evidence vindicating Christ’s prophesy: “I come not to bring peace, but a sword.”
Based closely on Scripture, the film depicts an almost exclusively intra-Jewish drama. All the main characters except the executioners are Jews.
If the charge is, as many seem to imply (and more than imply: I have been personally told flat out that this is the charge), that the Gospels themselves are anti-Semitic, then at least we have the quarrel out in the open. This is probably not the place for engaging in this debate, but let me at least note that those who charge Jewish heretics (the men who wrote the Gospels) struggling against orthodox Jews under the domination of the Roman Empire, with anti-Semitism, have uttered a rather jarring anachronism.
Mr. Cella, did you know that the marketing associated with the film includes selling nail pendants? I’m sure you know better than I do that the gospels aren’t internally consistent and show an evolving relationship with Judaism; that “let his blood be on our hands and our childrens'” has contributed to genocide; that Gibson felt entitled to add in some bits from a 19th century mystic, some of which increase the culpability of the Jews in Jesus’s death; that the Vatican has made carefully-considered suggestions about the presentation of Passion stories as a result of their traditional association with antisemitism, suggestions which this film contravenes; and that Gibson has gone out of his way to fan the flames of controversy. I think you’re at best flirting with contemptible, virulent ideas, and it creeps me out. If your version of Christ shows up with a sword, I’m going to send my family across the border and get a rifle.
Here is the whole “a came to bring a sword” passage, from Matthew 10:
Only deliberate obtuseness would interpret this as a call to violence. It is, rather, a prediction of power of His message, which will force all men choose sides; and a recognition of the power of sin, which will mean that in choosing sides men will end up killing one another.
Again you are using the device of Gibson’s movie to conceal a much deeper hostility toward the Christian creed and history; a hostility which is in some degree understandable if one believes that Christianity is by nature anti-Semitic. Again Christ’s words are apropos: for, as He knew, once a side is taken, there can be no accomodation. If a man rejects Christ, he must also hate Him.
Yet this is why among Christ’s final words were these: “Forgive, Father, for they know not what they do.”