David Brooks, "The Next Culture War": Why Should Only Heterosexuals Be Forced to Suffer?

Tweet


First, allow me to go on record as stating that I support gay and lesbian marriage. Why should only heterosexuals be forced to suffer? However, in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Next Culture War," David Brooks addresses the issue of gay and lesbian marriage from a different angle. Brooks writes:

"Most Christian commentary has opted for another strategy: fight on. Several contributors to a symposium in the journal First Things about the court’s Obergefell decision last week called the ruling the Roe v. Wade of marriage. It must be resisted and resisted again. Robert P. George, probably the most brilliant social conservative theorist in the country, argued that just as Lincoln persistently rejected the Dred Scott decision, so 'we must reject and resist an egregious act of judicial usurpation.'

These conservatives are enmeshed in a decades-long culture war that has been fought over issues arising from the sexual revolution. Most of the conservative commentators I’ve read over the past few days are resolved to keep fighting that war.

. . . .

I don’t expect social conservatives to change their positions on sex, and of course fights about the definition of marriage are meant as efforts to reweave society. But the sexual revolution will not be undone anytime soon. The more practical struggle is to repair a society rendered atomized, unforgiving and inhospitable. Social conservatives are well equipped to repair this fabric, and to serve as messengers of love, dignity, commitment, communion and grace."

Sorry, David, but I'm not big on proselytizing. Send a horde of social conservatives to Baltimore "to serve as messengers of love, dignity, commitment, communion and grace"? Why do I think this is not going to work? Instead, I think social conservatives should enjoy their love, dignity, commitment, communion and grace within their own homes and communities. If it works for them in these unsettling times, I am confident their values and lifestyles will be discovered and emulated by those outside their communities.

Maureen Dowd, "Happily Never After?": Gay Good, Jew Bad?

Gay good, Jew bad? Or would those from the New Left tell me that I am being politically incorrect and should phrase this question, Gay good, Israeli bad? Or better still, Gay good, Zionist bad? But what happens when a gay is also a Jew? Does his/her homosexuality trump his/her Jewishness?

In her third consecutive New York Times opinion piece concerning same-sex marriage entitled "Happily Never After?" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/03/opinion/dowd-happily-never-after.html?_r=0), Maureen Dowd, a would-be champion of human rights, publishes a touching short essay that she received from Max Mutchnick. Mutchnick, of course, created and wrote "Will & Grace" with David Kohan.

Mutchnick, who was married by a rabbi to entertainment lawyer Erik Hyman, writes:

"More and more people think it’s wrong to hate gays. The support for same-sex marriage now exceeds the opposition to it. According to Rick Santorum, that’s all because of 'Will & Grace.' (Thanks, cutie. DVD sales are way up!) But, if the good guys are on my side, why do I feel so depleted? I live in a place where all men are created equal, but, for some reason, I am not afforded the same rights. Should my take-away be: I am not a man? It feels as though the Supreme Court is O.K. with that notion."

My recommendation to Mr. Mutchnick: a little patience. There are the individual justices of the Supreme Court, and then there is the Supreme Court as an entirety. Rarely do Supreme Court justices vote unanimously. So before jumping up and down and beating our breasts in dismay, let's first let the Supreme Court reach a decision. I am hopeful that gays will be granted the absolute equality that they deserve.

But back to Maureen, with whom there is still unfinished business.

In a March 2010 Times op-ed entitled "Loosey Goosey Saudi" (see: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/03/opinion/03dowd.html), Maureen Dowd claimed that Saudi Arabia is upgrading the rights of women:

"But after spending 10 days here, I can confirm that, at their own galactically glacial pace, they are chipping away at gender apartheid and cultural repression."

Dowd, however, ignored an abomination involving the Saudi legal system pursuant to which a Saudi woman, who had been gang raped, was sentenced to a one-year prison term and 100 lashes for committing adultery and trying to abort the resultant fetus (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2010/03/shame-on-maureen-dowd.html). Unusual in the Desert Kingdom? No way.

Similarly, Dowd remained silent concerning the issue of "honor killings" in her host country. Had she written on this issue, her pleasure tour would have come to an abrupt end.

More recently, following a Times op-ed entitled "Neocons Slither Back" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/opinion/sunday/dowd-neocons-slither-back.html), Dowd was accused of anti-Semitism. As summarized by Politico's Dylan Byers (http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/09/maureen-dowd-meets-antisemitism-charge-135700.html):

"New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd set the Jewish political community on fire today with a column about the Republican ticket's foreign policy proposals that, according to her critics, peddled anti-Semitic imagery.

Dowd fairly observed that neither Mitt Romney nor Paul Ryan are experts in the field of foreign policy, but asserted their strategy was orchestrated by a 'neocon puppet master' who was leading the neocon effort to 'slither back' into power.

Such language, to say nothing of the questionable legitimacy of her claims, struck experts on American-Israeli relations as an inappropriate (though perhaps unintentional) appeal to anti-Semitic stereotypes, and especially offensive ahead of the first night of the Jewish New Year, Rosh Hashanah."

Observing the outrage expressed by Steven A. Cook, Jeffrey Goldberg, Blake Hounshell, Daniel Halper and Jonathan Tobin, Byers reported that Times editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal had defended Dowd from these charges by declaring:

"No fair-minded reading of Maureen Dowd's column supports the allegations you and others are making. She makes no reference, direct or implied, to anyone's religion."

Yeah, right. Not one of these commentators critical of Dowd, from both the left and the right, is "fair-minded." As best I know, Dowd never responded to the accusations.

But heck, why shouldn't Maureen be cut some slack? Not long ago, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman wrote (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/opinion/friedman-newt-mitt-bibi-and-vladimir.html?ref=opinion):

"I sure hope that Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, understands that the standing ovation he got in Congress this year was not for his politics. That ovation was bought and paid for by the Israel lobby."

Is this any less horrifying than what Maureen wrote?

Then there was Roger Cohen's New York Times op-ed "Obama in Netanyahu's Web" (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/opinion/28iht-edcohen.html), whose title was painfully in keeping with the anti-Semitic tradition of depicting Jews as voracious spiders. As Rosenthal later acknowledged to me, this "was not a good headline."

And let's not forget Nicholas Kristof's  recent retweet of a message referring to AIPAC as one of "the 2 Most Pig Like Lobbies" (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/01/nicholas-kristof-retweets-obama-told-2.html). We never received an explanation concerning this horror from Nick, who soon thereafter took book-writing leave from The Times.

In Mutchnick's message to Dowd, he writes:

"It’s tiring being a member of the last group in America subject to official discrimination."

Max, you also say, "I’m like every other dad in this park: horn-rimmed glasses and baseball hat, New York Times folded in quarters, ignoring my kids dressed in Ralph Lauren Collection playing." Well, you might want to consider some of the vile "unofficial" intolerance being voiced against Jews in that newspaper folded under your arm.

David Brooks, "Freedom Loses One": A Victory for the Good Life! Ask the IRS!

Yes, there are benefits to being married, and if you don't believe me ("Yes, dear. Coming in a moment, dear"), ask your friendly Internal Revenue Service agent. He or she will immediately turn your attention to the first page of your Form 1040, where you can tick off (or do I mean "check") your spouse and list your dependents (those persons roaming around the house who begin each sentence with "Can I have . . ."), and then multiply the total on line 42 of the second page by $3,800 and use the amount as a credit. And lo and behold, your humble and long suffering servant has been creditworthy all these many years.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Freedom Loses One" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/opinion/brooks-freedom-loses-one.html?_r=0), David Brooks observes that an imbalance has arisen between freedom and restraint, giving rise to:

• "A decaying social fabric, especially among the less fortunate."
• "Decline in marriage."
• "More children raised in unsteady homes."
• "Higher debt levels as people spend to satisfy their cravings."

My cravings have given rise to higher debt levels, which are destroying our social fabric? Oh my goodness! I'm returning my Panasonic 55", which I am paying for in 24 equal installments, tomorrow . . . not.

Brooks continues:

"Marriage is one of those institutions — along with religion and military service — that restricts freedom. Marriage is about making a commitment that binds you for decades to come. It narrows your options on how you will spend your time, money and attention."

Now, I don't know too much about religion, but marriage and military service constraining my time, money and attention? I think I can darned well vouch for David on that point.

Brooks immediately goes on to say:

"Whether they understood it or not, the gays and lesbians represented at the court committed themselves to a certain agenda. They committed themselves to an institution that involves surrendering autonomy. They committed themselves to the idea that these self-restrictions should be reinforced by the state. They committed themselves to the idea that lifestyle choices are not just private affairs but work better when they are embedded in law."

"Whether they understood it or not"? Hmm. ("What's that you said, dear? Every word that comes out of my mouth annoys you, dear?")

Brooks's conclusion:

"The proponents of same-sex marriage used the language of equality and rights in promoting their cause, because that is the language we have floating around. But, if it wins, same-sex marriage will be a victory for the good life, which is about living in a society that induces you to narrow your choices and embrace your obligations."

Ah, yes, "a victory for the good life"! Celebrating my triumph and roaring with laughter, I just spilled half a cup of steaming coffee over my underwear. As the philosopher Hegel (not that moron, Chuck Hagel) would tell you, pleasure cannot exist without pain.

Bottom line: I have always favored same-sex marriage, but not because marriage "narrows your choices" and compels you to "embrace your obligations." Rather, it's a simple matter of equality.

Moreover, if Bill and Hillary Clinton can maintain their farce of a marriage - the architects are already busy planning Bill's semi-detached "Monica Wing" of the White House should Hillary win in 2016), why shouldn't anyone be entitled to engage in this folly.

"Just kidding, dear."

Maureen Dowd, "Will Gays Be Punished for Success?": And Just What Has Obama Done to Foster Gay Rights?

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Will Gays Be Punished for Success?" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/31/opinion/sunday/dowd-will-gays-be-punished-for-success.html?_r=0), Maureen Dowd snarls:

"GAYS might not win because they’ve already won?

That was the moronic oxymoron at the heart of the Supreme Court debate on same-sex marriage."

"Moronic"? I suppose that's a tad better than labeling the justices "hacks" and accusing the court of "cowardice," as was done by Dowd in prior op-eds (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/03/maureen-dowd-courting-cowardice-my-wife.html). But before savaging the court for reaching the wrong decision, Maureen should first allow the court to reach a decision.

Dowd goes on to observe:

"But Congress has passed no federal protections for gays on employment, housing and education. In 29 states, it is perfectly legal to fire someone because of his or her sexual orientation. The F.B.I. says the only uptick in hate crimes involves attacks on gays."

Gays are indeed in need of legislative protection, but this is not the fault of the Supreme Court, but rather of Congress. Moreover, President Obama has been less than proactive in advancing gay rights.

Perhaps it might also be "nice" if Dowd were to consider the annual $1.5 billion in aid given by the Obama administration to Egypt, now ruled by the Muslim Brotherhood. What is this aid supporting? See what the Muslim Brotherhood says in its own words in its official English website (http://www.ikhwanweb.com/article.php?id=30731) regarding homosexual relationships:

"The 57th session of the UN Commission on the Status of Women (CSW), taking place from March 4 to 15 at UN headquarters, seeks to ratify a declaration euphemistically entitled ‘End Violence against Women’.

That title, however, is misleading and deceptive. The document includes articles that contradict established principles of Islam, undermine Islamic ethics and destroy the family, the basic building block of society, according to the Egyptian Constitution.

This declaration, if ratified, would lead to complete disintegration of society, and would certainly be the final step in the intellectual and cultural invasion of Muslim countries, eliminating the moral specificity that helps preserve cohesion of Islamic societies.

A closer look at these articles reveals what decadence awaits our world, if we sign this document:

1. Granting girls full sexual freedom, as well as the freedom to decide their own gender and the gender of their partners (ie, choose to have normal or homo-sexual relationships), while raising the age of marriage.

. . . .

4. Granting equal rights to homosexuals, and providing protection and respect for prostitutes.

. . . .

These are destructive tools meant to undermine the family as an important institution; they would subvert the entire society, and drag it to pre-Islamic ignorance.

The Muslim Brotherhood urges the leaders of Muslim countries and their UN representatives to reject and condemn this document, and to call upon this organization to rise to the high morals and principles of family relations prescribed by Islam.

. . . .

The Muslim Brotherhood

Cairo: March 13, 2013"

Kindly keep this in mind, Maureen, when you next sojourn in the Middle East and again denounce Israel, which is the only nation in the region that safeguards gay rights and which has become a "Mecca" for homosexual Palestinians who face arrest and torture at home (see: http://www.timesofisrael.com/gay-palestinian-to-hcj-boot-me-and-theyll-kill-me/). And perhaps remember this when you next use hateful imagery that reeks of anti-Semitism (see: http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/09/maureen-dowd-meets-antisemitism-charge-135700.html).

Yes, I know, anti-Semitism of the kind recently vented by Bill Maher (see: http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/02/18/shocking-bill-maher-says-the-israelis-are-controlling-our-government-video/) is in vogue at The Times (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2012/09/is-new-york-times-columnist-maureen.html), but is it any less despicable than bigotry against gays? I don't think so. The one is no more acceptable than the other. Dowd would do well to recall that both Jews and homosexuals were sent to concentration camps by the Nazis.

I would like to take this opportunity to wish those who regularly read this blog happy Passover and Easter holidays. As can be seen below in a chart of the blog's monthly pageviews, your number has been growing, which leads me to believe that there still may be room for moderation and tolerance on this planet. I couldn't wish for more.

Maureen Dowd, "Courting Cowardice": My Wife Was in Washington Last Week?

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Courting Cowardice" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/27/opinion/dowd-courting-cowardice.html?_r=0), Maureen Dowd observes that last week at the US Supreme Court, where the justices were hearing arguments concerning same-sex marriage, "One woman summed it up nicely in a placard reading 'Gays have the right to be as miserable as I make my husband.'" How peculiar. My wife never told me that she had been to Washington. (Just kidding, dear.)

But more to the point, suppose that in less than another four years Hillary is elected president. How the heck will the Supreme Court be able to uphold the "sanctity" of Hillary and Bill's farcical union, yet deny gay people the right to be married?

Back to Dowd's opinion piece. Savaging the Supreme Court's reluctance to tackle the issue, Maureen quotes Justice Alito:

"'Same-sex marriage is very new,' Justice Samuel Alito whinged, noting that 'it may turn out to be a good thing; it may turn out not to be a good thing.' If the standard is that marriage always has to be 'a good thing,' would heterosexuals pass?

'But you want us to step in and render a decision,' Alito continued, 'based on an assessment of the effects of this institution, which is newer than cellphones or the Internet? I mean, we do not have the ability to see the future.'"

Now I'm not about to get my underpants in a knot over Justice Alito's musings, but I didn't realize it was the function of the Supreme Court to determine whether something is "good" or "new." I thought it was the Supreme Court's job to decide whether a practice or course of conduct is "legal." But more on this later.

Dowd continues:

"Swing Justice Anthony Kennedy grumbled about 'uncharted waters,' and the fuddy-duddies seemed to be looking for excuses not to make a sweeping ruling. Their questions reflected a unanimous craven impulse: How do we get out of this? This court is plenty bold imposing bad decisions on the country, like anointing W. president or allowing unlimited money to flow covertly into campaigns."

Or upholding the legality of Obamacare.

Which brings me to my point. Dowd concludes, "If this court doesn’t reject bigotry, history will reject this court." "History will reject this court"? Before getting hysterical, Maureen, let's first allow the Supreme Court to do its work.

In April 2012, in an opinion piece entitled "Men in Black" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/04/opinion/dowd-men-in-black.html), Dowd declared prior to the Supreme Court's ruling on the legality of Obamacare:

"This court, cosseted behind white marble pillars, out of reach of TV, accountable to no one once they give the last word, is well on its way to becoming one of the most divisive in modern American history.

It has squandered even the semi-illusion that it is the unbiased, honest guardian of the Constitution. It is run by hacks dressed up in black robes."

Of course, much to Dowd's embarrassment, the Court then upheld Obamacare.

You see, Maureen, no two people think alike. At the Supreme Court, no two justices think alike. Let them ask their questions, some of which - such as those of Justice Alito - may seem inapt to you or me. But let's also try to maintain our respect for the Supreme Court, which over the course of many years, has done a fairly good job of maintaining justice.

No matter how ardently I might oppose the opinion of any Supreme Court justice, I would never dream of labeling him or her a "hack" or a "coward." This lack of civility and basic respect for the opinions of others, threatens to tear apart the fabric of American society. If the Supreme Court's justices are "hacks" and "cowards," does this mean that each of us is free to take the law into his or her own hands? I shudder at the prospect.

And as long as we're on the subject of "cowardice," Dowd strangely fails to observe how reluctant her beloved "Barry" was to take a stand on the issue, and how he needed to be nudged by Vice President Biden.

Same-sex marriage will be upheld. A little patience and a bit less theatrics please, Maureen.

Frank Bruni, "Excluded From Inclusion": No Space for Gays and Lesbians at the Republican Convention

In a thoughtful New York Times op-ed entitled "Excluded From Inclusion" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/02/opinion/sunday/bruni-excluded-from-inclusion.html?pagewanted=all), which is rendered in reasoned moderate tones, Frank Bruni observes that there was no "space" for gays and lesbians at the Republican convention:

"What the Republicans painstakingly constructed here was meant to look like the biggest of tents. And still they couldn’t spare so much as a sleeping bag’s worth of space for the likes of me."

Regarding Romney, Bruni continues:

"People who know Romney well tell me that he’s not in the least judgmental about gays and lesbians and that he’s more or less accepting of them. That may be so, but it makes him, like others in his party, guilty of a kind of doublespeak, their private sentiments at odds with their public stances."

Bruni is correct. Should Romney emerge victorious in November, he must openly and unreservedly make room for the LGBT population. Shake the Etch-A-Sketch? I don't care what it is called. There can be no moving backwards. C'est tout.

Maureen Dowd, "Seeking Original Bliss": Heterosexuality, Homosexuality and Narcissism

In her New York Times op-ed entitled "Seeking Original Bliss" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/opinion/sunday/dowd-seeking-original-bliss.html), Maureen Dowd quotes diary entries of a young teacher who had a romance with Obama, which will appear in a new biography of the president by David Maraniss, entitled "Barack Obama: The Story." When the assistant teacher told Obama she loved him, he replied, "Thank you," and Dowd would have us believe that Obama is a "cool customer," given to calculation, and teasingly refers to him as "President Spock."

A cool, calculating customer? Sorry, Maureen, but Obama is a dyed-in-the-wool narcissist, concerned only with his own personal gratification, and don't expect principle to get in the way of his drive to pleasure himself.

After touching upon the affair with the assistant teacher, Dowd proceeds to describe the annoyance of Obama with his vice president, who, in a move uncoordinated with the West Wing, came out in favor of gay marriage, forcing Obama to release a similar declaration, but not in accordance with the timetable set for the president's announcement. Dowd declares, "His embrace of gay marriage was not a profile in courage," and further observes:

"In the end, Obama had to rip off the Band-Aid and take a stand, because if his campaign depends on painting Romney as a bundle of ambiguous beliefs, the first black president can’t be ambiguous himself on a civil rights issue."

However, Obama has not recognized gay marriage as a civil right. In a 2004 Illinois Senate debate, Obama stated that gay marriage is not a civil right (see: http://www.therightscoop.com/obama-in-2004-on-gay-marriage-marriage-is-not-a-civil-right/), and Obama has not abandoned this position, given that he continues to believes that the states should decide this issue on their own.

Courageous? No. Calculating? Yes. All intended to win re-election.

Dowd concludes:

"As Obama is reminded of what it feels like to generate excitement, what it feels like to lift the spirits of a demoralized country by using the bully pulpit, maybe he can start occasionally blurting out something he feels strongly about."

Sorry, Maureen, but Obama feels most strongly about . . . himself.

New York Times Editorial, "President Obama’s Moment": Obama Still Doesn't Acknowledge Gay Marriage As a Civil Right

I am often accused of being a neocon, but I have always been pro-choice, opposed the US ground presence in Afghanistan, and supported gay marriage.

An editorial in today's New York Times entitled "President Obama’s Moment" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/10/opinion/president-obamas-moment.html) states:

"It has always taken strong national leadership to expand equal rights in this country, and it has long been obvious that marriage rights are no exception. President Obama offered some of that leadership on Wednesday. 'I think same-sex couples should be able to get married,' Mr. Obama said in an interview with ABC News that the White House arranged for the purpose of giving Mr. Obama a forum to say just that.

With those 10 words, Mr. Obama finally stopped temporizing and 'evolving' his position on same-sex marriage and took the moral high ground on what may be the great civil rights struggle of our time."

But listen to Obama state explicitly in a 2004 Illinois Senate debate that gay marriage is not a civil right (see: http://www.therightscoop.com/obama-in-2004-on-gay-marriage-marriage-is-not-a-civil-right/). Has Obama now actually abandoned this position?

As further observed by the Times editorial:

"We have one major point of disagreement with Mr. Obama: his support for the concept of states deciding this issue on their own. That position effectively restricts the right to marry to the 20 states that have not adopted the kind of constitutional prohibitions North Carolina voters approved on Tuesday."

Hold on! If, as claimed by the Times, "It has always taken strong national leadership to expand equal rights in this country," how is it that a purportedly strong national leader continues to leave this issue to be decided by the states? Obviously, Obama still does not regard gay marriage as a civil right, and while taking a stand calculated to assuage his supporters, he has left himself much wriggle room.

Ah, yes, his "evolution" on the issue continues.