Sickening, but probably doubly so if you were one of the poor schmucks that voted for this fool. I remember thinking with some satisfaction that I had not been one of the fools that voted for Jim McGreevy when he was caught making sausage. No one wants to see that…don’t even want to know about it, really.

 I imagine, for the truckers that have to share the parking lot with this fellow, "Jesus Christ" was only two of the swear words used in a flurry of words that have no other redeeming meaning in good company.

Great story, Dave.

 Kervinlee,

Believe me, I wish it were otherwise.

Nonetheless, marriage is now pretty much exclusively about romance, passion and social mobility. It is uncommon for it to be about having a family, and though many in-love have families, they will likely still fall in love and have families (that last) whether gay marriage is available or not. Where gay marriage does affect society, its effects will be most felt by those that were unlikely to have a traditional marriage, in any case. These folks, driven by the fades of the time to be less than devoted to the wonderful work of love, were far more likely to marry and divorce than they ever were likely to end up in a gay marriage.

 I've come to believe that gay marriage is to the Right what Sarah Palin has become to the Left: a debilitating disorder with no known cure.

Marriage ain't what it used to be, that’s for sure.

The old arguments claiming marriage is all about having and rearing children or to preserve the social fabric are by now proved ridiculous. I'm not saying there are not marriages that do great service to society with good, happy and stable families (I've done my bit)...they are still the gold standard, but marriage was taken off the gold standard long ago. Gay marriage won’t be the culprit. Now, marriage is merely a fungible currency in the housing and tax business. Don't think of gay marriage as the destruction of Western Civilization, think of gay matrimony as quantitative easing being applied to the malingering institution of marriage.   

It surprises me that there are so few stylists in the print press these days. Stein, Hitchens, Coulter... Who else can we claim in this group of aristocratic prose pundits?

 As you know Emily, I am a huge fan of Ann Coulter's writing --it's about working personality into prose more than political dogma. Sometimes when reading her column, I figure she has found a way to make a prison shiv bleed ink.

"Obama as Nero" --that's about as close to poetry as political prose gets. 

And I agree that it takes an off-the-hook sense of confidence and freedom to write like Ann. Her use of one-liners approaches Dorothy Parkers way of taking you off balance in a turn of phrase.

Great point!

The central difference between Christianity and Judaism is Christ's divinity and resurrection. Judaism does not believe Jesus is the Messiah, nor does it believe Christ conquered death...nor even that Jesus ascended to heaven.

 Islam believes Christ was the Messiah sent to bring the true Gospel to Israel...born to a virgin birth and at the end of his human existence ascended to heaven. Moreover, in Islam the Messiah will return at the Day of Judgment. The Koran mentions Jesus by name 25 times. 

I leave it to you to decide which of the monotheistic faiths are more related and more contradictory of the central tenants of the faith.

As for me, I see a good bit that agrees in all three, even knowing that there are irreconcilable differences that separate all three. It does, however, seem churlish to insist that one of these things is not like the other with such vigor.

 Just to keep it real, Saudi Arabia has about the same population of Muslims  as Texas has of Christians --and Arabs, of which Saudi Arabians are a small minority, represent about 15% of all Muslims in the world...and they are, all too often, the litmus test for all things Muslim in this world when the part-time theologians put the rubber to the road.

If you believe this then be at peace brother, in this scripture, "through me" does not mean 'through the vestibule' or upon these planks,' but rather 'through God.' Too often people confuse somewhere or something with everywhere and everything. Sure, Christ is somewhere, but also everywhere and it is through Christ, i.e. God, not religion, we'll reach salvation. Neither do we reach salvation through  planks of wood.

An old Islamic proverb tells of a man that is criticized for praying in the wrong direction, since Muslims traditionally pray towards Mecca. The man, chastised, replies, tell me in which direction God is not and I will not pray in that direction.

Shalom, baby!

Michael,

As much as I enjoy reading your thoughtful comments on most threads, your response above is, to me, exactly what is meant by the phrase: "it is all talk."

There may be many pragmatic reasons to suggest that the fetus has no right to life, but to suggest that this living moving and in many ways independent entity is an appendage, as a foot or breast, is either too clever or pointless. 

There is no body part that is in any way comparable to a fetus. And to lose sight of that fact, as you do in your verbage about "subjects" and "predicates" above, is to lack seriousness. Human beings cannot be covered under "property rights" just as a fetus is not covered under "body-appendage."

I agree with Michael that analagozing the life of a fetus to an actual life of a slave is a bit dicey. The human being enslaved was in fact a person and a part of the human community, full stop: Not the moral equivalent of a fetus.

However, I think it is equally thoughtless to compare a living, moving human fetus to a body appendage (my finger does not move on its own, I move it). It's cheap and half-wrought.I should think this would be clear to someone subtle enough to object to comparing a life-in-the-making to a life-lived. There are of course degrees and thresholds and it is in this subtle morass that those with a guilty conscience always hope to get lost in.

Time to come out of the brush.

The conversation being had in this thread is a prime example of taking the highroad in the abortion debate. It also puts the lie to the progressive shiboleth that abortion is a poitical issue. It is a moral issue that should not be di rigueur to being a liberal in good standing--which is to say it is not an issue of property rights, as taxation and regulation --it is not "just politics." In the end, it is about who we are and what it is to be human. It seems the Shrivers knew this.

Mark,

 Part of my family comes from Ireland.

I’ve never been there. Still, knowing that cornbeef and cabbage is part of the Irish cuisine, I decided to learn to like it, cook it and recommend it. I have since learned that in Ireland, cornbeef and cabbage is considered an American dish, fancied by Irish expats and their descendents, but that the dish itself was developed in NYC because it was cheap and filling and beloved by the Irish immigrants down on their luck. Now, my appreciation of cornbeef and cabbage is directly connected to my self-image of being Irish even though I have never been to Ireland and cornbeef & Cabbage is a NYC thing.

President Obama, amongst other things, is a black man. His children are considered black and if Michelle becomes pregnant her baby/fetus will be a black American and a descendent of slaves as I am a descendent of the Irish, amongst other things. Does that help?

I could not agree more. It is fanciful to imagine that anyone will honestly be able to view any political issue in the unpolluted abstract of ideas. That in itself, faux utopian as it is, is a liberal affectation. We all bring our experience of the world to bear on our positions...and we should, if we are to be sincere and honest with others and with ourselves. To be politically pragmatic is to be, at least in large part, an empiricist that calls ‘em as he sees ‘em. To me, this is, in the end, the charm of conservatism. Barack should be more sensitive to this aspect of the debate than most…if not for his own sake than that of his children.

That was funny!