This is a genuinely charming public marriage proposal!

Enjoy!

Joe H.

Obama Comes Out - Romney Hides Out -UPDATE

President Obama came out in favor of same sex marriage.  Good for him.  Mitt Romney, on the other hand, said he doesn’t support same sex marriage.  When asked why he doesn’t support same sex marriage, he repeated the oft stated “I believe marriage is between one man and one woman.”

I know I am repeating myself, but I feel compelled to point out, once again, that “I believe marriage is between one man and one woman” is neither an argument nor a reason – it’s a statement of preference.  At best it is a statement indicating an unusually strong commitment to an unexamined Platonic “form.”

Consider the interpretive options for this statement.  First, the proposition “marriage is between one man and one woman” is the relevant assertion - anyone who makes this statement can be assumed to believe it.

But what does someone who asserts “marriage is between one man and one woman” believe?  As a statement of fact, the proposition is demonstrably false.  There are thousands of legally valid same-sex marriages in existence in numerous countries, including the United States.  There are also many legally valid polygamous marriages in various parts of the world.   No one in their right mind could be advancing this proposition as a factual assessment of actual legal marriages.

Those familiar with Plato’s theory of the forms might recognize an implicit appeal to the eternal unchanging idea of “marriage.”  Plato believed that each particular thing (is what it is because it) partakes of an eternal “form” or idea.  The form itself is unchanging and complete.  It exists in a realm accessible only to the intellect.

According to Plato, particular men are men because they embody the form “man.”  Embodiment of the form “man” is what distinguishes men from women.  Conversely, particular women are women because they embody the form “woman.”  Embodiment of the form “Woman” is what distinguishes women from men.

In other words, things are what they are because they embody an eternal unchanging “essence” that is common to all things of that type. 

Many opponents of same-sex marriage have something like this in mind when they insist that “marriage is between one man and one woman.”  They are appealing to (what they perceive is) an eternal unchanging idea – an idea defined by God in the process of his creation.  On this theory, same sex marriage is an absurdity because “marriage,” by inalterable definition, is between one man and one woman.

Unfortunately, this is not a proper application of Plato’s epistemology.  For Plato, a form is intellectually grasped through a process known as the “dialectic.”  The dialectic involves an attempt to articulate the essence of a thing, based on what can be observed about particular things of that type, followed by a critique of the articulated essence, followed by a refined articulation of a thing’s essence, etc., until a stable and workable definition emerges.

In other words, Plato would not start with an eternal unchanging definition of “man” and then use it to distinguish particular men from particular women.  Plato would instead examine particular men, in an attempt to isolate what they all shared in common, particularly in contrast to women, and then subject his idea to rational scrutiny so as to refine his idea of “man,” until it provided a stable and workable insight regarding the essence of “man.”

This is precisely what the opponents of “same-sex marriage” refuse to do.  Like Plato, they subscribe to a theory of “forms.”  But unlike Plato, they insist upon a definition of marriage that they will not submit to the dialectic process.  Their invocation of Plato’s theory, to the extent that they realize they are invoking Plato, amounts to their insistence that marriage be defined so as to exclude gays.  They are not trying to grasp the essence of marriage by examining particular marriages.  They are attempting to prevent proposed “gay marriages” from being considered relevant to our understanding of the institution.

This indicates that the proposition “marriage is between one man and one woman” is best translated as “I prefer that marriage be defined as between one man and one woman.”  And this proposition translates fairly straightforwardly to the proposition “I prefer that gays be excluded from the institution of marriage.”

Okay.  Fine.  But then I have to ask, “why do you prefer that gays be excluded from the institution of marriage?”  And it won’t do to simply assert that “marriage is between one man and one woman.”

Joe H.

 UPDATE

This is a pretty fair assessment    of Mitt Romney's response to the revelation that he gang assaulted a weaker boy in high school.



.

Ode to Obama and Romney

I was thinking of posting a list of reasons why I will not be voting for President Obama this year - and sure as hell won't be voting for Mitt Romney.  But I discovered this morning that   someone else has captured my sentiments perfectly. 
 
I find it astonishing that so many conservatives see Obama as a radical leftist.  There is absolutely no evidence that Obama is anything but a pragmatic, centrist conservative.  The fact that he is viewed as a radical by so many on the right illustrates, to my mind, the psychologically distorting power of tribal partisan allegiance.

That said, I predict, for reasons 1-4 cited in Rose’s post, that the Obama presidency will end up doing greater damage to the nation than the Bush presidency.  By refusing to prosecute criminal elites within our government and financial system, as the law requires, President Obama has created the impunity state.  The (now working) presumption that elite officials and corporate executives are immune from prosecution when they break our laws will eventually work far more harm to our nation than anything done under the Bush presidency.  Mark my words on this.

I like President Obama, and agree with him on most issues.  I'm confident that he will beat Mitt Romney like a drum come November.  But I can’t support him.

For the record, I also used to respect Mitt Romney.  His record of accomplishment is quite remarkable.  And he is, underneath the "severe conservative" façade, a reasonable man.  Unfortunately, Mr. Romney has repeatedly demonstrated a cravenness so deep that I cannot bear the thought of voting for him.  A man who passed up the opportunity to denounce Rush Limbaugh for repeatedly calling a young female political opponent a “slut,” lacks character, plain and simple.

Sigh!

Joe H.

The Upside of GOP Intolerance

This post by Timothy Noah is highly worth reading. It illustrates the impossible task facing Mitt Romney as he proceeds to the general election - the task of moving back to the political center.

The problem, put simply, is that movement conservatives have become “open” extremists. They’ve convinced themselves that their views on social and economic issues reflect the majority of the country and, therefore, they no longer feel any need to disguise or soften their positions, or to brook any compromise.

Hence Romney’s endorsement of the Paul Ryan budget.

Hence Romney’s support for draconian measures at the state level to encourage self-deportation by illegal immigrants.

Hence Romney’s endorsement of Mississippi’s “Personhood Amendment.”

Hence Romney’s description of himself as a “severe conservative” (whatever that is).

I agree with Noah that this is a good thing. The fact that Mitt Romney did not feel free to denounce Rush Limbaugh for calling Goergetown law student Sandra Fluke a“slut,” the fact that Romney denounced a national health care reform law almost identical to the program he implemented in Massachusetts - and which he proclaimed was an appropriate model for national reform, and the fact that he is now unwilling to defend his openly gay policy aide, Richard Grenell, from anti-gay bigots, is great news. The GOP no longer believes it needs to hide who they are - and they won’t let Romney do it for them.

Best news I’ve gotten in awhile. Joe H.