After the Rainbow . . .

I spent the weekend listening, eavesdropping, more or less, on "the conversation" taking place in social media, primarily Facebook. I heard sentiment ("Isn't that fabulous!"), sarcasm ("This just in: next week the Supreme Court will be redefining 'Tuesday'"), melodrama ("That'll do, SCOTUS, that'll do"), hyperbole ("and Rome fell"), and lament ("a bit queasy--so sad to see how fast we are degenerating"). There was the predictable fawning (over Obama and Biden jogging through the White House carrying rainbow flags and Justice Kennedy's "beautiful" closing paragraph), but there were also long, personal, often eloquent statements. Not surprisingly, there were dismissals and un-friendings. One person said she had been reported to Facebook for posting pictures of flamboyantly-dressed gay people.

Following one thread, I was particularly touched by the posting of a man named Joseph Sciambra, an ex-gay porn star who has become a Catholic. I would go so far as to say Mr. Sciambra's comments impacted me more than anything I read all weekend. He obviously deeply loves his former friends, while at the same time wanting to offer them hope and freedom in Christ. Here is his blog. I think I will follow him and try to learn from him.

The appearance of the rainbow on users' profiles by means of the Celebrate Pride tool provided by Facebook gradually distinguished those who celebrated the decision from those who didn't (at least, that's how it was perceived), once again validating my growing suspicion that social media is not about being social but being socialized. But I digress.

I haven't quite entered the fray. There was a (private) tussle with a relative over the question of narrow-mindedness, the relative claiming that it's narrow-minded to impose one view of marriage on the rest of us, I countering that it's arrogant to undo thousands of years of an understanding of marriage that is based in both the Judeo-Christian ethic and biology ("every single person arguing this issue was created by the fertilization of a female egg by a male sperm"). 

This afternoon I dipped my toe into the discussion stream, responding to someone else's post. But I'm really not quite ready to articulate everything I'm thinking, especially on Facebook. I'm collecting articles, listening to both sides (sadly, this is one argument that seems to have no middle ground. One is either for gay marriage or against it), hoping mostly to figure out what I think and why I think it.

The funny thing about rainbows is, they're illusions, but not reality. Yes, I know, we're supposed to see a rainbow as symbolic, the end of a storm, with the sun emerging from the clouds, light refracting off water droplets creating the beautiful spectrum of color. The rainbow, I suppose, is the "beautiful closing paragraph" from Justice Kennedy, whose purple prose presents marriage as embodying "the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family." 

But what if a rainbow didn't signify the end of a storm but rather a pause between storms? The sun peering through clouds doesn't mean there aren't more storms gathering. That's what I'm sensing. Gathering clouds. Some of the articles I'm reading, for instance, don't paint quite the rosy picture that Justice Kennedy described. Hanna Rosin in Slate, for example, writes that "in legalizing gay marriage, we are accepting a form of sanctioned marriage that is not by habit monogamous and that is inventing all kinds of new models of how to accommodate lust and desire in long-term relationships." Rosin cites a Gawker article by Stephen Thrasher, who in turn cites a study out of San Francisco State University which essentially concludes, as Thrasher puts it, that "not all gay unions are built on the straight model, particularly when it comes to the issue of monogamy." 

Were Justice Kennedy and his fellows snookered? Quite possibly. But now that Pandora's Box has been opened and gay marriage is the law of the land, as people (politicians, in particular) are wont to say, it will be interesting to see how things play out. The redefining of marriage from the standpoint of genders is what we conservatives are focusing on right now, along with concerns about fundamental freedoms (religion and speech). There are (or should be) concerns about children and children's rights. But beyond these, will we also begin to see marriage re-imagined as an institution, as defined and practiced by gay couples, if, indeed, these observations (linked below) are valid? The challenge in the next months and years will be whether or not we have the courage and honesty to confront and address these questions. 











For Further Reading

1. "The Dirty Little Secret: Most Gay Couples Aren't Monogamous," by Hanna Rosin, Slate, June 26, 2013
2. "Master Bedroom, Extra Closet: The Truth About Gay Marriage," by Stephen W. Thrasher, Gawker, June 19, 2013.
3. "Many Successful Gay Marriages Share an Open Secret," by Scott James, New York Times, January 28, 2010).
4. "Relationship Characteristics and Motivations Behind Agreements Among Gay Male Couples: Differences by Agreement Type and Couple Serostatus" 
5. "The Beautiful Closing Paragraph of Justice Kennedy's Gay Marriage Ruling," by Jordan Weissman, Slate)

Catholic Sarcasm, or, One (of Several) Reasons Why I (Still) Put Up With Facebook

Apparently not all Catholics are on board with the Pope's encyclical on climate change.

A footnote: The original poster is a former Catholic nun but apparently still a practicing Catholic.   

*** 

For further reading: 

"Pope Francis, in Sweeping Encyclical, Calls For Swift Action on Climate Change" (Jim Yardley and Laurie Goodstein, New York Times, June 18, 2015)

"Laudato No: Praise Not Pope Francis's Crude Economics" (National Review Online, The Editors, June 18, 2015, print view)

One (of Many) Reasons Why Facebook is Annoying

If a picture is worth a thousand words, then perhaps a screen shot is worth a few dozen? The original poster (Taylor Olson) had asked the group "Escondido Friends" to vote on Mike's BBQ (green box at the bottom of the list). I guess the response was a bit less enthusiastic than Taylor was expecting. Just saying... 

lol or is LOL?

Facebook is so annoying. Why do I keep going back?

The Middle East Problem Explained in Five Minutes

Dennis Prager's five-minute video sums up the conflict succinctly by saying, "it may be the hardest to solve, but it is the easiest to explain." 




What's interesting, listening to this brief presentation, is the news reports yesterday about the Supreme Court's ruling siding with the Obama administration about a Jerusalem passport dispute (see article linked at end of this post), as well as the disturbing kindergarten graduation ceremony at a school in the West Bank where little boys performed on stage wearing military uniforms and carrying weapons and singing a song about Palestine destroying Israel. Here's the video, with the transcript following:

Preschoolers with Toy Guns Parade in West Bank Kindergarten Ceremony 

Transcript: 

On the mountains, behind the hills, within the valleys – you will be defeated, you will be defeated. Whether you come by sea, or by air – you will be crushed, you will be crushed. If you stretch your hand, it will be chopped off. If you just look with your eye, it will be gouged out. The defeated army will be too terrified to come back. We come for you before, and woe betide you if we come back again. You come to this land alive, but you will leave it as body parts. On the mountains, behind the hills, within the valleys – you will be defeated, you will be defeated. Whether you come by land, by sea, or by air – you will be crushed, you will be crushed. 

On the mountains, behind the hills, within the valleys – you will be defeated, you will be defeated. Whether you come by land, by sea, or by air – you will be crushed, you will be crushed. If you stretch your hand, it will be chopped off. If you just look with your eye, it will be gouged out. The defeated army will be too terrified to come back. We come for you before, and woe betide you if we come back again. You come to this land alive, but you will leave it as body parts. 

According to the Middle East Media Research Center who reported on this story, "At a kindergarten graduation ceremony held at Anabta, in the West Bank, pre-schoolers wearing uniforms and carrying toy guns performed a song routine. A picture of Arafat is visible on stage. The kindergarten belongs to the Anabta women's charity association. The performance was broadcast on June 1 on Al-Sheraa TV, a local TV channel in the Tulkarm area. 

I find it helps to visualize, so here's a map of the general region, as well as a closer look at Israel with the West Bank.

Court Sides with President Over Congress in 'Jerusalem' Passport Dispute (Nina Totenberg, NPR, June 8, 2015).

Hear, Hear . . . The Silencing

Add Kirsten Powers to the growing list of people alarmed by the increasingly hostile intolerance of the left. Last year it was Ben Shapiro in his book Bullies: How the Left's Culture of Fear and Intimidation Silences Americans. Up next this month is a new book co-authored by Guy Benson and Mary Katharine Ham called End of Discussion: How the Left's Outrage Industry Shuts Down Debate, Manipulates Voters, and Makes America Less Free (and Fun).  

Shapiro, Benson, and Ham are all on the right, so no surprise to be hearing criticism from conservatives about left-wing tactics. But you know it's gotten bad when liberals themselves take on their own. Jonathan Chait, former editor of The New Republic who currently writes for New York Magazine recently criticized the left in a column called, "Not a Very P.C. Thing to Say." Arguing that political correctness has devolved from its original meaning of "evasion of hard truths" to its current iteration of regulating political discourse by "defining opposing views as bigoted and illegitimate," Chait writes: 

Political correctness is not a rigorous commitment to social equality so much as a system of left-wing ideological repression. Not only is it not a form of liberalism; it is antithetical to liberalism. Indeed, its most frequent victims turn out to be liberals themselves.

And now there's Powers' new book, The Silencing: How the Left is Killing Free Speech (Regnery Publishing), in which she cites example after example of the "illiberal left" (her term) literally silencing not just their ideological opponents but sometimes even those in their own tribe. It's a brave book, mainly because Powers will likely become the hard left's new demon, despite her liberal bona fides. The fact that she's both a Fox News contributor and a recent convert (from atheism) to Christianity, makes her an easy target for the tyrannical left. I'm sure she's armed and ready for the assault (there are over 70 pages of endnotes), and I, for one, hope she's able to withstand it because this country needs reasonable, thoughtful liberals to expose the tactics of the intolerant left. 

As for the book itself, I think chapter six ("The War on Fox News") could be a stand-alone essay, and as such, should be required reading for college freshmen. That chapter, as well as chapter seven ("Muddy Media Waters") should be studied in journalism programs, while chapters eight ("Illiberal Feminist Thought Police") and nine ("Feminists Against Facts, Fairness, and the Rule of Law") should be mandatory in gender studies programs. But we all know that will never happen. 

God bless you, Ms. Powers. It takes courage to stand up to those you know will turn on you. I pray you don't go silent. 

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Socialist. 

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not     speak out—because I was not a Trade Unionist. 

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew. 

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

(Martin Niemöller)

*** 

For further reading: 

Not a Very P.C. Thing to Say (Jonathan Chait, New York Magazine, January 27, 2015).

Q & A with Allen and Buckley

A little distracted this morning. 

First this. 



Then this. 



This second exchange is not just funny, it's also rather insightful, particularly Buckley's response to the question about the Israeli-Arab conflict. I wonder what Buckley would say today, if he were alive?

Back to that Bananas courtroom scene, who is the woman whose face Fielding Melish covers at the .07 mark, I wonder?