Late in the 1st quarter. by Scott O'Malley

Here's some thoughts on Bush’s endorsement of the Federal Marriage Amendment. It’s tardiness renders it useless in the blogging world, but I needed to scribble them out somewhere, so here goes a pseudo-essay.

I do not agree with the proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution to prohibit homosexuals from marrying. It’s the first time in three and half years that I have intuitively disagreed with a position of this President. I’ve been spoiled.

The reason: Each state will decide for itself how they will approach this issue, and the Defense of Marriage Act will prohibit some states from bullying others into agreement. The issue, in a more elegant course, will follow the sodomy laws. It’s acceptance will be assumed by each forthcoming generation, and the quirky laws that are now inevitable will gather dust in some capitol database. Those who root their life principles, and their spirituality in the Bible, will disagree with the actions of their fellow countrymen. But they will follow in the great Judeo-Christian ethic in which our Western civilization is founded- ultimately respecting the white picket fences of their homosexual neighbors, and the actions behind them.

I’ve come to this conclusion based on a passage written by Jonah Goldberg sometime ago. I can’t find the link so I’ll paraphrase as best I can, apologies in advance. In it he said the rampant promiscuity of the gay community, particularly of the young men, is a health crisis. Society has a responsibility to engage this crisis and provide a haven for healthy monogamous relationships. Society cannot say “you don’t belong,” and then turn a blind eye to the burgeoning subculture which provides fertile soil for the transfer of AIDS. The more society ignores it, the more the subculture becomes aware of itself- rejecting everything the society values, not just it’s perceived intolerance.

Once the knot is tied, it will be up to the newlyweds to set an example for the undecided to vote on, and their tribe to follow. They will have to outperform heterosexual marriages. It’s not fair, but it’s true. It's the burden of the first born, who gets the most attention but also the challenge of forging the way for the siblings and family to follow.

So, will I vote for Bush in November? I loathe this question, and I’m infuriated by those who voluntarily offer it. First, it assumes a more than reasonable impact on the reader. I can see how somebody like Andrew Sullivan would post e-mails from his readers who have “voted Republican all their life and now won’t vote for Bush” because of his decision. There’s a good chance Sullivan is read by players in the White House, so he’s trying to directly influence policy. But for a low profile blogger to follow suit reaks of arrogance. Second, anybody who takes their vote seriously knows that a lot can happen between now and then, and will reserve their judgment “just in case.” Bush may instruct his operatives to break into Terry Terry McAuliffe’s office and steal his TiVo remote. Or Kerry may grow a spine.

Do I support the current President? In a word, yes, in another, absolutely. Bush’s endorsement of the FMA was the most daring and brilliant political maneuver seen by this young Republican. Elections are molded in the 1st quarter, between the primaries and the conventions. W. watched his father sit back and “act Presidential.” Meanwhile the Democratic Party, the hungry Bill Clinton, and the superstar-to-be James Carville took batting practice. They set the playing field. By the time H.W. came out to play the field had been set. It was the economy, dumbo.

The same holds true for this issue of gay marriage. The gay Left, realizing it could not win over public opinion in their subjective timeframe, used the court’s spotlight to push the issue on the national stage. They succeeded.

There’s a reason why teams punt a lot in the first quarter of a football game. It’s all about field po

contact the author | send this to a friend