Tomorrow's GOP

I can tell you as a lefty that grew up Evangelical Republican, that GOP notions of 'freedom' just look like greed to me.
We've already seen in two special elections what demonizing does for the GOP now. It makes them look like Rod Parsley to moderates and Democrats. It will be interesting to see if they choose that tactic with 527s in the general election. If they do, then Democrats can claim McCain is an impotent leader or that he's insincere.

I'll say this. The fact that many GOPers can admit that their party is bankrupt is a good first step.

They can return to fiscal responsibility instead of croney handouts, but I agree with Neerman, environmental issues are high priority, it's one thing to be pro-business, but too often the GOP is seen as proBIGbusiness while running roughshod over environmental regs. Just see what BushCo has done to the EPA, Dept. of the Interior, USGS, etc.

Brian Horan: "I'll say this. The fact that many GOPers can admit that their party is bankrupt is a good first step."

Brian, what do you really care about the GOP? Honestly, in a previous post you admitted that you're part of the "cultural left" so don't pretend that you care about Republicanism.

Rod, I stay in the Republican Party because in an imperfect world with imperfect politics I believe that it still represents the best vehicle for pursuing a genuine American renewal. Are there hacks in the GOP? Of course. Do I want to see a Party that is purer? Naturally.

What I think is impractical, however -- and injurious to the country -- is the notion that the GOP can permit itself the luxury of getting off the carousel of history for 4 or 8 years and let the Dems run the country while we go off in a corner to gaze at our navels and decide what we're all about. While we're out to lunch pondering our identity, the country and the world will be saddled with the Democrats in charge. Is that right for the country? I don't think so.

All the more power to this 35-year old county chairman. I think it's terrific that he's reaching out to all the groups he wants but the process of dialogue has to be two-sided if it is going to be genuine. Tell the Log Cabins why the GOP opposes gay marriage -- and make the case for it -- but don't try to pander. Reach out to environmentalists but make the case for GOP policies on the environment on the basis of intellectual honesty. But don't pander and sound like a tiny toy trumpet version of the brassy Democrat message. Who needs "Me Too" Republicans? It's no good for the country or the party in the long run.

Will 2008 be a rough year for GOP? That's what the polls say now. But who knows how it will turn out. It ain't over yet. A lot can happen in six months.

What is the pressing environmental concern? Even if global warming is man-made, every honest economist who runs the numbers says it isn't a problem for decades, and by then we'll have technological solutions. Do people want cleaner air and water? How clean? In all seriousness, in some areas the EPA is asking us to clean dirt, i.e. the pollutants that exist are at natural levels, and the only place to go is to eradicate them from nature. I don't see any environmental issue that rises to the level of things like SS, Medicare, Iraq, taxes, etc.

On the other hand, the GOP is tone-deaf on the issue and come off as SUV lovin' crazies. They need to take the environment seriously, but in some ways I think it is like the Democrats with religion. They don't have to change any of their positions, they just have to stop going out of their way to piss those people off.

I've voted GOP for years, and most likely will again in 2008. I can tell you, though, that younger voters are going to be a tough sell. Reading the previous thread on the California gay marriage decision is one point.

Younger people, even if they vote GOP, are *not* in the main going to support any GOP anti-gay positions. They have grown up with gay tolerance in their schools; school organizations, friends, etc. Many are quite open about bisexuality. Further, if you have gay friends - people you have known since grade school, perhaps - people with whom you are closely bonded - you are going to be loyal to your friends first, over a political party. This is just human emotional reality.

There's nothing wrong with *reasonable* environmentalism, and simply mocking "eco-wackos" is not going to attract younger voters.

I was talking with my eldest daughter (college-age) about this very thing; about why *I* thought it made more sense to vote for McCain than Obama. I told her, "A draft you can dodge. Taxes are forever."

She's a business student. She got the point.

So IMO the GOP *can* succeed with younger voters if it realizes that most of them are *not* "moral majority" conservatives; that many are deeply opposed to the Iraq war, and especially do not want to be drafted. They have homosexual friends. They are not necessarily Christian, and if they are Christian, may be more socially liberal than the hard-core right-wing part of the GOP would like.

Well, let us be realistic and understand that younger voters are intelligent enough to know that they are not going be drafted because there will never be another draft unless congress decides to commit mass suicide. What younger voters want is to have their interests recognized but like every other age group, those interests are far from monolithic. Most of them probably could not care less about AIDS in Africa or anything else in Africa for that matter and they don't want SUVs, but they want cars that look good and go fast.

But the important thing to remember is that interests can change radically from year to year by age. Someone just graduating college at 21 is not interested in family or family issues. At 30 he may be. At 35 he is more likely to be. All are under 40.

That means that you can't just target "under 40" as a group and have it work. It won't! But there are certain generalities that do apply.

They are more educated as a group. That means they are less likely to trust people with "credentials" because they know how little those credentials are worth. Appeal to authority is not going to go anywhere with them. This means that endorsements won't bring their votes.

Second, they have large disposable incomes unless they get burdened by children. They like stuff and will vote against anyone who gets in the way of having stuff. This can be used to kill liberal Democrats in an election with them.

And remember something else. There are nowhere near as many voters among them as boomers. Put your money where the votes really are.

Mhoram: "Yes, the party is pretty much bankrupt. ... Unfortunately, the other party is beyond bankrupt. If the GOP is standing idly by while Rome burns, the Democrats would like to throw gasoline on it. Not much of a choice these days."

Absolutely, Mhoram!! You said it precisly.

As a party, we need to do some serious multi-tasking. Can we walk and chew gum at the same time? Let's hope. Here's what has to happen:

(1) Yes, I agree with Rod that there's a need for introspection in the party. We ARE coasting on an empty tank. Reach out (like that 35-year old country chairman in Dallas whom Rod talked about) to the various groups we've ignored but let's also make it an honest dialogue. Listen carefully, make our case, keep the dialogue open, learn but also convert. Don't pander. Why would they want a copy of something ("Me Too" Republicanism") when they can get the original from the Dems. Understand OUR philosophy and make it fresh and relevant again to the needs of real people.

(2) However, we also have a responsibility to safeguard the country from a total takeover THIS YEAR of the country by the moveon.org crowd and the likes of George Soros, Michael Moore, Rosie O'Donnell, et. al. They've got their sights set on Obama as their perfect vessel. That's why they discarded Hillary. And meanwhile those around the world who wish us ill ... are watching and waiting and getting ready to pounce.

Can we multi-task? Operate in both real-time and future-time? For the sake of God and Country, we have to try!!

"Freedom" is an excellent talking point, but if the environment is really a major concern to the younger generation Republicans will need to explain how individual freedom can be reconciled with the protection of the environmental commons. From Saint Reagan to the present "freedom" has meant freedom to pollute and pave as well as freedom from taxation and burdensome regulation.

I think some Repubs are starting to think about it, and have the foundations of some good ideas. There's lots of inertia going the other way, however, so it may take some time. A few terms out of power should provide the necessary impetus and clarity.

As someone who voted for a Democratic Congressman for the first time in 2006, I can tell you what I would like to see. 1) A return to fiscal responsibility. Mhoram above says Dems taxed, borrowed and spent us into debt. Please go look at the US debt starting when Reagan took office. When Republicans are President the debt goes up. I want the debt down. If that requires higher taxes so be it. We cant live above our means forever. 2) Cogent foreign policy. The party has been split between the neocons the realists and the isolationists. Forge something workable out of this mess. Give up on the not talking to other folks because we dont want to legitimize them. The rest of the world already sees Iran as legitimate. SOD Bob Gates has written papers advocating that we talk with Iran and just yesterday he advocated for this again. The military option alone does not seem to be working so well.

3) Put up or shut up on social issues. When they controlled Congress with Bush they did not pass the Marriage amendment of the Right to Life amendment. They did not even try. No serious attempts were made at immigration reform. I guess a few party faithful have themselves convinced themselves Republicans still really represent their values. Looking at the facts or reading something like Kuo's book will disabuse one of that quaint notion.

4) Re-establish a balance of powers between the Presidency and Congress. Our system is viewed by much of the rest of the world as a strongman government. It has slowly been getting worse but this administration took it to new levels. Many laws were simply ignored w/o even a veto to allow an override vote. How could the party that wants strict constructionist judges allow and participate in this?

5) Give up the apologetics for corrupt business practices. Enron and Subprime crisis stuff should make it clear that given carte blanche, business will find illegal/unethical ways to make money. Accept the need for government to act as a referee.

Steve

Elizabeth Anne: "The gay issue is, for us, the deal breaker. Otherwise we'd be voting Republican much of the time. The same is true of almost everyone under 40 we know."

Are you suggesting that this ONE issue (legalization of gay marriage) is the one thing that stands between you and voting for Republicans?

I am honestly curious as to why this one issue trumps all the others for you? Please clarify -- keeping in mind all the other issues that directly affect your economic and physical security.

Elizabeth Anne, many thanks in advance. Enlighten me, please :-)

It's like this. I am weakly pro-life: that is to say, I am personally pro life, and would do anything I could to convince anyone I knew who was considering an abortion to not have one. But have grave concerns about how legislation can be written and enforced. I also think that at this time and place, legality is something of a red herring. We have a society that shrugs at abortion now: changing the law would be much like reinvoking prohibition. We need to change people's minds.

I am also for a smaller, sleeker government.

But here's the thing. I hear the Republicans talking on and on about supporting the family, while they destroy the families I see. Recently, my state passed a DOMA. Because of it, my friend now has to work full time for zero cash. Why? Because she needs health insurance for her twin sons. The state won't allow her partner to put their children on her insurance, or to adopt them, because it would create a "status equivalent to marriage".

I've seen my friend's partner work 70 hour weeks so that my friend could spend an extra two weeks at home with their preemie kids. I watched another friend give up a life he loved here in order to move to New York to care for his ailing partner. In short, I have seen the kind of self-sacrifical love that we all hope to display as representatives of Christ displayed by those that the Republican party is all to happy to mock and spit upon.

I have heard people here say that they could never vote for someone who was pro choice because of what it said about their character. I feel the same way about those who are willing to make derogatory and slanderous comments about the gay community.

Derek Copold - I mean as a general position, not recently. Recently? The Republican party seems to be run by a bunch of talking monkeys. This war is the perfect example. But the pork barrel politics and cronyism are by no means exclusive to the Republican party. Remember: I'm from the midwest. We've got Chicago. Hell, we've got another Daley in office. I know from cronyism.

All those Ron Paul kids have a lot of enthusiasm that could be used to energize the GOP, if we take the time to listen to them and treat them with a little respect. I was at the GOP Washoe County convention where the young delegates where given a round of applause, and at the Nevada State convention which was shut down when it looked like the Ron Paul delegates were winning a majority of national convention seats. I understand the need for some sort of party unity during such a difficult election, but there has to some sense that things are being done fairly.

A Republican activist who is not a Ron Paul supporter, Mike Weber, stuck around to talk with the bewildered crowd. The party leadership had recessed the convention without warning or explanation and then vacated at a run. Those of us left were bewildered, and the Ron Paul delegates were angry and outraged. Mr. Weber kept people calm, counted those left to see if there was a quorum (there was not), and helped those who felt cheated to see the bigger picture. I know he saved a lot of future Republicans during those few minutes.

I thought this episode illustrates perfectly what is wrong with the party and what must be done to save it. This courtesy of listening needs to be done on a grand scale. Most Republicans feel betrayed in one way or another by the Bush administration. The Republicans in Congress have done little to reign in the spending, cronyism, or incompetence, and so this is what the Republican brand has become.

But party unity must come. We seem destined for Democrat majorities in both houses of Congress. Without a Republican president to put the brakes on Congress or to oversee judicial appointments, we will have more of a loss than we can even imagine.

Conservation is conservative, spending within our means is conservative, finding our own energy resources is conservative, keeping food and goods production in this country is conservative, keeping "change" from throwing the baby out with the bathwater is conservative, so is conserving our military for when we are actually under threat.

Sorry if I am rambling and a bit incoherent. The thought of a President Obama with a rubber-stamp congress has got me losing sleep.

Elizabeth Anne, I've have gay friends and relatives myself and I don't see any reason whay they should be treated as second class citizens.

I tend to vote republican in my local and congressional elections but democratically for the Presidential elections.

I agree with Elizabeth Anne. Discrimination against gays by the government is an important issue to me. If churches want to discriminate than that's fine, it's their right, they are private institutions. They should be responsible to God, not the United States

I think that hate crime/speech laws are ridiculous. People should be allowed to say what they wish without fear of prosecution by the government. Sentencing based on the motivation for a crime is ridiculous, Murder is murder, no matter why it is committed. The Democrats seem to be the proponents to these laws.

The immigration system is in dire need of reform, we should secure our borders, once that is done, I think there should be a way for illegals to gain citizenship, they have contributed to society and therefor deserve the rights and responsibilities that come with our society. However, it shouldn't be an open pipe line. I don't understand why the Republican party rejected McCain's immigration reform bill. Nor do I see the Democrats as having any sort of plan for immigration.

Sexuality has lost any connection to romance in our country, I'm 25 and people my age, both male and female, seem to jump from bed to bed without a thought to what it means. Republicans like to talk a lot of talk on this issue but, beyond supporting abstinence in schools, they refuse to open any meaningful dialogue. Democrats don't seem to care, and I'm not sure why.

I believe in fiscal responsibility and a smaller government, this is espoused by the Republican party. Tax cuts are good, but you need to cut spending too. Stop sending me and my (as yet unborn) children the bill.

I believe in personal responsibility, it is not the governments job to bail you out because you couldn't be bothered to read the fine print on a mortgage application. You shouldn't be allowed to abort a human life because you couldn't be bothered to use a condom. The government shouldn't have to pay for your medical bills because you didn't want to exercise after your pound of fries, and gallon of soda at McDonald's. People need to take responsibility for their actions.

I also believe in giving to charity, but I don't think it should be demanded of anyone. Charity is an act of mercy and love, but no one should be forced into it.

We should preserve the planet we have, not trash it to support higher profits. Even if global warming is fuzzy science (which I don't think it is) we should take care of the place we live. When I was in Iraq it always bothered me that Iraqi's wouldn't clean up their neighborhoods, they live there and just let it become disgusting. I clean up my neighborhood, so do my neighbors, why don't we do that with our corner of the planet. Air pollution is gross, why are we afraid to do something about it? The Democratic party seems to be the only one interested in keeping our country clean.

Obviously I'm conflicted about which party I believe in, but it seems that the Republican party has just given lip service to the issues above, while the Democrats just ignore most of them.

Chris

Reaganite, @ Elizabeth: When you think about this, though, there's very little that distinguishes your friend from any other single working mom.

Uh, yes there is. From what Elizabeth said, she is in a *relationship.* She is no longer de facto a "single mom." The problem is that she and her partner cannot *regularize* their union with the state, and thus take advantage of what married couples can (like employee medical benefits.)

You seem to be very concerned about what these children will learn about relationships. It seems to me that what they are learning is that love is a verb - love is action, and that these two women are *trying* to take care of one another and the children, in the face of social obstacles.

What is this "sexually unambiguous environment" you mention kids as "deserving?" Lesbians are not "sexually ambiguous." They're women who are in a relationship, who love each other - and presumably who love these children as well, and are trying to provide what they can for them. And a relationship is not "sexually ordered" just because it is heterosexual.

I am a 25 year old moderate or libertarianish Republican. I suspect that in many ways I fit the profile of the type of person the chairman is seeking to reach out to.

I would really like to feel that I could participate in a party for positive goals. Much of my political involvement has been motivated by my general opposition to left-wing policies.

I would feel much more excited and be much more engaged with the GOP if the party embraced some of the following. Alternative energy is very important to me and it seems to make sense for so many reasons. And it can be supported by conservative policies such as tax cuts and de-regulation. The party should also fight harder on education, supporting school-choice and homeschooling rights. I also think that the GOP should reframe itself as the party of free speech. Drop flag-burning bans and other anti-speech policies and hit the left HARD for their repression of free expression and debate in our schools and on college campuses. The party could make great strides, I believe, if it champions free expression and the market of ideas against the leftist thought police. Finally, meaningful opposition to earmarks and pork-barrel spending would be make me like the party a lot more.

Stefanie:

Actually, I did indeed note that what distinguished this woman's status from other single working moms was that she and another woman have a same-sex attraction and relationship which they are asking the society to validate as a "marriage." Plus they want to change the rules of health insurance to allow one of the woman to include the children of her lesbian lover in her coverage.

As a society we should not shy away from attempting to define what is and is not sexually ordered. As well as what is and is not going to be covered under the definition of marriage.

If we move the line to include adult homosexual and lesbian relationships in these definitions, then what's next? I think this is a question worthy of serious consideration.

For example, our society has been treated in recent years to highly publicized cases involving sexual relationships between female teachers in their 20s and 30s and male adolescents. And vice versa, as well, in terms of gender. Many of these "couples" claim there's genuine love. Some of them have children out of these unions.

Right now, these cases of adult-minor sexual unions are viewed in the same way as same-sex unions were 40 years ago. Are we looking at a time when 30-somethings in "love" with teenagers will try to get society to validate that union as a "marriage" ? Based on what we're seeing now with same-sex adult sexual unions, there will be NO BASIS for denying those claime in the future. NO BASIS at all in terms of legal and intellectual consistency.

We can say the same with polyamrous sexual unions (i.e., three-somes, five-somes, etc.). As well as adult-minor sexual unions involving the same gender (e.g., pederasty). Not to mention bi-sexual unions involving three partners. Sexual unions betweens humans and chimeras. Between humans and other species. And between humans and robots (there was a movie some years ago starring Robin Williams which dealt with this scenario).

Truly, the possibilities are limitless. It's an area, indeed, where the United States can take a leading position among the nations of the world :-)

All this will be done in the name of "regularizing" (as "stefanie" put it) a variety of sexual behaviors now exclusively reserved for heterosexual adult unions. ONCE YOU CHANGE THE DEFINITIONS to include ONE CATEGORY of disordered sexuality, you HAVE TO INCLUDE THEM ALL as a matter of FAIRNESS and as a matter of LEGAL AND INTELLECTUAL CONSISTENCY.

Where DO WE draw the line? If not now, when?

Reaganite,

I would concede that the ruling does open the door for polyamarous marriage, but we as a society have decided that minors do not have the emotional or intellectual maturity to marry. The marriage of two homosexuals is a marriage of two consenting adults, not a consenting adult and a child incapable of making the choice.

Chris

Whatever the merits of any particular gay marriage policy, being "pro-family" has to be more than being opposed to gay marriage and abortion.

Being "pro-family" has mean making things easier for struggling families and creating incentives for people to cultivate stable families and homes. I don't know what specific policies should part of the package, but there are people who out there trying to figure out how to get their kids to college, trying to keep their kids out of trouble and off drugs, uncertain about the future. Even if these parents oppose gay marriage in principle, what does banning it do for the concrete daily struggles that they are facing? How does banning abortion make parents feel any better about their own children's place in our country's future? Supporting the american family has to be more. Parents need to be able to shape their children's future and not feel that their children's lives at the mercy of economic and political forces beyond their control.

Reaganite:

Looking back at my post, I think you're right to ask for a little clarification. I definitely do not think the GOP should mimic the Dems in hostility to all faiths. That, to my mind, would be the worst of all possible worlds. I believe that the GOP should say that the far left is dead wrong to oppose faith. We should say that questions regarding the nature of God are among the most important that we, as humans, face. We should recognize that people reach different answers and that these answers are valuable not because they are necessarily right (obviously, not all of them) but because the question is important. Thus, the GOP has to reframe itself as the champion of the religious liberties of people of all faiths. So, to answer your question, I believe the party should embrace a rainbow of faiths. We should be bound together by a mutual respect for the search for spiritual truth and by the idea that faith is valuable.

Perhaps the source of your confusion was that I said the party should be secular. When I said that, I meant not that faith should be excluded, but that because the party must embrace many faiths, the principles binding us all together must transcend any particular faith. Thus, the ideals of the Party, as a political organization, should be secular rather than sectarian, even as the individual members of the party have deep faith.

Two questions: Have I made it clear what I am trying to say? And do you agree?

"Chris Mills" writes: " ... we as a society have decided that minors do not have the emotional or intellectual maturity to marry. The marriage of two homosexuals is a marriage of two consenting adults, not a consenting adult and a child incapable of making the choice."

Chris, when did "society" make that decision? And even if "society" did make that decision, would it prevent a majority of justices on a state or federal court from determing that this societal consensus was unconstitutional?

Essentially, that's was happening in one case after another across the country on these issues. A legislature passes a law, or a state amendment is legally established, or a binding statewide referendum is approved ... and in all these cases a majority of justices on some court determines that this action is "unconstitutional."

You say that "society" has decided that adult-minor unions are unacceptable. That's what we might have said 40 years ago about homosexual and lesbian sexual unions. I forget the name of the female school teacher (Mary Latourneau?) who had one or two children with a 13 year old male student, but I remember they appeared on a number of TV shows a couple of years ago expressing their genuine love. Honestly, who can deny that THEY weren't sincere IN THEIR MINDS. And, subjectively, they have just as much right to ask for society to sanction their union as a marriage in the wake of what is now transpiring with homosexual and lesbian unions.

There's a group out there (NAMBLA -- North American Man Boy Love Association) that actually asserts the right of adults and minors of the same gender to enjoy sexual unions without interference from the state. If we LEGALLY and CONSTITUTIONALLY establish that society has no right to exclude adult homosexual and lesbian sexual unions from enjoying the status of marriage ... then who is anybody (you, me, Rod or anyone else) from denying LEGALLY and CONSTITUTIONALLY the claims of NAMBLA?

Once we allow the definitions to be changed in this case ... we will not have the legal basis to exclude other types of matches in the future.

Scott, just out of curiosity, what big Pharma company has the patent on Marinol?

Eleazer Williams

Ken - right again. Ever thought of running for office?

Thanks for kind words, Simon. I'm graduating law school in about two weeks, so please give me five or ten years.

I find it incredible that some conservatives assume that lefties are hostile to religion.

Brian, I don't believe that the left in general is hostile to religion. Many Democrats and leftists are religious or tolerant of faith. There is, however, a signficant strand of left-wing thought, derived from Marxism, that is viciously hostile to faith. This line of thought see both family and religion as institutions that rival the state and are, along with capitalism, the source of class, gender, and racial inequality. Unfortunately, this worldview seems to be setting the tone of left-wing rhetoric and policy, overshadowing the religious left.

So while I agree with you that it is inaccurate to say that lefties are hostile to religion, I do believe that the small, vocal fringe that dominates left-wing thought is strongly opposed to faith.

To the woman and her lesbian partner? Or to the kids (who deserve to grow up in a sexually unambigous emvironment)?

Well if the woman and her loving lesbian partner support the kids...oh nevermind you pretentious fuckwit.

Scott, just out of curiosity, what big Pharma company has the patent on Marinol?

Eleazer Williams

Better a pharm company synthesizes THC and charges money than letting people grow their own perfectly natural weed for free. Hell you really don't even have to buy aspirin since the compound is naturally occurring

"aaron":

"Well if the woman and her loving lesbian partner support the kids ... oh nevermind you pretentious fuckwit."

Aaron, all "Reaganite" has done is ask some questions. Good ones, actually. If you can't reply intelligently, why do you have to resort to name calling? Name calling doesn't speak well for the validity or the strength of your position?

Preach it, yelladawgNC. ; )

Aaron, all "Reaganite" has done is ask some questions. Good ones, actually. If you can't reply intelligently, why do you have to resort to name calling? Name calling doesn't speak well for the validity or the strength of your position?

And those questions were pretentious, as if every case of a woman, child and associated father can be boiled down to some formulaic question/answer session, sorry but when my asshole father left, my wonderful lesbian aunt stepped in to help and fill the emotional financial void, who am I to judge a loving relationship that supports the children's welfare just because it doesn't fit the 'traditional' mold..

Anyone heard that John McCain wants to skimp on the GI Bill. How are we supposed to recruit?

Derek, Reaganite, you might want to think real hard about what Elizabeth Anne has to say about what she has seen of her gay friend's experiences.

If we react to every anecdote filled with pathos, we'll have a legislative mess. Hard cases make for bad law. I could cite for you case after case of homosexual promiscuity and pathology. It would hardly make for a better case.

At any rate, given the track record of gay marriage referendums, I really doubt that this is the issue killing the GOP.

Anyhow, Reaganite pointed out most of the problems with her case. I'd further point out that my main difficulty is that heterosexual marriage should be privileged over gay marriage for the very real reason that, ceteris paribus*, kids are best raised in a home with a mother and a father, so that they learn to relate to both sexes. Given the path things are on, as Reaganite mentioned, heterosexual couples are wrongly demoted to an equal par with homosexual couples when it comes to matters like adoption.

Of course, pointing out this very secular and non-religious fact usually brings on cries of "homophobe", but so be it.

Unfortunately, whenever a compromise of some sort of is proposed, like a civil union law that would address the problems cited in Elizabeth's hard case, it's either rejected out of hand by radicals or accepted in bad faith--i.e., they take it and continue pushing for their radical agenda. That's what has pushed conservatives to go for constitutional amendments. It's become clear that radicals will continue to make end runs around the law through the courts, no matter what the people decide at the ballot box. We're basically forced into a position to where we have to either hold a hard line or accept a position we find wrong on it face.

Then there's the matter of linguistic madness, where words like father, mother, wife and husband are being penciled out of textbooks in the name of fighting heteronormativity. But that's another brick in the wall, I suppose.

*The ceteris paribus is key. Of course, you can find awful heterosexual homes, and in that case a homosexual couple could be better. But everything else being equal, a the heterosexual couple is the better option, and they should be give preference in adoptions and other matters.

What if the guy with TB comes to your city this summer (Remember the guy that exposed all the folks on the airplane to tuberculosis)?

"That guy" will most likely be an illegal immigrant, which is another failure we can chalk up to the GOP.

Actually, Brian, as a conservative, I find a lot of your post cogent. The GOP was happy to do the easy stuff, like tax cuts, but never really worked on government reform. The best we got was with a Democratic president. In that situation, the GOP congress and Clinton produced serious welfare reform and we had reasonable budgets. With Bush's win, however, that went out the window, partly because of him, but also because of their refusal to stand up to him on issues like the budget, Iraq and the border.

Hell, if they'd been serious about the border back in 2001, we could have been in a position where, having made a good faith effort to lock down the border, we could look at an Amnesty program without repeat the 1986 disaster.

Every time I get depressed reading here and start becoming convinced that the Republic and the world are lost, Derek Copold jumps in speaking sense. I was *this close* to booking a one-way ticket to Poland. Or Russia. Thanks, Derek. I can hang on for one more day, at least.

To Rod's original question: I want a pro-life GOP that stands for traditional marriage, that comes to believe once again in small government and low, low taxes for all, that's committed to judicial reform, that's committed to religious freedom in the face of the pro-aborts and homosexual activists who threaten it (a theme of your prior post on the CA ruling).

So when I hear that your GOP buddy is concerned about the farce that is anthropogenic global warming and that he wants to cozy up to the Log Cabin types, well, then I really do start thinking of your Benedictine option as the only viable option.

The Republican Party is in a serious bind, for several reasons.

1) The last 8 years have seen "conservatism" associated with a President who governed, functionally, as an LBJ-style corporate liberal. This is a man who pioneered No Child Left Behind, the prescription-drug entitlement, the Ministry of Political and State Security (a/k/a "Homeland Security") and supported the bailout of Bear Stearns. He is, pragmatically speaking, very little different from a Democrat. Certainly he has demonstrated that he is no believer in truly limited government.

2) Under BTY's (Bush the Younger, for Our Studio Audience) watch, the entitlement programs have been locked in on an unsustainable track. Medicare got the prescription-drug benefit added to it. Social Security reform was essentially thrown under the bus. This could have been a key to attracting the votes of post-college-age taxpayers (the 22-35 crowd) who know full well that SocSec is not going to be around for them. Now there is NO possibility--none whatsoever, thanks to the Boom generation's approaching retirement--of even a modest scaling back of these programs, let alone the eradication the economy needs.

3) Failure to capture Osama bin Laden. There was a clear link established between ObL and the 9/11 murders. The military intelligence apparatus had high-confidence information that he and his leadership cadre were in the Tora Bora area. Yet they did not follow through and actually capture the man. Had they done so, there would have been a virtually impenetrable aura of success attached to the Administration; far more of one than Bush-41 had after Gulf War I. The Iraqi Conquest War, with all its baggage, was launched directly as a result of the failure to capture O.b.L.

4) Iraq. BTY's civilian military planners did not heed the advice of the top generals, and only provided 140,000 men for the invasion and occupation, where the said generals (and civilian think-tanks with military knowledge, such as the RAND Corporation) had flatly stated that 500,000 men would be required, at a minimum, to establish dominance sufficient to deter organized in-country local opposition.
In addition, the earlier US viceroys, in disbanding the Iraqi military and the Baath Party as a whole (rather than concentrating on rounding up the leadership cadre of both), caused massive unemployment and needlessly radicalized large segments of the population. Well-done invasion; extremely poorly executed occupation.

5 years of lack of success in stabilizing the situation produced the perception of a lost war. Or an INSUFFICIENTLY SUCCESSFUL war, which, to the untrained American perception, is the same thing. There is an old saying: "Victory has 1,000 fathers; defeat is an orphan."

Combine this with:

5) A fumbled response to Hurricane Katrina. Granted, it was primarily the responsibility of Louisiana state authorities and New Orleans city authorities to handle the response---but that doesn't matter. Sloppy coordination of relief efforts allowed the Dem. opposition to portray the Administration as not only unfeeling, but incompetent.

A competent showing in ANY of these areas would have staved off the incipient disaster the GOP is facing this year. The 21-35 crowd grew up and came of age under an Administration (Clinton) that could conceivably be portrayed as having some clue in some areas as to what it was doing. By contrast, the BTY Administration has managed to "brand" itself as the Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight If You Held Their Arms And Put Them Next To The Barn.

This generation is, for all intents and purposes, a politically lost cause. Conservatives and traditionalists are roughly right back where they were in the mid-70s. Whatever intellectual leaders that still write and think and publish are going to have to go right back to "scratch" and rethink the entire business. It may well be 25 years before a conservative/traditionalist President and Congress are elected again.

One hopes that the country can survive long enough to see that happen. For my part, I will make no cash bets.

Your servant,

Lord Karth

One thing that Derek has noted that gets lost;I'm a registered Republican, but consider myself a conservative-limited government,don't tread on me, the governemnt that governs least governs best. More often than not, there's little choice but to go with the Republican lesser of evils which is usually more inclined to conservatism.There hasn't been much movement to conservatism since the Iraq War began. And part of that is the President Bush(and probably Mccain as well) don't care about conservatism or would ever bother to spend the political capital to explain it. Which meant ultimately despite many the great advocates of conservatism, the President is not now such an advocate. So no one is explaining this the Ameircan people. And the upshot is that the idea of "government moving when people hurt" pretty much concedes governance to a leftist ideal. And "me, too" Republicanism is not going to win; vote for the real Dem.

A simple program would work-domestic oil and energy production expanded and explored; limits on spending and real pay as you go requirments for new plans; a top to bottom review of federal aganecies, their missions, their funding, etc.;strict border control and immigration enforcement in the workplace; and social issues decided within and among the states.Want to have a battle over gay marriage or abortion-do it in your state legislature. Instead of paying heed to the media BSing us about "compromise" understand that our federalist system was designed to have those issues hashed out in the statehouse, not to be decided by judicial fiat. And again, this is where Bush's indifference to explaining or understanding true conservatism has cost us.

The big issue-the war-has to be addressed. Simply we should put our enemies on notice that they should sleep with one eye open. But this war is the least conservative thing ever. I'm worried trhat too many on this side of the spectrum look at the minimal progess of the surge and assume we can have a long-term impact on an Islamic society, and I really don't see that. And I'm concerned that Petraeus and much of the military have internalized a "can do" face for public and government consumption(and possibly career advancement; Petraeus had never served in combat until this war, thoguh he has enough degrees to staff a New England liberal art college). It's one thing to be gung ho, but another not to be honest about how limited our impact will ever really be in such a place. Why should Americans fight and die for ideals Iraqis themselves don't value? We got the bad guy, declare victory, leave.

And harden the borders. We don't need any more Arab students nor their ilk. As I drive through Rod Dreher's old Cobble Hill neighborhood and past that rat's nest of a mosque on Atlantic Avenue, I often wonder-why do we allow more Arabs who hate us and this country to come here? It's clear that many of these people view this striclty as a place to live, and have no intention of being Americans.Why?

Aaron, you obviously have a lot of anger and wounds to deal with. But why inflict that on everyone else? How old are you? If you're past 30, it's time to stop bitching about your Dad ... and "get over it."

Oh great, another pretentious one, f-off too.

I second Bugg's comments (May 16, 5:40 AM).

I honestly believe that when people hear conservatism articulately expressed, they respond. I think this was Reagan's gift, but we haven't seen his like since. It's not just that no one has emerged as talented as him, it's that no one has adequately made conservative arguments. I suppose Newt Gingrich tried, but he was a very flawed messenger. Yet look at the success of welfare reform.

The recent interest in Ron Paul's campaign among young people shows that conservative arguments still resonate. And Ron Paul is not a charismatic politician or a skillful orator. Yet people responded. Unfortunately, his affiliations did him in, for which he has only himself to blame.

To name one example, I would love to hear a modern-day politician explain why corporations are actually a positive force in American society, rather than demonizing them ("big____ companies"). I would love to hear a Republican explain why Democrats do not understand how the real world works.

And if McCain or any Republican were to insist that the immigration laws will be enforced, the border will be sealed, and that it is the poor American citizens and legal immigrants who will get the benefit, I believe the public would be with him.

"Ken" asked at 10:00 PM on 5/15/08:

"Two questions: Have I made it clear what I am trying to say? And do you agree? "

Ken, my answer to both of your questions: An unqualifed "YES!"

(1) What you wrote at 10:00 PM yesterday SOUNDS GREAT TO ME: "The GOP has to reframe itself as the champion of the religious liberties of people of all faiths ... I believe the party should embrace a rainbow of faiths. We should be bound together by a mutual respect for the search for spiritual truth and by the idea that faith is valuable."

Brett Schundler was a young investment banker when he became mayor of Jersey City, NJ (just across the Hudson River from my adopted hometown) in the 1990s. Brett was the first GOP mayor of that city in 80 years. One of the many concepts he pioneered as Mayor of that widely diverse and heavily immigrant city was the promotion of city festivals honoring the religious holidays of Muslims and Hindus, for example, along with those of Jews and Christians. Brett has done a lot of work promoting the concept of a "rainbow of faiths" and in defense of religious liberty. He never made it to the US Senate or as Governor of NJ largely because of his pro-life stance, but his approach to religious diversity was original and will be part of any future for the GOP.

(2) Likewise, your comment at 9:48 PM is ABSOLUTELY ON THE MARK: "Being 'pro-family' has to mean making things easier for struggling families and creating incentives for people to cultivate stable families and homes. ... There are people out there trying to figure out how to get their kids to college, trying to keep their kids out of trouble and off drugs, uncertain about the future. How does banning abortion make parents feel any better about their own children's place in our country's future? Supporting the American family has to be more. Parents need to be able to shape their children's future and not feel that their children's lives at the mercy of economic and political forces beyond their control.

A good deal, however, of what you wrote in the second comment of yours HAS been affirmed by the GOP (repeal of the marriage tax, for example). Nevertheless you're absolutely right that more needs to be emphasized by the GOP in this regard.

BTW, very glad to hear you're graduating law school in two weeks. Good luck! And, yes, as another commenter posted, you really should consider politics, Ken. You're thinking is solid. Sorry for not replying earlier.

It's late in the thread, but the one thing that's missing from this me-too Republican's to-do list of reforms is the one thing that sunk the GOP's recent taste for hyperactive, Wilsonian intervention. If the GOP doesn't repudiate that, then it will continue to lose, and deservedly so.

I would love to hear a Republican explain why Democrats do not understand how the real world works.

You and me both, Treebeard.
Unfortunately, when someone does (like GWB did yesterday at the Knesset), the event that is reported is "George Bush rips into Barack Obama on foreign soil". The controversy is the story, not what was actually said by GWB or by the various people who have given aid and comfort to our enemies (ie Carter, Pelosi, Obama, Durbin, etc).

I am not putting all of the blame on the media, but I wonder how a modern day Reagan-style communicator could get the message of conservatism through the razor wire defenses set up by the media. Even if we had a good messanger, how could he be successful? The internet and talk radio are usually listed as the grand new agent to even the media playing field, but those are only echo chambers, not directed to the public at large.

"I would concede that the ruling does open the door for polyamarous marriage,"

Problem is, as a culture, we've already conceded the point. Anything that any number of adults consent to is perfectly fine with us. Just look at our TV shows. So trying to fight same-sex marriage at the political level when it's already been conceded at the cultural level is naturally a losing proposition. It's like trying to ban abortion in a culture where babies are sold at the corner market for $3/pound. Most voters don't even understand why we care about it. That ship has sailed.

The conservative argument for man/woman marriage is basically, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," and marriage as we've known it has been one of the greatest forces for good and prosperity in history. But that's not really an "American" argument. Americans are all for fixing what ain't broke; that's why "Change!" as a campaign slogan doesn't get laughed off the stage. We think we can absorb any change, no matter how radical, without upsetting anything that's good about our culture. That's why, if you tell someone that gay marriage (or unchecked immigration, or bi-lingual education, or multiculturalism, etc.) will damage our culture, he'll look at you like you just grew an extra head. The possibility that cultural changes could damage us just isn't on most people's radar anymore.

The congressional GOP screwed up by not attacking the bureaucratic leviathan, but instead getting in bed with it. Ron Paul, as kooky as some of his other ideas are, got this dead right. It only really matters at the margins whether the GOP or the Dems are in charge; the bureaucrats and the parasitic rent-seekers who swim along side just keep going on, further expanding the reach of government and sucking us dry. And both parties share the blame, from TR to Wilson to FDR to Johnson to Nixon to Carter to Bush. The GOP can gnash its teeth all it wants about how to appeal to voters again, but it won't matter w whit unless it gets deadly serious about actually reducing the size of government.

Also--I think a truly successful party will have a place for the idealistic impulse as well as the cynical impulse.

Robb's four points said it best, but let me add that seeking small government requires actually DOING something toward that end, not just TALKING about it.

Kimberly: For those who smugly predict that "young people" will never stand for traditional marriage and family because we're beyond all that, I simply think that's inaccurate. There are plenty of young people (even under 30!) who have been solidly raised in good Catholic and other traditional religious households who believe what their faith teaches, do their best to practice it themselves, and are learning or have learned a lot about how to smartly engage the culture in the public square in these regards.

I wish you were right, but I don't think you are, sadly. You know these people, and I know these people. We are these people. But the plural of anecdote is not data. Take a look at this 2006 Pew Center survey. Excerpt:

Public acceptance of homosexuality has increased in a number of ways in recent years, though it remains a deeply divisive issue. Half of Americans (51%) continue to oppose legalizing gay marriage, but this number has declined significantly from 63% in February 2004, when opposition spiked following the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision and remained high throughout the 2004 election season. Opposition to gay marriage has fallen across the board, with substantial declines even among Republicans.

Check out the portion starting on p. 30 (PDF) of this comprehensive 2007 Pew study on changing American political and social attitudes. It's true that a small majority of Americans oppose gay marriage, but that is declining, especially among the young.

I think I have a somewhat different view of why the Republican brand is failing than most of you Republicans. (Don't worry, it's not bad, although it's probably too late to fix.)

You guy's problem is not the cultural issues. Yes, being against gay marriage is killing you among young people, but, traditionally, young people don't vote anyway. They are now, but there's a different reason.

There are the three reasons you guys are in failure mode. The first is continuing to support the Iraq war. Whole articles have been written about this, so I won't elaborate, and everyone knows about this aspect.

The second reason is, you opposed environmentalism. There was never the slightestly logical reason to do this, except that it cut into big business profits. Yes, for the longest time you were able to mock 'tree frogs' as being more important than people, but at some point you started winning and didn't bother to do things like up MPGs and protect scenic areas and things the American people actually want.

And then the American people, almost at once, realized this 'global warming' thing was possibly quite real, and you guys couldn't change direction, because you'd stupidly picked your policy and, by God, you were sticking with it. Environmentalism is for those crazy lefties, everyone should just be happy living in whatever filth their neighbor spews out. How this is 'conservative' I'm not entirely sure.

There was a middle ground there, believe it or not, with slowly increasing MPGs and considering economic impacts of changes. People don't give a damn about some tree frog, as you've correctly pointed out, but they do actually care that their national forests aren't paved over and their drinking water doesn't have mercury in it. And, despite causing them to be confused for two decades, they also care that their climate doesn't change randomly. But at this point in time the 'middle ground' has come to be inhabited by organizations that are almost entirely identified with the left.

The last 'policy' is the grandfather of a whole host of bad policies, despite the fact it isn't, actually, a policy. It is something that isn't even subject to governmental policy. It is this insane idea that 'lower taxes' are legitimate aim of the government.

Everyone understands that taxes should roughly match government spending, but the Republican Party run around like taxes are something that can magically go lower or higher with no regard for anything else. You have, literally, made 'lower taxes' into a mantra, a chant. But lower taxes comes naturally when you spend less. Higher taxes comes when you spend more.

But, instead of working on lowering spending(1), you instead just...lower taxes. Economy bad? Lower taxes! (Or even give money back!) Economy good? Lower taxes! (Or even give money back!) Not enough money to provide soldiers with flak jackets? Lower taxes!

I'll state this once, carefully, although I'm sure I will be misunderstood: Lower taxes is not a government policy. I don't mean it's a bad one, I don't mean it's one we shouldn't have, I mean it is not actually a policy about the operation of the government. The government must, by the 'laws of money' or whatever, take in as much as it spends. It's not subject to some damn debate, it's not something reasonable or even unreasonable people can disagree over. It's like arguing whether or not this country should be located on Earth or Mars. That is not a possible political issue!

But for the last two decades, the Republicans have argued it. They have because they knew that cutting spending would be extremely unpopular, so they did an end-run around the democratic process and just kept talking about cutting taxes instead of cutting services, which is like talking about how the family should buy less gas when we're really trying to cancel the extremely popular weekly trip to the park.

The chickens have come home to roost, and too many people have realized that 'cutting taxes' means a) 'cutting taxes starting with the rich', and/or b) 'cutting taxes so we have no ability to fund popular government programs'

1) Someone's about to point out that Republicans do try to lower spending. Where 'Republicans' means, apparently, those mysterious ones that aren't actually in office. Cause while, indeed, half the point of starving the government is to drown it in the bathtub, the actual drowning of popular programs will fail to get you reelected, and thus the people in office won't do it, or they will try and it will fail because not enough of them will. So they're basically starving the government for no reason, except to put more money in the pockets of the rich.

Sigaliris:

It's old news that Letourneau's Dad was Schmitz. No revelation there. And, yes, Mel is right to point out your approach to this is "snide." A lot of troubled people emerge out of wacked-out families lacking in love. All the more reason for society and government to support traditional marriage in every way possible.

There is no evidence that adoptions by legally sanctioned homosexual and lesbian "married" couples will produce sexually well-adjusted kids any more than traditional marriages producing children from the two parents. We have no clue the ramifications of any of this.

Moreover, the validating of this kind of un-traditional sexual union with the sanction of "marriage" .... simply opens the door for "marriage" to be granted to EVERYTHING ELSE UNDER THE SUN: (1) adult-minor sexual unions (like LetouRneau); (2) pederasty (see my previous comment re: the "North American Man-Boy Love Association"); (3) polygamy (like that extremist LDS sect in Texas that was in the news last week); and, (4) polyamorous unions (three or more in one bed, anyone?). You name it, and they'll slap the label "marriage" on it.

Even inter-specie relationships will get validated (I have in mind the lonely old widow in my coop building who can't live without her beloved German shepherd dog. Hey, why not let them get "married" ? After all, Leona Helmsley left $10 million in her will to her beloved toy Maltese dog).

Where and when, dear Lord, will it all end? And how?

Rod,

I'd be more cautious about drawing long term political conclusions from survey data on the opinions of young adults.

1. The most liberal/secular cohort surveyed is the one born post 1977, which means a disproportionate share of them are children of socially liberal Baby Boomers. Don't assume that subsequent cohorts will have the same outlook.

2. For the most part, these are people who aren't yet married, aren't yet parents, and (as is always the case with younger people) are more prone than older people to accepting uncritically the social attitudes conveyed by the pervasive entertainment industry. They're going to get older, married, more experienced in life -- in a word, wiser.

RJohnson: It's much more difficult to demonize a category of people when you know folks in that category, have regular conversations with them, and even know them to be pretty much like you save for the people they date.

Thank you. That has been my point all along. Not only that, my observations of younger people show me that there is also a lot more fluidity; many are more likely to call themselves "bisexual" than either straight or gay.

Having offered my caveat above about the long term political implications of young adult survey results, I will say that social conservatism faces an immense challenge from the entertainment culture. American values today are being shaped less by their communities or churches, where they may spend an hour a week, than by the all-pervasive entertainment industry.

And for all the entertainment industry talks about being "interactive" and using "multi-media", in reality it fosters passivity and sentimentality. It is hostile to reasoned discourse.

This has severe consequences for conservatives on issues like global warming, where horror stories about polar bears scare people but avoid fundamental questions (e.g., Why are the earth's current levels of glaciation normative? What can realistically be done about the issue?). Similarly, in the world of Hollywood and prime time televison, there are "gays" everywhere, and they are invariably delightful people, usually the only ones in a given situation with any common sense. The most thoughtful op-ed pieces won't have much impact on people addicted to entertainment, because such people abandoned thought long ago.

Stefanie:

Re: your comment about Letourneau/Fualaau ("Why should people object to this?") I feel like wanting to give you a big hug. Thanks so much for making my point about "what's next."

Elizabeth Anne:

Very extensive commentary you provided. Just a few thoughts.

(1) What are you doing over at FreeRepublic.com? Stay away from that crazy place. It's the mirror opposite of dailykos or the huffingtonpost. I prefer to stick to mainstream places like beliefnet.com. There's great intellectual and theological diversity here.

(2) YOU WRITE: "There are solid cases to be made against gay marriage: those aren't them." Fine. Please let us know what those solid arguments are. I'm no genius and am always happy to learn.

(2) The analogy to miscegenation is false. Those in favor of homosexual and lesbian marriage may cite it ... but opponents don't see it that way. It sounds more like the playing of the "race card" -- but it isn't working. African-American friends I know particularly resent the false connection being asserted between civil rights and marriage rights for homosexuals and lesbians. Wonder what Malcolm X would have thought about that were he still alive? Additionally, any word on this disputed connection from the Nation of Islam?

(3) Name-calling the arguments I've made as "crass, bigoted ... lowest common denominator ... root of the homophobia" ... only serve to harm the serious debate being attempted here. No wonder folks like Maggie Gallagher and other pro-family advocates fear that our arguments are destined to be placed under the category of so-called "hate speech."

(4) Our objections are not about "ickiness." The point we're making (and it should be obvious) is that the minute you change the definition of marriage based on sexual orientation/inclination ... you've given a LEGAL and INTELLECTUAL pretext for the inclusion of everything else under the sun. I'm sure the extreme LDS bigamists AS WELL AS the folks at NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association) are already conferring with their constitional lawyers and calling real estate agents in California.

Reaganite - I understand that, but I already addressed it. The truth is that the definition of marriage has shifted constantly since the dawn of time. And as I've said: NAMBLA has no ground to stand on here because boys CANNOT LEGALLY CONSENT TO ANY CONTRACT. Period. Neither can an animal, nor can inanimate objects, or any number of other ridiculous alternatives proposed.

I wasn't calling your arguments crass: I was calling the guy who was making jokes about dogs and fisting crass and appealing to the lowest common denominator. I hope we can agree on that point. I'm sorry I was unclear. I get mah Irish up and can get a bit muddled. My point about miscegenation was in the same vein, although I should never have brought it in. When the Lovings were bringing their case to the court, they were faced with the exact same questions: "If we let you marry, what's next? A man and a monkey?"
Don't know where the Nation of Islam stands on the issue, but I can guess. (Hey, fun fact I didn't know: did you know that mainstream Muslims don't accept Nation of Islam as a muslim group? They see them much as mainstream Christians view Mormons. I know, completely off topic. Sorry. You should see me teach!)
Martin Luther King Jr, however, had close gay friends, including his speachwriter. Two of his children, and his widow while she lived, were in favor of marriage rights. But he didn't tell us what he thought, so I believe it would be wrong to guess. And besides: my belief in the rightness of the cause wouldn't be affected either way. The greatest of men can be wrong about the most fundamental of things. My favorite founding father is Jefferson. Or Franklin. But I rest my case.

I ain't makin' your arguments for you. You'll have to come up with those all on your own. But I think you're doing a fine job, as long as you stay out of the dog ditch.

And yup, freeperville is the home of all that is vile on the right. My point was not that they represent mainstream views, but rather that they represent a sizable minority, and one that has sway.

Max and others seem very sure of what constitutes “disordered” sexual behavior. I would assume, therefore, that they also know what constitutes properly ordered sexual behavior. I think it would be instructive if they could define it for us. Then we would all know.

Until some orthodox person steps up to the plate, though, I’ll venture a preliminary version, based on my memories of a very Catholic upbringing. I would say “feel free to correct me,” but I don’t think it’s necessary to encourage you. ; )

The ideal husband or wife would be a person who had never once experienced sexual pleasure of any kind before marriage. Masturbation is a sin worthy of damnation, and any other type of sexually pleasurable thought or sensation is a lesser sin, because it might lead up to the big one. It’s true that Thomas Aquinas said that sex with a prostitute was a lesser sin than masturbation, but that doesn’t make sex with a prostitute acceptable, either. In fact, I’m not sure how both sins can be mortal sins, but one is more mortal than the other. But I’ll leave that up to the Thomists among us.

So, before marriage, you never touch yourself except for hygienic purposes, and you never even look at any parts of the body that might arouse pleasurable feelings. According to some commentators, “mixed bathing,” i.e. swimming at public pools and beaches, would be out as well, due to the disgraceful near-nudity to be found there.

I quote from the Handbook of the Marylike Modesty Crusade, based on the teachings of Pope Pius IX:

Further to this, public bathing is a violation of modesty as it becomes a diabolical feast for the eyes, fueling concupiscence brazenly, as any attire, no matter how modest becomes immodestly clingy and physically exposing when wet. In the Catholic ideal however, private family swimming is acceptable, if undertaken in a loose fitting shirt and bermudas or similar garb. There is nothing objectionable about private family recreation, as opposed to the worldly public exhibitionism so widespread today.

Thus we arrive at marriage without knowledge of sexual desire. Once married, the only acceptable form of sexual activity is penis-in-vagina intercourse, resulting in ejaculation, without contraception. Pope John Paul II went so far as to say that the husband should attempt to provide pleasure for the wife. He stopped short of specifying how that is to be done under these circumstances.

Sexual fantasies of any kind are forbidden. Pornography is forbidden. Oral sex is forbidden. Any other kind of stimulation that leads to orgasm outside of intercourse is forbidden. Any type of clothing that might conceivably cause desire in the onlooker is forbidden. It is your responsibility to imagine what they might be thinking, and make sure they don’t have those thoughts.

If I’ve overlooked anything, do let me know. I would be greatly interested to know if the orderly sex fans here actually practice these rules, and if so, how that is working out for them.

Elizabeth Anne:

Thanks. Appreciate your comments. Like the nickname for FreeRepublic (freepervile) -- never heard of that before. I like your style -- even if I may not agree with you :-)

Let me deal with what I think is the core of your argument, where you state the following:

"The truth is that the definition of marriage has shifted constantly since the dawn of time. And as I've said: NAMBLA has no ground to stand on here because boys CANNOT LEGALLY CONSENT TO ANY CONTRACT. Period. Neither can an animal, nor can inanimate objects, or any number of other ridiculous alternatives proposed."

(1) When has the definition of marriage, until recently, ever been anything other than involving a man and a woman? Yes, we had an ugly phase with miscegenation in this country, but that was a by-product of the slave trade between Africa and the New World. Looking further back in time, any concerns with miscegenation didn't keep Antony and Cleopatra apart ... nor Solomon (or was it his father, David?) and the Queen of Sheba, for that matter. The Old Testament is filled with all kinds of inter-racial unions and marriages.

And, yes, in olden times people most often got married in what we now consider the teenage years ... but that was also back when most people didn't make it past 40. The Virgin Mary, for example, was a teenage girl. But the basic form (consenting man and consenting woman) has remained the same.

(2) You say that NAMBLA has no grounds because boys can't consent to any contract. Do you really think that argument would stand up for very long? Heck, they would just change the age of consent for signing a contract. This kind of thing would be pure sport for a certain kind of lawyer.

The point is that what seemed inconceivable (as a matter of public opinion) 30 years ago (homosexual/lesbian marriage) has just been approved by the California Supreme Court. As the dissenting opinion pointed out, the decision was entirely gratuitous from the point of view of constitutional law and merely codifided the change in the elite consensus. That's the only motive needed (elite opinion) for brilliant lawyers to creatively (or, perhaps, deviously) twist legal opinion into a pretzel shape.

(3) The stuff on man-pet marriages is, admittedly, somewhat hyperbolic :-) But it draws attention to the legal ramifications of what's involved here. Let me also point out, in defense of my attempt at hyperbole, that lawyer friends who do trust and estate law say that Leona Helmsley's will (which left $10 million last year to her dog) is not uncommon and that the relationship between humans and their pets is an interesting new area of the law. You can just imagine these Harvard Law types rubbing their hands and drooling at the prospect!

So, Elizabeth Anne, never underestimate the genius (at least the perverse genius) of human beings for pushing the boundaries beyond anything recognizably sound or sane.

Well, Max is an old frenemy of mine, so I wouldn't speculate rudely about his personal life. I'm willing to assume that somewhere deep down inside, his intentions are good.

My question wasn't meant to be rude or vulgar, unless you think that the teachings I received as a child were rude or vulgar. Which, certainly, could be an arguable point.

I am genuinely interested in how the orthodox think heterosexual people in general should handle (you should pardon the expression) their sexuality, since they seem to know in some detail what homosexuals should do.

Sorry to post twice--but as an afterthought, it is a bit disingenuous, I think, to insult a person at a very deep level, though in decorous (sometimes pretentiously so) language, and then pretend to be shocked, SHOCKED when they respond with a brusque expletive. I can't recall if it was on this thread, but several people argued that hateful epithets should properly be applied to gay people. Where was your protest against vulgarity then, Simon? Was that abusive? I think so.

Those who who can't reason coherently resort to abuse.

And those thinking they're reasoning coherently are practicing mere armchair psychology, go figure.

Reaganite: Re: your comment about Letourneau/Fualaau ("Why should people object to this?") I feel like wanting to give you a big hug. Thanks so much for making my point about "what's next."

Did you read carefully what I wrote? I was NOT endorsing Letourneau's sex with Fualaau when he was 13 (and again at 14 or 15, whenever she broke her probation rules.) I said that a 21 year old *man* and a much older woman married. Under already existing laws, btw, including the constitutional right to free association (i.e. a 21 year old man *choosing* the woman with whom he'd want to partner.) How does that have any possible connection between the "what's next" arguments used against gay marriage, especially as it encompasses sex that is both heterosexual and legal?

Re: comments about "consent:" When has marriage throughout history ever really been about "consent" for women, until very recently? Colorful analogies about dogs and inanimate objects distract from the fundamental point that for many people, in many places and times, marriage essentially involved bride capture and various forms of bartering women like cattle. Marriage didn't require the woman's consent (and in some cultures, not even the man's.)

Our idea of marriage involving female consent - and full right of refusal, including freedom from physical and economic retaliation - is really a very modern view of marriage.

Also, I don't care how many people the polyamorous marry, as long as they don't violate the age-of-consent laws; they only get one tax deduction for one spouse (like everybody else); and as long as they're not on welfare (as many of the FLDSers are.)

"Sigaliris, having read Max's posts here for a while, I believe he handles these issues by calling himself "Max" while clutching a throbbing Ducati tightly between his thighs."

Oh MAN! Now just HOW the hell did I get outed from the Ducati closet? I don't remember saying anything about it. Did I?

Sig, my frenemy [I love that btw],

What is "objectively ordered" sexuality? Let's just say, there's only one way to hit the bullseye, but infinitely many ways to miss it. Homosexual acts aren't even aiming at the target, so to speak.

So, Max, would that be a tacit endorsement of my precis of orthodox Catholic teaching, somewhere up-topic? Do you agree that penis-in-vagina sex, with ejaculation and no contraception, is the only acceptable form of sexual expression ever, for anyone?

Would you also agree that everyone, everywhere, must agree to abjure all of the following: masturbation as well as any form of physical contact that might lead to sexual feelings, pornography as well as any visual representations that might lead to sexual feelings, oral sex, anal sex, and any form of caress that might lead to ejaculation or orgasm outside of proper intercourse, as well as any form of sexual fantasy?

I'm not asking just Max, by the way. As I did earlier--and received no answer--I'm interested in responses from all who consider themselves orthodox. Needless to say, you need not reveal any personal experience, though it would certainly be fascinating if you did. This is a general question about principles, and as such, ought to get your principled conservative juices flowing. (Ahem. You should pardon the expression.)

By the way, isn't "hitting the bullseye" an awfully male-centric way of describing sexual congress? Presumably there are two people involved, both of whom are surely much more than merely a target to be hit.

Thanks, Max. That is my understanding of the traditional view, as well. I wonder how many traditionalists follow this, in practice, and I wonder what percentage of heterosexuals in general believe in and practice this teaching. Given the tendency to "economize" a bit on the truth about sex, even in anonymous surveys, though, I guess we'll never know. In my personal opinion--if I may say so without engaging in TMI--it's the most fun over the long haul. But even if chocolate cake is one's absolute favorite dessert, no one would want to be compelled on pain of death to eat chocolate cake and nothing but chocolate cake for the rest of one's life. I think it would lose its savor a bit under those circumstances. Especially if, to continue euphemistically for the sheer amusement of it, the husband ended up bolting his slice in moments, and the wife got barely a taste of the frosting. And some people are positively allergic to chocolate. Imagine having to go to confession weekly because you've been dreaming of cherry pie again . . . .

Almost forgot. Are we allowed to read Song of Solomon anymore under strict Orthodox guidelines?

Steve