Ken Starr, I mean.
The sponsors of Proposition 8 asked the California Supreme Court on Friday to nullify the marriages of the estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who exchanged vows before voters approved the ballot initiative that outlawed gay unions.From the Sacramento Bee
The Yes on 8 campaign filed a brief arguing that because the new law holds that only marriages between a man and a woman are recognized or valid in California, the state can no longer recognize the existing same-sex unions.
"Proposition 8's brevity is matched by its clarity. There are no conditional clauses, exceptions, exemptions or exclusions," reads the brief co-written by Pepperdine University law school dean Kenneth Starr, the former independent counsel who investigated President Bill Clinton....
The measure's backers announced Friday that Starr, a former federal judge and U.S. solicitor general, had signed on as their lead counsel and would argue the cases.
And some people think we are overreacting to Rick Warren. I think they fail to grasp that he is part of a much larger whole and that he embodies it for us.
Now, I'm not kicking Obama to the curb over this, but I am ticked. I am in a "wait and see" mode overall. But if I were an Obama fund-raiser, I would not want to be calling me any time in the immediate future.
I would also like to see the media and progressives respond quite firmly whenever anyone pulls out this "marriage has always been between one man and one woman" line by saying, "That's not true." Because it isn't. Not even in the Bible. Perhaps especially not in the Bible. (700 wives and 300 concubines for the man who built the Temple in Jerusalem, for instance.) We need to make it known, as clearly and as loudly as necessary that some things are simply not true.
And granting falsehoods equal time with truth is not fair and balanced; it's stupid, disingenuous, and perpetrates gross harm on public discourse.
Did I mention that Kenneth Starr is a sex-obsessed asshole?
h/t to eugene
5 comments:
He is indeed a sex-obsessed asshole.
Grrrrrrrr!
the very, very sad truth is that he's far from being the only one.
hugs
David@Montreal
The anti Modern argument "one man, one woman" seems to be only late modern in fact.
Nobody defined (for various reasons) marriage this way before 1978, or so.
It's Rhetoric, Propaganda. Anti Modern Social Politics.
Still when I was young, Christian marriage was about Continence for All, and Abstinence for the Ordained. I remember it distinctly.
"Hands on the blanket, children!"
(lest the Angels weep...)
And I remember how shocked I was (during my confirmation year in 1968-1969) - having heard this thousand years old (Academic = Neo Platonist/Gnosticist) tradition - at the new signals from the anti Moderns (Roman 1966 Jerusalem Bible, the translation from Codex Sinaiticus and American Calvinism) and their claim that sexual intercourse was the particular blessing of God upon heterosexuals.
For I remembered what I had been told…
Göran, it is a very new "definition" indeed and pure rhetoric, as you so rightly note. i use the much shorter description of "bullshit."
But they say it over and over again and people buy it as though it were true. Classic totalitarian methodology, and they are pseudo-religious social totalitarians.
You nailed it there!
Post a Comment