The Bosque Boys

I have been using the phrase, "the party's over," on this blog and on the street for some time now. I feel compelled to offer a bit of explanation and background.

Provenance: Several months ago, at the beginning of the financial meltdown, my wife and I were driving through the campus of our beloved alma mater. As we passed beautiful coed after beautiful coed driving new sports cars, talking on cell phones, and cruising handsome young men, I remarked to her, "someone needs to come down here and tell these kids the party's over."

I exercised my prerogative to interpret her raised eyebrow as an invitation to expound. "This is all over," I said. "The college experience can no longer merely be about seizing the opportunity to hang out with exotic people, party all weekend, shop, and find romance outside the confines of parental supervision." Time is short. We must return to teaching and learning as our number one educational priority.

I can't remember her exact words, but, in essence, she accused me of being a cranky old man. She gently reminded me of my own college experience. She had me there. No one had ever taken better advantage of the party than I--but that ironic observation, in fact, no matter how incisive, misses the greater point: the party's over. It is not really important whether this new fact of life is fair--or some kind of double standard--it mainly matters that the new reality really is the new reality.

The party's over.

Meaning: So much of the culture we have invented for ourselves during the last half century (accelerating over the last quarter century and last decade) is not sustainable. The world is suddenly very serious--but the kids on the campuses of our major universities, like their parents and teachers, are still in "party" mode.

Therefore, if we suddenly and unexpectedly live in a very serious world, we can no longer be careless or whimsical with our personal, national, or institutional resources. The old republican virtues are, by necessity, very much back in vogue: frugality, modesty, integrity, sacrifice, humility, etc.

The New Reality. We no longer live in a fantasy world without consequences. We can no longer pretend that path to prosperity and security is paved by spending beyond our means. We no longer have the luxury of wasting large blocks of time on the pursuit of temporary pleasures and self indulgences. The decades-long magic carpet ride is over. It is time to walk the earth once again and rediscover the limits and natural laws of the human experience.

A Self-Conscious Aside: having said all that, I am keeping the blog.

Comparing gay marriage to pedophilia, polygamy, and incest is homophobic, right?

However, don't we often hear that the proponents of "traditional" marriage offer a selective history in which they conveniently forget how the definition of marriage has changed over time? What about the patriarchs of the Bible who enjoyed multiple wives? Society has a right to evolve and redefine its institutions.

I actually think that is a valid argument. But, if the definition of marriage is fungible and the product of community consensus, why is comparing same-sex marriage to other currently out-of-favor marriage variants a sign of bigotry? That is, why isn't gay marriage in the same category as underage unions, polygamy, and marriage between siblings?

Let's break it down:

Intrinsically Unique.

1. Any honest broker will admit that marriage between a man and a woman has a "natural" and historical advantage in this debate. Since time immemorial, societies have recognized this form of human relationship for reasons that are too manifest and lengthy to explain in this space. Hetero marriage is fundamentally unlike same-sex marriage.

2. I did not mention this category in the above listing, but let's dismiss bestiality as an unkind and irrelevant comparison. Bestiality belongs in a completely separate category of cross-species commingling as well as an abuse of animals. Equating homosexuality with bestiality is insulting and not at all constructive or illuminating.

3. Pedophilia, sexual engagement with children, is also a false comparison. Why? The question here revolves around our definition of children. If we, as a society dedicated to human rights, are to eventually rest our case on the concept of "consenting adults," underage marriage becomes a question that revolves around the age of consent rather than "unnatural" attractions. Less different--but not comparable.

Fair Comparisons.

Polygamous and Incestuous marriages, on the other hand, entered into between consenting adults, seem fully comparable to same-sex marriage.

Why would a proponent of same-sex marriage take umbrage at this comparison?

If it is proper to redefine marriage for homosexuals, why not extend the same tolerance to plural marriages and incest?

Make sure the Witherspoon Institute is on your radar. Scholarly, thoughtful, needful.

Website.

The Witherspoon Institute is an independent research center that works to enhance public understanding of the moral foundations of free and democratic societies. Located in Princeton, New Jersey, the Institute promotes the application of fundamental principles of republican government and ordered liberty to contemporary problems through a variety of centers, research programs, seminars, consultations, and publications.

Here are the Senior Fellows:

Gerard V. Bradley is the Director of the Center on Religion and the Constitution of the Witherspoon Institute and Professor of Law at Notre Dame Law School.

Thomas D. D'Andrea is the Director of the International Society for Legal and Moral Philosophy (INSOLM) and a Fellow at Wolfson College, Cambridge University.

Jean Bethke Elshtain is the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Professor of Social and Political Ethics at the University of Chicago and the Thomas and Dorothy Leavy Chair in the Foundations of American Freedom at Georgetown University.

Robert P. George is the Director of the Program in Political Thought and Constitutional Government and the Herbert W. Vaughan Senior Fellow of the Witherspoon Institute. He is the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program in American ideals and Institutions at Princeton University.

Marcus Grompe is a professor in the Department of Molecular and Medical Genetics and Pedieatrics at Oregon Health and Sciences University.

John Haldane is a Professor in the Department of Moral Philosophy and the Director of the Centre for Ethics, Philosophy, and Public Affairs at the University of Saint Andrews, Scotland.

Kevin T. Jackson is the Director of the Program in Business and Ethics, Senior Fellows of the Witherspoon Institute and Professor of Business Ethics at Fordham University's School of Business in New York City.

Harold James holds dual appointments as Professor of Economic History in the Department of History and the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, and is Director of the Program in European Politics and Society, all of Princeton University.

Byron Johnson is the Director of the Program in Religion and Civil Society, a Senior Fellow of the Witherspoon Institute, and Director of the Institute for Studies of Religion at Baylor University.

Robert C. Koons is Professor of Philosophy and Director of the Program in Western Civilization and American Institutions at the University of Texas in Austin.

John Londregan holds dual appointments as Professor in the Department of Politics and the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University.

Daniel N. Robinson a Professor and Faculty Fellow on the Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University and Visiting Senior Member of Linacre College. He is also Distinguished Professor, Emeritus, Georgetown University.

The most logical explanations for Hillary Clinton as Barack Obama's secretary of state are the ones we already know:

1. She is capable.
2. She is an international superstar.
3. She qualifies as a moderate voice in the Democratic Party foreign policy establishment.
4. The "Team of Rivals" thing makes for good PR.
5. Multiplication is better than division; that is, Demo Party healing.

On the other hand, for your consideration, here are two wild (but unfortunately mutually exclusive) scenarios:

1. Obama knew well that the publication of the Clinton Foundation list of donors might disqualify Hilary as a nominee, which would make O look like a gracious winner and, as an added bonus, forever end the political career of a dangerous rival. Truly Machiavellian.

2. As we now know that Princess Caroline wants the New York Senate seat, is it possible that Barack paid back his vital early supporter by rotating Hillary out of office into the cabinet, clearing the field for the next installment of the Kennedy Dynasty?

Neither conspiracy scenario is likely--but good for a chuckle.

The term "Gay Mafia," as it has come to be used by arts and entertainment insiders, does not fully or accurately capture the influence (or methodology) of gay activism on current political debate. The extreme harassment exerted by the gay lobby in certain parts of this country is more like the violently persuasive peer pressure and economic coercion employed by the old White Citizen's Councils of the Deep South during the post-Brown years.

However, our common usage of Mafia, thanks to Mario Puzo and Francis Ford Coppola, connotes a more fiendishly implicit brand of influence. "We will make him an offer he can't refuse." "Luca Brasi sleeps with the fishes." The Corleones are deadly, but they have style, and they are charmingly indirect, and they are polite (as they shoot you in the back of your head).

But the Gay Mafia is not subtle. The Gay Mafia is screechingly "in your face." "Gay McCarthyism" or "Gay Fascism" strikes me as an even more accurate label. Like the McCarthyites of old, too many gay activists are not so worried about the facts. Just turn up the volume and start screaming accusations.

This exchange between Ray Suarez and Harry Knox (an official from the Human Rights Campaign) on last night's Newshour on PBS with(out) Jim Lehrer, discussing the announcement that Rick Warren will deliver the invocation at Barack Obama's inauguration, is emblematic:

HARRY KNOX: [W]e were profoundly disappointed in the president-elect's pick because he chose someone who is a divisive person, who has attacked our community and attacked our families, families like mine, and called us every horrible thing he can think of.

And that's the person that the president-elect has chosen to represent all of religious thought in America on this most important symbolic day, this very first day of his administration.

For us, it was a real slap in the face that the person who associated people like me and my partner, Mike, my husband, Mike, with bestiality and polygamy and pedophilia, of all things, would be the person that the president-elect would choose.

Say what? Are we talking about the same Rick Warren? Soft and fuzzy, "purpose-driven," compassionate evangelical Rick Warren?

More Harry: This is a person who has fundamentally disrespected people like me on every occasion that he had opportunity. He has, in fact, leveraged homophobia to get ahead in his career. And this is like putting an anti-Semite at the first part of the program and then saying, "Well, we're going to add a rabbi at the end. Won't all the Jews be happy?"

This is the worst possible choice the president-elect could have made. This is a divisive choice, not one that brings America together.

Either you are with us, or you are a Nazi. What bothers me most about the debate over "gay rights" these days is the "intolerance." Too many front-persons for the gay agenda behave like Harry Knox.

There was a time when I was inclined to support gay rights, certainly civil unions, and, at times, even the possibility of gay marriage. I am much less sympathetic to the cause these days. Why? My hunch is that the marriage debate is merely a means to a more significant end. I worry that the Gay Civil Rights Movement is intent on settling for nothing less than total equality, enforced by federal "civil rights" legislation directed at rooting out "discriminators" and "homophobes," wherever they may be.

I am happy to have a public conversation in which "reasonable people can disagree without being disagreeable," to quote the President-elect, but these guys are looking to steamroll the debate by stridently shouting down any dissenting opinion.

I am growing more and more frustrated with the not so "velvet" intimidation.

NOTE on Recent Influences: many thanks to the recent piece by Francis Beckwith in First Things, which helped me to coalesce my thoughts on this matter.

The Pew Forum has completed and released this study of media coverage of religious issues during the presidential campaign.

Religion played a much more significant role in the media coverage of President-elect Barack Obama than it did in the press treatment of Republican nominee John McCain during the 2008 presidential campaign, but much of the coverage related to false yet persistent rumors that Obama is a Muslim.

Meanwhile, there was little attempt by the news media during the campaign to comprehensively examine the role of faith in the political values and policies of the candidates, save for those of Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin.

And when religion-focused campaign stories were covered by the mainstream press, often the context was negative, controversial or focused on a perceived political problem.

The whole article is informative. One conclusion I have: when media types try to investigate religious issues, they become unprepared foreign correspondents.

We had the season's first Christmas program practice at church last night. As usual, it was more-or-less controlled chaos. Squirming little children not listening to directions, teens trying to act cool and not always listening to directions, costumes being tried on while trying to learn to hit the marks on stage--tough to do when your angel costume is stuck on your head. But, by the end of the night the program was beginning to be recognizable. We still have a problem with the bashful Joseph not wanting to look too husbandly toward Mary.

But, by Sunday night we'll be ready--more or less.

Children just naturally disrupt our ordered lives simply by being children.

On Sunday mornings a little before 11am I holler into the sanctuary (it's Oklahoma)--"Time to ring the bell!" The children there on time walk/rush/run to the bell tower to take turns ringing the bell to start the service. Not an orderely start to the worship of the Most High God. But, better now than when I began this practice. Then I'd have to separate pushing, squabbling children wanting to be first in line to pull the bell rope. Did I mention that we open the outside door of the bell tower so we can hear the bell, and so that the kids who want can go outside to see the bell ring? Yes, of course I sometimes must yell at some of the small boys to stay away from the road and get back into the church.

Next the children take turns by Sunday lighting the candles at the front of the church. I follow them in, not always in an orderly procession because a kid who is new automatically gets to light it on his first Sunday. (sotto voice) try to walk side-by-side, OK your candle is now lit, you can put the candle lighter out, now follow her to the back of the church and put the lighter into the holder. (I have one little boy who seems so fascinated by fire that he forgets his moves.)

Somehow, I don't think God minds.

On Sunday night we'll have the Christmas program. Even after three rehearsals there will be some confusion, a bit of chaos. But that's OK. After all, we are celebrating the birth of a child, who brought his own chaos into ordered lives.

You're pregnant? Who's the father? What, I have to ride all the way to Bethlehem on a donkey in my condition? Eleazer, wake up! How could you sleep through the music. Come on, we're all going into Bethlehem! The sheep? They'll be fine for a while, come with us to see the Messiah! You've seen whose star? Quick Mary, we must go to Egypt. Kill all the children you find. Joseph, where's Jesus? I thought he was with you. Help me look for him, he's only 12 you know. . . . Come, follow me, and I'll make you fishers of men.

And we think we can both order our own lives and welcome into them the Holy Child.

Provocative and well said from Francis Beckwith:

"On November 4, 2008, the people of California—in a 52 to 48 percent vote—placed in the state’s constitution an amendment that reaffirmed that marriage consists of one man and one woman. The amendment, Proposition 8, overturned the California Supreme Court’s May 2008 ruling that invalidated a statute that was passed in 2000 in a statewide referendum by a 61 to 39 percent vote. That 2008 opinion held that limiting marriage to one man and one woman, as required in the 2000 statute, violated the equal protection rights of homosexuals under the California constitution.

"Following the Proposition 8 victory, thousands of its opponents protested in a number of California venues including in front of the Mormon Temple in Los Angeles and Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church in Orange County. The rage and anger exhibited toward the Latter-day Saint and Evangelical believers who were present during the protests was palpable. The protesters were clearly blaming their loss on the effort and organizational and financial support of LDS citizens as well as Pastor Warren’s vocal backing for Proposition 8.

"There is a certain irony in seeing those who speak so often of tolerance and understanding using the occasion of a political loss to unleash a torrid of vitriol that no one would ever confuse with tolerance and understanding if the perpetrators were burning crosses or Dixie Chick CDs. And yet the perpetrators in this instance, the losers in the Prop 8 election, do not see it that way. They see the absence of same-sex marriage from our legal regime as a grave injustice that must be remedied by any means necessary. For them, tolerance does not extend to injustice."

Read the entire First Things piece here.

Also, from Politico, "Gay leaders furious with Obama" over selection of Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration.

In light of a former Iowa governor ascending to the head of the Department of Agriculture, I offer this brief basic point:

As a general principle, I am against burning food as fuel.

I love the smell of ocean-water soaked tea in the morning.

Brits at Their Best has the story.