List the titles, heliotrope. If they’re sitting on your shelves, it should be an easy task.

My many trips to the gay bookstore in Georgetown is to gauge what the gay community is reading.

I am not inclined to load my academic shotgun with marshmallows. Yes, I have read the books, yes I have spoken widely with gays and straights on the topic. Yes I have an open mind. Hopefully, this will add a bit more hilarity to your day.

Andrew Sullivan certainly is an interesting Prima Donna. It is too bad he has chosen to perfect the craft of polemics. He could have developed a valuable mind.

That’s hilarious. I seriously doubt that you have searched effectively for them, because I can already think of two books on that specific subject of social improvement, and they’re among the best books on arguments for same-sex marriage.

Same-Sex Marriage: Pro and Con by Andrew Sullivan
Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America by Jonathan Rauch

Also Johnathan Rauch, and the folks at the IDF have written numerous articles on the subject from various angles. Careful though, the articles are highbrow compared to this blog.

I have spent a lot of time in a famous gay bookstore in Georgetown and I fully understand how fractured the opinion is among gays on this topic. I have searched for a rational philosophy on why gay marriage would improve society in general and I have found none.

In the final analysis, I think that what happens is up to how gays approach the issue and a fair dose of time. I too suspect it is more than a generation or two away.

The Judeo-Christian ethic permitted slavery until the 1860′s. That ethic has changed. The Judeo-Christian ethic has defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. That has not changed. It lacks the force of an idea whose time has come.

Now here is a digression: Take a careful look at how Sharia allows Islamists to bed children, have sex with animals, marry for an afternoon, divorce with a simple set of three statements, kill women who are raped, and worse. It does not square with the Judeo-Christian ethic upon which Western legal common law is based. At the base of the Islamic problems in Europe is the push to include Sharia as a part of the legal code. I suspect that Islamists outnumber gays in Europe.

Back to your concern: Why should the Judeo-Christian ethic concerning marriage be changed for a gay and not a polygamist or pedophile or a person who is fixed on sex with animals or an Islamist who desires Sharia? What mechanism do you suggest for weighing the merits of each?

You have a very strange view of equality. Apparently, gay marriage has you so frustrated that you have donned the hair-shirt of being a 24/7 victim.

Here is a suggestion. You and your partner find a lesbian couple. You marry woman “a” and your partner marries woman “b.” You need only get together with your “wife” to file taxes. Everybody can honestly wear a wedding band and be legally married.

I do not want to belittle marriage or the desire of gays to have unions. But this constant carping about “equality” is way off track.

I might add that the liberal’s love affair with situation ethics is no different that a cat chasing its own tail. “Right” and “Wrong” do not spring from transitory public opinion. The easiest way to escape the Judeo-Christian ethic is by creating a dictatorship that is benevolent to your point of view. Short of that, you have to come up with an argument that is stronger than a phony-baloney charge that the 14th Amendment is not working.

In candidate interviews on CBS Evening News, Katie Couric asked of each of the presidential candidates: What’s the worst piece of advice you’ve ever been given?

Mr. Giuliani responded that it was friends who told him not to run for Mayor of New York because the city was unmanageable.

After tonight, he might have a different answer. For the individuals who sold him on his Super Tuesday strategy certainly gave him very bad advice.

I think that more than his views on social issues is what will doom him.

Absolutely. I think Iowa was always tricky for Giuliani because of his social views and not competing there was probably a good idea. But New Hampshire could’ve been fertile ground if he had invested the time. Who knows what could’ve happened from there had he won it.

I always thought Mr. Giuliani’s strategy was doomed to failure for one simple reason: Most Americans are not news junkies or political wonks and would fail to realize Giuliani wasn’t just getting his clock cleaned time and again. Additionally, it shut him out of the news cycle, which is always bad.

I know I said as much weeks and months ago, but nobody here believed me. Even so, I didn’t quite expect Giuliani to fair as poorly in the early states as he has thus far. The strategy backfired even more than I anticipated.

Unless he pulls off some sort of miracle tonight (and there’s still the remote chance that early voting might skewer tonight’s result a bit from the expected), my guess is Giuliani drops out tomorrow.

On the abortion issue, I was reminded while in New Hampshire this month that Governor Reagan signed one of the most liberal abortion statutes of his day. Yet somehow, he was ultimately made “acceptable” to that segment of the electorate when push came to shove. The poll watcher I was speaking with (who reminded me of RR’s earlier stance on abortion) also thought RG had erred in adopting his superTuesday-ish strategy.

I’m not too worried about Giuliani on abortion and other domestic issues or national security –but I am concerned that he’s 189 pounds of pure, unrestrained ego. Anyone who will ditch family, ditch wives, run roughshod over our strongest social contract relationships for HIS self interest brings on a far greater set of concerns to me than all the fomenting binLadens in the world. But then, SlickWillie proved to us all that an unrestrained self-interested egohead can govern effectively… whether or not we (Republicans) want to admit it. I know, RG isn’t SlickWillie on a whole lot of levels… but still that unrestrained ego and impulse to advantage self-interest over other issues makes me a tad nervous about RG as Prez.

Character matters in politics. Then, it’s all about good hair, teeth and a nice tie… it’s why JohnEdwards has been able to stay in for so long after he’s toast.

Nice piece on Rudy, Dan.

Please explain to the owners of this blog why they aren’t as good as you are.

Yes, I know there are homophobic Democrats. Duh.

As for tearing down 1000 years of tradition, wouldn’t that have been a good argument for keeping segregation in place? If your only argument is “this is how it’s always been” then that’s a weak one. A lot of things that always were were wrong and needed to be changed.

No the difference between liberal and conservative in America is that liberals see something as wrong if they would feel it was wrong if it applied to them. Conservatives only see things as wrong WHEN they apply to them. It’s why gay conservatives are never going to get anywhere inside the GOP. Sorry but they just aren’t. It’s hard enough to make progress in the Democratic party but at least there is some movement and progress. It’s certainly not perfect but it is getting better.

No I do not, in spite of what some of you think, completely define myself as being gay. However, I can’t have respect for someone who thinks I am not their equal. Yes I believe in equality when it comes to civil rights and how the law treats citizens. I’m proud of that belief actually and I think it’s one that most Americans share.

As late as Thanksgiving, Mr. Giuliani was leading in polls in South Carolina, Nevada and Michigan, was running second in New Hampshire, and placing third in Iowa. Still, he chose not to compete in a wide open field, settling instead for 4th, 5th and 6th place finishes. It was a grave mistake that is likely to bear it’s final bitter fruit tomorrow night.

And though Mr. Giuliani’s campaign is likely to end soon, his presence in the race will endure. For his ability to persuade NY, NJ and CT to award it’s delegates on a winner-take-all basis is still likely to play a decisive role in determining the Republican nominee. However, Mr. Giuliani is not destined to be the beneficiary. That man is Senator John Sidney McCain III.

Suffice to say that I would rather be around people who judge me for WHO I am rather than for WHAT I am. That’s why I’m a Republican who just happens to be homosexual.

Anyhoo, thanks guys for making my point.

Regards,
Peter H.

Thanks guys. I hope and pray (literally) for the best for all of us. Sometimes, we get all flustered over mountains that won’t get out of our way, but that only means it is time to get out a teaspoon and start digging. Meanwhile, remember not to throw the dirt on someone else’s shoes.

Thanks again for the kind words.