Along with Jonathan Rauch, Dale Carpenter is one of those rare advocates of gay marriage who can make a compelling case for “this expansion of the meaning of marriage” (as the editors of the LA Times puts it) to a conservative audience. (Basically, if you see Dale’s name on a column, just read the piece.)

Going through my accumulated e-mail (and finally emptying out all my e-mail boxes), I discovered a draft of a column Dale had written two weeks ago on the impact of the California Supreme Court decision mandating the Golden State recognize same-sex marriages. When I wrote him to commend him on the piece, he wrote back, pointing out that it (long since) been published.

Observing that “proposed amendment [defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman] was going to be on the ballot in November anyway,” Dale finds the “the main effect of the court’s decision has been to change the context in which the vote will occur:”

The question is, what effect will this reality have on voters? On the one hand, whatever they think of gay marriage, some voters may feel that it would be unfair to strip existing married couples of their rights. Voters may also be reassured by seeing that nothing bad happens when gay couples wed.

On the other hand, seeing gay couples actually marry may anger some voters. The sight of two men or two women kissing, no matter how joyous the occasion to those involved, is still shocking to a lot of people. They may vote “yes” as a way to stave off what they see as growing decadence and immorality. Five months just isn’t a lot of time to normalize what people have spent their entire lives believing is abnormal.

Other voters will be angry at what they see as judicial activism and vote “yes” as a way to rebuke the courts.

It’s impossible to predict now what the net political effect of all these gay nuptials will be. But it is possible to say what the stakes are.

Rather than have me tell you how Dale sees the stakes, click here and read it yourself. You may not agree with everything he has to say, but you will agree he understands the potential impact of the Supreme Court ruling — and the ballot initiative.

In a post this morning, I noted that Andrew Sullivan called General Wesley Clark’s recent attacks on John McCain “revolting” and “repulsive.” He wasn’t the only one to take on the favorite general of the Clintons.

In addition to Senator John Warner, former Secretary of the Navy, Admiral Leighton “Snuffy” Smith (USN Retired), Colonel Bud Day, USAF (Ret.), the most decorated American service member since General Douglas MacArthur, Rear Admiral Tom Lynch, USN (Ret.), numerous other retired officers and enlisted men have challenged the Obama supporter’s mean-spirited remarks.

Lynch summarized the remarks of his fellow officers when he said:

For anyone to challenge John McCain’s service to this country is an insult, particularly when it comes from the Obama campaign. John McCain’s life has been defined by putting his country before anything else. If Barack Obama is serious about his promises for a new kind of politics, he can start by denouncing these attacks that are unworthy of anyone who seeks to be the next Commander in Chief.

It’s not just retired military officials.

Blogger Ed Morrissey sees this attack as part of the Obama campaign’s strategy. Taking note of the charges Clark leveled against the presumptive GOP nominee, Morrissey writes:

Not only can every argument Clark made get applied more to Obama than to McCain, he has now made it clear that the Obama strategy is to demean and belittle McCain’s military service — and by extension, military service in general.

Via JammieWearingFool who, in the update which links Morrissey also links AJ Strata’s impassioned takedown of John Aravosis’s angry and hateful attacks on John McCain.

Unless Barack Obama publicly denounces General Clark for his broadside on the presumptive Republican nominee, he will be giving tacit approval to this latest smear campaign against his rival for the White House.

The more attacks I see from the left the more convinced I become that theirs is a party of hate. Remember those bumper stickers liberals sported in the 1990s, “Hate is Not a Family Value.” Maybe we conservatives should start sporting ones that say, “Hate is not an American Value.”

I think the term one blogger has used to describe what Aravosis and his cohorts are doing in attacking McCain: swiftblogging. I think I might start using that a little more often.

UPDATE: Obama disowns critique of McCain’s Military Record. Not clear whether Clark will continue to speak for the campaign.

When working on his piece on presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain’s letter supporting Proposition 8 which would enshrine the traditional definition of marriage in the California constitution, LA Weekly writer Patrick Range McDonald contacted me for a comment on this decision.

As I considered my response, I came up with something a little longer than the sound-byte he may have sought. Given the time I took to craft the statement, I decided to include it below, but first wanted to comment on some of the things McDonald said in his article. Even though I don’t agree with everything he has to say (indeed take issue with the general thrust of his argument), I recommend you read in its entirety. He makes some good points and does so in a civil manner.

It’s nice to see a gay writer take on a Republican without the bile we are accustomed to see in such opinion pieces.

McCain may well, as McDonald puts it, be “making a national political play for fundamentalist Christians,” but the Arizona Senator has hardly blown any opportunity on the marriage issue, as McDonald suggests. Many people oppose gay marriage without harboring animosity toward gay people. The Hartford Courant noted as much in its article on gay marriage as the Connecticut legislature considered the state’s landmark civil unions legislation.

Simpy put, many people understand marriage as it has long been understood as the union of one man and one woman. And John McCain has been very clear to say he supports the traditional definition. In doing so, the presumptive Repubican nominee has also made clear his support of federalism and has refrained from attacking gay people as have all too many advocates of traditional marriage.

I focused on that in the statement I sent to McDonald (which I reprint here because he could not possibly have included all my thoughts in his post):

Obviously, I’d rather McCain had remained silent on the California ballot initiative on marriage. While he has shown a willingness to meet with gay people and showed some sensitivity to our concerns, he is not perfect on issues of concern to the gay community.

Remember, this is a man who attended the funeral of Mark Bingham, a gay man and hero of United Flight 93, and who wished Ellen DeGeneres “every happiness” in her relationship with Portia de Rossi. Indeed, in that interview, he, unlike some opponents of gay marriage, showed an understanding some of the basic issues involved in state recognition of marriage.

While, I — and many other gay Americans — applaud Senator McCain for leading the fight against a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage, we have long known he does not support state recognition of gay marriage. In 2006, he backed the Arizona ballot initiative which would not only have prevented the state from recognizing gay marriage, but would have also barred civil unions, a measure far more draconian than the one on this fall’s Golden State ballot limiting marriage to its traditional definition.

Support for such a measure is not inconsistent with opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment. He had opposed the latter because it would bar states from defining marriage. John McCain believes states should decide these issues. Right now, he’s just saying he believe the people of California should decide this issue — and not the courts.

Shortly after posting my piece wondering if the sensible Andrew Sullivan were returning, I checked his blog a little more regularly as had been my wont in recent months. It seemed I had a little premature in heralding the return of the blogger who was once my favorite.

While Andrew still did occasionally offer insightful observations from time to time, he was too often cheerleading Obama or demonizing W, seeming ever careful to avoid offending his new left-wing fan base. Today, he seems to be trying to split the difference.

When checking the referrals on our sitemeter, I found we had a lot of incoming links from Andrew’s blog; he had linked my first Heller piece. While at his blog, I was delighted to see that he had taken on General Wesley Clark for attacking John McCain’s military record, calling the one-time Clinton supporter’s comments “revolting” and “repulsive.”

He’s right. Clark’s attack is that low. It shows how far the left will go to demonize John McCain, seeking to destroy any chances that good man has to win the presidency.

Unfortunately, Andrew call Clark’s attacks “swiftboating” to compare them to the ads the Swift Vets and POWs for Truth aired in the 2004 presidential campaign criticizing then-Democratic nominee John Kerry. Theirs was hardly a hit job as Kerry and his supporters have yet been able to to disprove anything in those ads.

So, while we see some signs of the old Andrew Sullivan returning, the “new Andrew” is careful to couch his criticism in terms that shows his continued commitment to castigating conservatives.

UPDATE: Glenn Reynolds disagrees with charges that John McCain is being “Swift Boated:”

For this to be a “Swift Boating,” people who stayed at the Hanoi Hilton would have to say that McCain was lying about what he did there — or perhaps that his repeated claims that events there were “seared, seared” in his memory are false, and he was never actually there at all — and those people would have to be telling the truth.

My silence from the blog this coming week will be intentional as PatriotPartner and I pack up the gas-guzzling 1999 Ford Explorer and head to the South Carolina beaches.   The great part about this vacation — PatriotPuppies are coming with us.  Yep, we have a dog-friendly cottage right on the beach.   Hopefully I will post pics next weekend.

Anyway, enjoy the week.  And everyone have a happy Fourth of July.

Just do me a favor.  In between the hot dogs and hamburgers, remember what it is all about. 

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

And don’t take it for granted… since most of the rest of the world’s population isn’t as half as blessed as we are.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)