Opponents of California’s Proposition 8 claim that in taking issue with those who favor the traditional definition of marriage, they’re standing against hate (or H8, as some put it).  And while, to be sure, there has been some mean-spirited rhetoric from supporters of the successful ballot initiative, the bulk of the hatred in this debate has come from those opposing the initiative.

In an article in yesterday’s Business section, even the New York Times acknowledged as much:

FOR the backers of Proposition 8, the state ballot measure to stop single-sex couples from marrying in California, victory has been soured by the ugly specter of intimidation.

Some donors to groups supporting the measure have received death threats and envelopes containing a powdery white substance, and their businesses have been boycotted.

In her post linking the article, Michelle Malkin asks, “What took” the supposed paper of record “so damn long?”

I would offer that it upsets their narrative, that the ugly tactics of intimidation are supposed to come from social conservatives, in this case, those opposing gay marriage and not the supposedly progressive advocates of social change..

Now, I don’t hold all gay marriage advocates responsible for the mean-spirited tactics of the most extreme supporters. Indeed, I don’t even hold most protesters responsible, provided they did not carry hateful posters or shout mean-spirited epithets.

That said, it would be nice if they could distance themselves from such tactics by condemning them and pressing for a civil and serious discussion of the meaning of marriage and the imperative of the state recognition of same-sex marriages.

By standing against these angry and juvenile tactics, they would help show not only that they are serious about having that conversation, but also about the importance of extending the benefits and responsibilities of that ancient institution to same-sex couples.

Why are they so afraid to condemn the mean-spirited tactics and rhetoric?  Does it upset their narrative too?  Or, are do they approve of such tactics?

ADDENDUM: If you can provide links to any gay groups or blogs condemning these tactics and/or rhetoric, I will link them in this post.

As I was reading the epilogue to Joseph J. Ellis’s Passionate Sage: The Character and Legacy of John Adams, I chanced on something that great man said in 1812 (in a letter to Benjamin Rush) which could well apply to the Democrats’ spendthrift “stimulus” and its impact on American politics.

“When a party grows Strong and feels its power, it becomes intoxicated, grows presumptuous and extravagant and breaks to pieces.”

The more people know about the “stimulus,” the more they will see the Democrats for what they are, using this “crisis” as an excuse to enact their agenda, expanding the size and scope federal government even when there is no popular support for their statist endeavors.

Of course that expression could be used to describe Republicans in 2005.  And look what happened the following year.

We need to become more like Milton Friedman in the clip below, defending capitalism coolly with confidence and humor. And not giving in to the assumptions of our intellectual adversaries.

(H/t Instapundit).

Remember how President Obama promised to make his Administration transparent?

He promised to publish all “non-emergency” legislation on the White House web-site for five days to allow the public time “to review and comment before the President signs it.” Wonder if he did that that with executive orders which dramatically reduce the number of contractors eligible to bid for federal contracts.

As Senators burn the midnight oil find ways to spend money we don’t have, shouldn’t the president request that they follow through on his promise of transparency?

Instead of rushing to get pass legislation of this magnitude, more expensive than the Iraq War (and Congress voted numerous times to fund the war), giving the public time to review and comment before their legislators vote on it.

At absolute minimum, wait until after the next congressional recess, giving Members of Congress and Senators have had a chance to return to their jurisdictions to solicit the input of their constituents before putting together a final package.

To promote such openness, Bruce and I have signed on to this letter, asking Senator Reid and President Obama to:

. . . publish the full legislative text of the compromise immediately, and furthermore, to delay any vote on the bill for at least five days following publication. The American public deserves time to read and understand the substance of this critical legislation, and to express their views to their Senators.

UPDATE: Claire Shipman nicely sums up the pro-”stimulus” argument:  “given that nobody knows the outcome, it seems as though the most important thing is speed here.“  Oh, and Shipman’s an ABC News correspondent, not a Democratic hack or Administration flack.

Looking into the $200 billion bailout of state governments contained in the “stimulus,” Fred Barnes “talked to state treasurers from Indiana, Nebraska, and Mississippi last week. They said their states don’t need the money.”

Hmm. . . three financially solvent states in this time of economic woe, where other jurisdictions have shortfalls which their respective executives are attributing not to their policies, but to the economy.  How then do these states manage not to need a federal bailout?

Maybe we should look at the policies of those states’ governors, all three of them Republicans.