Thus harried, I must also note this from Goldberg's follow-up at The Corner, regarding his own fudgy pronouncement on gay marriage ("Personally, I have always felt that gay marriage was an inevitability, for good or ill [most likely both]. I do not think that the arguments against gay marriage are all grounded in bigotry, and I find some of the arguments persuasive, fart fart"):
The first is the complaint that I rely on the crutch of “inevitability.” As a couple readers put it, National Review writers, of all people, shouldn’t be talking about “inevitability.” We’re the ones who stand athwart inevitability yelling, “Stop.”Did I just have a tiny stroke, or is Goldberg saying that he thinks it's so because he thinks it's so?
I like the point and I think it’s a fair one to some extent. But all I can say in my defense is that I think I’m right about the inevitability of gay marriage or at least very strong civil unions (which would ultimately lead to gay marriage, anyway). I don’t take this position because I’m dodging, or caving, or playing games of some kind. I just happen to think it’s true (barring some scientific developments down the road). Moreover, as I suggest in my column today, I don’t consider inevitability to be synonymous with conservative defeat and liberal victory, because what we mean by such things can be a lot more complicated than what the daily chatter reduces them too.
Also, what "scientific developments" might stand in the way of gay marriage? Could he be talking about the "gay gene" concept that has been knocking around for years? (I guess then conservatives would start advocating increased medical research funding and abortion. Wow, he's right, this could be complicated!) Or maybe he has advance word on a paper from the Discovery Institute proving homosexuals caused the Ice Age.
No comments:
Post a Comment