The Academy |
|
|
Blogging about nothing.
E-mail The Academy!
20 Questions for Howard Bashman Our Favorite Blogs How Appealing Bag and Baggage Patent Pending JURIST's Paper Chase i hate stupid people BusBlog Rabbit Blog The Reverse Cowgirl Kitty Bukkake < ? law blogs # > 
Disclaimer: The views expressed at The Academy are those of the contributors only and not of our employers, friends, parents, or siblings. Or anyone else for that matter. We are responsible for our own musings. 
Archives 
|
Wednesday, July 30, 2003
Comments, Please? Here's what President Bush said today about the gays: Q Thank you, sir. Mr. President, many of your supporters believe that homosexuality is immoral. They believe that it's been given too much acceptance in policy terms and culturally. As someone who's spoken out in strongly moral terms, what's your view on homosexuality? THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I am mindful that we're all sinners, and I caution those who may try to take the speck out of their neighbor's eye when they got a log in their own. I think it's very important for our society to respect each individual, to welcome those with good hearts, to be a welcoming country. On the other hand, that does not mean that somebody like me needs to compromise on an issue such as marriage. And that's really where the issue is heading here in Washington, and that is the definition of marriage. I believe in the sanctity of marriage. I believe a marriage is between a man and a woman. And I think we ought to codify that one way or the other. And we've got lawyers looking at the best way to do that. OK, I have one comment and one question. Comment: OW!!! I've got a log in my eye!!!!! Question: What does he mean by "somebody like me"? Does he mean "President"? Does he mean "Christian"? Does he mean, as I suspect he does, "non-freak"? Help. I must know your thoughts. Just now, though, I'm off to the emergency room to get this log removed from my eye. Is this as dumb as I think it is? I mean, don't we all agree that the Framers had themselves some slaves and so originalists around the Dred Scott era had themselves a bit of a hard time getting around that were it not for the 13th and 14th amendments and stuff? That is not to say that hysterical law professors don't squeal "DRED SCOTT" whenever the court does something they personally feel is dumb. They do. High-pitched hysterical squeals of "DRED SCOTT" or "PLESSY V. FERGUSON" were heard a lot around Bush v. Gore's announcement -- for no good reason, of course, except that the squealers were trying to get people as excited and outraged as they were. So that's bad. This commentary is really no better than those knee-jerk hysterics that it targets. Its just saying "Dred Scott = BAD originalism, Scalia dissent in Lawrence = GOOD originalism." Thanks, Dude. Damn illuminating. And HUZZAH to IA's return.  
|