Defenders of Sen. Johnson strike back

When I say that the so-called "gay agenda" is really a leftist agenda that has nothing to do with sexual orientation, this is what I have in mind. I recieved this email, "Hands off Sen. Johnson (OR yet another example how the US lags behind its more civilized allies!!)," (which mistakenly assumes that becasue I criticize Dean Johnson for "embellishing" the truth, I MUST support DOMA), that leaps from same-sex marriage to a whole host of left-wing causes. The assumption is, attacking Johnson for impugning the court is wrong, becasue he suuports a good cause.

Unless you've been in a cave for the last few years, you should be well aware that Canada & Britain are light-years ahead of the US in giving homosexual couples their badly-needed due--while our country, in its infinite wisdom, continues to pursue the woefully infantile gay marriage ban! But then, what do you expect when--w/apologies to one of your heros, Jeane Kirkpatrick--we always trail all our allies! Yes whether child care, infant mortality, life expectancy, or income distribution (US exec's make 400x entry-level works, vs. 22x in Europe or 11x in Japan) we can always count on the US to set up a poor example. And let's not forget pulling out of Kyoto & the ICC, as well as our being the only industruialzed nation to execute prisoners--putting us right up there w/Iraq under Saddam!!!

A little cruder, perhaps, but this comment is essentially no different than that made by Ember Reichgott Junge on "At Issue" this past Sunday. She led off a debate with David Strom of the Taxpayer’s League praising Johnson for his apology for a poorly worded comment, noting that it took Dick Cheney four days to say anything about shooting someone. Not that the two are connected, but she has an agenda to push.

Strom responded to the question and jumped right into the fact that Johnson had and was continuing to change his story -- “He lied.” This took Junge somewhat by surprise, that Strom was being so blunt. Her immediate retort was that if Strom were going to go down that road then she was going to, and she did, talk about how despicable and hate-mongering supporters of the amendment are. Again, how does Junge’s response relate to the significance of Johnson’s comments? It doesn’t. But as Strom notes on his blog --

I suspect that from her point of view, she was responding to what she saw as name calling, but another way to view this turn was to suggest that any means used to defeat the marriage amendment would be acceptable because liberals are right and their opponents are wrong.

Patrick Campion asked me last Saturday on "The Patriot" if I'd heard the "fake but accurate" argument yet. At the time, I hadn't, but here it is in a comment on a liberal blog --

But unlike most of what the Prez says, the crux of Dean Johnson's remarks are TRUE: Minnesota judges do have to face the voters in elections. They know what that means should they decide that DOMA is unconstitutional.

Dean Johnson spoke a truth the religious right doesn't want Minnesotans to think about.

In other words, the judges that the religious right is afraid are unethical and will overturn DOMA are indeed unethical, but because they want to be reelected and WON'T overturn DOMA. If this is the extent of the trust we have in the Courts, then its "Annie get your gun." We have no rule of law.

Other examples are starting to emerge. Bottomline, ultimately a free society works only when people are willing to put aside temporary self-interest for what is really in their rationale self-interest. That requires making a determination about "right" and "wrong" and not excusing the latter because the cause is "just."

Update: Add this comment to the list. And thanks to Kennedy v. The Machine for this, although I don't know what they mean by "perhaps."