Readers on SSM. Miss California, Miss Conservative. Bev Gunn’s Diary.
PART I: CARRIE
Re: George Neumayr ‘s My Left Breast: The Carrie Prejean Story:
It is unbelievable how wretched and wormy the liberal media have been regarding Carrie Prejean ‘s comments regarding same sex marriage. Here she was expressing the views of probably over 90 percent of Americans, to wit (1) America is a great country because opposing views are allowed, protected even. (2) But for her, she was brought up as a Christian and guides her life on those precepts, and thus (3) She believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
Fortunately Donald Trump put it all in perspective by noting that she was saying nothing more that what President Obama has said about the same subject!
But no, the liberal media has demonized her and represented her views as not deserving of rational discourse and have relegated her to the back of the bus. Their viciousness and disgraceful criticism is indicative only of their total lack of fairness and balance, precepts which they claim to practice and possess in abundance.
Their meanness and nasty elitism bring to mind Lucious Malfoy ‘s ultimate putdown — she ‘s just a Mugblut, what would you expect?
Most of America has read about Malfoy, and his offspring, who
indeed do not reflect the inherent fairness of 90% of the
characters in Ms. Rowling ‘s books. Or, I daresay, of Americans
— Larry M. Southwick
North Avondale, Ohio
The saddest outcome of this whole episode is that millions of
culturally-deprived Americans like me now know who Perez Hilton
is. I thought s/he was a celebrity bimbo famous for amateur
pornography. Imagine my shock and disappointment! To plagiarize
the MSNBC writers who script the words that David Shuster reads,
“Can I vomit right now?”
— Dan Martin
PART II: A BRAD ARGUMENT
Re: Brad Nelson ‘s letter (under “Give Me Marriage Equality, Or Give Me Death”) in Reader Mail’s States’ Rights:
I am sure that Brad Nelson is being sincere when imploring conservatives to support gay marriage in the name of personal freedom. Unfortunately, he employs the recurring and dreary argumentation long suffering conservatives are all too familiar with: “if you were a REAL conservative, you would…”
Mr. Nelson ‘s overall point is that those conservatives who oppose gay marriage aren ‘t willing to face their own “ideological inconsistency.” Either one charges into the fray mounted on his mighty stead in under the flag of “personal freedom” or claim kinship with the same colorful folk who chop off the heads of uppity women and won ‘t let you check out a Playboy from your local library.
“I didn ‘t know that American conservatism was based on cranking out as many kids as you could. I thought it was based on freedom.”
Well, Mr. Nelson, two thoughts. Ok. Many thoughts.
First of all, most conservatives I know — especially the religiously observant — like babies. The more the merrier, by some lights. We would even go so far as to say that, however much one disapproves of promiscuity, children are the positive consequence from an otherwise illicit activity. There is even a spiritual benefit in having children. No matter what hot stuff you think you are, there is nothing so humbling and humiliating as raising a child who thinks they know better than you. (And eventually, every child does.) It is so good for one ‘s soul that we recommend it for everyone. Shaping tradition and public policy for the nourishment and multiplication of children is not necessarily such a bad thing.
Personal freedom is a Conservative principle — but it is hardly the only one. The preservation and construction of a humane social order is another. ( Note: humane — not perfect) Indeed, for any “conservative” society three principles must be pursued: order, justice and freedom. The balance of these principles is the stuff of self-government and moral creativity. Of these, (gasp!) order comes first for the simple reason that without order there can be no justice or freedom. Without order one only has a world of tooth and claw.
For humane order to be established and maintained, the state is never enough nor is it competent. In large areas of social community, state intervention and management is counter-productive. Free institutions with their own priorities and influence (sometimes at odds with the state) provide the accumulated wisdom from those who came before, an authority for moral courage, and protection from those who would wield raw, coercive power to have others to serve their aims.