As a political reporter for a mainstream media network, John Berman is presumably a liberal. His blog post today corroborates our speculation: he has no sense of humor, and apparently holds a seething bias against Rick Santorum by looking for a gaffe when there wasn’t one. Or maybe he’s just dense.
In what he characterizes as “Santorum’s Football Fumble,” he reports the following:
Rick Santorum sprinted into Akron, Ohio this week before checking the playbook. A few miles from the Cleveland Brown’s home turf, Santorum attempted to start a pep rally for the Pittsburgh Steelers. His revelry call, ‘Is this Steelers country?’ was met with boos from the crowd. One of the first rules of campaigning…know where you are.
Uh, John, he was teasing the crowd, as you can obviously see by his facial expression in the video you link. Santorum is from Pennsylvania, home of the Pittsburgh Steelers, arch-rival to the Browns. He was making a joke, and a pretty good one at that.
I provided a link to an amusing, if perhaps troubling, case-in-point of the inevitable evolution of gay “marriage” in my last post.
I made the point that I don’t really mind gay “marriage,” in fact, because it shouldn’t be any of the government’s business how consenting adults interact with one another and how they choose to characterize their interaction. But I also share the blindingly obvious observation that traditional marriage promotes modern civilization, so gay “marriage” would tend to undermine modern civilization. The only thing that bothers me about gay “marriage” is that for the loudest proponents, that is the whole point—gay “marriage” is part of a coherent, multi-pronged strategy by the left to undermine the Judeo-Christian, Western, and American values that have been prerequisites of our prosperity.
The left has an agenda of destruction—whose weapons include socialism, multiculturalism, political correctness, destruction of the family, moral relativism, secular humanism, and promotion of mind-altering substances, among many others—which it has largely achieved over the past 50 years by taking control of schools and universities, the media, foundations, and popular culture.
No doubt many gay couples get married for the same reasons that straight people get married. But there is also no doubt that some do it (as a hint, we can start with all of those who insist on making public spectacles of themselves) more out of a political or cultural agenda.
The normal arguments go like this:
Conservative: Gay “marriage” denigrates the traditional, irreducible construct of marriage. If we allow gay “marriage,” then what’s next? Three people will want to get “married,” or six people and two goats, or a man and his television.
Liberal: That’s ridiculous. You are advancing preposterous scenarios in an effort to win an argument over a legitimate issue. Everyone knows that gay “marriages” have the same features as straight marriages: two committed spouses caring for each other, raising children, and committing to each other for life.
I can’t think of any other issue on which societal opinion has moved so rapidly from a seemingly time-tested viewpoint to a radically different one as gay “marriage.” And, unfortunately, the results have not been pretty—those who fear the destruction of traditional marriage have had plenty to substantiate their worries.
For example, a recent advice column in Slate, which I had to pay close attention to because I first assumed that it was a parody, mentions identical-twin brothers who can finally remove the secrecy surrounding their incest because “we live in a state where same-sex marriage is legal, so we’re getting pressure to settle down.” There are more and more stories like this—various “non-traditional,” even morally repugnant, relationships seeing a ray of light pointing towards legitimacy.
I actually am not really bothered by gay “marriage”; I would prefer that government not be in the business of trying to define, regulate, or intervene at all in any relationship among consenting adults.