Marriage is for Radicals

August 5, 2003

Today we find that our Alice in Wonderland writeress is being slowly strangled by the fingers of her own conformity.  Like Pauline Kael, who in 1972 said that she didn’t know one person who voted for Nixon, we see that Dowd lives and breathes among isolated leftward brigands who know no more about America than a band of kazoo playing Martians.

Her new column is a show trial of offensiveness and is called “Butch, Butch, Bush”.  It concerns President Bush’s arguments against gay marriage.  She opens with, “[t]he president and the pope aren't riding the new gay wave.”  My response to this is “thank the Lord!”  Maureen is clearly irritated at Bush’s lack of devotion to the nouveau. 

She further takes issue with Bush and is angry over his stating: “I believe a marriage is between a man and a woman and I think we ought to codify that one way or the other.”  This is dirty cosmetics to Dowd, as it implies an ethical standard and ethical standards are exactly the sort of thing hip journalists like Maureen view as McCarthian, anti-fashionian, and anti-sexinthecitian.

When one is an effete Manhattan leftist, you must give in to victim groups.  To not do so is to declare war on all humanity (not to mention daytime television and the New York theatre district).  If one does not bend over for the gay power mafia then it’s apartheid all over again.  Fear not though, Dowd has earned the respect of the trendy with today’s column.  It will undoubtedly earn her a pink badge of courage with its golden shower of outrage against the president for his stand against gays redecorating our public square.

Incidentally, magnificent arguments against gay marriage can be found in The Weekly Standard.   Two of them, "What Marriage is For" and the sensational “Beyond Gay Marriage” by Stanley Kurtz, have just been posted online.  I believe that Kurtz’s is the best essay I’ve read on the topic. 

Unlike Dowd, I believe that Bush should be commended for his stance.  Our society is declining rapidly.  If we erode many more taboos there will not be a society left to discuss.  Already we hear pedophilia described with the euphemism of “intergenerational relationships.”  Soon we’ll hear criminals defend themselves with the claim of “practicing alternative methods of goodness.”  Our elites now believe in never judging anybody or anyone (unless they are on the right or male) and this is teaching our young that there is no such thing as right and wrong.  I say that we should return to judging everyone as much as possible.  Our brains were made for judgment and determination.  Let us continue to use them. 

Any stand a politician takes against the gay hyper-rights movement and its Siamese  radical feminist twin, benefits the populace.  These are clearly two of the most destructive political forces in our land.  If more politicians acted like President Bush then there wouldn’t be discriminatory legislation that has created our hate crime laws and sexual harassment industry. 

Back to the work of the troglodite, she makes a gratuitous assault on religion, which should surprise no readers of The New York Times.  She says, “The Vatican, always eager to erase lines between church and state, warned Catholic lawmakers it would be ‘gravely immoral’ to vote for gay marriage or gay adoption. Such preaching seems tinny coming after revelations about the scope of homosexuality in the priesthood.” 

The Vatican never endorsed homosexuality or pedophilia among its priests, but Dowd implies that the Vatican itself was complicit in the scandals (incidentally, the phenomena of homosexual priests is thoroughly answered in Michael Rose’s excellent, Goodbye, Good Men).  What has infuriated our columnist though is that the church hierarchy believes it has the right to influence the behavior of its flock.  It’s as if Dowd is pounding her granola bar on the table and screaming, “That’s not fair!  Only The NYT can try to influence its flock!”

One must realize that the only Catholics who meet Dowd’s test for tolerance are those like John Kerry and Ted Kennedy who are CINO, Catholic in Name Only.  These are Catholic politicians who would never let church doctrine get in the way of their servicing pro-abortion, pro-sodomy, and anti-private school constituencies. 

As in so many columns in the past, Dowd once again uses men as her eternal bogeyman.  We learn that President Bush’s sex is the real problem here.  She wishes he’d “abandon his 50's world of hyper masculinity.”  To Dowd, anybody who disagrees with her about anything is merely exhibiting a false sexuality.  It’s hyper masculinity that saved her weathered, beaten body from the vultures circling New York city after 9/11, and it’s hyper masculinity that saves thousands every day from fires, floods, and criminals.  Should Dowd ever be pinned under a trolley car, I wonder if she’ll look for hyper masculinity to rescue her or instead whether she’ll call the local branch of NOW to conduct marches against the trolley cars and their patriarchal sidings.  We know the answer.

Besides, if having principles and standards are tied into the 1950’s then let’s try to learn from the decade and create a better and fairer one for the present.  Dowd wants Bush to get with the program.  Maureen views the United States as “go[ing] gay and metrosexual (straight men with femme tastes like facials). Even the uptight Wal-Mart stores have expanded antidiscrimination policy to protect gay employees, and Bride's magazine is offering its first feature on same-sex weddings.”  How can President Bush resist a trend?  After all, Maureen has been following every societal shift for fifty-some years and look at where it’s gotten her.  If we read between the lines of her statement we’ll see that she confuses Wal-Mart’s creation of gay preference procedures with anti-discrimination policy.  What Wal-Mart and other corporations have done is to make gays sacred cows and place them above other employees.  “Gay rights” is coded language for “more goodies for the faithful.” 

The next part of her column I know readers will suspect I made up, but Maureen then asks a gay friend to offer fashion advice to members of the Bush Administration.  This is so she can  emulated her favorite show, “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.”   She truly is the poster child for all things airy and devoid of meaning.  Her gay friend says about President Bush, “Cowboy boots are fine for a certain kind of saucy backyard barbecue. But wearing them as often as he does, with those big belt buckles in the shape of Texas, it seems like he's trying too hard to prove his masculinity.” 

When in doubt scum like that attack masculinity.  It’s like giving the ball to Walter Payton.  They’ll do it thirty times in a discussion.  What would Dowd or her gay friend actually know about “proving masculinity?”  Not a thing.  Masculinity can be proved in seconds with little effort.  I will now prove mine: “I think logically; therefore, I am masculine.”  End of story, no boots or accessories needed!  If you can follow a logical line, manliness is proven without question. 

Dowd closes by having her mouthpiece, Captain Dickie, insult President Bush by labeling him a part-time metro sexual: “Everything else about him just shouts `Butch, butch, butch!' But to throw Bush a metrosexual bone, whenever you see him walking off Air Force One with that little furball Barney under his arm, that canine puff of air that most drag queens wouldn't be caught dead with, it's like he's halfway to a Chanel rabbit fur handbag.”

This statement is so reprehensible it’s hard to imagine it appearing anywhere other than The NYT  (if you want to read my topical piece on metrosexuals it’s right here).  I guess if “you have nothing to say, say nothing at the top of your lungs” is their policy.  There is clearly a silver lining here though.  With opponents like these, Bush will win reelection by ten percent or more in 2004.  Keep talking boys, you’re doing us a world of good.  

Dowd’s column is weak gruel to be sure, but she accidentally does the unthinkable, she legitimates the American enterprise and the wonder of our splendid shores because only in the freest country in the world can a citizen malign their leader like this without repercussion.  Make use of Dowd’s hate speech the next time you hear someone say we live in a police state. 

Bernard Chapin