I love this!

As many of you know, I am a loyal reader of National Review. Lots of information…and I always balance the issues by making sure I pick up magazines from the left side of the rack at Barnes and Nobles or Borders.

I have been subscribing for sometime now…and although I am sometimes annoyed, I have never been quite this annoyed.

The March 8th issue had an article titled “The Bells are Ringing” I could not, COULD NOT get past the ignorance within this article. I had to put the magazine down, only to pick it up later in disgust. I read parts of it out loud to Erin…and said I needed to blog about it…but could not bring myself back around to finishing the article. Asshole opinion. So I never finished reading that issue of NR because I could not get past the audacity of this particular author.

So I never saw the fun opinion article in the back pages of the March 8th edition “War Games.” After I came home from visiting John in D.C. (where we played Stratego…) I read this and smiled…and thought about how, how very much this “dad” sounded like what I imagine John to be someday…it also reminded me very much of Lil Brother and myself, playing the game as children. : )

Check the beginning out below. (and then I will get to my outrage of the aforementioned article!)

Sunday afternoon, the eight-year-old knocking around the house. No-one to play with: his pals have relatives over, or are themselves away on family visits. Sister has a play date in the next town, Mom is out shopping. The weather is nice and cold, but the snow is tired, dirty and icy. He is not in the mood for reading, has exceeded his ration of TV for the week, and is bored with the limited supply of computer games we permit him. Dad, will you play Stratego with me?

Dad pulls himself reluctantly away from some on-line exchanges about the Presidents morning TV appearance on Meet the Press. The Stratego board comes out; a screen is erected across the middle; much careful placement of pieces goes on the concentration is intense here then we are ready. The screen is discarded, battle commences.

Tee hee hee. How very ironic, eh?

And on to the Out-rage… (full text of idiot article here!)

As same-sex couples from neighboring jurisdictions and even states besiege San Francisco’s city offices clamoring to be wed, one is half-tempted to grant them what they say they want the stability of lifelong marriage. Suppose same-sex marriages were introduced by legislation that also made divorce much harder to obtain: How many same-sex couples would then be rushing to join San Francisco’s wedding carnival? It is not lifelong commitment that the couples are seeking (except in moments of romantic fantasy), but the revolving door of modern marriage with no-fault divorce…(G)ay marriage would be not a move toward greater stability in homosexual relationships, but just another domino falling in the slow-motion collapse of marriage in the Western world.

Conservatives should advocate three broad principles on the marriage issue. First, marriage should be hard to get out of and if there are children under 16 in the family, it should be very hard to get out of. Second, since society recognizes that marriage is a serious mutual sharing of responsibilities for the lives of others, mainly children, marriage should be given real fiscal and social advantages over the single life and non-marital living arrangements. (Once very substantial, these advantages have atrophied in recent years under the influence of feminism, individualism, and liberal theories of fiscal non-discrimination.) Third, there should be no reforms that seem to grant social or governmental approval for non-marital sexual partnerships.

A few months ago, I suggested that we might end up with three competing institutions: 1) Church marriages, independent of the state, and confined to heterosexual couples, with much stricter rules for divorce than exist in civil marriages; 2) civil marriages, open now to same-sex couples; and 3) household partnerships open to any grouping of people under one roof perhaps a widowed mother and her unmarried son, or two crusty old bachelors sharing a household for convenience, or two lesbians uncertain about the permanence of their relationship. Such partnerships could enjoy certain legal rights, tax arrangements, and rights to hospital visitation and insurance, but the state would take absolutely no interest in the sleeping arrangements of those in the household and there would be no presumption that the households were essentially sexual relationships.

In this scenario, traditional marriage would be entirely in the purview of the churches, in opposition to the radical-modernizing state and traditional marriage could well emerge as the winner from this evolutionary competition, if only because such marriages would tend to produce more children and thus to reproduce themselves.

And this…returns us to the question with which we began: Just how many gay and lesbian couples would sign up for a marriage that really was lifelong? It would be a searching test of consistency. And it would also settle the question of whether gays seeking marriage are seeking public commitment or merely equality of esteem.

Oh. My. GOD! This man is 1. for real…and 2. clueless. CLUELESS! No, lesbians and gays are not seeking the same thing everyone else does…what the F? Seriously. Just say that you think that Homosexuality is evil and against the law of God and I can understand your ignorance. Marriage between aman and a woman, blah blah blah…fine. YOUR defination of marrige is SAFE IN THE CHURCH because your CHURCH would not allow a gay couple to get married…so why the F are you so offended by people who mean nothing to you? Just come out and say that you think homosexuality is wrong. That argument at least makes more sense than to beleive that same-sex couples are not out to seek the same kind of lifelong committments….AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRUGH. So annoying. So very, very annoying.

Whatcha talkin' bout Willis?