Posted on 04/01/2004 12:00:11 PM PST by mrustow
The New York Times is not pleased with New York City Mayor Michael ("Mayor Mike") Bloomberg. In a March 11 house editorial, "Mayor Bloomberg's Commitment Issue," the newspaper in so many words demanded that Bloomberg embrace same-sex marriage, and begin personally officiating at same-sex weddings in the mayoral residence of Grace Mansion, forthwith. Or else.
"He doesn't officiate at weddings at Gracie Mansion, a previously time-honored tradition for mayors of New York. And it seems that he has a problem committing on the issue of gay marriage.
"In the month or so since performing same-sex marriages became a point of civil disobedience for a handful of other American mayors, Mr. Bloomberg has tried to deflect interest in his personal opinion of the debate. He said the city simply enforced the law made in Albany, which does not allow such unions. Go there to get the law changed, he told critics. Gay supporters were disappointed, especially in view of the mayor's long history as a backer of civil rights for gays and his early comments rejecting President Bush's idea of amending the Constitution to bar marriage for people of the same sex….
"To be re-elected, Mr. Bloomberg will need to convince Democratic voters in this overwhelmingly Democratic city that he still thinks like them, while keeping the city's Republicans contented enough to forestall any serious competition for the party nomination."
There are at least three things wrong with the Times' implied position: 1. Same-sex marriage is against the law in the State of New York; 2. Mike Bloomberg is a Republican; and 3. The Times is saying that Bloomberg should break the law, simply because certain 'other people are doing it.'
Apparently, the Times' editors, who have published dozens of pro-same sex marriage articles since last November, think that if the mayor of America's most populous city were to join the ranks of criminal public officials, most notoriously San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and New Paltz Mayor Jason West, it would create a tidal wave effect that would wash away the law. Mayors of municipalities large and small across the country, starting with Chicago Mayor Rich Daley, would set course by the wave of anarchy, and all state attorneys general and judges would be swept away by the undertow. And so, the newspaper is practically daring Bloomberg to break the law, suggesting that if he doesn't, he's a wimp.
This is the mentality of a 12-year-old. And gays and socialists alike typically inveigh against such macho swagger. For the media and the rest of the Left, politicians are no longer permitted to be "tough guys" in support of law and order, but are obliged to be tough guys, in supporting lawlessness.
Now, Mike Bloomberg is no Ronald Reagan. A "RINO" (a "Republican in name only"), until he ran for mayor in 2001, "Bloomy" was a liberal Democrat. In New York, the Republican mayoral primary has come to function as an alternative Democrat primary, for fresh-faced Democrats from outside the clubhouse. The founder and still owner of Bloomberg Business News wasn't a politician, he was a self-made media magnate.
The terms "Republican" and "New York" co-exist uneasily in the same sentence. (That applies to both the city and the state; consider the case of Gov. George Pataki, who was a conservative Republican, until he got elected governor in 1994.) In "flyover country," New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani (1994-2001) would appear to be a Democrat. After all, he's pro-illegal immigration (alright, forget that issue), pro-abortion, anti-Second Amendment, and pro-"gay rights." In fact, as I once noted, Giuliani had been accused of being a closet Democrat. And yet, there was a huge difference, in New York, between Giuliani and the Democrat Party -- the difference between the rule of law and the rule of crime, between leadership and Clintonian followership. And in 1993, when despite a 5-1 edge in Democrat to Republican registered voters, Giuliani beat Democrat Mayor David Dinkins, a black socialist, in their second head-to-head race, it was the political equivalent of a miracle. Indeed, led by Al Sharpton,outraged black New Yorkers sought to undo the "miracle," and make it impossible for the man who had beaten the city's first black mayor to govern. (The campaign, led by black racists and the socialist media, to undo Giuliani's 1993 and 1997 election victories, may have inspired the attempt, also to a remarkable degree led by black racists and the socialist media, to undo George W. Bush's victory in the 2000 presidential election.)
And yet, even in the case of Michael Bloomberg, the adjective "Republican" still signifies something, even if that something cannot be expressed in terms of a clear political principle. Had Bloomberg's socialist Democrat opponent, Mark Green, prevailed in the 2001 election, Green might well have broken the law this year, and married men to men, and women to women. Were Bloomberg to do so, however, he would surely lose the 2005 election, and might not even win the Republican primary. In any event, if New Yorkers wish to elect a socialist mayor, they will pull the Democrat lever.
Hence, the Times' claim that it is dispensing sound re-election advice to Bloomberg, is as disingenuous as … well, most everything published on its editorial page.
But then, the Times is not interested in helping Bloomberg get re-elected; it is interested in forcing same-sex marriage on the nation. Indeed, it is hard to believe that the hard-left newspaper would ever endorse a Republican mayor, even a RINO, as opposed to a Democrat party hack. The paper's veiled call for Bloomberg to break the law, was more in the matter of an ultimatum: Officiate at same-sex weddings, or we'll destroy you.
There is more than a hint of desperation in the Times' language. This is a newspaper whose top people on the editorial side are, as Reed Irvine, the longtime scourge of the socialist media and founder of Accuracy in Media revealed in 2000, overwhelmingly homosexuals who daily seek to force the gay agenda on America. And yet, they have not prevailed. Yet.
(Speaking of the Times' language, in a March 30 story, "What Marriage Means to Gays: All That Law Allows Others," "reporter" Thomas Crampton used the euphemism "legally contentious" as a substitute for "illegal," as in "Homosexual couples eager to formalize their relationship do have options short of a lawsuit or a legally contentious marriage ceremony." For Crampton, who speaks of gay "families," New York is only "a relatively gay-friendly city." I suppose that at most, only San Francisco would count for him as an unconditionally "gay-friendly city.")
It all started when one man, Ulster County (NY) DA Donald Williams, stood up to New Paltz Mayor Jason West, and said, 'Stop!' Socialist New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer has since forbidden the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples, but prior to DA Williams' display of public courage, AG Spitzer had refused to do his job.
And on the same day as the Times editorial, even the California Supreme Court had a moment of lucidity, in enjoining against same-sex marriages, until it can render an opinion on the matter.
Four days later, the New York Daily News delivered yet another blow to the Times. The Times' assumption that most New Yorkers support same-sex marriage notwithstanding, a poll carried out by the News - whose reporters had lionized Rosie O'Donnell for illegally "marrying" her girlfriend in San Francisco - found that 47% of New Yorkers OPPOSED gay marriage, as opposed to only 40% who supported it. (The rest of the respondents had no response.)
Were I a charitable man, I would say that in assuming that New Yorkers supported same-sex marriage, the Times' editorial board was merely incompetent. But the Times simply has the same contempt for the facts that it does for the law and for the will of the people.
The New York Times is hoping that it can bluff and threaten Mayor Bloomberg into committing crimes, and thus create new "facts on the ground." Don't let them snow you, Mayor Mike. For the important thing isn't whether you're a "Republican," but whether you're a republican.
Actually, these nimrods have been doing us a favor by performing these "marriages" against the rule of law because it is firmly implanting the idea that we can ignore these silly parodies of marriage in the same manner than we declare that a sow's ear is not a silk purse.
Seems to me there is a #4:
A government official would violate the 1st Amendment to the Constitution if he were to perform/sanction homosexual marriage. There are religious people on both sides of the aisle, though the party of the groom are in the overwhelming majority. The party of the other groom, on the other side of the aisle, are still a religious group, and for a government official to endorse their beliefs would in effect, establish the minority opinion as the one that government endorses, while clearly making the majority group the outsider, and if things in Canada are any indication, his actions would suggest that their view is the equivalent of a hate crime and subject to penalty.
Muslims, who hold the same view, would be excluded.
There was a good article about that, about ten years ago, or twelve, in either National Review or The Atlantic Monthly, "Defining Deviancy Down", I think it was.
The point of the article was the same one you made: Left polemicists, for their purposes, like to define deviancy down for their favored groups and purposes, while simultaneously defining deviancy up for the straight middle class they're constantly attacking.
At some point, the jig has to come up, but that only works if the Left hasn't succeeded in compromising the arbiters.
And they went after the arbiters first.
One of these days, we may have to impose a very heavy, even crushing, penalty on Leftist-style agitation, as a witting corruption of, and therefore a crime of grievous violence against, democratic society and republican government. There has to be a penalty for playing Saul Alinsky's games, which at the end of the day have always been irresponsible and sociopathic. After all, what sort of damage has the Left done over the years, from championing ontologically guilty criminals like Alger Hiss, the Rosenbergs, Mumia Abu Jamal, Rose Shakur, the Weather Underground and Daniel Ellsberg, to trying to steal the 2000 election, to stopping effective measures to control AIDS, to throwing the Vietnamese War and condemning millions of Southeast Asians to die?
And he ought to get out there and issue anyone who wants it a permit to carry!
Then, just to show he's serious, he should take away all the permits from the guards at the NYT, and definitely take them away from the editors.
Liberals will talk about "democracy" until the cows come home.
But that's just a front for the elitist, "listen to mommy" attitude which is the root of leftism.
"Democracy," "equality," "freedom of speech" -- it's all Orwellian Newspeak to them, meaning the opposite of what they appear to say.
Actually, we don't have to. Their readership has been steadily declining over the past couple of years.
There was a good article about that, about ten years ago, or twelve, in either National Review or The Atlantic Monthly, "Defining Deviancy Down", I think it was.
Was that the article by the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan? If so, I think it may have appeared in The Public Interest.
The point of the article was the same one you made: Left polemicists, for their purposes, like to define deviancy down for their favored groups and purposes, while simultaneously defining deviancy up for the straight middle class they're constantly attacking.
At some point, the jig has to come up, but that only works if the Left hasn't succeeded in compromising the arbiters.
And they went after the arbiters first.
That's a huge point.
One of these days, we may have to impose a very heavy, even crushing, penalty on Leftist-style agitation, as a witting corruption of, and therefore a crime of grievous violence against, democratic society and republican government. There has to be a penalty for playing Saul Alinsky's games, which at the end of the day have always been irresponsible and sociopathic.
Was it Justice Robert Jackson who said, "The Constitution is not a suicide pact"?
... ontologically guilty criminals like Alger Hiss, the Rosenbergs, Mumia Abu Jamal, Rose Shakur, the Weather Underground and Daniel Ellsberg ...
"Ontologically guilty"; I like that.
Actually, I do believe you are correct. The most consistent element of the homosexual agenda is their attempts to criminalize any thought, word, or deed that doesn't celebrate their deathstyle.
However, I think their actions in violating the rule of law have left some unable to take the idea of "gay marriage" seriously and most of those folks were the ones on the fence, so to speak.
Correct. It was limited to New York City.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.