I went to the Gay Pride parade in 1999 as a straight supporter. I went back in 2010 as a congressional candidate. In 2017, I went to the Los Angeles parade as a journalist — and by then, the whole thing had become coldly partisan. They rebranded the Pride parade as “Resist,” and it was all about hating Trump, not standing up for tolerance and for sexual liberation and all that.
I have many thoughts about the whole Pride phenomenon. In college, my friends were the Jews, the blacks, and the gays. I lived (randomly) in Harvard’s gayest dorm, and went to the gay student group’s parties, which were the most free-spirited. At the same time, I remember finding it odd, during a visit to San Francisco in 2001 or so, that they had rainbow flags on all the lampposts on Market Street. It seemed strange to me to celebrate a private preference as civic virtue.
Fast-forward to today. I have many gay friends and some transgender acquaintances in my social circle. My wife and I enjoy (or used to enjoy, before the pandemic) clubs in West Hollywood, L.A.‘s gay neighborhood. Yet I share the common rejection, among conservatives, of the transgender ideology that seeks to undo the basic idea of male and female, and to impose it on children — not for “grooming” (I never bought that) but for long-term political indoctrination.
I see the military, among other institutions, tweeting Pride images. I get that it’s good for recruitment (or is it? How many traditional, Christian, tough-guy recruits are we losing?). I just don’t see what it has to do with the military — or, more to the point, whether it means we have lost the raw, essentially masculine, martial virtues that are necessary in an effective fighting force.
I’m cool with whatever kinky stuff people are into, as long as it’s safe and consensual among adults. I’m cool with people deciding to identify as whatever gender they want to, though I don’t think they should expect that the rest of society must adjust to their shifting preferences (and I draw the line at plural pronouns for individuals). I would like to think there’s room for debate, but the LGBT[…] movement, which used to be about tolerance, has become the most intolerant of all.
The story of Noah is familiar; the details, less so.
Noah is often seen as an ambivalent figure. He was righteous -- but only for his generation. What was his deficiency?
One answer suggests itself: knowing that the world was about to be flooded, he built an Ark for the animals and for his own family -- but did not try to save anyone else or to convince them to repent and change their ways (the prophet Jonah, later, would share that reluctance).
Abraham, later, would set himself apart by arguing with God -- with the Lord Himself! -- against the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, saying that they should be saved if there were enough righteous people to be found (there were not).
Still, Noah was good enough -- and sometimes, that really is sufficient to save the world. We don't need heroes every time -- just ordinary decency.
Hi all -- as I noted last month, I'm going to be closing down my Locals page, at least for tips and subscriptions -- I may keep the page up and the posts as well, but I'm no longer going to be accepting any kind of payment.
Look for cancelation in the very near future. Thank you for your support!
An interesting weekend -- one of the last of Daylight Savings Time -- in which there is much to celebrate, much to contemplate, and a bit to worry about.
The Gaza peace deal is shaky, but holding, after the living hostages returned; the shutdown is still going on, with no end in sight; the China trade war is heating up; and the confrontation with Venezuela continues to escalate.
The "No Kings" protest was a dud, despite the media's attempt to inflate it. What I find fascinating is that the Democrats have basically stolen the rhetoric and the imagery of the Tea Party protests, circa 2009. They claim they are defending the Constitution -- just like the Tea Party did.
On the one hand, this is good. How wonderful to have a political system in which both sides, bitterly opposed though they are, articulate differences through the Constitution -- and not, as in so many other countries, outside it.
On the other, this is sheer hypocrisy for the Democrats. Not only did they malign the Tea Party as ...
