What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.


What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

In 1996 Barack Obama supported same-sex marriage, though Obama supporter, Kmiec, says his present views would likely establish it nationwide.

It can be found in the Wayback Machine here. There's a regular web version here. Scroll down to 13th District.

According to Obama supporter, Doug Kmiec, if the senator's present position--calling for the repeal of the 1996 Federal Defense of Marriage Act --would become a reality, it would lead to the proliferation of same-same marriage nationwide, which Senator Obama presently claims he opposes while also opposing bans on same-sex marriage. (Don't ask me to try to make those two positions coherent.) Professor Kmiec made these comments in August 2007.


Comments (16)

Yesterday you posted two very important and revealing items regarding the current election, but which, even on this website, have not generated a single response beside the one I now write.

I don't know why this should be, especially on a website motivated by the crusading spirit.

Well, that's because all the commentary is going on in the post above, where we are led to believe that McCain and Obama are flip sides of the same coin, that voting for one is the perfect moral equivalent of voting for the other; that supporting McCain is also equivalent to declaring oneself a Russophobe and a fervent supporter of many more years of hegemonistic, democracy-spreading warfare in the Middle East; that Obama should not be held guilty by association for consorting with an unrepentant, America-hating, bomb-throwing terrorist because, well, it happened a long time ago, and because "there is not one scintilla of evidence to the effect that Obama shares Ayers' 'radicalism'", as though Stanley Kurtz had never written an article on the subject; and all this even though, should you or I be found hanging with Angela Davis, Abbie Hoffman, or a retired member of the Symbionese Liberation Army, people would come to their appropriate conclusions. But in Obama's case, let us not be concerned. And all of this, furthermore, as if there were no other issue - like gay marriage or post-abortion infanticide - that ought to make an Obama presidency a prospect to horrify. Rather, let's take to drink.


Now, just how long did it take you to write that wonderful summation?


Frank and Michael, Frank is suffering from the fact that people are more motivated to disagree with Maximos--because he gets their goat by making odd moral semi-equivalences and "it doesn't matter because this other thing matters as much or more" comments--than to agree with Frank. And on some of the same topics, too. See my brief comment in Frank's post on Ayers and my disagreement with Maximos's post on Ayers.

"...that supporting McCain is also equivalent to declaring oneself a Russophobe and a fervent supporter of many more years of hegemonistic, democracy-spreading warfare in the Middle East."

When asked if a resurgent Russia could be described as the Evil Empire, he smirked and said; maybe. Then claimed to find the letters KGB scrawling across Putin's pupils, revealing the kind of first-rate intellect, sound temperament and subtle understanding of history's broad-sweep appropriate for an Ambassadorship to Epcot Center.

"Obama should not be held guilty by association for consorting with an unrepentant, America-hating, bomb-throwing terrorist..."

Ayers may prove to be the Harry Hopkins or Alger Hiss of the Obama Administration, but somehow I doubt he'll be allowed anything but
a minor speaking role at the first annual May Day Rally on the White House Lawn.

"...no other issue - like gay marriage or post-abortion infanticide..."

McCain's sincere commitment to these issues is in the same spirit as that of Henry of Navarre, who famously said; "Paris is worth a Mass".

The Age of Obama would not be possible without the disastrous policies and resulting failures undertaken in the name of a deformed and disfigured conservatism. Time to see his ascendancy for what it is; a well-deserved scourge.

"I don't know why this should be, especially on a website motivated by the crusading spirit."

Perhaps, because in McCain we see little of Pope Urban II, or Richard I.

Kevin, distinguish: Bill is not endorsing McCain. And I think he makes good points.

Lydia, I couldn't care less about getting anyone's goat, honestly. I behold a conservative movement left desolate and bereft of ideas, facing the prospect of an indefinite exclusion from even the perfunctory consideration of power that it receives from the GOP, resorting to the incantation of political nostrums which have been hieroglyphic - in the Voegelinian sense of the term - for a generation, wallowing in an increasingly primitive anti-intellectualism, retailing a stabbed-in-the-back narrative that was inapposite when applied to Vietnam and is sand-poundingly stupid now, is increasingly solipsistic in what little genuine intellection occurs, and seems utterly stupefied by an economic crisis that might well prove to be the most consequential since the Great Depression, incognizant that many of its own ideological fetishes are implicated in the calamity - and in the midst of this maelstrom of chaos and failure, I hear talk of Billy Ayers, discussion of whom, at this time and in this context, is like complaining about the neighbour's yappy dog while one's house is being consumed by fire. Were this 1996, discussion of Billy Ayers would be most fitting; but at a time of crisis, for both the nation and the conservative movement - forget the GOP, as it can burn for all I care - it is a luxury we cannot afford, an admission that, where substantive proposals are concerned, we are as flat broke as the financial system and the government of Iceland. We've got nothing, but at least the other guy pals around with creeps. The electorate will perceive that abyss of nothingness and conclude that, while the other guy may pal around with creeps, and may even have some affinity with the creeps, he may also, you know, have an idea as to how to extricate ourselves from the crisis. They will, in all probability, be gravely mistaken, but this is, after all, how democratic polities operate.

And, for the love of God, David Frum - David Frum has expressed similar reservations about this campaign strategy. That I, distributist, paleocon, and general anti-modernist, have arrived at much the same position as David Frum speaks volumes about the utter disarray of conservatism at this moment of our history.


Anybody who looks into Putin's eyes and DOESN'T see the letters "KGB" simply isn't paying attention. That leopard hasn't changed his spots. Not at all. That's why, when he comes into the western hemisphere with his warships, he goes to Chavez, his fellow Marxist, in Venezuela. Putin knows who his friends are; he knows who will work with him, and he knows who shares his commitments, policies, enemies, and worldview. Chavez and Putin are all about the same thing, and it ain't Russian nationalism. And my saying so isn't russophobia any more than saying we ought to protect ourselves against militant Islam is arabophobia. No, it's simply recognizing that our old Marxist enemies are still our Marxist enemies.

Marxists and militant Muslims both still want us dead. You will never, never, never, talk them out of it. Putin has plans, and they don't include our health, wealth, or happiness. You don't spell "ally" K-G-B.

Were this 1996, discussion of Billy Ayers would be most fitting

I suppose that's something in the form of an acknowledgement. Please understand, Maximos, I didn't mean that you _deliberately_ get people's goats. It was meant as a purely descriptive statement--that, in fact, that is why I was more likely to comment on your post on Ayers than on Frank's.

And _of course_ Barack Obama has no clue how to solve the financial crisis. There's no "may be" about it.

Of course Obama hasn't a clue as to how to effect a resolution of the financial crisis. Neither do McCain and the GOP. But the electorate will not perceive matters that way, confound it all. The GOP holds the presidency, the economy is undergoing collapse, and the GOP presidential candidate won't talk about it, but will talk about a commie retread of whom most people simply have not heard.

I don’t want to launch into another rehash of how our hubristic post-1989 policies regarding Russia were an epic blunder, nor reargue whether Russia’s place as a resource-rich regional power points to a resurrection of the Evil Empire and Communist ideology.

In the 1980’s Reagan brilliantly induced the Saudi’s to flood the world markets with cheap oil as a means of bankrupting a Soviet Union dependent on oil- revenue generated by their domestic stock. Not only does such an option not exist now, but the positions are almost reversed. Winter is coming and a Western Europe in the throes of a deadly financial disease that originated in the U.S. is going to be more pliant to Russian statecraft than anyone thought imaginable just a couple of years ago. Diplomacy requires a clear vision of how best to advance national interests with the minimum in bloodshed and social dislocation, and without antagonizing other actors or accruing additional enemies. One’s strategy must conform to reality, not academic ideologies or unrealistic dreams of international hegemony.

Suffice it to say that in resorting to the crude lingo of the jingo, McCain is displaying a temperament and moral imagination unsuited for the challenges of guiding our ship of state in the grip of a global economic cataclysm while facing an ascendant China and an unstable Islam.

None of this is to suggest Obama is the man of the moment either. As we watch the flat, borderless, unbounded and unresistant, brake-free global mono-structure ravaged by a virus, it is clear our elites are uniquely ill-equipped to discern and act in accord with reality and human nature.

We do indeed agree that neither major candidate is well suited for the task. But I also think that one is far better suited for the task than the other. Warts and all, the best viable candidate gets my vote. So, I vote Republican again.

I understand you're reasoning, but think 4 years of McCain will only thwart badly needed across the board reforms from occurring within our political system. Conservatives have benefited from being out of power before and will again. We need a return to old ideas and new people who can convey them.

Kevin, I could agree with your assessment that there are some badly needed reforms in the system. That is easy to see. I can also agree that a McCain presidency may (though not necessarily) obscure the need, and delay the reforms for at least 4 more years.

What I don't see is that an Obama presidency is any more likely to get us closer to getting our reforms. The reality is that while conservatives will regroup and re-think its posture and methods (well, maybe), at the same time the liberals will be cementing their positions of power in re-forming things still more to their liking than they are already. Then, whenever conservatives get the chance to make a difference, it will be a difference in a field skewed further to the left than it is now.

Take this simple fact: more than half of McCain's policies are just about EXACTLY what one would have expected of a moderate Democrat 35 years ago. The whole argument of politics has shifted ground further away from conservative principles.

In addition to that, I am actually more scared of Obama's policies on internationalism than any domestic stand he takes. He will give away US authority to act independently to all sorts of other international bodies, and it is unclear we will EVER get it back. I don't just mean things like the Law of the Sea Treaty. I mean the Declaration on the Rights of Children, which basically provides a basis for overturning all parental rights of any stripe whatsoever, by ANY governmental body. And Obama will appoint judges who think that US legal jurisprudence should be bound to follow non-US law practices and custom, (well, only when it suits them, of course), thus creating precedent that is utterly contrary to our British common law foundations, for the sake of novel practices like same-sex marriage.

It will not be so easy for conservatives to put such genies back in their bottle, however much they reform their own houses.

I don't think a conservatism that acts as a prop for Leviathan's various projects; massive military spending, dubious domestic programs and the labor arbitrage of globalization is too viable, no matter how much election year lip-service it gives to cultural issues. The middle class is not going to be party to its own impoverishment in exchange for the distant possibility of achieving a 5 Justice majority on the Supreme Court. Back to the drawing board, or the catacombs, but the status quo is no longer sustainable.

Post a comment

Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.