One of the most irritating features of public life, and politics in particular, is the tendency to say any old thing, however contradictory it may be in relation to what you said last week. Ed “Tax cuts” Balls is a prime example. This is one reason why someone like Ron Paul, whether or not you agree with him, is such a blast of fresh air in the Republican nomination race. He’s consistent, and will always justify what he says.
Here’s another example, which has predictably kicked off squawks of bien pensant outrage, which I doubt very much reflect the views of the average citizen:
“Since all the legal rights of marriage are already available to homosexual couples, it is clear that this proposal is not about rights, but rather is an attempt to redefine marriage for the whole of society at the behest of a small minority of activists.
“Same-sex marriage would eliminate entirely in law the basic idea of a mother and a father for every child. It would create a society which deliberately chooses to deprive a child of either a mother or a father.
“Other dangers exist. If marriage can be redefined so that it no longer means a man and a woman but two men or two women, why stop there? Why not allow three men or a woman and two men to constitute a marriage, if they pledge their fidelity to one another?”
Cardinal Keith O’Brien is not trying to woo the voter, or gain favourable media coverage. Whether or not you agree with him, his logic is impeccable.
*** Once again, The Knife’s favourite atheist (Brendan O’Neill) nails it.
****Eloquent words on a difficult conceptual thread, from Charles Moore