It's becoming clearer to me that what is being promoted by McCain et al as 'traditional' is simply Patriarchy

That has always been the case.

BTW, do you ever visit "I Blame the Patriarchy"?

http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/

I love that blog.

Yes, McCain is a hypocrite, but I think that Mr. Greenwald's argument falls flat in that he's assuming a biblical definition of traditional marriage. Repulicans have the advantage in the vague language used here and in the common acknowledgement of most of their supporters that adultery and divorce--by their very ubiquity--are also traditional, as long as you are Christian and ask God if its ok. Keep in mind that there was plenty of extra marital shenanigans going on in the Old Testament.

I think it would be interesting to try and look into the heads of Republican voters. They seemed to be not very turned off by hypocrisy, by lying. If you just take a look at right wing television and radio, nothing these guys say is believable. If you ever watch Hannity and Colmes, it takes about one and a half minutes most of the time for right wing pundits to look like idiots beneath Colmes' milquetoast cross examination. I think what attracts Republicans IS the lying and the hypocrisy, for it probably reflects the most salient aspects of their own lives writ large--and the best part is that their heroes are getting away with it...

Welp. Back in the old days, when the Colonies were under British law, my ancestors couldn't marry legally any more than gay people can today, or mixed race couples could in the 1930's.

My ancestors were Irish Catholics, and the point of prohibiting them from marrying was two fold: 1) to deny the Catholic Church's sacrament of marriage; 2) to prevent the accumulation of wealth and property among Catholics.

This prohibition lasted several centuries, and it had an interesting effect. Many of my ancestors were married secretly by Catholic priests in prohibited ceremonies, so that they were married in the Eyes of God, though their marriages were not recognized by civil authorities. Churches have been happily marrying gay people in this country for years, but just like my ancestors, their marriages are not recognized by civil authorities.

Many others of my ancestors didn't bother with religious ceremonies, since it wasn't legally recognized in any case, and civil marriages were impossible as well. Property issues could be settled separately, if need be. There were an awful lot of cousins getting together, and the point of that, according to those who said they knew, was to keep what property there was within the Family, no matter what.

After Independence, and the removal of British anti-Catholic laws, even though they could now marry legally, some of my ancestors chose not to. Since they got along without it all those years when it was prohibited, there was no reason to rush things once the ban was lifted.

We won't go in to issues of bastardy. Nor need we bother with hysterics over pecadillos.

But it is kind of funny to listen to "traditional marriage" advocates pontificate. They have no idea....

I didn't know that bit of history. Also thanks for the word "welp," which I haven't heard in a while.

I think the Christian "fundamentalists" actually like sexual fallibility because it provides a continuing drama of fall-from-grace to redemption and over and over again. After all, they may seek perfection but they cannot really achieve perfection in this life. There was only one perfect person and it was Him (JC), so to fall short is to receive grace over and over again.

Perhaps they also have a bit more trouble with homosexuality because they worry (despite what they say) that some people might actually be born that way and that they might actually be related to some of them or, even worse, actually be ONE! The drama of the homosexual among the faithful is one of constant struggle, suffering, hope, failure, struggle, suffering, hope, failure. It might even challege some people's faith to see how hard it is for someone to become someone that they are not, even with God's help. It is much harder to change a trait one is born with, although, with God, all things are possible.

Let us pray. ;-)

Right or Wrong have no connection to what pundits write.

See "Bill Kristol" (or perhaps Weakly Standard) and "Jonah Goldberg" (or perhaps National Review)

IF VOTING REALLY MATTERED IT'D BE ILLEGAL!

All you all's political nonsense is indeed a waste of time!

Yes, McCain is a hypocrite, but I think that Mr. Greenwald's argument falls flat in that he's assuming a biblical definition of traditional marriage.

No, I'm not. Biblical law regarding marriage is one way to define "traditional marriage." There are others, but this is certainly the predominant one among those who argue in favor of traditional marriage. Review the statement of most politicians in the states where they have amended their constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage and you will see appeals to the claim that the law should only recognize Christian marriages.

That ought to be the standard. As I've argued before, I think gay groups should affirmatively campaign in some of those states for laws banning divorce and recognition of multiple marriages on the same grounds - the need to preserve tradition, venerate the institution of marriage, protect chilrden, have the law only recognize Christian marriage.

Repulicans have the advantage in the vague language used here and in the common acknowledgement of most of their supporters that adultery and divorce--by their very ubiquity--are also traditional, as long as you are Christian and ask God if its ok.

No. The issue here isn't that they are sinning. The issue is whether U.S. law should recognize "marriages" that violate Christian doctrien and that are untraditional.

Keep in mind that there was plenty of extra marital shenanigans going on in the Old Testament.

Christians, by definition, believe in the New Testament, particularly where Jesus expressly renounces the Old. With regard to divorce he does that - he asks whether the Phrarisees allowed divorce. When told they do, he said that will no longer be law, that divorce is now adultery. That is Christian doctrine.