Yes, it has to be our poor language skills

In pondering Andrew Sullivan’s reaction to Al Gore’s speech earlier, we speculated that our non-native English speakers selves were simply too daft to understand the nature of Sullivan’s characterization. We had hoped this wasn’t the case of course — we do after all write this blog in some variant of English, so understanding it at least a little bit would be helpful. Yet K-Lo makes us realize we obviously do not speak, nor understand, the language real good:

I’m a Massachusetts liberal! John Kerry signs letter in favor of gay marriage.
Posted at 08:19 PM

Should you click on the link and all that stuff, you can read this:

WASHINGTON – Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry (news – web sites), who opposes gay marriage and hints he might support a limited ban, just two years ago signed a letter with other congressional colleagues urging the Massachusetts legislature to drop a constitutional amendment outlawing homosexual nuptials. [Emphasis added]

Is opposing a constitutional amendment really equivalent to supporting the creation of gay marriage? Representative Barney Frank is also quoted in the article:

Frank said Kerry has always been clear to him that he opposes gay marriage but wants homosexuals to have equal protection under the law through civil unions, and other legislation.

We wish Kerry would go further, but opposing a constitutional amendment to bar the mere possibility of gay marriage isn’t the same as supporting gay marriage. Kerry’s has said, on several occasions if the AP article is to be trusted, that he is against gay marriage (but supports civil unions,) while also arguing that legislative attempts to outlaw gay marriage (and similar efforts, i.e. Clinton’s Defense of Marriage Act) are:

…a thinly veiled attempt to score political debating points by scapegoating gay and lesbian Americans[.]

We don’t know what the language of the Massachusetts proposed amendment was, but if it was anything like some current federal efforts, the language is sufficiently vague to raise the possibility that it will be more than just marriage that will be outlawed. (On this point, and perhaps this point alone, we agree with Andrew Sullivan.)

You might think that having several contributors would The Corner much better than a blog with a single author. Instead, it seems as though every additional person only brings the quality down, like some sort of self-reproducing homosexual cabal of idiocy. [How long had we been waiting to use this nonsensical line? A really long time.]


Comments: 3


I’m opposed to all kinds of things — okra, for example — that I would oppose enacting a constitutional amendment to ban. (Hmm, that last sentence makes me sound like the non-native English speaker.) That emphatically does not mean that I am in favor of okra.


Well, if you ain’t aginit, you must be ferit.


Yes, the Corner. Home of the Restoration Half-wits.


(comments are closed)