Holy war: Richard Land knocks James Dobson for knocking Fred

posted at 10:19 pm on September 24, 2007 by Allahpundit

A follow-up to Dobson’s very private, very hush-hush excoriation of Fred that somehow found its way into the AP’s hands and ended up being confirmed by his official spokesman.

It’s going to be a fun primary.

“I’ve received phone calls and emails from Southern Baptists about Senator Thompson. They are all furious at Doctor Dobson. They just feel that first of all there was a mischaracterizing of his positions. Do I wish that he supported the marriage protection amendment? Of course I do. To say that he is for 50 different views of marriage in 50 different states is a gross mischaracterization of his position. Secondly, do I wish that he attended church every Sunday? As a Baptist pastor, of course I do. But does that make him a person of unbelief? That’s harsh and unwarranted.”…

“It’s (Thompson’s marriage amendment position) a problem. I think Southern Baptists have an ethical issue in which they need to deal. They may face a situation where they have a choice of three candidates. One they agree with 95% of the time, one they agree with 80 percent of the time and one they agree with 10% of the time. It may come to pass that they’re faced with a choice.”

Land’s right about Dobson misrepresenting Fred’s position on marriage. Fred supports a federal constitutional amendment to ban full faith and credit for gay marriage, not gay marriage itself. In other words, whereas a straight couple can run off to Vegas, get a Nevada marriage license, and have it honored as legal when they return to their home state, a limitation on full faith and credit would allow states to ignore out-of-state licenses for gay marriage. To equate that with Fred wanting 50 different definitions of the institution is absurd. He wants one definition, I’m sure; he’s simply unwilling to compromise on federalism by pushing for a constitutional amendment that would supersede state authority to regulate marriage by imposing a uniform national definition.

Which isn’t to say Land’s spinning pure gold here. Follow the link and check out his shmaltzy fetishization of small-town life America at the end. Smart populist politics but anathema to a New Yorker, needless to say.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

No, that’s not what I’m saying and you know it. I stated that the human body was designed specifically to pair a man with a woman, based on reproductive systems. The fact that one person’s body might fail to function properly does not change it’s intended design.

So if the body’s reproductive systems fail, then they are not working according to design, correct?

You’ve said that the pairing of man and women is based on reproductive systems. If the reproductive systems fail, then what’s the purpose of the pairing?

Man was intended to drink water, correct? The fact that a pool of water should become poisonous due to contamination does not change the fact that man was intended to consume water.

If you wanted to make that analogy more correct, then you would have to say that his ability to drink water would fail. But then he would die and the discussion would be moot, so your “argument by analogy” is a red herring.

“Why not many women?”

That’s an entirely different argument that has nothing to do with the physical design of the human body OR homosexuality.

But it’s entirely germane to the notion that vaginal intercourse implies a one-man, one-woman pairing by nature. Why does it NOT imply many women? The reproductive systems still work according to design in that instance.
Why does nature not intend that, either?

Loundry on September 26, 2007 at 9:31 AM

There you go being dishonest again. I specifically wrote:

Nature/God (whichever you believe)

My answer stands with or without God.

Gregor on September 25, 2007 at 6:32 PM

The answer has a different justification whether you start from Nature (which does not have a will) or “god” (which allegedly has a will). The two arguments are quite different, And you can’t equate nature with “god”. For instance, homosexuality obviously occurs in nature, but I don’t think you would then agree that homosexuality also occurs in God.

But, I must admit, I’m looking forward to you attempting to justify “one man, one woman” using the Bible. If you think you’re on a sandy foundation now, just wait till you go mano-a-mano with me in a scripture fight. I love talking about the Bible with Christians, love it!

Loundry on September 26, 2007 at 9:35 AM

Comment pages: 1 2