In the gay guerilla wars...

Andrew Sullivan can't clock a week without a rant about the equal rights of gays to wed. But to add a datum to an understanding of what "marriage" means for him, consider his treatment of the Terri Schiavo case. He can whale on conservatives. He can declare, "Those of us who have long worried that unleashing religious fundamentalism into the bloodstream of American politics would lead to disaster can only feel that our fears have now come true."

But he has nothing but admiration for Michael Schiavo. No suspicion that Mr. Schiavo may not be suitably qualified as a "husband" when he is living with another woman, mother to two of his children. The actual commitments of a marriage are irrelevant to Andrew. It's all about the using any means and any line of argumentation necessary. Let the courts decide.

Unless your conclusions are better served by leaving the question to those closest to the person:

If limited government means anything, it means leaving decisions like this as close to the person as possible.

Unless leaving the decisions to the closest persons by any moral standard--Terri's parents, who never abandonned their role, wanted to care for her--do not serve your conclusions.

Unless your conclusions are better served by leaving the question to state government:

And if the American principle of federalism means anything, it means that the local state's courts are the only relevant instruments to deal with such a tragedy.

Unless... some other gymnastic line of reasoning serves your interests.

Terri Schiavo's case was rare and certainly no precedent...right?

Well, maybe just one more time.

Outside looking in

Jerry Bowyer comments:

Terri Schiavo died for one simple and tragic reason: The wrong people are in charge of our cultural and judicial institutions. Servants of the culture of death were inside the courthouse wearing robes and making decisions or carrying notebooks and writing the coverage. Servants of the culture of life were outside the courthouse carrying placards and kneeling in prayer. If their positions had been reversed, Terri would be living, breathing and receiving much-needed therapy. Terri died because, for the most part, we're activists and for the most part they're leaders. We are morally informed activists, dedicated to truth and life, but of limited judicial and public relations competence. They are extremely skilled in lawand media, and barbaric in moral code.

Jesus told the Parable of the Unjust Steward to teach the lesson that,'...the sons of this world are more shrewd in their generation than the sons of light.' What was true in that generation is also true in ours, so either we smarten up, or our cultural drift deepens and more innocents will die horribly.

Overstated, but not by much.

Excerpts from the obituary on John Paul II by George Weigel in the WSJ:

He once described his high-school years as a time in which he was "completely absorbed" by a passion for the theater. So it was fitting that Karol Jozef Wojtyla lived a very dramatic life. As a young man, he risked summary execution by leading clandestine acts of cultural resistance to the Nazi occupation of Poland. As a fledgling priest, he adopted a Stalin-era nom de guerre--Wujek, "uncle"--while creating zones of intellectual and spiritual freedom for college students; those students, now older men and women themselves, called him Wujek to the end....

The world will remember the drama of this life in the days ahead, even as it measures John Paul II's many other accomplishments: his transformation of the papacy from a managerial office to one of evangelical witness; his voluminous teaching, touching virtually every aspect of contemporary life; his dogged pursuit of Christian unity; his success in blocking the Clinton administration's efforts to have abortion-on-demand declared a basic human right; his remarkable magnetism for young people; his groundbreaking initiatives with Judaism; his robust defense of religious freedom as the first of human rights....

John Paul II was the most visible human being in history, having been seen live by more men and women than any other man who ever lived; the remarkable thing is that millions of those people, who saw him only at a great distance, will think they have lost a friend....

In a 1968 letter to the French Jesuit theologian, Henri de Lubac, then-Cardinal Karol Wojtyla suggested that "a degradation, indeed a pulverization, of the fundamental uniqueness of each human person" was at the root of the 20th century's grim record: two World Wars, Auschwitz and the Gulag, a Cold War threatening global disaster, oceans of blood and mountains of corpses. How had a century begun with such high hopes for the human future produced mankind's greatest catastrophes? Because, Karol Wojtyla proposed, Western humanism had gone off the rails, collapsing into forms of self-absorption, and then self-doubt, so severe that men and women had begun to wonder whether there was any truth at all to be found in the world, or in themselves.

This profound crisis of culture, this crisis in the very idea of the human, had manifested itself in the serial crises that had marched across the surface of contemporary history, leaving carnage in their wake. But unlike some truly "conservative" critics of late modernity, Wojtyla's counter-proposal was not rollback: rather, it was a truer, nobler humanism, built on the foundation of the biblical conviction that God had made the human creature in His image and likeness, with intelligence and free will, a creature capable of knowing the good and freely choosing it. That, John Paul II insisted in a vast number of variations on one great theme, was the true measure of man--the human capacity, in cooperation with God's grace, for heroic virtue....

After the Cold War, when more than a few analysts and politicians were in a state of barely restrained euphoria, imagining a golden age of inevitable progress for the cause of political and economic freedom, John Paul II saw more deeply and clearly. He quickly decoded new threats to what he had called, in that 1968 letter to Father de Lubac, the "inviolable mystery of the human person," and so he spent much of the 1990s explaining that freedom untethered from moral truth risks self-destruction.

For if there is only your truth and my truth and neither one of us recognizes a transcendent moral standard (call it "the truth") by which to settle our differences, then either you will impose your power on me or I will impose my power on you; Nietszche, great, mad prophet of the 20th century, got at least that right. Freedom uncoupled from truth, John Paul taught, leads to chaos and thence to new forms of tyranny. For, in the face of chaos (or fear), raw power will inexorably replace persuasion, compromise, and agreement as the coin of the political realm. The false humanism of freedom misconstrued as "I did it my way" inevitably leads to freedom's decay, and then to freedom's self-cannibalization. This was not the soured warning of an antimodern scold; this was the sage counsel of a man who had given his life to freedom's cause from 1939 on.

Thus the key to the freedom project in the 21st century, John Paul urged, lay in the realm of culture: in vibrant public moral cultures capable of disciplining and directing the tremendous energies--economic, political, aesthetic, and, yes, sexual--set loose in free societies. A vibrant public moral culture is essential for democracy and the market, for only such a culture can inculcate and affirm the virtues necessary to make freedom work.... (emphasis added)

Requiescat in pace