HOME | BIO | MUSIC | JOURNEYS BY DJ | STUDIO BLOG | POLITICAL BLOG | BOOKING INFO | CONTACT

Leaving aside for a moment the debate over whether or not Rove's tactics of divide and conquer move us towards "the ideal", I'm not quite sure what to make of this comment from his interview on today's Fox Sunday.

Rove: Well, marriage is a very important part of our culture and our society. If we want to have a hopeful and decent society, we ought to aim for the ideal. And the ideal is that marriage ought to be and should be a union of a man and a woman.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't one of the tenants of modern conservatism been that the problem of modern liberalism is that it attempted to use government to "aim" society? That government should do a few things, do them well, and leave the issues of morals, faith, and conscience to the individual? That it is precisely BECAUSE government has involved itself in issues such as these that our society has been moving in the (as they see it) wrong direction? And haven't they also long relied on the arguments of federalism, that states and local communities should be left to decide most issues as they see fit?

Explain to me then... why do we need a FEDERAL definition of marriage? Wouldn't it be more consistent with their philosophy to address their concerns about "activist" judges by clearly defining marriage as an issue left to state and/or local discretion? Why the need for a federal solution?

I hate hypocrisy.

--------