Blogging the Arlington Catholic Herald

Last night, as is usual for a Thurday, the weekly diocesan newspaper was waiting for me when I got home. The editorial page always gives me something to write about. Indeed, last week's did as well, but I was busy dealing with the tail end of Snowpocolypse and preparing to be interviewed by CNN on Monday last on the vanishing middle class (see us on Monday at 7:24 AM with a repeat at 8:24) that I did not have time to blog on last week's issue, so today you get two for the price of one.

Last week, Jay Killearn of Annadale wrote on immigration reform, asking some very pertient questions to the debate. After raising some valid questions (my answers to which I doubt he would like) he goes on to question the patriotism of the writer he was responding to. You can read him here: http://www.catholicherald.com/opinions/detail.html?sub_id=12338 I am a bit disheartened that the Herald would give such a statement ink, since the viewpoint is a bit partisan, hardly Catholic, and probably has no place in something published by the Church. Indeed, it makes me wonder about the editors. I can only respond that there is no American section (and indeed no Catholic section) in heaven.

This week, Russell Shaw's article is about the move to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell, a move he disagrees with. You can read him here http://www.catholicherald.com/opinions/detail.html?sub_id=12374. His thesis is that DADT is part of the move to accepting gay culture. He is probably correct about this, to which I respond that this is the point. In Lawrence v. Texas, gays were found to possess a right of privacy regarding sexual conduct in the home. Shaw misunderstands what privacy means, however. It does not mean that they have a right to keep it quiet. The essence of privacy is that the public no longer has a say in gay sexuality. In other words, privacy is not about secrecy, it is about autonomy. In a free society, with autonomy comes acceptance of teh conduct of others. Evidence is mounting that being gay in the military has no impact on either readiness or morale (and probably never has). A military that defends individual rights must mirror that respect within its ranks. I would rather not be protected by those who feel morally superior to their fellow citizens as ultimately that is not good for my own personal liberty or anyohe elses. Shaw is wrong and DADT must be repealed this year.