Ward Churchill, Joe Sobran, and Gay Marriage

Ward Churchill's defense of his remarks about 9/11.

His essential point was that he doesn't see why we have a double standard in how we view civilian deaths. Why do we not see the 9/11 civilian fatalities as collateral damage of attacks on the Pentagon and the CIA office in the World Trade Center?
(Personally, I doubt that the CIA office per se was the target in the World Trade Center as much as the civilians were).

Another point brought up, apparently elsewhere (I don't immediately see it in the article I cited), is why we don't see any moral outrage at attacking, say, Dresden in World War II. Why is it wrong for others to target the civilian infrastructure of our enemies, and not for our enemies to target ours?

I will admit that the situation is somewhat more complicated htan that, because not all countries or governments are morally equivalent. Yet, we can't allow moral superiority to become a blank check for us to excuse anything we might do to win or end a war.

This reminds me of a quote by Joseph Sobran (I'll admit that he can be an unsavory character, but when he isn't indulging his semi-antisemitism, some of his insights are profound):

"I’ve always believed there’s really no such thing as a double standard. When people appear to apply a double standard, it means they are actually applying a hidden single standard — one they don’t want to admit."

In this case, the single standard is that the US's interests or desires justify any action; we can do things that we would condemn in another nation because we are the good guys, dammit, and so we don't need consistency.

This is sort of similar to the argument of why gay marriage won't lead to polygamy. All of the arguments in essence boil down to the idea that polygamy isn't nice; that it isn't practiced by the people we wish to emulate. There is no fundamental reason why, if people have a right to marry someone of the same sex that they can't marry more than one person. It's an issue of preference.

Note that this would not be the case if the gay marriage issue were seen as one of legislation. If the legislature decided to allow same-sex marriage on the basis that they thought it was a good idea, then it still means that the legislatures have the power to define civil marriage, and if they choose to define it for same-sex partnerships but not polygamous ones, then that is the choice they made. There would be no need for an argument for any restriction on marriage other than "well, we like gay marriage but we don't like polygamy."

But once you translate it into an issue of rights, then the burden is on those who would put any restriction on marriage. There is no principled reason why polygamy not be allowed once same-sex marriage is allowed. The only reason for the double standard is the true, single-standard: "because we (the liberal elite) like same-sex marriage, and don't like polygamy, and because we get to define rights any way we like, dammit!"

So the position that Churchill criticizes - that the US can do what it wants, and doesn't need to worry about anyone else's rights - is the mirror image of the position that same-sex marriage is okay, and has nothing whatsoever to do with polygamous marriage.

I somehow doubt that Ward Churchill would like having those positions compared.

That, my friends, is all.