There’s a very good Intelligence Squared debate about whether the equal protection clause protects gay marriage. The debaters are all very bright, and it’s one of the rare one of these worth listening to, because they don’t miss the point as frequently as in other debates.

I haven’t really put forth my views on gay marriage on Tumblr, and I may never. Suffice it to say that I support the legal recognition of gay marriage, but not for the reasons that virtually any other supporter of gay marriage endorses. I don’t have time to flesh this out at the moment, but I’m putting a pin in this to return to it. If there is any interest in this, let me know.

Topics I would cover include:

(1) Legality. I would discuss here whether the equal protection clause operates to guarantee gays the right to marry one another (it does not); whether we ought to delegate the question of legality to the several states (we should); and whether federalist principles of government were instantiated by the evolution of state gay marriage laws (it was perhaps a perfect case).

(2) The historicity of the conjugal view of marriage. Though not an expert here, I would discuss what I think no one denies: that the historical understanding of marriage has been the union of one man and one woman, and has existed in that form to possibilize and legitimate what we have recognized for millennia is the foundation of our social superstructure: the nuclear family. I would also discuss the come-lately notion that marriage is an institution devoted to love first, and, lastly, how the fact that some marriages that have been historically licensed but nevertheless clearly had or have nothing to do with marriage’s historical aim (infertile couples, couples who adopt, couples who choose not to have children, e.g.), nevertheless no better impugn that marriage’s fundamental purposes are conjugal than many other corner cases of institutions that I would enumerate. I would also discuss how that argument misunderstands moral, social, and legal institutions as only agglomerations of instances rather than a collection of principles we seek imperfectly to live.

(3) The misconception that gay marriage is an ‘extension’ of marriage protections, and the corollary misconception that the architects of the movement think of it that way. It baffles me that anyone believes this, but anyway, here I would quote the many intellectuals in the vanguard of the gay marriage movement who acknowledge that gay marriage contributes to the destruction of the institution of marriage as we’ve known it. I would discuss how the argument that gay marriage ‘extends’ marriage rights rests upon the discredited view [via (2)] that marriage is fundamentally about romantic love between two arbitrary persons. I would also here discuss what, I think, cannot be denied: that the important values of marriage lionized by the gay marriage movement, and by SCOTUS is several decisions, simply do not and cannot distinguish same sex marriage from plural marriage, marriage between family members, or even aromantic marriages between roommates who just really enjoy one another’s company.

(4) The pointlessness of resistance. I would here discuss how resistance to gay marriage is pointless in two respects. First, public opinion has shifted dramatically in favor of gay marriage, and the dominos were falling, state-by-state. Indeed, opponents of gay marriage ought to feel good about SCOTUS’s recent acknowledgement of gay marriage, because it is not the worst outcome for them. The worst outcome would have been passage of individual gay marriage laws in each state over the next decade or two, which would have extended the national love affair with gay marriage and would have given an even stronger appearance of public support than a national conversation cut short by SCOTUS’s political fiat. Second, the social and legal institution of marriage is already in terminal freefall, and sanctioned gay marriage does not meaningfully accelerate its demise. So worthless has the notion of ‘marriage’ become that it is almost a symbolic victory for those interested in marriage protection that gays have won it as a right. 

(5) Free admission to the carnival. I subscribe to a perhaps unpopular view for cultural conservatives: cultural conservatives ought to not just support the explosion of cultural institutions, but rather–so long as we can at least preserve the corpus of the Western canon on thumb drives hidden behind brick walls–we ought to hasten our own cultural death, even if we do so at the mortal peril of our own lives. Let’s face facts: we aren’t going to change horses midstream. We’re on the high road to hell, so let’s get there already. What a cultural conservative should want is not merely gay marriage, but rather gay and polygamist groups, arm in arm, protesting the political persecution of imprisoned child molesters. We should lean way in on feminism, we should invite the Folsom Street Fair on the road, we should #blacklivesmatter cops to actual death. We should make productive, intelligent white people feel as fearful, put upon, and disgusted as possible, and we should do it as quickly as possible. We need to boil this water so that the frog jumps out of the pot; and right now, the heat is low and slow.

Getting in the Alexander Hamilton "Spirits"

It’s believed that “in colonial times, Americans probably drank more alcohol that in any other era.” Back in the 18th century, many people drank steadily throughout the day since beer was considered safer to drink than water. Well, that little history tibdit may be an inspiration for all the alcoholic drinks named for Alexander Hamilton - including the Alexander Hamilton Federalist Ale, the Federalist Zinfandel, and the Alexander Hamilton vodka. 

With all the different types of spirits celebrating Alexander Hamilton, it only makes sense that the first ever segment of the “Drunk History” series (now a TV show) was about Alexander Hamilton - watch it here.

Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist Ale 

Made by Yards Brewing Company, the Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist Ale is currently only offered at the City Tavern in Philadelphia. It is one of four beers served at the historic tavern (the others “Ales of the Revolution” are inspired by Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson). 

The Federalist Wine

The roots of Zinfandel began to take hold in the United States just as the Federalists were establishing our nation’s independence. This Dry Creek Valley Federalist Zinfandel is an ode to this noble grape, and a celebration of its decidedly American origin. The robust fruit, bright berry fruit character and lively acidity speak to the distinct characteristics of these bold, strong vines that are inseparably intertwined with the history of the United States itself.

The Federalist’s vineyards are located in Sonoma County, California. Owned and managed by the Terlato Family, they have positioned the winery to produce single vineyard and estate wines with a focus on Zinfandel.

The Federalist’s packaging features the leader and most famous Federalist in American history,Alexander Hamilton. Source

Alexander Hamilton Vodka

Hamilton Vodka is a new brand of small batch premium vodka produced by Old New York Spirits. Inspired by Founding Father and economist, Alexander Hamilton, it is a rare gem; handcrafted in New York from all-natural ingredients and distilled from 100% potatoes.

Commissioned to design the brand and packaging from the ground up, freelance designer Steven Bonner worked directly with the client to reflect its American heritage and took inspiration from a range of sources, not least Alexander Hamilton’s life and times as well as more stylised elements like some of the gravestones surrounding Hamilton’s resting place. A mix of classic and modern, the bottle is designed to appeal to a fashion conscious consumer who respects tradition and craft in a premium product. - Source


Officer’s small sword with leather scabbard  
Continental Europe

Small swords – so called because of their diminutive and dainty appearance when compared to other war sabers of the time - were the primary type employed by Patriot officers during the American Revolution.  Although overall this piece fits within the standard style most mid-18th century small swords, this particular piece is outfitted with a few upgrades likely ordered by its owner, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney. Unlike the many other inexpensively made small swords of the era, Pinckney’s is adorned with an ivory handle wrapped in a gold wire. Furthermore, there is evidence of silver plating on the brass hilt. Despite its lighter weight and elegant appearance, small swords were durable and sturdy; the concave triangular blade was far stronger than the average flat blade.

Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, a prominent Charleston attorney, was a member of several revolutionary committees but favored resolving differences with Britain until separation appeared inevitable.  A Continental militia officer during the Revolutionary War, he saw action in South Carolina, Georgia and Florida; served as an aide to George Washington; and commanded Fort Moultrie during the Siege of Charleston. He later resumed his legal and political career, served as a minister to France in 1796 and was the Federalist candidate for President in 1808. Click to view Pinckney’s silk diplomatic uniform jacket and his silver gorget.

Weaponry Wednesday: Each Wednesday we post an object (or group of objects) from the Charleston Museum’s diverse weapons collection. Many Weaponry Wednesday items may be on permanent exhibit in our armory or elsewhere in the museum, but some pieces rarely see exhibition, temporary or permanent, but are well worth sharing.  We hope you enjoy our selection each week – do let us know if there’s something in particular you’d like to see on WEAPONRY WEDNESDAY! Also, we always want to learn more about our collection - if you have some insights on a piece, please feel free to share!  #WeaponryWednes

Hardcore Conservative with Some Progressive Ideals http://truthrock.blogspot.com/ @nytimes @chucktodd @foxnews @HuffingtonPost #tcot #p2

How is it possible to be a conservative with some progressive ideals? What does this mean? Moderate? No. It is hardcore truth. I believe this stance is one that could save the nation. Please join me in the cause!

Men often oppose a thing, merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike. But if they had been consulted, and have happened to disapprove, opposition then becomes, in their estimation, an indispensable duty of self-love. They seem to think themselves bound in honor, and by all the motives of personal infallibility, to defeat the success of what has been resolved upon contrary to their sentiments. Men of upright, benevolent tempers have too many opportunities of remarking, with horror, to what desperate lengths this disposition is sometimes carried, and how often the great interests of society are sacrificed to the vanity, to the conceit, and to the obstinacy of individuals, who have credit to make their passions and their caprices interesting to mankind.
—  Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 70
It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost at once–slavery has so frightful aspect to men accustomed to freedom, that it must steal upon them by degrees, and disguise itself in a thousand shapes in order to be received.
—  ‘Civis Rusticus,’ quoting David Hume in reply to Geo. Mason’s Objections [to the proposed Constitution], Virginia Independent Chronicle, Jan. 30, 1788, in The Debate on the Constitution, ed. by Bernard Bailyn, p. 360
It is evident from the state of the country, from the habits of the people, from the experience we have had on the point itself, that it is impracticable to raise any very considerable sums by direct taxation. Tax laws have in vain been multiplied; new methods to enforce the collection have in vain been tried; the public expectation has been uniformly disappointed, and the treasuries of the States have remained empty.
—  Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper No. 12