This is where maintaining integrity and consistency becomes tricky.
Obviously the Comment of the Day suggests only one, yet for some reason this particular day has generated an unusual number of contenders, all deserving. If I refuse to highlight any of these because a Comment of the Day was already posted, I am obscuring important content to maintain a rule, in a situation where the rule doesn’t have any benefits.
But if I have more than one “Comment of the Day,” that creates a precedent and suggests that the designation is more of a formal verdict on comment quality than it is meant to be. I simply do not, and do not have the time to, give Comment of the Day status to every deserving post. One is usually plenty, and will remain so. But it is foolish, and a contradiction of the principles I argue for on Ethics Alarms, to withhold recognizing a valuable comment for no reason other than an admittedly arbitrary limit.
So here is Comment of the Day #2, on what I will, for this time only, designate as Comment of the Day Friday, as Jeff is inspired by the discussion of bigotry in the continuing discussion generated by Enzo and the Contessa, to weigh in on a particularly stupid news story, the appeal by some gay marriage advocacy groups to have Bert and Ernie, of Sesame Street, tie the knot…if gay marriage is legal on Sesame Street.
(Yes, I know: this is a Comment of the Day on a Comment of the Day on a Comment of the Day. Curse you, Jeff!)
“Didn’t someone just start a campaign for Bert and Ernie to get gay-married? Despite that the people who make Sesame Street have said that Bert and Ernie are just friends, and furthermore, are puppets and therefore not sexual beings? And even then, it’s up to Bert and Ernie themselves if they want to be married and not some jagoff trying to make a statement?
“Is it just because they represent positive values that they want them on the “gay team,” despite the fact that they might not be gay? Does this work in reverse, like with Anne Heche? Can they take the gay library card away from Boy George for his minor criminal transgressions, or from Rosie O’Donnell for becoming totally unlikeable? “Sure, we’ll keep Alan Turing, but the heteros can keep Michael Jackson.”
“It’s the same thing I think when people claim Jesus was ‘black.’ This is silly since the races didn’t exist exactly as they did 2000 years ago. Second, Jesus was likely not any race (since he was God and all). But even if Jesus was African, what difference does that make? Does that raise your stature to know that someone unrelated to you was virtuous and shared the same skin tone? Are you so bereft of positive qualities about yourself that you have to assign something of yours to an important historical figure and say it’s significant?
“Why don’t we all just worry about what WE are, instead of what other people are?”