This is likely a complete waste of time, but also necessary.

This is Mikey Iafrate, indispensible contributor to the joint blog I'm sparring with, getting douche-y after I tried to treat him like an adult six months ago:

Dearest Dale: "Genuine line of communication," eh?

You are a coward, pal, and nothing but.

Kisses,
m

*I'm* the coward, but he wrote that from Toronto. Projection! And for some reason he thinks I'm honor bound to keep it a secret.

Teenagers. But enough about him.

OK. This is MM at Vox Nova.

Naturally, the only logical conclusion one could derive from my defense of the custom of the bride walking down the aisle with her father is this:

"The implication is clear--the others aren't really Americans after all, are they?"

I can't speak for the implications MM's mind conjures up (bonus points for creativity, though), but, no, it really isn't.

MM's original post spoke to the American ("our culture," as he stated) custom of the bride walking down the aisle with her father. Which MM continues to read in the most sinister light possible, before going Andrew Sullivan on us and bringing Sarah Palin into the analysis. Frankly, it's impossible to respond to, save on one rather important point, so I won't bother.

The remainder of this post is a response to VN contributor Katerina, who asked a thoughtful, good faith question in my comboxes.

First, I didn't say anything--as in zero--about Filipino and Latino customs. Really--please re-read it again. That was the work of a VN contributor. What I was reacting to is MM's unquestioning acceptance of other cultures' customs being included.

Which brings me to this rather important point, which I feel compelled to shout, given the circumstances: I EXPLICITLY STATED THAT I HAVE NO OBJECTION TO CULTURAL CUSTOMS OF ANY ORIGIN BEING ADDED TO THE MARRIAGE CEREMONY. I even included the Santa Fe Archdiocesan link as support. Oh, and by the way--the Santa Fe Archdiocese separates out "Hispanic wedding rituals." I'm sure they'd be delighted with MM's scattershot dudgeon.

MM knew this when he posted his follow-up. Which makes his implication about me being some kind of nativist slanderous.

Isn't that a problem? Unless you are saying that if a VN blogger does it, that's OK.

It's morally certain that my original post was "not conducive to dialogue." But, in all honesty, how serious of a concern is that? Tarbrushing every Catholic father who walks his daughter down the aisle as a patriarchal foe of genuine Catholic culture and a distorter of the sacrament is also "not conducive to dialogue."

Unless you are saying that if a VN blogger does it, that's OK.

Neither is accusing an opponent of nativism, in the face of contrary evidence.

Unless you are saying that if a VN blogger does it, that's OK.

Neither is calling someone a "coward."

Unless you are saying that if a VN blogger does it, that's OK.

Neither is calling an opponent's writing "an insane rant."

Unless you are saying that if a VN blogger does it, that's OK.

I hope to God that's not what you are saying, even by implication. But I can't be sure.

The fact is, MM's post shellacked a particularly American custom (which, as you note crosses ethnic lines) as un-Catholic and demeaning to women while not questioning other, unspecified customs. Despite the fact he has no evidence that the Catholic participants regard it remotely the way he does. One which meant, and still means, a lot to my wife, for reasons which aren't on the same planet as MM's analysis.

And yet I'm the one reading into things?

All right.

[I originally edited out the e-mail which starts the post. Then I realized I don't owe the little boy a damn thing. It'll be a nice corrective to anyone inclined to take the twerp seriously.]