On California allowing gay marriage. Basically asking why this was brought up in an election year. We don't need to galvanize the wingnut base anymore than they are already.
That was my reaction at first, but I really can't see it doing harm to the Democratic challengers. I believe most people are so throughly disgusted with the Republicans and their utterly disastrous eight years of full control of the country that they will see this as a vote of wonderful tolerance rather than a frightening taste of what Democratic leadership will bring.
13 comments:
We have to run an inclusive campaign. This is not going to be the politics of fear and division. Those who hate and fear change will be forced to make a choice, and either change or not to be accepting of the differences of others.
Whatever your religion, whatever your personal beliefs, nobody else is required to live by the same ones. That's what the first amendment promises. No establishment of religion.
Civil marriage is a civil right.
Absolutely.
The idea that the religious right can commandeer a traditional rite and refuse to let those they do not agree with use it is ugly. The hatred and vilification of gays that is encouraged in some of these fundamentalist churches to rally the troops and bond the congregation qualifies them as hate groups.
I understand the concern Euler has about not galvanizing the rabid fundamentalists, but I really pray they have beaten this ragged scapegoat to death.
Nobody is making their churches perform ceremonies they don't want to.
And I haven't figured out how gay marriage will destroy my own....
If we wait to do any good thing until it does not galvanize the wingnuts, we will never do that thing. In this case, the good thing is the establishment of legal safeguards for a basic human right. Did we let, say, George Wallace decide when African Americans were allowed to participate fully in American society? No, of course not. Why should this be any different?
I received a list email this week from a local Democratic political consultant who says Obama will lose the election for Democrats because there are too many people who will never vote for an African American. I disagree strongly with this man, but suppose hypothetically that he is right: where are our obligations? and what would the effect be of not nominating Sen. Obama because he is Black?
I think you see where I'm going with this: we cannot forsake our obligation to do the right thing because it is inconvenient or even painful in the short term. The same is true of gay marriage. Will establishing same-sex marriage galvanize the wingnuts? It does not matter: we must advocate it anyway, if we wish to be able to look at ourselves in the mirror.
Thank you for an excellent post and very well said, Steve!
I am just so very tired of every good thing being used as a cudgel against us. Let this not be one of them.
hi steve
that was really nice but i am going to have to call bullshit, i actually want to use your post to enumerate why i am getting so tired of the left acting like college freshmen; fasting for Burma and freeing Tibet (while secretly trying to get laid)
Gay marriage is the right thing to do, that does not make exploiting homosexual issues for an election any less excusable. There are lots of good causes.
http://typingincaps.blogspot.com/2008/05/oh-i-loves-me-some-self-righteousness.html
Thanks, Euler for your response and off to read your comment.
euler, I believe you mean "any more excusable." If you're going to accuse people of being like college freshmen, the least you could do is proofread your work... unlike most college freshmen I have taught.
oh shit, you got me. I will go ahead and assume that since you are unwilling to let an (what i think is an understandable) error slide (yes you are correct, i did mean more) that you really have no desire to talk about anything of substance.
The comparison however was meant to draw a laugh but I see you hail from a far off land where laughter has been banned since John Wayne died. That was my mistake.
Euler, did you tell a joke? I didn't notice.
Euler, "it was just a joke" is the last refuge of the incompetent wingnut... than which there's nothing more pitiful. One cannot talk substance with a vacuum, and I have no intention of trying. Buh-bye!
again with parallel arguments. look man, you have completely avoided talking about any of the ACTUAL issues i brought up.
never did i say "just a joke" i said it was meant to draw a laugh, and since you get a nice raging boner for semantics lets delve a bit shall we?
The reference to tibet was supposed to be a giggle, painting a picture to a dred sporting "activist"
now, since you seem to be uninterested in talking about using gay marriage as a device to shape talking points, I am going to just going be semi polite about this.If you ever want to talk about this like a sane person, I am HAPPY to hear what you have to say. I will however, be required to call you out for being ham handed and comparing civil rights in the 60s to something that is not fucking at all like civil rights in the 60s
Furthermore saying "last refuge of the incompetent wingnut" I am not sure what fucking post you read, but I was merely pointing out that
1. you were correct in observing my semantic error
2. saying that the "freshmen" reference was not meant to be taken so literally. (you quoted me as such)
never did i say " i didn't mean it, it was a joke" I was trying to make sure we were talking on the same wavelength. you seem committed to being a douche about this, so that is cool too, you know where to find me if you ever come up with a valid argument that actually addresses what we are talking about.
Post a Comment