(no subject)

[geekchick]

quinnclub puts into words what I've been thinking when I see people wanting to make same-sex marriage their single issue at the polls (and he does it much more eloquently, I must say, since my thoughts tend to be the knee-jerk "But...but..but... Jobs! War! Fundies! Nnngghh!!"). Until that joyous day when there is no government involvement in marriage at all, it is a state issue, regardless of how the Doofus in Chief tries to play it for political advantage. While I disagree with Kerry's views on the whether to support a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, this would not be the issue that makes me decide to vote or not vote for him.

[Edit: I am not trying to trivialize the issue of same-sex marriage, I think it is important, and I think anyone who wants to get married should be able to. If I'm prioritizing though, I'd put job growth higher on the scale.]

Comments

This is great for ratings

[tongue-in-a-box.livejournal.com]

Gay marriage is going to be great for american tv. Picture gay divorce court.


"Excuse me, your honour, but that pink ruffled shirt is soo mine. He has absolutely no taste! He would never have bought that!"

I barely ever watch tv, but I could really dig that.

It's inevitable

[yy2bggggs.livejournal.com]

The religious right fears the nation would be judged ala Sodom and Gomorrah. In a post 9/11 era, it's valid religious thought that God removed certain protections of our nation for heading away from America's Christian roots, and such a move as respecting state sanctioned gay marriages would certainly kill us over.

Meanwhile, there are all of those Americans out there who believe in such silly things as "That government is best that governs least" and "all men are created equal". Cutting away freedoms bit by bit by introducing restrictive nonsense legislation of any sort defining homosexuality out of marriage sounds ridiculously Draconian, and definitely a step backwards. Didn't we learn from the 1860's? The 1940's? The 1960's?

Finally, there's a politician or two somewhere who wants to win an office. He's ordered his staff to perform a number of studies. The studies seem to suggest that he needs a little more support from the "religious white rural male" and "religious black rural female" groups. So he proposes some insane amendment that would never be passed... the Ten Commandments thing is so last term--let's define gay marriage as between a man and a woman this time.

I don't know... that's just the way the world looks to me right now--I'm open for corrections.

it's all politics

[geekchick]

My brain is a little fuzzy thanks to allergy meds and I'm not even sure that I'm reading you correctly, I'll admit, but I did want to make sure that I'm clear on the fact that I do think that the federal government has no place in deciding who can and can't be married and that the encouraged amendment is nothing more than political grandstanding to appeal to the conservative base who are disillusioned and in danger of staying home in November rather than voting for Bush. I also feel very strongly that same-sex couples have as much right to marry as opposite-sex couples if they so choose, and legislating otherwise is no different than the miscegenation laws that were rightfully struck down in the not-too-distant past. I just don't choose to make it my "single issue" for this campaign and in my opinion, worth exactly what you've paid for it, anyone with a genuine interest in seeing Bush out of the White House in November shouldn't make it their only issue either; to paraphrase something Al Sharpton said in a recent debate (heh, this doesn't happen very often, quoting Al like he's not a crackpot with the occasional lucid moment), it doesn't matter so much who you go to bed with at night if neither of you has a job when you get up in the morning. I think that anyone for whom legalizing gay marriage is their number one priority is not going to vote for Bush anyway, and the religious conservatives on the other side are not going to vote for a Democrat. It's going to be a battle for the folks in the middle, and Kerry seems to be swinging more conservative to try to get those votes. I think the Republicans would like nothing more than to be able to describe the Democratic candidate as "the pro-gay-marriage candidate", which has quite the potential to sink him with moderate voters. (Look at how The New Republic is salivating at the prospect, for instance.) It would be wonderful if Kerry could come out and say proudly "Yes, I believe same-sex marriages should be legal", but the moment he does that, he's pretty much guaranteeing another four years of Bush's peculiar brand of "compassionate conservatism", notable mostly for its distinct lack of compassion. I don't pretend to know how Kerry really feels about the issue; he voted against DOMA but says now that he'd support a state (not federal) constitutional amendment. I tend to believe it's a matter of political expediency, myself.

Wow, that's a mis-type

[geekchick]

That should be The National Review, not The New Republic. Definitely not the same. The link is correct, even if the text for the link is not.

Re: it's all politics

[yy2bggggs.livejournal.com]

I understand. The system IMO is broken. It's much more about politicians battling over votes than it is about voters choosing politicians. The personal link between voter and politician is dimmer than it should be, based on the characteristics of the modern voter, and this makes the whole game possible. So instead of being more about what issues a politician believes in, the election becomes more about what issues politicians choose to actually bring up during the election year.

But then, again, that's just how I view the world, and it's probably wrong to some extent.

Re: it's all politics

[geekchick]

The system IMO is broken.

You actually won't get much argument from me on that point.

So instead of being more about what issues a politician believes in, the election becomes more about what issues politicians choose to actually bring up during the election year.

I do wish that candidates could run on the issues they truly believed in, not toe the party line, and still be viable. I also wish that I had more candidates to vote *for* than to vote *against*. I'll be voting for Kerry in November, but not so much because I think he himself is so wonderful but because I think that the other option has proven itself far worse.