Open for the Pass . . .
Uh oh. I've been called out on the post below by Soup over at CC. Specifically, he has a hard time understanding my position on gay marriage.
Well, I'm for it, Soup. Across the board, I'm for it. Laws forbidding it are unfortunate. State constitutions forbidding it are worse. A federal constitutional amendment forbidding it would be a terrible blemish on our nation's history.
Now, I recognize that people have various reasons for believing that gays should not be married and various positions on how gay relationships should be treated. Some believe that gays should have all the legal protections of marriage, but not be "married" per se. Some think gays should have no such rights. Some are just old-fashioned, I'm sure, and resistant to progress. Others have serious reservations about gay relationships because of their religious beliefs and the teachings of their churches. Others, undoubtedly have, as I said in an earlier post, hearts full of inexplicable hate for gay people. I doubt anyone will disagree with that. Whatever their reason for being anti-gay marriage, I disagree. Seems pretty simple.
In the post below, I discussed the Edwards - Cheney debate, and commended Cheney for his very human response to Edwards' comments on the topic. As an aside, I noted that I am for gay marriage rights, but said that for the purposes of the debate discussion my personal views on gay marriage were "neither here nor there". Soup suggests that this means I don't care and will give Edwards and Kerry "a pass" on this issue. Do I care? Absolutely. Am I giving them a pass?
Well, Kerry and Edwards both oppose gay marriage, but believe that it is a matter for the states. They both oppose the United States Constitutional Amendment supported by the Bush Administration. What do I think about the Kerry/Edwards position? I disagree with it, but it's a hell of a lot better than the alternative.
Consider someone who strongly believes that billionares should never pay a dime in taxes. This "no taxes for billionares" person would surely support Bush, while at the same time disagreeing with Bush's mere "lower taxes for billionares" position. Does that mean he's giving Bush "a pass" on billionare taxes?
I think it's interesting that Soup brings this up, because the majority of people I know who are Bush supporters believe that Bush's Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment is a preposterous political tool and do not support the amendment. As I mentioned below, even Cheney cannot bring himself to say he supports the miserable thing. But these folks are voting for Bush anyway. Are they giving Bush a pass?
Is our friend Soup?
posted by Abe at 10/06/2004 01:34:00 PM
1 Comments:
I've been giving some thought to the queer-fear-m'dear amendments -- federal and state. In my state, the proponents foam that "some radical judge" will "legislate from the bench" the gays have "special rights," It's the same old bullshit, just a little more rabid. And usually the more rabid foam-at-the-mouth riposte is this: "Pretty soon, we'll have marriages between man and beast, and there won't be nothin' you can do about it."
So maybe -- just maybe -- the proposed amendment should be withdrawn and rewritten. Something like, "In the United States of America, marriage is defined as the legal union between a human unit and a human unit -- and any other human units as may wish to enter the union by mutual consent all around. Drinks are on the House of Reprehensibles."
Given the amount of attention most voters pay to what's actually on the ballot in front of him, I bet it would fly. Johnny Piano
Post a Comment
<< Home