Having just discovered two pennies in my pocket, I would like to offer an opinion on the issue of gay marriage. Some of you may not like what I have to say.
Many believe that this controversy helped Bush immensely. Kerry has said repeatedly that he opposes same-sex marriage -- but how many heard him? Even here in California, people seem to have formed the impression that Kerry supports legalizing groom-and-groom weddings.
Bill Clinton reportedly urged Kerry to come out in favor of one of the anti-gay marriage initiatives on the ballot in eleven states. Such an endorsement would have given Kerry a "Sister Souljah" moment of his very own. The Senator refused. Democratic activists have applauded his "principled" stance.
I don't.
I think Clinton's Machiavellian advice should have been followed.
Moreover, I remain furious at San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom, whose doomed stunt brought this divisive, diversionary issue to the forefront in an election year. No-one would have died if he had waited until 2005. Now Newsom's constituents, along with all other gays in this country, must deal with a retrogressive constitutional amendment, a hostile president, and the likelihood of Supreme Court appointees with Dominionist Christian leanings.
How can anyone maintain that Newsom helped his cause? Hell, he provided such formidable aid to the conservatives that a truly paranoid person might suspect a pay-off.
May I make a politically incorrect admission? I just don't care about gay marriage.
Why? Because I just don't care about heterosexual marriage.
My girlfriend and I have observed a lot of couples over the years, and in our view, marriage is the first sign of failure in a relationship. Sure, she and I may tie the knot one day, but only to get free stuff. If the entire insitution were abolished tomorrow, I would respond with little more than a shrug of the shoulders.
In a broad, philosophical sense, I support the right of anyone, homo or hetero, to marry -- but only in the same broad, philosophical sense that I might support a person's right to bash his head into a concrete wall. It's not a right I would advise someone to exercise. It's not a cause that justifies the loss of an election.
So Kerry nobly refused to take Clinton's advice. Are gay people better off now? Those eleven states passed their inane propositions anyway, a result anyone could have predicted. And the world marches toward a wider war.
3 comments:
I don't understand why you don't have more comments on this article. I think you're right on! This was an issue that just invited gay bashing. It had to be a Karl Rove plot. anon
Blaming Bush's election on gay people is like blaming Hitler's rise to power on the Jews. The sorry truth about politics is that scapegoating works, which Karl Rove with his strategic placement of anti-same sex marriage amendments in key battleground states has proven in spades this year.
But beyond Rove's machinations, there is no wrong time for an oppressed group to strive for its civil rights. And marriage, whether one likes the institution or not, strikes at the foundations of homophobia (hence the intensity of the backlash).
As a great American once said, "justice delayed is justice denied." The Democratic Party establishment has a track record of saying, "your cause is just, but this is not the right time." They said it to the early workers rights movement, to the civil rights movement, to the anti-war and feminist and green movements, and now to the gay rights movement. And it follows that the party elites have a history of blaming their setbacks on the "bad timing" of "radical elements." It is this refusal to lead and reluctance to follow strivings for equality and social justice that contributes to the perception that the Democratic Party doesn't stand for anything and has no vision for the country.
Tante40
Blaming Bush's election on gay people is like blaming Hitler's rise to power on the Jews. The sorry truth about politics is that scapegoating works, which Karl Rove with his strategic placement of anti-same sex marriage amendments in key battleground states has proven in spades this year.
But beyond Rove's machinations, there is no wrong time for an oppressed group to strive for its civil rights. And marriage, whether one likes the institution or not, strikes at the foundations of homophobia (hence the intensity of the backlash).
As a great American once said, "justice delayed is justice denied." The Democratic Party establishment has a track record of saying, "your cause is just, but this is not the right time." They said it to the early workers rights movement, to the civil rights movement, to the anti-war and feminist and green movements, and now to the gay rights movement. And it follows that the party elites have a history of blaming their setbacks on the "bad timing" of "radical elements." It is this refusal to lead and reluctance to follow strivings for equality and social justice that contributes to the perception that the Democratic Party doesn't stand for anything and has no vision for the country.
Post a Comment