They start this shit every election year, and NEVER any other time, in order to accomplish-what? I'm not sure. I only know it tends to favor Republicans, though it might not help them as much this year, especially since McCain has said he will not seize on it. Still, it will certainly rev up the conservative base to at least vote for conservative candidates, be they Democrat or (probably for the most part) Republicans. Then, of course, they will cry after they help get more Republicans elected, and then throw more money at the leaders of the BGLT coalition activist groups, the leaders of whom will laugh all the way to the bank. So much for that myth about gays being so much more intelligent than the rest of us. This issue is one of the main reasons a certain person didn't get the Republican nomination this year.
Now if he was the Republican nominee, it might encourage a different result. In other words, it wouldn't be an act of insanity. Of course the real irony is, they ain't trying to help the Democrats, they are just pissed off because the Democrats actually don't support them as much as they think they should, and as much as most people think they do. So, I guess this kind of makes sense when you stop to think about it.
If it helps Congressional Republicans in their individual races, I'm fine with it, though I don't quite get why they would want that. If it helps McCain, that's a different story.
Like I said, it only seems to come up during election years. Pay no attention to the man behind the lavender curtain-he's probably a Log Cabin Republican.
5 comments:
1. Okay, obviously you know that this "shit" has been going through the courts for years now and it just happened to come before the California Supreme Court now, which is yet another election year.
2. I'm guessing that you knew this though, and just posted about it as an excuse to use that funny picture of Guiliani.
3. Okay, carry on then.
I don't like the way this is used as a wedge issue. Probably my addiction to snark got in the way of my main point, which is really that both sides use it as such. Whichever side uses it first will always provoke an equal and opposite reaction, and this seems to be intentional.
I never had a problem with the concept of gay marriage. In fact, I support it, and actually think the idea of civil unions, which liberal democrats tend to support, is malarkey.
It's not the ideal of gay marriage that bothers me, it's the tactics. This may well have been going through the courts for years, and I guess in the California case that almost has to be true in order for it to wind its way to the state's Supreme Court.
By the same token, the court I am sure could have found adequate time on their calender a year ago to hear this case, but it seems they put it off until now. It could have been done last year, and though it would still be an issue, it would have settled into where people could look at it more in perspective.
Like most groups that push these things, I'm afraid it's all about the Benjamins. Neither side wants to put it to rest, and it ends up being a pure distraction.
The Democrats will never openly support gay marriage, not even Obama, despite the fact that he is allegedly the most liberal of Senators. Even so, he will get it from both sides, from the activists of both groups, one from the left wanting to pressure him to come further to their side, the other from the right attacking him regardless of where he stands.
The most that will ever be done one way or another is on the state level, which means it will stay an issue for well into the foreseeable future.
The right has already started talking about an amendment to change the state constitution, and you know this is going to be trumpeted far and wide as a battle cry from both sides.
In the meantime, all it is really going to accomplish is encourage Democrats in red and the so-called battleground states to adopt a more conservative point of view
Which, in general, I am fine with that, in fact, it's what I want, so I should really shut the fuck up about it and stop complaining. Still, like I said, I am a supporter of the concept of gay marriage, and bullshit is bullshit.
While the activist groups will make money, the actual gay people they allegedly represent will in the long run lose ground, outside of a few limited areas.
In those limited areas, gay have taken a couple of steps forward, but in everywhere else, they might well take just as many steps back.
And all because the California State Supreme Court couldn't find the time to deal with this last year. If they had the rancor would have died down to reasonable levels, but now, here we go again.
Well, I'm guessing that someone on the internet will work out a whole conspiracy theory about the fact that most of the judges were appointed by Republicans and chose to decide the case now. I like to think that it was coincidental though.
Also, to be honest, I find most people I meet are fine with the idea of gays getting married. I think it's the opposite- the longer people hear about this, the more likely they are to accept the idea. Because really who cares? Up here in Canuckia, we've had gay marriage for nearly three years and nothing has changed. Just gays get married. Big deal.
As someone who is married, if I was gay- if it was Clark instead of Claire- I'd be pissed too if the state told me I couldn't get married. Also, frankly, if I was gay I wouldn't give a shit what's good or bad for the Democrats since they've never really done much for anybody but themselves and their party.
Lastly, as for wedge issues, yes politicians love them. You've caught on to the fact that no American politician will ever put in gun control. Also, let's be honest, none of them will ever change the abortion laws- not so long as they can run on it. With gay marriage, I don't think it will be an election issue after another generation. Young people just don't give a shit if two guys want to get married. We're not more tolerant- we just don't see the point in worrying about other people's lives. Also, as Chris Rock says, everybody's got a gay uncle, and that one relative that they're not so sure about.
It wouldn't be an issue now if they wouldn't pick the most politically explosive years to do this stuff. That's why they do it. Ideally speaking, they should do this the year after a presidential election. By the time another three years go by, almost nobody would care about it. As it is now, it only has an impact in close elections. That's an even greater incentive to play it for what it's worth.
Don't assume judges are independent minded, by the way. Remember, most of them are appointed, and do not have to answer to the people. Adding to the problem is they are for the most part lifetime appointees.
Some of them are fair-minded and independent, but many of them are true believers, whether appointed by Republicans or Democrats.
Just look at the way they act in Congress when it comes time to appoint one, and that will give you a pretty good idea. This is just as true on the state level as on the federal level.
To the owner of this blog, how far youve come?
Post a Comment