Graham Lester (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} grahamlester) wrote,@ 2004-03-13 17:06:00 |
|
Quick Rant About It All
Well, this should be interesting. We’re going to have an election that’s largely about the economy fought between two contestants neither one of whom seems to know anything at all about economics.
Gay marriage? A massive and acrimonious public debate about what label to apply to gay couples. Are “civil union” and “marriage” not just two labels for the same state? What does the label have to do with the essence? Allowing gays to use the word “marriage” for their unions will have no effect whatsoever on heterosexual marriages.
It’s an interesting gamble though. Republican strategists and gay activists seem to have quite different interpretations as to the mood of the public. One side thinks going anti-gay will help garner more votes while the other thinks that society has progressed to the point that gay marriage will be officially tolerated. I tend to think that the Republicans have underestimated the speed at which cultural norms are shifting. I think that most Americans would prefer to just let gays make their own choices. We have been told so many times that the toleration of homosexuality will cause the sky to fall, but it hasn’t fallen yet. I think most of us would just like to try treating them with a bit of respect for a change.
I am embarrassed by Bush’s support for an anti-gay marriage amendment, but it doesn’t anger me because my gut feeling is that he sincerely believes that gay marriage is a violation of God’s will. Kerry’s opposition to gay marriage, however, seems to me to rest on no spiritual conviction. He is not against homosexuality as such but only against supporting gays when they want his to endorse changes that might cost him votes. So I think that Kerry’s stance is cowardly whereas Bush’s is just wrongheaded. I think that the Republican strategists are taking advantage of Bush’s Christian beliefs in a way that is rather ill advised.
I also think that the Republicans missed a major windfall this week. If they had not launched this silly “900 billion dollar” negative ad, Kerry’s “worst bunch of crooks” remark could have seriously damaged him. The use of negative ads by the Republicans so early in the campaign has prevented them from gaining the moral high ground.
I thought that Kerry came across as aristocratic in the worst possible way – the educated snob telling the dumb blue-collar workers how to think. It reminded me of Graham Chapman in the Monty Python North Minehead By-Election sketch (the part where he’s dressed in important looking clothes and mingling with the crowd and making supportive remarks about the candidate).
As for Martha Stewart, it’s just another example of why it is that Americans are so afraid of their government. Here’s a woman who was convicted of lying about nothing to a bunch of jerks who were trying to frame her for what wasn’t even a crime in the first place. She’s famous and has a bad temper so she goes to jail to teach us all a lesson. Dream your American dream boys and girls but don’t think that you can ever be totally free from the possibility of a selective prosecution. We’ll reinterpret the criminal statutes however we need to if we want to get you bad enough. The Stewart case is a considerable threat to civil liberties because it sours the dream for everyone.
I can’t think of a more honest business than teaching ordinary people how to improve the quality of their lives. But then again, somehow I always knew that style was a sin and not to be tolerated. If Stewart had been a pornographer or the leader of a religious cult, the whole world would have leapt to her defense. And thousands of shareholders lost a total of over 10,000 times as much money as a result of the prosecution than she saved by dumping Inclone. Go figure.
Well, this should be interesting. We’re going to have an election that’s largely about the economy fought between two contestants neither one of whom seems to know anything at all about economics.
Gay marriage? A massive and acrimonious public debate about what label to apply to gay couples. Are “civil union” and “marriage” not just two labels for the same state? What does the label have to do with the essence? Allowing gays to use the word “marriage” for their unions will have no effect whatsoever on heterosexual marriages.
It’s an interesting gamble though. Republican strategists and gay activists seem to have quite different interpretations as to the mood of the public. One side thinks going anti-gay will help garner more votes while the other thinks that society has progressed to the point that gay marriage will be officially tolerated. I tend to think that the Republicans have underestimated the speed at which cultural norms are shifting. I think that most Americans would prefer to just let gays make their own choices. We have been told so many times that the toleration of homosexuality will cause the sky to fall, but it hasn’t fallen yet. I think most of us would just like to try treating them with a bit of respect for a change.
I am embarrassed by Bush’s support for an anti-gay marriage amendment, but it doesn’t anger me because my gut feeling is that he sincerely believes that gay marriage is a violation of God’s will. Kerry’s opposition to gay marriage, however, seems to me to rest on no spiritual conviction. He is not against homosexuality as such but only against supporting gays when they want his to endorse changes that might cost him votes. So I think that Kerry’s stance is cowardly whereas Bush’s is just wrongheaded. I think that the Republican strategists are taking advantage of Bush’s Christian beliefs in a way that is rather ill advised.
I also think that the Republicans missed a major windfall this week. If they had not launched this silly “900 billion dollar” negative ad, Kerry’s “worst bunch of crooks” remark could have seriously damaged him. The use of negative ads by the Republicans so early in the campaign has prevented them from gaining the moral high ground.
I thought that Kerry came across as aristocratic in the worst possible way – the educated snob telling the dumb blue-collar workers how to think. It reminded me of Graham Chapman in the Monty Python North Minehead By-Election sketch (the part where he’s dressed in important looking clothes and mingling with the crowd and making supportive remarks about the candidate).
As for Martha Stewart, it’s just another example of why it is that Americans are so afraid of their government. Here’s a woman who was convicted of lying about nothing to a bunch of jerks who were trying to frame her for what wasn’t even a crime in the first place. She’s famous and has a bad temper so she goes to jail to teach us all a lesson. Dream your American dream boys and girls but don’t think that you can ever be totally free from the possibility of a selective prosecution. We’ll reinterpret the criminal statutes however we need to if we want to get you bad enough. The Stewart case is a considerable threat to civil liberties because it sours the dream for everyone.
I can’t think of a more honest business than teaching ordinary people how to improve the quality of their lives. But then again, somehow I always knew that style was a sin and not to be tolerated. If Stewart had been a pornographer or the leader of a religious cult, the whole world would have leapt to her defense. And thousands of shareholders lost a total of over 10,000 times as much money as a result of the prosecution than she saved by dumping Inclone. Go figure.
