I tried to watch the so-called debate last night. Fact is, though, that I thought it was just the same old gobbledy-gook and namby-pamby pandering that I've been hearing for years.
Kucinich and Gravel are really on our side, but they're also both pretty unelectable. Still, I'm seriously thinking about throwing a few bucks towards the Kucinich campaign.
Edwards just looked and sounded smarmy to me.
Richards is really unlikeable.
Obama is "ok" but, as another blogger wrote, he's "not riveting." At least not on LGBT issues. Still, he is a hopemonger (his word), and I'm a pushover for them.
The real revelation, though (and why do I continue to be surprised by this) was Hillary's "spin" on her views. She was asked why she was "against gay marriage" and without losing a beat she responded with "I'd prefer to think of it as being pro civil union."
Well, duh.
If I were a Clinton I could believe whatever I want, with no harm nor foul towards others.
One of the questioners, Melissa Etheridge (who came out during the first Clinton administration's Inaugural Ball), took Hillary to task by recalling that "we were full of hope" and then (in her words) "we got kicked under the bus."
Don't ever forget that the Clinton's did, indeed, kick us under the bus. They were nothing if not pragmatic sell-outs.
And as far as I'm concerned the LGBT community no longer has the luxury of backing "pragmatic sellouts" for President. For too long the parties have taken our money, courted our votes and finally, when elected, ignored our simplest needs. Fuck politics and fuck politicians.
Finally, I'd like to point out that Chris Dodd (Connecticut) and Joe Biden (Delaware) were no-shows for the event. I'm not surprised that Biden wasn't there. He voted in favor of DOMA. Once upon a time I believed in Biden. That was in 1972, when he was the youngest elected Senator in history (he turned 30, the minimum age, between the election in November and the swearing in in January). It's been downhill with him ever since.
None of the candidates suggested what I've been suggesting for some time. To get government out of the "marriage" business altogether. You don't find government in the marriage business in Europe. Everybody in Europe who gets married in a church has to traipse downtown after the fact to "seal the deal" by filling out government paperwork, confirming the contract between the parties involved.
And that's what we should have here. Let the churches have all the weddings they want. It won't mean a damn thing until the bride and groom head to city hall to sign the contract.
And everybody will be on an equal footing then.
And church can keep it's "holy sacrament."
I'd like one of the candidates to propose that.
6 comments:
You may like to read this. I thought she put it so beautifully and eloquently. When this happened, the city was flooding and everyone was frantic, and still, they took the time to tell her she couldn't make end of life decisions for her partner. We've passed domestic partnerships in this state since.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2003827542_charlenestrong09.html
Too bad that link from Mary is no longer active. Your suggestion re marriage will never work -- it makes too much sense, and this country is about making no sense whatsoever.
Or, as Winston Churchill once said, "You can always count on the American People to do the right thing... once they've exhausted every other possibility."
It's very interesting, isn't it, that Europe, no doubt in large measure thanks to Napoleon Bonaparte, stopped church meddling in the contractural business of marriage centuries ago.
No matter what you think about old Bonaparte, he had some good ideas.
Well crap. Sorry about that. Go to Seattletimes.com and do a search for Kate Fleming. Read the first article that comes up. It's written by her partner.
much as I agree with you that gov't needs to get out of the marriage biz, I find I just don't have much emotional energy for this issue anymore. much as I would like to have equal marriage rights, I am frankly a lot more concerned these days about fair trade/living wage jobs, regaining all of our civil rights (which seem to have largely vanished post 9/11), global warming/our energy future and ending junior's war, all of which I believe affect me a lot more than the fact that ron and I can't be married.
as far as the prezzy would-bes, Edwards is my lukewarm favorite, thought I could also vote for Obama without holding my nose. Hillary is so far in bed with big bidness (which is opposed to all of the concerns I mentioned above) that I don't think I could blacken the oval next to her name, even with an industrial size nose clamp
Alan,
I understand exactly what you're saying.
I get inundated with e-mailings from the HRC and, to hear them tell it, there's only one issue in town worthy of concern by the LGBT community... MARRIAGE. I even e-mailed Solmonese a while back stating the same things I mentioned in my blog.
Needless to say I never heard back from them.
Anyway, it's their constant hectoring on the subject that drives me to distraction (and to blog on the subject).
You're right. There are other, more pressing, issues.
Post a Comment