While I do want to give this guy a hug for being a democrat to the bone, I want to use his comments to illustrate exactly WHY I AM SO FUCKING TIRED OF THIS BULLSHIT.
I understand he is not representative of the average democratic party member, his sentence structure is too complex.
If we wait to do any good thing until it does not galvanize the wingnuts, we will never do that thing. In this case, the good thing is the establishment of legal safeguards for a basic human right. Did we let, say, George Wallace decide when African Americans were allowed to participate fully in American society? No, of course not. Why should this be any different?While I admire the fact you clearly read one of my previous posts, I am going to have to stop you right there. Don't retreat to a vaguely parallel argument and argue from there, it is intellectually flaccid and simply not a valid avenue of discussion. Civil Rights was its own beast and while minorities in both cases are involved, the gap is simply too large.
I am talking about a set of judges who could have AT ANY TIME reviewed this ruling instead allowed the enticing concept of judicial activism to take over, and here we are 2008 and making headlines. I will also point out that the previous ruling of this sort occurred in Massachusetts in 2004 DO YOU SEE A FUCKING PATTERN OCCURRING.
I received a list email this week from a local Democratic political consultant who says Obama will lose the election for Democrats because there are too many people who will never vote for an African American. I disagree strongly with this man, but suppose hypothetically that he is right: where are our obligations? and what would the effect be of not nominating Sen. Obama because he is Black?Again with the parallel argument. BLACK PEOPLE ARE NOT HOMOSEXUALS, JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE BOTH MINORITIES DOES NOT ALLOW YOU TO FREELY COMPARE THE TWO GROUPS, IN FACT I AM PRETTY SURE THEY ARE BOTH FUCKING TIRED OF IT IF I HAD TO GUESS.
There is a difference between moral obligations and exploiting a hot topic in order to frame the talking points. This is divisive and smells like politics, just because it happens to actually be the right thing to do does not make it politics
I think you see where I'm going with this: we cannot forsake our obligation to do the right thing because it is inconvenient or even painful in the short term. The same is true of gay marriage. Will establishing same-sex marriage galvanize the wingnuts? It does not matter: we must advocate it anyway, if we wish to be able to look at ourselves in the mirror.Now I respect that you have a very nice looking horse there but I am going to have to ask you to get off. That was a really nice line for a speech but I need you to put on your thinking cap and realize when you are being yanked around by some self serving politics. Gay marriage is OBVIOUSLY the right thing to do, but just because some asshat in an election year says "jump I have a good cause" does not mean you need to reply "how high"
i hate you all