Well, the election results are in and I am only slightly numb. I had suspected Kerry would have an uphill battle all along, but he probably didn’t help himself by acting so, well, Senatorial (if that’s even a word) for most of the campaign. Conversely, Bush made every effort to increase his appeal to Joseph Q. Everyman by showing that he was just a regular kind of guy. What can I say? People like other folks like themselves. It is one of the enduring paradoxes of democracy that the “will of the people” is so often placed upon a pedestal as some type of ideal, but that this will is often the result of nothing more than the coalescing of a collective fear of change, short term financial motivations, and blatant self-interest.
That said, I would suggest that the greatest tragedy of the 2004 elections isn’t that Kerry lost – it’s that the citizens of eleven (count ‘em, eleven!) states decided it was a good thing to codify their personal fears and prejudices by amending their state’s constitutions to outlaw Gay marriage. I often wonder what type of mass neurosis must be affecting so many of my fellow Americans that they actually think discrimination is allowable so long as it is legislated. I am, in fact, reminded of the fact that Adolph Hitler was legally elected, that his assumption of dictatorial powers was duly approved by the Reichstag, and that every single terrible thing that happened to the Jews in Germany was the direct result of statutes adapted by the government and enforced by the entire judicial apparatus of the nation.
Now don’t take this out of context and say that I am comparing our conservative Christian friends to the Nazis – the differences should be so abundantly clear that they need no elucidation here. I am merely voicing the opinion that just because something is legal, or even reflecting the will of a majority, doesn’t necessarily make it right. Considering our own country's recent history in the civil rights arena, I think this is a critical distinction, and one which should be in the forefront of every voters mind before they pull that lever. It has never been the proper place of government to legislate private morality, but to provide for the safety, rights and freedoms of all of its citizens. America’s greatest challenge is not Iraq, or terrorism, but whether we will allow ourselves to become the same type of insular and intolerant nation that distinguished us from the Old World two-hundred years ago.
I consider myself a patriotic American, and the times are very few indeed that I have been ashamed of my country. This is one of those times.
LePenseur
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Insightful commentary. I assume you will be with us on the forefront of the drive to force tolerance down their throats?
decided it was a good thing to codify their personal fears and prejudices by amending their state’s constitutions to outlaw Gay marriage.
Well that's ONE take on the voting, let me give you another take... how does your metaphor for Nazi Germany work when it isnt the masses of people exercising their right of determination but rather a half dozen APPOINTED judges legislating from their APPOINTED positions of power? The people were just fine, leaving well enough alone, leaving domestic partnerships as a viable and equal option.. it wasnt until these same judges decided to take very creative approaches to laws already on the books that MADE the people act. No group of people have a particular right to determine the definition of a word to suit their purposes. Because 1% of the population wants to shove their will down the rest of our throats doesnt make us the intolerant ones. Those constitutional amendments were knee jerk reactions but you should ask yourself what caused the knee to jerk? Those amendments didnt legislate hatred or anything of the sort, it delineated what is and isnt marriage, what has always been and always hasnt been marriage and no amount of revisionism will change that. You should be sad, but what should have made you sad was the fact a few federal judges decided to take us all down this road.
Of course "viable and equal" equates to "seperate but equal," which was stricken by those same federal courts as unconstitutional back in the 1960s - an action I believe we can all agree was long over due.
And I fail to see how alowing a Gay couple to get married materially impacts your life or mine in any substantive way - so how exactly is the Gay community "forcing" the issue down your throat?
I stand behind my claim that homophobia, whether based upon religion or social upbringing, remains an ugly reminder of America's hypocracy.
Your metaphor would hold more water if it was of the same species, genus or even phylum for that matter. Changing the definition of marriage, a wholy (pun intended) religious occasion to something that suits a particular lifestyle is more than a stones throw from allowing blacks to drink from water fountains or sit in the front of busses. There is a difference between a marriage between a man and a woman and having the rights (italicized because there is NO right to marry) of marriage for same sex couples. These same sex couples are not looking for the rights (priveleges).. they have those today, they are looking to impose their will on the other 99% of the population in the name of "tolerance". I cant think of something more intolerant than that.
Post a Comment