Good As You

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

07/19/2006

Responding to the Washington Blade's revelation that the Democratic National Committee plans to fight state same-sex marriage bans, the Illinois Family Institute's Peter LaBarbera says to Focus on the Family's CitizenLink:

"FDR would be turning over in his grave right now, if he knew what today's Democratic Party was engaged in, when it comes to marriage,"

"Marriage is not a Democratic issue or a Republican one. It's an American issue," he said. "To see a political party kowtow to homosexual activists like this makes it a really a sad day."

Uhmmm...okay. First off, Petey, -- the phrase should be that FDR "IS" or "MUST" be turning in his grave right now. Saying he "would be turning" implies that he's either not yet dead or has no access to the news of the living. Since he's already in a grave, the turning is either happening or isn't -- but his corpse shifting maneuver is not a forthcoming event.

That being said, however -- you might actually be sort of right about Mr. Roosevelt's stance in the current marriage debate, though not for the reasons you think. Ya see, FDR's record on civil rights has been one of the few black marks that has, in some people's eyes, tarnished his presidential legacy. On many issues -- from military desegregation, the Holocaust, to Japanese-American sentiment -- he oftentimes took a non-commital approach in order to appease those who he needed to support his New Deal and other policies. So in that sense, if FDR was magically transplanted into modern day America without experiencing the societal progression that has happened in the sixty-one years since his death, he might encourage modern day Dems to cool their jets on marriage equality even more than they have in the past. But just like with the Jews, blacks, Asian-Americans, and every other group to whom it was "acceptable" to show discrimination in his day, his theoretical non-advancement of queer civil rights would be later remembered as one of his presidency's missteps, not one of its shining moments.

But Mr. LaBarbera, had Mr. Roosevelt been brought up and raised in our modern world as we have, it's a more logical conclusion that he would look at many of the issues on which he didn't take aggressive action in the same vain in which we now see them. He was born in a very different time, in which slavery was legal and women were far from equal. And even in that day and age, he was still quasi-progressive on many social issues. So for you to imply that the man who's considered a bright beacon of the Democratic party "would be" embarrassed by its current incarnations' protestations against anti-gay bigotry, is not only ridiculous because of its hypothetical nature, it's also unlikely given what we know about Franklin Delano (not to mention Eleanor).

So are you done, Pete, or do you have thoughts on Grover Cleveland's post-mortality movements that you'd also like to share? Just let us know if you do.

DNC Hatches Plan to Combat State-Marriage Initiatives [FOF CitizenLink]

**Oh, and Peter -- as far as marriage not being a Democratic or Republican concern, but rather an "American issue?" Yea, we're only a 230 year old nation. Please don't show duplicity towards marriage anymore than you already have by painting it as if us Americans are the ones who invented it, foster it, and control its destiny. You know there were actually generations of folks who were married before our humble country was ever colonized? It's true, Pete, Pete -- marriage is actually a HUMAN issue, not confined to or controlled by the United States.

*Why are my comments not appearing? See the G-A-Y Comments Policy