« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »
01/06/2010
Granite Staters throw stones at peaceful, loving, non-controversy
Yesterday in New Hampshire, Republican state Rep. David Bates led a press conference for the purposes of explaining why, exactly, in this representative government in which we operate, the bare majority vote of a largely faith-based mob should be allowed to overturn others' legislatively-approved civil marriages:
Many people who oppose same-sex marriage, Bates said, "do not agree that we as a society must be compelled to sanction something we find morally objectionable."
Bates has created a website, LetNHVote.com, and is organizing volunteers in advance of this year's town meetings to circulate petition warrant articles urging legislators to allow a vote on a marriage amendment.
"Ironically, the very people we have elected to represent us are the only obstacles that stand in the way of the people having a chance to vote on the amendment," Bates said.
Lawmaker wants voters to decide same-sex marriage [Concord Monitor]
Really, Rep. Bates? It's "ironic" that elected lawmakers who have been sent to office BY THE PEOPLE understand that crucial civil rights matters are not to be decided by direct referendum? Because last time we checked, that stance was nothing more than "accurate." Or "fair." Or "American."
Oh, and nobody is seeking your "moral sanctioning" -- we are seeking to free our CIVIL marriages from your side's personal religious tests! Just as we want Team Anti-Gay to be free to go about their days, preaching Leviticus on whatever street corner they so choose, we want loving gay couples to be free to follow their own path to morality, which often includes a commitment to one life partner. A commitment that should be just as recognized in the eyes of the law as any tax-paying heterosexual's own union! A commitment that should not be forcibly stripped because it gives some people (who weren't even invited to the wedding) the heebie jeebies.
Your thoughts
There is, I think, a sociological issue going on behind the scenes of American political discourse. The fringe right (and perhaps not just the fringe) has promoted us-versus-them rhetoric in regards to the government, prompting millions of Americans to see their nation as made up of the government and the people. One visit to OneNewsNow.com or Focus on the Family's Drivethru blog will underscore my point. The government has misled and betrayed the people, and it's time for the people to take back their nation from the government.
(It must be noted that although the fringe right is currently the main perpetrator of this sort of rhetoric, it has been employed by members of all sides of the political realm. I'm talking current events here.)
The problem with promoting this image of a divided society is that it can lead to revolt and violence. If the government is the faceless, dehumanized enemy of the people, it becomes much easier for the people to attack it. It's anomie, really: Those who see the government as the enemy feel that societal norms are falling away and are left in a state of, well, strain. They feel hopeless and powerless to stop it, thinking that no matter what they do in 2010, the cascade effect is too strong to stop.
This is never more evident than in the same-sex marriage debate. Rather than taking responsibility for electing people who don't share their views, many individuals are blaming the representatives for (in Obama's case) stealing elections, for betraying the people, for betraying God, etc. There is, I feel, a sentiment that no elected official can actually represent the views of the people, thus furthering the us-versus-them divide.
We are the government. The government is the people. If you lose, take your lumps, go home and try again next election cycle. It's how our system works. It's torture sometimes, but it's lasted us this long.
Posted by: Brian | Jan 6, 2010 9:26:34 AM
Many people who oppose same-sex marriage, Bates said, "do not agree that we as a society must be compelled to sanction something we find morally objectionable."
And same-sex marriage is only one of the myriad of "somethings" that the pompous lying liars find to be "morally" objectionable. And, if they could (can) find enough dimwitted buffoons to bankroll political campaigns against any of those other "somethings", they would be shaking that money tree for all it's worth as well.
I find it to be morally objectionable that the lying liars are allowed to swindle the "innocent" (gullible) buffoons who continue to give them money. Maybe we should put that up to a popular vote??
Posted by: Dick Mills | Jan 6, 2010 11:13:14 AM
comments powered by Disqus
