Liberals Will Ban Bibles
2004-09-19 11:55![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
chipotleAs suggested earlier, I'm going to get political here occasionally rather than moving things to a separate blog, but to spare those who might find this a little too acid,
From the AP wires (via Yahoo):
I have more than one friend who supports Bush and who's also gay or bisexual. (Many of them are also atheists or agnostics.)
And, you know, I'm not going to tell them they shouldn't. They're convinced Kerry would be terrible for national security, or that he'd take away their guns, or that he'd radically balloon the nanny welfare state or whatever. Or they've just accepted the Republican talking points that Kerry's a flip-flopper with no discernable record in the Senate. I disagree with each of those points, but I doubt I'm going to be able to convince those who are dead set against Kerry, just like I doubt I could be convinced at this point that Bush's policies, both foreign and domestic, have been anything but disasters (or "catastrophic successes," if you prefer).
But I am going to say to those people, those self-identified "conservative queers" or the Republican atheists: don't believe for a second that "your" party has the respect for you that you give it. No matter how closer you may think you are to the Republicans than the Democrats on issues of policy, your value is as a scarecrow. You will cast your vote for Bush at the same time Bush's campaign will be using you as an example of everything that's wrong in American society. To you, they may be the party of fiscal responsibility, military strength and upholding the Second Amendment. To them, you're a godless queer. Period.
Yeah, I know it's the other things that attract you to the Republicans. I'm just saying I can't shake the similarity between that idea and "my husband doesn't hit me often, and he's really a fine guy most of the rest of the time."
From the AP wires (via Yahoo):
Campaign mail with a return address of the Republican National Committee (news - web sites) warns West Virginia voters that the Bible will be prohibited and men will marry men if liberals win in November. The literature shows a Bible with the word "BANNED" across it and a photo of a man, on his knees, placing a ring on the hand of another man with the word "ALLOWED." The mailing tells West Virginians to "vote Republican to protect our families" and defeat the "liberal agenda."
I have more than one friend who supports Bush and who's also gay or bisexual. (Many of them are also atheists or agnostics.)
And, you know, I'm not going to tell them they shouldn't. They're convinced Kerry would be terrible for national security, or that he'd take away their guns, or that he'd radically balloon the nanny welfare state or whatever. Or they've just accepted the Republican talking points that Kerry's a flip-flopper with no discernable record in the Senate. I disagree with each of those points, but I doubt I'm going to be able to convince those who are dead set against Kerry, just like I doubt I could be convinced at this point that Bush's policies, both foreign and domestic, have been anything but disasters (or "catastrophic successes," if you prefer).
But I am going to say to those people, those self-identified "conservative queers" or the Republican atheists: don't believe for a second that "your" party has the respect for you that you give it. No matter how closer you may think you are to the Republicans than the Democrats on issues of policy, your value is as a scarecrow. You will cast your vote for Bush at the same time Bush's campaign will be using you as an example of everything that's wrong in American society. To you, they may be the party of fiscal responsibility, military strength and upholding the Second Amendment. To them, you're a godless queer. Period.
Yeah, I know it's the other things that attract you to the Republicans. I'm just saying I can't shake the similarity between that idea and "my husband doesn't hit me often, and he's really a fine guy most of the rest of the time."
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-09-19 19:16 (UTC)I did get the "order your absentee ballot now and make your vote count" mailing, which I found quite amusing.
I am a rarity, in that I am a Republican adamantly against the "Defense of Marriage" amendment. If it were really a defense of marriage, it would include provisions intended to lower the divorce rate, especially to keep parents together.
As far as whether gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry, I feel they should. I have yet to see any evidence that same-sex marriages threaten male-female marriages. So far, as far as I can see, the major contributors to divorce remain infidelity, irreconcilable differences, personal issues (one spouse being convicted of a crime, or extended geographical separation due to work), and the like.
If we need a constitutional amendment, it's an extensive rewrite of the First Amendment, as follows:
I. The right of people to speak and express themselves freely, to form and follow or ignore religions as they choose, and to otherwise peacefully assemble, being the entire reason for our Republic to exist, shall not be abridged, neither by Congress, nor by the Executive Branch, nor by the Judicial Branch. Reprisals against free speech, expression, religion, non-religion, or association that infringe on those rights shall not be tolerated.
In the meantime, the GOP has largely been successful in diverting arch-conservative attention away from the failures of the present administration--so well, in fact, that they have also effectively glossed over the failures of the previous administration--using the red herring of gay marriage.
Remember, every time Bush brings it up, he avoids talking about the economy, the Iraqi quagmire, the environmental mess, the educational nightmare, and all the corporations to which he has proven himself loyal at our expense.