This piece ran in the Commentariat, the Spectator opinion blog.
Over this past weekend, Sarah Palin released the following statement:
I am, in my own, state, I have voted along with the vast majority of Alaskans who had the opportunity to vote to amend our Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. I wish on a federal level that that’s where we would go because I don’t support gay marriage
For those of you who weren’t able to make out quite what she was trying to say — I couldn’t, at first — she is declaring her support for a Constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. Needless to say, I disagree with her on a fundamental level for a variety of reasons — every amendment has been thus far designed to expand freedoms, not restrict them; I believe that marriage is a fundamental human and Constitutional right (see the 9th and 14th amendments); and, quite frankly, there’s really no non-religious argument against same-sex marriage (and even the religious argument is debatable). But, you know, I’m friends with all sorts of people, some of whom don’t believe in same-sex marriage and we get along just fine as long as we don’t talk about politics. But the one thing that I can’t accept is blatant hypocrisy. Sort of like the hypocrisy that Sarah Palin demonstrated in the following statement:
I’m not going to be out there judging individuals, sitting in a seat of judgment telling what they can and can’t do, should and should not do, but I certainly can express my own opinion here and take actions that I believe would be best for traditional marriage and that’s casting my votes and speaking up for traditional marriage that, that instrument that it’s the foundation of our society is that strong family and that’s based on that traditional definition of marriage, so I do support that.
Well, we’re all educated people here. Can anyone else tell me what’s wrong with this? There are a lot of things wrong with it, such as what she did to the English language, which, honestly, ought to be criminalized, but that’s not quite what I’m going for. My point was that, first, by supporting a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage she is by definition “judging individuals, sitting in a seat of judgment”. In fact, her statement about “strong families” directly implies that same-sex couples cannot foster strong families (which, incidentally, they can. Oops.) — this is, again, a moral judgment. Secondly, again, by definition of supporting an amendment, she is “telling [individuals] what they can and can’t do, should and should not do”.
The prospect of giving Sarah Palin any more power or influence than she already has is, quite frankly, terrifying. In fact, I find it profoundly disturbing that any educated person who has been exposed to her statements could vote for John McCain, who has a one in three chance of dying in office.
Beyond any policy differences I might have with John McCain and Sarah Palin (and believe me, there are very many) the sheer number of personality flaws which make both of them unfit to lead is staggering.
John McCain’s well-documented and well known anger issues, his mysogyny (he tells unfunny rape jokes involving gorillas and called his wife both “a trollop” and “a cunt” in front of a group of reporters), his old age and poor health (the fact that he couldn’t remember that Iraq shares a border with Iran, not Afghanistan, and that he couldn’t remember the number of houses he has demonstrates a failure of memory, not necessarily a disconnect from Joe the Plumber), and his evidently poor judgment (he picked Sarah Palin) all combine into a terrifying prospect of a McCain presidency.
And, if, for some reason, John McCain were to die in office and Sarah Palin were to take charge, I would be even more horrified. Sarah Palin’s ignorance of American and legal history (she could only name one Supreme Court case: Roe v. Wade), her inability to form a coherent sentence (see above, or any interview with Couric), her belief that some parts of this country are more “pro-America” than others, and her ethical questionability (she attempted to ban books at the Wasilla library, fired the police chief for personal reasons, and charged victims for rape kits) all paint a very, very dim prospect for America under a Palin administration.
Yes We Can; But So Could They
November 6, 2008 · Filed under Basic Decency, Commentariat, Election 2008, LGBT Issues · Tagged barack obama, depressing, douchebaggery, entirely uncalled for, gay rights, good on-goings-on?, GOP, john mccain, mormon church, proposition 8, race, real america, real american, religion, republican party, same-sex marriage, sarah palin, wtf
This about summarizes how I, as a religious person, feel about the whole gay thing. Click the image for a larger version.
This piece ran in the Commentariat, the Spectator opinion blog.
Last night, when I found out Barack Obama had won, I was ecstatic. I ran out of my dorm with my friends and we, and probably 200 other Columbia students, marched up to Harlem to watch the last few minutes of Obama’s speech.
But when I got back to my computer and television, I was horribly disappointed. The ban on gay marriage in Florida had passed, the ban on gay marriage in Arizona had passed, the ban on gay marriage in California had passed, and the ban on gay adoption in Arkansas had passed. Al Franken looked like he was going to lose to Norm Coleman, and convicted felon Ted Stevens was ahead by three points in Alaska (my friend has vowed to start donating to the Alaskan Independence Party so that incubator of corrupt and incompetant politicians will leave us alone and take their two corrupt Republican senators with them).
I know I should be happy. My friends keep telling me that Barack Obama will be good for gay people. And “at least it’s not McCain”. And yet, for the past eight years — for nearly half of my lifetime — my countrymen have been voting to stop me from having equal rights.
Read the rest of this entry »
Comments (1) »