In a thread below, we're having a "What's the Matter With Kansas?" discussion, in which one of the stalwart combox liberals can't understand why a Kansas farmer in a news story we're discussing refuses to vote Democratic, despite his progressive/populist economic views, because the Democrats, generally speaking, support gay marriage and abortion. Susan, the reader, voices the Thomas Frank position, which is, "How bizarre it is that people like this throw their vote away on meaningless social issues instead of voting their economic interests." The idea is that the GOP has bamboozled them.
But the fact is, there are a lot of decent rural people who don't understand what's going on in a world in which men want to marry men, and women want to preserve the "right" to have a doctor stick a knife into their wombs and cut their little babies to pieces before sucking the severed legs and arms and head out. And they are asked to vote for a party that believes in these things, and that thinks people like him are rotten bigots for believing these things are deeply wrong -- and that these are issues that matter a lot more than money.
Here's how you can tell that a liberal who makes the "What's The Matter With Kansas?" argument is doing so in bad faith. Say you offered a deal to cultural liberals, saying, "Look, if we bear right on gay rights and abortion, and make room for social conservatives in the party, you're not going to like what these people stand for, but we can build a working majority for a Democratic Congress, and maybe even the presidency. We can get our economic platform enacted, even though we'll be stymied on abortion and gay rights. But that's a small price to pay, because economics is what really matters. What do you say?"
Ninety-nine out of 100 of these liberal Democrats would say not no, but hell no. Because the cultural stuff matters to them more than their economic interests. I get that. If I thought abortion and gay rights/marriage were matters of fundamental justice, I'd be unwilling to compromise either. But I would hope that I didn't have the nerve to put down culturally conservative Kansans for caring as much about these issues as I did.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Subscribe
M_David,
"What I cannot understand is why Democrats don't demand moderation from their side"
Then allow me to enlighten you. Equality is supposed to be guaranteed to ALL citizens.
There. That wasn't so hard to understand, was it?
When you say "moderation" you mean accept a lesser status. And to that I can only say 2 things: 1. NEVER! and 2. Would YOU give up YOUR equality rights?>
Bobby N,
You compared my marriage to Jane, an unmarried woman still living with and supporting her widowed father.
I suspect that since the spouse is already deceased, normal procedures would then leave it to the 'kids' as you put it. I have no reason to believe otherwise from your short scenario - but it is the premise of it that is illogical to begin with. Compare me, a gay spouse with a living, same-sex spouse to a heterosexual spouse witha living opposite sex spouse. It's called apples and oranges.
"And with visitation rights, you can easily see that a situation similar to the above with two people who have chosen to live together for decades without any sexual relationship merits consideration - spinster aunts often had such arrangements in prior days. You would naturally assume that if two people have chosen to live under the same roof, then there is by that fact alone some reason for a presumption of visitation rights, and the exact nature of their relationship - whether sexual or celibate - is irrelevant for the state's purpose."
So why does the State (and the anti-gay crowd) wish to make the nature of MY relationship 'relevant'??? We've been together for 21 years (and legally married for more than 2 years now). Why does the statement, "then there is by that fact alone some reason for a presumption of visitation rights" NOT apply to me???
"So, there are a few areas (not lots, I grant) where the custom of assigning rights and presumed intent has been for the most part based on the marital relationship"
That would mean I ought to have those same rights since I am married.
And, oh yes, thanks for proving my point about the sheer and utter lack of 'christian' charity in your oh so kind "ugly spectre of giving rights specifically on account of an immoral sexual relationship."
I was married in my Church. That you think it is an "ugly spectre" and an "immoral relationship" and how you think society is "descending" says scads more about you than about me.>
curiouser, thanks for responding to my questions.
You asked: Now turn around and ask yourself the very same question: would YOU be willing to give up the word "marriage"?
I think I would, but since I'm not in that situation that's easy for me to say, I know. Let's say the Dominion people got their way and the this country were ruled according to Biblical law. Now, I was divorced and am now remarried; but in the eyes of some fundamentalists I know am not really remarried, because in the eyes of God I'm still married to my first husband. But I think if they told me I could keep all the rights that came with my marriage -- I just wasn't going to be considered "married" according to Dominion law, I'd say fine, fine... and just carry on thinking of myself as married and telling people I was married and wearing my wedding ring and being married. Who cares what the Dominion people think or how they define marriage? They say I'm brilloped, not married. Fine. I have the legal rights, I have the husband, I have the commitment in my heart.
HB>
curiouser, by the way: My brother and his partner (both "late," as Precious Ramotswe would say) were married in a wonderful ceremony in 1990. It was beautiful and meaningful and I am continually grateful that they celebrated their love and commitment to each other with their friends and families as witnesses. It's a cherished memory in my family.
HB>
HB,
(Not sure if these older blogs are still 'active' but here goes...)
"Now, I was divorced and am now remarried; but in the eyes of some fundamentalists I know am not really remarried, because in the eyes of God I'm still married to my first husband."
All well and good, but you are ALLOWED to marry and then 're-marry' at will. Gay people cannot yet. Oh, and yes, you really ARE married - what the 'fundamentalists' say is irrelevant to reality.
"But I think if they told me I could keep all the rights that came with my marriage"
AHA! THERE's the nut of it. You heterosexuals GET those rights automatically - gays do not - even if some religious whacko 'thinks' you aren't married, the LAW says you are. YOU get to "keep all the rights"; they deny them to us in the first place.
"Who cares what the Dominion people think or how they define marriage?"
Lawmakers, that's who cares - apparently. At least under the influence of the RRRers they do. And THEY (the "Dominion people") WOULD take away your rights and privileges 'cuz, according to them, you are living in SIN.
"They say I'm brilloped, not married. Fine. I have the legal rights, I have the husband, I have the commitment in my heart."
I guess maybe I'm "brilloped" too, but the difference is you do indeed have the legal rights - DESPITE what it is called. Gays do not, despite us having husbands, despite us having the commitment in our hearts. It's called INJUSTCIE, and it is why we continue the struggle to achieve equality.>
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.