Naw, not really. I don't believe he hates me. I wanted to get your attention.
This post is to make a couple of points. First, I really dislike the constantly used, weak-brained liberal ploy to claim that anyone who votes against civil equality for gays and lesbians hates them and is therefore hateful. No need for me to defend my position on this blog. An abundance of life experiences with the religious tells me that such statements are both untrue and offensive.
My second point does however take on Pawlenty and his politics. Governor Pawlenty of Minnesota has vetoed or promised to veto a Minnesota bill that would extend certain rights to gay partners. The bill mostly would allow gay partners to make decisions concerning the disposal of remains after a partner's death and allow them to be a suing party in a wrongful death situation. Pawlenty said, "There is no need for this bill...it addresses a nonexistent problem..." and "I oppose efforts to treat domestic partnerships as the equivalent of traditional marriage. Accordingly, I am opposed to this bill." Given Minnesota allows married couples these two privileges, there obviously is a need; just not a need if you are gay.
So why do I target Governor Pawlenty when many other Republicans politicians think and vote like him? Because he is most likely going to run for President in 2012...maybe in concert with Mitt Romney. Our nation is becoming increasingly diverse. This trend will not reverse itself nor can it be reversed. Republicans who cannot give an inch in areas of public social policy may please some, but they do nothing to help us become a less polarized country. Even if I were displeased enough with the Democratic Party and President Obama to look for other options, such lack of pragmaticism makes it impossible for me to vote for most any Republican.
2 comments:
I am not familiar with the particulars of the law Pawlenty is against, but based on Doug's description, I see nothing wrong with such a law, but I am sure there is more to it that I know. But that issue aside, I understand Doug's voting dilemma. We each have issues that are very important to us. For Doug, it is gay issues as well as other civil liberties. For me, it's fiscal responsibility. For Doug, his issues make voting Republican very difficult. For me, fiscal responsibility makes voting Democrat very difficult. Even if a particular candidate of the opposite party were to be in line with our important issues, it still might be difficult to vote for them because there is intense pressure to vote otherwise when they get in office. For me, if the Democrats as a party begin acting (not just mouthing it) in a fiscally responsible manner, I would be happy to consider supporting many of their other desirable positions. Alas, I see no hope of that, and I suppose Doug sees no hope for the Republicans to swing behind his issues.
Well said. But I wish we could move on from the issues that I feel I must use as first filters in my voting criteria because I do care about a lot of other subjects.
Post a Comment