An Editorial by Matt HurleyNow seems to be a good time to bring up an issue that nobody seems to really want to talk about much and that is the gay marriage debate. And I don't mean to get in to the pros and cons of same sex marriage, I mean to address why don't we actually, seriously, discuss this subject.
Now this is not the most important subject in this election cycle; that is national security, naturally, as it should be. But I find it interesting that the liberals didn't think to bring up this nor abortion during the Democratic National Convention. Those are two issues that really fire up their base, but nary a word this year. Will the Republicans spend any time on these issues? I wouldn't think so, but we'll have to wait and see.
When the Federal Marriage Amendment was all the rage, John Kerry's team continued to hammer the President saying that it was devisive; yet a majority of Americans were behind amending the Constitution of the United States to protect the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman. How can it have been devisive when a majority of the electorate wanted it? I don't think undertaking an issue that has that much support is devisive, I think it is responsibile politicking. Have we forgotten that these people are supposed to be representing us?
Foes of the amendment tried to paint the issue as taking rights away from Americans. Not true. Try to find the word marriage in the Consitution. You can't because it isn't there. Marriage is a privilege, not a right; like driving, no one is entitled. They say that an amendment would prevent a segment of the population from benefits all Americans are entitled to. Not true. Americans are willing to through their support behind civil unions. All the benefits of marriage without the religious implications of marriage.
Americans are not going to tolerate activists pushing their agenda. The California Supreme Court just issued a smackdown to San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom by declaring that in issuing those marriage licenses, he acted with authority he did not possess. Mayor Newsom used the gay community for political purposes. And for that he should be punished...by the gay community. But the activists won't let that happen because they protect their own. Regardless, the conversation needs to take place.
The main reason for not engaging in the debate now is that we are currently fighting a war with civilization itself hanging in the balance. At least that is the excuse (though legitimate) that the politcos will espouse, but the truth is that neither side wants to risk the balance of terror that we have achieved in the Culture War. Meanwhile, casulties mount on both sides.
Doesn't America deserve a great debate of ideas?
Now this is not the most important subject in this election cycle; that is national security, naturally, as it should be. But I find it interesting that the liberals didn't think to bring up this nor abortion during the Democratic National Convention. Those are two issues that really fire up their base, but nary a word this year. Will the Republicans spend any time on these issues? I wouldn't think so, but we'll have to wait and see.
When the Federal Marriage Amendment was all the rage, John Kerry's team continued to hammer the President saying that it was devisive; yet a majority of Americans were behind amending the Constitution of the United States to protect the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman. How can it have been devisive when a majority of the electorate wanted it? I don't think undertaking an issue that has that much support is devisive, I think it is responsibile politicking. Have we forgotten that these people are supposed to be representing us?
Foes of the amendment tried to paint the issue as taking rights away from Americans. Not true. Try to find the word marriage in the Consitution. You can't because it isn't there. Marriage is a privilege, not a right; like driving, no one is entitled. They say that an amendment would prevent a segment of the population from benefits all Americans are entitled to. Not true. Americans are willing to through their support behind civil unions. All the benefits of marriage without the religious implications of marriage.
Americans are not going to tolerate activists pushing their agenda. The California Supreme Court just issued a smackdown to San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom by declaring that in issuing those marriage licenses, he acted with authority he did not possess. Mayor Newsom used the gay community for political purposes. And for that he should be punished...by the gay community. But the activists won't let that happen because they protect their own. Regardless, the conversation needs to take place.
The main reason for not engaging in the debate now is that we are currently fighting a war with civilization itself hanging in the balance. At least that is the excuse (though legitimate) that the politcos will espouse, but the truth is that neither side wants to risk the balance of terror that we have achieved in the Culture War. Meanwhile, casulties mount on both sides.
Doesn't America deserve a great debate of ideas?
