12 states this year have amendments before their voters to ban same sex marriage in their quest to legislate morality within their borders. Our reigning president has also championed such legislation on the federal level.
This brings me to what I consider to be the most deplorable, most shameful tactic of the political right (the left use it too, in different areas, but that's another blog): The use of emotionally charged issues to blindside voters to the real issues.
In short, voters who go to the polls to vote for these marriage amendments will largely ignore that the party of their choosing has a woefully inadequate welfare reform system that it does not even address. When the welfare reform bills were proposed, nobody considered that they would be, not only pulling out the safety nets, but replacing them with sharp tipped spikes. They will further ignore an educational initiative that's failing consistently to meet the goals set for it when it was adopted ("No Child Left Behind"), and they will also continue to ignore a conflict that has dragged on with American casualties for about five months since "victory" was declared, and for which the president has no clearly defined exit strategy.
Only the latter issue receives any attention at all, and even it is buried in the rush to either ban or gain approval for same sex marriages. The welfare reform system has received virtually no attention from the liberal elements of the media, and NCLB is brushed on as a system in need of minor changes, not in a system that is failing to provide the educational improvements proposed when it was passed into legislation.
If anyone should be faulted here, though, my contention is that it is the left. They are too easily distracted with side issues (it was abortion until that hand played out), and drop the important components of their platform for expediency in these red herring legislation.
The fact is, a gay marriage ban isn't going to stop homosexual behavior. And recognition of gay marriage isn't going to influence someone who is not already influenced. Bill can marry Bob if he wants to, but in all likelihood, I won't be inviting them to my pool party. And I highly doubt PFLAG is going to call on me to be their keynote speaker anytime within the next few months. But you know what? I'm ok with that, and I don't see why they shouldn't be. You shouldn't need my approval to be a couple, nor should I feel compelled to GIVE you that approval (as for the legal rights that homosexuals SHOULD have as a couple--I'm all for that. Hand me the petition and show me where to sign).
So, why don't we stop tracking these stupid red herrings and get to the issues that really matter.
signing off,
Gideon MacLeish