February 17, 2005
FOR THE LOVE OF CHRIST
.
Two, hopefully salient, thoughts occur regarding the fact that the voting power of the religious conservatives has successfully pressured the administration to now include a Constitutional Amendment on gay marriage in this term’s agenda.
Consider this scenario. A somewhat slight, multi pierced young man with a green blaze in his hair is walking down a high school corridor. He approaches a hulking figure, in this case the school’s starting defensive tackle, who is noisily slamming shut his locker.
“Hey Dude, do you know which room the gay lesbian meeting’s in?”
“Yeh, go down that stairwell and turn right. You’ll see it.”
Neither young man gives this hallway exchange a moment’s thought or reflection. The point is that, comparatively speaking, young people give less and less a fig about gay-lesbian activities, including whether or not G-L’s appropriate the word marriage to consummate their emotional and contractual needs.
What exists now is that a high percentage of older voters are against gay marriage thus controlling the voting outcome on this issue. With certitude, this will change as seniors leave the voting rolls and youth join. Polling will not only confirm this trend but also reasonably predict the future year in which the majority of American voters will vote to allow gay marriage.
If enacting law is meant to further the affairs of America, express the will of the people and amend wrongs, then to approach the solemn business of changing our venerable constitution legislators must be doubly considerate.
Why then, knowing with full certainty that an ’aye’ vote to disenfranchise a class of people is a statistical anachronism when uttered, do our leaders choose to enshrine by debate, vote or legislation an attitude which some day will seem, if not a dark, certainly a gray memory for our Nation.
Why, also, is gay marriage being considered at the Federal level? Does that mean, considering simple logic, that gay marriage is a Civil Rights issue? Imagine, a or several, liberal Democrat(s) forcing a vote that the Amendment debate should be framed solely as a Civil Right’s Issue. If not, then by default, it is declared a State’s Rights issue.
Thought two, same subject, the voting power of religious conservatives is a large modern day force. The Republicans, most certainly including Karl Rove and the President, by design courted and helped organize the religious vote. That this powerful bloc now exists is known to all. But the cohesiveness of this group and its organizational stature begs the thought that the Republicans may now rule the majority of votes and seats not as one party in a two party system but as the dominant party in a coalition government.
Howard Dean, the DNC and all major players in the Democratic Party might be well served to view the religious bloc as a coalition partner, first answerable to their own agenda and thereafter serving Republican Party needs and wants. Upon recognizing the religious bloc as a distinct party the Democrats should create personal and even institutional channels to promote dialogue on all issues but quite particularly on issues of charity and compassion where liberalism and Christian values converge.
An amusing aside vis a vis the religious conservatives being a coalition partner to the Republican Party is that the Democrats, (tongue in cheek), didn’t lose the popular vote to the Republicans at all! They lost to the combination of parties, i.e. the coalition, but not to the Republicans. What a healing thought for the Dems. Where are those Greens and Naderites?
Issues of gay marriage, abortion and stem cell research appear to be polarizing and open to little dialogue between Democrats and the the religious conservatives but lordy-be, it is tantalizing to imagine what horse trading might occur to have the religious join the Democrats to wrangle through a just and equitable fix to Social Security: a fair and just funding for drug and rehabilitation facilities: a fair and just deficit decrease not borne by the youngest and poorest of American citizens.
To Howard, Hilary, Barbara, Harry et al, I say, “For the love of Christ, give em’ a call.”
Two, hopefully salient, thoughts occur regarding the fact that the voting power of the religious conservatives has successfully pressured the administration to now include a Constitutional Amendment on gay marriage in this term’s agenda.
Consider this scenario. A somewhat slight, multi pierced young man with a green blaze in his hair is walking down a high school corridor. He approaches a hulking figure, in this case the school’s starting defensive tackle, who is noisily slamming shut his locker.
“Hey Dude, do you know which room the gay lesbian meeting’s in?”
“Yeh, go down that stairwell and turn right. You’ll see it.”
Neither young man gives this hallway exchange a moment’s thought or reflection. The point is that, comparatively speaking, young people give less and less a fig about gay-lesbian activities, including whether or not G-L’s appropriate the word marriage to consummate their emotional and contractual needs.
What exists now is that a high percentage of older voters are against gay marriage thus controlling the voting outcome on this issue. With certitude, this will change as seniors leave the voting rolls and youth join. Polling will not only confirm this trend but also reasonably predict the future year in which the majority of American voters will vote to allow gay marriage.
If enacting law is meant to further the affairs of America, express the will of the people and amend wrongs, then to approach the solemn business of changing our venerable constitution legislators must be doubly considerate.
Why then, knowing with full certainty that an ’aye’ vote to disenfranchise a class of people is a statistical anachronism when uttered, do our leaders choose to enshrine by debate, vote or legislation an attitude which some day will seem, if not a dark, certainly a gray memory for our Nation.
Why, also, is gay marriage being considered at the Federal level? Does that mean, considering simple logic, that gay marriage is a Civil Rights issue? Imagine, a or several, liberal Democrat(s) forcing a vote that the Amendment debate should be framed solely as a Civil Right’s Issue. If not, then by default, it is declared a State’s Rights issue.
Thought two, same subject, the voting power of religious conservatives is a large modern day force. The Republicans, most certainly including Karl Rove and the President, by design courted and helped organize the religious vote. That this powerful bloc now exists is known to all. But the cohesiveness of this group and its organizational stature begs the thought that the Republicans may now rule the majority of votes and seats not as one party in a two party system but as the dominant party in a coalition government.
Howard Dean, the DNC and all major players in the Democratic Party might be well served to view the religious bloc as a coalition partner, first answerable to their own agenda and thereafter serving Republican Party needs and wants. Upon recognizing the religious bloc as a distinct party the Democrats should create personal and even institutional channels to promote dialogue on all issues but quite particularly on issues of charity and compassion where liberalism and Christian values converge.
An amusing aside vis a vis the religious conservatives being a coalition partner to the Republican Party is that the Democrats, (tongue in cheek), didn’t lose the popular vote to the Republicans at all! They lost to the combination of parties, i.e. the coalition, but not to the Republicans. What a healing thought for the Dems. Where are those Greens and Naderites?
Issues of gay marriage, abortion and stem cell research appear to be polarizing and open to little dialogue between Democrats and the the religious conservatives but lordy-be, it is tantalizing to imagine what horse trading might occur to have the religious join the Democrats to wrangle through a just and equitable fix to Social Security: a fair and just funding for drug and rehabilitation facilities: a fair and just deficit decrease not borne by the youngest and poorest of American citizens.
To Howard, Hilary, Barbara, Harry et al, I say, “For the love of Christ, give em’ a call.”
