OtherArea: moved away
Thank you, Charley Reese, for your description of the difference between Republicanism and conservatism. I can't claim to be either, but I have been increasingly annoyed of late at the general abuse of political terminolgy. I await eagerly your natural extension and completion of the project, and hope somebody somewhere pays attention.
This article deserves national attention. Thoughtful, well-written, and probably true.
Simple, Susan. Marriage has a traditional meaning. The argument is simply to retain that meaning. This has nothing to do with others' relationships. "Gay marriage" is a new and non-traditional concept, and the argument is simply that this new concept needs new terminology. Those of us who had thoughts before 1984 thought of Orwellian Newspeak as cautionary, and it may be dismaying to find it is the modern "reality."
Why is this debate always couched as "bigots vs. homosexuals?" That sort of polarization does nobody any good. I don't live in TN any more, but I find it difficult to digest that 80% of the people are ignorant bigots. This vote was a poor way to chip away at a problem the voters would rather face in a different way. The question on the ballot was: Should laws mean what they say, or should laws be malleable by re-defining the words in them?. My elderly mother, as conservative a lady as you'll ever meet, would be happy to vote for a law allowing the recognition of same-sex unions. She thinks it would be a great idea, and would extend such a law to allow legal designation for purposes of taxes, insurance, etc. to any two people, whether they have sex with each other or not. She, however, will stridently oppose calling such a thing marriage, as that changes the definition of HER marriage, and I suspect her view is that of the majority. Why not stop the name-calling, stop the silly addition of unneeded amendments, and get done what needs done?
By Leonard Gill
download this issue
click here to see more »