.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Nominal Me

I'm falling in love with my camera and taking photos everywhere I go. That, combined with my passions for politics, sports, religion and other things we all agree on, makes this blog persist.

My Photo
Location: Astoria, New York, United States

I'm born in Manhattan and raised in Queens.

Wednesday, October 20, 2004

God, Gays, and Getting Votes

"You know, Bob, I don't know. I just don't know."

This was President Bush's answer to the question "Do you believe homosexuality is a choice?"

It was probably an honest answer. His support of the gay marriage ban is probably rooted more out of political calculation than personal conviction. While Bush did get 25% of the gay vote in 2000, even the Log Cabin Republicans refuse to support him this year.

The campaign is gunning after the "traditional values" vote, a strategy that may ironically prove to be fatal for the president.

They dynamics of the political issue of homosexuality is changing, as it was the so-called-liberal John Kerry who seemed insensitive about it and so-called-arch-conservative Dick Cheney the tolerant one. After all, wasn't that Mary Cheney and her partner on stage hugging the vice president after a recent nationally-televised debate?

Don't all religious people think homosexuality is a sin?

Not necessarily.

Of course, many do, with various ways of looking at it.

It's probably not an issue that will be solved in my little blog, nor in the political arena this year. Yet I can't help but believe that attitudes are changing.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I proposed a constitutional amendment. The reason I did so was because I was worried that activist judges are actually defining the definition of marriage, and the surest way to protect marriage between a man and woman is to amend the Constitution."

Defining the definition of.. heh.
What he says in his response is one huge weave of contradictions. He is opposed to judges defining marriage for us, yet himself is forcing his definition on us!
He also mentions "our basic views" and the voice of the "citizenry" in this process, which only sets the stage for division and segregation. Anyones views on such things are theirs alone, its not dictated by law. By sayin 'our' he is immediately negating anyone who disagrees as not with 'them'. Regarding the citizenry, how is it fair that a homophobic majority gets to decide what rights committed same-sex couples get? This is not a matter of the citizens. Its a matter of rights for a minority that the majority opposes.
In conclusion, he's full of sjit.

Thursday, 21 October, 2004  

Post a Comment


<< Home