I fervently wish with every ounce of my being that Obama wins in 15 days. I also have no understanding, how the media and the American people can fault Obama for being too cold. When Bush was elected he was seen as an "everyman." His C average in school kept him from being elitist--something that education is bound to create apparently--and now we find more comfort in man with a renowned temper than we do someone who is capable of keeping a clear head as it were.
There are so many things about this Presidential election that make me insane.
I've done a lot of thinking on people who "vote on the issues" because as much as I've been angered over the years at people who vote republican because they are pro-life I vote democrat because I'm pro-choice. I'm angry at people who vote republican because they favor a ban on gay marriage, but I vote democrat because I am pro gay marriage. I feel a little better about my decisions because I also agree with Obama's economic, educational, and health care policies as well, but I would have voted for him regardless based on the aforementioned "issues." To some degree that makes me as biased as those who vote strictly republican for the opposite reasons.
I feel I am justified where they are not, of course, because I think I am right. They think they are right. In many things we are even and I am as fanatical as they are. But it is precisely this thought about my voting and political preferences that save me from zealotry I would argue. I know why I think what I do. I don't vote because my values are shared or not shared or because I feel one man is more my type of "family" man than the other. I vote because one party stands for equality and the other party seeks to deny it.
And, in the end, that's what these two issues do. For those that view abortion as murder I can understand their passion in seeking to overturn Roe vs. Wade, but for 90% of the country their stances on this issue have nothing to do with honestly believing it is murder. Most would want exceptions to any anti-abortion law for rape, incest, or the mother's health. To all of those people I say, you will never be able to properly legislate in cases of rape and incest so you mustn't legislate at all. Consider the difficulty we have deciding if a woman is raped or not already and think about the impossibility of achieving an abortion if that had to be proved before the abortion could take place. And, while you might never chose one for yourself is it really a thing to deny someone else? How do we know her story, her reasoning, or her circumstances? If you believe it to be murder in the most severe sense, as much as I disagree with you, I realize the futility of attempting to change your mind.
For gay marriage, however, there is no argument. Millions of marriages in this country are an afront to all that is decent in civilization. People marry for money, safety, and sexual chemistry. Spouses and children are beaten, raped, and ignored. Children get married and divorce. Marriage is not a sacred union; it never has been. Even if it were, it's sacred existence lies only within the hearts of the partners and those who respect their vows. Homosexual marriage, even if you disagree with the lifestyle, in no way affects your life, existence, or set of beliefs. Denying recognition of marriage on a governmental level is an inequality of the most offensive sort. To say you disagree with the lifestyle is not enough; open marriages, false marriages, and abusive marriages are all tolerated. Those who are strictly religious do not campaign to deny drug users marriage even though that lifestyle might be as offensive as homosexuality. The arguments used against homosexual marriage are the same arguments, sometimes word for word, that were used against bi-racial marriage. This is a just sticking point, I believe, in the same way blatant racism would be. It is not enough to turn the decision over to the states; we fought a civil war because slavery was wrong. You shouldn't have to move to another state to find acceptance and equality; those things should be mandated because our country is supposed to worship, at the end of the day, the holy dollar above all else including religion. Legalization of gay marriage would in no way affect churches or religious institutions to deny homosexuals the right to marry. This is a federal matter and I have to ask: what is it about homosexuals getting married that is so offensive? If you are bigoted beyond the point of reason then, like the pro-lifers who believe the fetus is a living, breathing, independent human being, I realize futility in arguing with you.
I vote because of these reasons and I suppose, in many ways, this makes me much like those I often bad mouth. But I vote on these issues because I believe in freedom of choice and lifestyle. Neither of these two issues will raise the crime rate, hurt the economy, or affect the masses in any discernable way; all they do is provide equality and freedom for those that need it. And so I ask, as we approach election day, if you find yourself voting based solely on one or both of these issues, why do you do it? Have you answered that question for yourself? It isn't zealotry to draw a line in the sand and stand by it. But it is if you don't know why you stand by it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment