What ARE they afraid of?
Amendment Fails, Supporters Vow To Keep Pushing
I don't understand them at all.
I fail to see how an institution which may be thousands of years old is now so frail, so decrepit, that it could be toppled at the mearest hint of a breeze of the mere mention of gay couples getting married. How does two women or two men getting married hurt any other high school football star from marrying his sweatheart and getting a job in insurance, buying a home and starting a family of more republican ... (well let's avoid name calling) "voters". How does it hurt all those republican politicans who are already married to their college sweathearts and have already raised families (and perhaps divorced the mother of their children to marry a cute big tobacco lobbyist). How does it hurt the religious leaders who seem to adamantantly opposed to the very idea? Are gay marriages going to suddenly convince multitudes of people to stop attending church and stop tithing? Do they believe that by allowing gays to get married, to be covered by family health insurance plans, to amend their wills to support their new families, to share the tax benefits (and obligations) of filing jointly, they are suddenly going to "catch" gayness? That they're going to decide suddenly to leave their wives for a male lover. That they're suddenly going to get good taste and common sense? (Oh, I'm propagating a sterotype, sorry)
Or are they just hung up on the phrase? Perhaps we should call it something else entirely. But I suspect, not seeing much common sense in the entire issue, none of these alternatives would be palatible.
But if it's only a ploy then I can't see them actually getting that worked up about it failing. However that raises the question "Is this what we're paying them to do?"
I don't understand them at all.
I fail to see how an institution which may be thousands of years old is now so frail, so decrepit, that it could be toppled at the mearest hint of a breeze of the mere mention of gay couples getting married. How does two women or two men getting married hurt any other high school football star from marrying his sweatheart and getting a job in insurance, buying a home and starting a family of more republican ... (well let's avoid name calling) "voters". How does it hurt all those republican politicans who are already married to their college sweathearts and have already raised families (and perhaps divorced the mother of their children to marry a cute big tobacco lobbyist). How does it hurt the religious leaders who seem to adamantantly opposed to the very idea? Are gay marriages going to suddenly convince multitudes of people to stop attending church and stop tithing? Do they believe that by allowing gays to get married, to be covered by family health insurance plans, to amend their wills to support their new families, to share the tax benefits (and obligations) of filing jointly, they are suddenly going to "catch" gayness? That they're going to decide suddenly to leave their wives for a male lover. That they're suddenly going to get good taste and common sense? (Oh, I'm propagating a sterotype, sorry)
Or are they just hung up on the phrase? Perhaps we should call it something else entirely. But I suspect, not seeing much common sense in the entire issue, none of these alternatives would be palatible.
But if it's only a ploy then I can't see them actually getting that worked up about it failing. However that raises the question "Is this what we're paying them to do?"
posted by banzai at 12:33
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home