Sometime around the 2004 election, I harumphed in loud approval as a friend of mine railed against single-issue voters. The single-issue voters specifically elected for my friend's ridicule were the members of the so-called "pro-life" faction (scare quotes in honor of the mind-boggling number of people who oppose abortion, support capital punishment, and have somehow managed to convince themselves that giving poor people food and education was not what Jesus had in mind). My friend thought it irresponsible bordering on silly to decide anything as important as one's vote for President, Senator, or Congressperson based solely on the candidates' views about the appropriate relationship between the Federal Government, fetuses, and womens' internal organs. As I said: I harumphed. What I did not understand/was not willing to face at the time was that I was and am a single-issue voter myself.
Five years later, as America debated the appropriate relationship between the Federal Government, sick people, and doctors, a different friend -- a life long Republican perpetually terrified that his vote might a) swing Democrat and b) ever actually matter -- asked "why are you so loyal to the Blue Team?" I hemmed, I hawed, and the only thing intelligible that came out of my mouth was this: For my entire political life, one party has used gay people as boogey-folk around which to mobilize its base. I will never ever ever vote for such a party.
It is now 2012. In two months, America will elect a President and Washington state will elect a governor. Two cycles ago, Washington's gubernatorial race wasn't decided until January. I think I know something about where Barack Obama and Mitt Romney stand on most issues (though not with the subtlety I think I should). I know the names of the men running for governor of my fair state. I feel no compulsion to learn anything more. Five months ago, our current governor and state legislature legalized same-sex marriage. The opponents of that move have gathered enough signatures to bring that decision before the voters as a referendum. Rob McKenna is on the record opposing same-sex marriage. For no other reason, I am going to vote for Jay Inslee.
Many of the problems faced by our government are hard. Intelligent people can have intelligent, unresolved discussions about how to fix the economy. These people are called "experts." You will find them listed in the modern lexicon of the American language under "enemies of Western civilization." Discrimination is the opposite of that. It's the political equivalent of the joke
Patient: "Doctor, it hurts when I move my arm like this!"
Doctor: "Don't move your arm like that."
.....
Government: "Doctor, we are treating gay people like second-class citizens!"
Doctor: "Stop treating gay people like second-class citizens."
In McKenna's defense, not legalizing same-sex marriage will leave Washingtonian same-sex couples in their current position, often referred to as "marriage in everything but name only." However, America has been down the "separate but equal" road before and I think I know what is at the end of it. Nothing will change my opinion on this question. I just worry that what I'm doing (casting my vote for governor based on the mono-syllabic answer to a five word question) is irresponsible bordering on silly.
Of course, I worry even more that if I don't, the answer to the related question "when will we start treating gay people like people?" will perpetually be "after...."
PS While I have you here, there's something I've been hearing on the radio all day:
Five years later, as America debated the appropriate relationship between the Federal Government, sick people, and doctors, a different friend -- a life long Republican perpetually terrified that his vote might a) swing Democrat and b) ever actually matter -- asked "why are you so loyal to the Blue Team?" I hemmed, I hawed, and the only thing intelligible that came out of my mouth was this: For my entire political life, one party has used gay people as boogey-folk around which to mobilize its base. I will never ever ever vote for such a party.
It is now 2012. In two months, America will elect a President and Washington state will elect a governor. Two cycles ago, Washington's gubernatorial race wasn't decided until January. I think I know something about where Barack Obama and Mitt Romney stand on most issues (though not with the subtlety I think I should). I know the names of the men running for governor of my fair state. I feel no compulsion to learn anything more. Five months ago, our current governor and state legislature legalized same-sex marriage. The opponents of that move have gathered enough signatures to bring that decision before the voters as a referendum. Rob McKenna is on the record opposing same-sex marriage. For no other reason, I am going to vote for Jay Inslee.
Many of the problems faced by our government are hard. Intelligent people can have intelligent, unresolved discussions about how to fix the economy. These people are called "experts." You will find them listed in the modern lexicon of the American language under "enemies of Western civilization." Discrimination is the opposite of that. It's the political equivalent of the joke
Patient: "Doctor, it hurts when I move my arm like this!"
Doctor: "Don't move your arm like that."
.....
Government: "Doctor, we are treating gay people like second-class citizens!"
Doctor: "Stop treating gay people like second-class citizens."
In McKenna's defense, not legalizing same-sex marriage will leave Washingtonian same-sex couples in their current position, often referred to as "marriage in everything but name only." However, America has been down the "separate but equal" road before and I think I know what is at the end of it. Nothing will change my opinion on this question. I just worry that what I'm doing (casting my vote for governor based on the mono-syllabic answer to a five word question) is irresponsible bordering on silly.
Of course, I worry even more that if I don't, the answer to the related question "when will we start treating gay people like people?" will perpetually be "after...."
PS While I have you here, there's something I've been hearing on the radio all day:
Does anyone have any idea what this means? To my untrained ear, being "our brother's keeper" means that we should take care of our brother if he doesn't have healthcare. Given that the United States Federal Government is the ultimate embodiment of our collective action (at least, that is what Abraham Lincoln tried to convince us of with that "of the people, by the people, and for the people" nonsense), and given that "we are all brothers and sisters in Christ," shouldn't these implied "Christian values" be an argument for some kind of government-provided health care?Take Wyoming-based businessman Foster Friess. He’s a conservative Christian who prominently backed Rick Santorum for president. Like McKenna, Friess is no fan of government mandated healthcare.
“This whole idea is health care a right?" Friess said in a 2009 speech. “That issue shouldn’t even come up because we know for those who embrace the Christian values systems, health care is a responsibility. We are our brother’s keeper.”
No comments:
Post a Comment