Dean addresses the issue of morality
Excerpted from the Washington Times, Inside Politics section:
Dean's outburst
Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean claims to be reaching out to red-state voters, but yesterday, he suggested that opponents of homosexual "marriage" are bigots.
Mr. Dean was responding to news that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Tennessee Republican, plans to bring to a vote a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban homosexual "marriage."
"At a time when the Republican Party is in trouble with their conservative base, Bill Frist is taking a page straight out of the Karl Rove playbook to distract from the Republican Party's failed leadership and misplaced priorities by scapegoating LGBT families for political gain, using marriage as a wedge issue," said Mr. Dean, using the abbreviation for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender.
"It is not only morally wrong, it is shameful and reprehensible," Mr. Dean said.
Interesting - it's now morally wrong for politicians to pander. "Morally wrong", "shameful" and "reprehensible". For once Howard and I agree. But let's get real here for a nanosecond. If the banning of homosexual marriage is a "wedge issue" for you, you weren't voting Democrat anyway. This may be a bone, Howie boy, but it's no wedge issue. In fact, for most head-in-the-sand Americans, it'd be a huge surprise to actually meet a LGBT family. Want to know why? Because it is more likely you'll be in a car accident than that you will meet a differently sexual family today. First off, they aren't getting married, even in the countries where it's already legal. Secondly, they [homosexual households] are such a statistically insignificant blip on the census that they don't even warrant an honorable mention in the breakdown of family arrangements in the 2000 census. 105,500,000 married hetero couples - 4,900,000 heteros shacking up - 594,000 same-sex couples living together. That amounts to about half of a percent.
Dean's statement, an obvious bone to the 594,000, is filled with outrage. And no wonder, The American Family Association, an open advocate of traditional families already has more than 3 million supporters signed up through it's website. And that's just a drop in the bucket. Perhaps what Dean really meant to say is "I wish I had a larger base to pander to... waa waa waa."
Comment(s) »
» Leave a comment
- Your E-mail address is never displayed. If you enter it, it will only be visible to the blog author
- Since there already are comments to this post, your eventual comment might trigger a notification e-mail to the persons that commented before you.
- The line and paragraph breaks automatically
Morally wrong to pander?? I don't know about that. Probably not honorable- if it were all that much of a crisis or priority (and a constitutional amendment would suggest both), Frist and his pals might have suggested it some time in, oh... I don't know... the previous 18 months since the last election? But I wouldn't call it a moral transgression. Just blatant politicking.
As for the 'wedge'-ness, I'll fess up. I might have been the only Democrat up here in the Land of 10,000 Frozen Souls who voted against Wellstone in his re-election bid. Why? Because he had voted for the Defense of Marriage Act. So, yes- GOP'ers are more like to get riled, but there are some of us on the other side of the wedge.
Oh, and no- I'm not gay, lest that be the assumption. My point was, and remains, that principles don't mean anything if you only stand up for them when they mean something to you personally.
Lastly, about meeting LGBT families, and the rarity therein... It might be more a matter of where ya live, who you know, and frankly, how much they trust you to admit a relationship that other people would view as a blight on society.
Comment by Michael— 2006/06/01 @ 06:57 AM — (Reply)
Americans are accustomed to being lied to by their representatives and so we often let it slide. Wouldn't it be refreshing for a candidate to outline his views and then stick to them. Or to change his mind once the issues are more clear to him and then let us know he now feels differently and why.
Good points, both. I read somewhere that MSP had the highest number of lesbians in the US. And San Fran, I believe, is still the reigning capital for gay men. So without a doubt you will have more personal interaction that I will.
As for the other assumption, I don't think that has as much validity. You have to remember that the blogosphere is a safe place to vent with reasonable anonymity. Most people don't walk around with flashing neon signs above their heads that say "Pass the marriage protection amendment!" And my beliefs about homosexuality would come up in a conversation when??? Perhaps in an academic environment where topics are discussed as theories - but unless you actually meet an LGBT person or are an activist of some sort, it's just not going to come up in conversation.
Comment by Cate— 2006/06/01 @ 11:27 AM — (Reply)
I like the way you put that, concerning the morality of pandering, and I agree. There is a layer of... if not outright deception, at least well-crafted rationalization that smacks of dishonesty. And I agree that it would be nice to have a clear, forthright and consistent opinion from our elected officials. Sometimes things shift and change, but dang- it shouldn't hinge on the weekly opinion polls!
Well, not unless they're in a place where that sort of action would be welcome...
You're exactly right, though. You are a decent person, and topics like the marriage amendment wouldn't come up in polite conversation.
In the same way, folks don't walk around wearing flashing neon buttons that say "I'm gay!" (Contrary to what TV and Hollywood might seem to suggest)
If they were friends or even acquaintances, they wouldn't broadcast out their lifestyle, because they know that some strongly disapprove.
Honestly, if you met an LGBT person, how would you know? Would they mention their 'friend' any more casually than you'd mention your support for the marriage amendment?
Just a thought.
Comment by Michael— 2006/06/01 @ 01:03 PM — (Reply)
You can't go out in public with 4 young children and not talk about them - we are a sight to behold.
Comment by Cate— 2006/06/01 @ 01:25 PM — (Reply)
I'm confused. Didn't you say that it was more likely to get into a car crash than to meet a differently sexual family? Or maybe you get into more car crashes-- what state should I avoid driving in??
Comment by Michael— 2006/06/01 @ 02:13 PM — (Reply)
Oh... and maybe it's because I'm around Catholics. Is 4 kids all that unusual where you are?
Comment by Michael— 2006/06/01 @ 02:16 PM — (Reply)
It's statistically unlikely for most American s to run into a LGBT family - unless you run into 200 families per day in which case you will statistically be certain to meet one partner of a same sex couple.
I'll check on the car crash stats - but 1 of every 200 drivers having an accident does seem a bit much, huh? Poetic license...?
Comment by Cate— 2006/06/01 @ 03:12 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/06/01 @ 05:32 PM — (Reply)
Welcome back - our band of bloggers has missed you these past few days! Hope you are well.
Comment by Cate— 2006/06/01 @ 06:25 PM — (Reply)
Not gonna happen, read my lips no new taxes...
I did not have sex with that woman
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/06/01 @ 06:39 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/06/01 @ 07:16 PM — (Reply)
Up here, wearing a neon button would be just preachin' to the choir. The flamin' and fabulous men's choir.
Comment by Michael— 2006/06/01 @ 07:21 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/06/01 @ 07:23 PM — (Reply)
Realist,
You realize that those of us on the left dislike Hillary for most of the same reasons you do, right?
Comment by Michael— 2006/06/01 @ 07:23 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/06/01 @ 07:25 PM — (Reply)
EB,
Up here we lefties didn't trust Bill Clinton, even when he was Pres. Now, generally can't stand Hillary, who has shown herself just about willing to suck up to any special interest. (queue obligatory Lewinsky joke, like "If only she'd done that to Billy, so much trouble would have been avoided!")
As for basics, Realist, you tell me what the heck Anne Coulter is first.
Comment by Michael— 2006/06/01 @ 07:33 PM — (Reply)
She's like an Eddie Murphy Conservative - all the hard core humor, you know you shouldn't laugh at but can't help it.
Come on, the left has Rosie and Whoopi - And any number of potty mouth talking Hollywood fems who spout euphemisms for female body parts when referencing the President.
You've got to take Ann for the sardonic wit that she is - she is a sharp tongued little lady!
Comment by Cate— 2006/06/01 @ 08:15 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/06/01 @ 07:26 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/06/01 @ 08:18 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/06/01 @ 08:19 PM — (Reply)
Well, she's Constitutionally forbidden from running for President. "No person except a natural born citizen, ... shall be eligible to the office of President;" and we all know that she was hatched in secret underground Nazi bunkers, right?
Sorry... I'll be nice. But -he- started it!!
Comment by Michael— 2006/06/01 @ 08:36 PM — (Reply)
I think she's McCarthy's secret love child.
Comment by Cate— 2006/06/01 @ 08:46 PM — (Reply)
I heard hillary and gloria steinem had a love child and called it rosie o'donnell
Comment by elmers brother — 2006/06/01 @ 09:46 PM — (Reply)