The bastards at Blogger won't let me write a comment this long, so I'm making a post (I can't just shorten it: each word is as important as the one that proceeds it. No, more important. No, as important.):
Yes, of course, any rational, moral person should support gay marriage -- including our next president. Should he do it publically? Oh, hell no. It's a political lightning rod and half the ignorant voters in the country will latch on to that one thing and vote based on that (let's assume, correctly, that ignorance=anti-homosexual marriage). Now, I understand that we expect our candidates to possess no moral ambiguity about any important issue, but would it have ever been an option to not answer the question? I don't support him lying about it, but I have to agree that he's a bastard if he seriously thinks that it's wrong. Either way, his opinion is politically advantageous, and isn't that kind of what we're looking for here? I know we feel like whores supporting someone who thinks bad things, but aren't we kind of making this choice anyway? Kerry is not the political golden boy, fulfilling my deepest fantasies about the ideal President; he is simply not-Bush. If we have to choose someone based on how not-bad they are, I'd much rather go with someone who (at least, so he says) is against gay marriage than I would someone who is against homosexuals, the environment, good public education, sensible foreign policy, and proper book-larned english. Someday, we'll have the perfect candidate for President, but until then, I'll keep supporting whoever sucks the least.
-Matt 10:48 EST |
|
