Tuesday, May 8, 2012

Marriage Is a Civil Union, Mrs Greenspan

I am pretty damned angry that various demographics amongst those who call themselves "Progressives" are allowing themselves to be led down the Primrose Path (that's red, as in Republican) to divisiveness and unnecessary bickering just at a time when the Democrats need to be showing a united front.

That this entire kerfuffle, around the fact that the President won't come forward and say, in words of one syllable or less (for the benefit of those stamping their feet) that he is in favour of gay marriage. If people would use that gray matter stagnating inside their heads and think and remember for themselves, this very non-issue was pushed to the forefront back in 2004, by none other than Karl Rove, as a metaphorical stick with which to beat John Kerry. It worked. The whole non-issue deflected attention from an illegal war going badly, and George W Bush got a second term.

Last Sunday, an overtly partisan moderator of a national political commentary show chose, during an interview with a particularly honest and loquacious Vice-President, to interject a question about same-sex marriage. The day after a very successful kick-off to the Presidential campaign, that was not a coincidence. That was very deliberate. David Gregory knew his victim and struck with a purpose. If people would be bothered to remember, this is the same David Gregory who, quite happily, danced with Karl Rove, and probably still is.

And so it begins again. The sniping, the griping, the petulant demands, the posturing - all dividing the Democratic party, all attacking a President from his natural Left, whilst allowing Willard and his corporate friends, the Koch brothers, to attack, unfettered, from the Right.

Of course - and those whining the loudest from the Left would never admit it - this can only bode well for the Republicans.

Strategists for presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney think that any sustained focus on same-sex marriage could help unite the conservative coalition behind his candidacy, particularly in key swing states such as Iowa, where the Republican Party remains deeply fractured after a bruising primary campaign.

Just the sort of shot in the arm a tepid campaign featuring a lackluster candidate needs, thanks ever so much to the sort of so-called "Progressives."

This is the sort of snide and very sinister situation totally manufactured by a self-serving corporate media, no matter how much certain parts of it may try to masquerade as liberal, that may very well cause a ructure in the base of the Democratic party and hand the election to the Republicans. It is just the sort of mischief  in which an irresponsible and deliberately misinforming press and media would engage simply because they could do so, and it could very well result in a disastrous election result for the country.

Let me be abundantly clear. I am totally and utterly in favour of same-sex marriage being recognised nationwide. I wouldn't mind pot being legalised. But there are other things on the agenda that come before these things, and I happen to have faith in this President to deliver. Sometimes actions speak louder than words, and Bob Cesca, one of the best bloggers bout these days, explains much more articulately than I ever could just how the President has intimated his support for same-sex marriage and very recently too. You can read the whole of Bob's article here.

Bob's put two very short but very pertinent mini-blogs about the danger of falling into this same old same old trap of divisiveness, yet again:-

 People and groups are welcome to give money to whomever they please. But this seems very counterproductive and self-defeating given what the Republican candidate will do if he’s elected.
Some leading gay and progressive donors are so angry over President Obama’s refusal to sign an executive order barring same sex discrimination by federal contractors that they are refusing to give any more money to the pro-Obama super PAC, a top gay fundraiser’s office tells me. In some cases, I’m told, big donations are being withheld.
The president will continue to promote LGBT civil rights. But between now and November there are certain political realities that need to be attended to in order for that to happen.

And this:-

I assure you, if the president is elected for a second term, same-sex marriage or something exactly like it will become a priority for the White House.
What worries me right now is if it becomes a major point of debate right now, it’ll become a wedge issue and backfire against the president’s campaign.
And that’s why the White House has been fumbling around with a response to the vice president’s remarks. They didn’t want to talk about this just yet.
But rest assured, the days of marriage discrimination are drawing to an end.

Honestly, it's not rocket science, I promise you. That people, however, are so willing to be led by the intellectual short and curlies by a corrupt media whose agenda is anything but what they'd have you believe, is just indicative of how shallow we've all become.

Just in case people are still unsure of the President's position on same-sex marriage and LGBT rights in general, as compared to Willard, as the blogger, Eclectablog, reiterates:-

  • Ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was a historic achievement for equality.
  • By refusing to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, the President makes the constitutional case for gay marriage.
Meanwhile, Mitt Romney’s positions on gay rights remain:
  • He recently lost his one openly gay staffer who claimed he was “hounded” out the campaign by the religious right.
  • He says he would not have ended “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” at least until the “wars” were over.
  • He opposes gay marriage and even civil unions
  • ; in Massachusetts when the state Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage should be allowed, he undermined the ruling by using a law from 1913 that prevented interracial marriages.
There are also reports that Mitt Romney helped fund the massive movement by out-of-state Mormons to pass California’s Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in California.
As far as true equality for gays and lesbians goes, you can’t be worse than Mitt Romney and no President has been better than Barack Obama.

Adding insult to and just revealing in how much contempt the media holds this President and anyone speaking for him, here's a clip from Mrs Alan Greenspan's daily MSNBC program, from yesterday, when she tried to intimidate interviewed Obama spokesperson Stephanie Cutter.


The first full minute of Greenspan's initial question is chocked to the brim with coded language and actual open insinuation that the President is actually cynically using gay people for the express purpose of getting elected. Greenspan - let's call her by her real married name, because, frankly, it's an insult that someone with so obvious a connection to the Randian economist who played such a major part in our economic upheaval should even pretend to be an impartial journalist - tries her damnedest to intimidate Cutter, who isn't biting and whose answers give astounding tit-for-tat; but there's one place during the clip, where Greenspan comes out looking like a loonie.

She refers to marriage as a "sacrament, a legal sacrament." Well, the Catholic Church certainly views marriage as a sacrament (and an act between a man and a woman), but the last time I looked, Andrea Mitchell Greenspan was Jewish, and, quite honestly, I've never ever heard of any such thing as a legal sacrament. It's something drummed up in Mrs Greenspan's lollipop head just to make her point more ... well, more sacred, as opposed to how pejoratively she wants to portray the President.

But I'll tell you something that's a fact, and I'll bet Mrs Greenspan doesn't know this: Marriage is a civil union.

It is. This is why secular officials, such as justices of the peace, judges, ship captains and the like are licenced to perform marriages. I would imagine that most clergymen are as well. Marriage is a civil union enacted in a contractual way. That's why you need a legal action - divorce - to rescind it. In most European countries - France and Italy, for example - a religious marriage is not legal. You simply must be married - or rather, you must enter into a civil union - sanctioned by a secular official. The church bit on its own is void. (Of course, you can have it later, as a blessing, and a backdrop for drama and nice pictures.

But that is exactly what marriage is ... a civil union. So when the President says he's supporting this for same sex people, it's a euphemism for saying he supports same-sex marriage. The media is not the only bunch of berks to use coded language, and the President is cleverer than they are by miles, which is why they, like the Republicans, want him to fail.

People need to stop chewing nails and pissing rust at every bait the media throws and grow the hell up. We have an election to win.

No comments:

Post a Comment