On two successive days last week, I posted about wanting to blog at a slower pace and focus on other things. I have not yet had time to find that focus.
As per the second post, however, I really did the wrong week for slow blogging. Since heading up to the Bay Area at the end of last month and determining to focus on other things, it has very much been the gay fortnight, first with a man (unfortunately) highly regarded in the gay community delivering a mean-spirited diatribe against Christians. This was not that man’s first foray into nasty rhetoric — or juvenile antics (and he’s no longer in secondary school).
Then came the Grenell matter where the Romney campaign awkwardly handled a situation which appeared to have become delicate. I will have a bit more to say on this, hopefully later this afternoon, but that post (on the awkward way the Romney campaign handled the matter) got delayed by the president’s (successful) ploy to raise campaign cash from the gay community.
If the president’s shift on gay marriage were sincere, wouldn’t he have made a stronger case for expanding the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples, telling his fellow citizens why he believes this expansion to be a good thing for the individual couples — and for society at large?
Will try to keep up a steady blogging pace, but do hope you understand if I slow it down a bit for a few days.
Two successive days last night ??
Always great to read your posts BDB, whatever rate they get out and posted.
rusty, thanks for catching that. Since fixed!
And now Donna Summer dies. Will the gay news ever stop?
Hi Dan,
It would appear it is not enough to make the argument that people should be treated fairly, and that a right offered to one segment of the population, should be offered to another. In this case, gender is asserted to trump political/social/economic rights. And Why Dan? Because many conservatives say so. It is not enough for me, Dan.
What interests me is that that argument of equal opportunity is not enough for many here (being as it is a foundation of American conservative thought elsewhere). Adding to the issue, the use of rhetoric such as: “Well, he did it for political reasons, so it is tainted.” I am sure that politics entered into LBJ’s calculus on the Voting Rights Act, and it definitely did so, when Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation. So, I find that argument rather weak. What you appear to be arguing for in the quote above, is for the President to campaign on the issue, and use his bully pulpit to push the message at the American people. I would point out that there would also be plenty here, Dan, who would assert that “the President is pushing this thing down our throats” or use a similar kind of rhetoric, no doubt, if he were to do so. In either case, Dan, what ever he does, conservatives will find fault with it. It leads one to the conclusion, as you have stated, that “politically” there is no difference between Romney’s and Obama’s positions. Since one states he is for gay marriage, and the other says, he doesn’t, I suggest that your definition of what counts as “political” is very narrow, given the impact such statements can have on the voting public.
Out of curiosity, what is the right path forward, as you see it. What is the perfect way to handle this situation, so that you would be satisfied with what was done? What should Obama have done, Dan, to have handled this right?
Please explain how you are being treated unfairly in the aspect of marriage. I’ll wait.