By Yael T. Abouhalkah, Kansas City Star Editorial Page columnist
(UPDATED at noon Wednesday: California Supreme Court upholds ruling on gay marriage.)
It's not surprising to see Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt mouthing the arch-conservative position while railing against gay marriages in California. But why is Democratic AG Jay Nixon going along for the ride, too?
On Tuesday, the leading contender this fall to replace Blunt decided to weigh in against gay marriage.
Yup, that will show those out-state Missouri voters that Nixon is one of them.
Nixon pandered to conservative voters after Blunt publicly wondered why the AG hadn't joined other attorneys general in asking the California Supreme Court to stay its recent ruling that allows gay marriage.
California voters later this year will decide whether to join Missouri and other states that outlaw gay marriages.
Of course, the California issue is of no importance to who's going to be the next governor of Missouri.
But now Nixon has joined with other AGs in asking for the court stay in California, as he takes the politically expedient course of trying to innoculate himself against attack this November from GOP challengers.
Delicious
Digg
Where does the "Total
Where does the "Total Information Awareness program" stand in this deleted email issue?
How much money did Bush spend on domestic wiretapping and monitoring of emails?
Oh, they LOST them...
Sure... Trust republicans to tell you the truth? Not.
They'll tell you anything to get re-elected. Beware!
Distinction Need
Granted, some who oppose gay marriage are ignorant, bigoted, intolerant, unkind, or some combination of the four. But you cannot assume all who oppose gay marriage are any of the four.
Many of us who object on sociological grounds to redefining the age-old institution (or special contract) of marriage, have absolutely no problem with gay persons, their lifestyles, their full inclusion, or their private acts between consenting adults (if safe). We actually sympathize with their plight in a society where there is often a stigma for a genetic trait. It's cliche and sometimes condescending to say, "I have gay friends," but there are many of us who do, and who love and care for gay and lesbian persons.
Just because we think differently than you do (or differently than you feel), it does not mean that we don't care, that we don't tolerate differences, or that we don't "get it" (i.e. are "ignorant"). When trying to persuade others on a blog that your position is right -- or that you are not prejudice or discriminatory -- you ought not assume (pre-judge), and you ought not lump people into categories and dismiss them (discriminate). That really cuts against everything for which you stand (and/or you want yourself or others to believe you stand), doesn't it?
Think about it. This post is pointed, but I think you, and those who feel the way you do, need to see this.
Yael You Are A Nincompoop
Nixon understands the problems that will be caused because different states will not recognize "invalid" marriages from other states.
Until we have a Federal understanding on this burgeoning issue, we don't need states taking the maverick role. To blame Nixon and call him a panderer is myopic an sensationlist ... as usual.
Nixon's Inoculation is survival in Missouri
The reason Jay Nixon feels the need to "inoculate" himself is because of US - voters who are willing to hurt and abandon our fellow citizens because of our own ignorance and bigotry.
If we can't be tolerant and kind to one another, why should politicians take any stands?
"The right to smoke an
"The right to smoke an addictive carcinogen in enclosed public spaces is not on the same level. How's that for reality?"
That's a pretty poor reality, since the bars and restaurants you're referring to are not "enclosed public spaces", but rather are enclosed private spaces. There is a vast legal difference between the two.
Democracy is not the same as
Democracy is not the same as mob-rule. The rights of gays and lesbians shouldn't be decided by a referendum. Protection of minorities is one of the cornerstones of a civil society. The right to smoke an addictive carcinogen in enclosed public spaces is not on the same level. How's that for reality?
Contradiction?
I wonder how Mr. Abouhalkah can justify this comment in view of his other recent "Midwest Voices" comment, that businesses' appeal of the no-smoking ordinance is contrary to the will of the voters. Isn't the same thing true of the California Supreme Court decision? Have liberals finally lost all contact with reason?