Bullfight

I think only gay people should be allowed to marry. The gay couples I know have much more stable relationships than the hetero couples I know. I think this is the only way we can make the institution of marriage sacred. Take the right to get hitched away from the subculture that has given us the likes of Pamela Anderson, Mickey Rooney and Ronald Reagan.

I never quite understood the argument that allowing same-sex marriages "threatened" the sanctity of heterosexual marriages.

As long as two adults, whether same-sex or hetero, don't harm each other or other people, then I don't have a problem.

The biggest threat to marriage are the people in the relationship, not some theoretical external threat. Bill Clinton almost completely ruined his marriage.

Even John McCain readily admits his failures during his adulterous years:

"Although he was still living with his wife, he was aggressively courting a 25-year-old woman who was as beautiful as she was rich. For a candidate running on character and biography, it is also an awkward time to remember: Mr. McCain abandoned his wife, who had reared their three children while he was in Vietnamese prisons, and he then began his political career with the resources of his new wife's family."

I hardly think same-sex marriages threatened the sanctity of the marriages of Clinton, McCain, or most other marriages.

Glenn Greenwald, in discussing his excellent recent book Great American Hypocrites: Toppling The Big Myths of Republican Politics, nicely summarized the GOP hypocrisy about gay marriage.

Question: You point out a strange disconnect on "moral issues" where gay marriage is elevated to a high obsession as a threat to the traditional family, while those who crusade against it routinely have records of dysfunctional family life, with multiple marriages and divorces as well as adulterous affairs. Why is this such a contradiction, and why does it go almost unnoticed?

Glenn Greenwald: Opposition among "values voters" to gay marriage is based in the claim that gay marriage violates Christian doctrine, but serial divorces, adultery, out-of-wedlock sex and cohabitation, and "second and third wives" are at least as un-Christian as gay marriage is. One finds explicit and numerous injunctions in Scripture against those. Beyond that, those heterosexual sins are far more common, and have far more of an impact, than homosexuality, for obvious reasons. Worse, while homosexuality in most cases does not involve children, these un-Christian heterosexual behaviors typically impact the lives of children.

Yet the pious leaders of the "values voters movement" have little interest in having the law ban such un-Christian institutions as multiple marriages and no-fault divorces. The reason is obvious. Many, if not most, of their flock -- and they themselves -- take advantage of these un-Christian institutions and want to continue to be able to do so. If the values voters movement was focused on condemning those far more common heterosexual behaviors, they would be condemning a huge portion of the voting public -- and demanding of them sacrifices. So instead, they feel pure and elevated by preaching against something -- homosexuality -- that requires no sacrifice or cost. It's cost-free moralizing, the most worthless and exploitative kind.

One of the most amazing spectacles is watching politicians with extremely untraditional and un-Christian relationships -- such as John McCain, Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, etc. -- talk about the importance of preserving "traditional marriage," all while demanding that the law recognize their own extremely untraditional relationships as valid marriage. They give a speech on how critical it is that the law only recognize "traditional marriages" and then they return home to their second and third wives (former mistresses), step-children, half-siblings, and the latest girlfriend.

>I think California voters will reject a constitutional amendment.

I certainly hope so. I'm uninspired by Obama, unconfident in Clinton prevailing, and frankly afraid of McCain, so this was looking like yet another presidential election with no choices I can vote for in good conscience, reducing the contest to a purely sporting proposition.

But if the amendment proposition makes the ballot (seems likely, alas), I'll have a cause to actually get behind in November. This one is actually more important than who gets the White House, imo. It's a defining moment in the history of our nation.

I'm not persuaded that an Obama candidacy will bring out more young voters, but McCain may cause a lot of conservatives to stay home altogether, which could have a reverse coattail effect.

"We need government out of our lives!" Keep marriage legal for everyone and "don't let the government tell you what you can and can't do."

So how exactly does same sex marriage fit into that silly aforementioned blind-battle-cry?

Alan, what cause do you feel motivated to get behind that is beyond the presidential election (in reference to this blog)? I would think the Hooker Oak Alliance will be pressing hard this next election cycle and that, in and of itself, would be reason to drag you out to the polls.

I think it was Lewis Black that said (paraphrasing) "same sex people ought to be allowed to marry. They should be just as miserable as the rest of us." I subscribe (having never been married).

As much as I hear how horrible Bill Clinton was, or how terrible so-and-so is (as if this were an Ice Cream Social in turn of the century Iowa - that's 1900 turn of the century), I have to recognize one important detail. Bill and Hillary Clinton *ARE STILL MARRIED*. Yes, some chastise Hillary for staying married to the guy, but isn't it for better or for worse? Hillary said, "there are worse things than adultery." Anyone who has ever been to a domestic violence shelter or even lived a life knows full well that there *are* worse things than adultery.

Of course, what does *my* Catholic upbringing have to do with reality. Exactly. Absolutely nothing.

Randall--

You ask; "Alan, what cause do you feel motivated to get behind"

Ahem. Right now, the only thing I'm willing to campaign for is the defeat of whatever misguided proposition the anti-gay-marriage folk can scam signatures for.

As for the city council election, I expect all the incumbents to be re-elected, with Mark Sorensen taking Bertagna's seat. Unless Bertagna runs again, in which case I expect Sorensen to take Wahl's seat. Hard to get a head of steam up for that race.

--Alan Chamberlain
axon@axonometrix.com