Post
by SonGohan-san » Mon Mar 29, 2004 3:19 pm
James R. Cadwell wrote: "Supporting a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is a stupid political strategy. Nobody who has a moral issue with homosexuality is going to refrain from voting or choose a different major candidate because President Bush remains legislatively-neutral on the subject of gay marriage. After all, there isn't a more conservative candidate to vote for as an alternative. However; Bush's "strategy" will drive away moderate voters who recognize that senseless bigotry isn't a quality they want to see in the President of the United States. "
The way you worded things in your response puts a different spin on the point I was trying to get across. It's not that people were not going to vote for Bush because he seemed neutral or whatever. The point is THAT HE IS MAKING IT AN ISSUE. HE IS DRAWING A LINE IN THE SAND AND SAYING I STAND HERE "FOR MARRIAGE" WHO'S WITH ME ON THIS? blah blah blah (kinda like the "you're either with us or against us" sentiment he employed toward terrorism, which whether you agree with method of that or not, it can be very effective in getting what you want). As I mentioned before, this is a diversionary TACTIC, and is not unheard of in the world of politics. He is keeping this thought over the properties of marriage (to euphemise a bit) in voters' minds. He is painting himself as being a protector of christian morality. Again, this, I think, is becuse he doesn't have much to run on due to the lackluster economy and perhaps other factors. So instead of voting for "mr. bad economy" v. "mr. change" you have a spin on things thanks to Bush which is "mr. morals" v. "mr. morals?". Again, I'm not saying that this new spin is necessarily true, but it all deals with perceptions. More specifically, common perception, which is what I'd wager most voters go by. I don't have to tell you that politicians make their bread by playing on people's perceptions and simplifying matters, do I?
But (to directly contradict your response), you also underestimate many people's ties to religion and morals when they vote. Come live in Texas a few days and visit some of these small towns (particularly where many God-fearing old people live) and you'll be surprised. Much of their voting logic is not educated at all (my aunt voted Dubya in 2000 solely for his stance on abortion). My history prof told me today that his neighbor started out as a moderate and now votes solely republican to this day b/c the New Deal (Democrat agenda) ended prohibition (which he sees as the foremost problem today, and yes he's an old fellow). I'd like to add, that I'm not implying that people who vote Republican are less educated, btw.
Trust me, Bush's advisors (the one's telling him to purpose the admendment) ARE NOT stupid. Not to mention you have John Kerry, who is very wishy washy on the subject. He says let the states decide, which is funny...have the states decide on a civil rights issue?! Meanwhile, you have Bush, a guy who will be perceived as being self-assured and in control, knows EXACTLY how he wants things, has a clear vision, etc. I'm not saying he's right and I'm not saying that these perceptions are not BS, but they're there and I'm saying that's how people will perceive him on these televised debates when he's giving compact, "sound" answers while Kerry will seemingly appear to have no morals (at least in regards to this Bush-made issue) as he tiptoes around the issue and will actually appear to contradict himself, which isn't very "presidential."
Look, if Bush had nothing to gain from doing this, do you honestly think he'd be doing it if it didn't serve his political career? Do you think he is that much of a religious fanatic IN THIS ONE AREA that he is willing to sacrifice a political career which could be put to use for numerous other gains? Do you think that this was something that kept him up late at night when he resolved to run for president? I'd wager that most Republican politicians really could care less about creating such a law if they didn't have a strong religious constituency to appeal to. They, like all politicians, have much bigger fish to fry.
Also, I'd like to add something else about the "respect" issue. You guys do realize you are debating on the properties of abstract termanology, right? It's just going to go circles, which is fine as long as that entertains you, I guess. This again, is what I was talking about with the substantive issue thing. Both sides in these big substantive issues have compelling arguments and that's why there will continue to be division no matter HOW right YOU think you are.
By the way, I think that the Cheat and Homesar should run for your president next election. 
My childhood is goooonnnne! 
