?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Ah, Voting. The spice of life. . . - Chronarchy

> Recent Entries
> Archive
> Friends
> Profile
> Chronarchy.com

Links
Ár nDraíocht Féin
Three Cranes
MySpace
Chaos Matrix
OSU PSA

May 19th, 2004


Previous Entry Share Next Entry
11:20 am - Ah, Voting. The spice of life. . .
Today, in the shower, I found myself thinking something I never expected I would think:

We gotta vote the Republicans out of every office we can this November.

Why on earth would a generally staunch Republican say such a blasphemous thing?

Because I figure the economy can wait. Terrorism can wait. The environment can wait.

The Constitution can't wait.

Yes, I'm about to go on another tirade about gay marriage, registering to vote, and the US Constitution.

For those of you brave enough to read on, I appreciate it.

So why did I suddenly become so anti-Republican? Those who know me generally accept that I'm middle-of-the-road, with slight Republican tendancies, because I believe that the economy is more important than welfare, and the environment takes a lower ranking than cold hard cash.

What brought this on, really, was the radio this morning. Some asshat in Ohio's legislative branch is proposing an amendment to Ohio's Constitution to ban gay marriage.

I've talked about gay marriage before, and why I'm opposed to banning it (see entry 1, entry 2), and I've talked about the importance of registering to vote.

I'm fiercely bothered by this trend toward using the Constitution to remove rights from a group of people. A fairly large group of people. A group of people that I know several of, and whom I like very much.

And whose devotion seems much stronger, especially when Brittney Spears can marry someone for 55 hours and that's "sacred" because she married someone of an oposite gender.

The constitution is not designed to remove rights from people. There are other ways to do that (like making bad laws) that are much more acceptable. But putting it in the Constitution? Someone needs to be smacked.

None of the amendments detail a removal of rights. If we start with one, what sort of precedent have we set? Honestly, this particular one sounds pretty small to a straight guy, and I admit that. But it's the first step, and one that I don't want to see taken.

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, you know.

So why is voting Republicans out of office the answer? Because no matter how much the Democrats can screw the rest of the world and the home front, they won't try and push a Constitutional amendment through banning gay marriage. We can fix the economy later. We can fight terrorism later. We can fix Social Security later.

No matter what we do, though, we can't take back that first step down a long dark road that removes rights from a group of people. It will haunt us forever.

So, unless things change, I'll encourage you all to vote Democrat.

But honestly, if you like the way things are going, I still encourage you to vote. Honestly, I don't care who you vote for. That's your personal choice. But you damn well better vote, and you damn well better know what you're voting for.

I just happen to be giving reasons for my choice, at this point.

It takes a lot to turn a Republican away from his party. Almost as much as it takes to turn a Democrat away from his. Congrats, GOP. You managed.
Current Mood: angryangry
Current Music: "In the Shelter", -JB
Tags:

(32 comments Leave a comment)

Comments:


[User Picture]
From:mlleelizabeth
Date:May 19th, 2004 08:33 am (UTC)

You sound like a Libertarian, actually ...

(Link)
Excellent post! Mind if I link to it?
[User Picture]
From:chronarchy
Date:May 19th, 2004 08:40 am (UTC)

Re: You sound like a Libertarian, actually ...

(Link)
Libertarian? Not really. Just passionate about the *purpose* of the Constitution. :) You can add income tax to the Constitution, and I don't complain, but removing someone's rights? That's just wrong.

BTW, for the record (because someone's going to bring it up), I know that Prohibition was part of the Constitution, and that limited rights. But I think this whole gay marriage amendment thing is exactly the same. Outlawing it is a fad. If it passes, we'll have to repeal it in 10 years. Can we just save ourselves the tax dollars and drop the freaking issue?

Excellent post! Mind if I link to it?

Thank you! Feel free :)
[User Picture]
From:mlleelizabeth
Date:May 19th, 2004 08:49 am (UTC)

Re: You sound like a Libertarian, actually ...

(Link)
Libertarian? Not really. Just passionate about the *purpose* of the Constitution. :) You can add income tax to the Constitution, and I don't complain, but removing someone's rights? That's just wrong.

It's a good thing to be passionate about. I wrote all my senators and congressmen a couple of months ago about this, because my primary cause for concern is that some of them seem to want to change the Constitution in a manner that is fundamentally in opposition to the Constitution itself.

BTW, for the record (because someone's going to bring it up), I know that Prohibition was part of the Constitution, and that limited rights. But I think this whole gay marriage amendment thing is exactly the same. Outlawing it is a fad. If it passes, we'll have to repeal it in 10 years. Can we just save ourselves the tax dollars and drop the freaking issue?

Oh, totally! I almost commented on this which would have made me the bringer upper. *g* You're right that we'll just have to repeal it.

This mess is about change, and people being resistant to and afraid of change and lashing out against it. But changes happens, whether we lash out against it or not. I also think it's at least a little bit about states' rights vs. federalism since those opposing keep bringing up their fear of full faith & credit.

Excellent post! Mind if I link to it?

Thank you! Feel free :)


Thank you!
[User Picture]
From:chronarchy
Date:May 19th, 2004 08:58 am (UTC)

Re: You sound like a Libertarian, actually ...

(Link)
It is about change, and resistance to it. And, really, I think it's a result of people not wanting to *see* the changes that have already occured. They're reacting far too late to the issue, and this is their only option left.

Besides, what would happen to Clark and Lex if they outlawed gay marriage? I'm just looking out for the future, you know.
[User Picture]
From:fionnghal
Date:May 19th, 2004 09:24 am (UTC)
(Link)
Don't feel bad you're not the only normally conservative I've noticed that has begun to see this.
[User Picture]
From:chronarchy
Date:May 19th, 2004 10:24 am (UTC)
(Link)
It's not really "beginning to see" it, it's more "not understanding wtf the problem is" and "why on earth is this even an issue" and "Hello, Republicans have been billing themselves as all about personal liberties for years!"

Smackage is soooo in order.
[User Picture]
From:rfunk
Date:May 19th, 2004 12:29 pm (UTC)

That's not all

(Link)
"Hello, Republicans have been billing themselves as all about personal liberties for years!"


They've also talked good about fiscal responsibility, yet they gave us a record deficit, obliterating the budget surplus we gained under Clinton. (I'm not going to argue about who was responsible for that surplus, but the Republicans have controlled the government during the Bush administration.)

Come to think of it, the Republicans and Bush have done pretty well at changing their minds about things in the past few years.

Even on the environment, Republicans used to be much better -- Nixon started the EPA, after all. (Reluctantly.)

Basically today's Republican party is a coalition between the "religious right", which is where the gay marriage amendments and most of their votes come from, and the rich heads of big business, where we get lots of bad policy that's too esoteric to get the big headlines. The latter group are the ones with the real power, but they need to push the issues the former group cares about in order to get and keep their power. The irony is that in pushing the anti-gay agenda they're going too far and losing people like you.

One thing both parts of that coalition seem to agree on is that if you're poor you deserve it, and if you're rich, you deserve it. Therefore the policies end up making the poor poorer and the rich richer.

The funny thing is how much the two parties have switched in many ways since the 50s and mid-60s -- in some ways even since Nixon. Some of today's Democrats and Republicans only call themselves that because that's what they grew up as, while the party policies changed around them. "Democratic" Senator Zell Miller, for example, would be much more at home in today's Republican party than the Democratic party he still (sort of) claims, while a few years ago Vermont Senator Jim Jeffords left the Republican party after realizing that it had changed since he started his career.

Anyway, I'll stop my ranting.... You might be interested in the site "The Moderate Republican".

Also, Arianna Huffington's "Contract For a Better America is one example of what's happening on the Democratic side. (Another, obviously, is John Kerry's issues statements.)
[User Picture]
From:chronarchy
Date:May 19th, 2004 12:56 pm (UTC)

Re: That's not all

(Link)
The irony is that in pushing the anti-gay agenda they're going too far and losing people like you.

Yup. And I'm proud to walk at this point.

Of course, I won't *acutally* know who I'm voting for in November until I walk into the booth, but were I to vote today, I know exactly which way I'd go.

I was very happy with Bush up until about Sept. 11. After that, I gradually got less and less impressed, until the gay marriage issue broke me. It would take a lot right now to win be back. :)

(As far as budget surpluses, we were losing that before anyone took office, if I remember right. Besides, we're on the upswing, so they've got to be doing *something* right.)
[User Picture]
From:tosk
Date:May 19th, 2004 09:37 am (UTC)
(Link)
Wait a minute! What about the end of a moral society as we know it? Obviously, if gay people can get married, then my relationship with my darling Sjaantze won't be as important. How can I love her as much as I do now, if two gay people can share the same sort of relationship? Obviously, gays can't really love each other, so then I must not love her...

*ack! That made my head hurt*

Tosk
[User Picture]
From:chronarchy
Date:May 19th, 2004 10:25 am (UTC)
(Link)
See! You *obviously* understand the arguments. I'm proud of ya. :)

My world has been clarified! I take back all the nasty things I've ever said about Republicans!

Oh, wait. . . No I don't. . .
[User Picture]
From:anivair
Date:May 19th, 2004 01:05 pm (UTC)
(Link)
And let's not forget that if we let the gays get married to each other we'll have to start leting people marry sheep and horses next.

Also, if you let gays marry, who will go into the catholic priesthood?
[User Picture]
From:chronarchy
Date:May 19th, 2004 01:07 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Obviously, they'll need to allow priests to marry. Duh!
[User Picture]
From:anivair
Date:May 19th, 2004 01:42 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Not if you let the gays marry. then it's not sacred anymore.
[User Picture]
From:qorinda
Date:May 19th, 2004 02:22 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Yup.

But then again, I have had issues with Bush from the beginning, like how he "won" the election. Grrrr.

Everyone eventually shows their true colors if you give them enough time.

I will be, for sure, voting Democrat, once again...... and this Constitution stuff is only ONE of the reasons for doing so....
[User Picture]
From:chronarchy
Date:May 20th, 2004 07:32 am (UTC)
(Link)
Haha. I still have no issue believing that he "won" fair and square. :) But I'm like that.

> Go to Top
LiveJournal.com