I came across this article (here--hat tip Tenn. Eagle Forum) that seemed a bit out of touch to me. In light of reports that former Congressman Harold Ford, Jr. is likely to be the next chairman of the "moderate" Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), a group called the National Stonewall Democrats (NSD) is expressing concern. The NSD believes Ford, Jr. is not Liberal enough on homosexuality issues.
First, while this group (NSD) is certainly free to try and influence the DLC in choosing a new chairman, I'm a little surprised that the NSD presumes their position on the issues--particularly homosexual "marriage," qualifies as "moderate."
Then again, reading further in their press release you can see a bit of their angle . . . they say, "Ford has demonstrated a lack of leadership and judgment on family issues that causes our members great concern . . ." (emphasis added) I guess that's part of the problem; the presumption that very many Americans consider homosexual "marriage" a "family issue."
Hello world!
7 years ago
3 comments:
Why wouldn't it be considered a "family issue". Many homosexual couples have children either through birth or adoption. They are families, perhaps not the form of a family you desire, but families nonetheless.
Ned,
Let me give you the definitive vesion of "Family Values" once and for all:
We are all family, and we all have value.
Gays getting married and/or civil unions is a moderate idea, not liberal. In most civilized cultures, gay couples have been accepted for quite a while. Heck, just travel to other parts of America where gay couples are open.
They don't bother anyone. And, they aren't even contagious.
They have absolutely zero effect on hetro couples and their families.
Almost every democrat I know, most libertarians and some conservative Republicans agree that it is time to stop discriminating against gay couples.
Well, Sharon, it depends on who your friends are and it depends on how loosely you want to define "family" and "marriage"; and how ambiguously you want to define "value."
Overwhelming majorities in states all across the country agree that marriage shouldn't be re/undefined, so your perception about what is "moderate" or what everyone else believes about the issue is probably not accurate.
And there is a reason that we have norms and have definitions at all. Regrettably, I think too many homosexual activists aren't as interested in being able to marry as they are in being viewed by our government--and indirectly the public, as normal in what they're ostensibly doing behind closed doors.
Thankfully, judging from all the state votes on the issue, it appears that squishyness may be only mildly contagious.
Post a Comment