Monday, October 23, 2006

What About the Important Stuff?

David and I went to vote today. We never know where we are going to be, so we didn’t want to take the chance that we wouldn’t be in Virginia in order to cast our votes – especially in this election. We selected our candidates. We didn’t vote for George Allen because his commercials are so stupid, that even if we liked him, and he could ever overcome the macaca and Jewish slurs-- we still couldn’t vote for anyone who approved of such expensive and ridiculous public messages. My favorite is the one where he says he has the best record of any Senator in Virginia. I don't remember the issue but it seems that, in the ads, they are all the same. Duh, there are only two Senators in Virginia. Does he think his constituency doesn’t know that, and that the other Senator is Warner, who has reluctantly (how could it be enthusiastically) endorsed him despite the fact that Allen apparently did something better than the senior Senator.

Once we voted for the candidates there were the usual bond issues. Most of these are just another way to increase our taxes. Like building a brige accross Spout Run so ten people wouldn't have to cross an actual street. On those we voted no. One was for public schools and despite our lack of a child in the system we voted yes. We do care about schools, and property values.

We also were asked to select amendments to the Virginia constitution. The two that flashed neon warnings for us were the one forbidding same sex marriage and one that allows churches to incorporate.

It seems to me that same sex marriage is one of those issues about which uptight homophobes just can’t let go. I keep thinking that instead of worrying about people of the same sex, who love one another, and want to swear their allegiance in front of God, the homophobes should worry about smoking and obesity. They are far more dangerous to health of our nation than same sex marriage. Or maybe they could worry about terrorism, which will not end unless we develop a real policy toward terrorist nations. If the homophobes would focus on those three issues and leave loving couples alone, it would do far more good for thee nation. And what if the couples don’t love one another-- which seems to be one concern of the nay sayers. What if they, like those of us who are in two sex marriages, have motives that go beyond love. What if one wants to marry a rich person who can take care of them. Or needs the emotional security of being with someone else and they happen to be gay or a lesbian. Why should anyone care. To tell you the truth, unless we do something about the deficit, the war, the environment, education and health care, it really won’t matter (in the big USA picture) if two people, who happen to be the same sex are not allowed to make a lifetime commitment to one another. ,

It’s more of the same. The same people who make our laws and scream the loudest about the moral fabric of our nation are the same people who are writing obscene notes to young children. You remember when Shakespeare said, “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.” Or perhaps it was something more fitting like, "Asses are made to bear, and so are you. " Never you mind, you get the point. People who have nothing better to do than look inside our bedrooms and our bodies to make a point about morality in a country that is making war on innocent civilians, are just not credible and shouldn’t be running the government.

I read through all the rest of the voting choices and while I was putting the X into the last 2 boxes I flashed to the new RNC ad. The one which suggests that the republicans will fight terrorism and the Democrats can’t. All I envisioned was a response ad, where you would see a stop light with five choices, ranging from red to orange to yellow to blue to green and you would hear someone ask, “I am not feeling safe. I need to be assured nothing terrible will happen. What color is the alert today? “ The ad would end with a simple printed tag line that says, “What more do you need to know?” We’re just sayin...


Anonymous said...

I've been reading your blog for a few weeks and we seem to be of very similar political opinions. When discussing the same sex issue with some who were against it, I was taken aback by the argument, "They'll put a further drain on social security." That ramification wasn't something that I had considered, and has me wondering. As you probably know, if a married couple both worked and contributed into SS, if the man dies first, the woman continues to receive his benefits. However, if the woman dies first, the man does not receive hers. Unfair to say the least. The concept of same sex couples exaggerates this sexist mentality even more - which partner continues to receive the other's check? Neither? Obviously the whole system needs an overhaul, but I'm really interested on what you'd have to say on this matter.

Walt said...

Actually, if a woman works all or part of her life and makes more money than her husband, and the husband dies first, the wife's benefits are based on her husband's contributions, not hers.

So the higher wage earning wife only gets the benefits of the husband, thus losing part of her contribution to SS.

Simply put - not fair at all.

The SS system needs to be fixed so that the surviving member of the marriage get's what the other contributed regardless of the other person's sex. This will cover all bases.

The constitution is quite clear - equal protection under the law. It doesn't address the biase of anyone's particular religious view on marriage.