Sunday, June 22, 2003

I just got around to reading the politcal news and other people's blogs this morning. For several days I was blissfully ignorant of what was happening in the world around me, except for my apartment search and the Cardinals horrendous performance Friday night against the Royals. And I really do think there is some sort of bliss associated with being ignorant of the world around you. I can see why some people chose to avoid the sewer of politics and current events. To do so ensures one of only being affected by his or her immediate life concerns. Gone are the worries about the millions of children in our country who are growing up poor; without a parent or parents; who go hungry; who are beaten, molested or abused; who are trapped in a failing educational system. One is also able, to whatever degree possible, to avoid the disturbing reality of invidious discrimination against gays and lesbians; to be oblivious to the degradation of our ecosystem; etc.

Yet, something in my own make up does not allow me to stay ignorant for long. Maybe it is just the way I was brought up- to be concerned for others and their plight. Or it could be that my ancestors, going back to the Revolutionary War, have fought and died for this country and her great experiment with democracy. Or it could be any other number of reasons.

What I found most disturbing in my perusal of the news, was the transcript of Senator Hillary Clinton's interview on the topic of gay marriage that I found on Andrew's site. I was shocked to find out that my US Senator, the liberal Hillary Clinton, did not believe that gays and lesbians should not be permitted to marry! Now, maybe Hillary is being cautious in preparation for a White House run in 2008, but I am so disappointed in her comments, which are below.

Clinton: Well, marriage means something different. you know, marriage has a meaning that I... I think should be kept as it historically has been, but I see no reason whatsoever why people in committed relationships can't have, you know, many of the same rights and the same, you know, respect for their unions that they are seeking and I would like to see that be more accepted than it is.

Lehrer: But not with the context of marriage.

Clinton: Yeah, I, I think that is, you know... First of all, I think that it is unlikely, if not impossible, to be something nationally accepted in our country, but I also think that we can realize the same results for may committed couples by urging that states and localities adopt civil union and domestic partnership laws.

To paraphrase Senator Clinton, gays and lesbians in committed relationships should be prohibited from marrying so that we can keep the traditional definition of marriage as one man-one woman. Does she also think that we should turn back the clock on heterosexual marriage and ensure that the wife is subservient to the husband? I doubt she has countenanced the thought. There are those who would point to her comments and say that what she is proposing is equal rights, but with a different name, simply denying gay unions the title of marriage. However, many years ago, the US Supreme Court dismissed the notion of separate but equal as a fallacy.

Senator Clinton should know better.


Post a Comment

<< Home