November 6th, 2004


The ironies of voting on gay marriage

After reading two articles on slate, one about gay marriage and the issue of morality and another about morality being the new "race", I realized that the whole voting on gay marriage has been very much mis- portrayed. What I mean by this is that while the religious fundamentalists would like to have you believe that when voting on gay marriage, you're voting on whether or not you approve of gay marriage, that's not really the case. The vote on gay marriage is more is more about whether people have the right to do and live their own lives the way they want to -- because supporting gay marriage does not mean that you approve or disapprove of gay marriage, but that you approve of people having the rights to live freely. This seems rather ironic, in that the traditional republican values include decreasing the size of the government, of decreasing government programs and influence. Yet this one disguised issue, one which is very much supposed by the republican party, goes completely against this view. So while on one hand George W. Bush may be campaigning for lowering taxes and allowing people more freedom to choose where their social security money goes, on the other hand, he's advocating for the government controlling more things that have to do with people's personal lives -- being against abortion, for the death penalty, etc.

I find this all kind of strange, since my original view was that republican party seemed to be very strong in terms of presenting a unified push goal. However it seems that even the republican party, just like the democrats, fail to be driven by a central ideal, a key belief that from which all view points are derived.

Why are there never any candidates that are both exceedingly smart and honorable? To me, it's better to have the smartest person possible running the country, but those smart people never make it past the primaries. Do most people simply not like those who are smarter than them?