Archives
Archives
Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

View Article

Search Articles

23
How’s that for a headline to get your attention?
 
But, seriously. One reason I enjoy this blog is I get insight into viewpoints that differ from mine. This week, I learned something about the attitude toward the gay-marriage amendment and, more to the point, gay people.
 
I blogged (click here): “A business friend of mine wonders what the impact will be on recruiting jobs. How many companies that need smart and creative people will think twice about coming here or investing here?”
 
To which a Republican TAPster and frequent (and enjoyable) correspondent replied: “Is your biz friend somehow linking creativity with sexual deviance? Jes’ askin’….”
 
Well, that’s an interesting question on several levels. No, I thought my friend was saying that some bright and creative people might be gay – or might be put off by North Carolina targeting gays.
 
More important, the question shows the real divide on this issue. The TAPster believes homosexuality is “sexual deviance.” If you believe that, you logically have to support the amendment. If you don’t, you think the whole things is nuts.
 
Once up a time (think Nelson Rockefeller), Republicans thought a divorced man shouldn’t be President. Not long after (think Ronald Reagan), it was no longer a problem.
 
This, too, shall pass.

Comments

Actions: E-mail | Permalink | RSS comment feed |

One comment on “Sexual Deviance

  1. Carbine says:

    Something for all of my fellow conservatives to consider: This amendment does not prevent a single gay couple from getting married. Not even one. Gay people will continue to get married, set up house together, acquire property, raise children (yes, they do), and do all the other things that heterosexual married couples do.

    The only difference is that with this amendment in our Constitution, the state will have no power to make any rules or regulations concerning these new living arrangments. The state can’t regulate what it doesn’t recognize. The amendment seems to make impossible any civil union statute that would set some rules for things like child custody upon the dissolution of a gay family, or a fix to the problem of hospital visitation for gay partners. These are issues that will only become more prominent as more and more gay people elect to get married, as they surely will regardless of whether this amendment passes or not.

Copyright (c) Talking About Politics   :   Terms Of Use   :   Privacy Statement