Now the gentlewoman from Illinois, made a comment about gay marriage and abortion under the Bush administration. I have seen these stats other places as well, and am convinced that these are hailed as talking points by the Democratic Party. But let me point out. STATES are legalizing gay marriage. One of the founding principals of the republican party is the concept of STATES RIGHTS. Therefore by not pushing for a constitutional admendment banning gay marriage Bush is adhering to his Republican roots.
I AM interested to note that Republicans are allowed a moral lapse, so long as it adheres to "State's Rights" - which is correctly characterized as a long held bastion of Republican governance policy.
The flaw in that logic (the logic being that a "state's rights" policy allows gay marriage, thus a republican president is not to blame for it happening), is that it suggests that Party Policy is exempted from moral responsibility.
I dont have a problem with the argument, but since it's the argument being made: doesnt it also apply to Democratic Policy?
|
Bookmark this post:
|
|
4 comments:
The even bigger flaw in your comment, is to suggest that Democrats have morals to begin wiith. JUST KIDDING!
The fundamental difference between the two parties is among other things, the issue of States rights. Now while the President can suggest and use the power of persuasion in certain instances, I hesitate to suggest that it should be considered a "moral lapse" if the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals finds the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional during the Bush administration. Using your logic, anytime a court or state passes a law that goes against republican values, the President is to blame. I guess I dont need to point out the fallacy of that argument.
And yes I did say courts making laws, as they too have forgotten their function in government. Perhaps we should blame Bush for that as well. Gay marriage and abortion are a result of the power and persuassion of liberalism. And also perhaps an example of how weak the office of the presidency really is.
Oh Anonymous, you know I dont agree with you, but you are correct that there really are fundamental differences between RNC and DNC policies (e.g. fiscal policy, federal governmental oversight, fiscal policy, state's rights (fed govt oversight), etc., ad nauseum) that have NOTHING to do with religion or morality. I think it would be interesting to have that conversation.
However, here is where we find ourselves - mixing religion and politics. The sad truth that we can probably both agree on, is that sin is the real problem. Even under a Republican regime, it is clear that immorality will win the day. I'd argue (and we are all staring at the proof positive), that even if we agree with "state's rights" and give states more power (as we have done in the gay marriage issue) to make their own decisions - it is not promised to us that states will then make the correct MORAL decision.
Are we going to blame that on Democrats, too?
Just take a look at the State's that have passed these laws...California, Massechusetts...Not to mention the city of San Francisco, and a number of others...Please dont make me answer that last question honestly...Oh and in some instances the people didnt even have a vote, it was decided by the legislature, which again (referencing that last question of yours) well just look at who voted which way. I'm sure you can answer your own question.
oh right. pardon the fact that amongst the democratic advancement of civil liberties for all, they, in their (understandably wordly) largesse also lump into that pursuit of human rights - the rights of gays and women.
do answer the question. I want you to.
but before you do, perhaps a little background reading :D
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/historyprofiles/p/democratic.htm
http://w3.uchastings.edu/wingate/PDF/JimCrowReport.pdf
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Did_Bush_stack_deck_against_civil_1106.html
Post a Comment