Friday, May 16, 2014
Red State Folks, I AM Terribly Sorry About This
See, from my pinched position as a coastal leftie who wants to shed my impression of the red states being chock full o'characters, I realize there must be some of youse (that is our Philly version of "y'all") that cringe when people are exactly the stereotype. Although that Harley guy isn't even like a stereotype. I think he's a Saturday Night Live Skit. But really, to my people, when "Butch Otter" isn't even the punchline, we have a thing to play with. But I guess I won't. I'm just...sorry. These are Idaho's GOP candidates. I don't know what the fix for this is.
Also marriage equality happened in this state, so, uh, that was another thing I think maybe...nah. Not sorry.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
TWGB: Where's the Cavalry?
Trump's trial, in a way, involves a bit of myth-making--today we learned that, per an agreement between Trump and David Pecker of the ...
2 comments:
Hi Vixen,
I'm not sure they say "y'all" in Idaho. They might, but it's essentially a southern "youse".
You know, when I listened to the relentlessly querulous nature of your blog, I'm thinking that maybe you and the bearded guy would make an excellent match. He could quote from the Bible, and you could berate everyone with clever snark. So it's too bad you're already married, because if he wins you could make a great first lady.
I do agree with the smoother candidates when they intimate that marriage between gays ultimately requires a political solution. We have quite a lot of activist judges ruling against the will of the people, and this should not be done in cases where social disputes are being adjudicated.
They have said that marriage between a man and a woman is different than marriage between gays. And this is obviously true, not only because of the differences in plumbing and the differences socially, but men and women both bring something different to the table.
It also doesn't have to do with love. I don't know of any meter than can register how fervently people love each other. However, mothers can love their children fervently, but that does not mean that their category of mother and child can simply be dismissed because a quanta of love is involved. Brothers love sisters, aunts and uncles love nieces and nephews, dads love their sons and daughters. Love is not in itself a quality that changes the structure in which relationships exist.
Let us postulate a gay couple who love each other, and furthermore let us assume that the quality of their relationship is every bit as virtuous as a heterosexual relationship.
So they have love, they have virtue, and I do not question that this is true. In fact, let us even hypothesize that their relationship is more virtuous than the heterosexual relationship. (I must add this because my guy friends like to refer to women as "breeders," as if the heterosexual relationship is merely utilitarian, and a gay relationship transcends the pragmatic dimension and soars into the lofty, celestial stratosphere of the bathhouses.)
They would still be different. They may be just as good; maybe they are better. But they are different. There is simply no way of getting around it. Maybe there should be a way to solemnize gay relationships in acknowledgement and recognition by society of its virtue and its loving nature. But it is different, and it needs a different name so that we can have words that reference what something actually is instead of hot air that seeks to ameliorate distinctions that are necessarily inherent.
--Formerly Amherst
No need to apologize, the Idahoans are a party to their own degradation.
Post a Comment