I would not say it this way, but leave it to the media to make it as conflicting
and inciteful as possible.
1. there is a difference between not believing in gay marriage and not accepting homosexuality as equal
vs. abusing political and legal systems to actively discriminate against gays
I look forward to the day we can accept people's different views as religious diversity,
and keep this out of public policy, govt and politics all together. not deny, but accept
differences and not push too far one way or the other since we disagree. big deal.
2. there is a difference in governing and representation
if people RESOLVE CONFLICTS or merely push symbolic rhetoric for or against
without solving the real issue
On this point, I would agree that people who cannot distinguish personal/political agenda
from Constitutional law, inclusion and representation of all people/views/interests equally
should NOT be in charge of making decisions for the public. If they do participate in the process, it should be to give input and objections, but allow those who can facilitate to reach consensus on all points be in charge of mediating to form a solution that represents all the public. if this cannot be done without division, this means that policy remains private.
on that note, there are just as many liberal Democrats who don't belong in office if they can't make or facilitate decisions by correcting problems and addressing objections,
by offering alternatives when something is opposed instead of blaming or invalidating
the reasons for objection.
policies should follow Constitutional principles and not be pushed by partisan agenda manipulated or bullied by majority-rule. that is the problem, not the views themselves.
many people are anti-gay but don't impose their views on others publicly.
there is a difference between banning gay marriage through govt, giving free and equal choice in private outside govt, and mandating inclusion of gay marriage through govt
if you are going to exclude people who are intolerant of gays or gay marriage,
what about people who exclude one or more of the above views that are equally valid?
that is intolerant and discriminatory also.
to be fair, you should be equally opposed to anyone who pushes gay marriage
"without tolerance" of people's views who don't believe in that religiously
that is equally BIGOTED and unconstitutional to impose on someone's religious views
where is the outcry against that
"Who are they? Are they these extreme conservatives who are right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay? Is that who they are? Because if thats who they are and theyre the extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of New York, because thats not who New Yorkers are."
Those were the words uttered by New York Governor Andrew Cuomo. These words have also signaled to me the arrival of something I've feared in America. This something is an era of hyper-partisanship, where mere political affiliation can warrant someone telling you "you have no place here." Has our partisanship reached such a level where we tell someone they no longer belong in the same state as you? Where will those of similar political leanings be speaking out against this?
Do Democrats and Republicans alike not have the same right to live in New York or anywhere? It was bad enough segregating blacks and whites some 50 and 60 years ago, now we must segregate between the letters "D" and "R"? This is why I speak in support of bipartisanship. This is why I favor it. For this is what partisanship will reap.
One will say "I will never get along with them." But I say you don't have to. However it isn't right or moral to begrudge them a place among their fellow Americans that they have made for themselves to live because of what their political beliefs are. The law notwithstanding, a man of any idea or philosophy should be welcome in America.
What Governor Cuomo demonstrated to the rest of America is an utter lack of tolerance, a lack of goodwill. No aspect of partisanship towards his fellow New Yorkers. The onus rests with the people who elected him, those people being the Democrats themselves. He is the manifestation of the intolerance they profess to combat. Cuomo represents an aspect of hatred that Democrats claim not to possess towards those of different beliefs.
I think this is poor stated and should be clarified, but nearly impossible to do in the media.
I think the left should hear the challenge and take up the same commitment to
end exclusionary and bullying tactics and to respect the prolife and antigay views
in the name of diversity and Constitutional inclusion of all people regardess of beliefs.
I actually mentioned this on the radio the other day when I called in as prochoice
Democrat, saying I equally believed in defending and including prolife views as
protected under the Constitution. i don't have to agree with those views to defend them.
But actually I do agree with preventing and ending abortion, but by free choice and education and offering better solutions; NOT by criminalizing it or force of law.
So I hope to see more liberals and Democrats come out and admit that this hateful
exclusion is more for political bullying and tactics and is equally wrong if you are
against bullying and discrimination. We need to QUIT rewarding DIVISIVE tactics and
start encouraging, investing in and building leaders who don't rely on it to get elected.
