In light of the recent coverage of the gay marriage ban again being attempted in Iowa, and the KKK’s rally in support of the ban, please consider this:
Self-proclaimed conservatives standing against same-sex civil unions or “gay marriage” aren’t necessarily supported by conservative philosophy.
(Please read on. It’s brief.)
Same-sex civil unions create households, foster stability, and promote longevity (just as marriage does for heterosexuals), all which make for a more productive society. That’s why more Fortune 500 companies than ever offer same-sex domestic partner benefits.
It is not conservative to foster individualism by providing state-backed disincentives for mutual, lifelong, committed relationships between two people (i.e., legally forcing people to be single!); or to want any law-abiding citizen to remain alone and isolated instead of in partnership; or to codify exclusions from helpful rights and protections for an entire class of productive (and potentially more productive) citizens—especially in a functioning, capitalist republic.
No, such things aren’t conservative; they are just meddlesome and just mean-spirited: two things that aren’t conservative and, I hope, aren’t Iowan.
YOUR CALL TO ACTION:
Please consider writing something like the above in your own words to editors of local papers in states where ban votes (legislative or popular) or ban-related petition drives or lawsuits are occuring 2006: California, Alabama, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Wisconsin, Virginia, Arizona, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, and (lawsuits in the following) California, Connecticut, Iowa, Maryland, New Jersey, New York and Washington state.
I think Iowa and California, where there are both vote or petition actions and lawsuits, might prove particularly key. In Iowa, some moderate GOP state senators (and, I suspect, some GOP state representatives) have come out against the ban. They need to be encouraged.
because attitudes in the younger generation (18-30) seem to be a lot more accepting than those of the senior generation (60-up); folks in the middle tend to go either way depending where they live. This is mainly because as more gays/lesbians “come out”, people work with them, get to know them, and realize that they don’t have horns or cloven hooves, but are just people with similar problems. I know that my own attitudes were the direct opposite to my mother’s, and that mainly because of workplace exposure.
In about 20 years, the older generation will die off, and the younger generation will (hopefully) be taking their place in the political arena, bringing their fresh attitudes with them.
I’ve decided to be overly optimistic and say 10 years. . . . I think as the neocons totally disolve in shame disgrace, and jail sentences, people will begin to see that this has been a hatred driven program all along.
The majority of people don’t care one way or the other right now. It will become more and more that they won’t care.
And I am going out into the universe to cast a spell and plant subliminal messages in everyone’s thoughts so that the changes will be surprisingly fast. . . .(LOL, but maybe it’s true)
I know magical stuff, ya know. . .
I went for 10 years as a sign of hope that the younger, more open generation will get off their asses and start voting. Given their more progressive attitudes about nearly everything they can make a huge change in the politics of this country.
And here’s a real sign of changing attitudes, the city-county council of Indianapolis (the capital of my very red state) approved (after failing in previous attempts) Proposal 622, the Human Rights Ordinance, which added both “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” as protected classes from discrimination in employment and housing in Indianapolis.
is a very extreme radical notion, almost as wacko as the idea that Congress works for you.
I voted for 20 years. That gives us enough time to wash off the slime of this administration and brings more young people into the political spectrum.