ONE THING NADER SAID
...that I actually really like, is his gay-marriage blurb from MTP:
I think that stressing the commitment aspect of the gay marriage is a winning issue, but it's more than what the two frontrunner Dem candidates are doing at this point. Obviously Kerry has made a marriage/civilunion distinction, but let's leave that aside for the moment. Both candidates have emphasized equal rights in the matter, and in terms of the act of forming a union, they talk mostly about a couple's ability to legitimize their relationship, and have it officially recognized, either economically or otherwise. However, they've talked relatively little about commitment by comparison (They probably have done so to some extent, but not nearly enough).
At this point, the Dems have done a pretty good job of supporting equal rights for same-sex couples as a civil rights issue, a la the 1960's movement, but they have yet to stress the social/family values aspect of the issue, which is where it could potentially be a real winner. By stressing the positive relationship element of the debate, it may be possible to undercut both the Santorumian slippery-slope arguments and the Schwarzeneggerian soon-there'll-be-riots-and-drugs tactic. Combined with the relevant "live and let live" sentiment (one not shared by the Falwell/Bauer types on the other end of the ideological spectrum), independent swing voters might be ultimately turned off by the extreme measures advocated by the Bush administration and other social conservatives to stand between gays and their right to legitimize their commitment to their significant others should they choose to do so.
Bringing it all back to Nader: Policy-wise, I enjoy a Nader interview because I'll agree with around 97% of what he says, despite the fact that how he goes about getting it amounts to liberal suicide. I do want to hear the C-word, "commitment", from more candidates more often, particularly those candidates who share a first name with Mr Big.
(though in general, because Nader is a shift-the-debate candidate and not an actually-trying-to-win candidate, he is freer to say whatever he wants by virtue of that fact alone)
...that I actually really like, is his gay-marriage blurb from MTP:
MR. NADER: I support equal rights for same-sex couples. I think there's an interesting quote by a lesbian leader in The New York Times a few days ago when she said, "It's not a matter of labels, it's a matter of equal rights." However, that can occur by adjusting state laws or having a federal law. That is certainly something that the gay-lesbian community is going to have to work out.While I'm curious as to why Nader had to be pushed to say that he supports same-sex marriage -- if this were a Kerry or Edwards talking, Nader would accuse him of being "mealy-mouthed" or speaking in "Senate-ese" -- I do like that Nader addressed ths issue (eventually) from a standpoint of "love" and just as importantly, "commitment". This was the angle suggested by Slate's Bill Saletan a few months ago. (Though somewhat annoyingly, Bill did imply some sort of equivalence between the "gruesomeness" of abortion and that of gay sex)
MR. RUSSERT: But gays should be allowed to be married if they so choose, according to you.
MR. NADER: Of course. Love and commitment is not exactly in surplus in this country. The main tragedy, what undermines marriage, is divorce, as Mayor Daley of Chicago just said.
I think that stressing the commitment aspect of the gay marriage is a winning issue, but it's more than what the two frontrunner Dem candidates are doing at this point. Obviously Kerry has made a marriage/civilunion distinction, but let's leave that aside for the moment. Both candidates have emphasized equal rights in the matter, and in terms of the act of forming a union, they talk mostly about a couple's ability to legitimize their relationship, and have it officially recognized, either economically or otherwise. However, they've talked relatively little about commitment by comparison (They probably have done so to some extent, but not nearly enough).
At this point, the Dems have done a pretty good job of supporting equal rights for same-sex couples as a civil rights issue, a la the 1960's movement, but they have yet to stress the social/family values aspect of the issue, which is where it could potentially be a real winner. By stressing the positive relationship element of the debate, it may be possible to undercut both the Santorumian slippery-slope arguments and the Schwarzeneggerian soon-there'll-be-riots-and-drugs tactic. Combined with the relevant "live and let live" sentiment (one not shared by the Falwell/Bauer types on the other end of the ideological spectrum), independent swing voters might be ultimately turned off by the extreme measures advocated by the Bush administration and other social conservatives to stand between gays and their right to legitimize their commitment to their significant others should they choose to do so.
Bringing it all back to Nader: Policy-wise, I enjoy a Nader interview because I'll agree with around 97% of what he says, despite the fact that how he goes about getting it amounts to liberal suicide. I do want to hear the C-word, "commitment", from more candidates more often, particularly those candidates who share a first name with Mr Big.
(though in general, because Nader is a shift-the-debate candidate and not an actually-trying-to-win candidate, he is freer to say whatever he wants by virtue of that fact alone)
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home