|
and here's his addy:
Newsweek, Howard Fineman, howardfineman@aol.com
Dear Mr. Fineman,
Your discussion of the last Presidential debate was well thought-out and approaches last night's election coverage from a variety of angles. The big story in my mind was incapsulated by how easily and successfully President Bush ducked questions about assault weapons, minimum wage and Roe v. Wade. However, one other question that President Bush ducked was the question regarding whether homosexuality is a CHOICE. The importance of this dodge has philosophical implications, because inbedded in Scheiffer's question are a variety of suppositions regarding inherent human rights and whether or not an Amendment to the Constitution is judicious. I do not expect broadcast media to confront these lofty issues head-on. Inherent human rights and Amendments to the Constitution fall down to the bottom of the list of network media talking points. Philosophy doesn't sell well.
But, even with my low expectations about media priorities, I really did not expect a print journalist (who claims no agenda) to turn Scheiffer's homosexuality question on its head in an effort to mimic party (Cheney) campaign rhetoric. Let's turn to the question itself:
SCHEIFFER: Both of you are opposed to gay marriage. But to understand how you have come to that conclusion, I want to ask you a more basic question. Do you believe homosexuality is a choice?
BUSH: You know, Bob, I don't know. I just don't know. I do know that we have a choice to make in America and that is to treat people with tolerance and respect and dignity. It's important that we do that. And I also know in a free society people, consenting adults can live the way they want to live. And that's to be honored.
But as we respect someone's rights, and as we profess tolerance, we shouldn't change -- or have to change -- our basic views on the sanctity of marriage. I believe in the sanctity of marriage. I think it's very important that we protect marriage as an institution, between a man and a woman. I proposed a constitutional amendment. The reason I did so was because I was worried that activist judges are actually defining the definition of marriage, and the surest way to protect marriage between a man and woman is to amend the Constitution. It has also the benefit of allowing citizens to participate in the process. After all, when you amend the Constitution, state legislatures must participate in the ratification of the Constitution. I'm deeply concerned that judges are making those decisions and not the citizenry of the United States. You know, Congress passed a law called DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act. My opponent was against it. It basically protected states from the action of one state to another. It also defined marriage as between a man and woman. But I'm concerned that that will get overturned. And if it gets overturned, then we'll end up with marriage being defined by courts, and I don't think that's in our nation's interests.
President Bush completely ducks the question, but does not hesitate to discuss how a Federal Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage in ALL states amounts to tolerance and respect for state 'process' and an individual's dignity. So, the President turns a question about the nature of homosexuality into a question about activist judges.
Now to Senator Kerry's answer to the same question, which you label as nasty and agreeing with Ms. Cheney, also a cheap tawdry political trick. To the answer itself:
SCHIEFFER: Senator Kerry?
KERRY: We're all God's children, Bob. And I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she's being who she was, she's being who she was born as. I think if you talk to anybody, it's not choice. I've met people who struggled with this for years, people who were in a marriage because they were living a sort of convention, and they struggled with it. And I've met wives who are supportive of their husbands or vice versa when they finally sort of broke out and allowed themselves to live who they were, who they felt God had made them. I think we have to respect that.
The president and I share the belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. I believe that. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman.
But I also believe that because we are the United States of America, we're a country with a great, unbelievable Constitution, with rights that we afford people, that you can't discriminate in the workplace. You can't discriminate in the rights that you afford people. You can't disallow someone the right to visit their partner in a hospital. You have to allow people to transfer property, which is why I'm for partnership rights and so forth. Now, with respect to DOMA and the marriage laws, the states have always been able to manage those laws. And they're proving today, every state, that they can manage them adequately.
Senator Kerry actually answers the question posed to him and Mr. Fineman, you call answering the question....'nasty?'
Senator Kerry notes, what everyone who has followed the issue of the Constitutional ban on gay marriage knows: that the President's running mate does not support an Amendment because his daughter is a lesbian. Everyone, who took the time to watch the VP debate, knows that. Did you watch the VP debate and if not, did you bother reading the transcript? Maybe, you should take another look.
Senator Kerry was not being nasty or cheap. By using a salient example, an example that everyone is familiar with, Senator Kerry not only answered Scheiffer's question about whether homosexuality is a choice, but also explained how even someone so closely allied to the President, can have such a fundamentally different view on the issue of a Constitutional ban. Not only is Senator Kerry answering Scheiffer's question--Senator Kerry is also offering a rebuttal to President Bush's discussion of a Constitutional Amendment, by pointing out how marginalized the President is on this issue.
What most of the Media refuse to note is that BOTH Senator Kerry and Vice President Cheney agree that marriage should be between a man and a woman. And on the issue of a Constitutional Amendment, Senator Kerry also aligns himself with the likes of Vice President Cheney and again looks less like an-out-of-the-mainstream-raging-liberal (another topic of the debate), and more like a mainstream caring father (like Cheney)....leaving President Bush in the radical margins on this issue.
If actually answering the question and offering rebuttals, in the form of salient examples, is nothing more than a nasty, tawdry political trick...then maybe, we all need a civics lesson and should do without debates altogether. Nasty indeed.
Very respectfully,
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
