Gay Marriage in NY

I would like to contrast the Congressional Republicans' refusal to compromise and determination to put politics ahead of the nation's interest, with the principled decision of the NY State Senate Republicans, many of whom chose to vote with their conscience, even at great risk to their political careers.

The victory of the gay marriage legislation was not just a victory for the GLBTQ* or for lovers of equality, but also, for the American people: It was an example of the beauty of American democracy at work, of a concern for the rights and well-being of one's constituents trumping political ambition, of concern for America's well-being trumping parisan politics. Because of that, I strongly urge all Americans to support those Republicans, even if they do not see eye-to-eye with them on all the issues: I beleive having principled politicians who work for the good of the people is ultimately more important than what their principles are and whether or not we agree exactly on what that good is.

I also think the LGBTQ* must get behind those politicians and show them that it is doing their best to get them re-elected. This is not a question of grattitude**, but rather of realpolitik. If politicans feel that voting for gay rights will not only get them the support and votes of the LGBTQ community, but also, that that community do its best to get them the votes of straight people as well, then they are more likely to do so. If, on the other hand, they feel that voting for gay rights either a) will not necessarily win them the LGBTQ community's loyalty, if there are other issues the LGBTQ community disagrees with them on, or b) that such support will not translate into a real effort to get them re-elected, then they are less likely to do so. Basically, turn voting for gay rights into a political gain, not a political loss. This may seem unfair: Essentially, it is saying that LGBTQ voters should be one-issue voters. It is unfair. However, many groups have turned themselves into a one-issue voting bloc with great success. An example is the Christian right, which has turned itself into a two-issue bloc: anti-abortion and anti-gay rights. The Republicans consistently fight for policies that economically disadvantage many of their voters, but get away with it, because they know that as long as they oppose abortion and gay rights, they will still get elected. That is why it is so hard to get gay rights legislation passed - unless the GLBTQ lobby decides that it will vote for candidates if and only if they support gay marriage, regardless of their other policies. But it is up to the lobby -and to individuals - to ask themselves if that is a price they beleive it is worth paying.

At the end of the day, it would be to allow society to reduce one's existence as a political being to one's sexual identity - which is in it and of itself a victory for the heteronormative patriarchy.

* I am so egal: Alternating between putting "Lesbian" and "Gay" first.

** On the one hand, its always nice to show grattitude. On the other hand, providing someone with equal rights should not be considered doing them a favor - or should it, if doing so involves putting one's political career on the line?

The Debt Ceiling

It is a universally acknowledged economic fact that not raising the debt ceiling would put the American economy in the toilet.

So what the Republicans are basically saying to Obama is: If you don't do what we want, we will put the American economy in the toilet.

I don't understand how the American people are not outraged that the Republicans are using the economic future of our country - ie, the livelihoods of most Americans - to play political games.

The alternative version of this story is that the Republicans want to compromise with Obama in order to raise the debt ceiling.

So they are saying: If you only do some of what we want, we'll be nice, and won't destroy the American economy.

I don't think that not causing a second Great Depression should be an issue that one imposes conditions about, even if one is willing to compromise on some of those conditions. Of course, the real problem is that Republicans have proven unwilling to compromise: They are not even willing to agree to not giving millionares tax breaks on corporate jets, let alone actually compromise on any real issues.

There are two major ways to get rid of debt: A. Cut spending B. Raise revenue ie increase taxes. As President Obama said in today's press conference, both are necessary. The Republicans are refusing to even acknowledge the existence of option B. This is the equivalent of what the Republicans are doing:

Republicans: Honey, I am sorry, but we can't afford to get you a new car - oh, and we'll have to cut down on your diabetes medication - it's too expensive.

America: But without the car I can't get to work and will lose my job, so we'll have no money and might even have our house, which still has a mortage on it, go into foreclosure.

Republicans: That's too bad.

America: But honey, I thought your boss offered you a job with higher salary.

Republicans: Yeah, but I can't take it, because it the money from that higher salary would be coming out of my boss's paycheck.

America: What do you care about his paycheck?

Republicans: My boss uses some of that money to buy you nice gifts on your birthdays. You wouldn't want to lose out on that trickle down effect would you?

America: I'd rather you take some of his money so I can afford my diabetes medication.

Republicans: Now honey, don't be unreasonable. Let's work out a compromise. Maybe if we also cut down on food bills, we can afford the car.

America: But I need to eat!

Republicans: No, you only think you do. Actually - scrap that. Let's cut down on food and medicine, and not get you the car. But I am sure we can reach some sort of compromise about the car issue.

I think it's time the couple in this scene got a divorce. I am just waiting for the American people to come to the same conclusion.