As everyone knows, Vice President Biden let loose with another (seemingly) unsanctioned comment this past weekend on NBC's Sunday morning talk show,"Meet the Press," when he replied that he was "absolutely comfortable" with the thorny topic of same-sex marriages as well as supporting parity with rights accorded to those in "traditional" marriages.
Within minutes, the offices of both the President and Vice President went into hyperdrive in an attempt to walk back his off-the-cuff comment by releasing statements hoping to assuage various potentially untenable voting blocks.
In the two days since the Biden interview, Press Secretary Carney has been inundated with question after question from the press hoping to elicit salacious information for columns purporting potential rifts within the administration.
His steadfast reply, despite the single-minded stream of consciousness of the reporters, is "the President's stance on same-sex marriage is evolving."
This is one of the facets of politics that drives me bonkers.
Vice President Biden, in my opinion, may have answered the question honestly ~ as average citizen Biden might have done if asked. But during a crucial election year, no White House can afford having one of the President's minions going off the reservation by making rogue, unsanctioned comments. Once the wheels of a Presidential campaign are in full motion, every syllable and turn of phrase is vetted and tested by pollsters before any candidate or spokesperson utters a word. Modern Presidential candidates don't enjoy the luxury of being spontaneous or brutally honest with the end result being that their true beliefs are often intentionally blurred so as not to offend an essential voting demographic.
Rest assured that President Obama and former Governor Romney, like Mr. Biden, each has a definitive view of same-sex marriage; I suspect the public will not be privy to an airing of the victor's unvarnished opinion until after the election in November ~ unless the comments by Biden quickly followed by those of Secretary Duncan (Education) were intentionally fed to the media as part of an overall strategy by the Obama campaign.
Being neither the President nor a candidate running for office, I am free to offer my view on the subject.
When it comes to matters of privacy, my general credo is this:
When the day comes that the affairs of my house are completely in order; when I have no pressing problems or indebtedness; when there remains no single task which demands my attention, then and only then will I allow myself the luxury of even considering if I should involve myself in the private lives of others.
I have often told friends that when it comes to matters of the heart, my personal opinion is that a person can "love a goat for all I care!" There is "an edge of truth to my jest." It has never been nor will it ever be my prerogative to involve myself in the matter of whom others should or should not love; the choices people make for the sake of their personal happiness and in the name of love is not for anyone to judge.
Can I say I have never harbored concerns about an individual a friend might be dating. Yes. Have I always agreed with the ultimate choice a friend or family member has made in a life partner. Absolutely not! However, when push comes shove, it has never been left to me to determine who is best suited for whom when choosing a spouse. Thank God.
As for this business of same-sex marriages, people are entitled to their fundamental disagreements and concerns. One might be justifiably opposed to same-sex marriage on the basis of a strongly held religious belief or even a personal sense of morality. Or, one might simply be homophobic, bigoted or wholly ignorant about the actual world that ~ like it or not ~ exists outside of every closed mind and door; even these individuals, sadly, have the right to their opinion. I will never hold someone's opinion against them so long as their views are expressed respectfully and intelligently without vitriol or malice.
At this writing, some thirty states have enacted laws that prohibit same-sex marriages. And the state of North Carolina, just moments ago, passed a statewide ballot initiative which has resulted in ratification of a State Constitutional Amendment to protect a ban already in place from being usurped by the judgement of a lower court in the future.
Despite these significant efforts as well as hundreds of newspaper articles and op-ed pieces I have read over the years, for the life of me I have yet, to my satisfaction, been given one sound explanation as to how a private decision between two adults of the same sex who decide to marry one another somehow adversely affects society.
As best I can tell, there hasn't been a demonstrable uptick in petty or violent crimes committed by these couples in states which have sanctioned the marriages. And unless I am grossly misinformed, malevolents like Richard Nixon, Bernie Madoff and Osama bin laden were never married to men.
I would honestly welcome reading a well-articulated, reasoned social justification for banning same-sex marriages (that doesn't invoke the tired arguments of old).
In the meantime, each of us has enough on our private plates to last a lifetime; tend to your home, your loved ones, your problems … or even your goat if that makes you happy.
Everyone else, in my opinion, should just mind their own business!
Within minutes, the offices of both the President and Vice President went into hyperdrive in an attempt to walk back his off-the-cuff comment by releasing statements hoping to assuage various potentially untenable voting blocks.
In the two days since the Biden interview, Press Secretary Carney has been inundated with question after question from the press hoping to elicit salacious information for columns purporting potential rifts within the administration.
His steadfast reply, despite the single-minded stream of consciousness of the reporters, is "the President's stance on same-sex marriage is evolving."
This is one of the facets of politics that drives me bonkers.
Vice President Biden, in my opinion, may have answered the question honestly ~ as average citizen Biden might have done if asked. But during a crucial election year, no White House can afford having one of the President's minions going off the reservation by making rogue, unsanctioned comments. Once the wheels of a Presidential campaign are in full motion, every syllable and turn of phrase is vetted and tested by pollsters before any candidate or spokesperson utters a word. Modern Presidential candidates don't enjoy the luxury of being spontaneous or brutally honest with the end result being that their true beliefs are often intentionally blurred so as not to offend an essential voting demographic.
Rest assured that President Obama and former Governor Romney, like Mr. Biden, each has a definitive view of same-sex marriage; I suspect the public will not be privy to an airing of the victor's unvarnished opinion until after the election in November ~ unless the comments by Biden quickly followed by those of Secretary Duncan (Education) were intentionally fed to the media as part of an overall strategy by the Obama campaign.
Being neither the President nor a candidate running for office, I am free to offer my view on the subject.
When it comes to matters of privacy, my general credo is this:
When the day comes that the affairs of my house are completely in order; when I have no pressing problems or indebtedness; when there remains no single task which demands my attention, then and only then will I allow myself the luxury of even considering if I should involve myself in the private lives of others.
I have often told friends that when it comes to matters of the heart, my personal opinion is that a person can "love a goat for all I care!" There is "an edge of truth to my jest." It has never been nor will it ever be my prerogative to involve myself in the matter of whom others should or should not love; the choices people make for the sake of their personal happiness and in the name of love is not for anyone to judge.
Can I say I have never harbored concerns about an individual a friend might be dating. Yes. Have I always agreed with the ultimate choice a friend or family member has made in a life partner. Absolutely not! However, when push comes shove, it has never been left to me to determine who is best suited for whom when choosing a spouse. Thank God.
As for this business of same-sex marriages, people are entitled to their fundamental disagreements and concerns. One might be justifiably opposed to same-sex marriage on the basis of a strongly held religious belief or even a personal sense of morality. Or, one might simply be homophobic, bigoted or wholly ignorant about the actual world that ~ like it or not ~ exists outside of every closed mind and door; even these individuals, sadly, have the right to their opinion. I will never hold someone's opinion against them so long as their views are expressed respectfully and intelligently without vitriol or malice.
At this writing, some thirty states have enacted laws that prohibit same-sex marriages. And the state of North Carolina, just moments ago, passed a statewide ballot initiative which has resulted in ratification of a State Constitutional Amendment to protect a ban already in place from being usurped by the judgement of a lower court in the future.
Despite these significant efforts as well as hundreds of newspaper articles and op-ed pieces I have read over the years, for the life of me I have yet, to my satisfaction, been given one sound explanation as to how a private decision between two adults of the same sex who decide to marry one another somehow adversely affects society.
As best I can tell, there hasn't been a demonstrable uptick in petty or violent crimes committed by these couples in states which have sanctioned the marriages. And unless I am grossly misinformed, malevolents like Richard Nixon, Bernie Madoff and Osama bin laden were never married to men.
I would honestly welcome reading a well-articulated, reasoned social justification for banning same-sex marriages (that doesn't invoke the tired arguments of old).
In the meantime, each of us has enough on our private plates to last a lifetime; tend to your home, your loved ones, your problems … or even your goat if that makes you happy.
Everyone else, in my opinion, should just mind their own business!
5 comments:
"Everyone has the right to be miserably married ..." SM
Hallelujah, Lob! You should submit this to the NY Times op-ed page!
Amen! I agree wholeheartedly! Mrs. B.
"Very well stated, Dr. Marvin!" (LCO)
Rob, I couldn't agree more, http://northsidefour.blogspot.com/2011/06/lets-go-new-york.html.
I could care less, really. Get married, don't get married, be happy...why does anyone else care?
Post a Comment