Well, I think there's no doubt about that. But I think that's all the more reason, when I talk about things, I talk about the economic and fiscal crisis in our state and in our country. That's what people want to resonate about. They don't want to get focused on those issues....Later, pushed to talk about a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, Walker said:
Well, the interesting thing on the generational standpoint is I've had young people ask me-- I think an appropriate question is not expanding it to include folks who are not one man and one woman, but rather questioning why the government's sanctioning it in the first place? And that would be the alternative, say not have the government sanction... marriage period. And leave that up to the churches and the synagogues and others to define that....This is an issue that's been raised time and again in the comments to same-sex marriage posts on this blog. Virtually any time I write about same-sex marriage, this suggestion comes up.
Chris Matthews jumped all over Walker's idea: "Well, you can't get away because here are issues of Social Security payments and all kinds of things involved in that. And rights of prisoners and rights of people in the military. You have to recognize spousal rights."
Marriage is very deeply embedded in so much of what government does. How could you disentangle it now? It's interesting to think of what might have been if government had stayed out of marriage all along, but that's not the question. I think the only way forward is to recognize same-sex marriage, and, in fact, I hope the Supreme Court blesses us with the requisite constitutional right, so the political discourse can move on to other subjects — including the usual railing about activist judges.
No comments:
Post a Comment