Demagogue

An excerpt from today's New York Times article about the NJ ruling:

Gov. Jon S. Corzine and top legislative leaders -- all Democrats -- are on record as opposing gay marriage and saying they view marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Two years ago, New Jersey Democrats managed to sidestep the gay marriage issue when they passed a domestic partnership law that offered same-sex couples some -- but not all -- of the rights that married couples have.

Yes, they managed to "sidestep" it, but only for two years.

So far, Democrats have managed to piss off both social conservatives (whose votes they rarely receive anyway) and many gay Americans who feel the Dems are trying to weasel out of taking a stand for something that many, if not most, of them (Corzine, for example) know in their hearts is right and just.

Unfortunately, I think we'll continue to hear most Democrats behave cowardly on this issue, especially Dems in the South. It's so much easier to run for the hills or make some meaningless statement like "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman" -- blah, blah .....

Of course it is, but why should it be restricted in that way forever? You almost never hear the "between a man and a woman" statement followed with a "because" statement. On the few occasions that a candidate offers a "because," it's the usual reference to the "sanctity" of marriage. In other words, they support legal discrimination against gay couples because their religion tells them to.

I'm sure there are many Democratic activists and candidates who are really annoyed by the ruling, who view it as unwelcome rain on the party's parade. To these gutless wonders who see politics as a mere sport between the blue team and red team, I say, "Too bad. Go to the lost-and-found and retrieve your spine."