Republicans can't have it both ways.
Interesting article in today's Times about NY Assemblymember Daniel O'Donnell (Rosie's older brother) and his efforts to promote the marriage equality bill. He's been lobbying both Assemblymembers and Senators, Democrats and Republicans, and sometimes he gets personal -- for example, he told Republican Assemblymember Greg Ball that if he votes "no," he won't get invited to O'Donnell's engagement party.
I take this issue very personally too, and here's what got me -- at the end of the article, Ball says he is going to vote "no,"
But he added that he hoped that Mr. O’Donnell would not cross him off the invitation list for the engagement party.
“I would love to attend, no matter how I vote,” Mr. Ball said.
Excuse me? If you have your way, asshole, there will be no marriage equality in NY, thus no wedding, thus no engagement party. So WTF are you saying? That you're voting against the bill, but you hope it wins anyway? What kind of morally bankrupt crap is that? You obviously haven't read your Kant.
These Republicans who supposedly have legions of (self-hating?) gay friends make me sick. If you are against my having civil rights, you are not my friend. Period. Why the fuck would I want you at my engagement party?
I know there are people who are able to have serious political differences without it getting personal -- Justices Scalia and Ginsburg are supposedly good friends, after all. I've been reading a book about Thomas Jefferson that talks about how in the last decade or so of their lives, he and John Adams repaired their relationship, despite their profound political differences. Maybe I am just not as flexible as some people. Or maybe I think this issue is different.
I have had significant political differences with friends. My dear friend L supported the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001. I marched in demonstrations against it. We were able to agree not to discuss it. It was an issue I felt very strongly about, but I also felt it was one on which reasonable people could disagree.
I cannot have a reasonable disagreement with someone who thinks I am not a whole human being. I cannot have a reasonable disagreement with someone who asserts that my relationship with thedeepquiet is not as signficant or deserving of respect as his relationship with his lawfully wedded spouse. That's like thinking Miss Daisy and her chauffeur can be friends. They have a significant relationship, but they aren't friends.
Daniel O'Donnell met his partner in college in 1978. They have been together since 1980. I hope they are able to celebrate their engagement very soon. I'm curious to see who gets invited to the party.
I take this issue very personally too, and here's what got me -- at the end of the article, Ball says he is going to vote "no,"
But he added that he hoped that Mr. O’Donnell would not cross him off the invitation list for the engagement party.
“I would love to attend, no matter how I vote,” Mr. Ball said.
Excuse me? If you have your way, asshole, there will be no marriage equality in NY, thus no wedding, thus no engagement party. So WTF are you saying? That you're voting against the bill, but you hope it wins anyway? What kind of morally bankrupt crap is that? You obviously haven't read your Kant.
These Republicans who supposedly have legions of (self-hating?) gay friends make me sick. If you are against my having civil rights, you are not my friend. Period. Why the fuck would I want you at my engagement party?
I know there are people who are able to have serious political differences without it getting personal -- Justices Scalia and Ginsburg are supposedly good friends, after all. I've been reading a book about Thomas Jefferson that talks about how in the last decade or so of their lives, he and John Adams repaired their relationship, despite their profound political differences. Maybe I am just not as flexible as some people. Or maybe I think this issue is different.
I have had significant political differences with friends. My dear friend L supported the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001. I marched in demonstrations against it. We were able to agree not to discuss it. It was an issue I felt very strongly about, but I also felt it was one on which reasonable people could disagree.
I cannot have a reasonable disagreement with someone who thinks I am not a whole human being. I cannot have a reasonable disagreement with someone who asserts that my relationship with thedeepquiet is not as signficant or deserving of respect as his relationship with his lawfully wedded spouse. That's like thinking Miss Daisy and her chauffeur can be friends. They have a significant relationship, but they aren't friends.
Daniel O'Donnell met his partner in college in 1978. They have been together since 1980. I hope they are able to celebrate their engagement very soon. I'm curious to see who gets invited to the party.