On my local infotainment show this morning, they mentioned that President Bush devoted his Saturday radio speech to supporting the federal marriage amendment, defining marriage as one man and one woman. Instead of mentioning one of his reasons, they immediately characterized this as “playing to his base.”
No politician acts out of conviction these days, especially not conservative Republicans, if you listen to the mainstream media. While that is true in spades for the Kerry-Edwards campaign, it isn’t true of all politicians. The public is better served when moral ideas are discussed as such, not just as election tactics. Gay marriage is a moral issue, and has dimenstions that stretch far beyond the merely political. Would it be so hard for the media to acknowledge that?
10 comments
Comments are closed.
I’ve given up on the mainstream, or perhaps better described dominant media. Tell me who won the game. Tell me about the disaster that occurred or what the weather might be or that something happened, political or otherwise, fine. But as soon as you start getting away from what happened and making comments such as “playing his base”, or placing the name “radical” in front of a group, the media then gets into interpreting the news for you. No thanks. Time to move on to the next story at that point.
I’d rather they just drop the “objectivity” pretense, as there is no such thing as a purely objective point of view. I’d prefer fair.
Theologian Kerry has now proclaimed that homosexuality isn’t sin. . .
In the Democrats case it is not playing to thier base but should be called playing to the debased.
Theologian Kerry has now proclaimed that homosexuality isn’t sin. . .
Technically, he’s correct. Homosexuality is a disordered condition, but since if it is not actively willed, it is not sinful per se. Homosexual activity, however, is sinful. Of course Kerry surely meant that homosexual activity isn’t sinful, in which case he is dead wrong.
TPFKAAC gets points on a technicality. An important technicality, mind you.
As much as I agree with you that opposition to gay marriage is a moral issue, Eric, are you actually saying that Bush’s opposition to it is not at least partially motivated by politics?
I’m sure that the manner in which President Bush approaches the issue of gay marriage has a political component to it. As a politician and public official, that’s to be expected, and there’s nothing wrong with that. But I have no reason to believe that his belief on the matter is motivated by politics.
Generally, I’m content to take people at their word if they do or don’t believe in something, but I reserve the right to doubt his sincerity if he changes his beliefs when they are unpopular, or if he reverses himself frequently with no plausible explanation other than pandering for votes.
Paul’s Letter to the Romans must be wrong, then. In that letter, if not actually intentioned, as part of a long chain of rejection of God and morality, it doesn’t exist.
Puzzled:
As the general said in DR. STRANGELOVE:
“We’re still working on the meaning of that last sentence.”