In name only / in everything but name

I was listening to Democracy Now replay clips from the OfficialTM VP debate. Palin and Biden both said they support gays having the right to be together, to have hospital visitation, etc., but both VP candidates and their Prez candidates say there should be no gay marriage.

In so many ways we hear politicians pay lipservice and they mean it in name only. McCain and Palin are "mavericks" in name only. Biden is pro-democracy in name only -- notice in the VP debate where he said he opposed a vote in Palestine because he feared that Hamas was likely to win. Democracy is only acceptable or necessary when it puts someone you like into power?

Think of some other ways they talk in name only. Discuss.

So it occurred to me that their position on gay marriage is that they should have equal rights in everything but name. For all practices, gays should be able to live together, do their thing, get benefits at work, have right to hospital visitation, but they don't want to call it "marriage."

That's all. Sorry, it's not a very profound observation. Just funny how many things politicians are willing to endorse in name only, backpedalling when it comes to substance, but in this case they endorse gay rights in substance only. I guess they are against gay marriage in name only.


  • At 8:08 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

    Yes. That. Exactly that. My wife and I only watched a few minutes of the VP debate before I made her turn it off. We were screaming at the TV over all of the lies, distortions, and evasion. Gah.

  • At 11:09 AM , Blogger Deidzoeb said...

    Thanks for commenting. Yay, somebody still reads my blog!

    I hope you and your wife are able to remain together in a stable marriage in spite of all the gays in California getting married. Because Lord knows how hard it is for people to stay married when other people they don't like or disagree with marry each other. Makes you want to split up and disavow the institution of marriage.

    (The above paragraph has been sarcastic.)

    Actually there might be a good explanation for all the "defense of marriage" politicians claiming that the institution of marriage is harmed or weakened when gays are given similar rights. These are the kinds of scumbags and adulterers who bring divorce papers to their wives in the hospital. Maybe they're just setting the groundwork for their own upcoming divorces. "Sorry, honey, but I feel we need some time apart because of the GAYSes acting like they're as happily married as you and I. This has nothing to do with my chief of staff Paulina, but I'll be bringing her to Thanksgiving Dinner next week. Have some tofurkey too, she's crazy for the stuff."

  • At 11:37 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

    Yes, I read your blog. And i know you're being sarcastic.

    I really don't understand the "defense of marriage" argument. Other people getting divorced does not mean my wife and I (who will be celebrating our 11th anniversary soon) will be running out and getting divorced, any more than our stable marriage will keep other people from getting divorced. Our relationship is our relationship. This "defense of marriage" crap is just roundabout homophobia. If you think homosexuality is immoral and against your religion, just grow a pair and freakin' say that you think homosexuality is immoral and against your religion. But no, they don't want to be branded as bigots and homophobes (maybe because they know they're being hateful, and hate ain't a family value) so they tap-dance around their actual issue, and their actual agenda.

  • At 8:47 AM , Blogger Deidzoeb said...

    Hey, cool, you got married around 1997 too? My 11th is Oct 31st.

    Re: your comments on "defense" of marriage. Yes. That. Exactly that.


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home