I am happy to support Rudolph Gulliani at this present time for president. Not that many Republicans in my county will support him right now, but I am not afraid to be a trend setter for the future. Governor Schwarzenegger proved that you do not have to totally fit the party mold to be elected as a Republican and I personally did better in the polls than the last two candidates running for State Assembly in my district.
Rudy is winning over people by reaching out to people from the base who have clout in determining who becomes nominated in the general election. Gulliani wants to make sure states not the federal government have influence on issues like abortion. Perhaps the reason why Gulliani is leading in the polls currently is because he has leadership skills that will help us navigate the problems we face today.
Naturally its going to be rare that we will agree on all the political issues of the day. We can not afford to alienate people because we disagree on one or two key issues. That was one of my faults in the 2002 election. We have to build colliations in order to attain success. You do not need to fake being what you are not to be successful.
As long as Gulliani does not capitulate to the Democratic party, but instead offers pragmatic solutions to America’s problems we will be in good hands.
politics
Three cheers to the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance for showing what Rush Limbaugh defines as: demonstrating absurdity by being absurd. In the Washington State Supreme Court they claimed a “legitimate state interest” that allowed the court to limit marriage to couples able to have and raise children together. So the group has decided to place three initiatives on the ballot to raise discussion on the ruling.
First: Procreation would be a requirement for legal marriage.
Second: Divorce or legal separation would be prohibited when there are children.
and lastly, if a couple has a child together it would be a legal equivalent of a marriage ceremony.
WA-DOMA organizer Gregory Gadlow stated precisely that, “For many years, social conservatives have claimed that marriage exists solely for the purpose of procreation … The time has come for these conservatives to be dosed with their own medicine. If same-sex couples should be barred from marriage because they can not have children together, it follows that all couples who cannot or will not have children together should equally be barred from marriage.”
In California the Campaign for Children and Families is proposing an initiative to strip all partnership benefits for California couples. Perhaps we need these initiatives established in California to demonstrate the absurdity of the social conservatives. If you can not procreate then you do not deserve marriage.
Perhaps marriage is still a sacred term no matter if you are going to procreate or not. My generation does support partnership rights for homosexual couples. However the ‘gay marriage’ campaign was executed horribly. I believe a majority of Americans would support parallel institutions instead. We may hear cries from the homosexual rights campaigners about “seperate , but unequal”, but in California most of the rights and priviledges are already awarded.
Maybe we do need an impass on this segment of the culture war. The “pro-family” campaigners should stop making the lives of homosexual couples miserable, while the homosexual campaigners should relent and stay within a Civil Unions type of system.
politics