The blog Preemptive Karma has posted an open letter to Oregon conservatives regarding their fight to return special rights to heterosexual couples in Oregon. It's fantastic, I highly suggest you click the link.
Enjoy your fellow bloggers hitting the nail right, squarely, on the head,
Bp
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
As much as I agree with the position in the letter, it is a great example of argument that will convince no one. While that is often the case in our polarized political discourse, the sharp and sarcastic tone of the open letter will cause the people to whom it is addressed to focus on style and not on substance.
Ultimately, however, there's a question of for whom and why we write pieces like this. Do they act to influence those who are not in agreement with us, or do they simply solidify the positions of those already inclined to agree?
This may sound like I'm attacking the writers of the posting; I am not. I've been pondering the value of open political discourse now that I live in an area where progressives are, shall we say, somewhat less common than in Portland.
I also wonder if there isn't a certain element of patting oneself on the back when one write a posting such as this.
American liberalism, once a respected school of political thought, came under fire from both the right, which skillfully turned the word into some sort of perjorative, and by the left.
The left felt that liberalism was armchair progressivism because it was not based in action. In order to effect change, one had to put oneself out there, and assume a level of risk.
Is blog-based progressivism the new armchair liberalism?
For your consideration and comment,
Stu
PS: Perhaps it is the lack of fungibility in our political positions that reduces national political campaigns to marketing exercises. The candidates are not going to lead or inspire, as our minds are made up regarding what we believe.
Given that closed mindedness, what recorse do candidates have other than to market themselves to our predetermined points of view?
Perhaps, as I have said before, we have the political system that suits us, the one that our behavior reinforces.
Very astute observations, Stu. Indeed it was written for more than one audience. Two audiences, to be exact - those staunchly for and those staunchly against gay rights.
Having made the journey from staunchly against to staunchly for gay rights myself, I felt that I had a somewhat unique perspective and tried to use that to guide what I wrote.
But more to the point of the exercise... both major armies are lined up along the battlefield of "gay marriage." By introducing "civil unions" as the same concept but minus all of the knee-jerk inducing catch phrases and ideologies that fuel the major battlelines, I hope(d) to encourage both sides to think beyond their own self-serving positions.
Is it futile? I'd bet good money, and lots of it, that it is futile. But... nothing ventured, nothing gained.
Oh, and the sarcasm you noted was very much deliberate and was used for a very specific calculated effect... which seems not to have worked judging by most of the public feedback I've seen. I'm hoping that the much larger silent audience of readers who don't/won't comment might perhaps have been encouraged to look at the issue from a new perspective.
Kevin,
Intellectually the idea of separating legal union from marraige is very attractive. I wonder to what degree the opposition to legally sanctioned relationships between gays is really based in religion, or whether the religious basis for marraige is a rationalization for plain and simple homophobia.
If one considers how often religion is used as a rationalization in the guise of motivation, it seems likely that this is the case.
However, if all your position does is make plain that the discussion is not about religion or the sanctitiy of marraige, but rather about plain old fashioned bigotry, that's progress -- it gives scoundrels no place to hide.
Post a Comment