We need to get the media to call Bush on his rhetoric though:
"Activist judges" who are merely doing their jobs -- interpreting the law, the US Constitution, and state constitutions. (Yeah, the judges Bush is complaining about happened to decide things in the direction I agree with, but that's not why I'm not calling them "activist"; they're not overstepping their place, nor are the reaching beyond the issues of the cases brought before them, as far as I can tell, and they're deciding things on constitutional grounds.)
"Defense" of marriage; even though I've heard people say their marriage doesn't need defending, I haven't heard the media ask Bush, "What do you mean by 'defend', per se?" -- he's not defending marriage, he's reserving marriage. What he's defending isn't marriage, neither individual marriages nor the institution, but rather privilege reserving marriage to a subgroup, or the religious viewpoint on marriage.
The problem is that I haven't heard evening news reporters challenging Bush's framing of the language in those terms (though I've missed several nights of news lately -- somebody cheer me up and tell me I'm wrong?). "Defense of marriage" has such a positive tone to it, but someone needs to nail him down in a press-conference question and show that the language has nothing to do with what he's trying to do.
Oh yeah, and we all need to be writing to out congresscritters and educating our neighbours.
I think your penultimate paragraph partly answered a question I've asked in my comment on this entry by John Scalzi---and as I feared, the answer was negative. Grmph? Bah.
#blink# Didn't notice that was you the first time I read it (small credits at the end of comments are easy to overlook; same-size type at the top of comments, LJ-style, make me much more aware of who's speaking ... I suppose some people will consider that a good thing and others a bad thing). I may need to borrow your imagery on that, BTW.
As to whether enough voters will hear ... I wish I knew. I worry. The message seems to [expletive]ing obvious to me, but hey, I'm sitting here in LJ preach-to-the-choir land, aren't I? I worry.
I plan to be at 3LF tonight, but I feel really crappy right now and am about to go crash, so it depends on when I wake up.
(no subject)
We need to get the media to call Bush on his rhetoric though:
"Activist judges" who are merely doing their jobs -- interpreting the law, the US Constitution, and state constitutions. (Yeah, the judges Bush is complaining about happened to decide things in the direction I agree with, but that's not why I'm not calling them "activist"; they're not overstepping their place, nor are the reaching beyond the issues of the cases brought before them, as far as I can tell, and they're deciding things on constitutional grounds.)
"Defense" of marriage; even though I've heard people say their marriage doesn't need defending, I haven't heard the media ask Bush, "What do you mean by 'defend', per se?" -- he's not defending marriage, he's reserving marriage. What he's defending isn't marriage, neither individual marriages nor the institution, but rather privilege reserving marriage to a subgroup, or the religious viewpoint on marriage.
The problem is that I haven't heard evening news reporters challenging Bush's framing of the language in those terms (though I've missed several nights of news lately -- somebody cheer me up and tell me I'm wrong?). "Defense of marriage" has such a positive tone to it, but someone needs to nail him down in a press-conference question and show that the language has nothing to do with what he's trying to do.
Oh yeah, and we all need to be writing to out congresscritters and educating our neighbours.
(no subject)
Will I see you tonight?
(no subject)
As to whether enough voters will hear ... I wish I knew. I worry. The message seems to [expletive]ing obvious to me, but hey, I'm sitting here in LJ preach-to-the-choir land, aren't I? I worry.
I plan to be at 3LF tonight, but I feel really crappy right now and am about to go crash, so it depends on when I wake up.