Saturday, November 06, 2004

Semantics, Semantics

Over soup and dumplings at Wang's last night, Pablo and I discussed the meaning of the term "moral values." Paul was a fair bit confused, first because it *is* a vague term, and secondly, because, though there is a wide gamut of interpretations, the media and the members of the losing party seem to be homing in on one narrow one.

Myself, I see the term 'moral values' (as stated on the exit polls) as being a variety of things - personal integrity, resolve in the face of crisis, keeping up with what you believe to be right, regardless of what others may think. Constancy and trustworthiness.

This is why I believe that many people voted for Bush over Kerry. Even if they didn't believe in all of the above for Bush - they certainly felt that Kerry posessed them to an even lesser degree.

Religion didn't play a role in it for me, a lapsed Catholic who's in a relationship with a spiritual agnostic and who counts among her friends people who embrace many types of faith - from Islam to Atheism.

Gay Marriage and Homosexuality didn't either. I'd be very happy to see same sex civil partnerships in order to reward committed couples regardless of gender makeup the same protections (power of attorney, health coverage, etc) as marriage offers heterosexual couples. I do, however, have a problem with this issue being decided by a number of judges so small, I can count them on my one hand and not include my thumb.

From what I've seen in looking around on the web, this seems jibe with how a lot of others feel - particularly among disaffected liberals and 'neo conservatives.'

Why, then, the rush to paint us all as bible-thumping, gay-haters?

No comments: