THE DEBATE

I finally understand the meaning of the red equality sign. To be honest I think this is a sign of progress in the debate over gay marriage. This entry is not to fight fiercely for gay marriage and certainly not to stand against it. I am a firm believer that things should always be talked out in a civilized manner and that this is the kind of debate that's allowing ignorance to reign supreme. The fact is that you have two sides taking extreme views one way or another with not as many people taking a common sense view.

It doesn't mater if you agree or disagree with gay marriage but it does matter how you defend your view. I can't really support the argument against it because it generally cites the bible as the principal source of moral authority. You can read the bible and quote it as often as you want but, how many members of congress and of the bible belt have been caught violating the very biblical principles that they cite? The fact of the matter is that you cannot use one source as the way to firmly stand against an issue.

Let's really study morality for a second and see what we come up with. If you have a gay couple and they lead a quiet and respectful life, and are upstanding citizens, are they immoral on the basis of being gay? Is it okay to have orgies, threesomes, and sex in public if you are straight? I have heard the whole it was Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve deal but once more I say let's all look at the facts. Do we really know that the bible story is true? Everyone has their own set of beliefs from Muslims, to Jews, to Christians, to Atheists but said beliefs are somewhat theoretical and based on more assumption of record than proven and verified.

I think it's also fair to ask if people against gay marriage are living under the assumption that you chose to be gay. It has not been proven if being gay is genetic, a choice, or a matter of conditioning in a specific environment. I think it's fair for gays to want a fair shot at legalizing gay marriage but from state to state it's a debate that's going to vary. In a way I find myself agreeing with Bill O'Reilly's sentiments that it's a state matter and it should be decided as such.

Some places are more liberal than others and I understand that making this a federal issue is more about benefits issues for same sex partnerships, going beyond the whole recognition of a person's chose to openly love with someone of their own gender. Gay marriage, equality, and recognition are all a part of the new civil rights debate that much like the civil rights movement of the 50's and 60's will rage on for a long time to come.

WHAT MAKES FOR A DIVIDE MAKES FOR A DEBATE

Now that the elections are over and we have chosen our leader there is an interesting discussion to be had. The numbers coming in on election night were so tight it was nearly impossible to tell who was going to win. At one point Romney held a comfortable lead in electoral votes but it was early enough to where Obama could still and would eventually pass him. The end result was a commanding electoral lead for Obama. Then there is the popular vote which for a long time was in Romney's side.

It is clearly understood that the popular vote does not determine the winner of the election. The popular vote does register a pulse in the American landscape and as of yesterday Obama only had a 1.7% lead over Romney. The interesting question now is what did America really want on election night? Truthfully their was no overwhelming winner and a lot of questions were raised.

Yes Obama won almost every state he won last time with the exception of two states that Romney recovered for the Republican party. If you study the margin of victory that Obama had in some of those states it was almost non existent and the difference was made by the size of counties voting. Traditionally democratic counties voted as such and gave Obama a greater boost to carry the states he carried. So once more when you look at the map it's fair to question if there was a clear and overwhelming winner according to what we want as a nation.

It's also fair to ask if we are being overly influenced by negative attack adds that seem to run almost non stop for a specific period of time. I would love to see how the election would turn out if instead candidates were left to expose their various points in televised town hall style meetings where they could in turn talk to the people. Yes the candidates do that already and they do state what they feel is wrong but in this case it would not be an add but rather an exposure in which they could establish a specific point and try to carry it consistently. I know that won't happen but it would be no less interesting. How did FDR campaign after all? The FDR fireside chats were like destination radio for depression era America.

America is divided but the truth is that if you take a sampling of people and question them about policy a good percentage will not know the difference between a Romney proposition or an Obama proposition. This is not a statement that chastises either as being overly liberal or conservative but rather exposes the fact that not many people can really recite a budget proposal or medical reform proposal. The truth is that the venom that comes out of people and what divides the country comes from misunderstanding, assumption and prejudice in some ways.