Breaking News: Change Can Happen
It happens from time to time, and when it does - it is an amazing display of human compassion and humility. Republican Mayor Jerry Sanders of San Diego, CA reversed his stand against gay marriage in a press conference today, while choking back tears. He decided to "reflect and search [his] soul, and lead with [his] heart."
Amazing. Though I hate to say, "what a brave stand this is," (because I don't think it should have anything to do with bravery - but instead have to do with human dignity) - it actually IS a brave thing to stand against your own party, to change your mind when you know its the right thing to do.
Bravo Jerry Sanders. You have my vote. I am proud that you have decided to do the right thing and stand up against bigotry and hatred. Bravo.
Peace.Love.Live.
JPB
8 comments:
THAT.... was AMAZING! I got teary eyed watching and am in awe of what he just did. Even those who speak for gay rights on a consistent basis often do not say it so well.
That wasn't politics. That was all heart.
Bravery explains what he did exactly! Of course it would not be bravery for you to stand and say it because it isn't an issue you wrestle with in the same way. It is an amazing thing for someone in a political position to do what he did and to do it with such grace. It was brave because the soul searching he did was tough and then to admit it publically is even tougher. I would equate it to the bravery you showed your family and community by coming out. We should be so lucky to have more honest politicians within our democracy.
John,
I am sorry, but I believe that was not the right decision. He was elected, at least in part, on his position and he has let down his constituency.
As for your statement--to say that he stood up against hatred and bigotry is to assume that people that oppose this are motivated by these factors. That is prejudicial and the sign of bigotry on your part.
My opinion is that marriage is what marriage is. It has a clear definition (see below).
If one were to define water as H2O, one does not get angry that hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) cannot be water--water is what water is. It is not bigoted to say it. Gay marriage is an oxymoron. I am all for changing several laws to fix problems with probate, next-of-kin, advance directives, etc.; however, we cannot change the basic definition of something to suit our whims. I would rather take marriage out of secular society than to change the definition.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
mar·riage
Pronunciation[mar-ij]
–noun
1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
2. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock.
3. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of a man and woman to live as husband and wife, including the accompanying social festivities.
Okay, I hope that I can explain myself well enough here and not take up too much space.
Jim, your argument is flawed. Definitions can change and so supposing that a definition is a fact is a faulty argument. Also, claiming that society whimsically changes the definitions of things belittles the human process of evolution. As much as we evolve so too do our definitions. Most words' definitions have changed over time based on the society around them. It comes down to semantics and how society views a word. The Constitution defined a slave as 3/5 a person. Before a compromise became necessary no one believed this to be true, in fact it probably wouldn't even have registered on the radar. But the compromise created a definition which people were then to live by. Over time, I think that many people took it to be a fact. Abolisionists probably never believed it and they fought to erase the definition and slavery itself from society. Religious definitions, too, are not simply fact because you have faith in them. You believe (this being the operative word- conveying an opinion) them to be fact because you have faith. Instead, I think it's more that religion creates definitions that individuals place their faith in. The interesting thing is that there are often conflicting/ differing definitions for the same things. For example, Jews were commonly defined as a group of people that come from the ancient Hebrews and practice the laws of Moses. Obviously, that definition has changed over time. The Nazi regime defined a Jew as anyone having one or more Jewish grandparent. (You can see the hazardous effect believing a definition to be fact can have...)Now, it commonly incorporates all those people who are not defined by the Jewish religion exclusively. If you were to ask a Hasidic Jew what his or her definition of Jew is, they would probably subscribe to the former definition. It doesn't make them wrong, it just shows that definitions are a matter of opinion. And finally, all the rights, reponsibilities and privileges that marriage gives a "man and wife," should be given to any couple entering a union if they so chose to define their lives together by the word marriage and all its many definitions whether yet evolved or not.
So John, What's up with your hit and run in Cuyahoga Falls? What was the agenda anyway? Are you some kind of poser?
faNomoremoney:
No I haven't abandoned Cuyahoga Falls, and I still intend to vist the falls blog again to comment on her post. Unfortunately, I have been extremely busy (I will comment on my blog this weekend as to why), and I do not like to go into any comment unprepared. So, poser? No, absolutely not. I appriciate your concern - you will hear from me soon.
I am so glad you showed this to us John. I am hopeful that politicians will consider thinking through their deciions more as this man did and not render a knee jerk opinion, an opinion based on popularity, or an opinion for money. I also agree with his opinion and feel life is too short to continue to deny an important segment of our world the right to show their love and commiment through marriage. Love to all of you even those of differing opinions, Mom.
Jodi,
Goodness...using a flawed analysis of civics to make a point?
The Constitution did not "define" a slave as 3/5 a person, it put forward a formula by which representation in the House and direct taxation would be determined.
"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."
Under your analysis, Indians would be defined to be non-persons; however, the word 'excluding' clearly indicates that they were considered persons.
Basic meanings of words (especially foundational words) do not change over time...they just don't. A man is "an adult, male person"; a woman is "a female human being"; a god is "a supreme being according to some particular conception"; a slave is "a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another"; a freeman is " person who is free; a person who enjoys personal, civil, or political liberty"; a government is "the political direction and control exercised over the actions of the members, citizens, or inhabitants of communities, societies, and states"; a contract is "an agreement between two or more parties for the doing or not doing of something specified"; and marriage is "the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.".
It is in the combinations of words that one can argue that "new meaning" is made.
Post a Comment