I'm the worst sort of voter: I'm a single-issue kind of guy. This election, as in most, my vote's going to the candidate with the best record on queer rights.
I know that's not ideal. Nor is entirely honest: if I were really going for the most GLBT-friendly person on the ballot, I'd be voting for Nader or some other fringe nutjob, but I'm not stupid.
Generally speaking, my theory is that presidents--hell, elected officials in general--don't have too much individual effect on sprawling issues like the economy or health care, so where candidates stand on those topics is almost negligible. On less complex, more polarized issues, though, elected officials can exert real influence.
How very disturbing, then, to read this:
In an interview on Sunday with Charles Gibson, an anchor of "Good Morning America" on ABC, Mr. Bush said, "I don't think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that's what a state chooses to do so." ABC, which broadcast part of the interview on Monday, is to broadcast the part about civil unions on Tuesday.
Which makes me wonder:
(a) If GW had a more pro-gay stance, would I be weighing my vote more carefully?
(b) Am I being a nelly Uncle Thomasina by getting giddy at the prospect of legal civil unions instead of being angered by the dubious, pale line of distinction that GW and others are drawing between the unions and marriage?
(c) When civil unions become common (as eventually they must), how long will it be before the courts find them the equivalent of separate-but-equal marriages, and, following precedent set in Brown v. Board of Education, allow homos to marry?
(d) When will the day come (as eventually it must) that the social issues that matter to me stop being issues and disappear from party platforms?
(e) When "c" happens, what social issues will be of concern for future generations?
Sorry, it's just one of those pensive, over-caffienated, under-rested mornings.
