Two issues yet again have found themselves on ballots across the country: stem cell research and gay marriage. And on each of these issues, Republicans find themselves in the uncomfortable position of having to account for inconsistency in their stances. Let me explain—
Stem Cell Research:
Look…no one likes the idea of cloning. Not me, not Claire McCaskill, not Michael J. Fox. And for the Republicans to try to misrepresent the amendment on stem cell research in Missouri as a rubber stamp to begin cloning is only an effort to divert attention from the real problem for Republicans: their pro-life platitudes just don’t cut it on this issue.
- Adult stem cell research is much more difficult to accomplish because those cells have already differentiated themselves into classes of tissue.
- Embryos are full of stem cells…as in, completely made up of them full. That’s why scientists like the idea of embryonic stem cell research. Such cells can be directed to become any number of things: nerve tissue, heart muscle, you name it.
- The embryos scientists would like to use are leftovers at fertility clinics.
- Such leftover embryos have been destroyed by the hundreds of thousands in the years since in vitro fertilization has gained popularity as a way for women to have children.
Therefore, to use some of these embryos, which would be discarded anyhow, for scientific research seems to make perfect sense to me.
For Republicans to consistently uphold their pro-life stance on issues such as this, they would have to denounce IVF and call for fertility clinics to be shut down. Good luck getting that to happen. The other option is a bipartisan effort to create stem cell legislation that closes any loopholes through which unscrupulous medical researchers could attempt to clone a human being. If throwing away eggs hasn’t been an issue for pro-life Republicans for the last two decades with regard to the plethora of eggs that have been discarded in fertility clinics, now isn’t a good time to get concerned. Consistency, not cleanliness…right next to Godliness.
Gay Marriage:
*sigh* I hate games of semantics. Civil union, marriage. Civil war in Iraq, pockets of violence. If it looks like a duck and quacks like one, it probably is one. Let’s leave the word games to the side, shall we?
Every straight couple in this country that has a legally recognized marriage has a little certificate they had to go to city hall to get. It’s called a “Marriage License.” Allow me to sort out the vocabulary. That marriage license should be called a “Civil Union License.” It is a document showing that, for purposes of taxation and next of kin, Person A and Person B are recognized as being one household. They are married, whether they have a big fancy wedding in a church with hideous bridesmaid dresses and rented tuxes and all of their family and friends and a big wedding cake or not. That lovely little game of torture called a wedding is a ceremony where the church blesses the legal union of Person A and Person B as holy in the eyes of God.
One civil, one religious. One necessary, one not. They can be mutually exclusive or not, depending on the people getting married. Only one half of this equation would be affected by allowing gay civil unions—as the name would suggest, the civil (or legal) side. For purposes of taxation and next-of-kin notification, Female A and Female B or Male A and Male B would be able to enjoy the benefits of a legally recognized union. Listen very closely to the next part: Should churches object to gay civil unions, they would be under no pressure to recognize them as holy in the eyes of God.
Assuming that conservatives are using the Bible as their guide, if gay civil unions should not be legalized, then we should also do away with common law marriage (for the indecisive pansies of the world) and remarriages after divorce (for the Newt Gingrich’s of the world…). I’m sure the list of conservative politicians and even some clergy who support constitutional protection for the traditional heterosexual marriage that have remarried after a divorce would be fairly lengthy. It is to these people that I, and many others, respond that should they be so concerned about preserving the sanctity of marriage, perhaps they should start with the divorce rate and work their way towards gay marriage.
Consistency with my moral outrage is all I’m looking for, especially on issues like gay marriage that are so bloody trivial that they shouldn’t even be taking up time on my television every night during election season. What people do in their bedrooms and who they do it with isn’t my business and it’s not something I particularly care to think too hard about. As we’ve seen in the last month or so, perhaps those who are so concerned with this issues are a little too invested in the subject…
Sadly, Democrats, which I am not, by the way, have not called Republicans on these issues as much or as loudly as they should have. While I think that America is stupid, I generally like to believe that Americans can be somewhat intelligent when given all of the evidence. It wouldn’t take that long to explain these issues, and politicians could even use small words so that peons like me could understand them.
Hell, if they conquered these issues, maybe they could move on to giving a better explanation for voting for the Iraq war than John Kerry’s “I voted for it before I voted against it.” But that’s a rant that will have to wait for another day....
No comments:
Post a Comment