« clock-watching | Main | aftermath »
November 2, 2004
red, white, and blue
It's Election Day and I'm writing a political entry - something I didn't think I'd write on here. If you're tired of the election/campaign hoopla, consider yourself warned, and skip this one.
I voted in the 2000 presidential election, but I did so halfheartedly since I didn't care about voting or the outcome. In fact, the only reason I voted was because my mom talked me into it. This year, however, I'm anxious to vote, not because I'm convinced that my individual vote matters so much, but because I think Bush has used the office of the President for his own personal means, and I don't want any responsibility for keeping him in the White House. I don't like the direction he's taken the country, and I'm afraid that if he gets another 4 years, America will no longer be the strong nation she used to be. How can America continue to be the "land of the free" when she has a leader who is determined to abolish several of the freedoms that we as citizens have?
Bush has a history of making decisions based on his personal and religious agendas, without considering whether or not those decisions are the right ones for the entire country. One example of this is his plan to ban same-gender unions on a national level. Would that benefit America as a whole or is it a decision he's made based on his narrow-minded religious views? I don't believe that a legal union between two people (heterosexual OR homosexual) has the power to hurt or help the country as a whole, but I do believe that making same-sex unions illegal sets a dangerous precedent of restricting rights and privileges based on sexual preference, which, IMO, is discrimination and goes against what this country has historically stood for.
Some people base their rejection of same-sex marriages on a claim that allowing homosexual unions would have a detrimental effect on the nation. I don't really understand that, because, based on that logic, why should homosexual people be allowed to vote? I mean, if a legal union between two gay people would be bad, then wouldn't letting them help pick the leader of the country be even worse? Bush subscribes to similarly narrow-minded views without even bothering to acknowledge that there might be more than one solution to a problem, but Kerry at least seems willing to compromise. I'm voting this afternoon because I think that willingness to consider a compromise is a quality our nation needs in a leader, and I hope I get the chance to find out whether or not I'm right.
Posted by oracle at November 2, 2004 12:00 PM in the first year