Tuesday, February 28, 2006

One More Reason Why Deval Has My Support:

There's a very good blog on the Globe's coverage on a Deval campaign event in a Dorchester church where Deval faces challenges for his stance on supporting same-sex marriage despite church resistance to it in the community.

However, what the article does not explicate is that he was both gutsy and smart (two traits seemingly lacking his is two opponents) by facing his vulnerability here directly.

From the pulpit, Patrick dealt head-first and quickly with the subject, "I'm going to step into sensitive territory here, because some have tried to discredit me and divide us over the whole question of gay marriage. Don't let that happen."


In this period of Democrats wimps, it's nice to see a candidate that has a little guts and a progressive outlook. Most so-called liberals do everything they can to avoid the label. I think it's high time to start embracing it. If people see that it's not something to be embarrassed about, Karl Rove will never be able to beat a democrat from Massachusetts again, simply because they were from Massachusetts.

2 comments:

joe said...

Church is a place for God, not political candidates. I think that goes for all political parties.

Ryan Adams said...

Really? Make sure to let Pat Robertson, James Dobson and William Donahue know how you feel.

Honestly, I don't think it's a big issue to allow a politician a forum to express his views to a wide assortment of people if they're running a campaign. Politicians need to reach a wide assortment of people and some people would never get another opportunity to meet and ask questions like the one that happened at that Dorchester church.

Furthermore, a lot of the most important progressive campaigns primarily took place in religious settings. For example, there would have been no Southern Freedom Movement if it weren't for churches and religious leaders like MLK Jr.

If religious institutions see fit to interfere with politics left and right (such as the Catholic Church supporting the ballot drive to get the amendment for a constitutional ban on gay marriage in Massachusetts - not only supporting it, but using churches as a means to help secure enough signatures), I don't see why politicians shouldn't be allowed to speak in front of a church audience - especially a politician who holds no political office and has limited funding to reach other audiences.

About Ryan's Take