Why I'm a Democrat. Yep. Politics.

The other day, a person I consider a friend posted on her Facebook timeline defending the friend's Republicanism. I wanted to respond to that, but didn't really want to do it on that friend's thread because it's that friend's thread. It's not about me. For the same reason, I'm not identifying that friend here (you know who you are). This blog IS about me, not that friend -- although any friend is welcome to comment.
I post very little on the Internet about politics. I can't say I don't post anything, because I probably have, but it's been few and far between. Or maybe it just seems few and far between compared to my more strident friends. I'd much rather post about David Giuntoli, Matt Bower, how brilliant I think the current season of American Crime is, or how stupid DC Comics was to ... do whatever stupid thing they did last. But there has come a time when I just have to explain and hope that people will understand.

I'm gay. I see you're shocked. Yes, everyone who knows me as LJ should know by years ago now that I'm gay. And the Republican Party has proved time and time again that it does not like the gays. When a Republican politician stands with Kim Davis, who refused to grant licenses to gay couples to get married -- after gay marriage had been made the law of the land -- it's a slap in the face to me personally. It's telling me that I should not have the same right of personhood as a straight person. It doesn't even matter whether I want to get married or not; they're saying that I shouldn't be able to do it, even though the United States Supreme Court has said that I should. Now, you can say, "But that's not what I believe," but here's the problem with that: in the George W. Bush era, somewhere around 2004, the Republican Party put into writing its platform, and declared that to continue to be a Republican politician, you *had* to agree to all of that platform. (Unfortunately, more recently, Republican voters in Virginia were going to be required to sign a loyalty oath before voting in the primaries -- since apparently repealed -- so I can't find the information on this on line.) There is no room, at least among candidates, to say, "I'm Republican, but I don't agree with everything the party stands for."

The Republican Party is quick to defend a person's right to Religious Freedom, especially when that person's religion wants to discriminate against homosexuals (because THEY CLAIM that homosexuality violates God's Laws), or when that religion wants to stop a woman from terminating an unwanted pregnancy, or when a Christian who is a public school administrator wants to say a prayer at the start of the school day. But it falls a bit short when the Religious Freedom is of someone who is Muslim, or who doesn't want to pray in school be prayed at in school, or who doesn't believe that a collection of cells in a uterus is a living person. Well, here's a surprise for you: I want organized prayer out of school BECAUSE I'm a Christian. I don't want to be led in a prayer to the Madonna and the Saints, because that's not who I worship. And I don't expect you to worship the same God I do, even if you call your God "God". Even if you, "believe what the Bible says," because there are dozens, if not hundreds of religions out there calling themselves Christian, that say they believe what the Bible says, and say the Bible says different things. They want, "one nation, under God," in the Pledge of Allegiance? I don't even want to say the Pledge of Allegiance. (Yes, go ahead, defriend me now.) According to MY religion, the Pledge of Allegiance is wrong. (And please remember, these are my beliefs; you do not need to share them.) I am to give my allegiance to God alone, not a flag, not any flag. But that's MY religion. The great thing about religious freedom is you don't have to agree with me. You don't even have to respect my belief. You do, however, have to allow me to have my belief. And since I'm going to have my belief anyway, you might as well allow it. So, if you like the Pledge of Allegiance, go ahead and say it. Just don't start demanding that anyone else say it. And please go back to the pre-McCarthyan, more grammatically sensible, "one nation, indivisible".

And abortion? I hate abortion. I think it's a terrible choice. But it IS a choice, one that I will never, ever have to make, thankfully. Because it's one that I will never, ever have to make, I cannot support any effort to prevent the people who do need to make that choice from being able to make it. It's kind of funny that the Right says that if we criminalize guns, only criminals will have guns. But they think that if we criminalize abortion, women will just stop getting them, when history has shown us the opposite: if a woman who is that desperate can't get an abortion legally, she will get one illegally, and that's when women start dying or being mutilated. Further, I'm not going to tell a woman who was brutalized by an abusive ex, who became pregnant before she could get away from him -- assuming she *did* get away from him, and leaving aside rape for this post -- that she now has to carry that a****le's seed growing inside her. It's her choice, not mine. I also think anyone considering an abortion is having a hard enough time without facing the possibility of prison.
And let's not be fooled. The Republican Party is not pro-life. If it were, it would be supporting options to prevent unwanted pregnancy, and I mean any options that can work, not just the ones that their Approved Religion okays; and putting in place programs to care for unwanted children. And it's not, because that's certainly not "small government". In fact, if you're going to say that a woman who can't care for a child, for whatever reason, can't have an abortion, then you'd best be ready to care for that child yourself, for the rest of its life. And I don't mean from birth to 18, I mean you pay for the child's college tuition, and take in that child every time it gets laid off from a job, and take in that child if need be, when it retires, or when it becomes so injured that it's no longer able to work. THAT's pro-life. Anything less is just anti-abortion.

You say you hate Obamacare? I hate the name, "Obamacare". The Affordable Care Act has made my medical care actually affordable -- go figure. Due to the economic downturn, I'm currently living below the poverty level. And, no, do not blame president Obama for the economic downturn, which actually started in 2002, but didn't become widespread enough to be recognized by anyone who hadn't been personally touched by it until 2007, the time of the FIRST Economic Stimulus Package. Remember that? When we all got checks, mostly for $300, which did nothing to actually stimulate the economy. Even the SECOND economic stimulus package was in 2008, when they gave bags of money to the banks, and President Obama didn't take office until January of 2009. Anyway, before the Affordable Care Act provisions were accepted in Pennsylvania, I had to pay for doctor visits, lab test, prescriptions, etc, at a time when I couldn't afford to pay for food, clothing and shelter.

So, yes, supporting a Republican candidate who wants to "defend traditional marriage", "preserve Christian values", and "immediately repeal Obamacare", is an attack on me, personally.

I've left gun control to now because it's not my issue. It's not one I take personally. Not only have I not been a victim of gun violence, I don't know anyone who has been (thankfully). But let's go ahead and talk about gun control. Barak Obama has been in office now for 7 years, and NO ONE has come for your guns. So you don't get to hate Obama because he's coming for your guns. He's not. That's just paranoid Republican Party propaganda. That said, how many school shootings will it take for you to admit that the current system IS. NOT. WORKING. (Yes, that last one should be a question mark. Somehow, a question mark doesn't fit the construct.)
They claim that the Second Amendment is inviolate because it's The Constitution. Well, read the Eighteenth Amendment. It says, "After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited." So go ahead, report your local liquor store or TGI Fridays to the police. Why not? Because of a little thing called the Twenty-First Amendment: "The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed." Will you look at that? An amendment to the Constitution wasn't working, so we got rid of it.
But speaking of the Second Amendment, have you ever read it? This is the exact wording of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." [sic -- the comma between "bear Arms" and "shall not" is incorrect.] It does not actually restrict what those arms can be, partly because it was written in 1789, when the ultimate weapon was a blunder bus or a dueling pistol, neither of which are known for their accuracy, range or ability to pierce a bullet-proof vest. Just like the First Amendment says in part that "Congress shall make no law" that is "abridging the freedom of speech" doesn't grant a person the right to yell "Fire" in a crowded movie theater, the Second should not be used as a defense of stockpiling weapons whose sole purpose is to end the lives of the most people in the shortest amount of time.
It does, however, say that the right to bear Arms is to serve a well regulated Militia. How can you have a well regulated Militia without regulation? Without regulation, any bad of nut jobs can take over a National Park in Oregon (or wherever) and claim they're practicing their Second Amendment Rights.

So, yeah, I'm not a big fan of the Republican Party.