http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/25/opinion/garver/main602200.shtml(CBS) When I first heard the term "same-sex marriages," I was against them. I figured just because a couple is married, why should sex always have to be the same? All right, I didn't really think that about same-sex marriages, but I also didn't think they would become such a big deal. I guess my fingers slipped when I was taking the pulse of America, because boy, was I wrong.
Once again, sex has come to the rescue of politicians. Following in the tradition of campaigns against "dirty" words, rating TV shows, and the invention that was supposed to save our times — the "V-chip" — now they can talk about gay weddings. If they can discuss some sexual issue, they don't have to talk about the things that really make them uncomfortable, like why did they vote one way a few months ago, but now claim to believe differently? Or which taxes are good and which ones are bad for the economy? Or why are gas prices so high?
The day after Janet Jackson's breast was exposed for a micro-second on television, the head of the FCC was weighing in on the almost unspeakably shocking event. Faster than you could say "Lewinsky," Congressional committees were formed to investigate "Nipplegate" and other offensive fare being foisted on us by machines with an "off" button. But how long did it take for a committee to be formed to investigate why we received such poor intelligence on Iraq before sending over American soldiers to risk their lives?
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(142 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
