Friday, June 15, 2007
'Zzzzz? really? how so?'
Bert takes me to task for my 'zzzz' comment in the post immediately below about the gay-marriage vote yesterday:
This is what I wrote back to Bert: I never for a moment thought this would get on the ballot. Either they were going to not vote (thus killing it through parliamentary tricks) or vote (and kill it). This has been a needlessly long and boring process story. Sorry we disagree. ... FYI: This is also not the talk of the town. I haven't had one conversation about this topic. Not even at work. I haven't even overheard anyone talking about it.
To the last point: Obviously a lot of people are talking about it now. But I'm one of those who agree with Robert David Sullivan's comments on Adam's site. ... FYI II: I'm personally against the ban. Gay marriage doesn't bother me -- and I now feel it's gone through the correct constitutional process. End of debate, as far as I'm concerned. ... FYI III: Earth-shattering gay-marriage headline: 'Massachusetts gay marriage to remain legal.' It perked me up in a zzzzz sort of way. ...
Bert takes me to task for my 'zzzz' comment in the post immediately below about the gay-marriage vote yesterday:
Zzzzz? really? how so? The gay marriage issue has been the biggest one in the state for several years now. It is an issue that has focused a national eye on our state. And the debate over the debate has been one of the favorite parlor games in Massachusetts politics. Many agendas were said to be on hold pending resolution of this issue. It was a B-I-G showdown and the result was unknown as little as 24 hours ago.
I’m curious why you mention it as a zzzzzzzzzzzz. Are you both uninterested in the issue and the political battle/theater involved? I could see where someone would think the process went on too long. But when the final climax is reached I think it’s got to perk up anyone who is remotely interested in politics, the issue or general society.
Now that I think of it, it might compare to the OJ trial in that way. Not that I’d compare the importance of the OJ trial with this issue. They are miles apart in that respect. But who didn’t perk up when they heard the jury was coming back in the OJ trial, even if they didn’t follow the day-to-day events of the trial.
This is what I wrote back to Bert: I never for a moment thought this would get on the ballot. Either they were going to not vote (thus killing it through parliamentary tricks) or vote (and kill it). This has been a needlessly long and boring process story. Sorry we disagree. ... FYI: This is also not the talk of the town. I haven't had one conversation about this topic. Not even at work. I haven't even overheard anyone talking about it.
To the last point: Obviously a lot of people are talking about it now. But I'm one of those who agree with Robert David Sullivan's comments on Adam's site. ... FYI II: I'm personally against the ban. Gay marriage doesn't bother me -- and I now feel it's gone through the correct constitutional process. End of debate, as far as I'm concerned. ... FYI III: Earth-shattering gay-marriage headline: 'Massachusetts gay marriage to remain legal.' It perked me up in a zzzzz sort of way. ...
