You’d be fuckin surprised actually, some of these people will support their own family while condemning others for doing the same thing. Dick Cheney has a daughter who he is supposedly very close to who is publicly lesbian, married to a woman and he himself supported their marriage and attended. He then turns around and supports banning gay marriage. I may be under informed on this situation but it’s baffling to me.
It becomes less baffling when you realize they are of the mindset that the ones making the laws are inherently different and the laws don’t apply. That they’re making those laws “for their own good”(meaning the people not lawmakers).
It’s confusing, and essentially cognitive dissonance, but it’s definitely there.
“Conservatism consists of one policy, to wit: There are those that the law protects but does not bind, and those that the law binds but does not protect.”
It does rather depend on whether politicians are there to enact whatever they want, or to enact the will of the people, and what they should do where those two don’t align. You probably wouldn’t consider it immoral for someone who doesn’t drive to vote one way or another on a roadbuilding project, or for someone without kids to vote on a school project.
So I don’t see why it should be a problem for a politician who privately supports a particular topic but represents people who don’t, to vote against it; it means they’re doing what they were elected to do and not acting solely in their own interests.
That’s all well and good but this is talking about gay marriage which is a topic with completely different context and importance than building roads or schools
You’d be fuckin surprised actually, some of these people will support their own family while condemning others for doing the same thing. Dick Cheney has a daughter who he is supposedly very close to who is publicly lesbian, married to a woman and he himself supported their marriage and attended. He then turns around and supports banning gay marriage. I may be under informed on this situation but it’s baffling to me.
It becomes less baffling when you realize they are of the mindset that the ones making the laws are inherently different and the laws don’t apply. That they’re making those laws “for their own good”(meaning the people not lawmakers).
It’s confusing, and essentially cognitive dissonance, but it’s definitely there.
“Conservatism consists of one policy, to wit: There are those that the law protects but does not bind, and those that the law binds but does not protect.”
No no, I find this completely believable. It’s like lacking a consistent moral system is a requirement for being conservative.
It does rather depend on whether politicians are there to enact whatever they want, or to enact the will of the people, and what they should do where those two don’t align. You probably wouldn’t consider it immoral for someone who doesn’t drive to vote one way or another on a roadbuilding project, or for someone without kids to vote on a school project.
So I don’t see why it should be a problem for a politician who privately supports a particular topic but represents people who don’t, to vote against it; it means they’re doing what they were elected to do and not acting solely in their own interests.
That’s all well and good but this is talking about gay marriage which is a topic with completely different context and importance than building roads or schools
go figure a lot of them depend on religion to tell them what’s moral and not