Weary of Arguments

Up to this point, most of the arguing has been about the economy. The party of corporate fat cats versus the party of government fat cats.

As if that wasn't getting tired enough, along comes New York's gubernatorial candidate, Palladino, saying he didn't want children indoctrinated to regard gay relationships in a moral equivalency with traditional nuclear families.

I don't find the statement all that controversial, but it's got the gay community screaming. I saw Ron Reagan briefly on CNN so angry he seemed to be about to cry. You would have thought Palladino called for having Ron and his gay friends hanged in Times Square.

Another divisive issue is immigration and the Arizona law. Again, what Arizona did I don't consider controversial at all. They merely passed a law permitting local law enforcement to assist in identifying and holding people here illegally and holding them for ICE processing.

I saw a panel of regular folks arguing about that, and as with the gay issue, those on the pro-illegal side of the argument were extremely angry and hostile to Arizona and the others in the room on the other side.

Is it really necessary for me to go into the simple truth of each issue?

Gay rights are not about the "right" for gay people to love whomever they choose, which is a silly statement clearly designed to obscure the issue. It's about benefits. The basic question here is whether I should be forced to submit my tax dollars to provide government benefits to homosexual partners.

Since my moral equivalence is not between gay couples and married couples, but between the gay lifestyle and Tiger Woods' skirt-chasing lifestyle, my answer is no.

Supporters of rights for illegal aliens contend that they're hard workers, and are only here illegally because it's too hard to obtain legal immigration approval. The basic question isn't whether illegals work hard or want a better life; it's about whether or not we choose to uphold our country's laws and secure the border.

Our choice is to either open up the borders for everyone and stop trying to enforce the law, or to seal the border and solve the problem once and for all. My answer is solve the problem.

Palladino apparently has a reputation for being very non-PC. Will this anti-PC comment lose him the election? In deep blue New York, perhaps. Politically, he probably shouldn't have said it. But his honesty is sort of refreshing for a politician.

I just heard Palladino was apologizing for his comments. That's too bad. Apologizing would seem to mean he's had a change of heart on the matter. It won't win over anybody he's apologizing to - they will reject the apology as politically expedient. So it doesn't seem like a productive response.