Today's Chicago Tribune has a
wonderful piece by one of its columnists, Eric Zorn, entitled "My Issue With Moral Issues."
Zorn cites the punditry's proclamation that "moral issues" brought Dubya his victory on Tuesday. But what exactly does that mean?
The term seems to encompass opposition to gay marriage - rejected by a majority of voters in 11 out of 11 referendums - and so-called "partial-birth" abortion, along with support for an increased role for religion in the public sphere.
It doesn't so much disturb me that I may be hold a minority viewpoint on all three of these questions, but that pollsters and pundits so readily employ terminology that assumes the idea that the above are the more "moral" positions.
To use the word "moral" so narrowly yet so casually is to yield vast territory in the culture wars before the first rhetorical shot is fired.
I won't do it.
I refuse to concede the idea that the person who wants to amend the Constitution to prevent a loving, consenting same-sex couple from creating a legally recognized bond containing all the rights and responsibilities of marriage has higher "moral values" than the person who doesn't.
I refuse to concede that the person who believes it's his right to interpose his beliefs about right and wrong into the often painful and very difficult decisions made by pregnant women and their doctors has higher "moral values" than the person who doesn't.
I refuse to concede that the person who wants the government to endorse one particular belief about the supernatural over another has higher "moral values" than the person who thinks it's none of government's business to take sides on matters of faith.
There's much more and it's all good. Go there now to get lifted up and uplifted.