GOP Lite

[theknife]

President Bush today urged Congress to send to the states a proposed constitutional amendment banning same sex marriages throughout the country.

now, the 2004 campaign starts...Bush opens with the classic wedge issue strategy. makes sense for him - solidifies his base and makes the right-wing churchies happy....but not quite happy enough:

Conservatives in general were delighted. But Robert Knight, head of the Culture and Family Institute, said Bush's proposal did not go far enough. "We're disappointed he left the door open for states to create gay marriage by another name," he said.

the Prez apparently does not condemn civil unions, which disappoints the burn-gays-at-the-stake crowd. nevertheless, the issue is tailor-made for a GOP incumbent....lets him plant his "conservative" flag into a emotional but meaningless issue by proposing a solution to a non-problem that will take years to implement, if at all. this also takes the spotlight off of real issues that affect average American families like jobs, prescription drugs, environment, the Iraq debacle etc.

The Democratic National Committee said today that Bush's decision was purely political. "It is wrong to write discrimination into the U.S. Constitution and it is shameful to use attacks against gay and lesbian families as an election strategy," DNC Chairman Terence McAuliffe told the Associated Press.

now, i happen to believe that Terry McAuliffe is a corrupt spineless weasel, but in this particular instance, i agree with him.

can we get back to the real issues now?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Feb24.html

[pod]

It's just one of those polarizing issues where you can't make everyone happy, or at least make them go away. Politicians must hate these

[JackSpratts]

might as well try passing an amendment against miscegenation. it'll have as much a chance of succeeding as his anti-gay proposal and be remembered just as warmly by future generations. bush is a small minded ass.

- js.

[span]

anti-gay? lol

[scooobiedooobie]

Originally posted by JackSpratts
bush is a small minded ass.

lol..yet another js liberal knee-jerk zinger.

btw, you do realize that you’re the donkey…don’t you?


a few facts about your anti-gay comment…(facts=those pesky ‘lil things you don’t bother with)

president bush appointed homosexual activist..scott evertz, to the office of national aids policy..which was the first appointment of an open homosexual to this federal position. then he transferred evertz to direct u.s. policy on global funding for aids, and appointed another homosexual activist to take over as the new director. he also appointed yet another homosexual activist to be ambassador to romania...at the protest of the romanian government.

and..he appointed homosexual donald capoccia to the u.s. commission of fine arts. he appointed a homosexual to the state department as an arms control advisor, which was the first appointment of an openly gay person to a senior arms control post. he has also appointed many openly gay republicans to the president’s advisory council on hiv/aids.

he has stated that a person’s sexual orientation is irrelevant as long as he/she has the job qualifications for a position.

[JackSpratts]

gwbush to gays: “drop dead.”

someday scoob you and span will get yur heads out of each other's bowls and see things for the way they really are. but until that day arrives…

nah, it'll never come.

still, i must press on with your education regardless if it's an exercise in futility.

there is one gay group the right can count on, year after year, for unwavering public support in the face of continuing humiliations. most gays (and straights) consider them nothing more than self loathing hypocrites but for whatever reason, maybe because they'd rather piss out of the tent than in or maybe because they just can't keep their hands off all those sweaty republican fascists, the “log cabin republicans” have been there for bush.

they’d be the ones who’d use your “facts” above, ahem, to convince the simple minded and impressionable that bush really isn’t homophobic and anti-gay in spite of his actions to the contrary.

not any more.

sorry scoob ( i seem to have to write a lot). the real experts, the ones who’d give bush the benefit of the doubt if he was caught on a frat boy binge painting swastikas in a bath house, have abandoned him completely on this issue. (say, didn’t hitler start with gays back in the 30’s? made ‘em wear pink triangles?)

thier respnse to bush's support for an amendement to the us constitution denying them the right to marry -

"Log Cabin considers support for this amendment a declaration of war on gay and lesbian families and an attack on our sacred Constitution." - Patrick Guerriero, executive director.

so save the kinder, gentler 'gwbush is a gays best pal' soft soaping for the kindergarten class, nobody believes that fractured fairy tale. like so much else republican smog, it just isn’t true.

“A Declaration Of War.” wow. strong stuff that.

that’s not your clear thinking liberal pal jack spratts talking, no siree. that’s the best friend a republican homophobe could've had: a nice, conservative log cabin gay guy who looks the other way so often he can see around corners. i was gonna add “bush supportin’” but well, that would really be a whopper now wouldn’t it?

- js.

[tambourine-man]

Originally posted by scooobiedooobie
president bush appointed homosexual activist..scott evertz, to the office of national aids policy... ...transferred evertz to direct u.s. policy on global funding for aids, and appointed another homosexual activist to take over as the new director... ...he appointed homosexual donald capoccia to the u.s. commission of fine arts... ...appointed many openly gay republicans to the president’s advisory council on hiv/aids.

he has stated that a person’s sexual orientation is irrelevant as long as he/she has the job qualifications for a position.

Other than the Arms Control Advisor, I find the shoehorning of gay politicians into stereotypical roles to be pretty sad. The examples you give seem to suggest that those politicians were best suited to... hmmm, let me see... oh yes, AIDS and Fine Art. Not that those areas are ever ignorantly seen as issues more for the 'gay domain' than for the rest of us... and not that their sexuality had anything to do with what they're percieved as being qualified for! Nope... By Bush's own statement that you quote... there's no link whatsoever between a person's sexuality, the jobs that they're appointed to, (and what will be roughly accepted by the mob). No link whatsoever.

If Bush is working on stereotypes, it makes me wonder what Romania did to piss him off so much! (JOKE...)

[Ramona_A_Stone]

I'd just like to point out that the adjective "polarized" is not appropriate to describe the issue of gay marriages between the candidates, as neither (Kerry nor Bush) supports it. Certainly in the arena of public discourse it's a polarizing issue, but then so is everything from the banality of popstar tit flashes on up. The difference between them (Dumb and Dumber) is one of a few degrees but it's hardly diametrical: Bush makes no bones that he would oppose it aggressively while Kerry, it seems, would oppose it, but be PC about it.

For the record, although Kerry does oppose constitutional amendments defining marriage, his careful rhetoric at this point is the he "'prefers' civil unions and will reject any state or federal laws" that could be used against equal protections for those in them. He was one of only 14 senators to vote against the Defense of Marriage Act, but he has stated that he "personally opposes gay marriage."

In my opinion this is a nutless attempt to seem superficially gay-friendly (gays and those who find "gay-sympathetic" issues critical are probably a good deal less than 10% of the vote--my guess, I have no stats) while trying to simultaneously appease the roughly 50% of Democrats who oppose gay marriage--and figuring the other 50% will probably still prefer "anyone but Bush." I say nutless, but I guess all you can really blame him for is thinking that soulectomies are a prerequisite for candidacy.

I know a few gays who are "staunch Republicans" (ie: rabid enough to support Bush in spite of the facts) but I think it's a fair bet that the vast majority of gays feel they have good reason to detest Georgey-Porgey. (with all his mumbling about God and "Faith-Based Initiatives;" bad form if not scary to begin with and pretty consistently proving why)

Seems all Kerry has to do is be a few degrees less of an outright bigot on this issue to cop the votes of those who see it as an issue, and as far as I'm concerned that's exactly all that he's done.

Yes, I'll be voting for the lesser of two evils (not just because of this issue) but I predict if Kerry is elected I'll probably be talking smack about his administration about 87.5% of the time, whereas I bitch about Bush 92.3% of the time. And, lol, I'm wondering if the Young Republican Faction here will still be calling me unpatriotic because I'm critical of a president? No matter, I'm sure they'll find ways to disagree with me even if the shoe's on the other foot (or would that be the same foot?) and I'm doing "their job".

And good point tambourine dude, but to be fair, gays have gravitated most strongly towards AIDS activism in the states even though neither here nor globally of course is it a strictly "gay issue"--and these appointments may speak more to the fact that many straight Americans have been somehow lulled into thinking otherwise than sheer tokenism.

But do I wonder if Bush is planning on forming a Department of Interior Decoration...

[Sinner]

Originally posted by JackSpratts
gwbush to gays: ?drop dead.?

someday scoob you and span will get yur heads out of each other's bowls and see things for the way they really are. but until that day arrives?

nah, it'll never come.

still, i must press on with your education regardless if it's an exercise in futility.

To Quote the LA Times....


Eight years ago, Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage for purposes of federal law as the legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.

The Act passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 342 to 67, and the Senate by a vote of 85 to 14. Those congressional votes and the passage of similar defensive marriage laws in 38 states express an overwhelming consensus in our country for protecting the institution of marriage.


Seems the Democrats are the ones saying, as you put it...Drop Dead!.....


Bush's Words...

The Constitution says that full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts and records and judicial proceedings of every other state. Those who want to change the meaning of marriage will claim that this provision requires all states and cities to recognize same-sex marriages performed anywhere in America.

Congress attempted to address this problem in the Defense of Marriage Act, by declaring that no state must accept another state's definition of marriage. My administration will vigorously defend this act of Congress.

Yet there is no assurance that the Defense of Marriage Act will not, itself, be struck down by activist courts. In that event, every state would be forced to recognize any relationship that judges in Boston or officials in San Francisco choose to call a marriage. Furthermore, even if the Defense of Marriage Act is upheld, the law does not protect marriage within any state or city. For all these reasons, the Defense of Marriage requires a constitutional amendment. An amendment to the Constitution is never to be undertaken lightly.

America is a free society, which limits the role of government in the lives of our citizens. This commitment of freedom, however, does not require the redefinition of one of our most basic social institutions. Our government should respect every person, and protect the institution of marriage. There is no contradiction between these responsibilities. We should also conduct this difficult debate in a manner worthy of our country, without bitterness or anger.

In all that lies ahead, let us match strong convictions with kindness and goodwill and decency.

Thank you very much

[JackSpratts]

Originally posted by Sinner
Seems the Democrats are the ones saying, as you put it...Drop Dead!.....

i see we're still obsessed with clinton. well ok, a lot can happen in a few years time. consider the supreme court and their reversal of the bowers v. hardwick anti-sodomy laws (don't you love the names?) yes, clinton was wrong when he signed the cynically named defense of marriage act, but at least it didn't change the constitution. the people, thru their reps, can choose the judges they want, like the right is attempting to do now for the anti-choice and religious theocracy wings of the party. but when it's written into the constitution it can take 200 years to fix, if ever. the difference between a bill and a constitutional amendment is the difference between a tactical and a strategic weapon. one does short term localized damage, one does continuing global damage. bush's "vision" will codify bias against tens of millions of monogamous americans for untold generations, something i'm sure he's considered. clinton's might've lasted an election cycle or two, until the country was more accepting, and that’s something i know he knew.

- js.

[span]

bush's "vision" will codify bias against tens of millions of monogamous americans for untold generations,

lol, gays have "generations"? rofl

[scooobiedooobie]

Originally posted by JackSpratts
i see we're still obsessed with clinton.

typical response js. the liberal's obsession with bush borders on the maniacal, but when a conservative brings clinton up, they're "obsessed".

[Sinner]

Originally posted by JackSpratts
but at least it didn't change the constitution.

but when it's written into the constitution it can take 200 years to fix, if ever. the difference between a bill and a constitutional amendment is the difference between a tactical and a strategic weapon. one does short term localized damage, one does continuing global damage. - js.

ASK...

Is marriage is a religious institution? If so should it be part of the constitution

Does a marriage license violate separation of church from state??

Historically, the framers of the US Constitution responded to abuses of churches as they influenced governments didn't they?

Aren't licensing civil unions a state function?