Will Bush's Push For Gay Marriage Ban Backfire?
by Joe Gandelman
Today President George W. Bush is expected to put his reduced political capital on the line to personally push for a constitutional amendment outlawing gay marriage.
The questions are:
Is it a political profile in courage, or a caricature of craven political pandering? Is it the act of a politician who believes leading means getting out in front on cutting-edge issues or the equivalent of lip service to placate supporters who wonder why he has waited until just before the elections to take a strong stance on this issue?
Is it a genuine, sincere push for something he believes — or words that'll be uttered that don't jibe with what some have seen of him in private?
In short: is this something he firmly believes in and thinks can be done — or is it part of a divide-and-rule shell game designed as CYA to assure social conservatives that he is keeping a campaign promise while at the same time putting Democrats on the spot so they can be defined as a party whose members won't move to try and outlaw gay marriage on a federal level?
And then there's the big question: will this succeed with Bush's conservative supporters or will they wonder why he has suddenly mustered the courage with Majority Leader Bill Frist to bring this up — coincidentally five months before the elections.
If this was so vital, why weren't Frist and Bush out on the hustings promoting this for the past two years?
All signs and most news reports and analysis point to one conclusion: Bush's comments will be, in fact, part of a political shell game that Mr. Bush does not expect to go anywhere but that could inflame his party base's passions and get them out to the polls.
Welcome to the era of "wink" politics. You know: it's an era you see on those Sunday morning talking head shows where insider journalists sit at round tables, winking at themselves and viewers as if to say "We know this politico doesn't mean what he says and is just saying it to position himself for votes and that it's a load of crap but, hey, folks this is how this game is played. Aren't these political rogues delightful to watch?"
It's an era where the importance is strategy and tactics — not sincerity, content and political realism.
If you do a Google search you're going to be hard-pressed to find a ton of stories that say George Bush (a) firmly believes in this ban, (b) has been working all year for this ban or (c) thinks it has a chance of becoming a constitutional amendment.
What you'll see if you read the stories is that Bush's comments and the timing of them are a craven, transparent move to claw his way back up in the polls to regain the support of some wavering members of the GOP's past winning coalitions — to arouse passions against gays, link up in the public's mind support of gays with the Democrats and try to get his supporters out in droves in 2006.
In a column in The Los Angeles Times, Ronald Brownstein writes:
'That's vanity ... not politics," President John F. Kennedy once snapped at an aide who wanted him to provoke a confrontation with Congress on an issue Kennedy knew he didn't have the votes to pass.
Times change, don't they?
Now many in Washington believe the essence of politics is provoking confrontations over issues that have little chance of becoming law but a high probability of dividing the country.
Exhibit A is this week's planned Senate vote on a proposed constitutional amendment to prohibit gay marriage. No one doubts the outcome. Proposed constitutional amendments require a two-thirds majority — 67 votes — to clear the Senate. When the Senate last considered the gay marriage ban, in July 2004, supporters mustered only 48 votes on a procedural test. The backers might do better this time, but they are unlikely to get close to the votes they need.
So there is little chance it'll succeed. Yet Frist and Bush will be pressing this issue to show supporters that they're going to try to deliver.
Will that be enough? Some news reports say no. The New York Times:
Taken together, the events will be the first time Mr. Bush has so strongly promoted his opposition to same-sex marriage since his re-election campaign nearly two years ago. Democrats accused the White House of trotting out a reliable hot-button issue to help soothe and re-energize disgruntled conservative voters five months before the midterm Congressional elections. "Everybody's going to see through it," said Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee.
But, in a new twist this year, some conservative activists expressed similar cynicism. They said Mr. Bush and the Republicans in Congress had a long way to go to convince social conservatives that they viewed the issue as anything but a politically convenient tool that they picked up only when they needed to motivate their core voters.
After the 2004 campaign, they say, Mr. Bush put his energies into domestic issues like Social Security and immigration rather than into the marriage amendment and other topics of interest to grass-roots conservatives.
"It was so central in the 2004 election," Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a conservative research group, said of same-sex marriage. "And the day after, the president began a crusade to reform Social Security and it went nowhere. Why not put energy into something that's vital for our society and our country?"
In another piece, the Los Angeles Times also noted that Bush may face a tougher audience this time in his own party on this issue:
"I'm going to go and hear what he says, but we already know it is a ruse," said Joe Glover, president of the Family Policy Network, which opposes gay marriage. "We're not buying it. We're going to go and watch the dog-and-pony show, [but] it's too little, too late."
Such comments have raised the prospect that the debate over gay marriage — designed to galvanize one of Bush's most important constituencies, social conservatives — could instead exacerbate the president's political headaches.
If so it would be a turning point:
It would signify that the Era of Winking is getting a bit old. MORE:
The White House event will serve as a prelude to the Senate debate next week on the proposed constitutional amendment.
Supporters acknowledge they have little hope of reaching the two-thirds threshold — 67 votes — the measure would need to pass in the 100-member Senate. They probably won't get the 60 votes needed to shut off debate and force an up-or-down vote on the proposal.....
...."Social conservatives are disappointed that there hasn't been more action on the issues that were highlighted in the 2004 election," said Gary Glenn, head of the American Family Assn. of Michigan.
He added: "Increasingly, social conservatives expect real action, not just politically timed attempts to motivate and organize the base."
Other complain that Bush, despite Monday's planned event, has not put the full heft of the presidency behind the bid to ban gay marriage.
"President Bush's position is actually quite good on many … life and family issues, but he needs to get out front on them," Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, wrote in a message to supporters last week. There is also dismay among some activists over the wording of the amendment.
At least two prominent social conservative groups — Concerned Women for America and the Traditional Values Coalition — believe the language contains a loophole that would allow gays to seek civil unions.
The proposed amendment reads: "Marriage in the United States shall consist solely of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any state, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."
Andrea Lafferty, executive director of the Traditional Values Coalition, and others say the second sentence leaves open the option that gays and lesbians could enter unions other than marriage; and that's a deal breaker for them.
So some feel it's too little, too late.
The Washington Post reports that at last one GOPer is already using the gay marriage issue against his opponent:
In one North Carolina congressional district, for instance, Republican challenger Vernon Robinson has aired a radio ad attacking Democratic Representative Brad Miller with mariachi music playing in the background: ``Brad Miller supports gay marriage and sponsored a bill to let American homosexuals bring their foreign homosexual lovers to this county on a marriage visa. If Miller had his way, America would be nothing but one big fiesta for illegal aliens and homosexuals." Miller voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004, saying the matter should be left to the states.
``The republic has survived pretty well for 220 years with marriage based on state law," he said Friday. ``I don't think we ought to amend the Constitution every time a politician wants to campaign on an issue." Miller said he supports the North Carolina law banning same-sex marriage, but is open to gay civil unions.
But isn't this an issue that George Bush is known to care deeply about? Isn't this an issue that he talks about often in private? Isn't this an issue that he was just waiting to raise in public since it has been on the top of his own personal agenda?
According to Newsweek, NO:
Though Bush himself has publicly embraced the amendment, he never seemed to care enough to press the matter. One of his old friends told NEWSWEEK that same-sex marriage barely registers on the president's moral radar. "I think it was purely political. I don't think he gives a s--t about it. He never talks about this stuff," said the friend, who requested anonymity to discuss his private conversations with Bush. White House aides, who also declined to be identified, insist that the president does care about banning gay marriage. They say Monday's events with amendment supporters—Bush will also meet privately with a small group—have been in the works "for weeks" and aren't just a sop to conservatives.
Whatever Bush's motivation, his actions aren't likely to quiet his critics. Land says he's happy Bush is speaking out, but he'd like to see signs of real commitment to the issue. "We know what a full-court press looks like when we see one," Land says. A White House official, who declined to be identified discussing strategy, says Bush has not made calls on the amendment because "nobody has asked us."
MESSAGE TO THE WHITE HOUSE: When someone uses the "nobody has asked us" defense on not diving into a controversial issue, it doesn't work and winds up angering those who wanted you to get involved.
So will Bush's comments and the Senate vote succeed? The vote is almost certainly doomed to failure. Will it energize the party's base so they turn out in droves to support GOP candidates? Will they remember Bush's support on Election Day? Stay tuned.
And will there be another possible impact? Will many Democrats, independents and Republicans who don't like this kind of politics cast votes against those who are trying to foment controversy and division over this issue (which as it stands now each state could decide on in a much quieter way, rather than federalizing it)?
Meanwhile, perhaps President George Bush needs a reminder.
It seems he originally ran to be the President of the United States of America.
But he increasingly governs as if he wants to be the President of the Disunited States of America.
UPDATE 1: We're informed by a reader from CNN in the comments section:
I thought you might be interested to know that there is a Senate Gay Marriage Amendment Debate, live on PIPELINE today at 2pm ET! CNN Pipeline is an online, commercial-free multiple live-news feed. It showcases four simultaneous news feeds from around the world and an on-demand function that allows you to select from a variety of news stories.
Please let your members know that they can go to http://www.cnn.com and click on the Pipeline link to watch it *live* and get a two week free trial.
UPDATE 2: CNN's Jeff Greenfield notes that this is Bush and the GOP "returning to the well" and that while there are risks there are also potential benefits:
But sometimes the ploy can backfire. In 1982, Tom Bradley backed a very tough gun-restriction ballot proposal and narrowly lost his bid for governor in part because of a huge turnout among gun owners.
But sometimes, hot-button issues can gain national traction without any political strategy, even if same-sex bans are not on the ballot in states with competitive Senate races. How? Well, suppose New York State's highest court decides there's a constitutional right to gay marriage, or more previously enacted bans are struck down in courts in other states. That could put the issue front and center again — which is right where Republican strategists want it.
SOME OTHER VIEWS ON THE GAY MARRIAGE BAN ISSUE:
--A Newer World:
The Vice-President’s daughter, who clearly does not understand that politics is a zero sum game, must not be happy about the President’s decision to pander to the social base. She had hoped that “no one would think about trying to amend the Constitution as a political strategy.” She says that “amending the Constitution with this amendment, this piece of legislation, is a bad piece of legislation. It is writing discrimination into the Constitution, and, as I say, it is fundamentally wrong.”
It is too bad that Ms. Cheney doesn’t realize that she is in the “fundamentally wrong” party. And it is too bad that President Bush doesn’t realize that political pandering is “fundamentally wrong” for America.
--LaShawn Barber, a high profile conservative and Christian blogger, is highly critical of Bush in a post that should be read in full. A small taste:
Bush has the wherewithal to fight to change the freakin’ Constitution, yet when it comes to stopping illegal aliens from crossing the border, he has no fight in him to execute laws already on the books? OK.
Politicians are so transparent. The midterm elections are quickly approaching (can you believe 2006 is half over?), and Bush is trying to appease angry conservatives and Christians by pushing this amendment. It’s an empty and meaningless gesture because the thing will never be ratified.
--Gay Orbit: "I’ll look forward to 2008 when we can finally say “Good Riddance” to this president, and to all of the Republicans who will lose in November partly because they support such obviously diversionary tactic like this one. I’m not one to put a large amount of trust in an electorate that is more interested in American Idol than in actual issues. But I honesly believe that, this time, they will see right through Bush and Co.’s attempt to mask all of the things they’ve screwed up by using this tactic."
--Pam's House Blend: "As I said yesterday, the bible beaters have been roiling over the lack of attention that the White House has paid for this and they are still bleating. Daddy Dobson, according to the article, met up with key Rethugs and tossed out this nice, "Christian" threat: "If you forget us, we'll forget you." Tee hee. "
--All Things Beautiful:
Is it the hedonistic aspect of gay marriage that we find so disturbing, or do we really believe that we will extinguish all traces of homosexual and lesbian behavior by outlawing their very unity? The sanctity of marriage needs our protection, but does it have to be protected at the expense of discriminating against a vast number of our population. The problem is, if we choose that path, where do we start and where do we stop?
If the President simply wants to say he is still the man we elected in 2004, perhaps there is a better way of saying it. If he is trying to make up for his stand on the immigration issue, he is treading on some bigger corns there. Either way pushing this issue right now seems like a bad move, as far as I am concerned. New York, Washington and the State of California will be up in arms just for starters.
--Americablog asks "Who are the bigger chumps? The religious right or their followers?" Read the whole post.
--Bark Bark Woof Woof:
What’s even worse is that there is no other purpose behind this fatuous “Marriage Protection Amendment” than politics. It is no secret that the right wing and the Religious Reich are not happy with the president at the moment, so he is doing this just to fan the bonfire of their sanctimonious bigotry in the hope of re-electing Republicans next fall. What’s even more disturbing is that everyone from both parties knows that this amendment will never get enough votes to be sent to the states for ratification. So why, with a war of their own making dissolving beyond chaos, with gasoline prices soaring, with a budget deficit soaring to the moon, is the president and his party wasting our time by engaging in an act of political masturbation? (Or more correctly, an act of sodomy against the Constitution.)
It’s simple. Nothing matters more to this president than being president; nothing matters more to the Republicans than being in office, and if sacrificing the rights of a several million queer people to do it, it’s a small price to pay for their grip on po
--Decision '08: "Regardless of your stance on the issue, isn’t it blatantly obvious that Bush is pandering to the base because of poor poll numbers? At least before, the rush of events in San Francisco and Massachussetts made it a legitimate issue - but now, it feels a little forced. Let’s worry about the three ‘I’s first (Iran, Iran, and immigration) [The writer probably mean Iraq in the first instance]."
--Blue Crab Boulevard:
First, I can't see it passing through Congress, second it smacks of trying to divert attention away from the real issue on voter's minds - illegal immigration....Forget the hypocrisy of the Democrats about rising gas prices (which aren't rising at the moment at all) and the rest. I just can't see that this issue will translate to better results at the polls in November. The real thing most people want is real immigration reform. Not amnesty, reform and enforcement.
--Brilliant At Breakfast: "[Bush] will do what he must to retain power and push the GOP political agenda. He has no moral compass and cares nothing about Americans. He's so ego-centric it's sickening."
--Inside R.A. Melos:
Hey, guess what? [Bush] is more concerned with who sleeps with whom rather than putting an end to the endless murders of American soldiers in Iraq. Marriage is so important that it outweighs the whole Iraq is a bad war and we should be out of there issue?
Well, I'm gay, and I don't really ever want to get married. Why not? Because there is no one in this world I would trust that much not to hurt me. Sure I'd sleep with someone, and maybe even live with them, but marriage? It's only a income tax thing. It doesn't have anything to do with love
--Impolitical: "Yet lets bash gays because we can, we're bullies and it might do us some electoral good....Yet the Divider is willing to roll the dice once more on this issue. For all the talk about considering other view points of late at the White House, you'd certainly never know it by their actions..."
--Culture War Dispatches:
Finally, Bush seems to be listening to those who voted for him. The link above leads to a story by AP. I believe that this amendment is important. Marriage cannot be redefined....
....This is one time that I don't believe that Bush is playing politics. I know that he truly wants to fight for the institution of marriage. Even Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act in September of 1996. I was living in Hawaii at the time and remember that many Hawaiians protested in the streets against gay marriage. Was CLinton playing politics? Here is the story from 1996.
Defending marriage is not just a Judeo-Christian issue. I am sure not many Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, and Confucianists are for same gender marriage either. I have been to Asia, and believe me, the attitude towards those living an "alternative lifestyle" was worse than in America.
--Lorenzo from AZ has a post saying Bush plans to create a new cabinet post:
I’ve heard that in addition to pushing for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, that Bush will create a sub-cabinet director position for Homo Land Insecurity, to continue to fight the queer agenda and related Powerpoints.
Quite properly, this division will be used to eradicate the homosexual terrorist threats to our very life, to our institutions, to our faith-based governance, and then to all the homo hype in the media. The homos must be stopped. To do nothing means the terrorists win, and that we don't support our troops.
-Polimom, Too as usual has a must-read post. Here's part of it:
In recent years, the radical religious fringe (what an embarrassment to the GOP that they're considered "the base") has responded so predictably to these little pokes and prods. Will that fringe care, or even notice, that this is a ploy? Do they understand that this proposed Amendment has no chance of passing, or that the Republican leadership is assuming their constituents will act like Pavlov's dogs?
Surely you've heard of Pavlov? He was the Russian psychologist and physician who brought the world classical conditioning - the behavioral theory that predictable reactions can be produced with consistent stimuli. Jump, base! Sit, base!
--Ron Beasley: "Nothing seems to be going George W. Bush or the Republicans way 6 months before the election. So what to do? Change the subject and fire up the base."
--Taylor Marsh:
This week, we're getting treated to a morality lesson from the party that brought us pedophiles, perverts, hookergate, and a Senate majority leader under investigation, after having just been fined $11,000 for campaign chicanery. Republicans aren't just weak and ineffectual, with no ideas, but they're desperate. They have nothing else to turn to but their old standards. Use 'em while they work. We are watching the last gasp of the Grand Old Party of the Past, because people under 40 could care less about who marries who. Compared to Iraq, nuclear proliferation and global warming it just doesn't add up. But being taught this lesson by Republicans? Puh-leaze.
--Andrew Sullivan:
By spear-heading the FMA again, Bush has alienated a vast swathe of socially inclusive suburbanites, the veep's daughter, every gay person and many of their families, libertarians, constitutional conservatives and principled federalists. But he's won over the fire-breathers, right? It turns out: Not even them any more...The first push for the FMA was a tragedy. This second time is a farce. Even its supporters know it.
--The All Spin Zone has a snarky post. Read it in full. We won't quote it because it would take it too much out of context.
--Glenn Reynolds is raising an eyebrow over it, too:"There are times when I've found Bush's transparent lack of enthusiasm for this measure comforting, but of course it just makes it more obviously pandering when they trot it out at this point. Or maybe I should say "attempted pandering," since if LaShawn's reaction is typical it's not a very successful effort....Given the WSJ poll that showed earmarks and immigration as the #1 and #2 concerns of voters, why not try addressing those issues sensibly, instead of trying to run on symbolism? Just a thought . . . ."
--Bull Moose, who used to work for the Christian Coalition:
The question is whether the religious conservatives will hold their collective noses and stick with the Republicans or whether they will show up at all in November. One of the main achievements of the 2004 Bush campaign was maximizing the religious vote. It is unlikely they can replicate that success. As the former Legislative Director of the Christian Coalition, the Moose has some experience in this area. Religious conservatives will not be fooled. They increasingly realize that all the GOP is not animated by their concerns. They are tired of being taken for granted - and a little symbolic affection won't matter much.
This couldn't be a worse time to deepen the divide in America in pursuit of political gain. The morale of the country is at a low point. Yet, this President and his Party are pressing forward with a politics of polarization that will further weaken our nation. It is reprehensible.
--The Political Pit Bull:
President Bush is preparing to throw his "political capital" behind the Federal Marriage Amendment--quite possibly the most blatant act of political pandering I have ever seen. The only question is whether the people that this charade is intended for are as naive as the Bush administration and Congress obviously believe and they will accept this is an act of principle rather than politics. My guess is no.
--Sister Toldjah has a post that MUST be read IN FULL to totally get its main theme. Here is a tiny part (but read it in full):
One thing I want to be clear here is that there are some people arguing that there are more pressing issues to deal with right now than the gay marriage amendment: namely, tackling the immigration issue which has gotten very contentious. That argument has a lot of validity and I understand it. What I take issue with is the complaining that the President is “pandering to the base” - the base (and I include myself in that) didn’t mind the President pandering to it when he threw red meat to it by nominating Sam Alito, and getting offended at the idea of the President pandering to the base now makes little sense in light of that. In fact, if the President right now stood before the American people and announced his support for the House plan (the plan that I support), he’d be pandering to the base. But then the pandering would be ok, wouldn’t it?
So government should not deal in marriage. Governments should deal in civil unions, which have no religious connotations. If a couple wants it to be a marriage instead of a civil union, they can ask the church to have a priest or minister do it instead of a judge. All marriages would be civil unions, but not all civil unions would be marriages.
When politics doesn't deal in religions, everyone's life is easier.
Matt,
Leave it to the Big-Tent to fall back on pickin' on gay folks, I'm convinced it was mouth breathers like yourself who beat-up the softspoken kids in gradeschool cause you couldn't handle your own fantasies of Barney Fife in drag.
Howe about focusing on the issue at hand, y'know the half a trillion dollars weve wasted in a little under 3 years fighting a war we don't control or the civil war in iraq, or healthcare, or any number of issues that don't require you whip up your tennets of glass condos.
Why would a stable, loving, conventional marriage be adversely affected by anyone else's marriage?
If you are secure in your sexuality, what are you worried about? Gay couples who want the benefit of marriage should have that option, and it is no one else's business.
I hate to be the one to bring it up, but no one ever seems to answer this question - if we're going to address the sanctity of marriage in our country, let's start with heterosexual couples and our stupefying divorce rate.
Gay people are our relatives, our friends, our neighbors, and our co-workers. Let's face it - they're not asking for anything other than to be treated like everyone else.
I thought this issue was already used for the 2004 elections....lets get back to scaring the base using brown people who speak a foreign language
Oh, boy. The GOP's polls numbers are in the toilet, time to attack the queers!
You are correct, most Democrats prefer to stay out od things like this, we prefer to deal with issues that are unimportant to conservatives such as
- Fiscal Responsibility
- Getting the debt under control
- Solving the american health care crisis
- Improving the economy
So, to summarize, he didn't give a s*it about gay marriage before he gives a s*it about gay marriage? So Kerryian.
what in the world is the FEDERAL govt meddling in a clear STATES issue?
there is no federal "marrage".
this is no more than pathetic, election-year pandering.
states rights, fiscal discipline, judical restraint, & limited govt my a$$.
there is no more structural difference bet the 2 parties 'cept borrow n spend v tax n spend.
May God grant us a centrist 3d party so we may isolate the extremes.
From a policy point of view I don't understand why them pushing this vote right now is adventageous, seems like a gamble to me. They KNOW they aren't gonna get 67 votes in the senate, so all it does is create buzz to replace the "RINOs" in the senate, thus splintering the vote in november. Is this a "tigers eat their young" gambit?
Everyone knows this amendment doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being added to the constitution.
It's an election year attempt to get the republican base motivated. The risk is that it may burn the GOP as it might turn some moderates against them.
Do we really want to write discrimination and bigotry into the Constitution? This is a wedge issue being used to divert attention away from the debacle on Iraq,immigration and low poll numbers. Peace
Matt,
The members of the Westboro Baptist Church will be proud of you, and the rest of the lunatic right.
Too bad the families of the fallen soldiers have to pay for your insanity.
I hope whoring yourselves out for a few midterm votes is worth it.
Mike
We are writing to protest our President's attempt to change our constitution to ban gay marriage and/or define the word "marriage." Our experience as gay men is that many men are married to a woman and have children and are living a separate life as a gay man. So does that make those marriages invalid? What about all the gay people who marry (gay man and lesbian) so they can appear normal in this country to avoid discrimination, hatred, and to appear "normal" when the basis of the marriage does not exist? Are they not legal anymore? Who will enforce it, who will make the laws. and who will foot the bill?
Why is he trying to change a name of something that will continue to ruin lives... Why does he not add that divorce, adultery, abandoning the family, and tyrant-like treatment of your wife/husband and family are illegal? And enforce it? How exactly does he propose to do this? By writing a bill into the constitution most Americans are against anyway? A bill that is actual discrimination? Nonsense!
Why do we need to add a definition to a word called marriage and turn it into a politically and socially divisive issue? If the people so worried about keeping families intact really want something done, a definition change does nothing. The marriage and family need to start with the home and a strict rules outlining how the family is to be raised for keeping it together, and laws prohibiting divorce, adultery, and abandonment, and these laws must be enforced. I guess monitoring of the parents of the family to make sure it is doing everything to keep it legal will also be necessary, as well as ways to capture when the family unit is in trouble. And, of course, we would need government funding and monitoring of e-mails, phones, Internet usage, and someone spying on the family members to make sure they are in compliance with keeping the family together. Where is it going to end?
The current situation of marriage is imperfect as it is. Kids, adults, and other family members and friends have to deal with the impact of divorce, adultery, and abandonment. People get hurt. Lives are ruined. Why doesn't everyone get the government Out of their lives, and go back to basics before divorce, adultery, and abandonment were used as freely as a $20.00 bill? Change that, Mr. President.
By the way, we had a marriage back in 1989. It is not legal, because of discrimination in this country, but it was documented. We will be celebrating 17 years together this month. How many of you can say that?
While I am 100% against "Gay" marriage. I truly believe the left (for once) is being truthful when they say that his is all about trying to patch things up with the GOP base.
Sorry George -the immigration sellout has lost you this voter.
Personally, i'm just real tired of every election cycle in recent history to have to have this same damn conversations, aside from putting all gays on an iceburg, eventually they will be given all the same rights as black folks were, its just a matter of how long the Repubs can continue to juice this stone.
I want to discuss how we are going to solve the civil war in Iraq, how we are going to reduce our deficit, while rebuilding a manufacturing base and exorcise our petro-demons. i want to know when we can start dismantling nuclear weapons instead of building more of them, I want to talk about healthcare and corporate tax gifts, and begin removing all these entrenched special interests from OUR government, I may not be able to pay for boxing tickets or golf games for my representative, but ill cook him some mean manicotti if he will come meet with me and my neighborhood...when did we lose sight of the issues that can bring us together, instead of always being played against one another like we are two different species?
This is great here in Ohio this is a HUGE issue with all the rural voters and some of the big counties like Butler ( my county ) and Hamilton ( next door. This will help get Ken Blackwell elected as Gov.
Vero,
You wanna put your money where you mouth is?
Vero can't put his/her money where his/her mouth is because that Noe dude spent it all on hookers while he was at the Numismatist's Convention....
Now, after reading the above comments, it looks like 99% or something like that don't give two sh*ts about gay marriage, except out there in Ohio and all those rural places where the divorce rate is probably 75% and the sheep are nervous.
You want to save the sacred institution of marriage and the 24-hour drive-though wedding chapel? Try banning divorce. That's where the rubbah hits the road. Not gay marriage.
Why are we voting on an Amendment which will be repealed in 20 years, just like Amendment 18.
And finally, Wayne in Lancaster, PA: "As a heterosexual who's been through two marriages and subsequent divorces, it's obvious to me the president is just trying to protect homosexual couples from the heartbreak and financial ruin that I've experienced"
Bush has reached Nixonian levels of desperation with his last ditch effort to prove he has any principles or moral fibre. This current rhetoric is as beleivable as that other loser's "I'm not a crook" routine.
Bush is pushing a lot of chips into the pot with this one. Too bad even some of his staunchest followers can see that this is a purely political move. I've seen very little support anywhere, even among conservatives, for this legislation. I'm not worried that it will pass - it won't. What I am worried about is the state of our political system, when issues like this keep coming up. It's all a big game. None of these politicians give a crap about what's actually best for America. Politics is a business, and a dirty one at that.
Fire 'em all.
Art is typical of the self-indulgent left; it’s all about him! Condemn our institutions then bitch because they can’t legally take part in it. If the institution of marriage is imperfect, why are you busting my chops to have one?
Marriage is an institution formed for the children born from that union, anything else is self-gratifying and hedonistic. The optimal situation for the rearing of children is one man, one woman. That’s not a religious belief, that’s a humanistic belief. Many families fall short of this ideal, parents die, others divorce, still others cannot care for the children they birthed, and others must take up the challenge. But, society owes itself to pursue the ideal, support the family that is most beneficial to the children and to society, and assist all families in achieving the propagation of the species.
Simply allowing any form of self-gratification to be institutionalized as a marriage, is to cheapen the relationship until it’s as meaningless as Art and his “life mate.”
Gee, Bush's approval is now 42% per Rasmussen. The Demorats are worried about this issue and immigration. On immigration, while I agree more with the House Bill, I think the Demorats have fallen into a trap - because the Se-nut bill is dead. They will have a vote only on border security, but I think Scary Reid will filibuster the bill. We also have the flag burning amendment and we should push for a voter id bill now that the Demorat position appears to be to allow illegals to vote. Finally, I hope that a fight over a Supreme Court opening erupts in September.
Rathaven – Most of all marriage is a legal contract. Marriage automatically grants legal rights to ones spouse - property rights - hospital visitation rights - etc. Many same-sex couples duplicate these with numerous legal documents, which may or may not be recognized when they are needed. Being granted the legal recognition of marriage allows all couples to bestow these rights on their partner with one binding document. Marriage is about legally sharing your lives. This marriage equality is even a new definition. It wasn’t too long ago that marriage made the woman the property of the man; changing that definition did not destroy marriage.
And if you believe being in a heterosexual marriage makes you non-self-gratification seeing heterosexual you should look at the number of married men posting ads online looking for sex with other men.
"Marriage is an institution formed for the children born from that union, anything else is self-gratifying and hedonistic."
I'm afraid this is a false dichotomy-- that the two options should be "marriage for the purpose of rearing children" and "marriage for self-gratification," with no further options available. It seems to me that you only have to look at what we do and say when we get married to realize that entering into a marriage says nothing about one's intent to bear or raise children, but nor is it any form of hedonism or self-gratification.
Here's a very standard example of a set of wedding vows. I take these to be an expression of the basic commitment involved in entering into wedlock:
One says, "I take you, (spouse-to-be), to be my (wife/husband), to have and to hold from this day forward, for better or for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish; from this day forward until death do us part."
No mention of children there. Maybe there are other wedding vows that do mention procreation explicitly, but I haven't encountered them. I suppose one might say that, even though the participants in marriage don't make any explicit avowal of their intent to produce and raise children, the institution of marriage somehow still exists for the purposes of facilitating child-rearing. Maybe that's true-- but I'm not sure what kind of evidence anyone could provide to establish what, in our society, the institution of marriage is *for*-- and why should it be for only one thing? At any rate, if children are so essential to the institution of marriage, it's a curious oversight that they've been omitted from the marriage contract.
On the other hand, there *is* a contract-- the vows we take are really *vows*, and if we are acting in good faith, we commit ourselves to live in accordance with them. But notice that they don't say, "I take you, so-and-so, to be my (spouse), until it no longer pleases me to do so-- after which point, you're on your own, kiddo." There is, in point of fact, something fundamentally opposed to self-gratification in the marriage contract itself: it's that bit about the "until death do us part" (and the bits immediately before that, of course). If people really commit themselves to upholding their marriage, that means they forbid themselves from acting on desires that would interfere with their commitment to cherish their spouse-- such as, e.g., commiting adultery. That is precisely the opposite of hedonism, and it indicates that there is a solemn commitment undertaken in marriage that has little to do with raising one's children.
I'm very skeptical of people who profess to have boiled down the essence of marriage, as it were, out of the ether. It seems to me as though, if you want to understand what marriage is about, you've got to look first on the surface of what we say and do when we enter into wedlock. I think the evidence suggests that the marriage contract isn't yet a commitment to rearing children-- rather it suggests that marriage is, in the first place, a lifelong commitment to love, cherish, and support one's spouse.
"The optimal situation for the rearing of children is one man, one woman."
This is a claim that, it seems to me, gets repeated a lot, and I confess that I'm not really sure what it's supposed to mean. What makes one situation 'optimal' for child-rearing? What are the criteria for determining optimality in this case? It seems to me that as long as the phrase 'optimal situation' dangles there without any supporting definition, this claim can float free of scrutiny, and that's a problem.
Of course it's possible that, if we figured out what the optimal conditions were for raising children, we might find out that those conditions are ones that could be provided in a same-sex partner household. I think making the claim that a certain set of conditions is optimal for child-rearing ought to come along with a hefty dose of clarification as to what those conditions are, as well as some explanation as to why same-sex parent households could not establish them. Without both of those things, both the individual claim and the argument it is supposed to advance strike me as pretty hollow.
Gotta go with the Frawg on this one.
Your opinion as to the reason for marriage having to do only with the gratification of two individuals doesn’t pass the laugh test. The reason marriage has sustained in its present form for thousands of years is self evident; the nuclear family unit is the basis for all civilization in all parts of the planet, and has been since the beginning of recorded time. As the family begins its breakdown so goes the society with which it is associated. In the microcosm of the community, those communities without benefit of one man, one woman parental units struggle with a low percentage of successful individuals joining and contributing to the society at large.
Just as individuals can overcome the strikes that the non-nuclear family has thrown at them, members of communal entities can beat the odds to successfully contribute to the society; the question is why would we encourage the breakdown of the nuclear family unit, for the transient self gratification of the homosexual “marriage”?
You don’t believe that one man one woman child rearing is optimal? This is one of the fundamental tenants on which welfare reform was built. Don’t believe me, research it for yourself, every credible psychologist and psychiatric study confirms that the male and female each have unique abilities that the child needs for survival. In the absence of one, the other parent can offer a good deal of the missing parents’ input, but again, why set up the situation?
Your words are eloquent, but the words of the marriage vows are hardly the point of this debate. In my vows we added the vows of Ruth, “Whither thou goest, I go” that is meaningless to everyone but me and my wife.
Let the argument stand on its own; marriage has worked for one man one woman for thousands of years, what can making marriage between two men add to that? What does adding to the definition of marriage that it’s up to you who or what you marry bring to the table, How does society benefit from men and boys, or women and inanimate objects?
Is the only answer, because it makes them happy?
Question,
Most of all marriage is a commitment.
A trip to any lawyer’s office can get a couple all the same rights and advantages of a marriage. And it costs less than a marriage. Homosexuals may have all the same legal benefits and determents as a married couple; just don’t call it marriage.
Also, I never said that one man and one woman cannot share a life with no gratification; I've been doing just that for the past 28 years.
Society should discourage the behavior you mentioned (personal ads for homosexual liaisons) just as we should encourage marriage.
Marriage is a commitment and I know many same-sex couples in committed relationships that have long outlasted those of their opposite-sex friends. Why deny this commitment because they are of the same sex? You suggested that promiscuous behavior should be discouraged, wouldn't allowing everyone the right to commit to one person regardless of their sex help achieve that?
As I said before, and you've agreed, a trip to the lawyer's office can give a couple many of the same rights as a marriage. But it is more expensive than a marriage - it involves creating individual documents for each of the many aspects that being married would provide with just one piece of paper. If you know of a lawyer that produces multiple contracts for the cost of one I’d like their number. And these documents are often denied or invalidated by families, hospitals and other institutions that chose not to recognize the committed relationship of two people. While those that are married are never questioned about their intent, the rights of a spouse are almost absolute.
Those of you arguing that same-sex "marriage" will have no bad effect on hetero marriage have your heads up your butts. If you were honest, you'd admit that it's incredibly important to society that we encourage long-term, stable, opposite-sex unions devoted to procreation and raising of children to adulthood. You'd also admit that at the level of the individual, maintaining such unions is also incredibly difficult. Yet even today, opposite-sex couples STILL get married to raise kids to adulthood, in large part because marriage confers special legal, social, religious, and economic status on the couple. If we were to recognize same-sex "marriage", then in one fell swoop we'd be removing the special status of long-term, procreative, opposite-sex legal unions, and eliminating a key incentive to such unions. The inevitable result would be that the number of opposite-sex couples getting married to procreate and raise kids to adulthood would plummet.
Of course, my sense is that those vehemently supporting gay "marriage" really don't give a shit if opposite-sex marriages decline even more dramatically than they have over the past 40 years. But I care, and any honest thinking person should care, too. Raising children to adulthood in stable, opposite-sex families is critically important to the continuation of society. Tinker with that at the risk of social ruin.
Might as well make divorces and annullments illegal while you are at it. Also, you should make it so heteros with violent tendancies can't marry either... well... if this is only about protecting marriage and families.
Whether you believe in same-sex marriage or not, the issue here is whether there should be a Constitutional amendment banning it. Marriage is something that is regulated by each individual state. States grant marriage licenses, not the federal government. Indeed, some states have passed amendments to their own constitutions that ban gay marriage. If you don't like gay marriage, then move to one of those states.
What this whole issue comes down to is that a vocal band of right-wing bullies and thugs want to impose their beliefs and values on the whole nation. What makes Bush's support for their agenda so despicable is that he would meddle with the US Constitution for the sake of mere politics, simply so that he can appear to be supporting these thugs. It's just another measure of Bush's bankrupt presidency.
Most folks in this country still go to church and have religeous convictions. Let's put it to vote and see who wins. I'd say the Democrats will have egg on their faces after it's all said and done.
This is just a wedge issue to galvanize Conservatives so that the Dems don't take over the House and start hearings on cherry-picked intelligence which led us into war , the CIA leak and the illegal activities of the NSA. Bush (this actually has Rove's fingerprints all over it)used the same tactic in 2004. It worked then, but Conservatives are feeling used. Everyone else either doesn't care much, or feels, correctly in my view, that there are so many more important issues facing this country, that its a waste of the Senate's time. Is this just so Rove can show who voted against the amendment when he puts together his search and destroy tactics against opponents in December? That's what I think.
BTW, Hillary's flag burning amendment is also a pretty pathetic attempt to appeal to social conservatives. Is this so no one will question her patriotism in '08?
Actually, G Frawg, making divorce more difficult (e.g., by eliminating no-fault divorce) might make couples think twice before marrying, which in turn might decrease the divorce rate. But that's not a sure thing, and it's NOT the point I was making.
My point was that long-term, procreative opposite-sex unions are essential for society; that such unions are unattractive for many people without legal and other incentives; that the special legal, social, religious and economic status that we currently give to such unions (everywhere but in Massachusetts) is one of the key features that makes such unions attractive to many people; that recognizing gay "marriage" will remove that special status and destroy a key incentive for procreative heterosexual unions; and that the number of opposite-sex couples getting married to procreate and raise kids to adulthood will plummet if we recognize gay "marriage".
Rebut with my actual argument if you want and can do so with rational argument; but please don't insult me by rebutting arguments I didn't make.
Perhaps an obvious point -- the President should focus on more important matters than the issue of gay marriage. The last time I checked, gay marriage was not killing anyone. We have young men and women dying in Iraq and Afghanistan, the middle east is a total mess, the economy is weakening, we have huge budget deficits, etc., and yet our President's advisors have him stumping on the issue of gay marriage. Unbelievable.
At the water cooler, the talk is not about the substance of the gay marriage issue, but rather why in the world is President Bush focusing on that issue when he should be figuring out how to get our troops home safely as soon as possible.
This is a reality check blog -- not a bush bash. Focus on what needs to be focused on. Progress on social issues such as gay marriage won't save any lives, it won't get troops home anytime sooner to their families, it won't restore peace in the middle east, it won't save any jobs, or improve the economy. All that it will do, at best, is rally the conservative troops for the next election cycle (perhaps the intent). When brave soldiers are being blown to smithereens by IEDS, one would think that the leader of our fine country could get his priorities straight (or that his advisors could)...please.
The sanctimony of marriage. Yes, we all know how you conservatives are pushing to uphold that. Thats why they have drive thru marriages were a couple can get hitched as easily as going thru the drive thru at mcdonalds.
The idea of marriage has been screwed up for decades and holds very little value anymore in todays society.
And a lot of that marital depreciation is due to conservatives.
One thing I never understood in this whole debate over gay marriage: if you are a heterosexual couple that is married, just how is your marriage threatened by a gay couple being married?
Get it thru your thick skulls - "gayness" isn't spreading through our culture just because equal rights are extended to gay people. Being gay isn't contagious. Don't worry - extending equal rights to gays makes you in no more danger of becoming gay than the civil rights movement made in you in danger of becoming black.
Admit it. The deep down hidden fear at the heart of this matter is that somehow, if gays are treated equally, then gayness will spread and pretty soon practically everyone will be gay! Well, rest easy my fellow heteros - if you're gay, you're gay, and if you aren't, you aren't. This amendment is meant nothing more than to exploit those irrational hidden fears for political gain.
The survival of our marriages depend on love, understanding, perseverance, and fundamental compatibility - NOT whether the gay couple down the street can or can't get married.
One thing I never understood in this whole debate over gay marriage: if you are a heterosexual couple that is married, just how is your marriage threatened by a gay couple being married?
Get it thru your thick skulls - "gayness" isn't spreading through our culture just because equal rights are extended to gay people. Being gay isn't contagious. Don't worry - extending equal rights to gays makes you in no more danger of becoming gay than the civil rights movement made in you in danger of becoming black.
Admit it. The deep down hidden fear at the heart of this matter is that somehow, if gays are treated equally, then gayness will spread and pretty soon practically everyone will be gay! Well, rest easy my fellow heteros - if you're gay, you're gay, and if you aren't, you aren't. This amendment is meant nothing more than to exploit those irrational hidden fears for political gain.
The survival of our marriages depend on love, understanding, perseverance, and fundamental compatibility - NOT whether the gay couple down the street can or can't get married.
POLL: Only 3 Percent Say Homosexuality is America’s ‘Most Serious Moral Crisis’ »
President Bush and congressional conservatives “are aiming the political spotlight this week on efforts to ban gay marriage,” a move that’s sure to renew debate over so-called “values voters.” But as a poll released today by the Center for American Progress shows, the moral concerns of the American people are nothing like what the right wing claims.
Below, some highlights:
– Asked to name the most serious moral crisis in America today, 28% of Americans cite “kids not raised with the right values”; followed by 22% saying “corruption in government/business”; 17% saying “greed and materialism” or “people too focused on themselves”; and only 3% citing “abortion and homosexuality.”
– On addressing poverty: 68% of voters strongly agree that “government should uphold the basic decency and dignity of all and take greater steps to help the poor and disadvantaged in America” (89% total agree).
– On religious freedom: 67% of voters believe that religious freedom is a “critical” part of their image of America compared to less than three in 10 who believe Judeo-Christian faith specifically is critical to this image.
(Click HERE for more details on the poll, and HERE for a slideshow presentation on the findings. For what it’s worth, among voters who participated in the survey, 46% voted in 2004 for President Bush, while 36% voted for John Kerry.)
As Ron Brownstein of the Los Angeles Times wrote this weekend, “the survey demonstrated again that the moral issues people worried about most in their daily lives were very different from the ones dominating political debate.”
POLL: Only 3 Percent Say Homosexuality is America’s ‘Most Serious Moral Crisis’ »
President Bush and congressional conservatives “are aiming the political spotlight this week on efforts to ban gay marriage,” a move that’s sure to renew debate over so-called “values voters.” But as a poll released today by the Center for American Progress shows, the moral concerns of the American people are nothing like what the right wing claims.
Below, some highlights:
– Asked to name the most serious moral crisis in America today, 28% of Americans cite “kids not raised with the right values”; followed by 22% saying “corruption in government/business”; 17% saying “greed and materialism” or “people too focused on themselves”; and only 3% citing “abortion and homosexuality.”
– On addressing poverty: 68% of voters strongly agree that “government should uphold the basic decency and dignity of all and take greater steps to help the poor and disadvantaged in America” (89% total agree).
– On religious freedom: 67% of voters believe that religious freedom is a “critical” part of their image of America compared to less than three in 10 who believe Judeo-Christian faith specifically is critical to this image.
(Click HERE for more details on the poll, and HERE for a slideshow presentation on the findings. For what it’s worth, among voters who participated in the survey, 46% voted in 2004 for President Bush, while 36% voted for John Kerry.)
As Ron Brownstein of the Los Angeles Times wrote this weekend, “the survey demonstrated again that the moral issues people worried about most in their daily lives were very different from the ones dominating political debate.”
JPL,
I'll take a crack at your argument.
It seems that your argument relates to the fact that people get married and procreate for economic reasons in today's america. Now I'll freely admit that many educated people are having kids and getting married later in their lives, but this is more due to longer life expectancies, and the growing need for higher degrees past your basic BS/BS/AA etc. So we have a perfect storm of people who aren't reaching a percieved stability in life until they are in their 30s, and are in no hurry to get themselves a rug-rat while they are persuing a masters in Finance; believe me it's not fun trying to make note cards while figuring out if your wife's breatmilk is heated to the proper temperature.
Another point you make is that we need to incentivize marriage for economic gains. If you have two people who are weighing the economic gains of being married or not, then I would argue these people are the PERFECT candidates for a marriage bound for the floor. You don't enter into a relationship for economic gains or ease, my folks were dirt poor, but have stuck it out for 25 years, and i would argue their marriage lessened their ability to make more money, my father is a mechanic and could be working in the Bahamas, sipping rum and cokes while pretty girls run around him in Bikinis, but instead hes in a town with great education, working for the city because it provides great health benefits for his family.
So, I would say that gay marriage somehow deincentivizing hetero couples is a fallacy, people are going to get married for the same reasons they always have: Shotgun weddings, her tits, trustfunds and a little thing called love.
Will Bush's Push For Gay Marriage Ban Backfire?
by Joe Gandelman
Today President George W. Bush is expected to put his reduced political capital on the line to personally push for a constitutional amendment outlawing gay marriage.
The questions are:
Is it a political profile in courage, or a caricature of craven political pandering? Is it the act of a politician who believes leading means getting out in front on cutting-edge issues or the equivalent of lip service to placate supporters who wonder why he has waited until just before the elections to take a strong stance on this issue?
Is it a genuine, sincere push for something he believes — or words that'll be uttered that don't jibe with what some have seen of him in private?
In short: is this something he firmly believes in and thinks can be done — or is it part of a divide-and-rule shell game designed as CYA to assure social conservatives that he is keeping a campaign promise while at the same time putting Democrats on the spot so they can be defined as a party whose members won't move to try and outlaw gay marriage on a federal level?
And then there's the big question: will this succeed with Bush's conservative supporters or will they wonder why he has suddenly mustered the courage with Majority Leader Bill Frist to bring this up — coincidentally five months before the elections.
If this was so vital, why weren't Frist and Bush out on the hustings promoting this for the past two years?
All signs and most news reports and analysis point to one conclusion: Bush's comments will be, in fact, part of a political shell game that Mr. Bush does not expect to go anywhere but that could inflame his party base's passions and get them out to the polls.
Welcome to the era of "wink" politics. You know: it's an era you see on those Sunday morning talking head shows where insider journalists sit at round tables, winking at themselves and viewers as if to say "We know this politico doesn't mean what he says and is just saying it to position himself for votes and that it's a load of crap but, hey, folks this is how this game is played. Aren't these political rogues delightful to watch?"
It's an era where the importance is strategy and tactics — not sincerity, content and political realism.
If you do a Google search you're going to be hard-pressed to find a ton of stories that say George Bush (a) firmly believes in this ban, (b) has been working all year for this ban or (c) thinks it has a chance of becoming a constitutional amendment.
What you'll see if you read the stories is that Bush's comments and the timing of them are a craven, transparent move to claw his way back up in the polls to regain the support of some wavering members of the GOP's past winning coalitions — to arouse passions against gays, link up in the public's mind support of gays with the Democrats and try to get his supporters out in droves in 2006.
In a column in The Los Angeles Times, Ronald Brownstein writes:
'That's vanity ... not politics," President John F. Kennedy once snapped at an aide who wanted him to provoke a confrontation with Congress on an issue Kennedy knew he didn't have the votes to pass.
Times change, don't they?
Now many in Washington believe the essence of politics is provoking confrontations over issues that have little chance of becoming law but a high probability of dividing the country.
Exhibit A is this week's planned Senate vote on a proposed constitutional amendment to prohibit gay marriage. No one doubts the outcome. Proposed constitutional amendments require a two-thirds majority — 67 votes — to clear the Senate. When the Senate last considered the gay marriage ban, in July 2004, supporters mustered only 48 votes on a procedural test. The backers might do better this time, but they are unlikely to get close to the votes they need.
So there is little chance it'll succeed. Yet Frist and Bush will be pressing this issue to show supporters that they're going to try to deliver.
Will that be enough? Some news reports say no. The New York Times:
Taken together, the events will be the first time Mr. Bush has so strongly promoted his opposition to same-sex marriage since his re-election campaign nearly two years ago. Democrats accused the White House of trotting out a reliable hot-button issue to help soothe and re-energize disgruntled conservative voters five months before the midterm Congressional elections. "Everybody's going to see through it," said Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee.
But, in a new twist this year, some conservative activists expressed similar cynicism. They said Mr. Bush and the Republicans in Congress had a long way to go to convince social conservatives that they viewed the issue as anything but a politically convenient tool that they picked up only when they needed to motivate their core voters.
After the 2004 campaign, they say, Mr. Bush put his energies into domestic issues like Social Security and immigration rather than into the marriage amendment and other topics of interest to grass-roots conservatives.
"It was so central in the 2004 election," Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a conservative research group, said of same-sex marriage. "And the day after, the president began a crusade to reform Social Security and it went nowhere. Why not put energy into something that's vital for our society and our country?"
In another piece, the Los Angeles Times also noted that Bush may face a tougher audience this time in his own party on this issue:
"I'm going to go and hear what he says, but we already know it is a ruse," said Joe Glover, president of the Family Policy Network, which opposes gay marriage. "We're not buying it. We're going to go and watch the dog-and-pony show, [but] it's too little, too late."
Such comments have raised the prospect that the debate over gay marriage — designed to galvanize one of Bush's most important constituencies, social conservatives — could instead exacerbate the president's political headaches.
If so it would be a turning point:
It would signify that the Era of Winking is getting a bit old. MORE:
The White House event will serve as a prelude to the Senate debate next week on the proposed constitutional amendment.
Supporters acknowledge they have little hope of reaching the two-thirds threshold — 67 votes — the measure would need to pass in the 100-member Senate. They probably won't get the 60 votes needed to shut off debate and force an up-or-down vote on the proposal.....
...."Social conservatives are disappointed that there hasn't been more action on the issues that were highlighted in the 2004 election," said Gary Glenn, head of the American Family Assn. of Michigan.
He added: "Increasingly, social conservatives expect real action, not just politically timed attempts to motivate and organize the base."
Other complain that Bush, despite Monday's planned event, has not put the full heft of the presidency behind the bid to ban gay marriage.
"President Bush's position is actually quite good on many … life and family issues, but he needs to get out front on them," Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, wrote in a message to supporters last week. There is also dismay among some activists over the wording of the amendment.
At least two prominent social conservative groups — Concerned Women for America and the Traditional Values Coalition — believe the language contains a loophole that would allow gays to seek civil unions.
The proposed amendment reads: "Marriage in the United States shall consist solely of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any state, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."
Andrea Lafferty, executive director of the Traditional Values Coalition, and others say the second sentence leaves open the option that gays and lesbians could enter unions other than marriage; and that's a deal breaker for them.
So some feel it's too little, too late.
The Washington Post reports that at last one GOPer is already using the gay marriage issue against his opponent:
In one North Carolina congressional district, for instance, Republican challenger Vernon Robinson has aired a radio ad attacking Democratic Representative Brad Miller with mariachi music playing in the background: ``Brad Miller supports gay marriage and sponsored a bill to let American homosexuals bring their foreign homosexual lovers to this county on a marriage visa. If Miller had his way, America would be nothing but one big fiesta for illegal aliens and homosexuals." Miller voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004, saying the matter should be left to the states.
``The republic has survived pretty well for 220 years with marriage based on state law," he said Friday. ``I don't think we ought to amend the Constitution every time a politician wants to campaign on an issue." Miller said he supports the North Carolina law banning same-sex marriage, but is open to gay civil unions.
But isn't this an issue that George Bush is known to care deeply about? Isn't this an issue that he talks about often in private? Isn't this an issue that he was just waiting to raise in public since it has been on the top of his own personal agenda?
According to Newsweek, NO:
Though Bush himself has publicly embraced the amendment, he never seemed to care enough to press the matter. One of his old friends told NEWSWEEK that same-sex marriage barely registers on the president's moral radar. "I think it was purely political. I don't think he gives a s--t about it. He never talks about this stuff," said the friend, who requested anonymity to discuss his private conversations with Bush. White House aides, who also declined to be identified, insist that the president does care about banning gay marriage. They say Monday's events with amendment supporters—Bush will also meet privately with a small group—have been in the works "for weeks" and aren't just a sop to conservatives.
Whatever Bush's motivation, his actions aren't likely to quiet his critics. Land says he's happy Bush is speaking out, but he'd like to see signs of real commitment to the issue. "We know what a full-court press looks like when we see one," Land says. A White House official, who declined to be identified discussing strategy, says Bush has not made calls on the amendment because "nobody has asked us."
MESSAGE TO THE WHITE HOUSE: When someone uses the "nobody has asked us" defense on not diving into a controversial issue, it doesn't work and winds up angering those who wanted you to get involved.
So will Bush's comments and the Senate vote succeed? The vote is almost certainly doomed to failure. Will it energize the party's base so they turn out in droves to support GOP candidates? Will they remember Bush's support on Election Day? Stay tuned.
And will there be another possible impact? Will many Democrats, independents and Republicans who don't like this kind of politics cast votes against those who are trying to foment controversy and division over this issue (which as it stands now each state could decide on in a much quieter way, rather than federalizing it)?
Meanwhile, perhaps President George Bush needs a reminder.
It seems he originally ran to be the President of the United States of America.
But he increasingly governs as if he wants to be the President of the Disunited States of America.
UPDATE 1: We're informed by a reader from CNN in the comments section:
I thought you might be interested to know that there is a Senate Gay Marriage Amendment Debate, live on PIPELINE today at 2pm ET! CNN Pipeline is an online, commercial-free multiple live-news feed. It showcases four simultaneous news feeds from around the world and an on-demand function that allows you to select from a variety of news stories.
Please let your members know that they can go to http://www.cnn.com and click on the Pipeline link to watch it *live* and get a two week free trial.
UPDATE 2: CNN's Jeff Greenfield notes that this is Bush and the GOP "returning to the well" and that while there are risks there are also potential benefits:
But sometimes the ploy can backfire. In 1982, Tom Bradley backed a very tough gun-restriction ballot proposal and narrowly lost his bid for governor in part because of a huge turnout among gun owners.
But sometimes, hot-button issues can gain national traction without any political strategy, even if same-sex bans are not on the ballot in states with competitive Senate races. How? Well, suppose New York State's highest court decides there's a constitutional right to gay marriage, or more previously enacted bans are struck down in courts in other states. That could put the issue front and center again — which is right where Republican strategists want it.
SOME OTHER VIEWS ON THE GAY MARRIAGE BAN ISSUE:
--A Newer World:
The Vice-President’s daughter, who clearly does not understand that politics is a zero sum game, must not be happy about the President’s decision to pander to the social base. She had hoped that “no one would think about trying to amend the Constitution as a political strategy.” She says that “amending the Constitution with this amendment, this piece of legislation, is a bad piece of legislation. It is writing discrimination into the Constitution, and, as I say, it is fundamentally wrong.”
It is too bad that Ms. Cheney doesn’t realize that she is in the “fundamentally wrong” party. And it is too bad that President Bush doesn’t realize that political pandering is “fundamentally wrong” for America.
--LaShawn Barber, a high profile conservative and Christian blogger, is highly critical of Bush in a post that should be read in full. A small taste:
Bush has the wherewithal to fight to change the freakin’ Constitution, yet when it comes to stopping illegal aliens from crossing the border, he has no fight in him to execute laws already on the books? OK.
Politicians are so transparent. The midterm elections are quickly approaching (can you believe 2006 is half over?), and Bush is trying to appease angry conservatives and Christians by pushing this amendment. It’s an empty and meaningless gesture because the thing will never be ratified.
--Gay Orbit: "I’ll look forward to 2008 when we can finally say “Good Riddance” to this president, and to all of the Republicans who will lose in November partly because they support such obviously diversionary tactic like this one. I’m not one to put a large amount of trust in an electorate that is more interested in American Idol than in actual issues. But I honesly believe that, this time, they will see right through Bush and Co.’s attempt to mask all of the things they’ve screwed up by using this tactic."
--Pam's House Blend: "As I said yesterday, the bible beaters have been roiling over the lack of attention that the White House has paid for this and they are still bleating. Daddy Dobson, according to the article, met up with key Rethugs and tossed out this nice, "Christian" threat: "If you forget us, we'll forget you." Tee hee. "
--All Things Beautiful:
Is it the hedonistic aspect of gay marriage that we find so disturbing, or do we really believe that we will extinguish all traces of homosexual and lesbian behavior by outlawing their very unity? The sanctity of marriage needs our protection, but does it have to be protected at the expense of discriminating against a vast number of our population. The problem is, if we choose that path, where do we start and where do we stop?
If the President simply wants to say he is still the man we elected in 2004, perhaps there is a better way of saying it. If he is trying to make up for his stand on the immigration issue, he is treading on some bigger corns there. Either way pushing this issue right now seems like a bad move, as far as I am concerned. New York, Washington and the State of California will be up in arms just for starters.
--Americablog asks "Who are the bigger chumps? The religious right or their followers?" Read the whole post.
--Bark Bark Woof Woof:
What’s even worse is that there is no other purpose behind this fatuous “Marriage Protection Amendment” than politics. It is no secret that the right wing and the Religious Reich are not happy with the president at the moment, so he is doing this just to fan the bonfire of their sanctimonious bigotry in the hope of re-electing Republicans next fall. What’s even more disturbing is that everyone from both parties knows that this amendment will never get enough votes to be sent to the states for ratification. So why, with a war of their own making dissolving beyond chaos, with gasoline prices soaring, with a budget deficit soaring to the moon, is the president and his party wasting our time by engaging in an act of political masturbation? (Or more correctly, an act of sodomy against the Constitution.)
It’s simple. Nothing matters more to this president than being president; nothing matters more to the Republicans than being in office, and if sacrificing the rights of a several million queer people to do it, it’s a small price to pay for their grip on po
--Decision '08: "Regardless of your stance on the issue, isn’t it blatantly obvious that Bush is pandering to the base because of poor poll numbers? At least before, the rush of events in San Francisco and Massachussetts made it a legitimate issue - but now, it feels a little forced. Let’s worry about the three ‘I’s first (Iran, Iran, and immigration) [The writer probably mean Iraq in the first instance]."
--Blue Crab Boulevard:
First, I can't see it passing through Congress, second it smacks of trying to divert attention away from the real issue on voter's minds - illegal immigration....Forget the hypocrisy of the Democrats about rising gas prices (which aren't rising at the moment at all) and the rest. I just can't see that this issue will translate to better results at the polls in November. The real thing most people want is real immigration reform. Not amnesty, reform and enforcement.
--Brilliant At Breakfast: "[Bush] will do what he must to retain power and push the GOP political agenda. He has no moral compass and cares nothing about Americans. He's so ego-centric it's sickening."
--Inside R.A. Melos:
Hey, guess what? [Bush] is more concerned with who sleeps with whom rather than putting an end to the endless murders of American soldiers in Iraq. Marriage is so important that it outweighs the whole Iraq is a bad war and we should be out of there issue?
Well, I'm gay, and I don't really ever want to get married. Why not? Because there is no one in this world I would trust that much not to hurt me. Sure I'd sleep with someone, and maybe even live with them, but marriage? It's only a income tax thing. It doesn't have anything to do with love
--Impolitical: "Yet lets bash gays because we can, we're bullies and it might do us some electoral good....Yet the Divider is willing to roll the dice once more on this issue. For all the talk about considering other view points of late at the White House, you'd certainly never know it by their actions..."
--Culture War Dispatches:
Finally, Bush seems to be listening to those who voted for him. The link above leads to a story by AP. I believe that this amendment is important. Marriage cannot be redefined....
....This is one time that I don't believe that Bush is playing politics. I know that he truly wants to fight for the institution of marriage. Even Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act in September of 1996. I was living in Hawaii at the time and remember that many Hawaiians protested in the streets against gay marriage. Was CLinton playing politics? Here is the story from 1996.
Defending marriage is not just a Judeo-Christian issue. I am sure not many Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, and Confucianists are for same gender marriage either. I have been to Asia, and believe me, the attitude towards those living an "alternative lifestyle" was worse than in America.
--Lorenzo from AZ has a post saying Bush plans to create a new cabinet post:
I’ve heard that in addition to pushing for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, that Bush will create a sub-cabinet director position for Homo Land Insecurity, to continue to fight the queer agenda and related Powerpoints.
Quite properly, this division will be used to eradicate the homosexual terrorist threats to our very life, to our institutions, to our faith-based governance, and then to all the homo hype in the media. The homos must be stopped. To do nothing means the terrorists win, and that we don't support our troops.
-Polimom, Too as usual has a must-read post. Here's part of it:
In recent years, the radical religious fringe (what an embarrassment to the GOP that they're considered "the base") has responded so predictably to these little pokes and prods. Will that fringe care, or even notice, that this is a ploy? Do they understand that this proposed Amendment has no chance of passing, or that the Republican leadership is assuming their constituents will act like Pavlov's dogs?
Surely you've heard of Pavlov? He was the Russian psychologist and physician who brought the world classical conditioning - the behavioral theory that predictable reactions can be produced with consistent stimuli. Jump, base! Sit, base!
--Ron Beasley: "Nothing seems to be going George W. Bush or the Republicans way 6 months before the election. So what to do? Change the subject and fire up the base."
--Taylor Marsh:
This week, we're getting treated to a morality lesson from the party that brought us pedophiles, perverts, hookergate, and a Senate majority leader under investigation, after having just been fined $11,000 for campaign chicanery. Republicans aren't just weak and ineffectual, with no ideas, but they're desperate. They have nothing else to turn to but their old standards. Use 'em while they work. We are watching the last gasp of the Grand Old Party of the Past, because people under 40 could care less about who marries who. Compared to Iraq, nuclear proliferation and global warming it just doesn't add up. But being taught this lesson by Republicans? Puh-leaze.
--Andrew Sullivan:
By spear-heading the FMA again, Bush has alienated a vast swathe of socially inclusive suburbanites, the veep's daughter, every gay person and many of their families, libertarians, constitutional conservatives and principled federalists. But he's won over the fire-breathers, right? It turns out: Not even them any more...The first push for the FMA was a tragedy. This second time is a farce. Even its supporters know it.
--The All Spin Zone has a snarky post. Read it in full. We won't quote it because it would take it too much out of context.
--Glenn Reynolds is raising an eyebrow over it, too:"There are times when I've found Bush's transparent lack of enthusiasm for this measure comforting, but of course it just makes it more obviously pandering when they trot it out at this point. Or maybe I should say "attempted pandering," since if LaShawn's reaction is typical it's not a very successful effort....Given the WSJ poll that showed earmarks and immigration as the #1 and #2 concerns of voters, why not try addressing those issues sensibly, instead of trying to run on symbolism? Just a thought . . . ."
--Bull Moose, who used to work for the Christian Coalition:
The question is whether the religious conservatives will hold their collective noses and stick with the Republicans or whether they will show up at all in November. One of the main achievements of the 2004 Bush campaign was maximizing the religious vote. It is unlikely they can replicate that success. As the former Legislative Director of the Christian Coalition, the Moose has some experience in this area. Religious conservatives will not be fooled. They increasingly realize that all the GOP is not animated by their concerns. They are tired of being taken for granted - and a little symbolic affection won't matter much.
This couldn't be a worse time to deepen the divide in America in pursuit of political gain. The morale of the country is at a low point. Yet, this President and his Party are pressing forward with a politics of polarization that will further weaken our nation. It is reprehensible.
--The Political Pit Bull:
President Bush is preparing to throw his "political capital" behind the Federal Marriage Amendment--quite possibly the most blatant act of political pandering I have ever seen. The only question is whether the people that this charade is intended for are as naive as the Bush administration and Congress obviously believe and they will accept this is an act of principle rather than politics. My guess is no.
--Sister Toldjah has a post that MUST be read IN FULL to totally get its main theme. Here is a tiny part (but read it in full):
One thing I want to be clear here is that there are some people arguing that there are more pressing issues to deal with right now than the gay marriage amendment: namely, tackling the immigration issue which has gotten very contentious. That argument has a lot of validity and I understand it. What I take issue with is the complaining that the President is “pandering to the base” - the base (and I include myself in that) didn’t mind the President pandering to it when he threw red meat to it by nominating Sam Alito, and getting offended at the idea of the President pandering to the base now makes little sense in light of that. In fact, if the President right now stood before the American people and announced his support for the House plan (the plan that I support), he’d be pandering to the base. But then the pandering would be ok, wouldn’t it?
Hi Guys
Look at this process:
Sex between two men used to be an act - sodomy. You can think an act is a good or bad idea. Either way it is objective.
Then in the nineteenth century it become a condition - homosexuality.
Lately it has become an identity - being gay.
"Each formulation raises the stakes: One can object to and even crimilize an act; one is obligated to be sympathetic toward a condition; but once it's a fully fledged 24/7 identity, like being Hispanic or Inuit, anything less than wholehearted acceptance gets you marked down as a bigot" Mark Steyn,
"There's No Stopping them Now" Chicago Sun-Times, July 13, 2003, p35
As mark was saying, the 'jokes' around the gay lifestyle on TV and in movies have been a huge force in creating this identity.
Secondly, many studies show that fatherless and motherless families harm children and limit their development. Gay marriage by default is always fatherless or motherless. Traditional marriage at least starts off on the correct footing.
Finaly, a study done in one of the most gay friendly cities in the world Amsterdam:
* average homosexual relationship lasts for 1.5 years
* Guy men in steady relationships have an average of 8 partners a year outside of their current relationship.
Maria Xiridou et al "The contribution of steady and casual partnerships to the incidence of HIV infection among homosexual men in Amsterdam" 2003.
Cheers
JJ
* Guy men in steady relationships have an average of 8 partners a year outside of their current relationship.
Wow, I could only wish to be so lucky....
Those gays in Amsterdam must be real sluts because all the gay guys I know are way more celibate than any one of my (straight) guy friends or girlfriends who are still single (or in relationships). Don't even get me started on the boring lesbians I know. Hmm, maybe I should move to Amerstdam.
JJ,
Way to cherry-pick your information, any breakdown on age demographics for these sexhounds? Maybe noone reminded you that young people have a lot of sex, and AIDS doesn't descriminate against your sexual inclination, just because AIDS first popped up in the gay community, doesn't mean it wasn't in the hetero community at the same times.
Your silly logic regarding gay going through some social morphing is understandable; I mean blacks were seen as sub-human, ape-like infact, and it took them a very long time to progress past those ingrained assumptions of inferiority and to be seen as equal and relevant. Being a slave for instance is a condition, it wasn't until hundreds of years later that they were even afforded an identity. So are you saying that you cannot perform an act (sodomy) while at the same time being part of the gay community?
To "Question" who wrote, "Marriage is a commitment and I know many same-sex couples in committed relationships that have long outlasted those of their opposite-sex friends."
Marriage is more than a commitment to one another; it's a commitment to the individuals, to their children and, in a larger sense to society.
Homosexual "marriage" adds nothing to society, to the nurturing of the children that society or to the future of that society. It is merely for the convenience of the couple and nothing more. In every case where the one man one woman ideal has been devalued, society has suffered. That, more that the specious divorce argument is the only fact that matters.
Ratboy,
Gay couples may not add anything to YOUR community, but once you guys get over your fear, you can start to treat all your neighbors the same, regardless of their personal choices.
Do you rate all your friends on how well they are capable of rearing children? I mean do you not keep friends who are in commited relationships without ever choosing to breed? Do you think less of people who marry and never have kids, are they useless to society as a whole, despite paying taxes and obeying laws, and performing their civic duties; or are the only useful people in this country who do all these things while popping out kids?
How about divorced people, are they useless once they are no longer married?
Ratboy,
Gay couples may not add anything to YOUR community, but once you guys get over your fear, you can start to treat all your neighbors the same, regardless of their personal choices.
Do you rate all your friends on how well they are capable of rearing children? I mean do you not keep friends who are in commited relationships without ever choosing to breed? Do you think less of people who marry and never have kids, are they useless to society as a whole, despite paying taxes and obeying laws, and performing their civic duties; or are the only useful people in this country who do all these things while popping out kids?
How about divorced people, are they useless once they are no longer married?
Rathaven: I agree
Third Eye Blind: You can check it out for yourself here.
Rathaven: I agree
Third Eye Blind: You can check it out for yourself here.
The subject is marriage; marriages are successful if the couple maintains a positive relationship for the benefit of the family, the children, the community, and society. The institution of marriage as one man one woman is optimal for child-rearing; anything else is selfish and hedonistic.
You and your boyfriends can do what ever you want, just don’t pretend it’s a marriage.
You have rejected our values, attacked our institutions and now you want us to extend the very institution you mock and ridicule to persons because they want it for themselves.
Over and over in this string I read liberals gleefully discussing how rotten marriage is, how divorce and adultery have demeaned and devalued it, how we who wish to protect the institution from assault are bigots and homophobes. Yet, they still want us to let them join our institution, but they want us to use their rules to define it. Like an atheist that wants to join the laity, their argument doesn’t pass the laugh test.
Third eye-, If you don’t like to hunt, don’t join my hunting club; if you don’t believe Jesus was the Son of God, don’t join Mark’s church; and if you don’t believe marriage is a societal commitment for the raising of children and the propagation of the species, don’t get married! If you don't play the game; you don't dictate the rules.
JJ,
I'm not disputing the fact that HIV rates are rising among the MSM community, but you're coming up with your own decisions for why. I would argue that the preventative measures employed so readily for heterosexuals isn't reaching the gay communities outside of major poulation centers.
"The paper notes that MSMs accounted for 46% of AIDS cases in 1999 and yet received only 28% of HIV risk-reduction funding. Meanwhile, risk reduction for heterosexuals accounted for 31% of the spending even though heterosexual transmission accounted for just 17% of US AIDS cases. These funding priorities make sense if the HIV epidemic is increasing among heterosexuals and declining among MSMs. The authors argue that this is not the case."
Let me present a scenario. You have small town America, a young gay man feels that his secret is so horrible, that he cannot go speak up in health class, or talk to a school nurse or a teacher for fear that he would be "outed", even if that may not be the case. So we have a whole segment of hidden culture who is overlooked, succeptable to peer pressure for unprotected sex and IV drug use, and have little or no outlets or openly gay role models to emulate. To me this is an expected outcome from a closed society who would rather see a kid die than have to deal with him being gay.
JJ,
Your formulation is solid, this issue of marriage is too important to allow the secular left to co-opt. You’ll notice how third –eye can’t discuss the facts of your post, instead reducing the argument to emotional non-objective prattle about how young people enjoy sex, and some homosexual kid in rural Florida can't talk to his mom.
Pope Benedict just released 57 page document on Catholic Church's stance against gay marriage and abortion.
I guess he and the church are wrong too, eh? LOL
Good for the Pope!
"So, I would say that gay marriage somehow deincentivizing hetero couples is a fallacy, people are going to get married for the same reasons they always have: Shotgun weddings, her tits, trustfunds and a little thing called love."
OK, trustfunds I concede; people will always marry for that.
But the rest of your list is nonsense, TEO. There are no shotgun weddings any more, thanks to social acceptance of single motherhod and marriage-less cohabitation. And as for "her tits...and a little thing called love" -- sure, those are great incentives to have SEX, but are they enough to cause hetero couples to commit to entering long-term unions to procreate and raise children to adulthood? I don't think so. A person's decision to make that commitment is almost ALWAYS colored by the special social, religious and legal status that he or she will gain by marrying with the announced intention of having children and raising a family. (I know it was a big factor in my own decision to get married and have a family 22 years ago, and in the decision of almost everyone I know who took that step.) Take away that special status, and fewer opposite-sex couples will marry. It's inevitable.
People don't marry and raise families just for sex and economics. To most of us, the very word "marriage" is SACRED. (I don't necessarily mean in a religious sense, though obviously for religious people marriage also has a deep religious meaning.) This is why many people who could support civil unions for same-sex couples (including myself) HATE the idea of calling same-sex unions "marriages." Doing that would take away the special word and much of the special status given to opposite-sex unions, and even demean the nature of "marriage." Why radically tinker with something that's been the bedrock of society? And at the end of the day, what's so objectionable about calling same-sex unions (in those states favoring them) "civil unions" instead of "marriages"?
JPL,
You're still saying that people get married because they wanna feel special that they can call their girlfriend their wife?
I would argue that most of the married couples I know get married for simple reasons, the woman feels much more confident in the relationship when she has legal backing for it. The idea of marriage was a social contract. The marriage protects the woman from being abandoned without resources to support herself, she has protection for her children that they can lay claim to their parents (read: father) wealth, and for various other smaller reasons. but mainly you find that guys don't really care much about the process of marriage, for a guy, not much is going to change other than his internal feelings of being "bound" to this one woman for his entire life.
I still don't understand how you can honestly say that people are looking for some special title. If that was truly the reason then why is the government regulating who can get married, just make everything a civil-union and be done with it, if you want the title of "married" then go have a ceremony Why should the government be in the business of telling one group of people they aren't capable of doing something that anyone with 150 bucks and some rings can?
"So, I would say that gay marriage somehow deincentivizing hetero couples is a fallacy, people are going to get married for the same reasons they always have: Shotgun weddings, her tits, trustfunds and a little thing called love."
OK, trustfunds I concede; people will always marry for that.
But the rest of your list is nonsense, TEO. There are no shotgun weddings any more, thanks to social acceptance of single motherhod and marriage-less cohabitation. And as for "her tits...and a little thing called love" -- sure, those are great incentives to have SEX, but are they enough to cause hetero couples to commit to entering long-term unions to procreate and raise children to adulthood? I don't think so. A person's decision to make that commitment is almost ALWAYS colored by the special social, religious and legal status that he or she will gain by marrying with the announced intention of having children and raising a family. (I know it was a big factor in my own decision to get married and have a family 22 years ago, and in the decision of almost everyone I know who took that step.) Take away that special status, and fewer opposite-sex couples will marry. It's inevitable.
People don't marry