Bush, Gay Marriage & the Constitution Apparently, the latest campaign strategy by the White House on social issues is to take a hardline on gay marriage again and renew the push for a constitutional ban. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/12/politics/campaign/12REPU.html?hp I don't really see the logic behind this politically and wonder if anybody does. My own view: I think this is pretty lousy. I'm no fan of the President to begin with, but anyway, gay marriage really wasn't a huge issue for me. I don't really see the big deal on either side -- like Chris Rock says: "If you're single you're lonely, and if you're married you're bored." However, GWB's choice of aligning himself with the side of active intolerance here I think is what has jumped out at me the most. The idea of tampering with the constitution to deny rights to a certain class of citizens is offensive to me as an American. And it's not just because it's Bush that's doing it; obviously he has an angle here to play and he would just as soon leave well enough alone if he could. The very idea of using the constitution itself to curtail rights is just something I can't get past. Granted, some very, very, very discreet minorities have their rights curtailed under the constitution, (two-term presidents, e.g.) but those items seem intuitively different to me in a sense that I can't articulate clearly, but is there. I don't know if any major modern-era candidate for the Presidency has ever brought up the idea of constitutionally enshrining unequal treatment for US citizens like this before, perhaps a few anti-immigration zealots have brought up this issue in regard to children of immigrants in other national office races, but otherwise this seems to be a first. Hell, did George Wallace even suggest this?
I know, and I'm sure that's true for many. But that's why I put "more or less likely to vote for him" rather than "make you support him, oppose him, etc."
This is the kind of thing that bothers me. Because he has someone like me in mind when he focuses on an issue like this, thinking that because we're both Christians, we'll both agree on this issue. I've been pretty clear how I feel on this issue here, I think. This and the whole idea that this administration can't be wrong because it's appointed by God kinda thing really bothers me. The playing to ideas to Chrisitans that I don't find particulary Christ-like is a bit bothersome.
The Marriage Amendment is a shell game, designed to deflect attention from the real issues this country faces. Then again, if I were Dubya, I wouldn't want to run on my record either.
i'm wholeheartedly against the FMA, but it won't affect my vote. kerry's position is baely distinguishable from W's, and rather than trying to straddle the issue, at least W is being straightforward about it. if you feel strongly about it, i encourage each of you to visit fleshbot to protest. ...and i really wanted to post the image. whadday think clutch, will, would you have censored it?
link didn't work... http://www.fleshbot.com/archives/ass-****ing-friday-017467.php Edit: i suppose it's because the link has a certain word in it. this is the image, if not the accompanying story: http://www.fleshbot.com/archives/assweek_1.jpg
I'd say opposing a constitutional amendment banning it and being in favor of one are pretty clear cut differences. Plus, I believe the current text of the Amendment endorsed by GWB outlaws civil unions, Kerry has said that he supports them. The differences are not as miniscule as you make them seem. But regardless of who you vote for, it sounds like you're saying that Bush's stance is something that makes you less likely to vote for him, which is what the unscientfic poll seems to be saying as well, which further causes me to quesiton why he's doing it. THe religious right already will vote for him...why bother looking like any more of a bigot?
Perhaps the strategy is to show that regardless of the issue, he is taking a definitive stance. One of the Republicans strategies thus far is to portray Kerry as a "waffler". Although Kerry does not appear to waffle (with respect to a Constitutional amendment) on this issue, perhaps it is more of a grand plan. In other words, Bush could campaign on the premise that while his stance may not be popular on various issue, at least you know where he stands and use that as an attack on Kerry.
I actually would advocate a "three strikes" law if we want to defend the institution of marriage. Seriously. If you advocate the health of marriage, don't let people abuse it. You get three chances to make it work (three marriages resulting in divorce, that is), and then you either have a lifetime ban from getting married, or you have to spend a decade in the penalty box, watching from the sidelines of dating. Dan Savage tossed this out in one of his columns, and he pointed out that Rush Limbaugh, who advocates protecting marriage, would suffer from a three strikes law. PS -- bobrek, I think you're right, but I can't figure out how Kerry is supposed to simultaneously be a consistently and firmly rabid liberal and also someone who changes his stance on issues all the time. I hope most voters see the disconnect and just really examine his life's work, for good and bad.
i could be wrong, but i think the writers of the amedment have said they will take out any langiage that bans civil unions. and supposing all else were equal, then support for the FMA could be a determing factor, but it's so far down my list as to not really register.
i'd read that they were prepared to omit the legal incidents language, but perhaps i'm wrong on that. oh, and the p*rn link has a story that's directly relevant to this thread.
I do not care for the ban on gay marriages. If people want to get married then do it. I will still vote for W but we differ on this issue as well as others.
I cannot base my vote purely upon gay marriage but I am against outlawing gay marriages because I believe it will create a seperate but equal society...again.
