Now that’s leadership for you. Canada and the U.K. have just prevented major Islamist terror attacks. The war in Iraq is still going on, and the “insurgents” show no sign of letting up anytime soon. Iran is zooming towards getting a nuclear bomb, and oh, yeah — they just threatened to stop the oil flow in the Persian Gulf if we try to stop them militarily.
So what does President Bush think is the most urgent issue of the day?
He wants to reiterate his support for a Constitutional amendment preventing gay marriage. Because really, folks, this is important. Ohmigod, if you let homosexuals marry, the friggin’ world will come to an end! They’re dangerous! OUR ENTIRE WAY OF LIFE IS AT STAKE HERE!!!!
Puh-leeze. Bush wants his pander bear moment, fine. Don’t expect me not to point out what an absolute idiot he is for doing so.
This is George W. Bush’s Sister Souljah moment. Clinton was a fool for that, and Bush is a fool for this.
The Constitution is just fine the way it is. And if gays want to get married, that’s fine, too. It’s none of my business, and it’s none of the government’s business.
This is his Monica, the moment when he is rendered irrelevant as a policy-maker or as a leader by an empowered opposition.
Not that the Dems have much of a viable agenda of their own.
I think it’s time America started talking about a third party again. Not that we ever do much about it, but we should have the MSM talk about it a lot and then do nothing to bring it about.
Tell us that again when the fire and brimstone starts to fall. ( Ihave little respect for GW myself these days.)
Bush and Co. are in full-on desperation mode right now. Nothing they’ve tried in recent months has successfully altered the abysmal poll numbers. I guess now that they’ve realized that independents and moderate Repulicans are a lost cause, they’re turning to their radical religious base. Evidently, they figure there’s nothing like the promise of institutionalized homophobia to whip up hard-right support. The entire thing is cynical, exploitative, and revolting.
The issue is not over how the body parts fit. The issue is really over monetary and tax benefits for married couples that unmarried couples (no matter what combination of sexes) do not have. In fact, one town in NY discontinued insurance coverage for “gay partners” because it discriminated against unmarried hetero partners, who were not covered.
The best solution is to take government out of the marriage recognition thing altogether, and just allow any combination of consenting adults, no matter how many, how weird or how disgusting. Getting government out of the bedroom will also mean that those preferences to the married will disappear.
chsw
People are free in the West right now to do whatever their consenting depraved little hearts can come up with. Just don’t ask us (the state) to condone, sanction and thus promote depravity, perversion and unnatural acts. It ain’t gonna happen and yes we are quite ready willing and able to have a civil war over it. If individual states here in the US want to promote sodomy …. fine. All the decent folks can leave that state and let it go it’s sick way. ‘The state’ has always been in the bedroom and there is no way in a civilized society to completely remove it. Go start your own country somewhere and see how well chaos and anarchy work.
Scott,
Another byproduct of removing the state from the bedroom will be the eventual reorientation of relationships towards a more conservative end. If there is no state involvement in marriage, child support, inheritances, marriage dissolutions, other than basic contract law, then you bet that women (or whatnot) will be demanding some sort of enforceable agreements for regularly shacking up with men (or whatnot). The question of relationship stability then goes back to the private market. Therefore, removing state interferences with marriage will bring marriage back to its roots.
BTW, most “gay marriage” and “civil union” legislation exempts gays from the same divorce laws governing us heteros in marriage. Whenever someone I know or meet who is gay raises the subject of civil unions and gay marriages, I bring up the divorce point, and ask them how they would like to be governed by NY divorce law. The conversation then moves on to something else.
chsw
I agree that Marriage is just a contract and this is all about tax breaks and such…and I also agree that this is about Bush pandering to his constitutent base. This is just fodder for the 2006 mid term elections. Once the elections occur and the Repubs still control the Congress (Yes, I do think they will retain a small majority) this talk will disappear.