Christian ultimatum to Bush on the gay marriage amendment
 

Looks like some folks aren't going to let this thing slide to the back burner the way Bush wants. Guess some people would rather have bigotry be priority one on the national agenda.


http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...30/wbush30.xml

I hope he disregards the letter. People are so damn stupid.

The religious right is to the republican party what many believe minorities to be to the democratic party. A means to an end.

Unbelievable.

I hope Cheney bitch-slaps Bush if this gets too far. Let them have civil unions and drop the subject. Fix the deficit, win the war, help out the other 10,000 subjects that need work.

i was beginning to think they'd vote for him regardless of what he actually did

I honestly hope the "Conservative Christian leaders" are all outed as closet homosexuals who are so disgusted with themselves that they are trying to make some futile attack on gayness itself by trying to have it legally banned. They twist God's word as a tool to their ignorant and bigotous ends. They are what's wrong with Christianity.

"...if only it was against the law, then I could stop cutting out pictures of that hunky Brad Pitt and hanging them up in the chapel" Sounds right to me!

I'm sure at some point, even Scalia had to lean over to GW and tell him that while it sure was fun picking on the 'mos during the election, there is no legal basis for discrimination so don't bring that up on the hill. I wonder if the Christian right feels dirty and used - I hope so. I love the fact that they bring up the blacks, latinos, and even Catholics as victims as well - like they are looking out for them! "Father O'Leary trusted you, George!" Priceless.

they got played... and i don't think they're getting a refund.

you all crack me up.

on one thread Bush is the Christian aggressor who can't wait to make the U.S. into a right-wing theocracy... on the other he plays the Christian card just for political expediency.

A fair point, Irate... I do believe that George would still love to discriminate against the gays if he could, but Karl Rove knows all to well when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em. This was political strategy from day one with zero legal basis to get out of even county courts. Notice how no case has been able to win at the state court level? The only thing that surprises me was Arlington Group's public scolding of GW with a clear quid pro quo deal understood for their support. It undermines Bush's authority, makes him look more than ever like a puppet to do their bidding, and border's on illegal. Not good. I was going to mention all this in my prior post, but I felt it took away from the Father O'Leary joke. Sorry.

Actually, most of the recent laws that were challenged were upheld. Honestly, what's the big deal about "discriminating" against someone's actions? They don't like the negativity, then quit having sex with people of your own sex. Simple as that.

some states are looking to make civil union concessions, even if marriage is not legally binding

Well, first, you are discriminating against a hereditary trait which is physical, at least by the standards of the US Supreme Court and thier doctors which has ruled very consistantly in the past on this (before marriage was even an issue). The two very public cases were Cracker Barrel for hiring and promotion practices and Coors beer for discrimination in distribution policies.

I understand the religious ramifications and why the church can't back off of the sin thing. Too invested, no graceful exit from the issue for them. But I know that my attractions and sexual drives are not up for negotiation. No one could kidnap me and program me into being attracted to men. It's not a choice for me and it never was. Frankly, anyone who argues it is a choice towards perversion, I am curious when in your life did you chose normal? Did you have a point that it was up in the air but your bible showed you the way? Sexuality is as ingrained into me (as with my gay friends) as the fact that I am right handed or can't dunk a basketball. Does that make sense to you?

Anyway, that's law - if it's physical you can't treat differently based on that characteristic. No privilages excluded (tax savings, medical, property rights) and equal opportunity in the workplace. It's what they call a protected class, much like your religion. And you know what? Love is a good thing. Screw the sanctity of marriage - that dissolved with Henry VIII when the church found it convenient and profitable to let him slide. Let's protect the sanctity of falling in love for people. And if in your heart of hearts you think that Brittany Spear's 11 hour marriage (easy example) is more credible and deserving of respect than my friends who have been together, monogomous, supportive and happy for 20 years based on genitalia - than I can't imagine what love means to you.

So, that is why the Supreme Court can't touch this case. Precedent has been set, by the current Justices nonetheless. Their here, their queer, get used to it.

"an unprecedented number of African-Americans, Latinos and Catholics who broke with tradition and supported the President solely because of this issue"

Does anyone else find this disturbing at all? That significant numbers of voters were completely unconcerned with such trivial things as national security, the war in Iraq, the federal deficit and such and voted solely because Bush was against gay marriages?

People who would gladly sacrifice the security and future of their country just to push their own bigoted agendas deserve everything they get.

Its funny how Bush got re-elected largely on this issue and he has not talked about it once since he got re-elected. It shows how deceptive is campaign really was. Lure the christian base into believing that he would create a new amendment making tradional marriage the only kind that is legal. He is not going to do that, because he is a pansy and second he knows he has no chance to get that passed in the house or senate.

Whether the gay marriage or privatized social security will get through congress plays an important part in Bush's actions but I suspesct more important is how much money his financial backers will get from selling social security - isn't it going to be another way of transferring taxpayer funds into private hands?

As for the sanctity of marriage, how much do these christian fundamentalists believe divorce and las vegas wedding chapels sour that sanctity?

I'd like to say how much I enjoyed the great posts above, especially chickentribs and DJ Happy. Good work!

Becaue they have a right to do what they want to in the privatcy of their own home; that was an extremely predicial comment you made and completely intolerant. You know conservatives all talk about having less government in their lives, the federal government is too big, but when it comes to moral issues they don't have a problem with the government getting involved. If it is a moral issue they want the federal gov't to get involved so that they can feel better at night. So what if someone wants to stick their dick in another person's ass, big freaken deal, who cares people can do what they want in the privacy of their home and shouldn't have to be told what to. Protect the institution of marriage, that is kinda funny, with a 50% divorce, I think we must doing something right. Because I thought the divorce rate was 60% because heterosexual couples stay together much longer and never cheat on their wives.

Drake, out.

What's the big deal about discriminating against someone's actions? That is a can of worms. Say goodbye to laws that protect pregnant women from losing their jobs(is an increase in unemployed parents a good thing?). Say goodbye to laws that protect the jobs of the "weekend warriors" over in iraq(thanks for fighting for our freedom, here's an unemployment check). The problem with discrimination such as this is that it is completely arbitrary, and frankly, extremely petty. Being gay hurts no one except those who must rationalize their intolerance for homosexuals.

Bush probably has little to fear from the Arlington Group. They are as locked into supporting Republicans as the NAACP is to supporting Democrats. Who else are they going to vote for?

Since the concept of the word marriage being between a man and a woman seems to be held so sacrosanct by a majority of the population (Democrats and Republicans), for now probably civil unions would be the best compromise. Same benefits, different word.

If someone decided that it was going to be illegal to for a brown haired man to have sex with a brown haired woman...would you tell people to buck up and accept the law?

These laws make about as much sense as that...

that is besides the point. the issue isn't who citizens can legally have sex with, it's about obtaining a legally recognized marriage.

Can't the wording of martin's post be easily changed to make it about marriage?

For instance:
If someone decided that it was going to be illegal to for a brown haired man to get married to a brown haired woman...would you tell people to buck up and accept the law?

These laws make about as much sense as that...

the wording can be easily changed, but that wouldn't make the analogy any less absurd. you know as well as i that even answering the question infers acceptance of any number of premises to which i do not subscribe.

Yes, i agree that absurdity is generally a vital characteristic of any argument that makes a huge negative issue out of homosexuality.

*ding, ding, ding

We have a winner, folks.

It's especially absurd for me...if i happen to fall in love with a woman, the state will encourage me to get married. if i happen to fall in love with a man, it will do everything it can to prevent me from being married. what changed? nothing. it's a fundamental absurdity of the system.

Religion is a choice. Going to church is an action. Do I need to elaborate?

So gay men can get married if they're celibate? Great idea!

what is interesting to me at least is the extent to which an equal protection issue has been transformed into this bizarro theater of the sustained mobilization of bigotry. the motivations are obvious: as an equal protection issue, the right has nothing to hang its hat on--there is no logic that would prevent marriage protections from being extended to include people who happen to love someone of the same sex--the issue had to be altered to mobilize people against it.

anyway:
i hope that the administration's "focus on public diplomacy"--which yesterdays round of televised talking heads all emphasized as fundamental to the 2nd term (after a disastrous first term) means that bush never addresses the issue.
why would he, really?

more broadly, anything that functions to drive a wedge between the republicans and the christian right is fine by me.

anything that prompts the christian right to see itself as having been played is fine by me.

anything that causes them to have to move from the discursive to practical level to show their political strength is also fine by me: i figure the best way for the christian right to push itself back into a well-deserved minority position is for them to have to actually show themselves as a physical presence in american politics, rather than remaining a virtual presence the position of which is shaped by the way republican political argumentation works.

so i hope bush does nothing and the christian right has to deliver on its threats.
a pox on both their houses.

That would be a grand procession of events indeed roachboy. I hope it comes to pass.