What Bush did, I think, was brilliant and moral: he said what marriage was. Although he counched his comments in the "speck in the eye" passage from the Bible, by mentioning "sinners" in the same context as homosexuality, he left no question that homosexuality is a sin.
And that's the definition of a leader. Someone who makes clear his position, no matter how unpopular with the media.
Content: Morally relativistic bilgewater.
Intent? Don't know eonough about the author to hazard a guess.
I try and stay away from intentions anyway and instead focus on the substance of the words.
Pure hogwash.
Yes, President Bush could have turned the corner on the morality issues in politics if he would have just come out and said, ?Personally, my faith keeps me from endorsing the idea of gay marriage, but that doesn?t mean that the law should discriminate against two human beings who give their lives to one another. When you look at it, it is a moral issue, don?t you think? It?s not a political issue; it?s a moral issue. It?s an issue individuals should decide for themselves. The government shouldn?t decide it for them.?Da, da. We want amoral leadership. Politics void of morality. Morality reduced to questions of subjective evaluation, personal taste etc. That's precisely what we need. Why, it's all so simple! So very, very simple. Simplistic, one might say. Impracticable, yes. But it's an ideal worth groping for, however clumsily, blindly, at whatever cost to ourselves, our communities, our very souls. I say yes and amen to this author's stand, because I personally choose to endorse his inconsistencies and inaccuracies, no matter how badly articulated, how lamely argued.
Yeah...man is an economic animal. Let's just stick to grooming, feeding and watering him.
And let's forget that every major political cause in American history from the Revolution to the Civil Rights movement was based on religious, i.e. moral, principles.
Gay marriage could very well end up being a wedge issue for the Demoncrats. Every candidate for president will be asked about the constitutional amendment, and it will be political death to oppose it.
This one's a political no-brainer for the Republicans. The people like to see some moral backbone in their leaders even if they themselves are secular.