Bush's gay-marriage tack risks clash with his base (and a poll)

usa today ^ | 12/17/03

[knak]

WASHINGTON

[Tamzee]

Is it my imagination or has FR been simply flooded with Bush-bashing feeding frenzies lately?

[breakem]

sorry for the side track. I was answering this other poster.

[little jeremiah]

Personally, I am not bashing Bush. I really like him, I think he is smart, sincere and a real person. I think he is on the right side on most issues, and that he means what he says (most of the time). Just because he isn't a "perfect" conservative doesn't bother me - I'll vote for him as many times as I'm allowed.

[breakem]

Is 36 your answer about your motivation quote and about my point about painting everyone with the same brush. Don't try to change the subject.

[breakem]

since you asked, no you do not have my permission.

[breakem]

People are not useful idiots because someone who has the same characteristic as them decides to be a fool. Most people are just living thier lives and want to be free from crap like you spew. It's not their fault or responsibility to deal with every extreme view that comes along, just because people like you chose to lump them in with the extremists.

[Constantine XIII]

I agree with you on that stuff, but what did the President say to irritate these folks?

[little jeremiah]

I am not changing the subject. I am saying that the movers and shakers in the homosexual activist political movement - such as M. Signorile - have a stated purpose, to remake society. Not every single homosexual person knows all of these peoples' motives, plans, ideas and so on. They are useful idiots - like the anti war people, Women in Black, and so on. They didn't all know that the main players in the anti-war demonstrations were allied with communist, socialist and even terrorist organizations, one way or another. Thus my term.

BTW, have you read anything M. Signorile has written? If you haven't, you should. You would learn something. If you have read his stuff, then you are just pretending to think that the gay agenda is organized and spearheaded by a bunch of misunderstood affectionate couples who just want a wedding.

[america-rules]

"The administration is compromized"

Bush said he is against gay marriage and would support an official amendment against gay marriage. He also said the states have authority to decide what they would see as legal marriage.

So what part isn't conservative?

Can't a state determine what they consider legal gay marriage? And if they do what says another state doesn't need to legally apply that marriage to their state?

Isn't Bush saying a state can legalize gay marriage but can't force other states to recognize it and the federal gov't shouldn't either?

[breakem]

You're still missing the point. These extremists don't represent all homosexuals. You gave a quote about the motivation for gays to get married and you represent it as some conspiracy by homosexuals. I gave you an example of two folks who disprove your quote.

Now you can flag your friends, none of whom will explain it to you. Or maybe someone else will. I have no more patience tonight and you just don't get it.

[little jeremiah]

The extremists, as you call them, run the show. The others (however extreme or unextreme they may be is unknown) provide bulk. And besides that, many of the bulk are not that uneducated about their leaders' desires to remake society.

Note that the homosexual activists are continually making edicts (usually by court fiat) to force everyone else to bow to their agenda. Where's the tolerance? They don't have tolerance for any disagreement. And you know that.

(Hmmm - you don't have any tolerance for dissent, either....)

[little jeremiah]

I can't really speak for others being irritated - I guess because he didn't speak out more strongly in favor of marriage and against same sex marriage. I am not displeased with what he said. He's a politician, not a preacher.

[breakem]

"........then you are just pretending to think that the gay agenda is organized and spearheaded by a bunch of misunderstood affectionate couples who just want a wedding."

Nobody said that there is not a organized effort on the gay agenda. I said some of the agenda is fine with me because it gives them access and equal rights, while others especially the stuff involving education is wrong for my money.

Do you see the illogic in your comment. The couple I mentioned are not spearheading anything. They are married and just want to have the same rights as other taxpayers without people like you yelling that they are child molestors and evil people.

Good-bye. I'm tired of teaching down to your level.

[Mo1]

What exactly did W say to make you people flip out like this. :/

He doesn't have to say anything to make them flip out .. it comes naturally for them

[scripter]

There are zealots here who apparently cannot support their statements so they try to denigrate the facts and those who post facts. They also misrepresent the positions of those who disagree with them, incorrectly summarize the position of those who disagree with them, and then attack the straw man argument they've created.

The pseudoscience, as the zealots refer to the facts, are never refuted nor discredited with anything other than hot air. Many times we have asked for supporting evidence but it is never provided. I've personally stated I would stop posting whatever is demonstrated to be incorrect. If those who call the facts pseudoscience actually had supporting evidence, one would think it prudent to at least post a link but that never happens. So their complaints appear to be just more hot air.

Why just last night breakem got his clock cleaned again when he posted something he couldn't support and left with his tail between his legs. Unfortunately for him it's a common occurrence on the homosexual threads. Other than that he seems like a decent guy.

[little jeremiah]

I don't need anything explained to me, except this:

Why do you promote the homosexual agenda on this forum (which is a conservative forum, whose owner has stated that he is opposed to the homosexual agenda)? And I also wonder why you get so bent out of shape if anyone disagrees with your fervent, dripping support of it? As though people like scripter and I should not be allowed to speak the way we do???

That's what I wonder about.

[little jeremiah]

Man - you are really losing it. You think you are "teaching" me? That you are so far above me in the vast mists of superior logic, humanity and illumination because you think that two men or two women sexually gratifying themselves with each other need special laws?

You take yourself far too seriously.

[scripter]

since you asked, no you do not have my permission.

LOL!

Hey lj, thanks for the pings. Since you're pinging a volunteer list that EdReform and I put together, I figured you had to laugh at the above comment. Sheesh, a man has got to know his limitations!

[At _War_With_Liberals]

Right on all counts.

You have made your point...nothing left to say.

[Salvation]

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church

1660 The marriage covenant, by which a man and a woman form with each other an intimate communion of life and love, has been founded and endowed with its own special laws by the Creator. By its very nature it is ordered to the good of the couple, as well as to the generation and education of children. Christ the Lord raised marriage between the baptized to the dignity of a sacrament (cf. CIC, can. 1055 § 1; cf. GS 48 § 1).

---

1625 The parties to a marriage covenant are a baptized man and woman, free to contract marriage, who freely express their consent; "to be free" means:

- not being under constraint;

- not impeded by any natural or ecclesiastical law.

---