Posted on 07/15/2004 5:30:45 PM PDT by Indy Pendance
WASHINGTON (AP) -- To hear President Bush and many Republicans say it, they're not opposed to gay marriage so much as eager to prevent judges -- routinely described as unelected and activist -- from weakening one of civilization's most enduring institutions.
It's a political straddle in the making, designed to maximize election-year support among conservatives without offending moderate voters wary of any taint of intolerance.
"Gay bashing, plain and simple," was how Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., this week described a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, unwilling to let the measure's supporters define it in their own terms.
"Activist judges and local officials in some parts of the country are not letting up in their efforts to redefine marriage for the rest of America," Bush countered. "And neither should defenders of traditional marriage flag in their efforts."
While the early legislative returns are in -- the amendment went down to a decisive defeat in the Senate -- Republican strategists hope they have laid the foundation for success in November.
"Four million religious conservative voters sat out the last election, so the president's visible stance on protecting marriage is essential to turning out all of those conservative voters who pulled the lever for him in 2000 and getting those other 4 million to come out for him this year," said Keith Appell, a conservative strategist in Washington.
Other Republicans say they hope the issue helps Bush with low- and middle-income social conservatives, with Catholics and others, particularly in battleground states such as Ohio and Michigan.
Republicans also note that some black ministers are among the amendment's supporters.
"I think it's being used as a wedge issue," said Alexis Herman, a black former labor secretary who is now an adviser to Bush's Democratic presidential opponent, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts.
Kerry and other Democrats also call the issue a political distraction, an attempt to divert attention from the economy and the war in Iraq.
"The unfortunate result is that the important work of the American people funding our homeland security needs, creating new and better jobs and raising the minimum wage is not getting done," said the Democratic presidential nominee-in-waiting.
Whatever it is, the gay marriage issue has surfaced in a handful of congressional races, in South Dakota, Florida and elsewhere, and may emerge elsewhere.
Beyond that, opponents of gay marriage are working to force votes in more than a dozen states this November on proposed state constitutional amendments. The list includes Michigan, Ohio and Oregon, all presidential swing states.
The debate is occurring within the context of a broader campaign conflict over social issues.
But abortion and gun control have been campaign perennials.
Gay marriage emerged as a political issue over the winter after San Francisco began issuing licenses to same-sex couples and the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled the state constitution mandates full, equal marriage rights for gay couples.
Kerry, has worked hard to reassure voters who disagree with him on social issues. An advocate of gun control, he's been photographed with a hunting rifle in hand.
A career-long supporter of abortion rights, he's said he might appoint judges to the bench who don't share his view on the subject.
Like Bush, he's doing something of a straddle on gay marriage.
He opposes the gay marriage amendment but says he's against gay marriage itself.
A campaign spokeswoman, Stephanie Cutter, says that if Kerry's home state comes up with a constitutional provision that outlaws gay marriage but protects equal rights and benefits for same-sex couples, he would support that.
To the disappointment of GOP strategists who had hoped to force him to cast a vote, Kerry was absent in the Senate this week for what his campaign aides described as a procedural roll call.
Instead, he issued a statement that criticized Republicans for bringing the issue to a vote. He added, "When I am president, I will work to bring the nation together and build a stronger America."
That was a charge that the Republicans were attempting to divide the country.
If Republicans are nervous about that, it's out of concern that they can be depicted as intolerant.
"What they do in the privacy of their house, consenting adults should be able to do," Bush said earlier this week.
The same concern is evident in South Dakota, where Republican senatorial candidate John Thune has been airing radio commercials supporting the amendment that his opponent, Sen. Tom Daschle, voted against.
"This constitutional amendment won't take away anyone's rights," Thune says reassuringly in the ad. "Not a single one."
The Internet is being used to sell young boys and teens for gay sex to "tourists" from the US, UK, Germany, France, Belgium, yada, yada, yada. Gays have perverted society and soon they will pervert most of Eastern Europe into a life of sex slavery.
To read more about how young girls and women are kidnapped and sold into a life of sex slavery Click Here. In Canada the age of consent for sex is 14. How many children on milk cartons in your referigerator have been kidnapped and sold in Vancouver, B.C. or Toronto?
The whole world is being turned into a brothel for westerners with cash in their pockets.
You forgot to add the customary liberal/libertarian disclaimer: NOT THAT THERE'S ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT!
" The whole world is being turned into a brothel for westerners with cash in their pockets."
MTV and the likes are prime enablers.
I dont mind being branded intolerant to gay marriage. I am intolerant to gay marriage , It isnt a marriage its a sham.
People who think gay marriage is fine should ne foreced to hold two mal electrical plugs together for half an hour they would wuickly see it takes a male and a female to make things work.
Hellooo, you ignorant twit of a writer, judges are almost always unelected. No federal judges are elected. Only a few state ones are. And as for activist, the whole idea is that judges OBEY and ENFORCE the law. Legislators, not judges, have the duty of WRITING laws. This is Constitution 101. Even someone who stayed awake in civics class in high school understands this point.
Congressman Billybob
It's a lot easier than this. Oppose gay marriage and go ahead and look intolerant. That's right. Go ahead. It's okay. You see, it's not wrong to be intolerant of sickness. It's not wrong to fight things that are wrong. It's not wrong to stand up for a belief that is as old as man himself -- that sex between two men is wrong, and that those who practice it don't deserve the same status in society that NORMAL (there, I said it) people do.
Go ahead, be intolerant. Because if you are one of those who is willing to tolerate the aberrant, the depraved, the sick, then you are aberrant, depraved, and sick. However, half a century of left-wing brainwashing has left you with the specious impression that normalcy is somehow odd.
It's not. Homosexuality is. There are some things we should not tolerate.
Really good points, Jack, There is nothing wrong with discrimination, (there are places where we have mandated it out of play, for some characteristics, like gender and color) but its still OK for Christians to deny communion to non-believers, and its OK to limit who comes to your dinner party. We don't have to accept gay marriage even if it makes very little sense to try to legislate what goes on in private. But we don't have to tolerate it either.
There are millions of gay people who are not dancing down the street in thongs and feathers. They are responsible citizens living their lives and paying taxes.
They would feel right at home in a Republican party willing to have an honest debate about marriage, states rights and Federalism. They won't suffer being labeled as perverted wackos.
A little more calm deliberation on the extremes of the right would help expand the base. Yet, I don't think long term thinking exists on the extreme ends of either party.
"Tolerance".
Tolerance is CHEAP....Tolerance is what you give to any common stranger. Like a clown who's talking on a cell phone at the movies. You wanna wring his neck, but civility prevents you from carrying through on that desire.
RESPECT is another matter....That has to be earned.
When it comes to gay marriage, there's barely room for tolerance, much less respect, in my book.
This is the most brazen, socially divisive and reckless proposal by the left in many a moon.....The consequences of which will destroy any semblance of a righteous, dignified people in this country.
"Slouching towards Gammorah" at a quickening pace.
Never mind that the amendment prohibits polygamy and beastiality too.
I agree many gay people are nice folks, They do nice things , I have a couple for neighbors and they are really nice people. But to say that putting your penis in another mans rectum isnt perverted is just plain silly.
Marriage? there is no honest debate about marriage,marriage is ,and has always been, and should always be between a man and a woman. Where are the debating points?
Oh--I know Gays want the right to apply for a spouses Social security Benefits and the right to apply for their aids treatments under a hospitalisation family plan. I understand why they wish this, i also understand what it would cost to allow it.So that takes care of the monetary argument.
As for the argument that they fall in love, I have no doubt some do, and no problem with it. But a family by marriage is meant to propagate to have children to raise those children. Homosexuals cannot breed and allowing kids to be adopted raised by Homosexuals is simply placing that child at risk of never seeing what a "Normal" family is about.Now we can argue all these points till hell freezes over. I have no problem with two three or even four or five Homosexuals living together sharing anything they want to share, including Aids, My problem is with calling this behavior anything but what ist is sexual deviance. hell if you want to be a deviant thats great maybe some people think hat I may like is deviant, but I am not out in some parade wearing a Tutu making a public spectacle of it. Gays should do waht they like but it sint marriage and no way in hell will i ever call it such.
I agree many gay people are nice folks, They do nice things , I have a couple for neighbors and they are really nice people. But to say that putting your penis in another mans rectum isnt perverted is just plain silly.
Marriage? there is no honest debate about marriage,marriage is ,and has always been, and should always be between a man and a woman. Where are the debating points?
Oh--I know Gays want the right to apply for a spouses Social security Benefits and the right to apply for their aids treatments under a hospitalisation family plan. I understand why they wish this, i also understand what it would cost to allow it.So that takes care of the monetary argument.
As for the argument that they fall in love, I have no doubt some do, and no problem with it. But a family by marriage is meant to propagate to have children to raise those children. Homosexuals cannot breed and allowing kids to be adopted raised by Homosexuals is simply placing that child at risk of never seeing what a "Normal" family is about.Now we can argue all these points till hell freezes over. I have no problem with two three or even four or five Homosexuals living together sharing anything they want to share, including Aids, My problem is with calling this behavior anything but what ist is sexual deviance. hell if you want to be a deviant thats great maybe some people think hat I may like is deviant, but I am not out in some parade wearing a Tutu making a public spectacle of it. Gays should do waht they like but it sint marriage and no way in hell will i ever call it such.
In the olden days, the phrase "a man of discriminating tastes" was a compliment. I'd like to see it become one again. "Tolerant" doesn't mean "approving." And I for one have "tolerated" enough of the homosexual advance. I find no need to tolerate any more.
This is the kind of language I just don't like. I hurts the conservative movement.
IMHO, the issue of gay marriage is debateable. I prefer civil unions, but If there's a gay couple that conduct themselves like any other normal, loving hetero couple-I could care less about their sex life. I will treat them as equals and welcome them into my political circle. If they wish to push for marraige then we can have a rational debate without name calling.
For Pete's sake, when I meet somebody who stutters or has a physical condition, I don't call them a freak or laugh. I treat them as equals unless they do something to lose my respect.
I think the conservative movement needs to move on and expand its base.
Unfortunately this is a step in a series of steps toward a package deal that ends in socialism. You need only look at the coalition that calls itself the democratic party. Buy into the civil rights arguement (of the gays) that anything that people want to do is OK with you and you are in their camp. (After all, they are people too?) Recognize that acceptance of the gay lifestyle takes care of the gays. Recognize the environmentalists desire to protect species and halt development and you have covered their agenda. Accept that all lifestyles are equivalent, and piercings and bad grammer are OK. Immigration should be free and open. All these are positions of the democrats. Let the democratic party nationalize health care and you have taken a further step. Each step does not sound terrible (in your analysis, but is terrible in mine), and the utopia of socialism sounds good too. I prefer to stand up to these guys (democrats- multiculturalists) and say that all cultures are not equal, some lead to highly dangerous activity, and once accepted in the wider society, are a ticket to socialism as our economic style. Forget the BS about expanding the conservative base, and stand for something.
"I dont mind being branded intolerant to gay marriage"
Exactly. Tolerance for the sake of tolerance is moral anarcy.
If we stand up for old-fashioned values, we're called intolerant. If the Left imposes its views on us, that's an exercise in pluralism.
I appreciate your views , but IMHO they ARE sexual deviants, pussyfooting around it doesnt change that fact, again I treat Homosexuals like I treat everyone else, doesnt change the fact that I believe they are sexual deviants, and being married sexual deviants wont change it either.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.