Posted on 09/02/2004 4:48:41 AM PDT by wdkeller
President George W. Bush may have unwittingly given homosexual activists just the boost they need to get state governments to pass domestic partnership laws, which put gay unions on an equal footing with marriage.
OK. Perhaps I'm being charitable, but I would prefer not to believe it was a cold, calculated attempt to pander to yet another voting block.
On Aug. 15, in an interview with CNN's Larry King, the president was talking about his support for a federal marriage amendment when King asked him, "What about the union of gays?"
Mr. Bush said, "Well, that's up to the states, you know. If states choose to do that, in other words, if they want to provide legal protections for gays, that's great! That's fine!"
The president went on to say a few words about the importance of keeping the definition of marriage as it is – a union between a man and a woman. However, the damage was done.
Here we have a president, who professes a faith in Christ, who has been endorsed by the religious right and heralded as the new leader of the conservative movement, giving his stamp of approval to gay unions.
How else can we take, "That's great! That's fine"?
In response to another King question, the president went on to elaborate, "There are ways to make sure gays have got rights. And you can do so in the law."
This will be the new "gold standard" for those promoting domestic partnership laws: "Even George W. Bush says that states should pass these laws."
To make matters worse, when King mentioned the difficulty of amending the Constitution, Mr. Bush said, "It's an important debate. … I think our society is great because people are able to live their lifestyles, you know, as they choose or as they're oriented."
In this one brief interview, President Bush encouraged the passage of domestic partnership laws. Furthermore, by embracing the favorite buzzword of homosexual activists, "sexual orientation," promoted the theory that one is either born a homosexual or a heterosexual and there is nothing anyone can do to change.
This is an affront to researchers and medical professionals who have battled the myth of the "gay gene" and have been swimming upstream against the tide of political correctness and media bias to have sound science applied to this important issue.
It is an affront to the thousands of former homosexuals who are ridiculed and ignored but serve as living exhibits that one can, in fact, change.
It is an affront to health workers who have to battle the ravages of a disease spread by the practice of unnatural sex acts and who suffer unnecessary exposure to infection because they are not allowed to screen patients for AIDS.
It is an affront to criminologists who are ignored or excoriated if they point out the fact that homosexual men are much more likely to molest children than their heterosexual counterparts: From 1 to 3 percent of the population is committing one-third of all sex crimes against children.
It is an affront to groups like the Boy Scouts who have fought an uphill battle against gay activists who want to force them to permit homosexual scoutmasters.
Nine days after the president made these regrettable remarks, Vice President Dick Cheney came out in support of gay marriage at a campaign stop in Davenport, Iowa. When the vice president was asked what he thought about homosexual marriages, Cheney replied, "My general view is that freedom means freedom for everybody. People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to. The question that comes up with respect to the issue of marriage is what kind of official sanction or approval is going to be granted by the government, if you will, to the particular relationship?"
Cheney tried to abdicate his responsibility by saying the issue should be decided by the states. However, Cheney also tried to distance himself from the federal marriage amendment by saying, "The president makes basic policy for this administration and he's made it clear that he does, in fact, support an amendment on this issue."
Personally, I don't think this was an off-the-cuff response by Cheney. President Bush runs a tight ship punishing – even embarrassing – members of his Cabinet who publicly go against his policies. It appears to be a case of Bush and Cheney playing "good cop, bad cop."
Unfortunately, on the issue of homosexual unions, it is the president of the United States who has given gay activists an arsenal of new weaponry.
You're not voting because Larry King got George W. Bush to admit that the issue should be settled by the states? Good grief.
This is the stupidassed thing I've ever heard!
What's wrong with civil union contracts rather than gay marriage?
Don't let this dissuade you. He said the same thing about medical marijuana, and the Feds are cracking down harder than ever.
Bush has already said he supports traditional marriages. But go ahead and fall for the spin and support a loser 3rd party candidate.
shhhhhhh. We are not supposed to talk about ISSUES that may seem mean spirited, not tolerant, not inclusive, UNLESS its about the wAR, and then only if you preface every comment with the " Religion of Peace" caveat.
Just shut up and Vote, join me. We can yell at the gop next year, matter of fact , I'm starting Dec 1.
Hold your nose, and vote W, or the johns will stink up America so much, you'll have to hold your nose for 4 years
Sorry but it sounds to me like he wants to leave this issue up to the states and let them duke it out. How many people who know homosexuality is immoral are going to say, "Well, I guess I can support it since Bush said it was swell"? Please. That's where the issue belongs, at the state level, where the people decide. I just wish he would smack down these rogue judges who feel the need to legislate immorality on everyone!
Mr. Bush said, "Well, that's up to the states, you know. If states choose to do that, in other words, if they want to provide legal protections for gays, that's great! That's fine!"
Just looks to me like he's read the Constitution...
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
If Bush-Cheney were trying to pander to homosexuals, Mary Cheney would have been there last night.
Doesn't settled by the states mean putting it up for a vote and letting the will of the people decide the issue?
Please don't fall for WND's spin. Although I enjoy their articles, their Bush-bashing is disagreeable and counterproductive.
Yes, I saw your letter to the RNC on 8/21/04.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1196278/posts
You and the author of this piece do not understand the United States government is not a church, nor is Bush a Minister. Stay home if you wish--but the next president will have the power to appoint judges, including Supreme Ct. justices. Your staying home helps Kerry and does your cause no good whatsoever.
Sorry, about that; my comment should have been directed at wdkeller.
If Christ taught his disciples that it was okay that someone rejected his message, why do you hold Bush to a higher accountability ? Listen, its up to the holy spirit to change hearts and minds. Bush's heart and mind is to do the lords will in the roll the lord put him in. The lord didn't put Bush in charge of individual states and if the choose to walk away from the word of God then yes, thats fine. Shake the dust off your sandals and move on.
But if that's true, shouldn't we expect this President's E.O. forbidding the trespass of all FEDERAL judges in the matter?
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.