Posted on 10/15/2004 6:06:47 AM PDT by RogerFGay
Bush, Kerry Joined in Same-Sex Marriage Positions
October 15, 2004
by Roger F. Gay
Family creates society and provides for the survival of mankind. Family policy and law may define the character of a nation and its humanity at a more fundamental level than any other feature. It would be paradoxical then for the two major candidates for president, who each define themselves as the best choice to lead the nation, obfuscate in response to questions about marriage and family. But that is exactly what they did during Wednesday night's debate on domestic policy.
The moderator was not particularly helpful. The closest he came to asking about family policy was to question whether the candidates believe that homosexuality is a choice. Both candidates responded by summarizing their positions on same-sex marriage. A follow-up question dealt with the right of abortion under Roe v. Wade. President Bush addressed family support in summarizing tax relief. Although simplistic and counterproductive in some ways, at least it was a clearly stated position; married couples received more tax relief than generally needier divorced and never-married parents.
The most basic discussion on marriage and family policy took place in response to the question about homosexuality, but it was shallow and deceptive. Both candidates avoided confronting the radical and fundamental transformation that family policy has undergone that has forced the legal definitions of family and marriage into chaos and destabilized the institutions.
John Kerry, characteristically taking two opposing positions simultaneously, agrees with President Bush that "marriage is between a man and a woman" but refuses to attempt to reverse what is now regarded as the right of same-sex marriage. We "cannot discriminate," he claims. His basis for avoidance came in two parts; his ability to separate his private beliefs from public policy and the idea that marriage and family policy is within the domain of state control. Both reasons are designed to hide the truth and confuse the debate.
President Bush believes in the "sanctity of marriage" but claims that "activist judges are actually defining the definition of marriage." He seemed to strengthen his resolve when stating that he proposed a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as being exclusively between a man and a woman which has already been rejected by the Senate. Neither his soap-box support for traditional marriage nor the constitutional amendment ever addressed the fundamental problem. But at least in the narrow view, it appears that he has tried and now he is done.
What has happened to family?
In 1975, the federal government initiated what became a long and sustained invasion of family law. Federal territory expanded dramatically during the 1980s as control of family law shifted from states through funding requirements. The 1990s was a decade of refinement, in which more of the detail of family law statutes have been defined by federal regulation.
The federal government is not allowed constitutionally to regulate family law. The fact that it does so anyway indicates that something basic has been beaten out of whack. Greatly exacerbating the problem is that federal regulations have forced the creation of state statutes that treat family law questions arbitrarily. The federal government radically reformed more-or-less stable policies that were established under constitutional rule during the past two centuries.
If "activist judges" have played an important role, it was in supporting the shift from state to federal control of family law. Specific cases, decided well in advance of the Massachusetts decision on same-sex marriage, redefined marriage and family as public policy issues – so-called "social policy" – subject to direct political manipulation rather than leaving them in the area of private concerns that are constitutionally protected from unwarranted government intrusion.
The new right of same-sex couples to marry emerged directly from application of this new legal view. If marriage and family are merely collections of arbitrary benefits and entitlements invented by government policy, then denying access to any couple (or individual or group?) is unconstitutionally discriminatory. At the same time, discrimination against heterosexuals, most obvious in new child support and paternity laws, is rampant. The same "activist judges" have refused to uphold the individual rights of heterosexual parents (and heterosexual men generally).
And surely they know that!
Senator Kerry has been a player in the transformation of marriage and family. His voting record and legislation sponsorship has not been at all void of pandering to special interest groups interested in dramatically altering the family policy landscape.
Governor Bush (now president) faced questions from the Gore campaign in 2000 provoking his defense: that he had gone far enough implementing federal reforms in Texas and supported a drive to go much further.
Such obfuscation from the top candidates on such a fundamentally important issue may be a sure sign that neither Republicans nor Democrats are fit to lead the nation. It may be time to think much more seriously about supporting other parties.
Roger F. Gay is a professional analyst, international correspondent and regular contributor to MensNewsDaily.com, as well as a contributing editor for Fathering Magazine.
ping
Nice title.
(I'm going to spend all day trying to get this image out of my head.....dang)
That title! Way more information than I needed before my second cup of coffee!
This thread needs pictures of Kerry in his roles of Pitcher and Catcher.
That is a truly unfortunate headline.
Could you post some pictures?
and what about the authors name?
no offense Mr. Gay
I though Bush did a decent job of speaking to the matter of activist judges, but he could have done better.
Since hell apparently has to freeze over for a debate moderator to ask this obvious follow-up to Kerry's position, then Bush should have; "What then Sen Kerry would you do IF the federal courts override state rights and impose gay marriage or civil unions on the entire nation?" Would he then support an Amendment that at a minimum overturned the Court and explicity empowered the states, or would he declare that 'the courts have spoken, and that its now a matter of settled law?'
Bush also could have been more forceful in pointing out the disingenuousness, conflict, and contradiction in Kerry's position; he's against gay marriage personally but won't do anything to stop activist judges, he thinks it should be left up to the states yet he voted against that very principle in 1996 when he was one of a few Senators to vote against DOMA, and he voted against it because he claims it was unconstitutional and mean-spirited, which means that he considers his own position to be unconstitutional and mean-spirited.
Bush also could have asked that since Kerry is clearly going to use a litmus test to ensure pro-abortion judges, then why doesn't he also promise to only nominate judges who agree with that it should be left up to the states and who will not impose gay marriage/civil unions on the nation.
Unfortunately Worded Headline of the Week Bump
Good one. lol
No offense intended of course.
I didn't actually read this article; I just wanted to make sure you saw the title and the author.
I think this is a justifiable question. I've met or known of several homosexual men who legally changed their last name to 'Gay'.
In some cases it was an expression of positiveness in their coming out. In others, it was an attempt to shield their families from the consequences.
There's nothing wrong in trying to ascertain if the writer has a hidden agenda or personal interest in the subject matter of an op-ed piece, especially where objectivity is implied throughout the article.
"You really haven't met any homosexual men who legally changed their names to Gay"
Actually Roger, your're wrong. A college professor I knew did exactly that. And I read and article about some gays who had done similar things in an article about how the gay community was dealing with 'coming out' in our more open and liberal society of today. I remember it because I thought that was just like my old college professor.
You might also consider Peter Kay who goes by the stage name Peter Gay who's advertised as: Phoenix Nights star is a queer icon.
Ordinarily I wouldn't have taken the time to respond to your first remark quoted above. But I did take exception to "You're just a guy with very little going through his head."
bump for the title alone...i didn't bother to read the story.
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.