Posted on 01/25/2005 8:30:22 AM PST by HostileTerritory
I think President Bush is very wise to stick to substantive issues like the privatization of Social Security rather than becoming entangled in cultural issues like abortion rights and gay marriage. The privatization of Social Security is going to be a more difficult struggle than we expected, and the administration cannot afford to expend political capital in polarizing cultural issues. Although it is true that a majority of Americans oppose gay marriage, that is not the same as saying a majority of Americans support changing the constitution to address it. Numerous states passed amendments to their state constitutions this last election to handle this. I'm not sure there is universal enthusiasm for taking it to the national level.
well said. I agree. Republicans are supposed to be for state's rights anyhoo....
If these groups really do sabotage SS reform for this somewhat unimportant idea it will be absolutely discraceful. I think they will loose a lot of allies and make a lot of enemies and it will start to splinter the republican party.
The democratic party has to be looking to ways to splinter the economic and social wings of the republican party and must be loving this... :(
I diagree. This is an important idea. It won 11-0 on election day. Bush is supposed to be championing it, but he is not. It helped get him elected. This is one way to get his attention, since social security reform is probably one of the three biggest ideas he has.
Whether the government will acknowledge Man & Man/Women & Women unions as legitimate marriages SHOULD NOT be a state issue. This is a federal matter if ever there was one. Personally, I have always thought the idea of augmenting the US Constitution to limit the"rights" of its citizenry as repugnant, however this is a very different matter. If the US Constitutuion can be used to outlaw slavery, then it can be used to outlaw Homosexual marriage, both unnatural and socially malignant institutions. Homosexuality is, like it or not, seen as morally acceptable by a large number of Americans. It is an unfortunate truth, IMAO, that the Federal government must now legislate morality because our religious & social institutions were too weak to do so.
Indeed. "Gay Marriage" opens up the door to "legitimize" all sorts of of depravity, accelerating the downslide of a very slippery slope.
two134711 wrote:
"Homosexuality is, like it or not, seen as morally acceptable by a large number of Americans. It is an unfortunate truth, IMAO, that the Federal government must now legislate morality because our religious & social institutions were too weak to do so."
You have stated exactly why it would be a waste of time for President Bush to put all his energy into passing a constitutional amendment that would prevent gay marriage nationally. It would ensure that all gay sex would be extramarital, but would do nothing to legislate morality. As you point out, a large number of Americans do not worry about other adults' sex lives anymore. Only religious and social institutions CAN effectively control private behavior in this climate.
There are more urgent matters on which Republicans can achieve a consensus, and legislation will actually achieve its end.
Agreed.
The right answer, IMHO, is Social Security reform including appropriate provisions about dividing the surviving spouse benefits amongst all the surviving spouses. That would lessen the attractiveness of gay marriage.
She had to get THAT in there, eh?
It would also protect us from being forced to recognize their deviant practices as normal. It would allow us to protect children from being adopted into sodomite households by requiring adoptive parents to be married. It would protect the 38 states with Defense of Marriage laws from being overruled by one liberal court in mASSachusetts (due to the 14th ammendment). It would protect my tax dollars from going to support perversion via spousal benefits to sodomites. It would save millions of insurance dollars in medical costs to self-inflicted aids patients who "married" someone just for the coverage.
It would not legislate morality or prevent perverse sexual relations. But that is not the goal of the ammendment (directly at least). If we do not protect marriage, making the institution and the benefits of marriage available to any couple no matter what the make-up, then we are encouraging people to stay trapped in a dangerous and damaging lifestyle. That would certainly not help the situation. Remember that Marriage is a social institution and that it does regulate behavior. It must be protected.
While it is true that most Americans don't care about others sexual behavior it is also true that most Americans care about others sexual behvaior when it affects them. They are welcome to behave however they want as long as they keep it in the bedroom and out of our face. "gay marriage" waves it right under our noses
There are more urgent matters on which Republicans can achieve a consensus, and legislation will actually achieve its end.
Protection of marriage is the most important issue facing America today. Everything else pales in comparison. If we lose the family, we lose the country.
President Bush was elected on moral and values issues. If he deserts us on this most important issue then why should we support him on less important issues? Who cares about social security if the country is going to hell in a generation anyway? Why bother securing the borders if America as we know it is already dead? etc
Republicans win when they run as conservatives. Over 60% of the American population (as seen by the recent election) supports a protection of marriage ammendment. It's a no lose situation for the President. He can cement his party's position and, at the same time, do the right thing with the approval of a vast majority of the citizens.
Fortunately we don't have legal polygamy in this country (yet) so we don't have surviving spouses. We only have a surviving spouse.
Of course if 'gay marriage' is legalized we'll have legal polygamy within a year.
The amendment will not work at least until prior to the next election when moderate senators and reps will have reelection reasons for supporting it. In any case, the Republicans do not have the required 2/3 vote in the Senate, and they will not have it anytime in the near future. They certainly cannot overcome a filibuster in the Senate.
Their only recourse then is a called "constitutional convention." That is too dangerous even for them to contemplate, although they might get mischievous liberals to support such a call.
Good! I hope they can tie the PR campaign to include this as protecting grandmother's social security from the government paying fo the recreational sex of homosexuals.
The implication of the quote is that "a large number" equals a majority.
Remember the homosexuals called 3% a large number to justify their demands.
There is no reason for social secuirty to pander to homosexual lifestyle choices.
Today social secuirty, tommorrow the want IMMIGRATION VISAS. That will open the door to gut or remove DOMA sooner.
We need the FMA just as much as SS reform.
If a marriage has lasted 10 years, the surviving spouses may collect if he/she has not remarried even if the deceased spouse has remarried. So yes, we can have surviving spouses.
but only proportionate to the duration of the marriage. It is a pie divided.
folks homosexual marriage is now a federal issue.
Should a homosexual "fiance" in Mass be able to apply for a FEDERAL immigration visa?
How about immediate family visas?
A US citizen is ENTITLED to bring a "fiance" into the USA. (even overcoming felony excludability)
The law NEVER inquires as to love, it is not relevant to the debate.
It is a federal debate because the FMA will put marriage back to the states.
No, the pie is not divided. Check the SS web site for rules regarding surviving spouse.
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.