Posted on 01/25/2005 8:30:22 AM PST by HostileTerritory
A coalition of major conservative Christian groups is threatening to withhold support for President Bush's plans to remake Social Security unless Mr. Bush vigorously champions a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
The move came as Senate Republicans vowed on Monday to reintroduce the proposed amendment, which failed in the Senate last year by a substantial margin. Party leaders, who left it off their list of priorities for the legislative year, said they had no immediate plans to bring it to the floor because they still lacked the votes for passage.
But the coalition that wrote the letter, known as the Arlington Group, is increasingly impatient.
In a confidential letter to Karl Rove, Mr. Bush's top political adviser, the group said it was disappointed with the White House's decision to put Social Security and other economic issues ahead of its paramount interest: opposition to same-sex marriage.
The letter, dated Jan. 18, pointed out that many social conservatives who voted for Mr. Bush because of his stance on social issues lack equivalent enthusiasm for changing the retirement system or other tax issues. And to pass to pass any sweeping changes, members of the group argue, Mr. Bush will need the support of every element of his coalition.
"We couldn't help but notice the contrast between how the president is approaching the difficult issue of Social Security privatization where the public is deeply divided and the marriage issue where public opinion is overwhelmingly on his side," the letter said. "Is he prepared to spend significant political capital on privatization but reluctant to devote the same energy to preserving traditional marriage? If so it would create outrage with countless voters who stood with him just a few weeks ago, including an unprecedented number of African-Americans, Latinos and Catholics who broke with tradition and supported the president solely because of this issue."
The letter continued, "When the administration adopts a defeatist attitude on an issue that is at the top of our agenda, it becomes impossible for us to unite our movement on an issue such as Social Security privatization where there are already deep misgivings."
The letter also expressed alarm at recent comments President Bush made to The Washington Post, including his statement that "nothing will happen" on the marriage amendment for now because many senators did not see the need for it.
"We trust that you can imagine our deep disappointment at the defeatist position President Bush demonstrated" in the interview, the group wrote. "He even declined to answer a simple question about whether he would use his bully pulpit to overcome this Senate foot-dragging."
The letter also noted that in an interview before the election Mr. Bush "appeared to endorse civil unions" for same-sex couples.
The group asked Mr. Rove to designate "a top level" official to coordinate opposition to same-sex marriage, as a show of commitment.
Trent Duffy, a spokesman for the White House, said on Monday that "the president was simply talking about a situation that exists in the Senate, not about his personal commitment or his willingness to continue to push this issue." Mr. Duffy said the "president remains very committed to a marriage amendment" and added, "We always welcome suggestions from our friends."
Some Senate Republican leaders were not optimistic on Monday about the amendment's prospects this year.
"I think if we had the vote right now we'd come up short," said Senator Rick Santorum, the Pennsylvania Republican who is a member of the leadership and one of the amendment's most vocal backers in Congress. "We'd like to bring it up when we have the best possible chance of getting it passed."
The members of the coalition that wrote the letter are some of Mr. Bush's most influential conservative Christian supporters, and include Dr. James C. Dobson of Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council, the Southern Baptist Convention, the American Family Association, Jerry Falwell and Paul Weyrich.
Several members of the group said that not long ago, many of their supporters were working or middle class, members of families that felt more allegiance to the Democratic Party because of programs like Social Security before gravitating to the Republican Party as it took up more cultural conservative issues over the last 20 years.
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, declined to talk about the letter, but said, "The enthusiasm to get behind his proposals is going to require that he get behind the issues that really motivated social conservative voters."
Asked to estimate the level of discontent with the White House among the group on a scale from one to 10, Mr. Perkins put it at 8.
My response is simply that I disagree. To be honest, I'm opposed to this constitutional amendment anyway. But even if I supported it I would still not rank it anywhere near the importance of SS reform.
We have literally trillions of dollars of future wealth at stake and the growth and power of this country at stake and these groups want to give it up? For what?
This is my opinion on this as posted elsewhere here on FR:
If a judge throws out a referendum or declares a state law unconstitutional it can always be appealed and will likely be overturned if it is without merit (like the 9th court of App always is).
Say it turns out that, for whatever reason, it cannot be appealed (I'm not a lawyer and don't know exactly how the appellate process works). It is my understanding that the legislators of that state pass the laws by which the state courts rule, and if it is the people's belief that gay marriage not take place then their elected state legislators must respond by passing laws that state this or the people will vote them out.
However, if activist judges take a step further and declare a law banning gay marriage null on the basis of it's unconstitutionality, then the people of that state, through either referendum or their legislators, can take the steps needed to re-write their state constitution. Every state in the United States has option available to modify their state constitutions. Also, many States elect their state Supreme Court justices. I know NC does. (I actually disagree with this cuz of the corruption issues and think governors should appoint judges, but I digress)
A state judge cannot rule a law unconstitutional if it is in the state constitution.
So, I hope you all agree that up till this point the process of state government covers all bases.
The only issue arising of concern is one where a FEDERAL judge, such as the Supreme Court, rules that gay marriage is not consistent with the law. There is a federal law, 'the Defense of Marriage Act' - which states marriage is between a man and a woman.
So, the only way the Federal government could overturn the popular opinion of people in a state is by either A) rewriting 'the defense of marriage act' or B) by a Federal Judge determining that the 'defense of marriage act' is unconstitutional by the national constitution.
A) can happen only if people elect a majority of Congressmen who are very sympathetic to gay marriage
and
B) can only happen if a President, elected by the people, appoints enough like-minded judges to rule on this.
So, the danger of gay marriage coming to pass is the Danger FROM the Federal government, yet you all seek to increase its power! What you giveth can be taken away. Imagine if 50 years from now most of the country is in favor of gay marriage and only a few conservative states oppose it. Guess what? Taking the attitude you all are taking will result in the Federal Government imposing these standards or some other standard back on all of you when the tables are turned and forcing states to accept gay marriage.
This is what happened to Utah with Polygamy. The federal government actually seized Church property at one point and imprisoned hundreds of Mormons and stripped them of their voting rights.
The Conservative platform is for state's rights and limited Federal government and it's like that way for a reason - its what this country was founded on. Heading down this path is a slippery slope, and the dog may one day bite the hand that fed it. This is why Dick Cheney and many prominent Conservatives have endorsed my position and still do (although quietly now).
Some might argue that this is different issue then slavery or polygamy because (ostensibly) gays are not denied any 'civil rights' type issue because they can leave the state to go to a state where gay marriage is legal. I tend to agree.
Or, if gay marriage is not legal in any state, they could all move to a state and campaign to get gay marriage passed in that state. As American citizens this is their right. I don't believe a Federal Court will accept that gay marriage tramples on the rights of others if a majority of people in the state are for it (either by voting in legislators or amending the state constitution). Again, this is different then slavery state rights.
I also think the biggest threat to the family unit is not gay marriage, but government spending on Welfare. Here you can see a brief excerpt illustrating this:
http://www.neoperspectives.com/summary.htm
but more is on the larger paper.
I think many of our Republican leaders know all this and went ahead with it anyway just to get voter turnout up. I think this is shameful.
One last remark. Obviously the media supports gay marriage and it is a bit strange to be angry at the media bias and gay demagauging activists for the typical liberal bias that is forced on everyone and in this case actually agree with them (in principal) while still remaining just as angry at the bias! A bit of a juxtaposition.
--
If the Constitutional amendment was to ban the federal government from ever forcing a state to recognize the marriage laws of another state I would support it. This isn't what the amendment is about.
What this amendment does is make it impossible for the population of a state to live the way they choose. If all the gays in the country moved to Massachusetts and the citizens of that state voted 95% to pass gay marriage laws and elected pro gay politicians and judges the state could have its population imprisoned, fined, or whatever by Federal law enforcement agencies, or federal troops if they went ahead with gay marriage in that state. This is wrong.
DOMA is enough. The big point of contention SHOULD be whether states who pass gay marriage laws can then have those couples fall under federal benefits. For some reason the debate is not on this. But, this issue should be treated as a normal law making issue by Congress. DOMA is this law - if a majority of states with large populations pass gay marriage laws then the DOMA will probably be repealed and gay couples in those states that have gay marriage will be treated under the Federal law as a marriage.
I would then think that married gay couples that then move to a state where gay marriage is not allowed would still be defined as married under federal law, but not under state law.
But this is all speculation that a shift like this will ever take place.
This has nothing to do with classroom education (although its another argument for school choice) and all of these extraneous arguments about bestiality, incest and pedophilia don't qualify because harm is being done to another individual or animal or unborn in those instances - which would give the Federal Government the right to supersede states rights IF a population of a state ever got wacky enough to actually support those propositions (which I doubt).
I don't see the need for a Constitutional amendment. I guess we just agree to disagree... All and all I think it is a minor issue of little importance. The main thing that digs me is the politicking over principal that normally doesn’t accompany the Republican Party.
I am a lawyer and we DO need a constitutional amendment to shut the entire debate down. It removes marriage from the federal arena by limiting marriage to only the common law definition. It leaves the individual states to decide what to do about marriage-lite laws.
There IS a need for the FMA because as http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1328306/posts?page=11 AND http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1327284/posts indicate, the homosexuals are going to pursue a longer term agenda. They see recruiting children as the key to overturning laws in the future.
As the first FR thread indicates, the HRC and PFLAG and GLSEN intent to forum shop to more sympathetic federal districts to impose the Mass. ruling upon the other states. This also includes efforts to impose civil unions from other states.
You have to fight the fight on all fronts not just one. Social Security reform is a now a part of the political landscape. I think the very FIRST question that has to be asked and answered IS: "Whose money is it?"
from my viewpoint that's insane. Sinxce I don't belive in divorce except in cases of proven adultery, why should the adulterer get anything. (of course the adulterous party should lose everything in the divorce)
from my viewpoint that's insane. Since I don't believe in divorce except in cases of proven adultery, why should the adulterer get anything. (of course the adulterous party should lose everything in the divorce)
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.
For sure, and this time of year, tax time, is when the Fed Govt is going to get all the cries from the gays about so called confussion over how to file, and their right to file as married. They will continue to push it in regard to filing status for their Fed Tax Returns. It's already all over the papers.
"It would allow us to protect children from being adopted into sodomite households by requiring adoptive parents to be married."
As the first FR thread indicates, the HRC and PFLAG and GLSEN intent to forum shop to more sympathetic federal districts to impose the Mass. ruling upon the other states. This also includes efforts to impose civil unions from other states.
I must agree. If the federal DOMA is challenged and the Court says it is unconstitutional, then the gays will do exactly what they did in MA< and immediately go out and marry. They won't wait for an amendment to be argued and proposed to the people for a vote.
That is exactly what happened in MA, there was no time to get an amendment to the ballot. It needs to be done Before, any challenge.
They can either get on board, or they can have their agenda kicked out of the "big tent" altogether. They don't have much time to grow up and choose the former.
Replacing the government's Ponzi Scam with a sound retirement security arrangement is the most important moral and values issue on the table.
It is certainly far more important than indulging these WAAA WAAAA ME ME ME GIVE ME WHAT I WANT RIGHT NOW!!!!! crybabies.
Yes it won, it is an important issue, but linkage is the sure way to get nothing done. Let's try to not make changing the nation so complicated. Leave it to the states to settle.
Political decisions are based on the opinions of sane people. Someone who thinks that one ought to stay in a marriage while being beaten to a pulp need not apply.
So I made the mistake of not including criminal behavior. If someone is assualting their spouse they are criminals and need to be imprisoned, not just divorced.
I could build a biblical case that such a criminal has already committed adultery against their spouse in this case
If you lose the family it really doesn't matter what else the government does. You've already lost the foundation this country was built upon. Without the traditional family none of our other laws or institutions make any sense whatsoever. It's somewhat akin to the fact that without God there is no true morality. Without the family there is no United States.
Defending the family is the single most important issue today
I totally agree with you. If the leftists keep weakening the family and morallity in the country, it will soon be on the ash-heap of history because Christians will no longer be able to support this government. Secularists have no chance of saving it in a moral vacuum.
Nope. The sanctity of private property is the foundation this country is built upon. This is demonstrated by the fact that one stable property-owning single person contributes orders of magnitude more to society than a welfare brood mare (even if she has all the kids with the help of her husband).
Oh really? If the mother is married she is most likely not on welfare anyway (as you get much more $ when dad is not there). So lets compare apples to apples shall we? A married man (even one who owns no property) is more stable and tends to earn more. He is more active in his community and usually does not partake in hazardous activities like homosexual behavior or public drunkeness. He tries his best to raise his children to be good citizens. When he dies he leaves a lasting legacy called the next generation.
A single property owner is more likely to be sexually promiscuous, more likely to be a partier and less likely to affect his community for the better (why partake in Parent Teacher Organmizations or any other community bettering activity without children?). When he dies his property gets sold off or parcelled out and he is remembered no more. He has removed himself from the gene pool and has no lasting effect on society.
The traditional family is what made this country great. Without the traditioanl family property ownership means nothing. (who cares what you own if you have no children)
(BTW, I oppose welfare because it attacks the traditional family. Welfare, more than any other thing, is responsible for poverty and illegitimacy in the black community)
Nonsense. He supports the capitalist system (which is synonymous with all that is good in America).
As does the traditional family who doesn't own property. The difference is that the family will survive and provide the next generation of capitalists while he is just a dead end consumer. He gives no lasting contribution back to the system
Without the traditional family, even capitalism will die out.
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.