Posted on 06/05/2006 10:19:33 PM PDT by goldstategop
Here are the dominant liberal reactions to President Bush and the Republicans' call for a vote on the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would amend the Constitution to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman: 1. Virtually every news report about President George W. Bush's support for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman describes it as "pandering" to the "far Right," the "radical Right" or, less pejoratively, "social conservatives" of the Republican Party.
2. Democrats regularly describe the amendment as enshrining "discrimination in the Constitution." In the words of Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., "A vote for the amendment is a vote for bigotry -- pure and simple."
3. Republicans are attacked for "diverting" attention from far more important issues, such as, according to every Democratic leader, Iraq and gas prices.
Regarding the news reporting: This is another example of how the news media present news. First, Democrats are rarely, if ever, described as "pandering" to the Left, let alone "radical Left." Why not? For one thing, the news media do not believe there is a "radical Left," only a "radical Right." Second, liberalism regards positions held by Democrats to be sincere and noble, therefore, Democratic positions can never pander to anyone.
This is part of the larger liberal view of Republicans and conservatives: They are not merely wrong; they are either phonies or bad. It is inconceivable to most liberals that a Republican politician can sincerely oppose redefining the most important social structure of society. And if that Republican's opposition to redefining marriage is deemed sincere, it is inconceivable to most liberals that the person is anything but a bigot.
That most liberals cannot understand conservatives' views about marriage as anything but bigotry and/or pandering is part of a narcissism that characterizes much of the Left. The very definition of narcissism is an inability to see the world through the eyes of another. Whatever conservatives' flaws, far more conservatives understand liberals' views on same-sex marriage. Most opponents of same-sex marriage appreciate that liberals feel bad about gays' inability to marry a person of the same sex. In fact, as a proponent of a marriage amendment, I not only understand the liberal desire to enable people to marry someone of the same sex, I feel genuine compassion for gays on this matter.
But such empathy for ideological foes is all but absent from the narcissistic world of the Left. To virtually every liberal writer and spokesman, only liberals mean well, only they are sincere, only they are compassionate, and only they are intellectual, rational and tolerant.
Liberals' use of the word "radical" to describe opponents of same-sex marriage illustrates this self-aggrandizing mindset. To describe as "radical" those who wish to preserve the man-woman-based definition of marriage known to every civilization is to stand the word on its head. It is beyond intellectually dishonest -- it is mendacity -- to describe those who favor preserving the definition of marriage as "radical" rather than to so describe those who wish to change the gender-based definition of marriage for the first time in history. Even if you support same-sex marriage, you should at least have the honesty to admit that it is you who favors something radical.
Some of those who want a constitutional amendment to define marriage as man-woman are indeed bigoted against gays, regarding them as something less than fully human. But most people who want to maintain marriage as male-female consider homosexuals to be just as much created in the image of God as anyone else. But though it is painful for us to see a perfectly decent homosexual unable to marry a person of the same sex, we are nevertheless more preoccupied with:
(1) Giving every child the opportunity to at least begin life with a mother and father; (2) Honoring the will of the great majority of Americans, secular and religious, liberal and conservative, to preserve the man-woman marital ideal, and not allow a judge to single-handedly destroy that ideal; (3) Preserving the ability of teachers and clergy to tell the story of marriage to young children in terms of a man and woman and not confuse the vast majority of kids who are forming their vision of marriage and sexuality.
These preoccupations are neither bigoted nor radical. They are, in our view, civilization-saving.
As for the liberals' view that gas prices are more important than society's definition of marriage, it is so self-incriminating that no response is needed.
At least conservatives are showing they are properly utilizing the federal system instead of judicially legislating. But what effect will it have? Almost none, other than to change the states that allow marriage to states that allow 'civil unions.' What more could it do? It's not going to ban gay adoptions. It's not going to ban partner benefits. It's not going to re-ban sodomy or remove Lawrence v. Texas from the federal register. It's simply not going to put `em back in the closet.
So it's a waste of time and federal money, just like designating March 4-11 "National Lefthanded Armenians Day" is. It's certainly a waste of conservative activists' effort.
bump!
To the MSM/leftists "radical" means anyone who doesn't agree with them.
This is the constitutional way to go about this issue. Funny how you never hear the left call judges, who for years have been ignoring and/or rewriting the law, 'radicals' when their actions have fit the definition of the word perfectly.
How I loathe the left.
If DOMA is bigotry why hasn't the pig Kennedy introduced a bill to statutorily recognize homo marriage? For the same reason the left has not done so with abortion. It is way easier for unelected, unaccountable black robes to do the left's dirtywork.
I also loathe the left beyond description.
And, of course, it would indeed be a limited usurpation of state legislative power. However it would be carried out the way usurpations of governmental power are supposed to be carried out: in the course of free and open democratic debate and action--not by the personal whim of a few liberal judges and justices.
If hypocrisy were water, the Democrats would have an ocean broad and deep enough to float a carrier task force.
Do you think the founding fathers thought that the very same sex acts committed by heterosexuals qualified them to rear children?
The Boy Scouts knows you can't trust these perverts out in the woods with little boys, much less home alone.
I was a boy scout leader for several years. We did not permit homosexuals in because we believed that the scout oath did not permit them. But I am not aware that homosexuals were any more prone to pedophilia than were heterosexuals. Do you have any such statistics?
The Dems know that the homos are solidly in their party and that this does them little good if they can't adopt children to replace the homos dying of AIDS.
Huh? Do monogamous homosexuals propagate AIDS or those generally engaging in sex in the bath houses? I assumed it was the latter. But since around 7000 homosexuals died of AIDS last year, compared with about 4.3 million of them, I don't know that this is exactly what the Dems are thinking.
The libs care more about their party and agenda than little kids being sodomized!
I assume you are equally concerned about the kids who are sexually abused by heterosexuals? Actually you might be interested in knowing that almost all pedophilia and child pornography involves young girls, not boys. Does that also concern you?
I'm against homosexual marriage, but not enough to use myths and lies to support my position. The state's compelling interest in maintaining marriage between one man and one woman for the purpose of procreation will keep traditional marriage alive and well for the forseeable future.
Wonder how long I'll have to wait for that admission. . . by any liberal.
No, as such, we both agree that engaging in disordered sexual activity premises NO special privilege, merit, or reward...
I was a boy scout leader for several years. We did not permit homosexuals in because we believed that the scout oath did not permit them. But I am not aware that homosexuals were any more prone to pedophilia than were heterosexuals. Do you have any such statistics?
Here you sidestep the objectively obvious -homosexual males CLAIM they are attracted to males -yes, EVEN young impressionable and innocent child males that can be taken advantage of.
Pretty good read...
Dems are a strange lot - families are a more important crime fighting unit than all the "programs" dems have come up with... Keep a father in the home, and crime goes down. Can't they see that?
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.