Posted on 06/17/2006 8:42:57 AM PDT by Jeremydmccann
Craig: We’re down by 2 points, and time is running out! The Spartans need a miracle!
Arianna: Or the perfect cheer. — NBC “Saturday Night Live” skit featuring Will Ferrell and Cheri Oteri.
One of my favorite skits on “SNL” is these “cheerleaders” for the “Spartans.” Whenever their team is in trouble, “Arianna” calls for “the perfect cheer.” They cheer this cheer and, presumably, they — well, I’m not sure what happens. Maybe the team does better or at least these cheerleaders feel better.
In any event, the Bush/GOP team is in trouble. The President is down in the polls — a lot more than two points. So, he’s tried the marriage-defense “perfect cheer” to re-energize his base, individuals and organizations that are supposedly Christian but in reality are Republican Party cheerleaders. Mr. Bush hopes that trying this “perfect cheer” will cause his demoralized cheerleaders to, once again, pick up their poms-poms and cheer wildly for him just like they did to elect him before he sold them out on the issues they care about.
Will Mr. Bush’s “perfect cheer” work? Probably because his supposedly “Christian” cheerleaders are slow-learners.
The President says a Constitutional amendment to protect man/woman only marriage “is necessary because activist courts have left our Nation with no other choice.” But, this is not true. There are other choices to deal with “activist” judges who render Godless, un-Constitutional decisions. And two of these choices are:
(1) Impeach these “activist” judges! Deactivate them by getting them off of the bench. And/or (2) Ignore the rulings of such “activist” judges because (a) court rulings are not law; only Congress can make law. And (b) court rulings that contradict God’s Law are not law.
But, of course, neither Mr. Bush nor any of the GOP Congressional “leaders” have advocated either of these choices.
The problem here is obvious. The President doesn’t really care if homosexuals get “married” and he’s proved this by endorsing so-called “civil unions” for homosexuals which is, basically, the same thing as homosexual “marriage” in that such “civil unions” give homosexuals the same legal “rights” as if they were “married.” In a little-noticed interview on national TV shortly before his re-election — on ABC’s “World News Tonight” program (10/25/04) — Mr. Bush repudiated the Republican Party Platform which opposes “civil unions” for homosexuals. Interviewed by Charles Gibson, the President said “sure,” he thought it was a possibility that homosexuals could be homosexual by their nature.
Gibson: So how can we deny them rights in any way to a civil union, that would allow, give them the same economic rights or health rights or other things?
President Bush: Well, I, I, I don’t think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that’s what a state chooses to do so.
Gibson:The Republican platform opposes it.
President Bush: Well, I don’t. I view the definition of marriage different from legal arrangements that enable people to have rights….
But, no one has any “rights” simply because they are homosexual. And, regardless of what Mr. Bush may believe, being for “civil unions” for homosexuals is the same as being for homosexual “marriage.”
In addition, the President has made it clear that he really doesn’t care if some people are homosexuals. At Kutztown University in Kutztown, Pennsylvania (7/9/04), Mr. Bush was asked about banning homosexual “marriage.” He said, in part:
“And I repeat to you — my own view is, is that if a state — if people decide to — what they do in the privacy of their house, consenting adults should be able to do. This is America. It’s a free society. But it doesn’t mean we have to redefine traditional marriage” (emphasis mine).
The “consenting adults” argument is, of course, the same argument sodomites make for practicing their vile, perverted sex. And to say that “consenting adult” sodomites can practice their perversion because America is “a free society” is shockingly ludicrous and outrageous.
Indeed, much of what Mr. Bush has said regarding the alleged need for a Constitutional amendment to protect “traditional” marriage makes no sense. Here’s some of what he said in a recent national radio address:
Bush: “Marriage is the most enduring and important human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith.”
Comment: But there is no single definition of “marriage” that is “honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith.” For example, the one man/one woman only marriage Mr. Bush says he wants to protect is not the way Islam sees marriage. Islam allows men to have multiple wives. And marriage was not instituted by human beings. Marriage was God-created, God-ordained and God-defined by the God of the Bible, the only God there is.
Bush: “Ages of experience have taught us that the commitment of a husband and a wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society. Marriage cannot be cut off from its cultural, religious, and natural roots without weakening this good influence on society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all.”
Comment: The ages of experience referred to here is the experience of Christian marriage. It is not the view of “all cultures and by every religious faith.” Furthermore, who cares if marriage “serves the interests of all?” True marriage must be what God says it must be.
Bush: “In our free society, people have the right to choose how they live their lives. And in a free society, decisions about such a fundamental social institution as marriage should be made by the people — not by the courts.”
Comment: Our society, because it is no longer Christian, is not free. And what, exactly, is meant here by the “right” of the people “to choose how they live their lives?” The “right” to live any way they want to? No way. Not at all — at least not from the Christian view. As for decisions about marriage being made by the people and not the courts, this notion is OK if by this statement the President means the elected representatives of the people are the ones to affirm and defend God-defined marriage, period. I fear, however, that this is not what Mr. Bush means since his religion seems to be “democracy” not Biblical Christianity.
Bush: “Democracy, not court orders, should decide the future of marriage in America.”
Comment: See what I mean? Mr. Bush worships at the altar of “democracy” even though we are not a “democracy” but rather — for the umpteenmth time — a representative, Constitutional, Republic.
Bush: “As this debate goes forward, we must remember that every American deserves to be treated with tolerance, respect, and dignity. All of us have a duty to conduct this discussion with civility and decency toward one another, and all people deserve to have their voices heard.”
Comment: No, no, no! I strongly disagree. As a Christian, I will not be tolerant of the views of homosexual sodomites who argue that there is nothing wrong with what they do. I do not respect practicing, unrepentant homosexuals. And the abominable, sinful practices of such sex-perverts do not deserve to be treated with dignity.
Control the borders.
So I guess Zarqarwi getting killed, Al-Qaida demoralized and decimated, Rove not getting indicted, Iraqi government stepping up, and Democrats falling apart & being in disarray means nothing to the writer.
I was going to say, thae author should have submitted this article about two weeks ago.
39 Democrat Senators and 43 Democrat Congresscritters tell the Democrat Party leadership to eat crap on Iraq this week and BUSH is in trouble? Only in the Junk Media world
This argument that the President is using this to distract is getting old. Numerous Senators and in fact the President ran on this issue. This issue ,especially in states that has a gay marriage referendum, helped drive GOp turnout. This has been to put this years agenda this for some time.
Likely as not he did submit it weeks ago and it was edited to be a "perfect cheer" for his 'Team".
When Bush started touting the marriage amendment a couple of weeks ago, I posted that it was an effort in futility, because the amendment would never pass Congress.
I got skewered on FR.
It didn't pass.
All those skewerers got very quiet.
He did. I just now posted it.
I will amend that statement for you, they mean something but they are not everything. Security begins at home and the President has failed miserably on that point, as have our senate, the house is still pending! We need to enforce the existing immigration laws, this will secure our borders better than any new bill waiting for passage.
There is more then a single issue(Iraq)here, we have illegal aliens, we have a one world government(or a north American government), we have spending, we have a total disregard for our constitution in many areas. While Bush has done well in some, he has failed badly in many others.
He wants his real cheerleaders back? Then all he has to do is stop trying to subjugate us to foreign powers and enforce the immigration laws now on the books. He won't do it, and tries reward them at the same time, while spending even more of our monies on them! What a politically blind move this is. Sorry you can't see it.
It was a stale lie from the beginning. I do not trust anybody who makes any excuse not to do something about it...
Is it a sin to be repulsed by something repulsive? To be grossed out by the gross? Is it now considered uncivil to verbally condemn that which God condemns? I just have a problem with the way things are defined these days. I do not wish to be uncivil. Nor do I wish to be dishonest. When you tack on "all people deserve respect..." to a behavior then you make it wrong to condemn any behavior. That's ridiculous. How respectful must we be towards those who create Supreme Court protected virtual kiddie porn? Can nothing be condemned these days?
Oh, I was going by the 6/17 date! Well, then the timing is right!
Bush's constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage is a politaical ploy to lure Christian conservatives back into the fold. Why do this when it stood no chance of passing in the Senate and was rejected by a wide margin. A real conservative looks for action not talk. Reign in the budget and secure the borders would be a good start for me.
The Activism sidebar is reserved for Activism, protests, news and business of Free Republic Chapters.
Not this.
Please read the following for FR's posting rules for further guidelines.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1611173/posts
Thanks,
Why an ammendment though? I oppose marriage being defined by anyone, especially by the homosexuals and the government. The only person with the authority to define such is God. The federal government has no authority in the definition of it. I totally oppose these mock marriages which are based on sodomy, but a Constitutional ammendment is not the way. Especially this one which will grant civil unions which I also oppose and which of course is the same thing. Under Article IV Section 4, the federal government is obligated to ensure the states their republican governance. True republican governance would never allow homosexual marriage. Judicial fiat is why this is happening, so this ammendment is totally unnecesarry. Also, Article IV Section 1 gives government the license to ignore when a state or federal judiciary goes beyond its bounds anyways and breaches it's "full faith & credit". Besides, what will stop the supreme court from ignoring this ammendment as they have reguarly ignored the others? We don't need an ammendment. What we need is government leaders who will stand up and say that all sodomy based marriages are null and void and any judicial ruling which claims otherwise simply breached the "full faith & credit" and will be ignored as well as judges impeached who voted favorably for sodomy based marriages. Though I must admit, we don't have anyone with the fortitude to do such.
Sorry about that.
I have mixed feelings on this because of the Federalism issues. I am not sure at this point that DOMA is going to protect the States. My main concern is that the States are protected from not having to recognize a gay marriage under the full faith and credit clause. If that could happen I would be happy. That way the battle would be reserved to the State legislatures
I agree-- BUT like Rome we shall die by suicide.Destroyed
by the enemy within our own borders as surely as Rome was
destroyed.
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.