Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gay Marriage: Laura Bush, Dick Cheney and Barack Obama
PAjamas MEdia ^ | May 13 | Roger L. Simon

Posted on 05/13/2010 12:57:50 PM PDT by AJKauf

This is a long way around to a discussion of gay marriage, something I have been in full support of since initiating this blog in 2003. It is also the subject that, when I write about it, often creates the greatest dissension from those who otherwise applaud what I am saying.

So it is with some gratification that I found tonight that the person in public life I have admired tremendously for some time is also a supporter of same-sex marriage – Laura Bush. She proclaimed that support in her characteristic well-mannered, low-keyed fashion on Larry King Live. (Okay, nobody’s perfect.) I even had the suspicion that her husband agreed with her, but for political considerations didn’t say so.

What does this mean? Traditionally a woman like Bush would oppose gay marriage, but she has stepped outside that “tradition,” seen the situation objectively and come to a different conclusion. I think it’s interesting that the supposedly liberal Barack Obama has not been able to reach this conclusion or to perform any action that would indicate that he had. Meanwhile, the supposedly antediluvian Dick Cheney has expressed his support for same-sex marriage...

(Excerpt) Read more at pajamasmedia.com ...


TOPICS: Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bigtent; culturewar; homosexualagenda; marriagelaws; samesexmarriage
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-37 next last

1 posted on 05/13/2010 12:57:50 PM PDT by AJKauf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: AJKauf

I oppose it but I am willing to let it be put to a vote by the public and overwhelmingly the population votes it down every time. Legislatures have shown they will reject the will of the people, just look at the Obamacare vote.


2 posted on 05/13/2010 12:59:46 PM PDT by a fool in paradise (The hysteria of Matthewsism and Andersonism has led to a Tea Party Scare that is unAmerican.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AJKauf

I really hardly care what they do. What I really oppose is redefining things as one pleases to suit whatever. You can call a cat a dog, but it’s still a dog. You can call two men living together as man and wife a marriage, but it is not one. However, at this point, I think we should just make all marriages a contract, let people decide what they want them to be and then make people abide by them. Legal and binding.


3 posted on 05/13/2010 1:03:46 PM PDT by brytlea (Jesus loves me, this I know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #4 Removed by Moderator

To: AJKauf

I really wouldn’t equate Laura’s actual quote (”But I also know that when couples are committed to each other and love each other that they ought to have the same sort of rights that everyone else has”)as being pro-Gay Marriage, I would classify it as pro-Marriage Equality - giving the same legal protections to same-sex couples, not necessarily the title of “marriage” I think many people would support giving civil unions the same medical, tax, inheritance rights as marriage.


5 posted on 05/13/2010 1:06:19 PM PDT by BreitbartSentMe ((Ex-Dem since 2001 *Folding@Home for the Gipper - Join the FReeper Folders*))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise
"I oppose it but I am willing to let it be put to a vote by the public and overwhelmingly the population votes it down every time."

That's right. Unfortunately, this debate won't be ended at the ballot box, or in the legislature, but by 9 people in black robes. The people have a right to define marriage - what is marriage and what isn't marriage. When we have judges - which we surely eventually have in this case - defining marriage, all is lost. It is only a matter of time until polygamist unions are asked for and received, should homosexual marriage be allowed by judicial fiat.

6 posted on 05/13/2010 1:10:48 PM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Bush_Democrat

Don’t pretend, Laura Bush knew what she was being asked and she answered yes, she also supports abortion, and she wants the young people of America, to know that.


7 posted on 05/13/2010 1:18:38 PM PDT by ansel12 (MITT: "I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I'm not trying to return to Reagan-Bush")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Bush_Democrat

Pretty much the way I see it. In fact, I think it is pretty much a moot point now. Texas vs. Lawrence knocked the foundation out of any government interest in policing sexual morality among consenting adults.


8 posted on 05/13/2010 1:18:57 PM PDT by Ronin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: AJKauf

The author of this article makes the same classic mistakes that result from the left-wing propaganda about the gay marriage movement and about political ideologies as well. The gay marriage movement is not about freedom but is an anti-freedom movement. It is also not about achieving equal rights but about denying rights to people. The left-wing gay rights movement is about forcing society to accept their perverted moral premises. They want to make it illegal to disagree with their moral premise of homosexuality being equal to heterosexuality. This is evidenced by the fact that many companies are already being punished by force of law for not treating homosexuality and heterosexuality as equal. (E-Harmony for one was sued for this.) That is not freedom but is instead a classic example of the progressive movement trying to force their perverted morality on society. They are anti-equality as well being that they do not want everyone to have equal representation on issues of how sexuality is dealt with in public. The progressives want this dictated to everyone from the judicial bench and to deny people an equal right to representation. And as for his claim that adhering to an ideology is looking backwards, I take this as just pure propaganda. This is just a means for attacking those who do not accept his agenda. The same type of argument could be made to promote pedophilia, rape or murder. It is simply the claim that if you have values then you are looking backwards, the author is ignorant.


9 posted on 05/13/2010 1:22:51 PM PDT by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bush_Democrat
I really wouldn’t equate Laura’s actual quote...as being pro-Gay Marriage

I would. She is saying that the rights pertaining to the unique state of marriage -- a social phenomenon existing prior to any human law -- ought to be accessible to pseudo-marriage. Authentic marriage is endowed by human law with certain unique privileges because authentic marriage serves a unique social purpose. Buggery is (mostly) a private matter and contributes nothing to society. That is why buggery has no business calling upon society to recognize it with privileges it does not and cannot do anything to deserve.

Laura Bush has never been a conservative.

10 posted on 05/13/2010 1:23:14 PM PDT by Romulus (The Traditional Latin Mass is the real Youth Mass)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Ronin

Lawrence v. Texas also opened the door for people at any age to engage in homosexual acts. There is no “minimum age 18” to do it.

Another lie was “in private”. Schools indoctrinate children in the lifestyle and profess it as “normal” and even teach safe “techniques” of oral and fisting sex.


11 posted on 05/13/2010 1:25:45 PM PDT by a fool in paradise (The hysteria of Matthewsism and Andersonism has led to a Tea Party Scare that is unAmerican.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Ronin
Texas vs. Lawrence knocked the foundation out of any government interest in policing sexual morality among consenting adults.

Or non Consenting adults and kids, for that matter.

12 posted on 05/13/2010 1:32:42 PM PDT by itsahoot (Each generation takes to excess, what the previous generation accepted in moderation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

Comment #13 Removed by Moderator

To: AJKauf
Maybe I'll get blasted here, but seems to me that individuals should have a right to enter into legal contracts that don't affect other people. That is an individual freedom. It's nobody else's business, just like a person's religious beliefs are nobody else's business. It seems to me that if the government can't respect an establishment of religion, they shouldn't be prying into individuals' bedrooms. Gays have always existed and will continue to exist into the future. So long as individuals don't try to push their philosophy (whether religion or sexual preference) onto me, then I don't have a problem with them entering into legal lifetime partnership contracts if they choose to do so. To mandate some individual freedoms but disallow others that don't impact anyone but the parties involved just seems hypocritical to me, and I really hate hypocrits.

But the most important point for me is that we have too many much more critical issues facing us: progression towards socialism (government takeovers of way too many things in our daily lives that should be left to the states and/or the individuals), national defense, economy, border security, religions that do not tolerate other religions and try to foist their beliefs onto me, etc. The old axiom "keep your powder dry" comes to mind. Focusing all this energy on gay marriage makes it seem as if we're against everything. Seems to me we should devote our efforts to the most serious issues.

When a plane is on fire and the pilot is fighting to get it safely on the ground, beverage service is not a real important priority for me.

Either we're going to have individual freedoms or we're not. It doesn't make sense to argue for individual freedoms for some issues and against them on others. I just want the government to leave me alone.

14 posted on 05/13/2010 2:05:29 PM PDT by Real Cynic No More (The mighty zero, obama,does not warrant the respect necessary for his name to be capitalized.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: trolo

The issue is not so much the government stopping these things but rather actively encouraging them and rubbing our noses in it.


15 posted on 05/13/2010 2:08:39 PM PDT by liberalism is suicide (Communism,fascism-no matter how you slice socialism, its still baloney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Real Cynic No More

No one was stopping ‘gays’ from making contracts or commitments between themselves and other individuals. That is not the issue. The issue for the ‘gay rights’ movement is that they want to force everyone in society to accept their perverted morality. Big difference. Why should anyone be forced to associate with people openly engaging in homosexual behavior by force of the government punishing them with a lawsuit? The ‘gay rights’ movement do not even want to allow people to have equal representation under the law on this issue. They just want it dictated.


16 posted on 05/13/2010 2:20:24 PM PDT by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: AJKauf

Marriage is between one man and one woman.


17 posted on 05/13/2010 2:44:40 PM PDT by Mike Darancette (Flip Both Houses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot

I hadn’t applied it to children, naively thinking perhaps that it did not impact child abuse laws, but your point is taken.


18 posted on 05/13/2010 3:58:43 PM PDT by Ronin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: trolo
One of the more insightful comments: I believe that homosexuality is a sin, along with divorce, gossip, abortion and a few other things. I also don’t think that the government can do much to stop any of these things....

Homosexuality is more than a sin, it's an abomination (God takes it a bit more serious than "gossip").

Up until the early 70's, homosexuality was slowed down by enforcement of sodomy and public decency laws (the good ole days when you could actually go into a public restroom to rid yourself of bodily waste and not have some pervert peeking at you through a glory hole). Since we no longer are living in the good ole days, God had to improvise with AIDS.

19 posted on 05/13/2010 5:24:09 PM PDT by aSeattleConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: trolo

Quite wrong. The government does have a role in marriage.

Add murder to the list and see what they say.


20 posted on 05/13/2010 5:57:51 PM PDT by BenKenobi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-37 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson