Posted on 06/05/2006 10:00:29 AM PDT by kellynla
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush and congressional Republicans are aiming the political spotlight this week on efforts to ban gay marriage, with events at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue - all for a constitutional amendment with scant chance of passage but wide appeal among social conservatives.
"Ages of experience have taught us that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society," Bush said in his weekly radio address. "Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all."
The president was to make further remarks Monday in favor of the amendment as the Senate opened three days of debate. Neither chamber, though, is likely to pass the amendment by the two-thirds majority required to send it to the states - three quarters of which would then have to approve it.
Many Republicans support the measure because they say traditional marriage strengthens society; others don't but concede the reality of election-year politics.
"Marriage between one man and one woman does a better job protecting children better than any other institution humankind has devised," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn. "As such, marriage as an institution should be protected, not redefined."
But Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said he will vote against it on the floor but allowed it to survive his panel in part to give the Republicans the debate party leaders believe will pay off on Election Day. Specter has chosen a different battle with the Bush administration this week - a hearing Tuesday on the ways the FBI spies on journalists who publish classified information.
(Excerpt) Read more at ap.washingtontimes.com ...
I'm asking this in all seriousness and in a non-hostile manner: Do you think the issue is enough to re-energize the base? More importantly, do you think it's got enough traction to bring back some of those swing voters?
LOL -when you come up with another supposedly conservative reason to support homosexual marriage ping me (Note, make it something of apparent substance -something other than name calling)...
I don't buy that this is victimless behavior. The victims are the kids adopted into this "marriage." There are increasing instances of these folks in "civil unions" where one partner has a child and there are all these visiting rights issues. One woman even "remarried" the child's biological father and the other woman wanted custody. What a mess!
Just the condoning of the homosexual lifestyle by legitimizing it is condoning unhealthy behavior. The STD rate in the gay community is phenomenal, not to mention the rate of HIV/AIDS and other diseases. As someone mentioned before it is a highly hedonistic lifestyle. Far more dangerous to ones health than other things the government currently interferes with. And then society pays for these sick folks to receive very expensive care.
Forcing folks to condone and "celebrate" this lifestyle is social engineering; not maintaining a 1000's of year old tried and true societal tradition.
I think your position is right on if we were to go back to the pre-Great Depression days, to the days when there was no social security or medicare, or Federal Dept of education, when the Federal government knew its role was pretty much foreign policy and national defense PERIOD. But that is not reality in today's world. The government has already meddled to the point where only additional meddling can sometimes set things right.
If the Senate cannot pass this, it was a safe, winking gesture for Bush. "That was for the base," Dole would say, winking at the press. They smiled back. Of course, he lost big time.
One big roadblock is Arlen Spectre. Let's see. Who pushed for him to be re-elected? That was Bush. Who backed him to be chair when he did not deserve to be chair of Judiary? Oh, Bush again. So this was pre-determined. Very clever, I will think when I fail to give the GOP money.
No. It's not enough to re-energize the base after the immigration debacle, the big spending, Harriet Miers, etc.
But that's not my main reason for supporting a Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA). If it helps re-energize the base, fine, but I support it regardless. It's going to be necessary to have an amendment in the Constitution on this issue, otherwise the Supreme Court will impose gay "marriage" nationwide, no question.
We get into these messes in the first place by not being proactive. The people running around today, telling us that we don't need a marriage amendment, are akin to those who ran around fifteen years ago telling us not to worry about illegal aliens. After all, there were "only" a million or so in the country, and that federal law they passed in 1986 took care of the problem. Yeah, it took care of the problem about as well as DOMA will.
In some states a 14 year old can't enter into a "legal contract" but than can enter into a marriage covenent.
My take:
The DJIA (stock market) is down about 200 points today. That speaks directly to folks' 401ks. There is concern for the housing bubble. People are somewhat annoyed with illegal immigration. And gas prices are kinda high.
With all this stuff going on, it makes conservatives look a bit foolish worrying about a couple of guys tying the knot.
Look, I could be wrong on this, but I don't think I am.
So the government is involved after all. I guess your original statement was wrong then.
LOL That is good sarcasm I almost believed you were serious.
This issue is about whether society and government have a legitimate role to play in fostering intact nuclear families for the benefit of the children in those families.
You want gubmint involved in families? Holy crap, no!
"One woman even "remarried" the child's biological father and the other woman wanted custody. What a mess! "
The same happens even when you enter the word "man" instead of the "other woman".
"Far more dangerous to ones health than other things the government currently interferes with. And then society pays for these sick folks to receive very expensive care."
Should the good society let "these" people die?
The society also pays for health care of the people who smoke (cancer), for the people who drink alcohol (liver), for the people who cross the street and get hit by a car....
I hope that you get my point. Save them all or save none, otherwise we do not deserve to call ourselves human.
Look, I could be wrong on this, but I don't think I am.
You are wrong if you imply the other issues are not being considered and addressed concurrently -have been, and continue to be JUST as this issue...
It would be disingenuous to imply the other issues are more or less important simply on the basis of which one is in the news today.
It would also be disingenous to imply solutions you disagree with suggest nothing is happening or too much is happening...
An old maxim comes to mind: Lead, Follow, or get out of the way...
Name a jurisdiction with gay "marriage" that isn't economically liberal. Can you even imagine a place with gay "marriage" being fiscally conservative?
#####Look, I could be wrong on this, but I don't think I am.#####
You are. Social liberalism and economic liberalism go hand in hand.
Fact is that society and its sexuality has entered a new stage...
We're entering the age (era) of consent, where the actions of individuals are not defined by others but only by themselves.
Children cannot give consent (legally or mentally), neither can animals or corpses. Thus the point of paedophelia, beastiality or necrophilia is void.
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.