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 ...
SURE it is!
Just keep pounding away (groan) in the schools, media, print, about how BAD anyone is who oppose the Agenda and how 'GOOD and Tolerant' are those who support it.
I'm assuming, from your screenname, you are actually IN the state to be able to do this?
"Libertarians" believe in things like 'non-initiation of force'. So I definitely am not a libertarian.
I was in the R party, during Reagan and thru the 'Contract with America. The R party came to the majority by avoiding 'social engineering' ideas and sticking with 'politically conservative issues like govt accountability, etc. You know, the 'Contract with America'. Now, the social C political Ls in the R party are using the majority we gave them to spend like crazy, grow govt and push 'social engineering' laws like this.
The party I voted for in '94 has become the party I voted *against* in '94.
I'm going to write a family member in, this fall. Unless the Rs do something completely unexpected between here and there.
Yes I am...I am an active member of the Republican party in my state. I have met all my Congressman except for 2....McCain and Kolbe. They do not show up to Republican functions. I remember 2 years ago during the State party convention they were the only 2 of our Washington contingent that were not there. I promise that I will do all within my power to try to get McCain out of office. I do not support him. I have a friend Spiff who is helping me to get more involved. I also do not want McCain as President.
???
Please, explain that to me? I've never heard that before . . .
You are a political conservative? Yeah, right... so much for the Republican party...
I am a political Conservative. Conservative as in 'careful', as in "That's a conservative estimate". Careful with our money. Careful with defense (i.e. always stay strong). Careful with solutions (avoiding knee-jerk reactions). Careful to keep govt as small as possible.
Socially, I believe in live and let live. Social engineering is not, in my opinion, one of the mandates of the federal govt.
You know, a 'Reagan' voter. A 'Contract with America' voter. The folks who originally gave the R party this majority.
But don't worry -- the current R party is not for any of that! I guess I'm no longer an R, since they now are for big govt, high spending and social engineering.
I have never said I was a conservative; a right wing objectivist, maybe...
Interesting -- do 'objectivists' believe that the federal govt should have the power to regulate who can and can't spend their lives together as partners?
Such a place (a 'fiscally conservative' place) may never exist again because of folks like the ones pushing this.
Because everyone seems to want smaller, less intrusive govt until it comes to their own biases and predjudices. And then ya'll turn 'Liberal', asking for social engineering laws to regulate who spends their life together.
That's why I oppose judges changing the 5,000 year old definition of marriage.
Um -- I thought the issue here was, the current letter of the law allows states to make up their own mind? And ya'll are pushing for the federal govt to take power over this? Hence the 'constitutional ammendment'?
Fascinating. In arguing *for* social engineering changes, you claim the other side is doing the social engineering. You guys want to change the law, cuz the letter of the law doesn't favor your social biases.
BTW, how does opposing gay "marriage" have anything to do with who someone spends their life with?
You're kidding, right? This law would have the fed gov saying, "This sort of life's union we will offically sanction, That sort of life's union we do not." Pure social engineering.
You are pushing for a law guaranteeing that the federal govt will favor a certain type of 'personal relationship' for the good of socieity.
How much more obvious can that be?
You are a cultural Marxist?
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
Interesting -- do 'objectivists' believe that the federal govt should have the power to regulate who can and can't spend their lives together as partners?
That is not the issue and you know it... Typical Marxist double-speak...
I don't care if it doesn't pass the Senate this time around. Get these losers on record. That is absolutely KEY.
You've got it backwards. This Amendment is designed to counter the social engineering being attempted by the left. Redefining the traditional family and marriage is some of the worst social engineering possible. The well-financed and organized gay activists are shopping the most liberal state courts and judges in order to find the best venue to enact through legal precedent the social engineering that they would never be able to via legislation. This Amendment attempts to protect the core, the fiber of our free society from the latest attempt at social engineering of the left. Please understand that.
It has become imperative that we put a stake in the ground with these militant anti-family gays, and thereby protect the foundation of our society -- the family.
While it's true that there are militant gays there are militants this and militants that everywhere and somehow we survive and society continues. I'm much more concerned with militants who are out to kill us than militants who perform weird sex acts. I simply don't believe that people who are different than us are a threat. My marriage simply does not depend on the actions of others. I'm not threatened and think there is room in our society for those who are or think differently while doing no harm.
"The future of civilization is at stake here."
Due to 1%(the number which most people here cite)of the people?
Try a little humor when reading some of my posts. Ofcourse I don't think the future of civilization is at stake via the gay marriage effort. Anyone who feels threatened by the sex acts of a few doesn't have much of a marriage.
Interesting -- a 'Marxist' is someone who believes govt should control things "For the good of society".
Much like a Federal ban on gay marriages!
That's why ya'll are called, "Social Conservatives, Politically Liberal".
Me, I'm Socially Liberal, Politically Conservative. Socially, I don't care what others do, as long as they don't directly impact me and mine. Politically, I am for smaller govt, strong defense, etc. I do *NOT* believe in using the power of the federal govt to make social policy like 'marriage laws'. Cuz it's no different than using the power of the federal govt to do any other social engineering.
You, my friend, are the "Cultural Marxist". If you are pushing for the power of the federal govt to intervene in a 'social' thing like marriages.
Don't forget the battle is the Lord's. It is He Who will decide the demise of the USA. If Americans would ever get back to real belief in God's Word, the gays, abortion and liberalism would all go away. I know I am talking about the 1,000 years after the tribulation but we probably are closer to that than we know.
I am not failing to give the "GOP" money.
I am not giving money to the national GOP campaign committees and particularly not to the GOP Senate committee (as a party-wide committee, they have no party-base legitimacy to interfere in state GOP primary elections - as they are doing in Rhode Island now). I am, instead, giving to individual GOP candidates, directly.
One of Bush's Biggest Mistakes (BBM): Letting Arlen Specter keep his job.
That's a good approach.
It was not "letting." Bush was behind Arlen 100%, including the point when Spectre could have been kept out of the chairmanship of Judiciary, a very powerful post.
Bush plays games. He feints to the right while supporting the Left.
No more RINO presidents.
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.