Wednesday, February 25, 2004

I Think George Bush is Homophobic

WASHINGTON - President Bush urged approval of a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages on Tuesday, pushing a divisive social issue to the center of the election campaign and setting a clear policy contrast with Democratic challengers John F. Kerry and John R. Edwards.
Bush said "activist judges and local officials" from Massachusetts to San Francisco to New Mexico were trying to redefine marriage and "change the most fundamental institution of civilization" by allowing same-sex weddings. "On a matter of such importance, the voice of the people must be heard," he said.

Democrats accused Bush of pandering to right-wing supporters and tinkering with the Constitution to divert attention from his record on jobs, health care and foreign policy. "He is looking for a wedge issue to divide the American people," Kerry said.

Both Kerry and Edwards said they oppose same-sex marriages but would not support a constitutional amendment.

Banning gay marriage is a top priority for Bush's conservative supporters, particularly those among religious and family-oriented groups. But while a majority of Americans - sometimes by as much as a 2-1 margin - oppose legalizing gay marriages, Bush's move could hold political risks, particularly if voters see him as intolerant or question his self-description as a "compassionate conservative."

"The president needs to worry about fair-minded swing voters in America, not a Republican base that he has locked up," said Patrick Guerriero, executive director of Log Cabin Republicans, a gay GOP group.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who has sanctioned hundreds of gay marriages in his city, called Bush's move a "shameful" attempt to politicize the Constitution.

Mindful of the high emotions and clear differences on the issue, Bush said, "We should also conduct this difficult debate in a manner worthy of our country, without bitterness or anger."

Conservatives were delighted Bush had plunged in. "There is no more important issue for our nation than the preservation of the institution of marriage," said Kelly Shackelford, president of the Texas-based Free Market Foundation, a family advocacy group.

Momentum for a constitutional amendment has grown as San Francisco officials have performed thousands of same-sex marriages in defiance of state law barring such unions. In Massachusetts, the state's highest court has ruled that a state law falling short of allowing full-fledged marriage for gays would be unconstitutional.

Bush softened his announcement by leaving the door open for states to legalize civil unions, which homosexual rights groups say is an insufficient alternative to marriage. "The amendment should fully protect marriage while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage," said Bush, who had opposed legalizing civil unions when he was governor of Texas.


GOP lacks unity on issue

Republican officials said there was no rush to bring an amendment to the floor in the House. Some conservatives want a broader approach than Bush supports, and others oppose federalizing the issue, at least for now.

"The groups that are for a constitutional amendment are split over what it should be," said House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas. "We are trying to bring them all together and unify them."

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat from San Francisco, said she would fight any amendment. "Never before has a constitutional amendment been used to discriminate against a group of people, and we must not start now," she said.

The three GOP House members from Western New York on Tuesday voiced either opposition or coolness to the idea.

And the state's two Democratic senators, Charles E. Schumer and Hillary Rodham Clinton, said they are opposed.

Rep. Thomas M. Reynolds, R-Clarence, chairman of the Republican National Congressional Committee, said merely that "the debate has started in Congress and it's not one that will end today or tomorrow. I think we'll see it throughout the year."

Sources close to the GOP congressional effort said they doubted Reynolds wants to color his campaign to widen the party's control of the House with a debate over same-sex unions.

Rep. Jack Quinn, R-Hamburg, said "I believe that marriage exists only between a man and a woman, and I think the people of Western New York feel that way. But I also think that tampering with the Constitution over this is a waste of time."

Mack McKinney, a spokesman for Rep. Amo R. Houghton of Corning, said the moderate Republican is opposed to a constitutional amendment.

Rep. Louise M. Slaughter, D-Fairport, did not respond Tuesday to inquiries about her position.


"A sacred document'

Clinton issued a statement through her spokesman Joe Householder implying that Bush is using the controversy over same-sex unions drive a wedge into the electorate.

"I do not support amending the Constitution to address this issue," she said. "The Constitution is a sacred document and should not be used as a tool to divide the American people."

Schumer's spokesman Phil Singer said the senator supported the Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law by former President Bill Clinton in 1996, which permits states to disregard marital entitlements granted by other states.

"But Sen. Schumer does not believe that this issue belongs in the Constitution," Singer said.

---

Quote: "A few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization."

Bush said that.

That right there--for that right there I wouldn't vote for him as president. But Kerry also opposes gay marriage, too. . .

Politics are so goddamned stupid. This is the land of freedom, the land of opportunity, it's the land of "equality." In this country's constitution's first few lines, it says "all men are created equal."

Contradicting, no?

I can't believe how stupid this is getting. The gays deserve just as much as the blacks deserve just as much as the whites deserve just as much as any person on this earth does.

I'm glad I don't care and don't pay much attention to politics. . .

Marriage is freaking nothing about what sex marries what sex. And so, the people who want to marry, regardless of anything you might think, of your prejudices, of that they're not of the opposite sex, should be able to marry if they want to. They should be able to legally marry.

What marriage is about is two people living their lives together because they love one another.

It's not even a goddamned issue. . .if you're a human being and have dignity in being so, and put your stupid prejudice bullshit aside, you'll see I'm right.

But whatever.

This whole thing pisses me off immensely.
Comments (3)