In light of Bushie's blatant attempt to rally his base by discriminating against a minority ('a uniter, not a divider' my ass), I give the following, that I got from Newsweek online (emphasis mine):
June 12, 2006 issue - Back in 2004, suburban Seattle pastor Alec Rowlands watched with dismay as gay couples in Massachusetts flocked to courthouses and churches, exchanged vows and walked away legally wed. Now he worries a similar scenario could unfold in his own backyard. Last year, the Washington State Supreme Court heard arguments in two gay-marriage cases of its own; a decision is expected soon. In Massachusetts, an obscure law allows only state residents to wed. But Washington has no residency requirements. So if the justices approve gay marriage—as many on both sides of the issue predict—courthouse doors would swing open to gay couples across the nation. "We will become the Las Vegas for same-sex marriage," frets Rowlands.
Just two years ago, gay-marriage opponents like Rowlands were everywhere. Thirteen states passed constitutional amendments barring same-sex unions and, in Ohio, the marriage ban was widely credited with boosting turnout and propelling George W. Bush to a second term. But after Election Day, the issue faded. Now it's back, complete with all the activists, dire predictions and dueling poll numbers. But the landscape has changed since 2004. Democrats argue that gay marriage is just a diversion from rising gas prices, the ongoing struggle in Iraq and immigration reform. With so much else to worry about, will voters care?
This week Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist will again bring the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) up for a vote; the House could weigh in next month. Though it isn't expected to pass either House, supporters want to get pols on the record before November. "It's a way to build momentum," says FMA author Matt Daniels, president of the Alliance for Marriage. Bush himself had been mostly mum on gay marriage since his re-election. But now, with his poll numbers in a nose dive and even his most enthusiastic supporters grousing, Bush took up the cause in his radio address Saturday; an amendment is needed because "activist courts have left our nation with no other choice," he explained. The president also plans to address amendment supporters in the Old Executive Office Building on Monday.
While the GOP leadership clearly hopes this tack can revive their sputtering election prospects this fall, some GOP strategists aren't so sure. Pew polls show a 10-point jump in support for gay marriage since 2004. And Bush pollster Matthew Dowd doubts it was decisive last time around. "It didn't drive turnout in 2004," he says. "That is urban legend." Turnout was the same in states with bans on the ballot and those without, Dowd says. GOP consultant Grover Norquist also questions how gay marriage plays as an electoral issue. Though social conservatives vote for marriage bans, it's not clear whether that will translate into votes for GOP candidates. "We don't have much to go on," he says. For their part, gay-rights leaders would be happy to leave the issue off the ballot. "We have to make sure [the initiatives] never see the light of day," says Human Rights Campaign president Joe Solmonese, who would prefer to press his case in court.
Evangelical leaders insist they know how gay marriage affects their voters—they'll stay home if politicians don't push for the FMA. "It's the one issue I have seen that eclipses even the abortion issue among Southern Baptists," says Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention. Last month James Dobson, the influential founder of Focus on the Family, met privately with key Republicans, including Frist, House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Majority Leader John Boehner, to warn them about the political consequences of failing to promote issues like marriage. "If you forget us, we'll forget you," he said, according to a GOP House leadership aide who was briefed on the gatherings, but declined to be identified discussing private meetings.
Though Bush himself has publicly embraced the amendment, he never seemed to care enough to press the matter. One of his old friends told NEWSWEEK that same-sex marriage barely registers on the president's moral radar. "I think it was purely political. I don't think he gives a s--t about it. He never talks about this stuff," said the friend, who requested anonymity to discuss his private conversations with Bush. White House aides, who also declined to be identified, insist that the president does care about banning gay marriage. They say Monday's events with amendment supporters—Bush will also meet privately with a small group—have been in the works "for weeks" and aren't just a sop to conservatives.
Whatever Bush's motivation, his actions aren't likely to quiet his critics. Land says he's happy Bush is speaking out, but he'd like to see signs of real commitment to the issue. "We know what a full-court press looks like when we see one," Land says. A White House official, who declined to be identified discussing strategy, says Bush has not made calls on the amendment because "nobody has asked us."
Whatever the political maneuvering, it's the courts that could make the next move. Last week New York's highest court heard arguments that the state must allow gay couples to wed. A similar case in New Jersey was argued in February. Decisions could come later this summer. At the same time, judges recently struck down 2004 bans from Georgia, Ohio and Nebraska. "It's just a matter of time before the other shoe falls," says Family Research Council president Tony Perkins. "This is not an issue you can take a pass on." For politicians and activists, that may be true. But average voters might do exactly that.
With Richard Wolffe, Holly Bailey and Karen Breslau
© 2006 Newsweek, Inc.
**************************************
And this, from another source online, which I forgot to record. I apologize to whichever news organization I got this from that I'm not citing you (again, emphasis mine).
The Gay Marriage urban legend
In a statement this afternoon, President Bush reiterated his support for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman (and thus prohibiting gay marriage). Why? Because "activist" courts in Massachusetts and elsewhere have forced his hand. "Marriage is the most fundamental institution of civilization, and it should not be redefined by activist judges," he told a crowd of supporters who agree with him on this constitutional amendment. In fact, Bush referred to "activist judges" and "activist courts" several times during his brief remarks.
With the midterm elections just five months away, most political analysts see Bush's jumping into the gay marriage debate -- after staying silent on the issue since the 2004 election -- as a way to pep up a demoralized conservative voters, especially since many conservatives believe the issue helped him win re-election. But some are already starting to question whether such a tactic will work in this political environment. And Newsweek even has former Bush-Cheney campaign strategist Matthew Dowd doubting its effectiveness two years ago. "It didn't drive turnout in 2004," he told the newsweekly, saying that turnout was the same in states with gay marriage bans on the ballot and those without. "That is a urban legend.
Critics blasted Bush's speech. "At a time when hard-working Americans are losing sons and daughters in Iraq, struggling to afford health care for their families, and worrying about being able to fill their tanks with gas, the President and Republican leaders are launching a discriminatory attack on the U.S. Constitution and American families," said the president of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay-rights group. "That’s not leading, that’s shameful politicking, and Americans are speaking out.”
For the last few weeks, congressional Republicans have been consumed with matters that have divided their party (immigration), allied themselves with Democrats (protesting the FBI's raid of William Jefferson's office), or been largely out of their control (continued violence in Iraq). But this week and the next, they're turning to issues that bring most of them together: gay marriage, flag burning, and the estate tax.
Today and tomorrow, the Senate will debate a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union between a man and woman, with a vote expected on Wednesday. Later in the week, the chamber will take up repealing the estate tax. And next week, the Senate will consider a constitutional amendment prohibiting the burning of the American flag. None of these measures is expected to pass, although some kind of compromise could be reached on the estate tax. But, as we wrote last week, passing legislation really isn't the point -- rather, it's to rally a largely demoralized GOP base to turn out for the November midterms.
The $64,000 question, of course, is whether these measures -- and even other ones -- will do the trick. An AP/Ipsos poll last month found that 45% of conservatives disapprove of Bush’s job performance, 65% of them disapprove of Congress, and 31% want Republicans out of power. And in the last NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, Democratic voters indicated they were much more interested in the midterms than their GOP counterparts.
Gay-rights advocates argue that such an amendment would write discrimination into the US Constitution for the first time in more than 200 years by denying marriage to same-sex couples.
NBC's Kelly O'Donnell notes that religious conservatives have criticized Bush on the issue of gay marriage: They say he benefited from their turnout in 2004 -- due in part, they say, from the gay-marriage ballot measures in important battleground states -- but they charge he’s remained largely quiet on the issue since then. O'Donnell also reminds us of this important subplot: that Vice President Cheney publicly opposes a constitutional amendment. It is the only time he has taken a public position that's contrary to the president's. Indeed, today Cheney will be in Lake Forest, IL raising money ($300,000) for the Republican National Committee. Last month, First Lady Laura Bush also said that gay marriage shouldn’t be used as a campaign tool.
******************************************
Hmm, so let me see, we're gonna vote on banning gay marriage although we know it won't pass, we're only doing it to divide the coutnry and whip up our base; the VP, who has NEVER had a problem speaking out on any issue, or indeed, using profanity on the floor of the US Senate against a senator, opposes it, and suddenly, he's back in the bunker silent; and the Repbulcians in Congress and the WHite House would rather throw this to the foaming-at-the-mouth rabid Far Right instead of trying to do something about the myriad of problems they created. They'd rather waste time on this instead of doing something to help the country.
But why am I surprised? The current leadership of the National Republican party are, if nothing else, self serving, hypocritical, selfish. This is just one the more blatant examples of that attitude.
God, I can't wait for November, and wind of change to blow them out of power, and return them to back-benchers they were for 50 years.
POLT = listening to "Too Funky" by George Michael
Man is certainly stark mad. He cannot even make a worm, and yet he will be making gods by the dozens! - Montaigne
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment