Bush still out to save marriage

Bikewer

Penultimate Amazing
Bikewer
Joined
Sep 12, 2003
Messages
13,242
Location
St. Louis, Mo.
By continuing to flog the deceased equine of a constitutional amendment to ban homosexuals from participating in same.

Now surely this could not be blatant pandering to the "base"; we all know that marriage is on the rocks, foundering, and the tiniest little shove would sink it like a stone.

Those on the right continue to maintain that homosexuals constitute a mere couple of percentage points of the population, and presumably only some smaller percentage of those would wish to marry. Difficult to see how the marriage of such a small number of people would endanger "structure of American society".
 
The whole "saving marriage by keeping people from getting married" bit seems a wee bit stupid.

But then, I've seen nothing but stupid from people trying to justify a ban on gay marriage.
 
Isn't odd how legislation gets proposed on gay marriage and flag burning right around the time we're going to have an election?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13121953/site/newsweek/page/2/

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.
Click to expand...

How nice. "I'm not a d!ck in real life, but I play one on the TV."
 
Could someone add a bit to this as it progresses to the vote stage, say making divorce unconstitutional and adultery a crime? I'm sure that would help save marriage as well.
 
Cain said:
Isn't odd how legislation gets proposed on gay marriage and flag burning right around the time we're going to have an election?
Click to expand...

Not odd at all.


Oh wait, that was sarcasm. My sarcasm detector is on the fritz again, terribly sorry.
 
Darat said:
Could someone add a bit to this as it progresses to the vote stage, say making divorce unconstitutional and adultery a crime? I'm sure that would help save marriage as well.
Click to expand...
See, now that's political genius right there. Some wiseass Democrat ought to propose amending the proposed amendment to reflect that and ask, all innocently-sweetly, "Well, the President says he wants to protect marriage doesn't he?"
 
Manny said:
See, now that's political genius right there. Some wiseass Democrat ought to propose amending the proposed amendment to reflect that and ask, all innocently-sweetly, "Well, the President says he wants to protect marriage doesn't he?"
Click to expand...

That would take chutzpah. The Democrats don't have any of that.
 
Bush’s approval rating are bouncing around the low thirties, US troops are dying in a bloody quagmire, gas prices are soaring, and the economy seems to be stuck in second gear. Bush is a fighter pilot, and like any good fighter pilot, when he seems the missiles coming in, he knows it’s time to drop chaff.

“Gays! Gays! They’re everywhere! Forget about your lousy job! Forget about the scandal-plagued administration! Forget abut your children dying in Iraq! Gays might be able to shack up together! We'll all have to marry goats! We need to amend the US Constitution to keep that from happening! Vote GOP!”

I mean, does anyone anywhere think that this is anything but a calculated political move designed to shore up his sagging base? Anybody?
 
Manny said:
See, now that's political genius right there. Some wiseass Democrat ought to propose amending the proposed amendment to reflect that and ask, all innocently-sweetly, "Well, the President says he wants to protect marriage doesn't he?"
Click to expand...
As if the Dems were that clever; I think it's more likely they'll demonstrate their commitment to free speech by having the Democratic Leadership Caucus join in a public burning of an American flag on the steps of the Capitol building.

BTW, if Darat isn't a campaign strategy advisor, he's in the wrong line of work. That was freakin' brilliant.
 
Random said:
I mean, does anyone anywhere think that this is anything but a calculated political move designed to shore up his sagging base? Anybody?
Click to expand...
Well, I'm sure it'll help get the Phelps/Westboro Baptist Church vote. All 75 of them.
 
Bikewer said:
By continuing to flog the deceased equine of a constitutional amendment to ban homosexuals from participating in same.

Now surely this could not be blatant pandering to the "base"; we all know that marriage is on the rocks, foundering, and the tiniest little shove would sink it like a stone.

Those on the right continue to maintain that homosexuals constitute a mere couple of percentage points of the population, and presumably only some smaller percentage of those would wish to marry. Difficult to see how the marriage of such a small number of people would endanger "structure of American society".
Click to expand...

To people (like Pat Robertson) who believe that 9/11 occurred because "God lifted His protective mantle" then every instance of not outlawing behavior denounced in the Bible is one step closer to God (who loves us very, very much) destroying this country.
 
My opinion of so called conservative Christianity could not go much lower. With large, important issues facing us on all sides the one thing that gets their vote is this.

WWJD? Jesus would think you suck.
 
Kopji said:
My opinion of so called conservative Christianity could not go much lower.
Click to expand...


They are always quoting their Bibles yet somehow manage to miss the parts where Jesus saved his harshest criticism for sanctimonious busybodies who told other people how to live.
 
Darat said:
Could someone add a bit to this as it progresses to the vote stage, say making divorce unconstitutional and adultery a crime? I'm sure that would help save marriage as well.
Click to expand...

Brilliant!

Unfortunately, some people might say, "You know, that's not a bad idea..."

So to drive the point, it should be added that women should be banned from owning property and from having jobs outside the home.

And we could bring back stoning.
 
The Republican party has a strategy of winning support in rural states based on a few core issues.
1. Massive agricultural subsidies
2. Social conservatism (no abortion, no gay marriage, etc.)
3. Reduced federal environmental protection

Some of their positions on these issues are at odds with the positions of economic conservatives, social moderates, state rights on soclal issues type Republicans. At some point does the alliance between these kind of Republicans and the big spending, social conservative Republicans that control the party now break down and what effect would that have?

On this forum, it seems like the people that continue to support the Republican party seem to agree with an aggressive middle east foreign policy including support for the current Iraq war. Will that single issue be enough for you to continue to support the national Republican party even in the face of the massive budget deficits, corruption driven spending and the Republican moves to inject religion into the US government?
 
I was reading some of the quotes in the paper and online from some of the politicians who support this amendment and I keep hearing things like:

"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-Tennessee.

Now I realize that objective studies can only interfere with what is otherwise blatant pandering, but are there any studies somewhere that support/refute this contention that there are benefits to children who are raised by heterosexuals?

Even if there was such a study, I consider the whole point moot since you don't need to be married to have children and being married does not require you to procreate, thus the definition of marriage should not be contingent on anything regarding the raising of children.

Going a bit further, perhaps someone will publish the truth about the children raised by heterosexual parents. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, the entire prison population of Gitmo - all raised in heterosexual families. I think the evidence speaks for itself.
 
From the idle gossip I hear around the net, Bush ought to focus on saving his own marriage first and foremost. Wagging tongues say Laura's got one foot out the door because W has been having an affair with Condi. (ETA for the record, I don't believe it.)

As long as the NY Times sees fit to publish a panty-sniffing, front page article about the Clintons' marriage, they ought to give equal time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom