Update II (06/06/06): Did Lawrence v. Texas get the “gay marriage” ball rolling?
Update (3:02 p.m.): Ann Coulter will appear on Pundit Review Radio this Sunday, and she’ll probably discuss homosexual “marriage,” illegal “immigration,” and her new book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism.
Listen live on WRKO in Boston.
I’ve added Ann’s book to my Amazon Wish List (hint, hint…)
Tomorrow morning I’ll participate in a bloggers conference call with Senator Rick Santorum, who supports the Federal Marriage Amendment.
————————————————————————————————————————–
Now that George Bush and his co-president Vicente Fox of Mexico have got their America-destroying “immigration” plan working its way through a “deballed” Senate, Bush is trying to throw his base dogs a bone with a homosexual “marriage” ban amendment to the Constitution.
Bush has the wherewithal to fight to change the freakin’ Constitution, yet when it comes to stopping illegal aliens from crossing the border, he has no fight in him to execute laws already on the books? OK.
Politicians are so transparent. The midterm elections are quickly approaching (can you believe 2006 is half over?), and Bush is trying to appease angry conservatives and Christians by pushing this amendment. It’s an empty and meaningless gesture because the thing will never be ratified.
I no longer support or defend Bush, and I don’t support a “gay marriage ban” amendment to the Constitution. One doesn’t have anything to do with the other, however. My support for such an amendment waned and weakened a couple of years ago even when I thought Bush loved this country. In The Nationalization of Marriage, I argued against it on procedural and “states rights” grounds, and reminded people that Bill “Slick Willie” Clinton already managed to pass marriage-protecting legislation. Ironic, isn’t it? 
From the post:
Some states can (and will) refuse to vote on the FMA or reject it outright. If 13 states do either of those things, the amendment is dead. The second way to amend the Constitution is if two-thirds of the states call for a Convention and the FMA is ratified by three-fourths of the states. Good luck with all that. On the other hand, an amendment would prevent unaccountable judges from forcing new laws on the rest of us and rights never envisioned by the Constitution.
Another reason I don’t support the FMA is because marriage laws should be determined by the states. We already have The Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law by Bill Clinton, which preserves states’ rights and goes far enough in protecting traditional marriage by allowing states to refuse to recognize same-sex “marriages†performed by other states. Former Congressman Robert Barr wrote an interesting op-ed about this issue.
I suspect many disappointed conservatives will rally around the president on this issue. While Bush attempts to sound conservative, remember that his pro-Mexico, anti-America immigration scheme will cause more damage to this great country than a million homosexuals “marrying.” The influx of millions more poorly educated, poor English-speaking, non-assimilating Third World (more importantly, Third World-retaining) aliens is more of a threat to the average American than the spectacle of men standing at an altar…although it’s difficult to decide which is more disgusting.
If you’re reading this blog, King George, this is what I think of you and your proposed amendment:
Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
Sources:
- Gay Marriage Ban Short of Votes in Senate
- Gay Marriage to the Rescue!
- Gay marriage creates new conflicts for neighbors
- Protecting marriage: The battle dawns
- Politics of the Altar
- Bush expected to jump-start debate over same-sex marriage
Have you blogged about this topic? Trackback, and I’ll link to your post.
Bloggers: Fellow Christian Randy Thomas and I disagree on the marriage amendment but agree on almost everything else. I appreciate his work with Exodus International. Once caught up in the homosexual lifestyle, Randy travels and shares his testimony about the healing power of Christ.
Glenn Reynolds, who supports “gay marriage,” says:
There are times when I’ve found Bush’s transparent lack of enthusiasm for this measure [the proposed ban] comforting, but of course it just makes it more obviously pandering when they trot it out at this point. Or maybe I should say “attempted pandering,” since if LaShawn’s reaction is typical it’s not a very successful effort.
The Moderate Voice, Scott Ott’s proposed amendment wouldn’t pass in 1,000 lifetimes, but I like it. :), Opposing Arguments, Inoperable Terran, The Dragon and the Phoenix (cool blog name!), The Reid Report, Thoughts from a lack of sleep (another good one), Adam’s Blog, Ron’s Random Ruminations, Cagey Mind, The Political Pit Bull, All Things Beautiful…
So long as the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) holds, there’s no need for a Constitutional amendment that would directly interfere in the affairs of the states. It does appear as though the DOMA will hold, and if it doesn’t, only then is it time to consider the possibility of amending the Constitution. To create a preemptive amendment to deal with a potential court case seems to be overkill to me.
Homosexual blogger and “marriage” supporter Andrew Sullivan, with whom I had a brief e-mail exchange on this issue last year, writes:
By spear-heading the FMA again, Bush has alienated a vast swathe of socially inclusive suburbanites, the veep’s daughter, every gay person and many of their families, libertarians, constitutional conservatives and principled federalists. But he’s won over the fire-breathers, right? It turns out: Not even them any more. When you’ve lost LaShawn Barber, things aren’t looking too good.
Don’t stand too close to the flames!
Say Anything, an atheist, says:
I oppose a marriage amendment to the Constitution, mostly because I think that marriage is something that should be decided by the voters/legislators of the various states. I don’t want judges deciding the issue for everyone, but nor do I want to deny the citizens of California or Massachusettes their right to allow or deny gay marriage depending upon the will of the voters.
DITTO what she said!!!!
I get so irate at Bush and his lukewarm behavior that this is about all I can say. (Beside you say it much better
)
DITTO DITTO DITTO
Comment by Renee — 06.05.06 @ 9:03 am
Update: LaShawn’s not placated, either.
Pingback by Hot Air — 06.05.06 @ 9:06 am
I agree that the bringing up at this time is political but I strongly disagree that it has the potential to do less damage than the immigration bill.
You can always re-write such a law. It is VERY hard to revoke a right once given or the patch or a society’s culture once it has changed.
It will take a couple of generations for the damage of the Gay Marriage movement to have its effect on the country. Forgetting the religious component of the argument, you can NOT in fairness and logically ban polygamy if you allow gay marriage, eventually you will not be able to ban incest.
In fairness the “Gay Marriage/domestic partnership stuff came up to address real and legit issues. These issues can be addressed via a standard legal contract establishing inheritance and hospital rights. There is no reason why such contracts shouldn’t exist on a national level. That is a question of basic fairness and allowing people to live as they wish and should be endorsed by everybody, however that is not the same as marriage.
People say that is changing the subject, but 10 years ago when people argued the the domestic partnership laws in Vt. had nothing to do with marriage. It was a false argument then and is a false argument now.
Words mean things. If marriage means anything people want to redefine it as then it means nothing. Frankly it’s a lot like the Bush=Hitler, Iraq=Vietnam, Immigration enforcement=Jim Crow nonsense. When you define down stuff you take away perspective. If Bush is Hitler then anybody can be Hitler and we forget what Hitler actually was.
My boys are 15 and 13 this year and in their lifetime this has gone from nonsense to mainstream. I was unaware that we were all bigots and oppressors prior to those brave 4 judges on our (Massachusetts) Supreme Court.
Don’t get me wrong, I think immigration is a very important issue, but it is trumped by Gay Marriage, (just as Gay Marriage is trumped by the War, you can’t defend a culture if you are dead) think Lyndon Johnson. His support of Civil Rights law in the 50’s had everything to do with wanting to be president yet it was the right thing. If we have the right thing being done for selfish reasons who cares?
This is why the War, trumps marriage, which trumps Mexico.
Comment by Peter — 06.05.06 @ 9:09 am
LaShawn isn’t impressed by El Jorge Bushito’s latest attempt to appear conservative. Me neither.
Pingback by Inoperable Terran — 06.05.06 @ 9:17 am
IMPEACH CO-PRESIDENT VINCENTE FOX
Comment by BIRDZILLA — 06.05.06 @ 9:34 am
Peter you said:
“It will take a couple of generations for the damage of the Gay Marriage movement to have its effect on the country. Forgetting the religious component of the argument, you can NOT in fairness and logically ban polygamy if you allow gay marriage, eventually you will not be able to ban incest.”
Where does the American concept of marriage historically come from? Is it not the Bible?
So therefore it is extremely hard to forget the “Christian” (or religious) component.
Your argument is correct, everything else will follow (but honestly it will follow anyway whether we have a marriage amendment or not). Do not homosexuals have unions in society now? Yes. Do not polygamist marry in the US now? Yes (although in segragted places). Do not people use each othe sexually as a piece of toilet paper even in so called “straight” relationships? Yes. Sodomy was on the books as a law and now it is not… the course is set and there is only one path to take to curtail the devestation on society. Will a marriage amendment stop any of these other perversions of society from occuring? NO!
Comment by Renee — 06.05.06 @ 9:34 am
Will Bush’s Push For Gay Marriage Ban Backfire? (UPDATED)
Today President George Bush is expected to put his reduced political capital on the line to personally push for a constituti…
Trackback by The Moderate Voice — 06.05.06 @ 9:51 am
La Shawn
I believe you are correct - the States should write their own marriage laws. And they should respect the Defense of Marriage act.
Unfortunately, it’s only a matter of time when some activist judge strikes this down, and forces one State to respect another State’s gay marriages.
Comment by Frank Zavisca — 06.05.06 @ 9:52 am
Where does the American concept of marriage come from? Is it not the Bible?
No, Renee, it comes historically from English Common Law, which in turn was based primarily on law from classical antiquity, Rome and Athens in particular. Actually, every ancient culture worthy of the name, from Babylon onward, insisted that men marry women. Alexander the Great may or may not have slept with boys, but he sure as Bucephalus never thought of marrying one.
Comment by John Van Laer — 06.05.06 @ 9:59 am
Alan the Gadfly set me up with your blog.
I am glad he did. Nicely written.
Comment by John Lee — 06.05.06 @ 10:01 am
The “Marriage Amendment” Diversion
The administration pulls this out yet again, ostensibly to boost it’s sagging poll numbers.
Trackback by The Dragon and the Phoenix — 06.05.06 @ 10:07 am
The Methodist way
Now I’m not a gay marriage proponent, but to say this issue is important to the country given what else is going on in the world? Priceless…
Trackback by ReidBlog — 06.05.06 @ 10:13 am
Alan, the Calvinist Gadfly, turned me on to this blog by Lashawn Barber. It is a primarily political blog. I likey.
Pingback by Thoughts from a lack of sleep — 06.05.06 @ 10:17 am
LaShawn said: “Bush has the wherewithal to fight to change the freakin’ Constitution, yet when it comes to stopping illegal aliens from crossing the border, he has no fight in him to execute laws already on the books?”
And with this you declare the glaring and quite problematic crux of the matter. I believe that this is certainly NOT a matter to be changing the Constitution over. Leave it to the states. And, as an aside, it’s too bad marriage amongst heterosexuals isn’t as solid as we make it out to be when opposing gay marriage. Too often marriage is between one man, one woman and one divorce court. As we examine marriage matters we who believe in traditional marriage need to improve upon our hypocrisy.
Comment by Shawn — 06.05.06 @ 10:21 am
Podcast #127: The Marriage Amendment: A Bone to the Base?
My response to LaShawn Barber. The idea that we oppose Bush when he does something bad and attack when he does something good seems silly and counterproductive.
Marriage Amendment, Podcast
Trackback by Adam's Blog — 06.05.06 @ 10:26 am
#6 You are forgetting that in a pluralistic society a religious argument is not what is called for. We are not Mullahs. And the concept of Marriage existed in societies that did not know the Bible as well.
You are quite correct to argue that Judeo-Christian values were what the country is built on, however that is not the point here, the point is to make a logical, correct and true argument to appeal beyond the community of belief.
The question isn’t a question of if the appetites of man are going to be restrained by such an amendment, they will not; any more than laws against murder, arson or graft have stopped those things. The idea is for the society to assert what is best for itself publicly, to not sanction behavior that will destroy it while allowing individuals to make their own choices for themselves.
It is up to men and women to control themselves to rule their appetites or be ruled by them. It is also a basic principle that people should be able to live they way they want to without bothering or being bothered by others. Such an amendment will protect the institution of marriage without placing undue burden on those who want a different path.
Comment by Peter — 06.05.06 @ 10:30 am
The gay we will always have with us. It is in part genetic.
Whatever they do or do not do will not affect me or my mate. Unless we hire one to help with home decorating.
Seeriouly folks. We ought to promote gay marriage just to put a finger in the eye of the Islamic Imperialists. Those folks, despite their conservative moral stance, are the real threat to civilization.
Julius Cesar was husband to every wife and wife to every husband. It took another 500 years for Rome to fall. Perhaps Julie’s behavior was not the proximate cause.
In my estimation Rome fell from lack of defenders. Which is proof positive we don’t need no gays in the military. Well it is proof of something. Possibly of an element in the universe more common than hydrogen.
Comment by M. Simon — 06.05.06 @ 10:34 am
Peter you say:
“Such an amendment will protect the institution of marriage without placing undue burden on those who want a different path.”
Protected from what? Is marriage in great shape now?
Comment by Renee — 06.05.06 @ 10:34 am
Man definitely proves the bible right …evey time single time
“professing themselves wise, they became fools”
Comment by Renee — 06.05.06 @ 10:35 am
I can see it now:…
“Honey, this is marriage based on the man made amendment we passed…isn’t this nice…
Mommy what’s that over there…oh that’s just another acceptable lifestyle…it’s just not marriage”
Utter chaos
Comment by Renee — 06.05.06 @ 10:38 am
You know it has been proven that drinking alcohol is one of the great dangers to civilization.
I wonder why no one is pushing for an amendment to outlaw that stuff.
Comment by M. Simon — 06.05.06 @ 10:44 am
First time commenter. This morning on Good Morning America, Gavin Newsome noted that the FMA is being cynically promoted by Bush on the 25th anniversary of the first reported AIDS case by the CDC. I guess if you’re going to kick someone, you might as well do it on a day when they’re remembering and commemorating all their dead friends.
Comment by Steve Schalchlin — 06.05.06 @ 10:52 am
Let us get real silly.
Some hermaphrodites can self fertilize. Should such folks be allowed to marry themselves? For the children? If they want to do the two person thing do they get a choice of sex?
Or will we leave that out of the law and let the courts decide how to define “man” and “woman”?
Do we want such cases on the front page of our fish wraps?
Gives new meaning to the phrase “just wait until your father gets home”.
Comment by M. Simon — 06.05.06 @ 10:58 am
Suppose this mobilizes the Religious Right and the rest of the party decides to take a hike?
Shrink that tent.
Comment by M. Simon — 06.05.06 @ 11:12 am
Marriage Protection Admendment
The federal marriage amendment [FMA] is coming up for vote in the U.S. Senate this week.
Trackback by Ron's Random Ruminations — 06.05.06 @ 11:41 am
LaShawn Barber argues that the Federal Marriage Amendment is just a bad idea. She thinks it will never be ratified, and while I think it is quite possible that it could get through the ratification process, I agree that Bush is pandering to his base at the least opportune time.
Pingback by Jay Reding.com — 06.05.06 @ 11:52 am
It appears that the BA (Bush Admin) has fallen into the liberal idea that Conservative Christians are ignorant rubes that only vote on one issue. This marriage thing really has no traction.
Comment by mac — 06.05.06 @ 12:14 pm
Hugh Hewitt’s new T-shirt lays out the agenda in perfect, apple pie order: Win the War, Confirm the Judges, Cut the Taxes, Control the Spending, Secure the Border.
So what does the master of the “tin ear” come up with? Amend the Constitution to Define Marriage.
It is not that the issue is unimportant, but Bush is certainly demonstrating that he is irrelevant in setting the agenda.
Please, President Bush, resign now and let Dick Cheney finish out the term.
Comment by Heliotrope — 06.05.06 @ 12:18 pm
As a religious person who believe in the separation of church and state because I don’t want your religion messing with mine, maybe someone can clear up something for me.
If so-called “Religious Conservatives” believe that marriage is under attack, why are they only attacking abortion and gays? Why are they not adding divorce, adultery, fornication, and birth control, to name but three additional threats to marriage and procreation? Why don’t we amend the Constitution to say that any action that leads to the breakdown of any marriage is illegal? Wouldn’t that be more in line with Biblical teachings? Isn’t amending the Constitution to say that gays can’t marry but leaving out at the very least a prohibition against divorce, which the Bible clearly forbids, is hypocritical?
There is clearly both a religious and a societal need to maintain families in a core unit, so why do conservatives only choose a minor but visible threat to marriage? Over half of all couples who marry get a divorce, including many of the most vocal “pro family” “conservatives”. Shouldn’t we be Constitutionally banning divorce before we start Constitutionally banning gays from marriage? Divorce is way more of a threat to marriage than gay marriage.
Comment by John Smith — 06.05.06 @ 12:20 pm
A few thoughts I am compelled to share:
A recent column from the Weekly Standard might be helpful here. There are very good reasons why the marriage tradition is what is has been in our country, and why it must be defended in our “Constitution-based federal republic” (in spite of perceived motives of politicians).
(Stanley Kurtz, column from 6/5/2006) http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/266jhfgd.asp (Stanley Kurtz, column from 6/5/2006)
One does not need to be especially religious to see the dangers inherent to societal consecration of deviant behavior, particularly for the sake of self-promotion (whether it happens at the Local, State or Federal level matters not). It is not wise to officially promote addictive behaviors within a society. Sex addiction; addictions to rebelliousness, money, privilege. Equally problematic are the redefinition of concepts, historical facts, etc. in an effort to provide justification for “progressive policies”, all the while ignoring any and all evidence that would thwart a so-called cause. … Undistorted history is replete with valuable lessons. We must heed those lessons.
(Side note: The Bible is historical and relevant as well, whether one believes in God or not.)
Now, the illegal immigrant (break law with impunity) problem is something that has been propagated over many years. One person, even a president, could not solve this pervasive problem overnight. - Harsh labels and accusations directed at a one politician may suit you, but are, nevertheless, unreasonable. - Too many at local levels actively seek to derail ANY possible law-respecting solutions. Selfish desires and “feel-good” policies too often trump law and enforcement, sending a disconcerting example to all citizens: Our laws are optional, and consequences are applied only to those of “no special interest”. (I am not the first to say this /express concerns.)
Might anarchy be an inevitable, eventual consequence? Time will tell.
A final thought: It would be interesting to witness the effects of ending all socialist governmental policies right now; today. No more state/federal social spending; no more “Great Society”. Ponder that for a moment. How many front-burner, domestic political issues would we be still talking about or dealing with? i.e., how many political “issues” (agendas) are really, ultimately, about grabbing tax dollars (or avoiding taxes), ignoring consequences, and dismissing personal responsibility and accountability?
Have a good one … and thank you for your time / considering what I have to say.
Comment by Gin — 06.05.06 @ 12:24 pm
Bingo John!!!
This marriage amendment is like putting a band-aid on a sucking check wound.
Comment by Renee — 06.05.06 @ 12:25 pm
Mr. Smith,
You compare apples and oranges here. While I do not support a constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage (homosexual marriage is a misnomer) I would support an amendment to the constitution that defines life beginning at conception. Why?
The Constitution is designed to limit government. “We the people” limit that government and a good definition of “person hood” would help limit government. The FMA does not limit government, unlike the Defense of Marriage Act, rather it is designed to limit people.
The states on the other hand should define marriage as between one man and one woman. This is where this belongs constitutionally.
God will judge this country for our practice of divorce, adultery, sodomy, and abortion. These practices violate the covenant of God. We do not stave off that judgment by breaking our own national covenant.
Al sends
Comment by al — 06.05.06 @ 12:37 pm
Playing the Base
Senator Edward Kennedy isn’t too happy about the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA; defining marriage partners as one man and one woman), but it’s a safe assumption that President Bush isn’t losing sleep over it. However, many conservatives–…
Trackback by Pajamas Media — 06.05.06 @ 12:50 pm
I have to say, it’s interesting to watch the president’s support fall out from under him - if only because I’m trained as a political scientist (side note: that really is one of the cheesiest titles I’ve ever heard). La Shawn Barber is was very much a part of the Bush base, and even now she’s done with the president - calling the revival of the DOA FMA transparent.
Pingback by Cagey Mind — 06.05.06 @ 12:57 pm
Neither the Defense of Marriage Act nor the Federal Marriage Amendment will prevent gay/lesbian “marriage”. We have a Constitutional crisis that has been created by certain radical judges who do whatever they please, no matter what the Constitution or the law says.
The DOMA will be overturned someday solely because some judge somewhere does not like it and wants to force his/her views on the public at large. And under the guise of the “Living Constitution” the FMA will simply be ignored. Why not? Nothing remains of the Second and Tenth Amendments. The First Amendment is under attack in the name of “campaign finance reform” and “separation of church and state”, while the Fourteenth Amendment is stretched to mean anything the judge wants it to mean. We are becoming a nation of men (and arbitrary ones at that) instead of law.
When the DOMA is eventually overturned, we need leaders with the courage to say, “The court has made its decision - now let the court enforce it.” Why should the Executive and Legislative branches bow to the will of a law-breaking judge on a power trip?
Comment by Mwalimu Daudi — 06.05.06 @ 1:23 pm
I’ll believe this or any other administration really cares about preserving ‘traditional’ marriage when they propose outlawing or heavily regulating divorce.
Comment by sulizano — 06.05.06 @ 1:37 pm
A Colossal Waste Of Time
President Bush is preparing to throw his “political capital” behind the Federal Marriage Amendment–quite possibly the most blatant act of political pandering I have ever seen. The only question is whether the people that this charade is intended for…
Trackback by The Political Pit Bull — 06.05.06 @ 1:40 pm
My View On Bush And The Marriage Amendment
Here’s my view on the gay marriage issue: I oppose a marriage amendment to the Constitution, mostly because I think that marriage is something that should be decided by the voters/legislators of the various states. I don’t want judges deciding…
Trackback by Say Anything — 06.05.06 @ 1:51 pm
WHO RESPECTS JORGE NOW?
Mmmmmm???…Stop the evil mass murdering terrorist GAYS from marriage..BUT…allow open borders for millions of un-checked people to walk into our country.. and then give them AMNESTY to boot. Jorge and Karl are completely out of their minds. It makes my physically ill just to watch and listen Bush speak any more. He’s on TV right now giving his bowel belching speech on the Gay Marriage Ban. Frankly I think marriage should me between Man and Woman. But this topic is way off the radar screen for me…stopping the next 911 and controlling our borders is dead center. Gracias Senor Jorge… I feel much safer..You will keep us safe from the evil doers…(Gays who want to get married)
Comment by Paul — 06.05.06 @ 2:12 pm
Jorge Boosh envisions an America where the labor is cheap, gays aren’t allowed to marry, and Spanish is the official language. In other words, Mexico.
Comment by Gary — 06.05.06 @ 2:32 pm
There are a bunch of straw men being built and demolished here.
My house needs roof repairs and a gate that needs to be fixed. Does that mean that if I mow the lawn I’m distracting from the issue?
To suggest that congress can’t have a vote on an issue that people have been talking about for at least two years because there are other issues being debated is a bunch of nonsense. There is ALWAYS a more important issue pending when anything comes up.
Now you can support or oppose the amendment on it’s merits, you can say that a different amendment would be better, you can be opposed to a federal solution. All of that is fine and dandy but please don’t insult my intelligence by claiming the issue is not worth voting on or taking away from congress’ ability to do other things. If our congress can’t walk and chew gum then we need a new congress.
Either this issue warrants action or it doesn’t. I don’t deny for one moment that the timing of this has a lot to do with political issues. In Washington everything has to do with political issues. I’m shocked shocked that politics are being practiced in Washington.
There is ALWAYS something more important that the country can focus on. The reason why we are having this argument on this blog now is twofold #1. People on the right would rather talk about immigration and don’t like the president’s plan on it. Well neither do I, but that has nothing to do with marriage. This vote is not going to affect the other immigration bill. #2. People on the left don’t want this vote because the majority of the public is against them on this issue. Well if the people are against you on the issue, make an argument to persuade them that you are correct instead of ducking it. You have had years now to change public opinion, don’t blame the president for your failure to do so.
I think it’s a lot of nonsense going after the President for giving time to an issue that favors him. Sheesh!
Comment by Peter — 06.05.06 @ 2:44 pm
to really defend the tradition of marriage, why not push for an anti-divorce amendment?
Comment by jen — 06.05.06 @ 2:54 pm
Peter…
Obviously our President and many in Congress can’t walk and chew gum at the same time. As a Firefighter I know that when I get on scene of a major fire, the priority is putting the fire out. We are not going to be giving a lecture on good fire station maintenance while the fire is burning out of control. Get it?
Comment by Paul — 06.05.06 @ 2:54 pm
43. Straw man. Can you explain how having this vote today will hurt the stopping of a bad bill on illegal aliens? This is not a fire. If that was the case then the failure to pass a law today means that it is all over.
42. Straw man. Divorce doesn’t change the def of marriage. It ends one. Words mean things.
Comment by Peter — 06.05.06 @ 3:08 pm
Codifying The Sanctity Of Marriage
If the President simply wants to say he is still the man we elected in 2004, perhaps there is a better way of saying it. If he is trying to make up for his stand on the immigration issue, he is treading on some bigger corns there, and those don’t heal…
Trackback by All Things Beautiful — 06.05.06 @ 3:17 pm
Me thinks Jorge is pandering. He simply knows this proposed registration isn’t going anywhere. In the mean time, our country is overrun on our south border, facing an economic crisis with millions of illegals, facing a huge risk of being struck again by terrorists…and Jorge wants to talk about Gay Marriage?…Are you really Karl Rove pretending to be a regular guy off the street commenting on this blog?
Comment by Paul — 06.05.06 @ 3:24 pm
Yup you nailed me I’m actually Karl Rove because as the adviser to the president having this debate on this blog is the most important thing I can do to advance the president’s numbers.
I ask the question again, how will the vote today hurt the effort to stop a bad Senate Bill from becoming law? Why is this vote getting everybody’s knickers in a knot?
You are upset that the president over immigration. That is a legit position and there is nothing wrong with that or with pushing hard to get the right bill to his desk. That is however totally irrelevant to the vote that will happen in the Senate today on another issue.
Comment by Peter — 06.05.06 @ 3:34 pm
Sorry about the error in the last post doing two things at once. Peter (but you can call me KR if you want).
Comment by Peter — 06.05.06 @ 3:36 pm
Gay marriage: your thoughts
LaShawn Barber and Dave Weigel mock the transparency of Bush’s move = bring on the hilarity.
Trackback by I Love Everything — 06.05.06 @ 3:36 pm
Brushing and flossing my teeth is very important. I can agree to that even if I’m not very consistent at doing that. If I don’t lower my sweet intake, brush or floss, the chances are all my teeth will rot out of my head or deteriorate. However, if I at least make an attempt to limit sweets, brush moderately and floss when I remember, I have a good chance of saving at least a better amount of my teeth than if I did nothing at all. I at least understand good dental hygiene, even if I don’t practice it very well.
To me, just because we have divorce and separation and fornication etc., etc. doesn’t mean we can’t or shouldn’t do something to defend the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. If my teeth are starting to rot, I don’t think it’s a good idea to just give up and let them all fall out of my head. IMHO, this amendment is a start at stopping the hemorrhaging that’s been going on before the patient totally bleeds to death. It sounds to me like a lot of people here don’t believe in slippery slope arguments–don’t be fooled. Polygamy will be just around the corner, and after that, incest; then, watch for the pedophiles. They’ve already formed their own party in one of the European countries.
I agree with Peter. It’s not like Congress can’t do more than one thing at a time, and it’s not like they don’t practice politics all the time. They can discuss this and handle all the other stuff.
I understand your concern, La Shawn, over the borders–I’m concerned, too. But I will say one thing; at least the Hispanics have a more traditional view of marriage and family. Odd as it may be to say, I fear being overrun by them less than I do by a perverted culture that is bent on dragging all of Western Civilization down into the gutter until there is nothing left for anyone to care much about.
Michael Medved has been on this for some time, and has had some good arguments for why we should care about defending marriage. I’d suggest listening to him or looking up his opinions.
Comment by Kathleen — 06.05.06 @ 3:39 pm
I care very much about defending marriage, but I oppose amending the Constitution to do it, and I resent Bush’s empty pander-fest.
Our way of life will survive and marriage can be protected without fiddling with the Constitution. It can’t survive the continued onslaught of Third World aliens and legalization of criminal aliens already breaking laws AND our social services system.
Comment by La Shawn — 06.05.06 @ 3:43 pm
Then we shall have to agree to disagree on this one, La Shawn. But that’s what makes this country great. I respect your opinion, and wholly support your right to it. God bless you.
Thanks, Kathleen.
- Admin
Comment by Kathleen — 06.05.06 @ 3:53 pm
That is a Legit position to have La Shawn. It is also a legit position to say that political considerations are the reason for the vote today.
What is not legit is to claim that this vote shows a lack of commitment on the immigration issue. The president’s position is different than ours on this issue. I think he’s dead wrong, but he’s not the type to change his mind.
That being said let this issue be voted on and support or oppose it one way or the other, but don’t say that the vote shouldn’t take place or he shouldn’t make the case because of the other issues on the table that are unrelated.
As I said at the top for me marriage trumps immigration but is in turn trumped by the War. This is one reason why I think Rudy will do pretty good among conservatives like me. If it came down to somebody right on the war and wrong on marriage (Rudy) vs somebody wrong on the war and right on Marriage Rudy would get my vote. Your priorities are different than mine, that’s OK too.
Perhaps because I live in Massachusetts this issue rings stronger with me, perhaps not, but either way you can oppose or support the vote today without linking it to the border.
Comment by Peter — 06.05.06 @ 3:57 pm
#31,
I’m down with no more socialism.
How about we start with the Government’s Cocaine Price Support and Gang Finance Program. Why should criminals have their own price supporrt program? Shouldn’t at least save such programs for honest people. Like wheat farmers?
So much socialism, so little time.
Comment by M. Simon — 06.05.06 @ 4:02 pm
Dude, did you really think you’d make it past the troll filter with that filth? Crawl back into the sewer. - Admin
Comment by madmatt — 06.05.06 @ 4:10 pm
How about: Since its all about the children, Limit marriage to child-producing unions. If no child is produced in 10 years, dissolve the union and fine the parties. No old people, unless they adopt a child under 10.
Remove all financial benefits from marriage and tie them to the children produced from the union.
Restrict marriage to a religious ceremony and get the government out of it.
This as I approach my 30th anniversary and think it is sad this is what the government is spending time on. Its not like we have no other big issues/problems.
Comment by Hazel — 06.05.06 @ 4:28 pm
If marriage is the fragile institution that so many here believe it is, no law can save it.
Comment by M. Simon — 06.05.06 @ 4:36 pm
Peter: George W. Bush has extremely limited “political capital.” He has been inadequate at selling the war on terrorism. He lost the initiative on Social Security reform. He has played duck and cover on the immigration concerns. He has spent like a Democrat. He has never used his veto pen. He signed McCain-Feingold. He has not forced action on his judicial nominations. He has failed to reach the masses with the truth on a solid, if not soaring economy.
I agree that he can put all manner of initiatives out there at the same time. Washington is not a one topic at a time town.
However, look at what he has let the opposition corner him on. When you are as far down in political capital as he is and his history is that he can not sell much of anything, why in the world would you take on a marriage amendment?
It is not a matter of what you can propose to do, it is a matter of what you have a chance of getting accomplished. He is back in the Harriet Myers mode on this one.
Churchill had two wonderful lines, which I will adapt: 1.) [Bush] …got on a horse and charged off in every direction at once; and, 2.) A long, black, empty limousine pulled up and [George W. Bush] got out.
“Everything in its season.” This is not the “season” for GW Bush to be touting Constitutional amendments. The base has other, more pressing needs in mind.
Comment by Heliotrope — 06.05.06 @ 4:59 pm
If I understand the Christian Bible correctly Jesus was no fan of fixing social probems by passing laws. I understand (correct me if I’m wrong) that it required changes in the human heart.
So tell me how come so many Christians don’t get it?
Comment by M. Simon — 06.05.06 @ 5:00 pm
The President was 10 feet away
First: La Shawn, thanks for your very kind encouragement and I know we disagree about the MPA but I do respect you very much and as I have said many times… mature people can disagree and still be good friends. Plus, I actually agree with some of your…
Trackback by Everyday Thoughts Collected — 06.05.06 @ 5:43 pm
I agree with mrs La Shawn. i have supported the president, up until the immigration debate, and thats where i get off. I grew up in southern Arizona, and began to see the subtle effects, {in those days} as a kid. Every year it seemed some professer somewhere would come out with study that said illegal aliens don’t take jobs from americans. Me and my flunky buddies at the time knew darn well, that all you had to do was go to the nearest building site to prove otherwise. Also, the the gay marriage amendment, I would have believed the president cared, if he had supported this back when he had some real political capital to spend.Now it just seems like a sad attempt to rally the troops. Sort of like general Custer, whose men referred to him as ” Hard Ass”, to give an idea of what his men thought of him, all of a sudden getting compassion and concern for his soldiers, just before the Battle of the Little Big Horn. some how i think it’s a little too little, too late.
Comment by mark sullivan — 06.05.06 @ 8:18 pm
Has anyone presented an fact based argument as to why gay marriage “destroys” traditional marriage? I’ve followed this issue closely and haven’t heard it. If the fact that gays are considered legally married somehow weakens traditional marriages, I question the strength of the institution itself. If anything, won’t including more people into culture of marriage strengthen and promote it? In nearly every article, blog, or debate I find on this topic, the anti-gay marriage side always assumes or asserts that recognizing gay marriage would “weaken” traditional marriages, but never is the purported weakening quantified, measured, or even addressed. Considering the heat generated by this topic, Im surprised such a key link in the debate has gone un-addressed.
Comment by W. Brady — 06.05.06 @ 9:20 pm
Fighting The Symptom And Not The Disease
President Bush, as expected, spoke today on behalf of efforts to amend the Constitution to establish a definition of marriage outside the reach of judicial mischief.
Trackback by Captain's Quarters — 06.05.06 @ 10:50 pm
La Shawn Barber sees the president’s pushing of the Federal Marriage Amendment as a condescending gesture, a Bone for the Base Dogs. I find it hard not to agree. For many conservatives, immigration was the last straw, and they’re pretty much done with George Bush and a good percentage of the Republican Party as well. The FMA does indeed seem like a pandering attempt to reconnect to the base. Too late.
Pingback by American Method — 06.06.06 @ 12:50 am
And today, The Huffington Post points to a Newsweek piece in which an anonymous Bush friend said, “I don’t think he gives a s**t about it. He never talks about this stuff.” That, combined with the fact a two-thirds majority is required for passage has a growing number of Americans seeing an extremely transparent attempt to boost the GOP’s chances in the midterm elections this fall. “Bush is trying to appease angry conservatives and Christians by pushing this amendment,” writes Christian ex-liberal La Shawn Barber.
Pingback by Et Cetera — 06.06.06 @ 4:01 am
First off I will say I do believe that marriage is a states rights issue not a federal one. Personally I am not opposed to same sex civil unions..but not same sex “marriage” the reason being to me marriage has religious connections where a civil union does not. I think that religions have a right to set moral standards for their believers.
As far as President Bush coming out advocating this constitutional amendment..all smoke and mirrors. He doesn’t believe it will pass so he can look strong and committed on an issue..deverting the MSM on the failing of his comprehensive immigration reform platform.
According to Bill Frist we will also see a constitutional amendment against flag burning in this session. Now I realize that most Americans didn’t attend Harevard but to really think we are so studpid to be flim flamed this way is just to pathic for words. El Presedente Bush has lost it.
Comment by James — 06.06.06 @ 7:02 am
Wow, started at Andrew Sullivan’s blog and ended up here. I feel like a Christian in Rome’s Coliseum.
I’ve yet to hear a logical argument against equal marriage rights for Gays, and W. Brady is right: “Has anyone presented an fact based argument as to why gay marriage “destroys†traditional marriage? I’ve followed this issue closely and haven’t heard it.”
If your marriage is so weak that it is threatened by two men marrying then you have much bigger problems than this issue. Gays getting married is as much a threat to the marriages of heterosexuals as the marriage of inter-racial couples was a threat to the marriage of whites. But I have a feeling some of you are still upset with the “activist” judges and the Loving v. Virginia case where the Supreme Court held that laws banning inter-racial marriage were unconstitutional (something about EQUAL protection).
Peter: “Such an amendment will protect the institution of marriage without placing undue burden on those who want a different path.”
(1) exactly how does this Amendment “protect” marriage? and please be specific (2) You would not be talking about no “undue burden” if the burden was on YOU.
John Smith: “If so-called “Religious Conservatives†believe that marriage is under attack, why are they only attacking abortion and gays? Why are they not adding divorce, adultery, fornication, and birth control, to name but three additional threats to marriage and procreation??”
Because the self-righteous will not condemn their own sins. Easy for some to demonize Gays while they themselves destroy their own marriage. Newt Gingrich is on his, what, THIRD marriage?
Finally, a LOT of people need to remember the ideas of the Declaration of Independence, we ALL have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Bush is not The Decider, he’s The Distracter. Amazing how the Republicans have perfected the use of social issues to distract people in order to get them to vote against their own economic self-interests.
Comment by Byron Stover — 06.06.06 @ 10:01 am
Vulgarity is not permitted on this blog. You liberals sure are an uncouth bunch. And you’re posting from work! Watch your step. - Admin
Comment by Byron Stover — 06.06.06 @ 10:19 am
LaShawn,
Saw your girl, Ann Coulter this AM on the Today show. Of course, I don’t care for her at all but normally she’s pretty sharp.
She was NOT on point at all.
Did you check her out?
Comment by Tiffany in Houston — 06.06.06 @ 11:24 am
#62 W Brady and #67 Stover do not permit the possibility of marriage being a “value centered” institution. W. Brady asks (and Stover echoes): “Has anyone presented an (sic) fact based argument as to why gay marriage “destroys†traditional marriage?
What naturally follows this false cause in logic is to substitute “gay marriage” with a long list of other possibilities. To wit: multiple spouses, father and son, mother and daughter, man and monkey, multiple gays, men and little boys, cats and dogs, etc.
Some liberals will go out on any limb, no matter how weak to attack the established order.
Perhaps marriage has out lived its usefulness and the state should get out of the business of recognizing it. Let child custody, inheritance, parental responsibility, spousal abuse, desertion, dual contracts and the rest all be decided on television in the people’s court presided over by Ophrah Winfrey, Jerry Springer and Madonna.
Gay marriage is the leading edge of recognizing homosexuality as a civil right. Once established, why shouldn’t homosexual sex be taught by an expert practitioner in school health classes as a vibrant and uplifting form of mutual gratification that only the prissy Puritans oppose?
Most of us know gay people and enjoy their friendship. Most of us are related to gay people. Most of us have learned to live with the reality of gay unions. Many of us even have a a friend who is a total “flamer.” But most of the gays we know are not militant “queer nation” types. In sum, we have carved out our treaties for mutual respect. That is why “civil unions” seem to be more readily accepted.
Marriage is clearly a values centered concept. If you don’t believe that, you are out of the societal loop. Sweden has successfully shattered the institution of marriage. Study up on their problems if you want to know more about the model of unbridled liberalism gone amok.
Comment by Heliotrope — 06.06.06 @ 12:13 pm
Nope, didn’t get to see Ann. I’ll try to download a recording from the MSNBC site.
Comment by La Shawn — 06.06.06 @ 12:25 pm
>>I care very much about defending marriage, but I oppose amending the Constitution to do it…>>
Given the position of activist judges, what would you propose as a solution?
Comment by suek — 06.06.06 @ 1:42 pm
Heliotrope argues that marriage is “values centered.” What does that mean? How does a “values lifestyle” exclude gays? Honestly, it seems that people against gay marriage are against a gay lifestyle and want to eradicate it. But how–and this is the key question–does allowing gays to be gay or marry gays, affect YOUR lifestyle? Its like saying (which I hope you wouldn’t) that Jewish or agnostic values are different from Catholic values and that you need to legislate against the Jewish/agnostic lifestyle to save yours. My point is that there is a potential for harmonious cultures. Absent a reason my gay marriage “destroys” traditional marriage, just let them marry. Be nice and tolerant, partiularly of people you will never see or know. No?
As to the slippery slope argument, there need not be a link between gay marriage and any other sort of marriage. If for instance polygamy came up as an issue, anyone can easily identify why its harmful to society. [For one thing, it is bad for women in the marriages]. Notably–and this is my entire point–there is no similar argument for gay marriage.
Is it really that allowing gays to get married will lead people to marry monkeys? Is that all you can come up with? You can’t draw a line? Who wants to marry a monkey? What would that even entail? How would the taxes work? I’d propose we draw the line at some sort of socially accepted norm, like the courts do all the time in cases of discrimination and punishment. What does society tolerate? Now, there are estimates that 5-10% of the population is gay. To me, within limits which I think our current laws cover, that deserves respect. When 5-10% of the population wants to marry chickens or have 5 wives, I’ll listen and probably be able to come up with good reasons to reject the idea.
So, in any case, I hope when congress proposes the anti-man monkey marriage amendment, you can come up with a better argument then allowing men to marry monkeys will allow men to marry fish, which, of course, your values just couldn’t tolerate.
Comment by W. Brody — 06.06.06 @ 2:31 pm
Thanks. Before I can digest it, the argument is as follows:
1) Allowing gay marriages encourages gayness, which is bad for society.
2) Endorsing gay marriages gives others a weakened perception of marriage, which presumably, in turn, leads to fewer and/or weaker marriages and weaker families.
Is there anything else? This is by no means obvious. Can you quantify the harm?
Comment by W. Brody — 06.06.06 @ 4:22 pm
To all, my apologies, I did not intend to offend anyone by posting a quote containing the “f” word. Afraid my years in the Army left me somewhat desensitized about the “f” word.
Comment by byron stover — 06.06.06 @ 4:50 pm
For the record, I dont think either of the 2 arguments I wrote above are valid, particularly number one. I was asking for clarification. In fact, I think that the less exclusive and combattive the institution of marriage is, the more stable it it will be. Not to say I even think marriage is such a good thing in many cases.
Comment by W. Brody — 06.06.06 @ 6:04 pm
W. Brady writes: “Honestly, it seems that people against gay marriage are against a gay lifestyle and want to eradicate it.”
Wrong!. The gay lifestyle is firmly implanted from next door to Key West, Mardi Gras or Fire Island. Television even offers the “queer eye for the straight guy.”
Understand that the gay lifestyle is grounded in physical sex (carnal knowledge) between people of the same sex. Since gay sex, by definition, is barren sex (not possible to produce offspring) there is no particular reason for society to concern itself about legitimacy, near blood relationships, age or even multiple partners. (Unless you want to introduce “values” into the discussion.)
You pose the idea that being against gay marriage is tantamount to wishing for the eradication of gays. Nice try, but Hitler I am not.
I simply do not see why the definition of marriage that has been around for eons should be expanded to include gays? What benefit does society derive from it?
I know what the agenda is for gays: homosexuality is a civil right and carries all the rights and privileges accorded those who qualify for affirmative action, Americans with disabilities, those interned during WWII, Native Americans, military veterans, etc.
All across the country we find men and women who “live together” and produce offspring without being married. All across the country we find gays who “live together” without being married. Both groups borrow money as “couples” for houses and enjoy the benefits of the fair housing acts. Both groups enjoy being free from government harassment.
What is the necessity of gays being married other than to establish a civil rights foothold? What is so magical about chipping away at the meaning of marriage? “Where’s the beef?”
Comment by Heliotrope — 06.06.06 @ 6:39 pm
Its good for gays to get married: 1) they want to and allowing them to do so would make them happy, 2) many of the benefits of marriage would benefit gays, 3) the gesture of including them would break down painful cultural divides 4) it would promote stability and benefit children of gay couples. Need I go on?
Comment by W. Brody — 06.06.06 @ 9:00 pm
In honor of Ann Coulter!
Worship songs play -
“Wolf in Ann’s Clothing” - Choir
“Bush Killed Our Husbands” - 9/11 Widow’s A cappella Quartet
“America the Terrible!” - Choir
Welcome to the Liberal church! I am Reverend Sammy Sosalist and I am filling in tonight for…
Trackback by Louisiana Conservative — 06.08.06 @ 1:26 am
The marriage debate
Sam Brownback points out the problems that come from allowing gay marriage that its proponents don’t want you to think about. “Same-sex marriage proponents argue that sexual orientation is like race, and that opponents of same-sex marriage are theref…
Trackback by Conservative Outpost — 06.08.06 @ 2:52 pm