Bush, pleasing the Religious Right, again

Falken · 06-03-2006, 09:42 PM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush on Saturday urged the Senate to pass a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, in a congressional election-year pitch to conservatives whose enthusiasm for him has cooled.

The Senate next week plans to debate a proposed amendment against gay marriage, though it is believed to have little chance of passing.

"Marriage is the most enduring and important human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith," Bush said in his weekly radio address.

"Ages of experience have taught us that the commitment of a husband and a wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society."

Bush said a constitutional amendment was needed to keep "activist" judges from overturning efforts by some state legislatures to ban gay marriage.

But Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, accused Bush of using the radio address to "appease his right-wing conservative base."

"At a time when Americans are tuning in to hear about issues they care about, he chose to spend the time advocating writing discrimination into the Constitution."

More of the story can be read here

Darkfeeling · 06-03-2006, 11:19 PM

Everybody sit back, relax, and watch the chaos grow. People are PISSED.

Corpsey · 06-03-2006, 11:45 PM

Yup, i'll agree with that, but try not to join the chaos. I'll just say that gay people cannot be denied human rights by denying them to have their relationships not recoignised by the law, and leave it at that.

werewolffan98 · 06-04-2006, 07:07 PM

Why are they focusing on that instead of poverty or helping the poor and what not? sounds to me like they're false Christians,because as i recall christ said "to help the poor and clothe the naked" and that nations that forget the poor shall have gods judgement on them.

Because if they make a amendment based on Christianity then why don't they follow other religions too? like outlawing electricity like the Amish do?

To me it's a cheap and tawdry political trick.

werewolffan98 · 06-04-2006, 07:39 PM

addition it seems as well that christians seem to selectly quote the bible,because there are verses saying,you can't eat shrimp,you can't work on sundays,and that if a son curses his parents they're to put him to death,as well as owning slaves{an evil that no one approves of today}.

Monsosin · 06-04-2006, 11:30 PM

Some times I just look at Bush and see a retarded kid who is chaneling the ghost of Hitler, and screwing up what Hitler says. There I said it, short and simple.

Falken · 06-05-2006, 01:51 AM

Sometimes I think Bush is making up for shortfalls... like how some men buy a sportscar to make up for something they're lacking... The guy has a serious inferiority complex... like Hitler and Napoleon (not saying he is another Hitler or Napoleon, just saying they were screwed-up fucks who had massive inferiority complexes)

Virulent Dryad · 06-05-2006, 02:40 AM

I don't think Mr.Bush is smart enough to be compared to Hitler or Napoleon or almost any other politician for that matter, except maybe Blair.

Falken · 06-05-2006, 03:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Virulent Dryad

I don't think Mr.Bush is smart enough to be compared to Hitler or Napoleon or almost any other politician for that matter, except maybe Blair.

good point... I think he barely squeaked out of Yale with a "C" average...

WolfMoon · 06-05-2006, 05:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by werewolffan98

addition it seems as well that christians seem to selectly quote the bible,because there are verses saying,you can't eat shrimp,you can't work on sundays,and that if a son curses his parents they're to put him to death,as well as owning slaves{an evil that no one approves of today}.

I would hesitate to make generalizations about any group of people, were I you. There are many people on these boards who are christian, after all.

Disfunction · 06-05-2006, 05:25 AM

It would seem somewhat logical to assume that's what he's doing.

While Bush has made a number of phonetic and grammatical fuck-ups, I hardly think he's the idiot that everyone cracks him out to be.

As far as gauging intellect on a basis of grades achieved, I must certainly be near Bush's level for intelligence by your standards, perhaps even lower, as I'm currently sitting at a C average for a school that doesn't have as stellar a reputation as Yale (but certainly doesn't represent the lowest range for universities across the globe).

I do intend to increase this average, but I can't quite be of the same position to assume that grades will define someone's intelligence. Particularly, suppose we were to adhere to the theory of multiple intelligences, I'm certain Bush would have his somewhere other than his linguistic skills (which he may be lacking, or perhaps he just doesn't practice his speeches). There are a number of reasons why he might be an idiot on that front, but there's also the benefit of a doubt that he may not be as dumb as popularly portrayed.

That said... I'm not sure. If Bush is a Christian, then Christianity influences his values. In most cases, the west generally has a legal system based rather prominently in Christian morality, as Christianity was the faith that founded the Americas and is most commonly practised throughout the collective whole. To suggest that Bush adhering to Christian values is necessarily an appeal to the conservative right could be a valid argument to make (and likely is to some extent) but that certainly doesn't mean that he doesn't believe in it. If he's trying to draw attention away from one thing and toward another, he certainly wouldn't be the first president to do so.

He was elected. This time he got the majority, and the election itself. People knew what they were getting when they voted for him, and now he's doing what everyone who voted should have, and likely had, known he would do.

I will not begin to formulate opinions as to why, but I hardly think it's wrong.

Disfunction · 06-05-2006, 05:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WolfMoon

I would hesitate to make generalizations about any group of people, were I you. There are many people on these boards who are christian, after all.

Suppose we gave Mr. Swiffer the benefit of a doubt and hope he meant to imply bible literalists. He makes a valid point, there at least.

Magpie_Tendencies · 06-05-2006, 05:37 AM

Yeah. But werewolves who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones until they learn how to type. Or something to that effect. The point is that he needs to learn how to use the comma properly. So there.

Anyway, being serious now, I have to agree with Dis. Bush got elected. When the majority voted for him (a second time), they knew what he stood for. He was "pleasing the Religious Right" the first time around and people decided they wanted him back.

nuksaa · 06-05-2006, 01:29 PM

I hope those who share the negative opinion of Bush on this issue place Clinton, who signed the Defense of Marriage Act 1996, in the same negative light.

Falken · 06-05-2006, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nuksaa

I hope those who share the negative opinion of Bush on this issue place Clinton, who signed the Defense of Marriage Act 1996, in the same negative light.

Why? the "Defense of Marriage Act" allows the states to set their own standards... thus Utah which is predominantly Mormon can prohibit gay marriage, but Hawaii and Massachusetts can approve laws in their state to allow "same sex partnerships".

Bush wants to take away the rights of the states to self-determination on the issue, so even if the majority of citizens in Massachussets approve of "same sex unions", their right to enforce their own moral standards is trumped by a constitutional ammendment.

Perhaps you are defending Bush or making Clinton as culpable in this as well, but at least Clinton didn't propose taking away the ability of the states to determine their own moral standards, instead of having the government shove it down everyone's throat.

Inform Yourself on the Federal Marriage Amendment

nuksaa · 06-05-2006, 11:52 PM

Have you read the DOMA? It denies federal recognition of same sex marriages regardless of what state they are located. If defines what a marriage is and what a spouse is and sets it law. No matter what the state of Massachussetts allows, the state cannot call it a marriage and cannot consider either a spouse. That applies to all states. And I am sure Massachussetts is a great state to live but what if a job requires the couple to move from that state? They better move to one of the other 9 states which will recognize their union. Would you want your ability to have such a union subject to the whim of the people? Why should homosexuals be fearful every election year that their 'union' can be taken from them pending the outcome?

Remember the Mason Dixon line. It was part of the border which identified slave states from free states. It identified what states you could deny a man rights provided under the constitution based on the color of his skin. This is a law put into place which has segregation of its citizens as its foundation. That is what Clinton did. So yes he is culpable.

40 of the states currently have laws banning such marriages. That's more than enough required to pass an amendment to the Constitution. The other ten still will not allow the couples to file taxes jointly. You need a spouse's SSN which cannot exist according to federal law in these couples. If that isn't cramming down your throat, what is?

So what is Bush doing? He is taking a law put into to place by the previous administration and transferring it to an amendment, where it is more difficult to change once Capitol Hill pulls its head out of its ass. So hear's the arguement I present: Who is more culpable? The person who cleans and loads the .22 caliber pistol, hands it to a 4-year-old with the safety off stating try not to shoot anything important; or the 4-year-old who receives a divine message from God that the neighbor's leg is not important and puts the bullet in the neighbor's leg?

And who ratifies the amendment the states or should we say their representatives. So should this amendment be passed who is to blame? Bush or the 14 states who can collectively stop the amendment.

You need to inform yourself on the DOMA and what it states. So to correct you, Clinton did take away the state's rights to make their own moral decisions by passing that law. All the state's have the right to do is issue paper and recognize another state's paper regarding same sex couples. Why not just give them a "same sex Twinkie"? It will last longer.

And why the large font?

wunky · 06-06-2006, 03:19 AM

what really gets to me is why certain (and i know for a fact it's not all) christian groups feel they have to demonise sections of soceity. there are millions of christians outt here who happily accept gays as part of society and part of their religion.

so if he's not pandering to the christians, who is he pandering too? it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to implement policies for the benefit of a section of a religion. it's too specialised. there's more tot his than the christian right.............

Disfunction · 06-06-2006, 07:11 AM

He's pandering to anyone, Christian or otherwise, who believes that homosexuals should not have the right to marry. That's a larger group than "Christians" and there are many Christians who are not set against is, so using the label of Christian so freely and applying it so broadly actually defeats the accuracy of your comment.

Within Christianity, it is general those who adhere to the bible as the literal word of God, citing specific passages such as Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, or Jude 7, or Matthew 19:4-6, or Romans 1:26-27, etc. If you interpret the word of the bible as the infallable word of God, then surely moving against homosexuality is what they believe to be right, and at the core of their faith a number of comments, these included, which condemn individuals who take part in any number of behaviours.

Not all Christians agree with that part of the bible, and while that may seem a little odd for them to go against something that appears to be fairly well-documented in the core text of their faith, some are more apt to seek alternate interpretations of the text rather than what seems most obviously laid out. Not to mention the fact that these books were selected to be a part of the bible for a reason, and the text has gone through translations and revisions to get to the point that it's come.

There are Muslims and Jews who are just as fervent in their distaste for homosexuality, only they are far less in number than Christians, so we notice them more. There are even atheists and agnostics raised in homophobic tradition who would likely support this proposed amendment. Narrowing it down so simply as "Christians" isn't fair to the religious followers as a whole.

Corpsey · 06-09-2006, 08:43 PM

I'm a christian and i have nothing against gay people. Even if they openly disobey one of god's commandments, we (christians) shouldn't try to persecute them through any means, because everyone is sinful and we have no right to judge the sin of others while ignoring our own sins. I only think it is wrong when someone claims they are christian, when they are gay. I find that too hypocritical.

To add onto this, from what research i have done myself, the general part of the moderate christian community is against gay marriage because they think it will affect families and children who are raised in fatherless families will are more likely to become criminals.

http://www.leadershipnow.com/leaders...25excerpt.html

I had to do research for this on the civil union in New Zealand, so the opinion in America may be different, but i wrote an essay about the christian opinion on civil union/gay marriage, which i can post up if anyone is interested.

Child_of_Fury · 06-11-2006, 11:50 PM

I hate to admit, but I would be one of the last persons to stand up and defend the gay people, but on the other hand I don't have much against them. I'm only worried about the kids that would have either two fathers or two mothers - this, as no one can object, isn't natural.

I'm not a christian, so I really can't say anything about the marriage system, whether they should be able to get married or not...

Isn't it kind of funny, I mean, to waste energy on nit-picking whether gay people should marry or no, when there are much more important things to concentrate on? Like the situations in Middle-East and povery and famine around the world. I would really like to see Bush - or any other 'bigger' leader - do something notable about those things.

Disfunction · 06-13-2006, 05:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corpsey

I only think it is wrong when someone claims they are christian, when they are gay. I find that too hypocritical.

Hypocritical in the same way that any other sinner who claims to be Christian happens to be?

ghostposts · 06-13-2006, 09:06 AM

endemonidia · 06-13-2006, 11:36 AM

One of my best friends has two mothers - he and his siblings were all sperm-donor children (which makes the family group look really weird, becuase they're all caucasian except for my friend who's donor was asian). They have a close-knit family and I don't think any of them have suffered from the lack of a father figure. If civil partnerships/gay marriage were an option for my friend's parents, it wouldn't take from the sanctity of marriage or all that shit. It would just provide a legal recognition of a relationship that is far more permenant than the famed 3-hour Britney Spears marriage...

A bit OT, but ... the whole thing about more criminals coming from families with no father figure? That's far more likely to be psychological damage caused by conflict between the two parents than lack of a father figure. If you'd have looked at statistics of widowed families, the incidents of criminality and general psychological damage to the child would be much less.

Magpie_Tendencies · 06-13-2006, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Child_of_Fury

I'm only worried about the kids that would have either two fathers or two mothers - this, as no one can object, isn't natural.

You're worried about the children?

Are you worried that they are disadvantaged is some way? On the contrary, there are many children in this position. Most of them grow up to be very well-adjusted adults - and also tend to be rather more accepting of people.

Or do you just worry about them because having two parent of one gender is "wrong"? If that's the case why do you believe that it's "wrong"?

Corpsey · 06-13-2006, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Disfunction

Hypocritical in the same way that any other sinner who claims to be Christian happens to be?

No, it's just that when someone is a role model for a congregation, and is seen as openly sinning in such a blatant way of disregarding god's word, that the people in the church led by such a particular priest can be misled into thinking, "well, if the priest thinks he's going to heaven and is gay, i can do whatever i want and still be considered a 'good christian'". It's the fact that a gay priest can mislead people, when he is supposed to do the opposite, that i find hypocritical. Everyone is imperfect, so priests are expected to be sinners, yet they are the people who are supposed to be leading others out of sin. Do you kind of see where I'm going with this? Its the whole "bad leader" thing that im against.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magpie_Tendancies

Are you worried that they are disadvantaged is some way? On the contrary, there are many children in this position. Most of them grow up to be very well-adjusted adults - and also tend to be rather more accepting of people.

It's because the whole "nuclear family" thing may be lost. Also in this "femenistic" society, a boy "needs a man to look up to" blah blah blah blah blah. From what i've seen in churches, there is a lot of macho bull going on, and the fact that a boy can be grown up in a family without a man is "a terrifying thought". I'm quoting all this from a paster at my old church. I personaly think it's bull, but i've seen this attitude in several churches, and it gives christianity a bad name.