A 'Culture War' On Gay Marriage Could Hurt GOP [The Right is Wrong Because Wrong Is Right!]

The Boston Globe ^ | 11/20/2003 | Joan Vennochi

[johnny7]

CULTURAL WAR versus war in Iraq. To Republicans, a war over gay marriage rights foisted upon the nation by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court may sound like a welcome and winnable distraction. That is, until they remember Houston.

"The radical right is demanding a cultural war and calling for a civil war within the Republican Party at a level not seen since the 1992 Houston convention," observes Patrick Guerriero, executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans. "The last time I checked, that led to the defeat of the first President Bush." The group, the nation's largest gay Republican organization, put out a statement applauding the Massachusetts SJC decision that homosexual couples are constitutionally entitled to marry. Guerriero believes that the Republican Party and the White House should stick with jump-starting the economy and winning the war on terrorism rather than going down the path of "Patrick Buchanan, Gary Bauer, Pat Robertson, and the failed strategy of the past."

[johnny7]

An old saying states... “Nature abhors a vacuum” and it fits this issue beautifully. The MA Legislature gaveled to put off any legislation on gay marriage until next year. The SJC of MA saw this as an avoidance of responsibility (which it was) and legislated on their own thereby filling the vacuum. The voters of this state would never approve of such legislation... but to some, their opinion was not important.

[Always Right]

I love how the left is so concern that the right may hurt themselves. What the left is terrified of is that the right could realistically pass a Constitutional Amendment to end this issue once and for all. That is what the left is really trying to prevent.

[swilhelm73]

Talk about the way is wasn't and isn't.

Bush 41 allowed the Democrats to raise taxes, and outside of going to bat for Clarence Thomas allowed the Left to proceed unchallenged at home.

This led to many staying home, or voting for the nominally moderate (and 100% crazy) Perot, or even voting for the supposed New Democrat Clinton who campaigned on cutting taxes.

The Republicans need to actually fight for something if they want people to vote for them. Fighting for the institution of marriage is a good choice tactically.

People obsessed with destroying the traditional notion of marriage are NOT going to vote for Republicans anyway. However, any number of people opposed to gay marriage will vote for its Democrat enablers if it is not made into a big issue.

The very fact that an amendment is being considered shows how popular its support is...

[visualops]

I think it would serve the purpose better if it was handled at the level of the state legislature, and that the legislature insisted that the judiciary not create law, or "tell" the legislature to create law.
This is a bad move on the part of legislators to allow the judiciary to say, in effect, we don't see this as *not allowed*, so you must create law to *allow* it. That is bass-ackwards.

[visualops]

IMHO many/most people don't care, and don't want to know, what people do behind closed doors. IMHO many/most people wouldn't care if gay couples had some spousal or family type "rights" (I hate that word) when it comes to their SO's. Although I believe most if not all those rights can be secured legally via wills or power of attorney, etc.
BUT, when you take it that step further, and try to EQUATE gay couples with traditional marriage then people start to say "Hey...wait a minute."

[Always Right]

This is a bad move on the part of legislators to allow the judiciary to say, in effect, we don't see this as *not allowed*, so you must create law to *allow* it. That is bass-ackwards.

I am all for impeaching the idiots on the Bench who write laws, but when is that gonna happen? Maybe we need a Constitutional amendmend that says just that. Something must be done and in this case there needs to be either 4 impeached judges or a Constitutional fix.

[jazzlite]

The discussion here should not be about the right to redefine what marriage is..It should be about the judicial branch taking the law-making power away from the legislative branch. This is the root of the problems we suffer in this "cultural war." No unprecendented "rights" should be granted without our legislators putting themselves on the line for those rights so that people can voice their approval or disapproval at the voting booth. To allow the usurpation of law-making from this system set up to maintain maximum freedom for individuals is to set the stage for dictatorship and we all know where that leads. Whether people recognize it or not, our courts have become our dictators and the lack of recognition of this is a grave danger to our society. When a soldier takes an action in a wartime situation against a ferocious enemy bent on killing his fellow soldiers and he is then called into court by the nation he is trying to defend and is threatened with prison, WHAT KIND OF INSANITY IS THAT?!!! Thank God for Bill O'Riley, Rush and others who are trying to inform us on these matters. If you are concerned listen and watch these guys and then do what you can in your own community. We are into some very dangerous times.

[Ff--150]

The SJC of MA saw this as an avoidance of responsibility (which it was) and legislated on their own thereby filling the vacuum.

This isn't a tripe and nebulous assertion that judges are ROYALTY in the United States.

One human, one person, one judge made a decision there that will affect me, my children, my children's children and so on here in Texas eventually!

With all due respect, so what if the MA legislators had done the responsible thing--THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN OVERTURNED BY JUDGES, FOR THEY ARE ABOVE THE CONSTITUTION!!!

[johnny7]

Something must be done...

It has been done dude! Gays have been given the right to marry in MA because the SJC has deemed it so. All the legislature can do now is formalize how it is to be implemented. In 180 days, it becomes law!

[gunnedah]

Marriage is supposed to be a religious institution and it came from the bible with everyone else copying it. You have almost as many single families in America as you do married ones. So lets keep marriage the way it was designed.
This crap of benefits does not hold water and is an excuse to allow homosexuals and lesbians to marry.People who live together to the best of my knowledge are allowed the same priveleges in most states as married. Until here recently singles even had an advantage until they passed the law putting married couples on the same tax footing as those who lived together and filed single. This is just a ruse by the gay community!

[gunnedah]

I agree, I was one of those idiots. Never again though. I guess I will just choose the lesser of the evils.

[HarleyD]

"Guerriero, a former Massachusetts legislator and mayor, is trying to keep it that way: "The closer the Republican Party gets to fueling this cultural war and having a national debate about basic civil rights, the closer they get to a very dangerous path," he warns.

Ann Lewis, Barney Franks' sister was on O'Reilly last night saying how we don't need a Constitutional Amendment. This should be decided by the states. Their goal is typically left and obvious-work on one state at a time until the goal is acheived.

Now is the time to have a national debate. This isn't about basic civil rights. If this is allowed it will only be a matter of time when they'll be wanting to legalize sex with minors. (Yes, I know - they've already written articles about how this is their civil rights as well.)

BTW-There is an excellent post in the Religion section about how homosexuals inflitrated an Espitople church. It's worth reading.

[funkywbr]

Show me a poll where most Americans favor Gay Marriage and I'll show you a poll taken in San Fran!~}

[Ff--150]

The discussion here should not be about the right to redefine what marriage is..It should be about the judicial branch taking the law-making power away from the legislative branch. This is the root of the problems we suffer

Exactly! However the judicary HAS taken over--a long time ago. The only solution is mind boggling to offer, but as you state these are dangerous times....

[samtheman]

I only read the headline, not the argument. Life is too short.

One thing, though: what about the polls?

A rather large majority of the USA would, like me, scan this headline and pass on reading it.

And that same rather large majority is saying NO to same-sex marriages.

[Brandon]

Ann Lewis, Barney Franks' sister was on O'Reilly last night saying how we don't need a Constitutional Amendment. This should be decided by the states.

That sounds like a conservative position to me. Marriage has always been up to the states to decide, but now "conservatives" are calling for the Feds to pre-empt the states.

btw, state laws forbidding mixed race marriages were declared unconstitutional by the SCOTUS in 1967. Was that judicial law-making, too? Should that decision be overturned?

[Vaduz]

That is how the left work jimmy the numbers

[Always Right]

It has been done dude! Gays have been given the right to marry in MA because the SJC has deemed it so. All the legislature can do now is formalize how it is to be implemented. In 180 days, it becomes law!

Are you endorsing the right of the justices to write laws? Why do we need a legislature?

[BlackRazor]

"The radical right is demanding a cultural war and calling for a civil war within the Republican Party at a level not seen since the 1992 Houston convention," observes Patrick Guerriero, executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans. "The last time I checked, that led to the defeat of the first President Bush."

Talk about revisionist history! As I posted elsewhere yesterday, President Bush's approval rating had fallen below 40% well before Buchanan made any culture war statements. Buchanan's primary challenge certainly didn't help Bush, but it was not the cause of his defeat. He was going to lose anyway.

[HarleyD]

btw, state laws forbidding mixed race marriages were declared unconstitutional by the SCOTUS in 1967. Was that judicial law-making, too? Should that decision be overturned?

There's is a vast difference between forbidding mixed race marriages and homosexual marriages. There is no justification, Biblically or morally, to deny mixed race marriages.

The Bible, does however speak against homosexuality, having sex with children, and having sex with animals. All of which are being touted as people's "civil rights". All of which are sins to God. If you don't use the Bible as your moral compass then Darwin's Theory of natural selection should tell you what would happen to our civilization if we continue down this path.