Gay-marriage ban a no-win deal for Bush

Philadelphia Inquirer ^ | 5-22-06 | Dick Polman

[Aetius]

The American Debate

Gay-marriage ban a no-win deal for Bush

By Dick Polman Inquirer Political Analyst

The religious conservatives who worked hard to reelect President Bush in 2004 have long anticipated that the White House would reward them by pushing a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

But that's not happening.

Too many other issues predominate, everything from Iraq to immigration. As a result, Bush seems ill-positioned to spend dwindling political capital on a social crusade - especially at a time when a nod toward greater religiosity might turn off secular Republican voters and thus imperil the moderate Republicans in Congress who are already struggling to keep their jobs in November.

So the religious right, which may well have been pivotal in helping Bush keep his job, appears destined for major disappointment in 2006....

[Aetius]

Some good examples of where the writer reveals his bias is when he speaks of "socially tolerant districts in the Northeast" with the clear implication being that those areas of the nation (which is most places) that oppose gay marriage are socially intolerant.

I don't know who this Fabrizio is, but this passage is strange;

--"Fabrizio estimates, based on his own surveys, that half of today's Republicans are "theocrats" who want government to "promote traditional values by protecting traditional marriage," as opposed to wanting less government intrusion into personal lives.--"

With regards to marriage, this is a false choice. Preserving marriage in law and as public policy as it has always been is not an intrusion into personal lives. And if it is, then how is the actions of a few judges (who are, afterall, simply members of another branch of govt) to impose recognition of same-sex marriage not an intrusion? I'll be the question has never been put that way, but it should be. How is it that the fight to preserve what has always been, and what is in no need of change, has come to be portrayed as the villain? Fabrizio must be one of those Republicans embarrassed at having evangelicals and conservative Catholics as part of the base.

This article also sets up nicely the idea that if the GOP loses this Nov, then it may be those pesky social conservative's fault no matter what. If the GOP actually pushes hard, then it will because they scared 'moderates' into voting Dem, but if the GOP does not push hard, then it will be because those petty conservatives stayed home.

But I'll give the writer some credit for pointing out Howard Dean's false claims.

[Clintonfatigued]

Is this article what they call wishful thinking?

[Mr Ramsbotham]

With a name like Dick Polman he has zero credibility on the issue.

[Dutch Boy]

Must be very wishful thinking. In the last election, gay marriage was voted down at a massive level. Eleven out of eleven states.

[capt. norm]

I think the 'gay marriage' thing is being pushed by lawyers who realize they can make money in the 'gay divorces' which quickly follow.

So far, that plan is working $$$.

[Starter]

Yep. It's certainly a bad idea for the Republicans to back an issue supported by 70-80% of the population. That's a sure path to defeat.

(Yes, it's sarcasm.)

[RoccoJ]

I am very disappointed by this. Bush cannot be re-elected to a third term, so he should be pushing the adgenda that he was elected on even harder!!!!!

[hsalaw]

Fabrizio estimates, based on his own surveys, that half of today's Republicans are "theocrats"

I'll be there were TWO people in his "survey" and he was one of them.

[Revel]

"especially at a time when a nod toward greater religiosity might turn off secular Republican voters and thus imperil the moderate Republicans in Congress who are already struggling to keep their jobs in November."


In other words this article is telling Bush to screw the Conservatives. If he does that(along with the congressman) then we shall see what happens to these "moderate" Republicans. I hope they all wise up before November.

[muawiyah]

Any of these leftwingnuts who come out with the "theocrat" nonsense are clearly delusional and/or don't understand the big words they find themselves forced to use.

"Score something man?" may well be the extent of this guy's weekend entertainment anyway.

[Sunsong]

Why are so many moderate Republican voters feeling alienated? Party strategist Craig Shirley suggested, "There is a fear, among some in the party, that the Republicans are being identified too much as a theological party." With good reason, apparently: Fabrizio estimates, based on his own surveys, that half of today's Republicans are "theocrats" who want government to "promote traditional values by protecting traditional marriage," as opposed to wanting less government intrusion into personal lives.

What Bauer didn't mention is that the polls show far less support for amending the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. And the subject doesn't seem to register on the intensity scale, either. The latest Fox News poll, released Friday, listed the 20 issues that Americans are most concerned about, and gay marriage didn't even make the list.

Those are paragraphs to take seriously. There will be no federal marriage amendment this year. Stick a fork in it.

[Sunsong]

Yep. It's certainly a bad idea for the Republicans to back an issue supported by 70-80% of the population. That's a sure path to defeat.

Don't delude yourself. Only 50% of Americans want a fed marriage amendment. This will NEVER happen in this Congress.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Any of these leftwingnuts who come out with the "theocrat" nonsense are clearly delusional and/or don't understand the big words they find themselves forced to use.

Hey, you can even see some of those here!

[JCEccles]

Don't delude yourself. Only 50% of Americans want a fed marriage amendment. This will NEVER happen in this Congress

Let's get the votes on the record. Let's line up the names.

And let's unburden the truth and get it out where we can see it clearly: it is gay marriage that would result in greater governmental intrusion into the lives of Americans. Banning gay marriage would RESTRICT the power of government.

So does Roe v. Wade restrict the power of government. But there is no moral equivalence between abortion and traditional marriage. The former is a vile disease, the latter an essential condition for the continued good health of this nation. Thus, government should be loosed to protect innocent life and restricted from forcing acceptance of gay marriage (which would destroy traditional marriage by dilution)

[conserv13]

It's certainly a bad idea for the Republicans to back an issue supported by 70-80% of the population

Please link to the poll where a Constitutional amendment on marriage has support of "70-80%" of the population.

[newgeezer]

the writer reveals his bias is when he speaks of "socially tolerant..." with the clear implication being that those [who] oppose gay marriage are socially intolerant.

I have no problem with that. Intolerance of evil isn't a bad thing.

[DungeonMaster]

Maybe the only reason the gays have gone political is to turn the religious right against the Republican party. It might be working because I'm feeling like I want an amendment.

[jmaroneps37]

I don't know who this Fabrizio is,
he is a guy who has a long history of being wrong. I worked on the same campaign with him some years back and found him to be a dull blade.

[Starter]

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050401-114205-2153r.htm

It's a year old, only 68%, and not asking about an amendment. (shrug) The numbers I pulled off the top of my head are off.

[DBeers]

Homosexual Agenda Ping!

If you oppose the homosexualization of society
-add yourself to the ping list!

To be included in or removed from the
HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA PING LIST,
please FReepMail either DBeers or DirtyHarryY2k.

Free Republic homosexual agenda keyword search [ Add keyword = homosexualagenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

Gay-marriage ban a no-win deal for Bush

LOL - It seems the delusional leftist spin meisters are working overtime? Maintaining delusion is hard work!

[ElkGroveDan]

With a name like Dick Polman he has zero credibility on the issue.

I once encountered one of "them" named Richard Love.

[MACVSOG68]

I don't know who this Fabrizio is, but this passage is strange;

--"Fabrizio estimates, based on his own surveys, that half of today's Republicans are "theocrats" who want government to "promote traditional values by protecting traditional marriage," as opposed to wanting less government intrusion into personal lives.--"

I agree with you. In the Republican Party, only 14% identifies itself as part of the Christian Right. Out of that, I doubt less than half would classify themselves as theocrats.

But having said that, it's clear that most Americans do not want homosexual marriage as the law. Yet we have not reached the need for a constitutional amendment. It should be a state issue. If Massachusetts wants to legalize homosexual marriage, then that is their decision. But no other state need recognize that marriage. The Defense of Marriage Act provides that and does not conflict with Article IV of the Constitution. If, and only if the USSC strikes that down, then a constitutional amendment becomes necessary. It is the business of the state how it treats the legality of its homosexual population. That is how you protect traditional marriage while at the same time keeping the federal government out of people's lives. They are not mutually exclusive.

[pawdoggie]

Must be very wishful thinking. In the last election, gay marriage was voted down at a massive level. Eleven out of eleven states.

Yes. Wishful thinking and a Left-wing agitprop attempt to separate religious conservatives from the Republican Party. The President has said he was in favor of the Amendment, back when the Democrats were touting polls that purported to show that a majority of Americans did not favor a Constitutional ban. It's up to the leadership in the House and Senate to do the "heavy lifting" now, although other pressing issues, like Iraq, immigration and energy have (seemingly) taken precedence.

[Aetius]

Were there no threat of a federal court, and ultimately the Sup Court, imposing gay marriage/civil unions then I'd probablly agree with you. As it is, many in Congress from both parties claimed to oppose gay marriage, yet also oppose the Amendment on the grounds you speak of; i.e. that its a matter for the states to decide. I wonder how many of these politicians parroting this line are serious, and how many are simply lying. Will Senators McCain and Conrad, for example, vote for an Amendment IF there is a Sup Court imposition of gay marriage/civil unions? (and the 'civil unions' part is key, because while I will admit they enjoy significant support from the public, the imposition of them from the courts is no less radical than full-on gay marriage -- the only proper course for the courts is to stay out of it).

Part of me wishes that Frist would instead try to call these Senators on their stated beliefs, and instead offer up an alternative Amendment, like the one Orrin Hatch has supported. I can't remember the exact wording, but it either explicitly empowered the states to handle it, or explicity removed the matter from consideration from federal courts. Since such language would let states set any policy they want, I can't imagine how a McCain would justify a vote against it.

[MACVSOG68]

Very well analyzed. I would be interested in one that permitted states to do as they wish, but the DOMA does that now. I'm not sure how the USSC would rule against DOMA, given that it complies completely with Article IV, which gives Congress the authority to make rules pertaining to the Full Faith and Credit Clause. If so, it would have to be a convoluted reading of the 14th Amendment, and if so, even a constitutional amendment would have to be constructed so as not to conflict with the 14th. So yes, I'd like to see that.