Bush's gay-marriage tack risks clash with his base (and a poll)

usa today ^ | 12/17/03

[knak]

WASHINGTON

[knak]

Poll question at the site:

QUICK QUESTION
Should the Constitution be amended to prevent gays from marrying?

so far -
54.47% No
45.53% Yes
Total Votes:123

[RLK]

That reticence is shared by Vice President Cheney, who has a lesbian daughter.

------------------------

The administration is compromized, in more places and ways than this.

[RLK]

Should the Constitution be amended to prevent gays from marrying?

-----------------------

A constitution ammendment is not needed, and would be next to impossible. Consulting a dictionary as to the conventional use of the English language will do.

[longtermmemmory]

talk about spin. Does the president even sign the amendment?

[longtermmemmory]

65.94%
Yes
34.06%
No
Total Votes:458


freep the poll alert

[baxter999]

With the capture of Hussein and the resultant rise in popularity, we will now see the real Bush since he now doesn't have to please conservatives as much. Just shows that Bush is an unprincipled liberal who only says what he thinks will get him elected.

Since Bush sees no conservative opposition, he can now pander to fringe groups like sodomites and illegal aliens. Funny how Bush seems to do more to please them than conservatives who put him in office.

Personally, I'll support any conservative candidate - even a 3rd party one - before Bush will get my vote.

[longtermmemmory]

part of we as conservatives need to do is publicise the fact that cohabitation agreemenst satisfy the need of homosexual practitioners to codify their sexual relationship on paper WITHOUT changing any laws. Homosexual marriage is strictly an effort to institutionalize a private bedroom behavior for gratification alone.

Homosexuals are not discriminated or denied anything. They do presently have the ability to sign a form cohabitation agreement same as anyone else.

[SalukiLawyer]

Q - If you call a dog's tail a leg, how many legs does the dog have?

A - Four. Just because you call a tail a leg doesn't mean it is one.

:-)

[ServesURight]

Typical USELESS Today and other left-wing media tactic: Create a non-story and phony poll to divide conservatives against Bush.

[RLK]

The point is well taken.

[baxter999]

I'm not sure which way to vote on this. As I recall, there are only 2 ways to get an amendment. One is from 3/4 of the state legislatures. Not a chance of this happening. The other is constitutional convention. Such a convention would be packed with New England and California representatives and would never pass such an amendment.

Even worse, a convention can choose to alter or rewrite the whole constitution if it wishes - even getting rid of pesky things like the 2nd amendment and others.

Afraid I'll have to vote no on this one but I share the sentiments of those proposing this amendment.

Unfortunately, the US is getting exactly what it deserves as it rejects God and Christianity for secular humanism.

[longtermmemmory]

considering the rapidity that doma's were enacted to ammend state constitutions, I would not agree that that is impossible. There are already 3/4 that have prevented homosexual marriage.

The goal is to lock out FFC out of the homosexual marriage debate. Thus a wacky court in Mass can't for texas to accept their homosexual union or marriage.

(unless of course that is a contractual cohabitation agreement. That is just a mere private contract not institution.)

[baxter999]

These sodomite arrangements are wrong on so many levels that it boggles the mind. Not too many years ago the CDC had posted on its web-site the statistic that the average sodomite had 1,000 sex partners in a life time. Now how much taxpayer money will it take to litigate all the palimonies, divorces, break-ups and alimony claims if such a life-style is legally recognized?

Also every "family" arrangement is an obvious argument that such behavior is anything but pre-determined. Else, how exactly did these children appear? Therefore any such arrangement is anti-family. So Bush is being anti-family when he accepts any such legal arrangement.

No need for me to go on, but it's one more disappointment in a long series of Bush disappointments.

Then of course, there is the argument that if everyone and even the government recognizes sodomy as protected and legitimate social behavior, how will the unfortunate people caught in this life-style ever learn that there is an alternative?

[DrDeb]

. . . for mean-spirited, vacuous commentary, I give you an 'A'

. . . for well-reasoned, well-documented argument, I give you an 'F'

[longtermmemmory]

the key is "in private", "in private" adults can do whatever they want with other adults. Marriage is a public institution not a public endorsement of sexual behavior.

[Howlin]

Whew. There for a minute, I was worried it might be one of us.........LOL.

Now I see it's an Unappeasable.

[little jeremiah]

"Gay" marriage poll, and more on Bush's statements on the matter.

[little jeremiah]

And I give you an "A" for promoting the homosexual agenda and an "F" for rational thought.

And extra credit for using the phrase "mean-spirited" when you really mean "believe in moral absolutes".

[AdequateMan]

I think the use of a term like "sodomite" is fine for a religious discussion, but its use in a political discussion destroys any notion of reasonable discourse, and is the type of labeling usually used by liberals to prevent disagreeing voices from being heard.
Think about how liberals use terms like homophobe, bigot, insensitive, neo-con and others.
By using the term "sodomite" you have done the same thing.

Personally, I consider myself a true constitutional conservative. The way I see it, if heterosexual marriage can provide for legal benefit such as shared household health coverage or death benefits and the legal sharing of resources without probate and wills, then the constitution must extend these same rights to others.

It's not about whether we like it or not, it's about rule of law, codified in the constitution of the United States. Think about this- if you can limit the rights or privileges of groups you disagree with simply because you are in the majority, then 20 years from now when the world is godless and lost, will you idly accept it when religious or heterosexual monogamous people's access to services is restricted?

Of course you wouldn't. The true definition of a constitutional republic, as compared to a true democracy, is that in the constitutional republic the majority MAY NOT use its influence to restrict or disallow privileges to the other groups.

If Madison saw fit to make our country a model after God's own creation, with freedom rather than restriction, with justice and rights for ALL (and not just those who are popular) then who the hell do you think you are to throw it away and go with mob rule?

God gives you choices, and allows man to choose to follow him. In doing so, he gives man the ability to NOT follow him.

If we ignore this, we are no different from the Ayatollahs of Iran.

[DrDeb]

"Little" one:

I happen to be a CONSERVATIVE Catholic who is STRONGLY PRO-LIFE and unequivocally ABSOLUTIST in my moral philosophy.

I also happen to work CLOSELY with Catholics who both advise the President and know his heart! BOTTOMLINE: The President shares my moral/conservative Catholic worldview relative to abortion, homosexual marriage, cloning, euthanasia, and so on!

Now, what were you saying about "rational thought"?