Why Is Bush Being Soft On Gay Marriage ?

[Michael Hardner]

Washington Times Article

right now social conservatives are mad over what many consider the president's failure to strongly condemn illegal homosexual "marriages" being performed in San Francisco under the authority of Mayor Gavin Newsom.

    Top religious rights activists have been burning up the telephone lines, sharing what one privately called their "apoplexy" over Mr. Bush's failure to act decisively on the issue, although he has said he would support a constitutional amendment if necessary to ban same-sex "marriages."

    "I am just furious over what's going on in California and over what the president is not doing in California," a prominent evangelical leader confided. "He says he's 'troubled' — he should be outraged. If he's troubled, he should pick up the phone and call [California Republican Gov.] Arnold [schwarzenegger] and tell him we want action against the rogue mayor who is breaking the law."

If I may speculate... I suspect GWB is doing what Chretien did when he was in office - governing by polls.

Where else are the religious right voters going to go ?

[The Baron of Banality]

Michael Hardner ... right now social conservatives are mad over what many consider the president's failure to strongly condemn illegal homosexual "marriages" being performed in San Francisco under the authority of Mayor Gavin Newsom.

If I may speculate... I suspect GWB is doing what Chretien did when he was in office - governing by polls. 

Where else are the religious right voters going to go

- MH - While no politician including Bush is impervious to polls, to suggest that he is as poll driven as that unprincipled reptile Chretien is not supportable by the facts or the record.

- The reason Bush is in trouble currently is because he is NOT poll driven enough and so he will not modify his postions on Iraq and on the economy to blow with the prevailing american winds. (For example, check and you will see that Democratic frontrunner John Kerry has had more positions on Viet Nam, the Gulf War and the current war in Iraq than Xavier Hollander in her prime working a stag party for the LA Kings. This 'nuanced' policy determination as the Democrats euphemistically call it and opportunistic bullshit as I call it resonates in the polls. Bush doesn't care - he is serious about the war against terrorism and the restructuring of Iraq and about reducing the size and tax bite of government and that its that.)

- The reason that inarticulate, moronic weasel Chretien ruled for so long is because he always took his decisions based on polls over principle. So, for example, he opposed the War in Iraq mainly because the majority of people and the overwhelming majority of Quebecers during a Quebec election campaign opposed the war not because it lacked UN approval as he claimed. As Opposition Leader in 1990/91, he also opposed the Gulf War and IT HAD UN APPROVAL but he figured the polls were against it.

- As to the gay marriage issue in the US, unlike in Canada the matter of marriage is a state not a federal responsibility. Bush has already spoken out on the issue several times to the effect that the people by way of a state referendum or at the least by their representatives debating and voting in the legislatures should decide on such fundamental moral and social issues not a few unelected and unrepresentative judges. I agree fully with this view of Bush's. There is little else the president can do without making the thing more polarized and divisive than it already is. He cannot 'order' the mayor of Frisco or the governor of California to do his bidding in a federal system on a matter outside of his jurisdiction. I also think that Governor Arnie (who is doing a hellava job and leaving the dull Gray Democrat in the dust so far) is in favour of the idea of gay marriages and wouldn't intervene even if Bush tried to lean on him.

- You see, MH, as much as the hard left rabble likes to paint George W. as some kind of extreme bible thumping neanderthal because he happens to be an avangelical christian, the truth of the matter is that Bush is a relatively moderate republican on social issues and on people's right to live and let live. He did not raise the gay marriage issue on his own volition, even though the vast majority of americans are against gay marriages and all he has really said is let the people or their representatives not the ivory tower judges decide.

- Similarly, he spoke up very directly right after 9/11 to the effect that the american people must understand that the war on terrorism was not directed against arabs in general and/or arabs in america and that americans must be tolerant and inclusive in not discriminating against their fellow citizens of arab or moslem origins. Bush was extremely popular in Texas as governor with texans of mexican (tex-mex) and spanish ancestry generally and even made the effort to learn spanish as well as passing legislation to improve employment and education opportunities for minorities in Texas. Recently, he has passed a law making it possible for millions more mexicans to enter and work in the US legally and with the protections of US law.

- So your cynicism, while understandable, is misplaced. None of the minority who favour gay marriage in the US except for Cheney's daughter and a small rump group (pun not intended) called Log Cabin Republicans will vote for the GOP ticket. Few of the hard right born again bible belters will desert the GOP ticket even if Bush says nothing at all on gay marriage.

- The only way this issue could affect Bush in the polls and in the big poll in November is if the Democratic candidate (Kerry or Edwards) comes out very strongly and directly for gay marriage. This would ensure a huge victory for Bush in November. But this won't happen because the Democrats are the sisters in arms of our Liberals - they always put polls over principles. So just as Paul Martin has tried to defuse and defang and delay this issue here by loading down the Supreme Court with additional questions in the reference to the Court, so will the Democrats adopt a 'nuanced' position on gay marriage (except, of course, when they are addressing gay groups).

[Michael Hardner]

MH - While no politician including Bush is impervious to polls, to suggest that he is as poll driven as that unprincipled reptile Chretien is not supportable by the facts or the record.

Well, since the war ended I don't think we've seen a clear and focussed plan from Bush. The state of the union address got bad reviews. IMO Bush was all over the map - Mars, criticizing the use of steroids in professional sports. And there's this amnesty plan of his, which has been criticized by conservatives on this board and off.

I suspect he's trying to paint himself as more of a moderate by making statements on poll-tested issues. But of course, this is impossible to prove.

- The reason Bush is in trouble currently is because he is NOT poll driven enough and so he will not modify his postions on Iraq and on the economy to blow with the prevailing american winds. (For example, check and you will see that Democratic frontrunner John Kerry has had more positions on Viet Nam, the Gulf War and the current war in Iraq than Xavier Hollander in her prime working a stag party for the LA Kings. This 'nuanced' policy determination as the Democrats euphemistically call it and opportunistic bullshit as I call it resonates in the polls. Bush doesn't care - he is serious about the war against terrorism and the restructuring of Iraq and about reducing the size and tax bite of government and that its that.)

That being said, his team didn't seem plan well enough for the rebuilding of Iraq.

- The reason that inarticulate, moronic weasel Chretien ruled for so long is because he always took his decisions based on polls over principle. So, for example, he opposed the War in Iraq mainly because the majority of people and the overwhelming majority of Quebecers during a Quebec election campaign opposed the war not because it lacked UN approval as he claimed. As Opposition Leader in 1990/91, he also opposed the Gulf War and IT HAD UN APPROVAL but he figured the polls were against it.

All true.

- As to the gay marriage issue in the US, unlike in Canada the matter of marriage is a state not a federal responsibility. Bush has already spoken out on the issue several times to the effect that the people by way of a state referendum or at the least by their representatives debating and voting in the legislatures should decide on such fundamental moral and social issues not a few unelected and unrepresentative judges. I agree fully with this view of Bush's. There is little else the president can do without making the thing more polarized and divisive than it already is. He cannot 'order' the mayor of Frisco or the governor of California to do his bidding in a federal system on a matter outside of his jurisdiction. I also think that Governor Arnie (who is doing a hellava job and leaving the dull Gray Democrat in the dust so far) is in favour of the idea of gay marriages and wouldn't intervene even if Bush tried to lean on him.

He seems ineffectual in the eyes of the religious right, and I can see why. If there was enough of an outcry, I'm sure there's something he would do. He's not as passionate a 'states rights' advocate as he is an evangelical Christian, I'm sure.

- You see, MH, as much as the hard left rabble likes to paint George W. as some kind of extreme bible thumping neanderthal because he happens to be an avangelical christian, the truth of the matter is that Bush is a relatively moderate republican on social issues and on people's right to live and let live. He did not raise the gay marriage issue on his own volition, even though the vast majority of americans are against gay marriages and all he has really said is let the people or their representatives not the ivory tower judges decide.

There's no evidence either way on this. These are just my suspicions. I don't necessarily believe the hard-left or the religious right but their perceptions are interesting.

- Similarly, he spoke up very directly right after 9/11 to the effect that the american people must understand that the war on terrorism was not directed against arabs in general and/or arabs in america and that americans must be tolerant and inclusive in not discriminating against their fellow citizens of arab or moslem origins. Bush was extremely popular in Texas as governor with texans of mexican (tex-mex) and spanish ancestry generally and even made the effort to learn spanish as well as passing legislation to improve employment and education opportunities for minorities in Texas. Recently, he has passed a law making it possible for millions more mexicans to enter and work in the US legally and with the protections of US law.

- So your cynicism, while understandable, is misplaced. None of the minority who favour gay marriage in the US except for Cheney's daughter and a small rump group (pun not intended) called Log Cabin Republicans will vote for the GOP ticket. Few of the hard right born again bible belters will desert the GOP ticket even if Bush says nothing at all on gay marriage.

- The only way this issue could affect Bush in the polls and in the big poll in November is if the Democratic candidate (Kerry or Edwards) comes out very strongly and directly for gay marriage. This would ensure a huge victory for Bush in November. But this won't happen because the Democrats are the sisters in arms of our Liberals - they always put polls over principles. So just as Paul Martin has tried to defuse and defang and delay this issue here by loading down the Supreme Court with additional questions in the reference to the Court, so will the Democrats adopt a 'nuanced' position on gay marriage (except, of course, when they are addressing gay groups).

It's the economy and the war. The presidential candidates will high step over this issue, I think.

[Bushmustgo]

http://www.dearmary.com/mary/index.html

FYI- Dick Cheney's daughter is gay and supposedly wears a relationship band on her finger. This website was just recently launched since her father, Dick Cheney, supports a gay amenment ban.

[FastNed]

Issuance of a Marriage License is strictly a "State" function. The Federal Government has no jurisdiction in this area.

The Mayor of San Francisco is acting against clear California Law and is, no doubt, guilty of Misprison of Office but any prosecution is the primary responsibility of the State of California.

Note that as the issuance is 'illegal', any subsequent "marriage" may well be judged as 'invalid' (depending upon Cali Law) and at a minimum, will be used as a basis for denial of "Full Faith and Credit" in other jurisdictions should attempts be made to claim a legal relationship exists.

[Bushmustgo]

Let's be honest here anyway, the whole "Gay Marriage" issue is just a diversion by the administration from all of the lost jobs, economy, and war of choice...all in an election year. Also trying to shore up support on some swing voters.

In the 2000 Campaign, both Bush and Cheney were quoted that marriage was a personal choice and they shouldn't step in and it was up to the states...they lied again.