Bush's top priority.

[Black Dog]

Terrorism? Nope.

The Iraq war? Uh-uh.

Immigration? Try again.

Health care, social security, the economy? Not even close.

It's the homos.

For the first time in his second term, President Bush will revisit the emotional debate over same-sex marriage. In two speeches, he will press the Senate to approve a constitutional amendment this week defining marriage as the union of a man and woman.

No cynical politiking going on here, though, no sireee.

Now, with midterm elections approaching, he is returning to a topic that galvanizes an important part of the Republican base.

As a political strategy, I'm not sure how this will work. The bigots will always go G.O.P. I guess the danger is in them not turning up at all on election day. And nothing riles them up like the threat of two people doing something that doesn't affect anyone else whatsoever.

``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 in his radio address. ``Marriage cannot be cut off from its cultural, religious, and natural roots without weakening this good influence on society."

The rumours that he's schttuping Condi make this especially funny.

[Biblio Bibuli]

homos.

"In one North Carolina congressional district, for instance, Republican challenger Vernon Robinson has aired a radio ad attacking Democratic Representative Brad Miller with mariachi music playing in the background: ``Brad Miller supports gay marriage and sponsored a bill to let American homosexuals bring their foreign homosexual lovers to this county on a marriage visa. If Miller had his way, America would be nothing but one big fiesta for illegal aliens and homosexuals." Miller voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004, saying the matter should be left to the states."

The song "Kookaburra" would be another good one to have playing in the background.

It goes something like:

"Kookaburra sits in the old gum tree

Merry, merry king of the bush is he

Laugh, Kookaburra! Laugh, Kookaburra!

Oh how gay your life must be."

I think it was banned in Canada.

[Liam]

This is both a sad day and a great day. Sad, because the President has decided to again place his own political self interest above the rights and freedoms of Americans. Great, because I believe Bush's support for this at this point in time will only further doom the cause of making gay marriage unconstitutional.

(I cringe as I write the words, "making gay marriage unconstitutional" more as a lawyer than as a gay man. Bush is the first president I know who is championing a cause that would permanently enshrine in my nation's greatest document the second-class citizenship of a minority.)

I also think this is a great day as Bush has nailed yet another negative nail in the coffin that will house his dismal legacy. With this move, Bush guarantees that the youth of tomorrow will look upon him in the same light as my generation looks upon those who opposed Civil Rights in the 1960's. Good on ya, Loser.

Here is a recent Gallup poll regarding the issues Americans find most important. Gay marriage didn't even make the 1% cut.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=M...WYxMDdmNWY4YWQ=

[sharkman]

Give it time, americans will follow his lead and it will be on their minds. This isn't about making second classs citizens so much as it is protecting traditional marriage and family. BTW. gays can't marry in the U.S. as it stands, can they? Same with most of the world, save for a few silly governments that want to put the gay agenda ahead of things like health care, education, and economy issues.

[August1991]

Terrorism? Nope.

The Iraq war? Uh-uh.

Immigration? Try again.

Health care, social security, the economy? Not even close.

It's the homos.

Run that one by me again? A website "boston.com" has a link to a Washington Post article stating that the next big thing is going to be gay marriage?

Sorry, BD. Bush's opinion about traditional marriage will not register anywhere except in a few radical places (San Francisco, Provincetown) of some blue states. The main issue in the coming congressional elections are going to be Iraq/terrorism and social security/rising interest rates/government deficit.

After about 10 or so years of Republican dominance, I wouldn't be surprised if the Dems did well.

(I cringe as I write the words, "making gay marriage unconstitutional" more as a lawyer than as a gay man. Bush is the first president I know who is championing a cause that would permanently enshrine in my nation's greatest document the second-class citizenship of a minority.)

I have never quite been comfortable with the necessary equation of gay marriage and equal rights. If it were true, then we should boycott such countries as the UK, France, Sweden, Finland for being bigotted states.

[Riverwind]

I have never quite been comfortable with the necessary equation of gay marriage and equal rights.

In Canada, the Liberals set the goal post for equality as complete equal marriage - changing the goal post at this time would send a message that it is ok to discriminate against gays. There would be no issue if the Liberals had set the original goal post as separate but equal (as has happened in most other anglo-saxon countries).

Let me re-state that because I know the logic is convoluted. SSM has become an equality right because the politicians in power at one time decided that it should be one. As a result, reversing that decision now would deny people something that they have which means the onus is on the people asking for the reversal to show why the reversal is justified. If the politicians in power had created separate but equal civil unions to start with then the onus would be on the gay community to show that separate but equal was not good enough.

[Black Dog]

Give it time, americans will follow his lead and it will be on their minds. This isn't about making second classs citizens so much as it is protecting traditional marriage and family. BTW. gays can't marry in the U.S. as it stands, can they? Same with most of the world, save for a few silly governments that want to put the gay agenda ahead of things like health care, education, and economy issues.

Actually, look again: Bush is the one forcing this issue. As for this issue not being on anyone's mind (save for the creepy religiouscons who's main priority is other people's sex lives), that's because it only affects gays who wish to marry. And really, even they have other things on their minds.

Run that one by me again? A website "boston.com" has a link to a Washington Post article stating that the next big thing is going to be gay marriage?

No: the President of the U.S. went public twice in three days on the issue. That makes it a big thing.

Sorry, BD. Bush's opinion about traditional marriage will not register anywhere except in a few radical places (San Francisco, Provincetown) of some blue states. The main issue in the coming congressional elections are going to be Iraq/terrorism and social security/rising interest rates/government deficit.

I know that. But for the people Bush is pandering to, gay marriage is bigger than all that.

[gerryhatrick]

I don't know why images don't work here anymore, but this is hilareous. Go have a look!

http://xark.typepad.com/my_weblog/images/gay_marriage2.jpg

[Darth Buddha]

Give it time, americans will follow his lead and it will be on their minds. This isn't about making second classs citizens so much as it is protecting traditional marriage and family. BTW. gays can't marry in the U.S. as it stands, can they? Same with most of the world, save for a few silly governments that want to put the gay agenda ahead of things like health care, education, and economy issues.

It'll be on the minds of a few bible banging hypocrites who want the government to leave THEM alone but see the need to treat OTHERS differently based upon a behavior that doesn n't impede their bible banging.

Now I'd like to deal things out differently: I'd like to see church land taxed (hey, if you want to buck separation of church and state, then let's do it across te table), and I'd like to see the theory of evolution added to a nationwide test that must be passed before a high school diploma is issued. I'd like to see churches that involve themselves in politics overtly lose their tax exempt status AS THE LAW SAYS THEY SHOULD.

In other words, I'd like to pillory Christians for what they are until they relearn the American value of not messing with folks who are doing them no harm. Given that it took King George and centuries of religious oppression in Europe to teach them last time, I'm betting we'll need something pretty intense as a remedial course. BRING BACK THE ROMAN LIONS.

After all, many archaeologists have concluded the Christians DID burn Rome, not Nero - he was targetting a terrorist religion in Rome's midst. If I have to choose between arsonist Christians and married homosexuals, I'd rather share a country with the latter, every time.

So, sharkman, what think ye? Is what's fair for the goose then grist for the gander?

[sharkman]

Uh, I think you do a lot of thinkin'. And being that the marriage legislation failed (in the senate I think), it'll go back in the closet for a couple months.

[Darth Buddha]

Uh, I think you do a lot of thinkin'. And being that the marriage legislation failed (in the senate I think), it'll go back in the closet for a couple months.

Yeah, the amendment failed, as they knew it would.

It's not about changing anything at this point, and given that younger generations aren't as homophobic as the elder generations. Even my generation was pretty homophobic, homophobic jokes, songs, etc. I like to remind some of my left leaning friends of the jokes they told in undergrad when they get too preachy! I wasn't either pro or con: but I did enjoy the classic sitting down right next to a gay philo major who claimed I was afraid of gays. Turned out he was damned afraid of straights! He cringed. Gotta love proof by experiment.

But I digress. The younger generation is more tolerant, so the issue will eventually be settled as "what's fair for the goose is fair for the gander(s)." It's in the demographics. Maybe we'll see the elimination of the whole "hate crime" BS too, but I'm probably dreaming. It'll just swing even farther to the left and then maybe drift back to the sane middle. That's how the nitwit extremes do things these days.

So it's all about dividing and inflaming. Divisiveness is JUST what we need right now, eh?

[sharkman]

Unfortunately, it's a weapon that is used for political gain. Gets the votes out. You may be right about the tolerance, but I fear we have become so tolerant, right and wrong no longer apply. A society that lives in the year of the morning after pill and the age of the Gland only lives for one or two things. Rats, am I preaching?

[Darth Buddha]

Unfortunately, it's a weapon that is used for political gain. Gets the votes out. You may be right about the tolerance, but I fear we have become so tolerant, right and wrong no longer apply. A society that lives in the year of the morning after pill and the age of the Gland only lives for one or two things. Rats, am I preaching?

I don't mind if you are. Throw in "Greed is NOT always good" and I might join in the choir.

But on matters that don't HURT anybody else, I really think we ought to leave folks alone. I don't think gay marriage ... though I'd prefer civil union ... is a threat to anyone. Christians will still believe what they want, and still marry the way they want. Now if somebody tried to FORCE Christians to do gay marriages, or somebody wanted to FORCE Christians to marry a different way, THEN I'd have some real issues.

The day after pill prevents implantation: just like many birth control pills do. Until a fertilized egg implants in the uterus (off the top of my head I'm remembering that 30% of fertilized eggs don't implant - and I don't feel like Googling any more this eve), you can't even call a woman pregnant. Moreover, I'm a lot happier with day after than I would be with fetal abortions... especially the second trimest on kind. As a lesser of two evils, I think it's probably better if it is available.

Now the gland bit? I'm not a fan of promiscuity either, but for simple common sense reasons: disease, premature emotional entanglements, the cheapening of the act in an emotional sense, etc. Not any commandment from any God. In a country where State sponsered churches are ruled out in the Constitution, I should be free to make such differentiations by my own values and ethics as much as Christians are allowed to differentiate in THEIR lives. I don't force my values on them, and wouldn't even if I were Emperor Deebs the 1st, they ought not to force their values on anybody else. Wasn't that what most religious groups that came to this country in the first place were looking for in the first place?

Now I DO know some gay activists who want to strut and get into people's faces with their sexuality. You know, some of the gay parades, etc.? For example, a guy I know said he wanted to CELEBRATE his sexuality and that my discomfort was because I was a homophobe. Truth is, I don't want to hear graphic details of ANYONE's sex life, and he was man enough to understand that when I said so. On the flip side, in urban areas where homosexuals are accepted, I've seen an entirely different kind of gay parade: the attitude was "this is our parade, and we aren't here to get in anybody's face." They even invited straight groups to join in if they wanted, including a motorcycle gang. I prefer the latter approach to the former!

[sharkman]

Actually, no(on what most religious groups came here for). They came so they could practice their religion without interference from the state. Now the state is saying if a young teenager wants advice on where to get an abortion, the school (arm of the state) can help her and not even inform the parents of this operation being performed on their daughter. However, if she is sick, they are not allowed to do anything but give her an aspirin! No wonder Christians are wondering why they are the only ones that see something wrong with the picture. If only there was another undiscovered land to go to practice their faith without interference from the state.

[Liam]

...No wonder Christians are wondering why they are the only ones that see something wrong with the picture. If only there was another undiscovered land to go to practice their faith without interference from the state.

I'd be the first one to donate money to the relocation effort, believe me.

[lost&outofcontrol]

Uh, I think you do a lot of thinkin'. And being that the marriage legislation failed (in the senate I think), it'll go back in the closet for a couple months.

I think to most impressive part of this is that is failed by a single vote (49-to-48)!