Democrats & Liberals: Archives

And lets not forget that every American should be treated with respect and dignity.

If Bush wants to continue pandering to some identifiable groups (the religious right) while alienating others (gays and lesbians) there’s no way he’s going to get re-elected.

At some point the minority groups he alienates and pisses off are going to say “enough”, band together under a Democratic candidate and vote him out of office.

I also read recently that Bush is starting to lose the hispanic vote, and GOP has never done well with the African-Americans. These two minority groups combined with the gay/lesbian vote, should they be tapped by the correct Democrat candidate, could easily be the deciding factor in 2004.

It’s really decision time for people like Andrew Sullivan. Is he going to stay on-board with people who would deny his humanity, or is he going to take what is left of his influence over to the conservative side of the street, to a fiscal conservative like Howard Dean?

Write him, respectfully, and suggest that.

Actually, the president has not come out in support of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage; he said the lawyers are looking into ways to codify the notion of traditional marriage, but that’s as far as he’s gone.

This article makes false claims and should be removed from the blog.

Bush as never flat out said that he supports the Anti-Gay marriage amendment but he has dropped innuendo.

I would like to point out that this issue is being used by the three candidates to position themselves to a voter base. Howard Dean signed the first civil union law in Vermont giving same sex unions the same legal recognition as marriage, that puts him on the left. GW Bush said he would like to restrict marriage to opposite sex couples, that puts him the furthest right. He also said that “We are all sinners” when referring to gay Americans something they find offense in. John Kerry supports most gay civil rights but he says that he would like marriage to be defined as opposite sex couples… He did not comment on civil unions. This puts him in the middle of the three major candidates.

I actually think that if two men or two women want to spend their rest of their lives together it is no where near a threat to traditional American values and the high divorce rates in this country. I think the fact that more than half marriages in this country end in divorce is a bigger threat to traditional American values.

I also have issue with any President talking about religion and morality in the White House while on official business. When Prime Minister Kyozumi of Japan was giving a tour of Tokyo to President Bush and the first lady he could not join them to Meji Shrine because it was a religious place and he was forbidden by the Japanese constitution in going there as a state function. The President and Attorney general are not Popes. Neither are the Supreme court. In their time off they can say what ever they want. It is the constitutional separation of church and state that keeps us from turning to an Iranian style theocracy. Or a Christian mid-evil theocracy would be more appropriated.

BTW I am counting down the days until Lieberman drops out and I don’t think that Al Gore should have had that fund raiser at the Buddhist temple.

Hey Richard Bennett. What’s the point of “codifying a traditional marriage” if it isn’t to ban gay ones? Read what you are typing before you submit it. There is actually no point in defining more limits to marriage unless you are specifically trying to rule something out.

Amount of denial in this country is simply amazing.

ciaran

Richard,

I did some checking: the Reuters article in question used the wording ‘The Bush administration would consider seeking a constitutional amendment’, and I interpreted that a little too strongly - constitutional amendment was one of the options they’re considering. I’ll add a correction to that effect to the article.

Correction added. However, I still stand by my points in the lower three paragraphs of the article.

Thanks for pointing errors like this out; it’s good (although a little disconcerting) to know that there are people ready to correct anything like this.

It’s an important point because I don’t expect Bush to come out in support of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage per se. Like all other mainstream politicos, Bush wants to straddle the fence between full acceptance of the gay lifestyle and full rejection of it.

I don’t see his position on gay marriage as radically different from Kerry or Dean - they all want to have their cake and eat it. And this is consistent with the views of most Americans, who feel somewhat repulsed by gays, but don’t want open legal discrimination against them.

I think Bush is a little more ‘traditional’ than Kerry or Dean (both of whom support civil unions giving the same rights and protections), but I agree with your point - no-one wants to offend anyone. That’s why Dean and Kerry are front-runners, and Sharpton and Kucinich are outsiders.

I also agree with your point about most Americans being ‘somewhat repulsed’; to most straight people, gay marriage (and by implication, gay sex) is… well, icky, for want of a better word. It’ll take quite a long time before the idea that it isn’t reaches the majority of Americans.

Does Richard Bennett ever get tired of cleaning up Bush’ phony “ooops” moments? He didn’t mean this, he didn’t mean that, he was just saying this, but he didn’t quite…

Is Bush Mr. Magoo?

Naww…he’s President Bean.

I have a sneaking suspicion that this conversation may be headed downhill from here. Keep it civil, please, folks.

(Although I personally have to admit chuckling at ‘President Bean’.)

Thomas,

I welcome all of Bush devisie, anti-humanity stands as we head to the election. There are not enough rich, white, Christian men to elect him in 2004.

Of course, there weren’t enough to elect him in 2000, which is why we ahev the first appointed President since George Washington. (Please, note to all, he is not running for “re-election.” That implies he actually was elected.)

There is no logical, scientific reason to stop gay marriage. Time to get some progressives back in the White House.

Robbie D.

Wow! Robbie D agrees with me on this gay marraige issue. Now there’s a change of pace. Have you read my column Robbie?
However,
I don’t think it is fair or adult to criticize the President by giving him childish nicknames. This is a tactic used by many people to try to make conservatives out to be less intelligent than liberals. Frankly I am getting sick of it.

Oh, and “Sore - Loserman” was fair and adult? ;-)

Okay, so the majority of us still in this discussion, it seems, agree there’s no logical, scientific reason to stop gay marriage. What say we call it a night, and go down the pub or something instead of bickering over politics and names?

(In fact, that sounds like an excellent idea.)

Well I never said “sore-loserman” that must have been someone else. That does sound like a good idea but here it is too early to go to the pub. Dangit!

Only Robbie could attack President Bush for being “divisive” (I think that’s the word he misspelled) and in the same sentence bash “white Christian men”.

Aren’t “white Christian men” human, Robbie? Can a meaningful coalition be built in America that excludes them? Isn’t Robbie’s attack both racist and sexist?

Can Robbie do anything but troll?

If dogs had to line up for their licenses and a cat thought that he/she should be in the same line what would be the result?

Would you fly your airplane down to the DMV to get your license to fly?

If you want to go fishing some weekend would you buy a hunting license?

Apples and Oranges.

John - you posted that in Pete’s thread as well, and I’m afraid I don’t understand it here either. Could you explain?

I think what he means is…..
Why is there fish flavored cat food but no cat flavored dog food, and what about mouse flavored cat food? :)

Ah, I understand. It’s all to do with the pro-cat pressure groups, you see…

Please understand the difference between marriage and civil unions.

Marriage is something a church does.
Civil unions are something a state sanctions. All marriages are civil unions, but not all civil unions are marriages.

Unions create specific rights, and responsibilities, for both parties. They tie the couple into the community, tightly.

Neither marriage nor civil unions are solely for the purpose of procreation. They exist to add stability to society.

The state cannot force any religion to sanction any religious ceremony that religion doesn’t want to sanction. Thus there is, and really cannot be, any state move toward “Gay Marriage.”

On the other hand, should specific religions, or religious figures, be able to decide the policy of the state in regards to the rights of people who unite for life? I think that’s the more important question.

On that, Bush says yes. Dean says no.

I find Dean’s stand conservative. I find Bush’s “straddle” (in Richard Bennett’s words) pretty gross. It reminds me of the southern politicians who for years refused to pass federal anti-lynching laws, because they didn’t want to mandate how the states would conduct their business.

Funny, Dean is supposed to be such a wild-eyed liberal, but he is for state’s rights in many cases and is NRA-approved!

If gay marriage becomes the defining issue of the 2004 election, Bush’s landslide will be assurred.

I am actually for gay marriage (and not at all bothered by gay sex), but the vast difference on this issue between Bush and Dean escapes me. Dean was basically ordered by the Vermont Supreme Court to either legalize gay marriage or come up with an alternative, and he chose civil unions, not marriage. Some hero.

By the way, if all you liberal democrats are such the party of the people, why do you have to depend on the courts for everything? Why can’t you pass civil unions via the legislative route instead of depending on judges to give you what you want? Even here in the people’s republic of Massachussetts where a majority apparently supports gay marriage, the only actual hope of it occurring is a (Mass) supreme court ruling. The legislature even had to violate the constituion and not put an initiative banning same-sex marriage on the 2002 ballot.

AndyMac

How about rights for Bi-Sexuals? Shouldn’t I have the right to marry both my loving partners?