bush backs gay marriage ban... must be an election year

[jps]

I suppose this issue has been beaten to death in several threads, but since the senate and the president are bringing it up again, I figured why not just post something so that we can all remember back when marriage was something between 2 individuals who love each other, and not something the government should be involved in. I remember bush saying something about this back in 2004...

Story from BBC NEWS:
Bush calls for gay marriage ban
US President George W Bush has called for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages.

Mr Bush used his weekly radio address to deliver a plea for the US Senate to formally define marriage as the union of man and woman.

He said the measure was needed because "activist courts" left no alternative.

An amendment stands little chance of being passed but analysts say Republicans see the issue as a vote winner in November's mid-term polls.

They say the president is seeking to switch the spotlight onto positive issues for his party in the wake of his slumping popularity - particularly over Iraq.

Opinion polls

Mr Bush said: "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."

A constitutional amendment will put a decision that is critical to American families and American society in the hands of the American people
George W Bush

Judges have recently rejected laws on traditional marriages in states such as Washington, California and New York.

"An amendment to the constitution is necessary because activist courts have left our nation with no other choice," Mr Bush said.

However, an amendment would require two-thirds support in the House and Senate. A similar measure was defeated in 2004.

Republicans are hoping their stance on an issue that opinion polls suggest is shared by the public will boost votes in November, when they fear losing control of Congress.

A recent Gallup poll suggested 59% of Americans were opposed to validating gay marriage in law.

The Democrats accuse their rivals of applying a smokescreen.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said: "Bush Republicans would rather focus on purely divisive manoeuvres than real solutions that address the growing energy crisis."

[Duemellon]

In the audience a woman with a fake press pass stands up & asks Bush during a live televised news conference & asks "Mr. President, my husband died in NYC in 2001 on 9-11, my son signed up for the military & was just killed in action in Iraq. When I see that Iraq had no WMDs & no connection to terrorists, I wonder, Mr. President, are you able to learn from your mistakes & bring those other children home & prevent us from approaching Iraq with the same heavy-handed military policy?"

Mr. Bush, looking bewildered, gives a sarcastic sneer of a smile, does a chuckle of scoffing laugh and responds, "I am sorry for the loss of your husband & proud of your son's desire to keep us free from terrorists but I want you to know that I will keep guys from screwing other guys while married."

[Shlep]

"Must be an election year"? 'Scuse me, but does this recent turn of events amount to a massive, confounding policy shift for Bush? Am I supposed to be shocked? The man has been a vocal opponent of gay marriage since the word "Go!"

[Dirk]

"Must be an election year"? 'Scuse me, but does this recent turn of events amount to a massive, confounding policy shift for Bush? Am I supposed to be shocked? The man has been a vocal opponent of gay marriage since the word "Go!"
While he has always been against it, it only gets trotted out at election time. The amendment is a dead issue as far as getting passed. They don't have anywhere near the votes to get it even through the Senate, much less to get it all the way passed. So around election time they trot out this tired old amendment to make sure all the "god fear mericans" remember that them damn gays want to get married and only the republicans can stop them.

[markalot]

Politics of the Altar
GOP leaders are putting gay marriage back on the agenda. Will voters respond?
By Debra Rosenberg
Newsweek

June 12, 2006 issue - Back in 2004, suburban Seattle pastor Alec Rowlands watched with dismay as gay couples in Massachusetts flocked to courthouses and churches, exchanged vows and walked away legally wed. Now he worries a similar scenario could unfold in his own backyard. Last year, the Washington State Supreme Court heard arguments in two gay-marriage cases of its own; a decision is expected soon. In Massachusetts, an obscure law allows only state residents to wed. But Washington has no residency requirements. So if the justices approve gay marriage—as many on both sides of the issue predict—courthouse doors would swing open to gay couples across the nation. "We will become the Las Vegas for same-sex marriage," frets Rowlands.

Just two years ago, gay-marriage opponents like Rowlands were everywhere. Thirteen states passed constitutional amendments barring same-sex unions and, in Ohio, the marriage ban was widely credited with boosting turnout and propelling George W. Bush to a second term. But after Election Day, the issue faded. Now it's back, complete with all the activists, dire predictions and dueling poll numbers. But the landscape has changed since 2004. Democrats argue that gay marriage is just a diversion from rising gas prices, the ongoing struggle in Iraq and immigration reform. With so much else to worry about, will voters care?

This week Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist will again bring the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) up for a vote; the House could weigh in next month. Though it isn't expected to pass either House, supporters want to get pols on the record before November. "It's a way to build momentum," says FMA author Matt Daniels, president of the Alliance for Marriage. Bush himself had been mostly mum on gay marriage since his re-election. But now, with his poll numbers in a nose dive and even his most enthusiastic supporters grousing, Bush took up the cause in his radio address Saturday; an amendment is needed because "activist courts have left our nation with no other choice," he explained. The president also plans to address amendment supporters in the Old Executive Office Building on Monday.

While the GOP leadership clearly hopes this tack can revive their sputtering election prospects this fall, some GOP strategists aren't so sure. Pew polls show a 10-point jump in support for gay marriage since 2004. And Bush pollster Matthew Dowd doubts it was decisive last time around. "It didn't drive turnout in 2004," he says. "That is urban legend." Turnout was the same in states with bans on the ballot and those without, Dowd says. GOP consultant Grover Norquist also questions how gay marriage plays as an electoral issue. Though social conservatives vote for marriage bans, it's not clear whether that will translate into votes for GOP candidates. "We don't have much to go on," he says. For their part, gay-rights leaders would be happy to leave the issue off the ballot. "We have to make sure [the initiatives] never see the light of day," says Human Rights Campaign president Joe Solmonese, who would prefer to press his case in court.

Evangelical leaders insist they know how gay marriage affects their voters—they'll stay home if politicians don't push for the FMA. "It's the one issue I have seen that eclipses even the abortion issue among Southern Baptists," says Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention. Last month James Dobson, the influential founder of Focus on the Family, met privately with key Republicans, including Frist, House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Majority Leader John Boehner, to warn them about the political consequences of failing to promote issues like marriage. "If you forget us, we'll forget you," he said, according to a GOP House leadership aide who was briefed on the gatherings, but declined to be identified discussing private meetings.

Though Bush himself has publicly embraced the amendment, he never seemed to care enough to press the matter. One of his old friends told NEWSWEEK that same-sex marriage barely registers on the president's moral radar. "I think it was purely political. I don't think he gives a s--t about it. He never talks about this stuff," said the friend, who requested anonymity to discuss his private conversations with Bush. White House aides, who also declined to be identified, insist that the president does care about banning gay marriage. They say Monday's events with amendment supporters—Bush will also meet privately with a small group—have been in the works "for weeks" and aren't just a sop to conservatives.

Whatever Bush's motivation, his actions aren't likely to quiet his critics. Land says he's happy Bush is speaking out, but he'd like to see signs of real commitment to the issue. "We know what a full-court press looks like when we see one," Land says. A White House official, who declined to be identified discussing strategy, says Bush has not made calls on the amendment because "nobody has asked us."

Whatever the political maneuvering, it's the courts that could make the next move. Last week New York's highest court heard arguments that the state must allow gay couples to wed. A similar case in New Jersey was argued in February. Decisions could come later this summer. At the same time, judges recently struck down 2004 bans from Georgia, Ohio and Nebraska. "It's just a matter of time before the other shoe falls," says Family Research Council president Tony Perkins. "This is not an issue you can take a pass on." For politicians and activists, that may be true. But average voters might do exactly that.

With Richard Wolffe, Holly Bailey and Karen Breslau

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13121953/site/newsweek/

[aqualou]

Texas!?! Only steers and queers come from Texas! And you don't look like no steer to me; guess that narrows it down!
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/thefed/v3/volume18/7/images/rotc-holden.jpg

[back2vinyl]

God damn gay marriages are such a nuisance. Why, I had to fire my shotgun in the air just this morning to scare off a crowd of gays setting up for a wedding in my back yard. My back yard where my children play! I'm keeping those flower arrangements too!

[purple_octopus]

Let's get rid of all government recognized marriages. Take that, heteros!

[Shlep]

While he has always been against it, it only gets trotted out at election time. The amendment is a dead issue as far as getting passed. They don't have anywhere near the votes to get it even through the Senate, much less to get it all the way passed. So around election time they trot out this tired old amendment to make sure all the "god fear mericans" remember that them damn gays want to get married and only the republicans can stop them.

Ah, okay...point taken. And if that is indeed the strategy, then I think Dubya is just shooting himself in the foot. Of course, considering where his approval ratings are from previous shootings, I doubt it'll be very visible in the polls since he's done it so many times that the bullet will prolly pass though a pre-existing hole.

Making a huge stink about gay marriage as mid-term elections come nigh looks like a pathetic, transparent attempt to distract voters from the administrations' ongoing bungling of far weightier matters; I imagine the Democrats, and liberal media flacks, will make sure to point this out quite a bit. Also, I think that acting like the issue of gay marriage as being something that concerns the very fate of the republic makes Bush specifically and the GOP in general look bigoted, petty, and disconnected from real issues while alienating moderate Republican voters. Not to mention that it provides fertile soil for Bush to make silly comments such as:

Mr Bush said: "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."

Alarming numbers of hetero couples make the commitment to love and serve each other, have kids, and then get divorced, creating a "non-traditional" family of the sort the far-right Repulicans supposedly fear and loathe and often creating kids who grow up with so much emotional baggage that they need a bellhop to help carry it all because mom and dad apparently made a commitment to hate and attack each other during the divorce and use the kid(s) as pawns in their petty personal vendettas. Plus since many happy, stable hetero unions produce gay kids...

A constitutional amendment will put a decision that is critical to American families and American society in the hands of the American people

Yes, because if gays are allowed to marry, then American families will...have to...uhhh...be denied...errrr....what the fuck, George?

"An amendment to the constitution is necessary because activist courts have left our nation with no other choice," Mr Bush said.

I had no idea that courts are engaging in "activism" when interpreting and periodically amending law; actually, it was my understanding that that's what high courts exist primarily to do. I was also under the impression that conservatives were supposed to be vehemently opposed to using federal power as a cudgel to hammer away at legitimate state power.

[slopechz]

And this from the Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/06/04/bushs-friend-says-gay-ma_n_22175.html

[stakeraiser]

All those old ladies and rednecks are getting riled up now, just hearing "gay marriage" makes them want to go a votin

[synthetic]

This is so ridiculous. I saw this on another forum and my reaction is the same, I don't understand how he thinks he can speak for the nation when majority of the nation dislikes him. Maybe this is an attempt to raise his ratings? I am not quite sure but I think it's quite stupid since it futher limits our freedom since you can't make everyone just like how you want them to be. If he wants to be a homophobe, be my guest, but keep laws away from personal preference when they haven't done anything to you.

[markalot]

It's simply a numbers game. If there's still a clear majority that hate the idea of gay marriage then he'll gain popularity and help the republicans this fall when this issue goes before congress and fails. If the tide has turned then this will just be another of his many missteps.

[slopechz]

Karl Rove is up to his old tricks again. Up until now it has served Bush well. It will be interesting to see who comes out to vote in November.

[REMgirl]

Bill Frist isn't giving up on these amendments, either. He has also thrown in the ever-popular flag burning ban, which is another issue designed to rile up the Patriotic Right.

This was at Think Progress last week:

"Today on Fox News Sunday, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) tried to argue that banning flag-burning and same-sex marriage are two of the nation’s most pressing priorities, which is why he put them on the Senate agenda for June:

HOST: …Are gay marriage and flag burning the most important issues the Senate can be addressing in June of 2006?

FRIST:…When you look at that flag and you tell me that right now people in this country are saying it’s okay to desecrate that flag and to burn it and to not pay respect to it, is that important to our values as a people when we’ve got 130,000 people fighting for our freedom and liberty today? That is important. It may not be important here in Washington where people say, well, it’s political posturing and all, but it’s important to the heart and soul of the American people. … Why marriage today? Marriage is for our society that union between a man and a woman, is the cornerstone of our society. It is under attack today."

So not only is Frist and Co. trying to rile up the Right, but they're also tying up key time in the Senate so other significant, timely issues are set aside. These are truly non-issues, but by beating the drum over and over, they gain importance with certain groups.

So you pull in all of those retired Veterans with the flag amendment and you revive the Religious Right with gay marriage. Will these amendments pass? Probably not, nor do they really need to. Don't most states have some previsions for man/woman unions anyway? Really, it's just another political play and the ones behind it look pathetic. :p

[back2vinyl]

Why don't the democrats get some issue on the ballet to bring out the liberal voters? The gay marriage thing delivered Ohio to Bush in 2004. As a political move, it was brilliant.

[REMgirl]

Why don't the democrats get some issue on the ballet to bring out the liberal voters? The gay marriage thing delivered Ohio to Bush in 2004. As a political move, it was brilliant.


Offhand, I can't think of any ballet issues, but maybe something about tutus...

Just kidding, back2vinyl ;)

[Shlep]

Why don't the democrats get some issue on the ballet to bring out the liberal voters? The gay marriage thing delivered Ohio to Bush in 2004. As a political move, it was brilliant.

Well, liberals do have the politically troublesome issue of Dubya getting the wherewithal of the US military engaged in an open-ended war because of WMD he swore were there but are nowhere to be found and Al Queda connections which three years of exhaustive poring over documents from the Hussein regime and interviewing high-ranking officials in the old government have yet to lend much credence at all to, leaving Bush to hang the necessity of garrisoning troops in the country where they're being shot at by the very people who were supposed to be blowing kisses and throwing rose petals at them on propping up a nascent free Iraqi government that has formally announced the legitimatacy of insurgent attacks on US forces.

And what did they do in 2004? Failed to capitalize on it. Sorry, but until the Left and the Democratic party decide to call an end to Amateur Hour and start playing hardball tactics and presenting the appearance of a coherent, unified front, they're going to keep getting left behind.

[DaHood]

I'm keeping those flower arrangements too!
I'm sure they're just fabulous! :D

[back2vinyl]

I'm sure they're just fabulous! :D

They certainly are! It would be worth making gay marriage legal just for the receptions if you ask me.

[the happy prole]

shlep, what more could the Democrats have done? I don't think the US electorate misinterpreted the distinction between Bush and Kerry on the issue. Kerry once was for the war, then he was against it. That's what made him a "flip-flopper." Now we all wish Bush had flip-flopped.

I'm not trying to knee-jerk defend the Democrats here, but honestly I think too much is made out of Rove being this evil genius and the Democrats running a bad candidate. The Dems lost because at the time, people weren't as against the war as they are now.

The gay marriage thing was there for the taking. Sure the GOP made it up into a more important issue, but they had the support of the majority of the electorate. They also have the upper-hand on the illegal immigrant issue, being tough on crime, and tax cuts.

The best message the Democrats could have sent out was "Just don't vote for Bush, because he's really, really bad." And in fact, that's what they did. It just took voters too long to come around to that conclusion.

[REMgirl]

The Democrats need to learn "framing". I heard George Lakoff, a professor at Berkely, and he has some really strong arguments for what the Dems need to do with their language skills. This is an exerpt from an interview he did a couple of years ago:

"Language always comes with what is called "framing." Every word is defined relative to a conceptual framework. If you have something like "revolt," that implies a population that is being ruled unfairly, or assumes it is being ruled unfairly, and that they are throwing off their rulers, which would be considered a good thing. That's a frame.

Why do conservatives appear to be so much better at framing?

Because they've put billions of dollars into it. Over the last 30 years their think tanks have made a heavy investment in ideas and in language... They set up the Heritage Foundation in 1973, and the Manhattan Institute after that.

And now... they have 1,500 conservative radio talk show hosts. They have a huge, very good operation, and they understand their own moral system. They understand what unites conservatives, and they understand how to talk about it, and they are constantly updating their research on how best to express their ideas.

Why haven't progressives done the same thing?

There's a systematic reason for that. You can see it in the way that conservative foundations and progressive foundations work. Conservative foundations give large block grants year after year to their think tanks. They say, 'Here's several million dollars, do what you need to do.' And basically, they build infrastructure, they build TV studios, hire intellectuals, set aside money to buy a lot of books to get them on the best-seller lists, hire research assistants for their intellectuals so they do well on TV, and hire agents to put them on TV. They do all of that.

Meanwhile, liberals' conceptual system of the "nurturant parent" has as its highest value helping individuals who need help. The progressive foundations and donors give their money to a variety of grassroots organizations. They say, 'We're giving you $25,000, but don't waste a penny of it. Make sure it all goes to the cause, don't use it for administration, communication, infrastructure, or career development.' So there's actually a structural reason built into the worldviews that explains why conservatives have done better.

Back up for a second and explain what you mean by the strict father and nurturant parent frameworks.

Well, the progressive worldview is modeled on a nurturant parent family. Briefly, it assumes that the world is basically good and can be made better and that one must work toward that. Children are born good; parents can make them better. Nurturing involves empathy, and the responsibility to take care of oneself and others for whom we are responsible. On a larger scale, specific policies follow, such as governmental protection in form of a social safety net and government regulation, universal education (to ensure competence, fairness), civil liberties and equal treatment (fairness and freedom), accountability (derived from trust), public service (from responsibility), open government (from open communication), and the promotion of an economy that benefits all and functions to promote these values, which are traditional progressive values in American politics.

The conservative worldview, the strict father model, assumes that the world is dangerous and difficult and that children are born bad and must be made good. The strict father is the moral authority who supports and defends the family, tells his wife what to do, and teaches his kids right from wrong. The only way to do that is through painful discipline — physical punishment that by adulthood will become internal discipline. The good people are the disciplined people. Once grown, the self-reliant, disciplined children are on their own. Those children who remain dependent (who were spoiled, overly willful, or recalcitrant) should be forced to undergo further discipline or be cut free with no support to face the discipline of the outside world.

So, project this onto the nation and you see that to the right wing, the good citizens are the disciplined ones — those who have already become wealthy or at least self-reliant — and those who are on the way. Social programs, meanwhile, "spoil" people by giving them things they haven't earned and keeping them dependent. The government is there only to protect the nation, maintain order, administer justice (punishment), and to provide for the promotion and orderly conduct of business. In this way, disciplined people become self-reliant. Wealth is a measure of discipline. Taxes beyond the minimum needed for such government take away from the good, disciplined people rewards that they have earned and spend it on those who have not earned it.

In the strict father model, the big thing is discipline and moral authority, and punishment for those who do something wrong. That comes out very clearly in the Bush administration's foreign and domestic policy.

You've written a lot about "tax relief" as a frame. How does it work?

The phrase "Tax relief" began coming out of the White House starting on the very day of Bush's inauguration. It got picked up by the newspapers as if it were a neutral term, which it is not. First, you have the frame for "relief." For there to be relief, there has to be an affliction, an afflicted party, somebody who administers the relief, and an act in which you are relieved of the affliction. The reliever is the hero, and anybody who tries to stop them is the bad guy intent on keeping the affliction going. So, add "tax" to "relief" and you get a metaphor that taxation is an affliction, and anybody against relieving this affliction is a villain.

So what should they be calling it?

It's not just about what you call it, if it's the same "it." There's actually a whole other way to think about it. Taxes are what you pay to be an American, to live in a civilized society that is democratic and offers opportunity, and where there's an infrastructure that has been paid for by previous taxpayers. This is a huge infrastructure. The highway system, the Internet, the TV system, the public education system, the power grid, the system for training scientists — vast amounts of infrastructure that we all use, which has to be maintained and paid for. Taxes are your dues — you pay your dues to be an American. In addition, the wealthiest Americans use that infrastructure more than anyone else, and they use parts of it that other people don't. The federal justice system, for example, is nine-tenths devoted to corporate law. The Securities and Exchange Commission and all the apparatus of the Commerce Department are mainly used by the wealthy. And we're all paying for it.

So taxes could be framed as an issue of patriotism.

It is an issue of patriotism! Are you paying your dues, or are you trying to get something for free at the expense of your country? It's about being a member. People pay a membership fee to join a country club, for which they get to use the swimming pool and the golf course. But they didn't pay for them in their membership. They were built and paid for by other people and by this collectivity. It's the same thing with our country — the country as country club, being a member of a remarkable nation. But what would it take to make the discussion about that? Every Democratic senator and all of their aides and every candidate would have to learn how to talk about it that way. There would have to be a manual. Republicans have one. They have a guy named Frank Luntz, who puts out a 500-page manual every year that goes issue by issue on what the logic of the position is from the Republican side, what the other guys' logic is, how to attack it, and what language to use.

What are some other examples of issues that progressives should try to reframe?

... take gay marriage, which the right has made a rallying topic. Surveys have been done that say Americans are overwhelmingly against gay marriage. Well, the same surveys show that they also overwhelmingly object to discrimination against gays. These seem to be opposite facts, but they're not. "Marriage" is about sex. When you say "gay marriage," it becomes about gay sex, and approving of gay marriage becomes implicitly about approving of gay sex. And while a lot of Americans don't approve of gay sex, that doesn't mean they want to discriminate against gay people. Perfectly rational position. Framed in that way, the issue of gay marriage will get a lot of negative reaction. But what if you make the issue "freedom to marry," or even better, "the right to marry"? That's a whole different story. Very few people would say they did not support the right to marry who you choose. But the polls don't ask that question, because the right wing has framed that issue.

Do any of the Democratic Presidential candidates grasp the importance of framing?

None. They don't get it at all. But they're in a funny position. The framing changes that have to be made are long-term changes. The conservatives understood this in 1973. By 1980 they had a candidate, Ronald Reagan, who could take all this stuff and run with it. The progressives don't have a candidate now who understands these things and can talk about them...

Right now the Democratic Party is into marketing. They pick a number of issues like prescription drugs and Social Security and ask which ones sell best across the spectrum, and they run on those issues. They have no moral perspective, no general values, no identity. People vote their identity, they don't just vote on the issues, and Democrats don't understand that.

[topherd]

Every time I see this thread on the main board it says “Bush backs gay marriage”, and I think “did Cheney’s daughter finally get through to him?” :)

[the happy prole]

Yes, the conservatives now have AEI, Cato, and Heritage while the liberals only have Brookings-- which has less of a political bent than the other three.

And the conservatives now have Fox and all these talking heads while the liberals only have the good ol' liberal news media-- which also have less of a political bent.

But it's not for lack of trying. No one really cares about angry liberal talk show hosts, and there's plenty of think tanks ranging from somewhat legit to totally bogus for every cause in the world. The conservatives didn't go find Rupert Murdoch and tell him to start Fox. Rupert Murdoch started Fox because he saw a huge money-making opportunity. While Fox is out extolling Family Values, The Sun is putting naked chicks in their newspapers.

Yes, there is something to be said for framing the issues, that's sort of a basic strategy that never goes away. But as for the talk show and think tank stuff-- I think that strategy is played out. I don't think you're going to beat the GOP at that game anymore.

The Democrats need to find a new political strategy, a new grassroots reachout, a new platform. And they need to look five or ten years down the road and start now.

[Duemellon]

Kerry once was for the war, then he was against it.Kerry was never against the war. It was Bush who framed what Kerry said as being against it. Kerry never said he regretted voting for it, he never said we shouldn't've gone in there. The big thing that Bush did that many ppl, for some reason, just don't see is he marginalized what Kerry said by ridiculing it by making it seem as tho' they had different views.

Bush's eloquence is that he had none.

Either Bush is a psychological genius able to turn what Kerry said against him while convincing most of the audience theyr'e in opposite corners, OR Bush is so fucking dumb & filled with the inability to comprehend someone's views that he simply didn't "catch it".

Me? I think it's the latter. He just didn't understand what was being said.The gay marriage thing was there for the taking.Kerry was also against Gay marriage. No, not just against making it a constitutional amendment, but actually against it on all levels and still is!

Am I the only person who saw thru the smoke & mirrors? Am I the only one who actually paid more attention to what Kerry said than Bush? I can remember my reactions while watching the debate. Every time it would happen, I'd cringe for Bush thinking "damn, he's making a fool out of himself by claiming Kerry said something he didn't... literally taking the opposite of what Kerry stood for & saying he stood for it."

He pretty much just made Kerry out to be the Democrat he could beat, never letting anyone see the Democrat he really was.

The support of the war, the support of the Patriot Act, the denial of Gay Marriage (their difference was Kerry wasn't going to legislate it at the Fed level), the claim that Kerry didn't have numbers for the budget (right after Kerry said them), & Bush's retort when Kerry asked Bush to give some & Bush didn't.

I just don't understand how people could've just watched it & walked away with entirely different realitythat is still being paraded around today.

[Shlep]

Yes, the conservatives now have AEI, Cato, and Heritage while the liberals only have Brookings-- which has less of a political bent than the other three.

At the risk of appearing nit-picky: the Cato Institute is a Libertarian think-tank that has been roundly critical of Bush on any number of issues ranging from his near-unfettered spending on government programs to his ham-fisted foreign policy and can hardly be considered, in my opinion, to be in Bushs' corner politically and/or ideologically.

[REMgirl]

Bush is addressing the gay marriage issue now on C-SPAN. I will try to watch it without puking, but he's already said "activist judges" and I'm off to the bathroom.

[stakeraiser]

Every time I see this thread on the main board it says “Bush backs gay marriage”, and I think “did Cheney’s daughter finally get through to him?” :)

Ehh, she supports just about everything her daddy and his little bushie do, at least thats what she said on a CNN interview, she probably doesn't want the right to get married either, but who knows

[the happy prole]

At the risk of appearing nit-picky: the Cato Institute is a Libertarian think-tank that has been roundly critical of Bush on any number of issues ranging from his near-unfettered spending on government programs to his ham-fisted foreign policy and can hardly be considered, in my opinion, to be in Bushs' corner politically and/or ideologically.

Dude, why ya gotta bust my balls on the time? I didn't say they were in Bush's pocket. They are simply on the conservative side of the political spectrum. Just like Brookings wasn't always in Clinton's pocket during his time, but is still liberal.

Or the way that Heritage Foundation isn't-- oh wait, scratch that.

[Shlep]

Dude, why ya gotta bust my balls on the time? I didn't say they were in Bush's pocket. They are simply on the conservative side of the political spectrum. Just like Brookings wasn't always in Clinton's pocket during his time, but is still liberal.

Or the way that Heritage Foundation isn't-- oh wait, scratch that.

http://www.onlinenj.com/celebs/pesci/images/joecas01.jpg

Ay, I ain't tryin' ta bust nobodys' balls over here, capice? I wuz just sayin' dat dose guys in Catos' crew weren't friendly wit' Bush is all. Calm down, paisan, I ain't tryin' ta start no war or nuthin'.

:D

[slopechz]

Here is Lou Dobbs' spin on this issue. He doesn't mince many words and I appreciate that.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/06/06/dobbs.june7/index.html

[Stine]

Here is Lou Dobbs' spin on this issue. He doesn't mince many words and I appreciate that.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/06/06/dobbs.june7/index.html

Thank you for that link - good stuff.

[candy4140]

I"m glad this debate keeps coming up. The more it does, the more intelligent people that have just never thought too much about it, actually change their minds in favor of it.

Practically every straight guy I know now says "why not?". 5 years ago, I'm sure the knee jerk thing would have been to say "hell no!"...but now..it's in the debate of the people, and so many people unexposed to the issue will just decide "why not?"

[REMgirl]

Here's the first half of Jon Stewart's "chat" with Bill Bennett on gay marriage.

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/TDS-Bennett-gay-.mov

(you have to scroll down)

Why can't we get Jon Stewart to run for President? :confused:

[djudge79]

Here's the first half of Jon Stewart's "chat" with Bill Bennett on gay marriage.

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/TDS-Bennett-gay-.mov

(you have to scroll down)

Why can't we get Jon Stewart to run for President? :confused:
that was a respectful ass whooping. thanks for the link. god i need cable.

[drougan]

New Developments...

Senate blocks same-sex marriage ban (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/07/same.sex.marriage/index.html)

[lutz]

Well as long as Dubya's taking this stand, I guess that means more tourism for us (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4493094.stm)!

[berzerker]

The Democrats need to learn "framing". I heard George Lakoff, a professor at Berkely, and he has some really strong arguments for what the Dems need to do with their language skills. This is an exerpt from an interview he did a couple of years ago:
...blah blah important stuff blah...

I agree.
"Liberal" is considered a dirty word. And "tax-and-spend Liberal" is a recent addition. But, to me, which is worse - tax-and-spend, or don't-tax-and-spend? If you don't tax, there's no income for the government. Which leads to a record deficit six years after a record surplus. Which leads to Bush borrowing 1.3 trillion from foreign governments in his term. You know how much Presidents George Washington through Bill Clinton borrowed? 1.1 trillion.*


*presumably, unadjusted. don't have access to the facts, at the moment...

[slopechz]

Here's the first half of Jon Stewart's "chat" with Bill Bennett on gay marriage.

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/TDS-Bennett-gay-.mov

(you have to scroll down)

Why can't we get Jon Stewart to run for President? :confused:
Great interview, thanks for posting that.

[markalot]

One tidbit I hadn't heard mentioned.

Since the last amendment vote the republicans have gained 11 seats, but they only gained 1 vote.

[twentyshots]

One tidbit I hadn't heard mentioned.

Since the last amendment vote the republicans have gained 11 seats, but they only gained 1 vote.
i heard this today also. mentioned in the piece i heard too was a recent bi-partisan poll that placed this subject at 33rd on a list of priorities for the country to be concerned with.

probably mentioned in this thread already somewhere, but i scanned the AM dial yesterday to see what the vibe was on this issue. two local republican talk show hosts (Ware, Cunningham) said flat out they were embarassed by this gay marriage smokescreen. Even Limbaugh conceded that that was what the base was doing- without condeming/condoning.

[the happy prole]

One tidbit I hadn't heard mentioned.

Since the last amendment vote the republicans have gained 11 seats, but they only gained 1 vote.

Yeah, they're threatening to bitchslap the freshmen now. This is ending up look like a mistake for the GOP.

Most people don't want a Constitutional amendment, but the vote still could have served to galvanize some "family values" sentiment. But it got shut down pretty fast, and now (even more) people might think Bush is just wasting our time with these issues when there's more important stuff going on.

The whole "activist judges" thing was a bad spin to try to put on it as well. Those are all Bush's judges destroying family values, and while people generally ignore lesser judicial appointments, Bush just had two S. Ct. nominations. I think they tried to go to the well once to often on this issue.

Which explains why Bush is back to talking about the immigrant thing.

[markalot]

from http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/

Parsing the Polls on the Same-Sex Marriage Debate

If you're one of those political junkies getting a late start to the day after a long night of watching primary election results, there was quite a bit of action today on Capitol Hill.

The most high-profile fight of recent weeks came to a head early today when the Senate -- as expected -- rejected a motion to end debate on adding an amendment banning same-sex marriage to the U.S. Constitution. Forty-nine senators supported the ban while 48 voted against it, well short of the 67 votes that proposed amendments to the Constitution require in the Senate.

Only two Democrats -- Ben Nelson (Neb.) and Robert Byrd (W.Va.) -- supported the measure, while seven Republicans -- including John McCain (Ariz.) -- voted against it. (See how every senator voted here.) http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/109/senate/2/votes/163/


With gay marriage such a hot topic, it's worth taking note of recent polling on the issue to see how public sentiment shakes out. Let's parse the polls!

Two recent national surveys -- one by ABC News, the other by Gallup -- give us the data we are looking for.

ABC:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/Politics/story?id=2041689&page=1

More in-depth data is available for the ABC survey, so let's start there. Asked whether it should be legal or illegal for same-sex couples to get married, 36 percent said it should be legal while 58 percent said it should be illegal. But only 42 percent of that same group support amending the Constitution to ban same-sex marriages, while 51 percent believe it should be left up to the states.

Thanks to ABC polling director Gary Langer, The Fix can delve into the demographic breakdowns.

The strongest indicator of where a voter falls on the issue is whether he or she self-identifies as an evangelical Christian. Ninety-percent of white Protestant evangelicals oppose gay marriage, compared with 48 percent of non-evangelical white Protestants. Seventy-two percent of evangelical white Protestants support a constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage, while just 33 percent of non-evangelicals back such a ban.

Catholics roughly mirror non-evangelical Protestants on the issue -- 38 percent support gay marriage while 36 percent support amending the Constitution to ban it. Not surprisingly, non-religious voters are the most favorably disposed toward both gay marriage (64 percent support) and opposed to an amendment (68 percent).

The ABC poll also shows that there is a considerable intensity disparity on the issue. Of the 58 percent of those who believe it should be illegal for same-sex couples to be married, a whopping 51 percent said they feel strongly about it. Contrast that with the 36 percent who believe it should be legal for gay couples to marry -- only 24 percent of that group feel strongly about the issue.

"While an amendment banning gay marriage is not broadly popular, it matters most -- in a way that could potentially motivate voter turnout -- to those in the pro-amendment minority," Langer notes.

In fact, of that 51 percent who strongly oppose gay marriage, only 30 percent said they could vote for a candidate that differed with them on the issue while 61 percent said they could not. Given those numbers it shouldn't come as a surprise if Republican candidates make sure to mention their opposition to gay marriage on the campaign trail -- especially as November draws ever closer.

Republicans have acknowledged that their base voters have very little motivation at the moment to turn out in the midterms, while Democrats and independents unhappy with the Bush administration are energized to cast a vote against the White House. Gay marriage could help to make up that intensity gap.

While the ABC poll provides a snapshot of where the public stands on gay marriage, the Gallup survey gives us some historical perspective.

Asked in May whether "homosexuals should or should not have equal rights in terms of job opportunities," nearly nine-in-10 voters (89 percent) said they should. Contrast that with 56 percent who answered in the affirmative in June 1977. Roughly half (54 percent) of those polled last month said homosexuality should be considered an "acceptable alternative lifestyle" while 41 percent said it was not acceptable. Those numbers represent a major switch from June 1982 when just 34 percent said being gay was an acceptable lifestyle.

On their face, these numbers indicate that the public at large is growing more tolerant toward homosexuals. But there's always the chance that survey respondents aren't telling the truth. With the dawn of political correctness, some people may feel compelled to tell a pollster that they view homosexuality positively even if they don't out of a fear of being labeled a bigot. Pollsters can never really tell whether people are telling the truth, but that goes for just about any survey, not just ones about homosexuality..

Looking at the numbers above and the heated debate both on and off Capitol Hill over the past week, it's safe to say that the issue of gay marriage isn't likely to disappear from the political landscape any time soon. Both parties continue to grapple with how to address it effectively from both a policy and a political perspective, but finding consensus on an issue that millions of Americans feel passionately about (one way or the other) is a tough task.

[Duemellon]

The irony is...

Now that it's being proposed as an amendment, it's even less likely to stick. If they just let the states decide it would've had a better chance to be explicitly listed as male - female marriage in more states & the few that permitted it would actually become the centers of "homosexual" life.

Wouldn't most of the Religious rightwingers prefer that? Having all the gays, queers & such isolated to a handful of states? Kind've like segregation?

[jcarwash31]

The strongest indicator of where a voter falls on the issue is whether he or she self-identifies as an evangelical Christian. Ninety-percent of white Protestant evangelicals oppose gay marriage, compared with 48 percent of non-evangelical white Protestants. Seventy-two percent of evangelical white Protestants support a constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage, while just 33 percent of non-evangelicals back such a ban.

Catholics roughly mirror non-evangelical Protestants on the issue -- 38 percent support gay marriage while 36 percent support amending the Constitution to ban it. Not surprisingly, non-religious voters are the most favorably disposed toward both gay marriage (64 percent support) and opposed to an amendment (68 percent).
I wish people would stop saying Christians when they are reffering to the evangelical Christians. They are different. These poll numbers show a big difference. This is why some of us on the boards always have to jump in on the Christian bashing and say not all Christians think such and such, or a lot of Christians aren't like such and such. There are plenty of liberal Christians too and plenty of conservative Christians who don't fit in the group reffered to as "conservative Christians".