You’ll never meet a girl more hawkish, more married, or more Republican than the blogosphere’s very own Asparagirl.
Bush just lost her vote today.
I must admit, I find that to be an odd response (much like I found the similar response by many over Bush’s immigration proposal). This is a largely symbolic stance by the President, and not a surprising one, given his religious perspective.
The FMA issue is one that, to me, ranks pretty damn low on the national priority list.
If you’re gay in America, you have two choices.
1. A president that wrongly backs a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, but who is also trying to liberate people in countries that usually just drop bricks walls on gays.
2. A president that does not support gay marriage and has plans to leave said countries alone.
Seems obvious to me, feh
It’s not symbolic; in fact, it’s quite substantive. Marriage has already taken too many hits to survive any more. Marriage is about the protection of fertile women and minor children. That’s how it arose, that’s its full social significance — and that’s how it should remain.
If homosexuals want to have a big party at which they exchange rings and flowery promises, that’s their business. But it isn’t and shouldn’t be marriage as the world understands the term.
Oh, I’ve met quite a few female Republicans who are a good deal more Republican than this one, in that they’re aware of the priorities of the nation and aren’t willing to throw a vote away over a social issue.
It is symbolic in the sense that the President has no formal power over this process. He is simply using the Bully Pulpit to support a position. I am not saying it is unimportant, but simply that the President hasn’t actually done anything policy-wise, as on this topic he can’t.
A question for libertarian-leaning Republicans, such as VodkaPundit indentifies here: precisely what is the surprise and indignation over the President’s statements today? In other words, why the shock over the fact that a man who is overt in his evang…
A FMA isn’t going to automatically pass or fail based on whether or not Bush is reelected. If anything, a Bush victory would seem more likely to fire up opponents of the FMA than it would supporters.
But more importantly (to me, at any rate) is that a Bush defeat is more likely to reinforce the Arab world’s image of the US as a paper tiger without the will to see things through, to encourage terrorists and rogue states, and to endanger the lives of American and allied soldiers in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.
The FMA is an issue that we as a nation can debate at our leisure for the next decade if need be. If people feel strongly about it, they should write their Senators and Representative. But making it the primary basis of your Presidential vote strikes me as short sighted.
I second the so what?
Use the legislative process if you’re in such a tizzy. methinks bloggers are getting a wee bit snotty.
Jeez, thats all it took huh? Bush takes a stand on something he believes in and “poof” there goes a vote! Did he say “Let’s march gay people into ovens and have them gassed? No. What did he say? Well, golly folks, what he was said that marriage means something specific that is being (oh gosh I hate to say the word here cause it might be misconstrude ) “perverted” into something that marriage was not intended to be.
Wow, and now we see how deep asparagirls support really was. Boo-frickin-hoo, big bad Bush doesnt want gay people to be married, and now Im supposed to act like I care.
last I checked, for the last 10,000 years since the ice sheets went crawling back to the north pole, gay people havent been able to be married by anyone anywhere at any time in history. . whats the frickin rush all of a sudden? Its not like they once had the right to marry and we took it away. Its not like us heretosexuals are just out to limit our little franchise to so called “straight” people, ask the good folks who settled in Utah what they had to give up just to become citizens of the United States.
Frankly, theres a much bigger set of historical and multicultural standards for plural marraige than there has ever been for “gay” marriage.
Let’s be clear about this folks, I couldnt care less if two people of the same sex want te get married, but the law is the law. As far as I’m concerned, gay people can get married, commit bigamy, marry farm animals for all I care. The state ( the literal ) can set up what ever rules it wants for marriage, as long as it doesnt trample on religious foundations and the ability for religion to set their own standards within their religion, I dont care what the state does or says about the matter.
but the argument about “what is marraige” is not the point about whats going on here folks. The mayor of SF decided on his own to violate the law, set in statute by the people of the state of California by an overwhelming amount under the initiative process. So, would asparagirl squirt a few tears if the mayor of Torrance decided to start giving out concealed weapons permits, even though its against the law because he has a hard headed opinion about the second amendment?
I doubt it. And guess what I think Bushes opinion of that would be? Would he support concealed weapons, sure he would, BUT IS IT THE LAW? No, and my guess is he would stand against this idea as a result.
Folks, The law means something. You dont like it? You want to change the law cause it doesnt suit you and your special interests? fine! then enact your change it via the legislature or use the initative process. You want to do something that violates or redefines current constitutional law? fine, get an amendment. Its not easy, amendments are a bitch to get passed ( as well they should be!)
But – folks, where do we go when we decide on our own what we will and wont follow without using the tools of our governance to manage our affairs?
gay folks – my heart goes out to you. Being gay in the best of situations is a bitch, when the spotlights on you, its got to be even worse. Straight folks,shaddup-will-ya! and get married in a church and start shaming morons like zsa-zsa gabor,mickey rooney and britney spears for doing more to tear down the ‘sanctity of marriage” than Andrew Sullivan has ever done.
And for gods sake people, you people who want to use this to take a poke at the president – Try and remember it was Clinton who signed and supported the “defense of marraige act”, which gives the framework of the proposed constitutional amendment.
For everyone else – you sleep as soundly as I do knowing that amendments to the constitution almost never happen, so talk all you want folks, it aint going no where.
fer-cryin-out-loud folks, this is it? this is the biggest gripe you got? Does asparagirl think shes really going to vote for a guy like Kerry who looks like an Easter Island statue with a power tie, who talks like thurston howell III, just because of Bush’s stand on gay marriage?
snap out of it, slap some cold water on your face and get back on your post, will you?
Well said Frank!
That was Gold Frank.
It is obvious to me — I live in the United States, not one of those other countries, and I will vote for what is in the best interests of me as an American, not what is in the best interests of gay people in other countries.
FYI, I wrote a follow-up to this post here.
MORE ABOUT WHY I WON’T BE VOTING FOR BUSH THIS NOVEMBER
To clear up an apparently common misconception about my little announcement: just because I won’t be voting for Bush does not mean that I will therefore be voting for John Kerry, Ralph Nader, Chicken Little, or any other candidate. It simply means that…
Well, we all know blogging is improved by judicious use of the f-bomb, but the original and updated post is underwhelming.
Sullivan has it flat wrong. Suggesting that beginning the legal process of amending the Constitution is “undermining it” is nonsense. I wish he had a little more concern for actual violations of the law. I also wish he had a little more concern for where the road leads once we toss the definition of marriage. Anyone who thinks this isn’t going to lead to arguments over polygamy, incestuous marriage, and elimination of the age of consent is deluding themselves. Really want to go there?
I still say this issue helps Bush more than it hurts them. A gay marriage ban passed by 61% in CALIFORNIA. As much as bloggers would like to believe that they are opinion leaders, Bush isn’t on the wrong side of this issue. He’s taking a popular stand on an issue he believes in. Karl Rove is going to be laughing his way to the bank for the next 4 years.
“It is obvious to me — I live in the United States, not one of those other countries, and I will vote for what is in the best interests of me as an American, not what is in the best interests of gay people in other countries.”
Someone clearly didn’t read or understand my post…
Frank Martin = Excellent
As usually every pundit and blogger is going nuts over Presidient Bush’s decision to support the Marriage Amendment. As I continue to remind myself — the President is a poker player. His statement was the opening ante in a long string of future actions.
Anxious pundits and bloggers should not jump to conclusions — President Bush is pursuing a common sense and compassionate path. They forget an amendment is a federalist tool — requires votes by states and the legislative branch for approval.
President Bush is simply trying to head off this issue before the courts make an activist decision. In the big picture — local voters should decide gay marriage, and a national discuss is necessary. President Bush started that discussion, yesterday.
Andy Sullivan has lost his mind, IMHO. He’s gone from bleating about civil rights to foam-and-spittle rages against the Religious Right (whatever that means).
Anyone who declares that their vote is now changed because of what the President *said* needs to take a deep breath, review photos of the WTC, and remember the things that GWB has done since 9/11.
Frank Martin: Hats off to you.
uh, dead right there. Someone had better put Sullivan on a suicide watch…or a spontaneous combustion watch. The lunatic siren is already going off.
He’s now proudly posting emails declaring Mel Gibson to be an anti-Semetic Vast Right Wing Conspiracy member and calling Bush supporters xenophobic gay-bashers. Oh and don’t forget to scroll down to the gem where he hints that ex-KKK member Robert Byrd is more friendly to the gay cause than Republicans.
All I can say is, wow.
| VIEW MOBILE SITE
Copyright © 2005-2015 PJ Media All Rights Reserved. v1.000034