So, we forced Bush to support the FMA??

[terrya]

The conventional wisdom as of late (at least on the pundit shows) is that the proponents of gay marriage forced Bush to support the anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment.

So, let me get this straight (so to speak). People who want nothing more than to honor their loving, lifelong committment with another person forced Bush to support a constitutional amendment that, for the first time in this country's history, would take away the rights of Americans (every other constitutional amendment...giving women the right to vote, giving 18 year olds the right to vote...has given conferred rights to Americans)

Forgive me for bringing up yet again the gay marriage issue, but Jesus, discovering that we've "forced" this President to support a hateful addition to the Constitution of the United States is more bullshit than I can deal with. The Chicago Tribune, in an editorial a couple of weeks back, peddled this "We forced Bush to support the FMA" crap.

End of rant. Thanks.
Terry

[Cronus Protagonist]

1. A minor quibble - alcohol prohibition didn't give anyone rights

And that don't make Bush's amendment any better.

"FUCK BUSH" Buttons, Stickers & Magnets

[KharmaTrain]

2. This Issue Is Now Being Muddied

At first the spin was gay marriage was a threat to heterosexual marraiges. No doubt I was scared that two guys getting a license in Frisco was about to destroy my 27 year marriage. Ooops. Then it was the "homosexual lifestyle" was going to corrupt my children and turn them into some kinda freaks. Sorry, hasn't happen...if they're freaks, it's because they take after their easy-going parents.

When those straw men didn't hunt, then it was a challenge to our Constitution and somehow without this ammendment thousands of year of history would be turned on it's head. Yep, the morons who are attempting to revise history really know their stuff on this.

Now that the polls are showing a majority of people favor gay unions or some for of legal gay marriage (as opposed to the spiritual one), this regime is seeing this tactic may be backfiring and hoping for two things.

First, as we're seeing...making * a martyr. This is going to be a constant theme...any time one takes issue with this regime, it's a personal attack on his assholiness and thus is dismissed. By not supporting this flawed ammendment (that's disengenuous since Rove knows it wasn't going to pass through the Senate) one can be painted with every right wing brush...homo, commie, Librul and so on. Again, this is to keep the base activated.

Next, there's the attempt (and in some cases I see it working) to make gays an issue where there is no issue. The GOOP knows this is one of their strongest suits since, sorry to my LGBT frieneds, a majority of Americans find the "Gay Lifestyle" repulsive and an easy one to get a reaction out of. I don't blame many in the Gay community for feeling persecutted and fighting back, but a tempered response is what's needed, since without the removal of this regime, look for even more division and strife ahead.

This morning I saw an article where Black groups are upset with Gays using 60's civil rights slogans for their cause. In many cases, the rhetoric has gone over the top, but the fracturing of our coalition is what this regime would love...and if they see a riff, don't think they're not going to exploit it. Again, this is a campaign of diversion and division this regime is running.