Bu$h clinches religious right votw with his Gay Marriage Ban

[GreenPartyVoter]

"WASHINGTON (AP) - Jumping into a volatile election-year debate on same-sex weddings, President Bush on Tuesday backed a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage - a move he said was needed to stop judges from changing the definition of the "most enduring human institution."

*siiiiigh*

Are there enough voters on our side out there who can counteract that???

[lcooksey]

1. Don't despair

He said states should be allowed to give couples rights, which means domestic partnership or civil unions. The wingnuts who are against marriage are against same-sex couple having any rights. They'll be somewhat disappointed by Bush's lack of true family values.

[slinkerwink]

4. no, that's a lie---the proposed amendment would invalidate civil unions

like those in Vermont.

[Snivi Yllom]

14. true, but

denying marriage but allowing other rights is second class citizenship.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

22. If you want get married and call it a marriage

then no one can stop you from doing that. And it would be illegal to do so.

[Snivi Yllom]

25. symbolic value is not what we are discussing

yes a gay couple can 'get married' and call it a marriage. But it has no legal meaning.

You cannot legally get married in a fashion that has any 'legal value'

I could say I am 'married' to my dog but it has no legal standing anywhere.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

26. and civil unions and marriages are different how?

help us all out here.

[charlie]

27. Legally?

According to a 1997 GAO report, civil marriage brings with it at least 1,049 legal protections and responsibilities from the federal government...

http://www.glad.org/Publications/CivilRightProject/OP7-marriagevcu.shtml

They may not all be substantive, but that's a hell of a lot just at the federal level. There's a short list of bulleted points on the page as well.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

28. and civil unions can do the same

and it is what they were meant to do.

[charlie]

29. Can, but don't

The full paragraph I pulled the above snip from:

According to a 1997 GAO report, civil marriage brings with it at least 1,049 legal protections and responsibilities from the federal government, including the right to take leave from work to care for a family member, the right to sponsor a spouse for immigration purposes, and Social Security survivor benefits that can make a difference between old age in poverty and old age in security. Civil unions bring none of these critical legal protections.

Unless the federal govt declares that henceforth "marriage" and "civil union" shall be considered synonymous legal terms, I don't see how civil unions can be held to be equitable.

[maddezmom]

2. from the speech

~snip~
On a matter of such importance, the voice of the people must be heard. Activist courts have left the people with one recourse. If we are to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever, our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America. Decisive and democratic action is needed, because attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country.>>
~snip~

more:http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/02/20040224-2.html
I fear bush* is going to contine to appoint judges that fit his agenda. :(

[GreenPartyVoter]

3. Packing the courts.. Yep he'd do that

*another sigh*

What an idiot that son of a Bu$h is!

[mmonk]

9. they've been doing that

[maddezmom]

21. and they are going to continue

:(

[HFishbine]

5. Look on the bright side

the 25% of gay and lesbian voters who voted for Bush last time are probably going to think twice this year.

[charlie]

10. Even brighter

We get to watch Andy Sullivan writhe and pretzel himself. The only time the sane portion of his brain that recognizes Bush as a nutter is activated is when Dubya tromps on gays.

[DeaconBlues]

6. As if they weren't going to vote for him anyways

before this horrible decision.

[GreenPartyVoter]

8. Actually, they might not have come out in droves on account

of they see him as failing them on the Ten Commandments issue in Alabama and not taking a strong enough stand against gay marriage.

[DeaconBlues]

17. They might bitch and gripe a little about

Bush not being reactionary enough, but they will still come out and vote for him. The religious right has a high voting rate, and they would never vote for a Democrat.

There are other groups of Bush voters we should be trying to woo. Forget the loony fundamentalists.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

7. That's O.K. it's hurting him more than helping:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A487-2004Feb23.html

[aquart]

13. So who WILL the Logs support?

I never understood how they could champion this administration which has always held them in contempt. Now what do they do?

[aquart]

11. These are the people he ALREADY had.

They were beginning to waver and he brought them back. Big deal.

Did he get one NEW vote out of this?

Does he really think there's a huge bigotry backlash on the Queer Eye guys?

[GreenPartyVoter]

12. I know they aren't new, but we still need to cut into his base

:(

[charlie]

15. S'alright

They know they're getting a hand job, the successful passage any constitutional amendment is a long shot. They're losing their minds now because Dubya hasn't sent troops and Ashcroft into San Francisco to mow down the mayor and newlywed gays.

[GreenPartyVoter]

19. Yeah. I do laugh when I think of how freaked out they must be about that

But, I can't say it out loud because wouldn't you know I married into a religious right-wing family.

Just goes to show, ya can't help who ya fall in love with. ;) *lol*

[charlie]

23. They are FREAKED

and nothing short of old-fashioned queer hanging is going to mollify them:

Their list of grievances is long, but right now social conservatives are mad over what many consider the president's failure to strongly condemn illegal homosexual "marriages" being performed in San Francisco under the authority of Mayor Gavin Newsom.

Top religious rights activists have been burning up the telephone lines, sharing what one privately called their "apoplexy" over Mr. Bush's failure to act decisively on the issue, although he has said he would support a constitutional amendment if necessary to ban same-sex "marriages."

"I am just furious over what's going on in California and over what the president is not doing in California," a prominent evangelical leader confided. "He says he's 'troubled' — he should be outraged. If he's troubled, he should pick up the phone and call Arnold and tell him we want action against the rogue mayor who is breaking the law."

"They can't possibly guarantee a large turnout of evangelical Christian voters if he does not do what is morally right and take leadership on this issue as he did on the war" in Iraq, said CWA President Sandy Rios.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040219-115609-3712r.htm

[aquart]

18. Not really.

He's cutting into it so well himself, man should be in logging gear.

What base has he got left? Fiscal conservatives? Gone. Steelworkers? Gone. Military? Returning Guardsman quoted as voting for a "dead rat" before George.

Think of any group that went for him before. Where are they now?

He's got freepers, fundies, and fascists. Do YOU believe that's a majority in the United States?

[jonnyblitz]

16. why you thought they would have voted DEM otherwise?

LOL!! oh please...

[democratreformed]

20. He had that clinched a long time ago

with his faith-based initiatives. Just think - a captive audience every Sunday to hear his message from the pulpit. Not kidding. I have actually heard of it happening.

[11 Bravo]

24. So won't we soon need a "Marriage Czar"?

I nominate Neal Bush.