An obvious diversion --gay marriage and marriage amendment

[Blue_Roses]

act. I was watching the news last night and the President of the Southern Baptist Convention was saying how they supported Bush "1000 times," for his stance on this. It is an obvious diversion for Bush who has such a poor record on economics, the war, and his diplomacy with other countries.

As each candidate has said, it is a state's rights issue and it shouldn't be used as a "wedge issue," (good bumper sticker). I don't want this election to be about this marriage amendment. I want it to be about the horrible job Bush is doing with our economy and the war--not to mention the lies and secrecy.

The focus has to keep coming back to the REAL issues at hand---no jobs, poor economy, Iraq war, and so on. To let them use the "morality" card is giving them the upper hand. Morality is always gonna be the "trump" card for the GOP.

[arwalden]

1. It's Red Meat For The Christian Fundamentalists

and you're right... it's a hot-button issue to divert attention away from his dismal record and his ineptitude.

-- Allen

[FreakinDJ]

2. Sad part is it is working

They were saying here on DU the repukes were attempting to FRAME the debate on this issue several months ago.

We really need to begin ignoring the issue. Its not going to be resolved my a constitutional amendment. It would take 100s of years for that to pass if ever.

The states will end up deciding for themselves

But in the mean time we might end up with 4 more years of Bush

[arwalden]

3. I Disagree With The Word You Chose... We Need Not "Ignore" The Issue

it must be addressed and called what it really is. A hot button diversionary tactic that's mean to whip-up his Christian fundamentalist base into a frothing frenzy... and it's meant to be a divisive issue among the swing voters and ultimately to demonize the Wicked Homosexual Sodomites.

-- Allen

[Blue_Roses]

5. they were and I

know this for a fact...

[MurikanDemocrat]

7. We need to address the issue, not ignore it.

And Kerry did address it right away yesterday, appropriately.

Kerry statement yesterday on Bush proposal for Federal Amendment to the Constitution against gay marriage


“I believe President Bush is wrong. All Americans should be concerned when a President who is in political trouble tries to tamper with the Constitution of the United States at the start of his reelection campaign.

“This President can’t talk about jobs. He can’t talk about health care. He can’t talk about a foreign policy, which has driven away allies and weakened the United States, so he is looking for a wedge issue to divide the American people.

“While I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, for 200 years, this has been a state issue. I oppose this election year effort to amend the Constitution in an area that each state can adequately address, and I will vote against such an amendment if it comes to the Senate floor.

“I believe the best way to protect gays and lesbians is through civil unions. I believe the issue of marriage should be left to the states, and that the President of the United States should be addressing the central challenges where he has failed – jobs, health care, and our leadership in the world rather than once again seeking to drive a wedge by toying with the United States Constitution for political purposes.”


http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0224b.html

[Blue_Roses]

8. I'm glad he came out with a response

quick--to be fair to Edwards--he did too. The issue still needs to be redirected to what the real issues are in this election,'cause Bush will try to divert it as much as he can to keep the heat off his bad record.

[MurikanDemocrat]

9. Fair enough - Here's Edward's Statement

Tuesday, February 24, 2004

Edwards Statement Opposing Constitutional Amendment On Gay Marriage
Senator John Edwards (D-NC) released the following statement today:

"I oppose gay marriage. I also oppose President Bush's attempt to amend the Constitution to ban gay marriage. Washington has no business playing politics with this issue. Marriage is left to the states today, and should remain with the states.

"I'm not surprised that the day after he kicked off his campaign, the president is already talking about gay marriage. He can't talk about jobs, because he has no new ideas to create jobs. He can't talk about health care, because he has no new ideas to hold down costs or cover every child. He can't talk about education, because he has no new ideas to help young people pay for the soaring cost of college.

"If President Bush wants to stand up for marriage, he ought to help millions of married couples who are living paycheck to paycheck. If he wants to stand up for marriage, he should tackle the marriage penalty that punishes poor families when they marry. He should help middle-class families save and invest. But instead of offering new ideas to help the families who are actually married, President Bush wants to play politics with the Constitution.

"We have had our Constitution for more than 200 years. We amended it to abolish slavery and ensure women could vote. We should not amend it over politics."

[RedEarth]

4. Tom DeLay has said this is going to be the central issue of the campaign

The reason it will be one of the main issues issues is, that according to some polls, 70% of Americas oppose same sex marriages. It's an old repub strategy to focus on divisive issues and make them the central theme of the campaign. Hopefully, our candidates can focus on the real concerns of the public and not get rapped up in constantly talking about gay marriage. If not, Bush will get re-elected.

[Blue_Roses]

6. Tom Delay is such a

Bush whore and he WILL make this the issue, 'cause there's nothing more for Bush to talk about

[mmonk]

10. diversion?

[Blue_Roses]

13. LOL!

that pretty much sums it up! :)

[Forkboy]

11. The Ma Supreme Court started this up

and if I'm correct (I'm sure someone will pounce if I'm not) is 4 Dems and 1 Repub.Why would Dems create a diversion for Bush?

[mmonk]

12. pushing a constitutional amendment

[Blue_Roses]

14. the diversion

is Bush pushing an amendment to the Constitution during an election year.

[gottaB]

19. 4 justices signed the advisory, 1 was a Dem appointee

all the others are Republican appointees

justice bios

Easy chart:

http://web.morons.org/article.jsp?id=4566

Personally I don't buy any conspiracies one way or the other. The SJC advisory on the freedom to marry is reasonable and just.

[Forkboy]

27. Thanks gottaB

I had it backwards I guess.

[Vas Liz]

15. Wrong

In case you have not noticed - the republican party is dominated by right wing religious fundamentalist wackos. They have had an anti-gay agenda from day 1, and now that they feel threatened they are taking action.

It is foolish to believe this is just politics. Never underestimate the amount of hate in the repub party.

[mmonk]

16. And they always resort to it

when they are in political trouble (the constitutional amendment push).

[Vas Liz]

17. Oh please

Certain repubs were calling for this as far back as 2000. (and even earlier)

What you're doing is no different than claiming the opposition to the civil rights movement was based on politics rather than racism.

Why is it not possible for some people to realize repubs are largely motivated by hate? These people are motivated by anti-gay bigotry. I do not for one second believe it is politics except for a small minority on the repub party. (maybe 5-10%)

[mmonk]

18. yes

they are motivated by hate. However, if you don't think they are being political opportunists with this to divert the campaign from weaknesses or to reframe the debate going into the election then I think you may be naive. They are trying for extra mileage too by bringing up the fact it was the Mass Supreme Ct. and Kerry just happens to be from there.

[Blue_Roses]

21. Agree

100%! BTW where did you get that Avatar? I love Pirates of Carribean and more so, Johnny Depp?:)

[mmonk]

25. I did a search for Johnny Dep

on the internet for images. Then I copied it. It was basically an advertisement for the movie.

[tobius]

23. the headlines were created by that court

and Mayor newsom in SF. The pictures and images were everywhere, both Franks and Boxer said that this would stir the pot in an election year. If bush raised the issue by himself with out these 2 actions it would have dropped like a lead balloon.

[Blue_Roses]

20. with all due respect

you just reiterated what I said. Diversion IS politics and that is why there is one going on with this issue now. Do you think Bush has anything else to run on?

The hate and bigotry that they have is just par for their course:)

[JasonBerry]

22. Thank the Gay Activists For The Diversion

I posted this in another thread.

It's STUPID for gay activists to be making this a political issue in an election year. How can it be a diversionary tactic by Rove, etc. when it is "our" side doing the distracting?????

It isn't the Bush White House who controls San Francisco.

It isn't the Bush White House who is promoting gay marriage in Massachusetts.

We walked right into this one and, I'm sorry, but I think it is gay activists who are STUPIDLY advancing this agenda and diverting attention from the issues mentioned in your post.

[mmonk]

26. It's their issue

co-opted by the repubs into a campaign issue for an amendment to divert attention and to use as fodder for their cause with like minded people.

[Nicholas_J]

28. It IS their issue

But it is not necessarily every other democrats. Some support gay marriage, but within limits. Those limits are for some people, like myself, to support gay marriage only to the point which it threatens MY issues. Then I would consider it something that can be put to the side for a while to do what is "the greatest good for the greatest number of people." Will I support gay marriage if it means increasing the possibility of losing the gereral election and thus putting back even further the goals of universal health care, adequately funding education, preventing conservatives from eliminating overtime pay, destroying the enviroment, worsening foreign relation, unelployment, massive deficits. and so on. I have to say no. If I can support gay marriage, without seriously risking the possibilities of meeting these other goals, then I will wholeheartedly support it. People frequently die of lack of health care accessibility, by rarely of having to remain unmarried. If it means giving less than optimal support to the issue, then than is acceptable to me as well. If it means not directly addressing the issue, that is acceptable to me as well. There are many, many other issues that are as important, or more important, and to lose the election over one issue would be a travesty. It could result not onlly in the loss of a rights for many other people to have a Bush administration in power, it could lead to serious erosion to the progress gays have made already in employment, housing and other areas of life if the current administraion is left in power, and then extends that power thrhoug another conservatives administrations. It is time to win this battle, so we can go on to create an enviroment and political positioning to win others.

[Blue_Roses]

29. You've got

a good point. Other than the Massachusettes ruling and the San Francisco marriages, I haven't heard much of where this so-called "movement" started.

I do know however that this has been brought up months ago by a baptist preacher in my hometown. He was calling for an amendment and this was in November. He said there was a "movement," and we must take a stance now.


Bottom line, it's not the time to put this at the top of the "agenda" list right now. People are without healthcare (me for one) and now social security is at risk.

[littlejoe]

24. Of course this is a diversion, but it is one that can't be ignored,

or else Sen. Kerry would appear to be insensitive to the subject.