Bush to promote gay marriage amendment.
June 2, 2006 6:22 AM   Subscribe

Every two years, like clockwork, the extreme right need a boost. aka "Best misleading headline ever." He's actually promoting his anti-equal marriage amendment. This FOX News headline is more accurate: Marriage Amendment Could Soothe Angry Right.
posted by andreaazure (66 comments total)

 
Yey, I flipped the two -- I meant to have the actual CNN headline "Bush to promote gay marriage amendment" the link you clicked. I lose at the interwebs.

Back to the main point, can we go all-in? Have a national referendum, simple majority rules, this issue can't come up on the national stage again for 10 years? I am sick of being the extreme-right's funding toy.
posted by andreaazure at 6:25 AM on June 2, 2006


What? You want everyone catching teh gay? :-)
It's more contagious than bird flu!
posted by nofundy at 6:31 AM on June 2, 2006


Yes, the extreme (and not so extreme) right always need a scapegoat to rally the troops. Homophobia is "in season." Of course, a lot of Democrats suffer from a lack of backbone on standing up to this kind of stuff too. They're for civil unions, some say, but not marriage. Jeezus. Talk about trying to split hairs.

And Howard Dean just had his butt kicked by NGTLF for trying to suck up to the religious right -- at the expense of gays. I sent NGLTF a check right afterwards!

Thanks for the post.
posted by bim at 6:31 AM on June 2, 2006


And it'll work of course. This country cares more about gay bashing than civil liberties.
posted by puke & cry at 6:32 AM on June 2, 2006 [1 favorite]


Finally, something everyone can agree on.
posted by graventy at 6:36 AM on June 2, 2006


my favorite part of the whole gay marriage debate:

"You filthy homos and your promiscuous gay sex!"

"uhhh actually, id like to enter into a life long commitment with my partner"

"Oh hell no! A monogamous loving relationship between two people of the same gender is so much worse than sleeping around with the same sex that we need to ban it in the constitution."
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 6:41 AM on June 2, 2006


Have a national referendum, simple majority rules,
When it comes to rights, it's not about majority rules, but about justice and the Constitution's promises for all of us, not just for straight people.

And when we're daily being called the ...the forces of hell itself. ... They want to destroy the institution of marriage," Dobson said. "It will destroy marriage. It will destroy the Earth." ... and "a worse threat than terrorism" (by Santorum on the Senate floor last time it came up), any vote (on rigged machines, btw) would be more dependent on this shit and motivating those who hate and fear than on any sort of actual opinion.

Either we have the rights others have, or we'll soon have them (hopefully i'll live to see them)--it's not up for a vote, and our rights are not dependent on anyone else's opinion at all. They know that. Our country's history is of the continual expansion of rights, and not votes on whether certain people should have rights or not.

Let them go agitate against quickie marriages or nofault divorce or all the other things that actually have removed any sort of "sanctity" of marriage.
posted by amberglow at 6:50 AM on June 2, 2006


I don't understand why we don't have separation of church and state for marriage, and I'm not just talking about gay marriage, I mean all marriage.

Marriage - spiritual union of two people performed by a spiritual leader
Civil Union - legal union of two people performed by a legal representative

If you aren't religious or spiritual get civil unionized, if you are spiritual, get both. The government should make the decision for civil unions, and have no say on marriage. Marriage should be left up to the churches.
posted by splatta at 6:51 AM on June 2, 2006


Will the angry right continue to allow itself to be played by the GOP on this issue? No one thinks that this amendment is (a) ever going to happen; or (b) can remotely be linked to any kind of conservative view of the appropriate role of the federal government.

Maybe if we all concentrate real hard, we can build up some kind of impenetrable barrier to protect us from the fundamentalist jihadis.
posted by ibmcginty at 6:58 AM on June 2, 2006


It won't get out of the Senate anyway, let alone to the states. And God willing, some of the State amendments against us will be struck down, making all of them unconstitutional and void.
posted by amberglow at 7:03 AM on June 2, 2006


White House spokesman Ken Lisaius "The president firmly believes that marriage is an enduring and sacred institution between men and women."

That's fine.

"[A]nd [he] has supported measures to protect the sanctity of marriage."

That's not his fucking job.
posted by Zozo at 7:07 AM on June 2, 2006


Fuck all this namby-pamby stepping around the important issues of the day- let's just cut to the chase and introduce an all encompassing "Jesusland Amendment".

We given that tired old "tolerant, enlightened, compassionate nation" horseshit a long enough run to understand it just doesn't work. All it's gotten us is people who want to think for themselves. How can those of us who know how things should be run control the rest of you heathens if you insist on being free thinkers? God, of course, will smite you all in the end, but we need to do all we can to hold you down in the meantime. We can't have our children reach their own conclusions about the subtle complexities of being responsible, caring human animals, when the ham-fisted certainties of the Good Book work just fine. (Never mind that my interpretation of the Good Book is fuck-all backwards and evil.)

Jesus can't do it alone.

[/sarcasm]
posted by Benny Andajetz at 7:10 AM on June 2, 2006


interesting analysis of the ap article: ...if Pickler had actual facts to support her thesis, she would have included them. She uses up more column inches explaining why the amendment is doomed to fail than she does making the case that Bush will campaign in favor of it. This is particularly damaging to the story in the light of Bush's complete lack of action on the subject of gay marriage while in office. He has always been willing to pay lip service to a federal crackdown at campaign time, but loses all apparent interest as soon as the election is over.
Perhaps Bush thinks that by telegraphing his support for what the religious right now calls the MPA (Marriage Protection Amendment), he can get a little breathing room for himself and for the party in this congressional election year. Maybe he thinks that he can skate along by merely implying his support has he has done for so many years. If so, he is wrong.
Unless Bush comes out Monday with a fire-breathing, damn-the-torpedoes speech in favor of amending the constitution to discriminate against homosexuals, his conservative base will be disappointed, to put it mildly. The reaction will be worse than it was after his fence-sitter address on immigration. That could put him and his party in a worse position than if he had said nothing at all. ...


Will the haters recognize that Bush won't actually lift a finger to do their bidding on this?
posted by amberglow at 7:21 AM on June 2, 2006


Paul Goodman (if you don't know this guy, do a search!) lived with a woman for many years and did not marry her because, he said, I don't need a certificate from the govt to sanctify a union with someone (he was bi-sexual). It is not the business of the government to be involved in such matters.
posted by Postroad at 7:28 AM on June 2, 2006


Note, too, the date of the Senate thing---6/6/6--then think about who's actually doing the work of the Devil on this, to use their phrasing. The forces of Hell, indeed.
posted by amberglow at 7:33 AM on June 2, 2006


Might pass the senate this time, with the newly de-balled McCain running around and the dems apperantly returned to their former de-balled status.
posted by delmoi at 7:34 AM on June 2, 2006


it won't get 2/3 of the Senate--no way.
posted by amberglow at 7:37 AM on June 2, 2006


According to the Heritage Foundation, 44 states have either constitutional amendments or statutory laws defining marriage as between one man and one woman.--from Fox.

That's what's killed it in the House and Senate--the states have already acted.
posted by amberglow at 7:40 AM on June 2, 2006


Maybe they could just build fences around chapels so gay people can't break in illegally and get married. Or perhaps John Bolton and Condoleezza Rice could tell gay people who have already gotten engaged that they're "running out of time." Or maybe the Joint Strike Force can conduct shock-and-awe bombings of Fire Island, Provincetown, and the Castro to "send a message" to potential brides and grooms. (Surely the remaining heterosexuals in those places would greet the troops with flowers -- if not bridal bouquets.) Or surely the NSA could start tapping everyone's phones and Internet access to data-mine terms like "wedding cake" and "honeymoon." You could also have the secretary of state of Ohio declare that he is eager to "deliver the vote" against gay marriage and special e-elections can be held, sponsored by Diebold. And the Attorney General could hold a press conference to declare that the US Constitution already bans gay marriage. Tony Snow could crack a little joke at the daily press briefing about "Adam and Steve" while ignoring questions from Helen Thomas, who is obviously on the wrong side of this issue and giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Surely FOX News could start running color-coded alerts displaying the escalating threat to marriage. Of course, all bags on the NYC subway should be searched for illegal love letters that might explode into full-on matrimony. Have Saddam's links to the marriage equality movement been fully explored? Perhaps Michelle Malkin, Rush Limbaugh, and Ann Coulter can organize a mass movement to patrol tuxedo-rental shops. Maybe troops who have just returned from Basra and Baghdad could be re-enlisted to bring the fight to the enemy at Holiday Inns and condos in Maui. What is the National Guard up to? We need them more than ever now.
posted by digaman at 7:42 AM on June 2, 2006 [2 favorites]


It is not the business of the government to be involved in such matters.

Yeah -- I'll give that a lot of thought starting the moment that my husband and I have equal marriage rights.
posted by digaman at 7:48 AM on June 2, 2006


Any gay Republicans in the building?

What's wrong with you?
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 7:52 AM on June 2, 2006 [1 favorite]


digaman, I don't see why you failed to mention that Naziism is rooted in homosexuality, or that America's favorite fictional antichrist is the spawn of homosexuals... but other than that, your remarks are extremely timely and insightful.

Anyway, failing building fences around churches, we could always pray for a hedge of thorns. (Yes, I already linked to that in this thread, but I think it's funny, I'll link to it again).
posted by ibmcginty at 7:53 AM on June 2, 2006


That's right, IBM -- everyone knows Hitler was a huge fag. All those rallies with hot stormtroopers marching in formation, Hitler Youth (say no more), and that suspiciously fellatio-enhancing mustache!
posted by digaman at 7:58 AM on June 2, 2006 [1 favorite]


Frist, leading the charge on this (and running in 08), has bigger things to worry about as well: The Federal Election Commission has determined that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's 2000 Senate campaign violated federal campaign finance laws. ...

but of course, he needs the distraction---the entire GOP does---they have nothing else, and the immigration thing is not helping them at all.
posted by amberglow at 8:05 AM on June 2, 2006


I still want my fiesta, dammit.
posted by blucevalo at 8:13 AM on June 2, 2006


For Orwell fans, here's something from the National Review on the subject: "Notwithstanding recent appointments to the Supreme Court, the federal judiciary could move to impose same-sex marriage nationwide in a few years. Even if it does not, for the national debate to be dominated by state judges acting as policymakers is a perversion of federalism. Congress is taking up a Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution. The amendment is unlikely to pass this year. But it is the only sure way to vindicate the public’s will."
posted by ibmcginty at 8:25 AM on June 2, 2006


Note, too, the date of the Senate thing---6/6/6--then think about who's actually doing the work of the Devil on this, to use their phrasing. The forces of Hell, indeed.
posted by amberglow at 10:33 AM EST on June 2 [+fave] [!]


AND it needs 66.6% of the Senate to vote for it to pass! Coincidence? I think not.
posted by inigo2 at 8:27 AM on June 2, 2006


I swear to God, this could be the thing that puts me over the edge. If this passes I'm going to [redacted].

I'll be a ticket punching motherfucker on the Heaven Express.
posted by Fezboy! at 8:32 AM on June 2, 2006


I don't understand why we don't have separation of church and state for marriage, and I'm not just talking about gay marriage, I mean all marriage.

Marriage - spiritual union of two people performed by a spiritual leader
Civil Union - legal union of two people performed by a legal representative

If you aren't religious or spiritual get civil unionized, if you are spiritual, get both. The government should make the decision for civil unions, and have no say on marriage. Marriage should be left up to the churches.
posted by splatta


That's exactly how it is now, except the same word is used for both. Civil and religious marriage are separate, and you can get one without the other. Of course, if you get religious marriage, then it is all but automatic for non-gays to get the civil marriage, but they are still separate concepts.
posted by Happy Monkey at 8:36 AM on June 2, 2006


...Mrs. Bush has warned that promoting the amendment could backfire against the GOP in congressional races in November. She has suggested that a constitutional amendment would hamper any constructive debate over gay marriage.

“Well, I don’t think it should be used as a campaign tool, obviously,” Mrs. Bush said. ...

posted by amberglow at 8:37 AM on June 2, 2006


Ah good morning, world! Here I am in Canada, doing a little surfing before heading out to brunch with my legally recognized husband. Ah, yes, life sure is sweet here in Canada. Later today I have an doctor's appointment. Good thing that visit's covered by our generous, if flawed universal medicare program.

Yes, there's only one thing we're missing here in Canada: we can never have enough bright young talented edducated freedom-loving men and women of all ethnicities, cultural backgrounds and sexual orientations to help fuel our booming economy. Thousands come every year, but there's always room for more. But...where to find them?
posted by slatternus at 8:45 AM on June 2, 2006


That W fellow seems to like fighting losing battles (Iraq, Gay Marriage, Nature).

Way to be prez!
posted by bitdamaged at 8:53 AM on June 2, 2006


fellatio-enhancing mustache

I just thought that needed to be said again.
posted by BobFrapples at 9:20 AM on June 2, 2006


You know, part of me really says "bring it on." I think Laura Bush is right, there is potential for tremendous backlash here--I've read these national polls on gay marriage for the past couple of years not as virulent anti-homosexuality, but rather as a society coming to grips with what is, for many people, a complicated and uncomfortable issue.

I just think of my own family in the years since my brother came out--there was always acceptance, and no one condemned him or distanced themselves, but my mom and I had a lot of long conversations about sexuality, what it means, etc. etc., conversations she had with my brother as well. And even though she loves her children no matter what, it's taken her years to become comfortable with her son's homosexuality. As anyone who has come out will tell you, it's a long, fundamental re-adjustment.

It seems to me that the US is going through a similar adjustment--that people aren't yet comfortable with the idea of homosexuality (very generally speaking, and disregarding the minority of extreme viewpoints for the moment), but are not willing to discriminate, either. Two years ago, polls showed upwards of 65% against any form of same sex unions; more recent polls are only slightly above half.

I also can't imagine why Democrats have not seized upon this issue in two ways: 1. It vividly demonstrates the hypocrisy of the president's (and others') religious beliefs--if they really, fervently believe the teachings of Jesus, they wouldn't be doing and saying what they are. 2. It's also clearly a red herring, and should be attacked as such. Why aren't senior Democrats all over the place saying things like "Listen, I understand that this is an important social issue, and we need to have an open, forthright national conversation about this. But clearly we have more pressing issues to deal with at the moment, like [insert any few of a million different things], and I'm just shocked that the President would be so irresponsible as to choose to focus the national debate on this issue--he is clearly playing politics here, and it is not the time for that, it is simply not what we need from our president." Etc. along those lines.

This approach, seems to me, would serve several ends: it would blunt the president and senior republican's attacks, by challenging christians to reconsider their attitudes; it would shift focus back onto more urgent issues of national security and such; and it would reveal all of this for the cynical wedge strategy that it is, reminding everyone again just how irresponsible and out of touch the president is. (At least, in the US in my head, where the elected officials have principles and the best interests of the nation at heart.)

Anybody else with me on this?
posted by LooseFilter at 9:29 AM on June 2, 2006


(I should clarify something above: "[The issue of gay marriage] is clearly being used as a red herring...."
posted by LooseFilter at 9:34 AM on June 2, 2006


Loosefilter- The Dems have learned the wrong lesson from the GOP pandering to the religious right. The Dem mind set right now is 'How can we gain control of the religious vote?', and consequently they make overtures at things like 'video game violence' and 'faith based initiatives while distancing themselves from useful opposing strategies like the one you just outlined. The fact is the religious vote is the largest and best organized voting sector of the American population- and rather than build an opposing coalition of like minded rationalists and intellectuals to opposed them, the Dems just want to take fundamentalists away from the GOP.

Combine that with their general spinelessness and unwillingness to potentially offend the (largely conservative or conservative leaning) big business that feeds their corruption addiction and viola.
posted by T.D. Strange at 9:50 AM on June 2, 2006


splatta got it right. The dim-witted confuse religious with civil marriage, because the same word is used, and so look at civil marriage as tainting their religious sacrament. Defining two different terms for the two different entities and declaring one off limits to the other sanctioning institution (and vice versa) would solve the problem of 99.9% of those who are troubled. The remainder are just plain nuts.
posted by Mental Wimp at 9:59 AM on June 2, 2006


Here I am in Canada, doing a little surfing before heading out to brunch with my legally recognized husband.

Hearty congratulations, slatternus, but last I checked, the Canadian Prime Minister is a full-on Tory in thrall to the far-right Canadian evangelical right, has Stockwell Day in charge of public safety, and has promised to do whatever he can to revisit the question of same-sex marriage.

Speaking as a non-recognized American homo, best of luck with that "legally recognized husband" business up there while it lasts.
posted by blucevalo at 10:40 AM on June 2, 2006


would solve the problem of 99.9% 73% of those who are troubled. The remainder are just plain nuts.
posted by MikeKD at 10:42 AM on June 2, 2006


T.D. Strange, I agree. Dems need not just a coalition of like minded rationalists, but of fair minded religious folks, too.

I know a lot of religious people (most of my family included) and none are of the virulent strain found in the religious right. I have a hard time believing that there isn't a vast middle of people who consider themselves religious--even very religious--who are uncomfortable with their faith being used over and over again as a political wedge. Why are Democrats so afraid to simply say "religion should not be wedged into legislation" as a matter of principle? They could even say "though my faith is strong personally, I don't think..." or even "it's because my faith is strong that I wish to protect it by keeping it from being tainted by the sorts of compromises inherent in government." (Didn't Jesus himself address this issue? "Render unto Caesar..." and all that?)

After all, separation of church and state was not conceived to protect the state--it was to protect the church, and with good reason. The political activism generated by religious belief in the US is corrupting the religion, and many, many Christians I know see this clearly. This view needs a voice, and gay marriage would be a great issue with which to point this out--while also outing the hard right for cynically using it as a wedge issue.
posted by LooseFilter at 10:51 AM on June 2, 2006 [1 favorite]


"It stands little chance of passing the 100-member Senate, where proponents are struggling to get even 50 votes. Several Republicans oppose the measure, and so far only one Democrat - Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska - says he will vote for it." [AP]

Fuck you, Nelson.
posted by ericb at 10:53 AM on June 2, 2006


Why aren't senior Democrats all over the place saying things like "Listen, I understand that this is an important social issue, and we need to have an open, forthright national conversation about this. But clearly we have more pressing issues to deal with at the moment, like [insert any few of a million different things], and I'm just shocked that the President would be so irresponsible as to choose to focus the national debate on this issue--he is clearly playing politics here, and it is not the time for that, it is simply not what we need from our president." Etc.

Much as I like this line of thinking, the MSM will portray any such statement by a Democrat, whether Pelosi, Reid, whoever, as an attack on the Christian community, and all of the usual floating talking heads will appear on CNN and Fox fulminating about how immoral and held hostage by the "homosexual agenda" those Satanic Democrats are.
posted by blucevalo at 10:57 AM on June 2, 2006


If Ben Nelson voted against this amendment as a Nebraska senator, he would be tarred and run out of town with pitchforks.
posted by blucevalo at 10:59 AM on June 2, 2006


How many times can Rove have his trained monkey sprinkle magic "OMG FAGS!" dust and have it bring bigots to the polls? Not many more times I don't think, not when he's at 30% approval. Not when people are wondering why their sons and daughters are on their fourth and fifth rotations in Iraq. Not when people realize that lots of Iraqi civilians have been tortured and/or murdered by American troops. Payback's a bitch. Homophobia won't help you any more, Republicans.
posted by bardic at 11:02 AM on June 2, 2006


blucevalo writes "has promised to do whatever he can to revisit the question of same-sex marriage."

Whatever he can do is bupkiss without changing the Charter. Something we aren't going to see anyone attempt for decades unless the Bloc forms a majority goverment. IE: Not going to happen.
posted by Mitheral at 11:15 AM on June 2, 2006


Mitheral, with all due respect, your comment about the unlikelihood of a Tory/Bloc majority government is maybe a little optimistic.

Many Canadians never thought Harper would be able to form a minority government, let alone a majority. Yet, voilà, here he is as PM, and to judge by the polls, a rather popular PM at that.
posted by blucevalo at 11:21 AM on June 2, 2006


Much as I like this line of thinking, the MSM will portray any such statement by a Democrat, whether Pelosi, Reid, whoever, as an attack on the Christian community, and all of the usual floating talking heads will appear on CNN and Fox fulminating about how immoral and held hostage by the "homosexual agenda" those Satanic Democrats are.

You're likely right. I guess what I'm wishing for are elected leaders who say the right thing because it's the right thing to say.
posted by LooseFilter at 11:26 AM on June 2, 2006


That's my wish too, LooseFilter. I'm right with you there.
posted by blucevalo at 11:31 AM on June 2, 2006


Is there a way to flag a national issue as noise and move on?
posted by Captaintripps at 12:05 PM on June 2, 2006


bluevaco: It's possible that the vote Harper plans to have on Same Sex Marriage may end up weaker than previously thought. According to this Globe & Mail article:

The motion is widely expected to ask MPs whether they think the issue should be revisited, rather than if they approve of marriage between people of the same sex.

and

Reports emerged this week suggesting that a growing number of cabinet ministers and MPs are questioning whether the debate should be revisited.

Some suggested that the divisive issue has already been debated thoroughly, and others indicated that there are more pressing matters demanding the government's attention.


I'm hoping that they recognize the truth of that last paragraph more and more as the potential vote approaches.
posted by aclevername at 12:07 PM on June 2, 2006


I'm so glad every other problem in the country has been solved and this is the most pressing problem we face here in the US.

Oh wait...
posted by SisterHavana at 12:35 PM on June 2, 2006


If a gay couple burned a flag at their wedding, and no Republicans were there to be shocked, would Democrats still win the next election?
posted by BillyElmore at 12:54 PM on June 2, 2006


Thanks, aclevername. If that's the case, Canada's well-deserved reputation as a place of rational political behavior will be burnished.
posted by blucevalo at 12:56 PM on June 2, 2006


If a gay couple burned a flag at their wedding, and no Republicans were there to be shocked, would Democrats still win the next election?

No, because there would still be time for another "terrist" attack on US soil prior to November 7.
posted by blucevalo at 12:57 PM on June 2, 2006


When it comes to rights, it's not about majority rules, but about justice and the Constitution's promises for all of us, not just for straight people.

i like how amberglow puts things...

i'm always confused why we don't parallel it so much with issues of the past century, such as women voting and civil rights...not only in the sense that those were rights inherent in the constitution and thus did not require any kind of majority agreement (would they even be overcome by now had we waited for the majority to approve?)...but also that those opposed to such rights were so convinced they were correct, yet now we look upon their behavior as shameful...

i'm not particularly a friend to the democratic party until, first, they can state exactly where they are on the issue and state a clear position as agreeing or disagreeing with republicans, and until they start challenging strongly such claims as 'gay marriage would destroy the institution of marriage' by asking for evidence to back that up...
posted by troybob at 1:09 PM on June 2, 2006


actually, inherent in the constitution is a poor choice of words...i guess i would see them as more inconsistencies between the big-C's definition of personhood/citizenship and its definition of equality
posted by troybob at 1:17 PM on June 2, 2006


troybob : >

Dean just said exactly what you said on Hardball, LooseFilter, but the conversation then immediately went on to Hillary and Bill's sex life or lack thereof.

Dean is bouncing like a pinball on this and all statements for 06 don't even mention civil rights or equal rights--it's pathetic, and we're stopping our donations in many places. Hillary actually had to meet with activists about it because we're not going to help anyone who doesn't speak loudly for us and for equality in general.

Meanwhile, the HRC (useless tools) endorsed Lieberman over Lamont, when Lamont has clearly spoken out for us and Lieberman parrots the GOP line as usual.
posted by amberglow at 1:29 PM on June 2, 2006


blucevalo writes "Mitheral, with all due respect, your comment about the unlikelihood of a Tory/Bloc majority government is maybe a little optimistic. "

I didn't say Tory/Bloc coalition, I said Bloc Majority. The Conservatives aren't going to open a Constitutional can of worms. It's bad for business and would set them back in a big way in Ontario where they are desperately trying to make inroads. The majority of Canadians either are wildly enthusiastic about the right for gays to marry or are mind our own business types who don't care if the two guys next door are sharing a bed.

The only reason this is even an issue is because a)it's big news in the states and b) the whack jobs from the reform party are against it. As the conservatives marginalize those guys under the need to moderate in order to actually win a majority we'll hear less and less about it.
posted by Mitheral at 1:35 PM on June 2, 2006


... Senate leaders haven't made much of an effort to disguise the initiative as anything other than the base political ploy that it is. After a frenzy of gay-bashing during the 2004 campaign season -- they thundered against gay marriage as a threat to every family tradition, from man-woman marriages to peanut butter-and-jelly sandwiches -- Republican leaders hadn't even mentioned the issue again. The threat disappeared for two years. Until now -- when they're facing the prospect of losing control of Congress.
Given the stakes, prominent Republicans won't get in the way of a good wedge issue. ...

posted by amberglow at 1:40 PM on June 2, 2006


Mitheral: I defer to your greater knowledge. I didn't realize that the situation is as you describe. I wish I were as optimistic as you are about the desire/willingness/ability of the Conservatives to "marginalize" the "whack jobs," as you put it.
posted by blucevalo at 2:47 PM on June 2, 2006


Another Republican Defender of Marriage:
"Republican Jim Galley, who is running for Congress as a 'pro-traditional family' candidate, was married to two women at the same time, defaulted on his child support payments and has been accused of abuse by one of his ex-wives.

The San Diego Union-Tribune discovered the personal history in making public-records checks on Galley, who is making his fourth run for elective office in four years. These checks are part of the newspaper's election reporting process.

Galley married his second wife, Beth, in 1982 when, unbeknownst to her, he was still married to his first wife, Terry. Beth and Galley divorced in 1990 after she sought a restraining order alleging abuse.

The child support was owed to his first wife."

[San Diego Union-Tribune | June 02, 2006]
posted by ericb at 2:56 PM on June 2, 2006


Dancing with the ones who brung him:

During the campaign Harper said that he would first hold a vote asking the Commons if it wanted to revisit the issue, but since the election the Catholic Church and evangelical Christian groups opposed to gay marriage have been pressuring the government to avoid the question and move directly to introducing a repeal bill.
posted by blucevalo at 5:09 PM on June 2, 2006


... “It’s clear he’s not serious about the amendment. “He’s not doing a lot of arm-twisting to get votes or making campaign commitments to get votes. This administration could care less about protecting marriage. Otherwise they would have had a ceremony in the Rose Garden three or four weeks ago. There would be several sore arms in the Senate by now.” ...
posted by amberglow at 9:33 AM on June 3, 2006


from kos: Frameshop: 3 Easy Steps--...
How many people have died in Iraq because of a marriage?
How much has the price of gas gone up because of a marriage?
How many people died during Hurricane Katrina because of a marriage?
How much has the environment been damaged because of a marriage?
How many jobs have been shipped overseas illegally because of a marriage?
How many corporations have broken labor laws because of a marriage?
How many children have had their asthma untreated because of a marriage?
How many elected officials in Washington have been indicted for corruption becauseof a marriage? ...

posted by amberglow at 10:26 AM on June 3, 2006


and very interesting political angles here--while Bush and the GOP are trashing judges, ... An expected wave of judicial nominations -- rumored to be as many as 20 in the next month or so, although this is denied by the White House -- is "not a question of if, but when," one former senior administration official said.
"Democrats will make a huge mistake if they're too partisan and refuse to give us a hearing on the nominees. So it's not even the vote that matters, it's what Democrats do when the nominations come in," the former official said.
If Democrats move to squelch the nominations, the president plans to hammer home the split on core values between the two parties in an attempt to woo back his base.
"We need to remind Republicans to hang together because the alternative is much, much worse," the former official said. "Pushing these two issues is going to shore up the base, because it will remind them of our core values, what is important to us." ...

posted by amberglow at 11:36 AM on June 3, 2006


Married 19 years this August. Activist judges to blame.
posted by amberglow at 12:49 PM on June 3, 2006


« Older A guide to Twin Peaks: characters and episodes....  |  David Lucas will be forced nex... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments