Bush Backs Hate, Runs for Political Cover, Declares War on Gays

["Sixhits"]

After the shitfest Bushie has faced these last three weeks finally the pres is throwing down. His first campaign speach was deliveried yesterday, touting his record and accusing the dems of sucking on every issue, being soft on every issue, and was capped with an attack on Kerry.

And now the guns have been pointed and it seems Bush is flipping flopping again - the election isn't about his record, or anything else. It's about gays.

But the reality is that Bush is making this election a moratorium on his character. It's pretty clear he has none.

Here's a quote from Josh Marshal over at http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

>>>>
It's his dad and the flag burning amendment all over again. Is there really anything that tells you more about a man's character than this?

A couple weeks ago I said we should be on the look out for stuff like this -- not just the move on gay marriage, but the whole descent into scurrilous attacks and divisive wedge politics as the president's popularity drifts downward. (Isn't the White House a bit worried that their line about the Democrats being negative and haters will be a little undermined by these tactics on their part?)

One might suggest that the idea we should have in mind here is that old line about judging a man's character and mettle by what he does when the seas get stormy rather than what he does when they're calm. But I think the real metaphor to keep in mind is how dangerous and unpredictable an animal becomes when he's cornered.
<<<<

Btw, here's a great response to Bush's war on gays: It's a humdinger.


http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2004_02_22_dish_archive.html#107764340071973047

[Fixed the URL. Ace]

[cO.gabe]

Btw, here's a great response to Bush's war on gays: It's a humdinger.


http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2004_02_22_dish_archive.html#107764340071973047

Warning: main(archives): failed to open stream: Unknown error: 0 in /Library/Tenon/WebServer/WebSites/andrewsullivan.com/index.php on line 85

Warning: main(): Failed opening 'archives' for inclusion (include_path='.:/Library/Tenon/PHP/lib/php') in /Library/Tenon/WebServer/WebSites/andrewsullivan.com/index.php on line 85


Wow sixhits! That is very interesting.  I wonder if anyone else has any more deep insights on this matter.

[*DAMN Elandrion]

well, at least we know now that the andrewsullivan.com site runs off a OS X maching with Tenon's webserver...

[Mr. Lothario]

     You're right, Six, good stuff. I can't imagine anyone being surprised at this turn of events, which should serve as a big red warning flag in regards to Bush's "character".

[alaric]

Does NOBODY on this whole forum understand yabb code?

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2004_02_22_dish_archive.html#107764340071973047

[cO.Kuza]

It's ON bush...

[BFG]

Christ (literally). There can't be any doubt that America is currently being led by a Christian Fundamentalist

[alaric]

Was there ever any doubt?

[kami]

Quite true, quite true... scary though.

[Ace]

Maybe you don't like it, but marriage is and has always been stricly defined as the union between a man and a woman. If you want to come up with a situation where gays could receive the same tax benefits, knock yourself out, but I don't see what the big deal is otherwise.

[alaric]

The big deal is the congressional amendment part. I don't think the consitution should be changed for something so stupid. What's needed here is not more legislation, an amendment to the fundamental document of our government inparticular. What's needed here is a good definition of what marriage is.

I believe marriage is a religious concept. Nothing more. It's up to each particular religion to define it past that. However, I do believe all the same rights and benefits should be afforded those who chose to live alternate lifestyles. Yes, the idea of a man laying with a man turns my stomach, but it's none of my business what goes on in my neighbor's bedroom.

[EUR_Zaitsev]

Being against Gay marriage may gain him votes but an ammendment wont. Its clearly an election move because there is no way that the 38 states needed to ratify the ammendment will by November.

[tasty]

Maybe you don't like it, but marriage is and has always been stricly defined as the union between a man and a woman.

Before we accept conclusions like this, I think we need to consider why they are true. Homosexuality has existed for thousands of years. The practice predates Christ and therefore Christian religious doctrine. However, there was no public conception of homosexuality until much later, and it was thought to be a "mental disorder" until as recently as the 1970s and 1980s. It was still unacceptable to be publicly homosexual until the 80s as well (when AIDS came about and homosexuality was actually discussed nationally). It wasn't until the last quarter of the last century that people even felt comfortable "coming out", and it wasn't until then that we had the academic freedom to show that homosexuality is a normal facet of human sexuality. It's a poor justification to say  that "it's always been that way, and that's the way it should stay".

[c| Dr. NO]

Leave it up to the state i say, the last amendment took what? 200 years to pass!  I'm a Christian and don't believe in marriage of the same sex, but not everyone in this country is a Christian. So i believe they should have the right, and that right should be putt to a vote by it's own state.  

To say this country is backed by a Christian view is the biggest line of BS.  If we were so pro-Christian why do we oppress so many other country's with our military fist and political interests, or starve our own people to feed a 40 billion dolor Pentagon budget...Christianity is nothing more then a card to play when the time is right.

[Cutter]

it'll change eventually. weren't interracial marriages against the law until the 60's? i don't think this new ammendment will pass at all. but the D.O.M.A. signed in 96 by clinton that defines marriage to be between a man and a woman helps bush's arguement. and the fact that his democratic opponent opposes gay marriage as well may help. then again in 2000 bush said it should remain a state issue, now he's trying to make it a fed issue. and there isn't a need for it. the law exsists already. problem is that law is being broken in california right now, which has pushed this to the front of this weeks political and media agenda.

this is something that could've been pulled off 40 or more years ago with ease. but with homosexuality becoming more and more accepted in the masses and on t.v. nowadays, this may backfire and begin a gay revolution. it's already a state issue and i think vermont allows civil unions between gays and more states are about to allow them. states like cali, florida, new york, etc. this publicity may be just the thing they need to get more states to at least allow civil unions which in time will lead to marriages.

[KoS.Rebel]

On a friendly note....isnt this flaming? Maybe not toward people but flaming to all of us about a topic that has allready been discussed?

[tasty]

On a friendly note....isnt this flaming? Maybe not toward people but flaming to all of us about a topic that has allready been discussed?

This topic isn't flaming, but this is: you're retarded.

["Sixhits"]

The big deal is the congressional amendment part.

Yep.

Even conservatives agree - don't use the Consitution to regulate social issues.

The Hate Amendment is all political flash. It's Rove figuring Bush can't win election based on his record and that Bush is loosing his base (oddly, social conservatives don't think Bush has done enought for them lately, while they see him lining the pockets of large corporations and close buddies).

In any event, while a majority of Americans, like Ace, don't want gay marriage, a majority of Americans don't want the Consitution to explicitly ban gay marriage. So Bushie has taken an issue he had a lead on (no federal support for gay marriage) and put himself behind (federal ban on gay marriage).

It's enjoyable to see Rove and team make so many political stumbles so close togetherr. I guess they're getting it outa there system.

["Sixhits"]

i don't think this new ammendment will pass at all. but the D.O.M.A. signed in 96 by clinton that defines marriage to be between a man and a woman helps bush's arguement. and the fact that his democratic opponent opposes gay marriage as well may help.

Now I disagree with Kerry and Edwards on their position. But the thing is, the Dems parse their lack of support for marraige with support for equally binding civil unions.

These Dems can honestly say they oppose The Hate Amendment and that they have a better solution. They can attack Bush's position and the particular wording of the porposed amendment as a blanket ban on gay marriage and gay civil unions. It's a punitive amendment, because it will undercut the civil unions of states like Vermont.

As a fun aside, no one likes a looser. Bush is setting himself up to loose the vote on this, and loose on an issue he's put personal mojo on in an election year.

He's also proposing to rip the country in two - much like civil rights issues were used to rip the country apart in our past. The thing is Bush's chunk of America is going to be a smaller chunk.

[Cossack]

You know this is funny.
As some of you know I live in one of the most anti-homosexual states in the union (The state being Texas). Now personally I am rather indifferent to the subject of gays getting married. If they want to be as miserable as the rest of us then so be it. Anyhow we have a good amount of "anti-gay" legislation going about the capital building in Austin, and I was shocked to realize that our governor had just been caught in the act with the secretary of state. The two-faceness of governor Rick Perry is just outstanding. For those of you who dont know, Rick Perry is one of Dubya's closest political confidants.