Right Thoughts...not right wing, just right.
Prev: Mixed Martial Arts makes a statement - Next: Uhh. Errm. WTF? - Home

Sun, 07 Nov 2004 23:20:58

Bush to make me regret voting for him, says aide


President Bush will renew a quest in his second term for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage as essential to a “hopeful and decent” society, his top political aide said on Sunday.

Bush’s call for a constitutional ban on gay marriages failed last year in Congress, but his position was seen as a key factor motivating Christian conservatives concerned about “moral values” to turn out in large numbers and help supply Bush with a winning margin in last week’s election.

“If we want to have a hopeful and decent society, we ought to aim for the ideal, and the ideal is that marriage ought to be, and should be, a union of a man and a woman,” Bush political aide Karl Rove told “Fox News Sunday.”

Rove said Bush would “absolutely” push the Republican-controlled Congress for a constitutional amendment, which he said was needed to avert the aims of “activist judges” who would permit gay marriages.

HEY, ASSHOLES: WE ELECTED YOU TO FIGHT TERRORISTS AND LOWER TAXES.  Get on that and leave the fucking Constitution alone.

Posted by JimK at 11:20 PM on November 07, 2004
Permalink | Trackbacks (0) | Email to a friend |
AddThis Social Bookmark Button
Categories: The Stupidity Of ManPolitics


#1  Posted by misterd United States on 11/08 at 12:58 AM -

I don’t agree with those who say gay marriage will end civilization as we know it. In fact, I’m fine with making it legal, but only through proper channels. Make the case to the people, and let us decide.

When judges started performing illegal ceremonies, I feared this would be the result. By going around the people’s will, and trying to ram this issue through the courts, the folks have got their shields up and have gotten very defensive on this issue.

Personally, I would hate to see the Constitution blemished by another 18th and 21st ammendment (prhibition and its repeal), and I can see the same case happening here.

However this whole judicial decree crap has to end at some point. And the only way we have to stop it is through the ammendment process. I would rather not have to go that way, and I would certainly prefer not to start with this issue. But the lack of will to “tarnish” the Constitution with countless ammendments has only encouraged judges to piss on it freely.

If this is where the line is finally going to be drawn, then so be it.

#2  Posted by davidst United States on 11/08 at 01:16 AM -

*sigh* why can’t we just elect a libertarian

#3  Posted by Drumwaster United States on 11/08 at 01:24 AM -

Because the Libertarians keep nominating fruitcakes like Badnarik.

JimK#4  Posted by JimK United States on 11/08 at 01:28 AM -

Drumwaster: Because the Libertarians keep nominating fruitcakes like Badnarik.


That’s it.  That is the primary thing that keeps me from wholeheartedly supporting them.  There are others, but that’s the big one.  My interactions with the Big L party have always resulted in nutterdom, and I didn’t see Badnarik as any different than the guys who let Howard Stern hijack them in the 90’s in NY.

#5  Posted by baldylox United States on 11/08 at 02:56 AM -

Yeah ... somebody tell Bush that this is going to turn off most of the New Republican base. Those of us here that I like to call ‘Realistic Libertarians’. I’m with Jim - leave gays alone. This was never as big an issue as the MSM is still trying to make it. Bush was given a mandate by the people to kill terrorists - not bash gays.

Gays - you want to get married? Make your case to the American people, not to some radical leftist judge in Oregon. We’ll support you. We promise.

All that red you see on the maps isn’t about you, as much as the MSM would like you to believe it is. It’s about patriotism, rejection of the ‘Blame America First’ doctrine of the Left and mistrust of the media. Homosexuals don’t just live in California and New York. We all have gay friends that we’d just LOVE to buy a George Foreman grill or a Cuisinart for - if only we had the right occasion.

#6  Posted by oakslicer United States on 11/08 at 08:51 PM -

Well said baldylox.  I don’t know where I stand on gay marriage, although I personally don’t have a problem with it.  I can see the polygamist argument that you would have to let them do what they want.  I don’t see where the line would be drawn.  Personally, I don’t care.  I think anything you can do that isn’t giong to affect me or my family, I could care less.

I have a question that maybe you guys could help me with.  What’s to stop two same sex partners from going to an attorney and writing up a contract where two people agree to give rights to their medical, financial, etc. records, along with a will to leave everything to their partner?  I’m not advocating this as an alternative solution, but this problem isn’t going anywhere for years IMHO.  This could be an interim solution that I would look into if I were in a same sex relationship.

#7  Posted by oakslicer United States on 11/08 at 08:54 PM -

Also, I realize this doesn’t help out on receiving health insurance coverage and employer benefits, but it seems like that could be more of an issue for employers/businesses.

#8  Posted by misterd United States on 11/08 at 09:28 PM -

oakslicer - so far as I know, not much is stopping it. There are of course legal costs that are not incurred by those obtaining a simple marriage license, it does not purport to have the societal stamp of approval marriage gives, it cannot bind an employer to extend insurance coverage, and it often does little to stop other family members from contesting such contracts. Also, many hospitals have (had? how common is it still?) policies that only allow family to visit in certain circumstances, not contractual partners.

#9  Posted by oakslicer United States on 11/08 at 09:58 PM -

A friend of mine has been a nurse for 15-20 years.  She said she has never seen that rule enforced or even heard of it being an actual rule.  She did say that hospitals will enforce keeping out anyone the family tells them to.  Sort of a “do not visit” list.  I think that is where problems start, which I’m sure happens quite often.  I don’t think it’s hospitals keeping people out as much as family members that don’t approve of the relationships.  I would think if you gave someone legal power of attorney in cases such as this, they would have to let that person in.  Of course, I could be an idiot. 

I brought this up to a lesbian friend, except I did it to say that John Edwards was out of touch with the real “gay issues.” She said that is a real issue and I could laugh about it if I wanted but it happens all the time.  At that point I decided to leave my foot in my mouth.  I didn’t mean to make light of the issue, it’s just that it has been my experience (more times than I care for)that I was allowed to see someone in the hospital in pretty bad shape that I wasn’t related to without any real question posed as to who I was.

Again, I realize there’s benefits to being labeled “married”, and I also think that capitalism could do a lot to open up things for gay people.  For example, if any car insurance company in the country would extend their “marriage discount” to gay people, they would see gay people flock to their company, thus giving them a huge market edge, and all other companies would have to follow suit.  Look at your shampoo bottle.  Those people don’t put the Spanish on there to be politically correct.  They do it because if someone who only speaks Spanish sees a label they can’t read next to one they can, their going to buy the one they understand.  It’s just a matter of getting someone to realize that gay people have money too, and then you’ll see more things open up for them.  *Hopefully*

#10  Posted by Corbin_on_Contracts United States on 11/11 at 04:48 PM -

“[W]hen a candidate for public office faces the voters he does not face men of sense; he faces a mob of men whose chief distinguishing mark is the fact that they are quite incapable of weighing ideas, or even of comprehending any, save the most elemental--men whose whole thinking is done in terms of emotion, and whose dominant emotion is dread of what they cannot understand. So confronted, the candidate must either bark with the pack or be lost…

[A]ll the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre--the man who can most adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum. The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal.

On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.” - H. L. Mencken, in the Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920.

Post a Comment:

The trackback URL for this entry is:


No trackbacks yet.