GOP chiefs oppose gay nuptials

[Judi Lynn]

Posted on Sat, Nov. 22, 2003

MATRIMONY
GOP chiefs oppose gay nuptials
Republican governors meeting in Florida indicate a willingness to support a federal constitutional amendment to protect the `sanctity of marriage.'
BY PETER WALLSTEN
[e-mail]

BOCA RATON - Addressing an issue that could become a polarizing factor in 2004 campaigns, the nation's leading Republican governors on Friday embraced a nationwide ban on gay marriages if the nation's courts appear headed toward legalizing them.

Meeting just days after a Massachusetts high court ruled that the state's constitution gives gay couples the right to marry, the governors said they would back a federal constitutional amendment to safeguard the ``sanctity of marriage.''

''In Colorado, the state law clearly affirms that marriage is a legal act between a man and a woman,'' the state's governor, Bill Owens, said in response to a reporter's question. But a federal amendment would be needed, he added, ``if there's a concern that the U.S. Supreme Court were to act.''

Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, the host of the group's annual convention and one of the nation's most prominent Republican governors, echoed Owens' sentiments.

''If there were uncertainty about the sanctity of marriage and it's necessary to have a constitutional amendment at the federal level, I would support it,'' Bush said. (snip/...)

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/7323419.htm

[davidinalameda]

1. wonder what the Log Cabinites have to say about this

bet they're creaming in their guccis

they have to realize that they have lost any influence in the Repuke party that they might have ever had

[sujan]

3. money and greed triumphs any other concerns

[PurityOfEssence]

12. Plus it'll help feed their twisty self-hatred

Your point is so true, though. Conservatism is selfishness.

[saigon68]

2. GAY BAITING

Wait until this really gets going

[PaDUer]

4. Cheney's daughter..

isn't she gay? Wonder what the reaction at the table is there..

[54anickel]

5. Good grief!!! Such sanctimonious weasels!

Sanctity:
Holiness of life or disposition; saintliness
The quality or condition of being considered sacred
Something considered sacred

Please, stop the bible thumping. The states "borrowed" the idea of marriage from the religious belief. Seemed like a good idea, has worked for thousands of years. Then they applied their various Civil rules to this institution they called marriage. That, IMHO is where it became a convoluted mess, giving certain civil liberties to those who fit that religious description of a "married" couple exclusively.

I know that some don't like Deans take on this, but I tend to agree with him on it. And I am not a Deanie.

[LiberalFighter]

6. Violates the constitution!!

Freedom of religion!!

If the proposed amendment is intended to satisfy religious beliefs then it is unconstitutional.

The government should only provide the avenue for ministers to be recognized as agents for the purpose of performing marriages or civil unions just as justice of the peace and judges.

Ministers would perform such marriages or civil unions as their religion permits. Justice of the peace and judges would not be permitted to refuse marriages or civil unions that conflict with their religous belief because they are duly elected or appointed government officials that are bound by their oaths to serve everyone.

[adamblast]

7. Yes! The sanctity of Fox reality shows must be protected!

...by any means necessary!

Including the creating of our first constitutional 2nd class citizens in history!!

We must defend the holy Elvis wedding chapels of Las Vegas from being debased by homosexuals!!

[kentuck]

8. This will be a generational vote for the Democrats...

Just like the Civil Rights Act in the South.

[leesa]

9. Oh Gee, what a surprise that one of the most ignorant, bigoted men in

America is opposed to this!

[truth2power]

10. Oxymoron...

Jeb Bush? Sanctity of marriage??

Bwahahahahahaha!!! Didn't he have a mistress? What a stupid freaking POS!

[The Zanti Regent]

25. Are you talking about "Sin-D"

Http://www.mediawhoresonline.com had total coverage about Jeb's mistress!

[koopie57]

11. the sanctity of marriage?

Well, a 50 percent divorce rate is evident that the sanctity of marriage is still intact. I guess.

But, with all the ugliness, violence, and hatred in the world, what possible harm could come from allowing two people who love one another to be united in a committed relationship? What difference could it make to these nonsexual republicans? And why do they spend so much time thinking about it?

And I don't think it is right for them to use the excuse that they are doing this cuz "God" said it is wrong in the bible. There were a lot of things done and said in the bible that we would not even think about allowing in our day. They seem to pick and choose those things that suit their needs.

[Lindacooks]

14. I don't get it either

How in earth does gay marriage threaten the traditional marriage concept? I've heard that stupid phrase repeated over and over, but nobody ever says HOW it would 'destroy the family'.

[54anickel]

21. The threat is based on their belief that homosexuality is a CHOICE

It threaten tradition marriage concepts that have been held for thousands of years that procreates, propogates, and results in the nuclear family. Allowing gay marriage opens up the notion that more and more will "choose" to be in a homo rather that hetero relationship.
They don't boldy announce this claim of "choice" as it has scienticically proven not to be the case. Most gays I know will actually say "you think I would wilfully choose a lifestyle that leads to such discrimination and hatred?"
It follows their line of thinking, same reason the abortion bill used the non-medical term "partial birth abortion". By not using the medical term (I believe it is D&E) they leave it wide open and most doctors will fear to do any type of late term abortion. The non-medical term of "birth" can be construde to refer to vaginal birth. If they would have used the medical term doctors would understand exactly what and what not is allowed.

Not my views, please don't shot the messenger!

[Lindacooks]

22. I understand that, but

I still don't see how that is a threat to man-woman marriage. Do they think gay marriage will result in a reduction in the birth rate? And if so, what's wrong with that? Do they think that heterosexuals will be 'lured' into homosexual relationships? (yes, I know that's blatantly ridiculous.)

[54anickel]

24. Bingo! That's just one of the many fears that drives them to home school

their kids. Public education corrupts kids with such ideas as evolution and homosexuality.
Ridiculous? Not to many of them, this is truly a real threat to their children. Less to do with the procreation, that is just part of the argument as to why we were created male/female and what is "normal".
They don't want their kids to "choose" homosexuality and burn in hell.
Watch some of these TV evangelists when they get on a rant sometimes. D James Kennedy can go off on this one alot, along with PBA.

[Lindacooks]

27. They sure don't think much of God, do they?

It always amazes me that those right wingnuts think their offspring are these wobbly little lumps of dough with no strength to resist 'evil', and a powerless God who is no match for homosexuals, feminists, and other 'evildoers'.

The thing is, the way they raise their kids (don't question, accept what's taught you unequivocally, don't reason, logic is bad) makes them prime fodder for cults and anybody who's versed in mind control. But of course, the wingnuts don't see that, because they CAN'T reason logically.

[Dr Fate]

13. Gays will be the GOP's Jews for 2004...

...all they seem to missing is the train lines...

[mobuto]

16. Not if Dems work this right

which so far they really haven't been doing.

If Dems frame this as a moral issue - taking the Republicans head on, rather than avoiding it with reference to "civil unions" and "equal protection" - I think we can sink their battleship. I think if Republicans are allowed to frame this as a debate over the sanctity of marriage, they'll destroy themselves. I think the American People are a lot more sophisticated here than most give them credit.

[Dr Fate]

17. DEMS need to recruit popular gay stars from pop-culture...

"Gay culture" at least a media version of it is quite popular right now- I agree that DEMS could make this back-fire on Bush/media- IF they play there cards right...

[mobuto]

18. No - that's exactly the wrong of doing this

Gay culture - at least how its perceived by the public - is what's unpopular right now. Ordinary church-going Americans think of gays and think of promiscuity (ewwww), gay sex (which they don't find appetizing), and pastel colors. Yes, they're nasty stereotypes, but they're what's in many Americans' heads. Parading out Ellen Degeneres, Rosie O'Donnell and some guy from Queer Eye isn't going to change that. This is what Republicans are counting on.

But if you frame this instead as a symbol of fidelity, of love and of moral righteousness, you'll get a very different reaction. Because who the hell is going to want to keep life partners from Omaha or Poughkeepsie from getting married? Forget Hollywood, think Peoria.

[Dr Fate]

19. How are these shows so popular then??- ONLY just w/ DEM base???

I have a hard time believing that these shows and muscial talents get their #s soley from "hollywood" and the liberal base- folks in Peoria are watching "Queer-Eye" too...

But I see your point- but the fundies are going to hate gays no matter what- I'm talking about moderates here- who do embrace the media version of "gay culture", at least in their living rooms...

I can see using both approaches or one or the other, depending on the demographics...

[mobuto]

20. I think there's a huge difference between what people like to watch

and what people want to be, and whom they want to identify with. I don't think Americans identify with Hollywood. If Hollywood endorsements and campaigns were all it took to mold American popular opinion, Democrats would have won 20 out of the last 20 elections. And that hasn't exactly happened.

As for me, I certainly consider myself to be part of the liberal base; I think I watched Queer Eye for a grand total of about thirty seconds, once when somebody else held the remote.

[gratuitous]

28. "Ordinary church-going Americans"?

Uh, I think that would be me. And our congregation honors the image of God in everyone, regardless of gender, race, physical ability, financial status, or sexual orientation. We find support for this stance in the Bible, and defend it from those who would teach us that the central message of the Gospel is hatred rather than love.

That being said, you make some very good points in your second paragraph, and I would dearly love to see the national Democratic party stand up for the rights and dignity of everyone in the United States. But until that happens, it's going to be up to us to lead the fight, and hope our "leaders" catch up some day soon.

[mobuto]

15. Where are the Democrats?

Its really a shame to see national Democrats running away from this. They know preventing people who love each other from marrying one another is wrong, but they're doing so simply on the grounds of short-term political expediency.

But I don't think that's going to work. I think those of us who are straight are beginning to look on this as a profoundly moral issue, one to get out on the forefront of. I think like Civil Rights, I think straight voters may begin to use this as a lithmus test.

Of all the candidates, I think General Clark has been the best on this issue. He has applauded the Massachusetts court decision, and not only does he support making civil unions the law nationwide, but he has signalled that he may soon come to support marriage across the country, and not just leave it to the several states.

[foreigncorrespondent]

23. Fuck the GOP!

I was reading an article this morning and voters is Mass support the SJC ruling (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1505&ncid=1505&e=4&u=/afp/20031123/ts_alt_afp/us_gay_marriage_031123190339) what are they going to do, go against peoples wishes? (Rhetorical question)

They won't even give LGBT's the right to sponsor foreign partners for immigration, because they believe it is a way of getting acceptance for "Our forms of marriages." (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=764001)

[mebadgett]

26. Not So Gay marriage

Source: http://politicalhumor.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/BushBritain/main.asp