Chimp on marriage

Let the Log Cabin stuttering and stammering begin....

Well, uh, he doesnt really mean that...

Its not going to happen anyway, so what difference does it make...

Stay tuned...

Let the press releases begin!
"Inclusion wins!!!"

And Mary Cheney says, "I'm so proud of my dad and Bush's administration!"

This is so depressing to me. I feel certain that it is going to pass both the house and senate with the necessary majority because it is an election year. These far right groups are going to pund anyone who votes against the FMA into the ground.

The LCR head guy has already said that their "blind" loyalty to the president will not be there if he endorses this amendment, so they aren't being too obtuse about this.

Why am I not surprised by this? Remember, if gay marriage becomes legal in the United States - the terrorists will win.

Hey, anything to divert the country's attention from his AWOL history as he sends more GI's to fight and die.

Thanks, Repubs!

Even though the incompetent chimp clearly doesn't give a damn about us or the 1.1 Million gay votes he received in 2000, if Patrick Guerrero and the Log Cabin Republicans want to maintain ANY sense of credibility they need to immediately and forcefully denounce ANY ties and support for this bigot once and for all! :mad: ....how HulaBoy, MIB, TomFord and a few other guys on this board who CLAIM to be gay can still show support for a "leader" and an administration with such DEEP hatred for us and who are doing everything possible to deny us basic human rights absolutely defies belief! eek!

Gross, get me off that list. I've been v. critical of Bush on this.

[ February 11, 2004, 08:50 AM: Message edited by: TomFord ]

I KNOW that you've been critical of the chimp on CERTAIN isolated issues, Tom, but the key question is are you STILL planning on voting for him in November (as you've stated on numerous occasions in the past) even though he so forcefully advocates such unbelievable hatred and denial of your basic human rights?

[ February 11, 2004, 07:45 AM: Message edited by: gamecock ]

Don't recall saying I'd vote or not vote for him. But if I did, no, this is a breaking issue for me.

Unlike you, that doesn't mean I froth at the mouth at the very thought of Bush and can't admire/support other policies. He is, after all, our President...*ducks for cover*

Actually, if Bush loses, I think his stance on gay marriage will feature rather prominently in how historians evaluate his presidency. 20 years from now, gay marriage will be the norm. And for the president to have picked the losing side of the issue when he really should have, at the very least, supported civil unions, is not exactly the stuff of great leadership. Especially when the issue is giving something to a once-maligned segment of the population and not taking something away from anyone. We were damned for being promiscuous/AIDS in the 70's and 80's and now and we're damned for wanting stable unions.

As CPT_Doom put it in another thread, "by backing this amendment, Bush et. al. are specifically picking sides on a religious issue - "these beliefs are good - those beliefs are bad." It is a blatant violation of the principal of religious tolerance in this country, and it should be branded as such."

[ February 11, 2004, 08:29 AM: Message edited by: TomFord ]

And let's not forget that great Bush apologist William1865.

If W gives into the conservative right on this one and makes it part of his running platform, i will not vote for him. Then again, i can not vote for Kerry either because i don't like any of his ideas on the economy. I dont like his ideas on fighting terrorism.

Willam doesnt care as long as he keeps the tax cuts coming.

Raze i'm sure the true american patriot does care about this.... if this legislation was passed... you and him couldnt get married.

I think issues like this should be settled in the court.. not by the govt. Plain and Simple.

However, i will not vote for Kerry based on one issue if i think he's a dip shit in the other 10 areas i vote on.

I hope sharpton runs as an indep candidate... that's who would get my vote.

The way I usually confront people in the religious right when arguing about this is to ask them to argue against homosexuality without using either a religious precept or a tautology. They immediately go into if homosexuality were more tolerated, more people would be comfortable in being homosexual. I haven't yet been able to convince one of those idiots that assumes the wrongness of homosexuality without providing evidence and is thus recursive. Oh well, if they were smart, they wouldn't be mindless minions of corrupt televangelists.

Absolutely correct. The Framers knew better than to leave matters of civil rights to the electorate.

I think this might be the last straw for a lot of the Log Cabin crowd. It's one thing to be ignored or disliked; it's quite another to be actively discriminated against. Look for Guerrero to have a forceful rebuke and a threat to disendorse Bush if he follows through with this.

Let's not ignore the timing of this leak...just as the AWOL thing starts slipping out of control, BAM, here comes the FMA. Coincidence?

The Log Cabin Republicans are actually the least of my concerns here. The WEDGE is... We have incredibly legit complaints and critical questions to ask about the President's military service and the reasons we're at war now, and, while I can't believe I'm saying this, the gay marriage issue is perfectly timed to DISTRACT legitimately critical attention away from his flaws.

In other words, I'm surprised to find myself agreeing with the arguments I've denied or glossed over for months, and even just two weeks ago.

Bush is poised to use gay marriage as a mechanism for distracting criticism of his presidency. He'll appeal to well-meaning, God-fearing, patriotic Christian folk and portray Kerry and the Dems as crazy liberals who are Hell-bent on undermining family values and the integrity of our nation.

In fact, when I step back and think about it, I think history might show that Bush was quite a shwred strategist. Having a Bush cronie support/advise(and run???) the Sharpton campaign was BRILLIANT: Sharpton pushed the Dems further Left, playing directly into the Republican agenda to retain the presidency.

If anything, the issue of gay marriage now stands to SAVE the presidency for Bush.

I hope I'm wrong - I didn't intend to come this bitter over night. My preference would be to deal with this f-ing election first, then get to the business of addressing gay marriage.

My thoughts exactly, B Man - Although he’ll never admit it, President Bush got exactly what he wanted last week when Massachusetts' highest court issued its ruling on same-sex marriage. Instead of running a Presidential reelection bid focusing on the issues that matter most to all of his constituents: the loss of millions of jobs, the WMD fiasco and loss of lives in Iraq, our nation’s skyrocketing budget deficit, and his homage to America’s wealthiest - those very issues where he has demonstrated weakness. President Bush now has the one issue that he can draw upon to evoke the primal instincts of fear, hatred and prejudice and polarize his ardent faith-based androids. And they’ll fall for it – hook, line and sinker.

I wish I had a dime for every time Ive heard that. They'll be back, asking for more.

I wish i had a dime for everytime Raze.... nevermind.

Exactly. The basic problem is that public opinion, as confirmed repeatedly in recent polls, is opposed to gay marriage. I'm not saying the majority is right, but in a democracy, politicians have to pay attention to the will of the majority. If only the leadership of the GLBT community would focus their efforts on changing public opinion instead of mindlessly bashing Bush, they would deny Bush the benefit he stands to obtain from taking this position.

It is fantasy to think politicians -- of either party -- are going to lead the people rather than being led by the people. As we all know, John Kerry says he does not favor the constitutional amendment, but he's always quick to add that he also does not favor gay marriage. When asked to explain, he has said procreation was the primary reason marriage should be reserved for heterosexuals (even though his own marriage to heiress Teresa Heinz is childless). And let's not forget that in the US Senate, Kerry voted in favor of a prohibition on immigration by people who are HIV-positive, to make it a federal crime (with jail time) for HIV-positive healthcare providers to fail to disclose their status, and in favor of a "no promo homo" measure that barred the use of federal funds in schools to "promote homosexuality."

I'm not suggesting Bush is perfect -- obviously he's not if this Reuters report proves to be true. I am pointing out that the choice between Bush and Kerry is a more complex issue than the partisan Democrats would have us believe.

The WH spokesman talked about public opinion today on this issue too Hula. Just another broken promise dubs made in his first presidential campaign that he would not run the country based on polls (an obvious slap at Clinton/Gore).

I believe "public opinion" is also AGAINST a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage as well, but that hasn't stopped the bush/cheney/rove regime from shying away from a chance to keep government out of our personal lives. A much talked about (without the walk) principle of the GOP. Where's the compassionate conservativism he promised the country?

So Hula, are you saying Kerry would go on the offensive as dubya has done on the constitutional amendment? I just don't buy that spin.

PhillyFan, not saying I necessarily disagree with you here, but this is a VERY unconservative position. Right-wingers have been frothing at the mouth about activist judges ever since desegregation.

Well, JC, actually since Reconstruction...but then that was also activist federal government as well as the courts. But I hear what you're saying. PF is probably still upset that the gay sex ban wasn't upheld.

B Man, brother, please don't let bitterness cloud your judgment, now. The GOP were going to hammer Kerry as no matter what, whether or not gay marriage were an issue now or in the future. They hammered Gore, who had at one point been strongly opposed to homosexuality and gay rights. They will hammer ANYONE with the "liberal" label to stay in power. Every Democrat running since Carter has been tagged as a "liberal," though Clinton governed like a moderate Republican (but whored like a conservative one), and it's not going to end anytime soon. So better that we get the real thing--Kerry--than someone who's labeled as such but is going to try to out-GOP the likes of W and Krewe.

Second, Sharpton has hardly made a dent in anyone's thinking. Seriously. He's no Jesse Jackson circa 1984 or 1988. Sharpton didn't even break the 10 percent mark in South Carolina, which has one of the largest per capita black populations in the South, and he fared equally poorly in Tennesee and Virginia, as well as in Missouri, which has large black urban populations. Sharpton, Kucinich and Moseley Braun are all FOR gay marriage, but that has not pushed the Democrats any further to the left; in fact, Kerry's record on many liberal and progressive issues is well known and existed before Sharpton set up his most recent traveling circus.

The important thing that John Kerry is doing now is not to run from his record; Edwards has also not dodged his short voting record either. Gore flipped and flopped and it cost him, even with a conservative as his running mate. Kerry's stand on gay issues is clear, and it will imperative for the Democrats to broach all the other salient issues voters care about, instead of jawing on about W's missing months in Alabama. Plus, it appears as though the Senate President in Massachusetts is going to enrage gay people to save Kerry's prospects by forcing through a compromise that ultimately may not work--but by the time it all falls apart, Kerry could be in office, and the issue would then play out under a changed national political scenario.

[ February 11, 2004, 07:57 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

I disagree. For starters, "right-wing" does not necessarily equate to "conservative." True conservatives believe in less government/regulation, which is the opposite of what the religious fanatics who parade as "conservatives" want. Amending the Constitution to add more regulation is not "conservative" at all.

Our government has three branches by design. I'd say that is it indeed a conservative position to uphold the balance of powers by refusing to let one branch trample the liberties of the citizenry. Isn't keeping the government "as is" a conservative position?

Well, it depends an awful lot what you mean by conservative. According to my dictionary, conservative means "disposed to maintain existing views, one who adheres to traditional methods or views". By that definition, being upset by judges overturning the existing order is decidedly conservative. You can argue that maintaining the constitution "as is" is conservative, but a lot of the people opposing using the courts in this way argue that they are preserving the original framers intent. You could also argue that there's now something of an established tradition of the legislature amending the constitution to make laws that are more difficult to overturn, so it has become a traditional method.

Although these days many people use conservative to describe people who believe in less regulation, there's a perfectly good term to use for that--it's called libertarian. In my opinion, Buchanan and his ilk are conservative--the laissez-faire bunch (who were once called economic liberals) co-opted the term conservative as part of their strategy of forging an alliance with traditionalists.

[ February 12, 2004, 06:22 AM: Message edited by: JC ]

The Republicans have made a strategic decision to use this issue to make the election about values & culture as opposed to the lack of jobs, runaway deficits, rising medical costs, fiscal mismanagement, qWagmire, etc. They are planning to ram through something as drastic as a constitutional amendment that will permanently deny us legal equality. And still, there are those among us who will blame it on the Democrats & gay people themselves. Unbelievable. :confused: :mad:

HulaBoy, are you really trying to tell us that Bush is better than Kerry on gay issues?

Well said, GJ. Here's LCR's take on the issue: 2-11-04 LCR Press Release Condemning FMA

That's awesome. Guerriero comes through, just as he said he would. Thanks for posting that.

This being Lincoln's birthday, I will toss a softball in the direction of the LCR, reminding them that all they need do to gain points with conservative Republicans is to point out Reagan's opposition to the Briggs Initiative.

If that doesn't work, nothing will.

Edited to add:

Knight Initiative Has Another Agenda



[ February 12, 2004, 10:03 AM: Message edited by: twin58 ]

That strongly worded press release is a great first step in what promises to be a long, fierce fight....as long as Patrick Guerrero and the team of experienced men and women that he has surrounded himself with forcefully stands behind the principles outlined in yesterday's statement then perhaps there is still a vocal, albeit small, minority within the GOP that will continue to work on our behalf and sway a few "moderate" Republicans to vote the RIGHT way.

[ February 12, 2004, 12:13 PM: Message edited by: gamecock ]

Hi, Gamecock - For the record, the 2/11 statement wasn't really the first step. Patrick and the LCR condemned the President's stance the morning after the State of the Union message, and have made it clear his stance on this position is unacceptable to us.

LCR response to State of the Union comments

You know there are SOME activist courts out there... ie the one with the pledge. Totally stupid ruling, they should be ashamed of themselves.

However, if you are on the opposite side of the gay marriage ruling... you think it's activism. So one i think is a good ruling, one i think is a bogus ruling. But you have to accept it and move on.

I said before i'll say it again, this one issue needs to go throught the courts... much like aboriton... let them decide what is fair and hope they are actually objective.

I stand by my statement, if W pushes this as a major part of his platform, i will not vote for him. I wont vote for kerry either cause he's a bigger idiot.

Twin, LCR has played hardball in the past and will do so in the future when necessary. We were founded in CA to fight the Briggs Initiative. In 1998, when Matt Fong was running to unseat BBoxer, he got our endorsement and $$. Later, we learned that he had given money to "Rev." Lou Sheldon, one of the worst of the homophobic fundamentalists. I repolled our membership on the endorsement and, based on our reconsideration, removed Fong's name from the endorsement ad that LCRSF was running.

I took A LOT of heat from A LOT of fellow GOPers for doing so, including temporarily losing my seat on the SF GOP Central Committee. But to have done otherwise would literally have been to deny our birthright - since Lou Sheldon was one of the prime movers behind the Briggs Initiative. Let our detractors call us what names they will, but bastards can't be one of them. As Winston Churchill said of the Nazis' contempt for his fellow Britons, "What kind of a people do they think we are?"

OK, let me make sure I have this right....

LCR plays "hardball" by retracting an endorsement?
Wow, you guys are brutal.

Ha! And how can you retract something that has no meaning in the first place?

What else do you expect them to do?

Exactly, thanks for helping me make my point. There's not much else they can do except issue more press releases, who really pays attention to what they say? You think Rove/bush are losing sleep over a Log Cabin endorsement?

Why was he endorsed to begin with? Did he make some general comments about not discriminating or was he actually trying to portray himself as pro-gay? Was he actually worthy of an endorsement or was he endorsed because he was Republican?

[ February 13, 2004, 07:53 AM: Message edited by: Joe in Philly ]

JIP, He had actually been quite supportive of LCR and gay rights, speaking at LCR events, pledging to hire gays on his staff, and being more than "generally supportive." He wasn't endorsed solely because he was a GOPer, but that certainly played a part; after all, we ARE a GOP group. But the biggest reason was because we are still looking to rid ourselves of BBoxer and at the time, until his support of Sheldon was revealed, he was giving her a good run for her money.

Golfer, would you explain what you meant by your post? If by it you meant what else COULD they do, you're close. GOP party bylaws, like those in all the other parties, make advocating against the party nominee grounds for expulsion from the party. Removing his name from an endorsement ad skirted this rule but made a point, which was well publicized in the CA press. As a GOP organization, we're not going to sacrifice the positions we have within the party, or risk making further gains. While I was not reelected to the SF CenComm for a term, I got my seat back in the next election, and went on to become the party's nominee against Pelosi in a contested primary. We view our efforts as long term, just as those of gay Dems in the '60s were. The carping and unconstructive criticism of non-Republicans is hardly enough to make us deny our other birthright: that of Republicans.

First everyone complains because LCR doesn't speak out against anti-gay positions/politicians within the party. Now that they do, you trash them for not having any influence. Just what do you want from them anyway?

It's to our benefit to have gay groups within the Republican party. And of course they're going to support Republican candidates...unless/until such candidates prove to be anti-gay. Guerriero gets lots of press nationally. You can't say he has no influence. Sure, there may not be a lot of members, but there sure are a lot of gay Republicans.

"HE HAS NO INFLUENCE." There, I said it. "And, the LCR HAS NO INFLUENCE." There, I said that too. Democrats give them no attention. Most gays mock them. And Repubulicans expect them to burn in hell. I'll say it again. "HE HAS NO INFLUENCE." It's not that hard to understand.

And just for laughs, here's a little oldie but goodie.
Bush Remarks To LCR

I am certainly not a fan of the LCR, but I will say that, as we all should have learned, in the last election a few hundred votes gave Bush the win (yes even after the recount Shrub was unfortunately on top despite the SC ruling)

I am sure there are a few hundred LCR members in Florida, if they did not endorse and vote for Bush things would be different.

So to say that they have no influence politically might be true, but they do have votes, and we all learned how important a few hundred votes can be!

One other question, do they or have they ever released thier membership numbers? I wonder how many they really have. If they were a large organization, you would think they would tout thier numbers to show stregnth.

1.1m gays voted for Bush in 2000, a quarter of the gay vote. Even if they're not members, they'll pay attention to what the group has to say about the constitutional amendment and what it means for the election.

And how many of those 1 million who voted for Bush in 2000 will vote for him again?

Hopefully they've seen the light, but I'd like to hear your opinion please.

Thanks

Regrettably, I was one of those 1.1M that voted for him. I grew up in a fiercely conservative family and I just wasn't really thinking for myself to be honest. I still don't like Al Gore, but if I could go back in time, I would.

I will not vote for Bush this time around. Unfortunately, living in VA, it won't make a difference who I vote for.

How do you know 1.1 million gays voted for Bush in 2000? I don't remember there being a checkbox for "Gay" or "Straight" on my ballot. And I'm really being serious here. How do you know that?

Me sa thinka you google 'gay votes for bush 2000'.