“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.”
— Joe Glover, president of the Family Policy Network, giving his opinion of the level of support Bush has given the MPA
Tomorrow is Marriage Protection Sunday and all the fundies, led by our friends the homobigots of the Southern Baptist Convention, will be bleating from the pulpit to the sheeple, encouraging them to call and write their senators and encourage them to vote for the MPA. The measure in question (S.J. Res. 1) has 32 co-sponsors (all of them are Rethugs, including both of my useless senators, Dole and Burr).
Poor Dear Leader — it’s never f*cking enough, he cannot lick the fundamentalists hard or often enough to give them satisfaction. Should I pull out the tiny violin?
Glover keeps on pummeling him — and, in a bit of news, he says Bush’s news conference won’t be in the White House Rose Garden. I haven’t seen that anywhere (the latest AP story and others don”t mention the location of the event now). Are the fundies getting shoved out of sight?
The pro-family activist notes that the president worked for months on issues such as Social Security and the Medicare prescription drug entitlement, “which conservatives didn’t even like.” Glover adds. “But for marriage he gives us one speech … the day before and expects us all to be pleased with it.”
In addition, Glover reports that the venue for Bush’s speech on Monday — originally to take place in the White House Rose Garden — has been moved to a room in the Eisenhower Building. He suggests the change in location as another indication of the administration’s lackluster support for the amendment. “They’ve moved it to the back of the bus,” he says.
There’s also a good LA Times piece today on the grumbling to check out. Glover must have been the fundie front man, because he’s quoted in this article as well, talking about Monday’s event as a “dog-and-pony show” that is too little, too late. The most interesting aspect of the story is the squirming over the language of the amendment, which members of the Base split over.
At least two prominent social conservative groups — Concerned Women for America and the Traditional Values Coalition — believe the language contains a loophole that would allow gays to seek civil unions.
The proposed amendment reads: “Marriage in the United States shall consist solely of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any state, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.”
Andrea Lafferty, executive director of the Traditional Values Coalition, and others say the second sentence leaves open the option that gays and lesbians could enter unions other than marriage; and that’s a deal breaker for them.
…Social conservative groups such as Focus on the Family, headed by James C. Dobson, support the amendment, despite the flaws they see in it. “We would prefer stronger language, but we’re content with this language,” said Tom Minnery, Focus on the Family’s vice president for public policy. “It leaves the issue of civil unions to the states. We recognize that this is the best we’re going to get at the federal level.”
However, Dear Leader is taking his lumps and bowed down to the AmTaliban in today’s radio address this AM. I’m posting the whole flaming load of crap for you.
Good morning. Next week, the United States Senate will begin debate on a constitutional amendment that defines marriage in the United States as the union of a man and woman. On Monday, I will meet with a coalition of community leaders, constitutional scholars, family and civic organizations, and religious leaders. They’re Republicans, Democrats, and independents who’ve come together to support this amendment. Today, I want to explain why I support the Marriage Protection Amendment, and why I’m urging Congress to pass it and send it to the states for ratification.
Marriage is the most enduring and important human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith. Ages of experience have taught us that the commitment of a husband and a wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society. Marriage cannot be cut off from its cultural, religious, and natural roots without weakening this good influence on society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all.
In our free society, people have the right to choose how they live their lives. And in a free society, decisions about such a fundamental social institution as marriage should be made by the people — not by the courts. The American people have spoken clearly on this issue, both through their representatives and at the ballot box. In 1996, Congress approved the Defense of Marriage Act by overwhelming bipartisan majorities in both the House and Senate, and President Clinton signed it into law. And since then, voters in 19 states have approved amendments to their state constitutions that protect the traditional definition of marriage. And today, 45 of the 50 states have either a state constitutional amendment or statute defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. These amendments and laws express a broad consensus in our country for protecting the institution of marriage.
Unfortunately, activist judges and some local officials have made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage in recent years. Since 2004, state courts in Washington, California, Maryland, and New York have overturned laws protecting marriage in those states. And in Nebraska, a federal judge overturned a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
These court decisions could have an impact on our whole Nation. The Defense of Marriage Act declares that no state is required to accept another state’s definition of marriage. If that act is overturned by activist courts, then marriages recognized in one city or state might have to be recognized as marriages everywhere else. That would mean that every state would have to recognize marriages redefined by jud
ges in Massachusetts or local officials in San Francisco, no matter what their own laws or state constitutions say. This national question requires a national solution, and on an issue of such profound importance, that solution should come from the people, not the courts.
An amendment to the Constitution is necessary because activist courts have left our Nation with no other choice. The constitutional amendment that the Senate will consider next week would fully protect marriage from being redefined, while leaving state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage. A constitutional amendment is the most democratic solution to this issue, because it must be approved by two-thirds of the House and Senate and then ratified by three-fourths of the 50 state legislatures.
As this debate goes forward, we must remember that every American deserves to be treated with tolerance, respect, and dignity. All of us have a duty to conduct this discussion with civility and decency toward one another, and all people deserve to have their voices heard. A constitutional amendment will put a decision that is critical to American families and American society in the hands of the American people, which is exactly where it belongs. Democracy, not court orders, should decide the future of marriage in America.
Thank you for listening.
Bonus (h/t Raw Story)! Little Ricky weighs in, but I think he should be more concerned about his sh*tty poll numbers (see Rasmussen numbers below )than Brokeback Mountain. Unfortunately, Mr. man-on-dog can’t help himself in an appearance on the right wing radio show, “Janet Parshall’s America.”
…everything from Brokeback Mountain to, you know, all the TV shows that you see promoting and affirming alternative lifestyles — I guess to put it nicely — you would think that the culture would eventually just move in the other direction. But I think these kind of debates are the chance for a public discourse to counter what Hollywood is purveying to our young people. Not just what Hollywood is purveying to young people, to all people. And it’s an opportunity for us to get beyond, you know, ‘We should treat everybody nicely.’ I’m for treating everybody nicely, but that doesn’t mean that we need to change the law to recognize a form of marriage that is harmful to our country.