Bush Pandering for 2006 GOP Votes

George Bush on a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, via Washington Blade:

“Changing the definition of marriage would undermine the structure of the family,” said Bush, who raised the issue’s profile with an event at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building.

Bush criticized judges who have overturned state laws similar in intent to the proposed legislation. “Marriage is the most fundamental institution of civilization, and it should not be redefined by activist judges,” he said.

Traditional marriage, Bush said, is the cornerstone of a healthy society and the issue should be put “back where it belongs: in the hands of the American people.”

Bush is engaged in election year pandering to conservatives, many of whom currently hate his guts — by trying to divert attention from his failed domestic, foreign and economic policies.

The obvious ultimate solution is not a constitutional amendment which moves the separation of church and state line even closer to Big Brother’s house, but to get the government out of the picture. Even Christian groups are stating that marriage should not be licensed by the government.

What began in the United States as local methods of keeping blacks and whites from marrying each other are now turning into a national constitutional issue. The last time I checked, marriage was a covenent between two people and God or a contract between two or more people of various sexualities. It’s time to get the Feds out of our religious and private lives.

posted Jun 5th, 2006 by Stephen Gordon
  • Paul Pace

    I know that if gay marriage were ever widely legalized, thousands of couples across the country would immediately turn gay and divorce, also refusing child support bills. Thank God we have George Bush to protect us from this important issue. Massive government growth, eminent domain abuse, the border problems, wide pork-barrel spending, and a costly war can wait. I’m sure THIS is the issue we all lose sleep over.

    Remember: If your polls are down, lose that frown!
    You can make them go up again as easy at 1-2-3!
    Just pick on a minority!
    To save the fabric of society?
    Just trust in lack of voter sobriety!
    It worked on the Mormons, the Jews and the Blacks.
    It worked on the Commies, so why cut gays slack?
    If your party is failing then just sit back,
    find a minority and press the attack.

  • http://libertarianyouth.blogspot.com Nigel Watt

    Funnily enough, the states with the highest proportions of Mormons are now the ones most supporting him…

  • http://allencountylp.blogspot.com/ Mike Sylvester

    This issue has been a little tough for me. I am an ex-Republican and I am currently the Chairman of a County Libertarian affiliate in Fort Wayne, Indiana.

    I tend to think marriage should be between a man and a woman; however, I really do not think it is the governments business.

    The problem is the government gets dragged in for several reasons:

    1. If one State makes gay marriage legal then all other states MUST recognize that marriage, which is wrong.

    2. Insurance.

    3. Child support.

    4. Adoption.

    I do end up on the side of State’s rights on this one. I do not beleive in a Constitutional Amendment re-defining marriage; but, I do not feel as strongly about this as I do other things like:

    Federal Deficits, Government subsidies, expanded government, other infringements of state’s rights, etc.

    I am against a Constitutional amendment; but, if the issue comes up on a State level I might be for changing the definition.

    Mike Sylvester

  • http://www.libertyforsale.com Timothy West

    when you get on this issue, you are dancing to the Republicans tune. The LP focus should be on how the Republican an Democratic “family values” are to fight illegal wars killing thousands of husbands leaving their children fatherless and their wives and fmily bereaved.

    Don’t reply to strawmen, attack them where it hurts. Iraq is our Vietnam – and the two party system will become more endangered as a result. They can only hold it by lies and force for so long.

  • Paul Pace

    On 1. This is not an issue. Massachusets marriages, for instance, are not recognized in other states.

    2. I’m not sure what you mean here. How would insurance factor any differently just because it is a same sex couple? Of course it would be up to individual companies if they wanted to suport such a couple with the same benefits and costs.

    3. I can’t pretend to know the intracacies of child support, so I’ll leave this one alone.

    4. Adoption is up to the orphanages to decide as far as I’m concerned. If it’s a federally run orphanage, then it can’t discriminate based on sexual preference though it could discriminate based on wanting the child to have a male/female role model.

  • Graham

    1. I think policies should be aimed at “strengthening” the rights of Individuals, not propping up some arbitrary definition of “families.” To me American is based not on any family/group/race/sex/etc, but THE individual.
    2. Anyone who believes that homosexuals are a “threat” to straight people or “straight marriage” is a big fucking idiot and/or a repressed homosexual. I am a straight guy and I really can’t imagine any possible scenario that a person would be a threat to me or my marriage because they want to have same-sex relationships. Nor is it a threat to my children. In fact my GF wants to send our son to “the school where all the gay parents send their kids” and I really see no reason why not.

  • Brian R. Miller

    As a gay Libertarian, I’m perfectly content to accept the 65% citizenship and revoking of my Constitutional Equal Protection rights which positions like Mike Sylvester’s would provide to me if, say, the government didn’t charge me any taxes.

    Of course, gays in relationships are expected to pay more into the socialist system than the average married couple, and allowed to extract less. So we get the “best” of all worlds — more taxes, condescending lectures on “states’ rights” (I guess constitutional rights are out the window) and “discomfort.”

    The proper position is getting government out of the marriage, adoption, insurance and welfare businesses to begin with — not support the creation of a permanent subclass of people because of some odd biases based on “religion” or “tradition.”

  • Wes P

    Eyewitness to Bush gay sex runs for Nevada governor.

    Partner was current Ambassador to Poland, Victor Ashe.

    “Not that there’s anything wrong with that”, George?

    http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/ via

    http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=39&contentid=3573&page=2

  • http://www.killerisme.com James

    Are they really American values if you have to legislate to get Americans to act that way?

    States dont have rights they have powers delgated to them by people. People have rights.

    What the hell does recognized mean anyway? I have not once since I got married been asked to show my license anywhere so I could be recognized correctly. The only time it matters is in insurance and legal matters. Make the law more flexible so that people can insure and leave property to whom they choose. Then keep the hell out of marriage and the rest of peoples private lives.

  • Devious David

    “Changing the definition of marriage would undermine the structure of the family,”

    Structure of whose family? Is there supposed to be some kind of standard and if your family doesn’t fit it, then it’s not a family? Who sets this standard and are “non-family” families subject to coerced break up and separation for cohabitation and child abuse?

    Maybe I am wrong on this, but if a Constitutional amendment were to go to convention, wouldn’t the whole Consitution be up for grabs? This government can’t even follow the Constitution, so I fail to see why this is such a big deal for the people who want it so badly. With all the things going on in the world, I just see this as a reminder of the stupidity and selfishness of conservatives… and the remainder of the electorate. A black I was talking to the other day is vehemently opposed to gay marriage. Maybe we should go back to making them guess the number of bubbles in a bar of soap and see how they feel about it then.

  • blowmedown

    It’s very simple. Defining or regulating social conventions is not the proper realm of government. Marriage (or any other social contract) should be on whatever voluntary terms to which the participants have agreed. If there is some benefit or cost to that arrangement that accrues from government intrusion, abolish that intrusion. Meddling by the State is the disease here, not “gay marriage”.

    -BM

  • http://www.libertyforsale.com Timothy West

    David,

    an amendment does not require a constitutional convention to be called.

  • Scott

    I think its good that someone’s actually doing the right thing (ie trying to pass an amendment rather than using the courts or executive orders to runaround the constitution). I for one oppose the sanctioning of gay marriage, but them again, I also oppose sanctioning of any marriage.

    Our society has come to believe that anything good must be government sanctioned, and anything bad must be made illegal.

  • Wes

    Yeah, how about an amendment banning marriage licenses?

  • http://darianworden.tripod.com D Worden

    Why do the fuckers want a new amendment when they can’t even abide by the first ten?

    And here I thought that individual rights were the cornerstone of a healthy society…silly me, I forgot we’re all one big healthy borg now and a bunch of dogwhistles in DC decide what we really want.

    If I was in congress right now, I’d propose a constitutional amendment that got government entirely out of deciding who may or may not be married. That would be fun!

  • Brian R. Miller

    The constitution is just something for them to ignore — except when they can turn it into burlesque for their idiotarian statism.

    The sponsors of this amendment cannot be bothered to follow the First Amendment (free speech zones, “faith based” government funds for religion), the Second Amendment (Patriot Act weapons controls), the Fourth Amendment (illegal wiretaps, warrantless searches), the Fifth Amendment (Guantanamo Bay, Patriot Act detentions, Jose Padilla), the Sixth Amendment (indefinite detentions without trial to “fight terrorism,” Guantanamo Bay), the Eighth Amendment (torture in Iraq and elsewhere), the Ninth Amendment (all the anti-gay and anti-immigrant bullshit), or the Tenth Amendment (government asserts domain over areas not enumerated in the constitution).

    Their bigot amendment would probably be the only part of the constitution they’d actually follow!

  • Steve Benton

    As usual, the wrong question is being asked. The question should be, “Why is government, either Federal or state, involved with marriage at all?” IMO, the libertarian solution is to get the government out of the marriage business altogether. Devious David asks if there is supposed to be some kind a standard family. For so-called social conservatives the answer most often appears to be the nuclear family – dad, mom, and their biological children. I have read, however, that the nuclear family is a relatively recent development. In the not so distant past, people lived in extended families. In researching my family history I have found this to be true of my own ancestors. Their families often included grandparents, aunts, uncles, brothers, sisters, in-laws, cousins, boarders, and hired hands.

  • http://www.badnarik.org Jon Airheart

    For Immediate Release

    June 6, 2006

    Contact:
    Allen Hacker, Campaign Manager: 512-637-6861
    allen@badnarik.org
    Jon Airheart, Scheduler: 512-637-6863
    jon@badnarik.org

    ELECTION 2006 ”“ (GAY) PRIDE AND PREJUDICE

    Austin, Texas ”“ While President Bush renewed his push on Saturday for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, Michael Badnarik, candidate for US Congress in Texas’ 10th district, prepped himself for his campaign’s first “Concert for Liberty” at the Red Eyed Fly.

    “Unfortunately, it doesn’t matter how you flip the mega-party coin in this debate. Both sides are the same,” said Badnarik in reference to the 1996 passage of the Defense of Marriage Act defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman. That act was signed into law by Democratic then-President Clinton.

    Badnarik, a constitutional scholar, believes the rights of a minority group can never be voted away by a majority vote. He further contends that government has no place in private bedrooms.

    “Marriage is a personal and religious sacrament and the government has no business usurping it. As a congressman, I will oppose any federal legislative attempt to prohibit gay marriage.” Badnarik continues, “The government should never have gotten involved with marriage in the first place, and I intend to return churches and private individuals to their rightful place in defining among themselves what their sacraments and contracts are to be.”

    Although he personally will be in Houston attending the Libertarian Party State Conference, the Badnarik for Congress campaign will staff a booth at the 2006 Texas Pride Festival on June 10th at Waterloo Park in Austin.

    Having raised over $280,000 to date, and with billboards already in place across the district, Badnarik aims to become the first Libertarian elected to the US House of Representatives. Badnarik ended the most recent campaign reporting period with the highest net cash position in the three-way race for Texas’ Congressional District 10.

    For more info visit http://www.badnarik.org. To schedule an interview with the candidate, contact Jon Airheart at 512-637-6863.

    ###

  • blowmedown

    Oh, yeah. The Defense of Marriage Act, signed by a Pres who believed that “marriage is a sacrosanct union between one man, one woman, and the intern of the week.”

    -BM

  • http://www.ongforcuregent.com Daniel Ong

    Let me play Devil’s Advocate and posit that the proposed amendment IS a limit on government, specifically a limit on the power of the judiciary to redefine the law contrary to legislative intent. We’ve seen how the courts can redefine language, for example the 5th amendment phrase “public use” in the New London vs. Kelo emminent domain case.

    My understanding is that homosexual rights activists previously set out to hijack the word “gay” and now they’ve set their sights on the word “marriage” itself, contrary to centuries of traditional usage (check most any dictionary), attempting to use the courts when they can’t succeed legislatively or culturally.

    I do think the government should get out of the marriage license business but provide for custody of minors, orderly distribution of property in case of domestic partnership breakup, partner hospital visitation rights, etc. There will be a handful of initiatives and referenda on the Colorado ballot this year regarding these issues.

  • Andrew

    Timothy,

    The contitution can be amended either by a convention or by a legislative vote (and state ratification, of course).