There Must Be An Election Approaching…
…because here we are talking about gay marriage again. Regardless of your stance on the issue, isn’t it blatantly obvious that Bush is pandering to the base because of poor poll numbers? At least before, the rush of events in San Francisco and Massachussetts made it a legitimate issue – but now, it feels a little forced. Let’s worry about the three ‘I’s first (Iran, Iran, and immigration)…
It is heartening to know that in these difficult times, our GOP leadership is working tirelessly to fight the evils of gay marriage and flag burning.
As Frank Rich noted yesterday, people don’t even burn flags anymore.
This is more like the sound of Nero fiddling while Rome burned.
Nah, it’s called politics and Mark gets it – whether looking at Bush’s or the Congress’ poll numbers (both very low) you will see the impetus for a host of “chicken in every pot” proposals during the impending election season.
Will Bush’s Push For Gay Marriage Ban Backfire? (UPDATED)
Today President George Bush is expected to put his reduced political capital on the line to personally push for a constituti…
Well, Peter, you’ve got a choice of GOP leaders waging war against gay marriage and Democratic leaders who sort of favor it but are afraid to say so. Nobody’s exactly covering themselves in glory here.
Looks like it will be another of those infamous “a pox on both their houses” election year.
Dennis, if that’s the choice (and I think it is), then I’ll go with wimpy Democrats — you could imagine the reaction if anyone besides Barney Frank came out strongly for this — this is such an unimportant issue that it’s not worth falling on your sword for — better to win or lose on the economy, the war, etc. –
Peter, if it’s such an “unimportant issue”, I’d like to hear your explaination as to why so many chose “social issues” as their #1 concern in the 04′ elections. I would venture that the majority of that group would rate this issue right behind abortion in importance if not equal to it.
This issue gets the social conservatives to the polls. Period.
From flaming flags to flaming… er… uh… what rhymes with “flags”?
Ha! Careful, now!…
Evan, it indeed may get conservatives to the polls. But that’s not the point. It’s obviously pandering, and an unsuccessful pandering IMO. I think it is clear that immigration has surpassed the whole gay marriage bit in what is important to conservatives.
From flaming flags to flaming… er… uh… what rhymes with “flags”?
Is that why they call them burning issues?
I’d like to point out that the “conservatives” aren’t really conservative anymore. The word has changed meaning in the past 15 years.
Also, gay marriage is on my mind 24/7. What a huge problem. Pretty much everything else we could focus on pales in comparison to stopping these gays from marrying. They must be stopped!
Bandit, many would agree with you that it is indeed pandering, but those who care about the issue don’t necissarily care about the motives behind the attention. This issue is extremely important in more minds than it is given credit, and does, in fact, have a lot to do with ensuring that judges will not decide the issue from the bench.
There are a couple of important court cases waiting to come down on this issue in New Jersey and Washington state very soon. If they are pro-homosexual decisions, you can be sure this issue will get hot again for social conservatives. Perhaps not on the same level as immigration, but the GOP will feel intense heat on judges if these decisions go against traditional marriage.
This issue is not going to go away anytime soon.
The War of Words
The law making English our official national language and amendments to protect the flag and the words marriage and gay are just the first counterattacks in what promises to be a long, hard battle against semantical terrorism.
“This issue is not going to go away anytime soon.”
What issue?
If you don’t believe the marriage debate to be an issue, Hokie, then that’s your opinion, and you’re entitled to it, but you’re a fool not to take the social conservatives seriously. The left has underestimated them for years and payed mightily for it.
However, after reading your post on the issue, I can’t decide if this response is really worth my time. After all, you don’t believe people should vote with their conscience. In fact, you favor the more “pragmatic” approach of shooting people who disagree with you (go to his blog and read his post, folks).
You were probably angry when Pat Robertson said the U.S. should look into asassinating Hugo Chavez, yet you favor the same course of action with your words. Robertson was wrong to suggest such a thing (I am not a Robertson fan, by the way), and you are just as wrong.
[...] You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your ownsite. [...]
Haha, if you really believe my sarcastic and harsh rhetoric is the realistic course of action I propose then maybe this response isn’t worth my time.
I think people should vote with their conscience in regard to pragmatic affairs. Anyone who actually worries about something like homosexual marriage has some serious insecurities and I will not take them seriously because I can’t. People like that are to be laughed at. Like I said already, there are real problems in this country that need to be solved.
Want a real solution? Marriage is not and should not be a function of government. Leave it to the church, then it becomes a non-issue and everyone can be happy.
I wasn’t angry when Pat Robertson proposed that; I got a good laugh out of it because Pat Robertson is a funny guy.
Hokie, your blanket statements show your further ignorance and unwillingness to understand a significant portion of the American people (not to mention the law). In the future, I won’t take your so seriously because it appears you are unwilling and unable to take anyone seriously – including yourself. Your self-admitted psuedo-fascist “rhetoric” is neither witty nor thought-provoking, but I’m glad you get a good laugh out of publicly joking about killing people. Maybe Pat Robertson was joking just like you.
Of course, all three “social conservatives” are here trying to make their pathetic fanatical special-interest group look bigger and more mainstream than it is.
Yes, if you let radical right-wing-nuts write polls, you get pseudo-results that can be interpreted conservatively, if you work hard enough.
But if you ask Americans IN THEIR OWN WORDS what issues are important, and don’t put a bunch of hot-button right-wing issues in their face and ask them to choose, it’s amazing how much more progressive (NOT liberal) Americans are than the political parties or media are.
And, from genuine “social conservatives” you have to exclude those people who are stupid enough to believe mass media. They are in their own category, as their “beliefs” and “opinions” are based on a lifetime of lies, and bear little or no notion to either reality, or how they might act and vote to actually move the country in a direction they’d prefer.