"... Our second great responsibility to our children and grandchildren is to honor and to pass along the values that sustain a free society. So many of my generation, after a long journey, have come home to family and faith, and are determined to bring up responsible, moral children. Government is not the source of these values, but government should never undermine them.
Because marriage is a sacred institution and the foundation of society, it should not be re-defined by activist judges. For the good of families, children, and society, I support a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage."
--- Pres. G.W. Bush, 2005 State of the Union..
Attempting to parse Bush's remarks about families vs. his one line on FMA is giving me a headache. In the one camp are those who read the tea-leaves as he's willing to draw the line at civil gay marriage...and support (gay) families otherwise. In the other camp are those who read the tea-leaves that this means he's against gay marriage, civil unions, gay adoption, child custody and even the very dignity of G/L Americans. How much of his "comments" are genuine and how much is pandering to the salivating bigots out busily gathering kindling and stringing barbed-wire? Since August 2004, the two of them have been tacking back and forth like Kerry on a wind-surfer. What is the dignity of the individual that Bush has frequently spoken of? What are the boundries of that "dignity"?
My personal suspicion is that FMA can not get the Constitutionally-mandated super-majority trifecta of the US House, Senate and the State's legislatures. If the G/L community wants gay marriage...or civil unions...they'll have to fight for it at the Statehouses, not the Courthouses. And while it may be bitter medicine, I'd counsel fighting for civil unions as a openly-recognised trade-off for gay marriage with the social-conservatives.Is his return to "compassionate conservativism" inclusive?, or is supporting FMA and attacking the advances that the G/L community the price of getting the rest of Bush's political program? I think that instead of concentrating on the actions of the Administration, that the real story will be played-out on the Hill. If the openly-bigotted members of the Senate and House are in the lead on the Administration's political agenda, then we'll know that we've been sold-out. If it's the Moderates, then we have a chance getting everything short of gay marriage by concentrating at the state-level.
Barring "activist judges", there are really two major G/L issues that can not be resolved at the state level; DADT and federal recognition of gay marriages or civil unions for federal-purposes. The actual regulation of marriage, family relations, adoption and custody, and employment/housing are state-regulated and adjudicated. If enough states openly support these issues, then the federal courts will be forced to deal with the full-faith-and-credit clause to create new case-law.I have the firm suspicion that this arguement is NOT being driven by the White House, but instead is being driven by those on the Hill. In the absence of a clear, concise statement from Bush it's difficult to tell the conviction-statements from the red-meat tossed to the beasts to placate them.
Because marriage is a sacred institution and the foundation of society, it should not be re-defined by activist judges. For the good of families, children, and society, I support a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage."
--- Pres. G.W. Bush, 2005 State of the Union..
Attempting to parse Bush's remarks about families vs. his one line on FMA is giving me a headache. In the one camp are those who read the tea-leaves as he's willing to draw the line at civil gay marriage...and support (gay) families otherwise. In the other camp are those who read the tea-leaves that this means he's against gay marriage, civil unions, gay adoption, child custody and even the very dignity of G/L Americans. How much of his "comments" are genuine and how much is pandering to the salivating bigots out busily gathering kindling and stringing barbed-wire? Since August 2004, the two of them have been tacking back and forth like Kerry on a wind-surfer. What is the dignity of the individual that Bush has frequently spoken of? What are the boundries of that "dignity"?
My personal suspicion is that FMA can not get the Constitutionally-mandated super-majority trifecta of the US House, Senate and the State's legislatures. If the G/L community wants gay marriage...or civil unions...they'll have to fight for it at the Statehouses, not the Courthouses. And while it may be bitter medicine, I'd counsel fighting for civil unions as a openly-recognised trade-off for gay marriage with the social-conservatives.Is his return to "compassionate conservativism" inclusive?, or is supporting FMA and attacking the advances that the G/L community the price of getting the rest of Bush's political program? I think that instead of concentrating on the actions of the Administration, that the real story will be played-out on the Hill. If the openly-bigotted members of the Senate and House are in the lead on the Administration's political agenda, then we'll know that we've been sold-out. If it's the Moderates, then we have a chance getting everything short of gay marriage by concentrating at the state-level.
Barring "activist judges", there are really two major G/L issues that can not be resolved at the state level; DADT and federal recognition of gay marriages or civil unions for federal-purposes. The actual regulation of marriage, family relations, adoption and custody, and employment/housing are state-regulated and adjudicated. If enough states openly support these issues, then the federal courts will be forced to deal with the full-faith-and-credit clause to create new case-law.I have the firm suspicion that this arguement is NOT being driven by the White House, but instead is being driven by those on the Hill. In the absence of a clear, concise statement from Bush it's difficult to tell the conviction-statements from the red-meat tossed to the beasts to placate them.
