Kerry Tried To Help Bush - Bush Ignored Him

[Lee]

(Washington) Less than 24 hours after John Kerry officially became the nominee of the Democratic Party and called for a campaign of ideals rather than the wedge issue of gay marriage President Bush was on the campaign trail assailing "activist judges".

In a stump speech in Springfield Missouri Bush told GOP supporters that "Our conviction that every life matters and every life counts will not change. Our belief in liberty and opportunity and the non-negotiable demands of human dignity will not change."

"We stand for institutions like marriage and family, which are the foundations of society. We stand for a culture of life in which every person matters and every person counts. We stand for judges who strictly and faithfully interpret the law, instead of legislating from the bench. And we will work together to build a culture of responsibility. The culture of this country is changing from one that has said, if it feels good, just go ahead and do it, and, if you've got a problem, blame somebody else, to a culture in which each of us understands that we're responsible for the decisions we make in life.

Last night in his acceptance speech in Boston, Kerry called on Bush to abandon attacks on gay families. (story)

"In the weeks ahead, let's be optimists, not just opponents," Kerry said. "Let's build unity in the American family, not angry division. Let's honor this nation's diversity; let's respect one another; and let's never misuse for political purposes the most precious document in American history, the Constitution of the United States."

GOP sources say the President has no intention of dropping the marriage issue believing his call for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage is resonating with voters.

Earlier this month Republicans forced a Senate vote on the proposed amendment, only to see it fail partly due to infighting among Republicans. (story)

A House vote on the amendment is likely this fall just before the election. Last week, the House voted to prevented judges from ruling on challenges to the federal Defense of Marriage Act. (story)

http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/07/073004bushJudges.htm

See now if i were Kerry i would have kept my mouth shut and let him [Bush] fuck the election up.

As it happens though it looks like he is going to do that anyway

Regards,

Lee

[gaystoryman]

Well personally I think Bush' strategy is to play on people's fears more than on the ideals or the reality of todays world.

His attack is one I think designed to get those who might be swayed by the economy or the war to stay true to him and not cross over. He is I think banking on the average persons fear of Gays to make them go out and vote and vote for him.

Kerry's mistake is in assuming its a non issue, even the timing of defeat of the congressinal marraige ban fits nicely into the Bush plan.. because then he can campaign saying the democrats are denying the preservation of family values so you need to vote for him and the republicans..

Fear is a great motivator. If Bush plays it right he could win the close one's simply because more frightened people would accept his views than someone who has ignored it.

Given all that is going on in the USA with 2257, privacy laws, terrorism alerts and now this, its a perfect time for Bush to assail the Democrats with an issue you can't ignore..

If I was truly cynical I'd go so far as to say that those Senators and subsequent congressmen who vote against the marriage ban will have done so under orders just to give Bush a clear cause celeb.. something that will force many to rush and vote for him ignoring the other issues totally.

One other note, it is funny that both Edwards & Kerry were absent from that vote, thus making one wonder if it really matters who wins in regards to same sex marraige.

I'd also be curious to know if those Senators who were republican that voted against the amendment are actually up for re-election this year..

just a thought though.

Ian

[Hotpopporn]

Ian-

Kerry & Edwards were absent for this vote as it was known that it was going to be defeated and it was more important for them to continue campaigning.

Originally posted by gaystoryman
...
One other note, it is funny that both Edwards & Kerry were absent from that vote, thus making one wonder if it really matters who wins in regards to same sex marraige....


Ian

[gaystoryman]

Yes, that is the 'answer' that was given by them as well, but one has to ask, which is more important, to actually make a stand or say you are going to? They had an opportunity to put on the record where they stood, they failed as far as I see but then again, it is merely my observation.

It just seems to me that there is so much politics that what is right is being ignored. I mean how can anyone who believes in democracy as both candidates claim to, can they deny equal rights for approximately 15 to 20% of their citizens?

They don't have to agree, hell our Prime Ministers both don't agree with it, but will implement the courts rulings... nationally... in short they are doing what is right not what is politically correct.

In the states you got a President who on one hand says its states rights then wants a consititutional amendment to prohibit states from exercising that right and granting same sex marraige.

It is so confusing to many who are looking on that it is actually mind boggling. I guess it is the idealist in me who wishes that for once a politician down your way would simply do what was right instead of waiting for the latest gallup poll to tell him which side to take.

Ian

[Hotpopporn]

Ian-

It would be great to have the luxury of being an idealist. First, it is likely that the gay population of the U.S. is closer to 10%. As you know, the U.S. is substantially larger (referring to population) than Canada. Kerry has said that he believes in equal rights for gays, as long as it isn't called marriage. There are too many narrow-minded ignorant people in this country that would not vote for Kerry if he were to support marriage for gays and lesbians.

I personally would rather have a president who I know is willing to give us equal rights even if he might not be able to make it happen during his tenure as president, than to have a president who believes that we're not entitled to have equal rights because that would undermine family values. Again, it isn't ideal but I'll take the lesser of two evils, particularly when one of the evils is SO evil.

[Scorpio]

Hi Hotpopporn and welcome to the board

[gaystoryman]

True, I agree better to have some thing than nothing, and I know the USA is larger in population, the stat is one I read where they estimated that approximately 15 to 20% of the population was gay, bi, lesbian, etc.. but like any stat, subject to a lot of variables.

Problem though is I think calling it a civil union would dillute the legal benefits more in the USA than say in Canada.

Given the penchant for lawsuits in the USA, anything short of 'marraige' would have less of a standing in court and isn't that what a lot of this is about?

Given there already are legal same sex civil unions on the books in some states, it would seem to bear out my argument that it needs to be called the same if for no other reason than to gain equal legal standing. In fact, if memory serves me right, didn't the state supreme court of Mass. make that very argument in their majority opinion?

There too is also the whole federal system, which currently uses 'civil union' as not being sufficient for entitlement to marraige benefits under the federal system... so.. again it would seem it leaves little room for alternative words.

Ian

[Hotpopporn]

Hey, thanks Scorpion.

Ian, I agree with you and I also think it's important that marriage includes same-sex unions. And, I also agree that give us civil unions is not giving us equal rights. I just don't think it's going to happen in the U.S. in the near future. Fortunately, neither is a constitutional amendment prohibiting it. And, with the polls so close and not wanting to run the risk of Bush for four more years, I'm willing to wait for same-sex marriages to be recognized on a federal level. I do think it will ultimately be necessary as there will be states that will not legalize same-sex marriages, but will also not recognize same-sex marriages that were granted in those states where it is legal.

Tony