Link
Well... in the question of will Bush show a more moderate stance his second term around or pander to his right wing base, I guess we have our answer.
Link
Well... in the question of will Bush show a more moderate stance his second term around or pander to his right wing base, I guess we have our answer.
For a country that is supposed to be free and have equal rights it feels like just a country of hate and non equal rights. Hum I like his quote "If we want to have a hopeful and decent society, we ought to aim for the ideal" Maybe if we want to be a decent society we should not let the conservatives run it. Just 4 years and no more Bush ever I am counting down.
Mark
* IntenseCash.com - If you can't convert us you better look for a new job!
i guess i am too logical ...
why would he not have a problem with civil unions, but he is against marriage?
is it because marriage provides legal protection, tax benefits, and other rights that are guaranteed by the very constitution he is trying to destroy?
i just dont understand. someone please explain to me.
This guy is just all about religion, that's all. He's dictating his faith.
i can explain it, but i don't emotionally understand it.
a lot of people have an emotional investment in believing that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. it's part of their social and religious beliefs.
they want marriage to mean what they believe it to mean. no group marriages, no same sex marriages. they refuse to believe that those are marriages.
the funny thing is that marriage used to be done primarily as a way of combining properties. also until the last couple hundred years, in many places a couple could proclaim they were married in front of a group and voila! they were. and many more men i know cheat on their wives than don't - while claiming marriage is sacred.
there's a hole in their logic, but then logic and christianity as practiced in the u.s. rarely intersect.
the version of marriage these people are fighting to keep doesn't have the history or longevity they believe it does. but try telling christians facts - eek!
Because, in his own personal belief, and in the minds of most of those who voted for him, 'marriage' is not a legal entity but a religious one.Originally posted by Dawgy
. . . why would he not have a problem with civil unions, but he is against marriage? . . .
Fact is, civil laws (state or federal) should never have been made to recognize or require state license for a religious ceremony (marriage), or assign civil benefits of any kind based on two people's relationship (married) as defined by any religion. Why, because it merged 'marriage' and it's Bible definition into our non-religious government. If one were honest and prone to impartial thinking -- it's easy to see that language merger violated the constitutional required seperation of church and state. It happened because the majority didn't see any real problem with merging a religious term into the laws of the land. It was far easier to do that than to dream up a new legal term.
George W. would (he says, but most of his supporters wouldn't) support 'civil unions' -- because that isn't using the reserved, sacred term 'marriage'. If one could strip away the BS thrown by both sides of the so called 'gay marriage' debate, what it boils down to is that 'marriage' currently is THE legal term (regardless of its religious background). Thus, those 'for' just want equality in civil laws and civil benefits (not once have you heard that side say they want to force any church to accept/perform/approve 'gay marriage') while those 'against' see it only as an attempt to force acceptance of something that, to them, is unacceptable because 'marriage' as one man and one woman (only)is a part of their religious beliefs.
It'll never happen, but the way out is to add to all state and federal laws language that gives to couples in a 'civil union' the same civil rights and civil benfits as couples in a 'marriage'. Keep the protection of marriage, or whatever you want to call them, laws intact if it makes a majority (or even a vocal minority) more comfortable in their religious lives. But, such civil laws are wrong and should be changed when they include (as many do) language that stops legal recognition of any arrangement, by any other name, that provides equal civil protection and equal civil benefits to a couple which does not meet that law's definition of 'married'.
As long as civil unions hold the same legal benefits of marriage across every state, there won't be too much of a problem since then the only difference is the term they are known as.
Vermont has the right idea...
"Parties to a civil union are given all the same benefits, protections and responsibilities under Vermont law... as are granted to spouses in a marriage."
This really is one of the largest civil rights violations this country has ever seen. Definitely the largest if you include the percentage of bi-sexual people.
Don't fool yourself... now that they've got those machines that hand out extra votes to Republicans, you don't think Jeb will run?Originally posted by IntenseCash.com
Just 4 years and no more Bush ever I am counting down.
Mark
Oh well..you get what you vote for
Personally I can't stand Bush and I do not think he is as religious as he and Karl Rove try to paint him. He has just used these nuts to get him reelected. Basically he tried this once and it failed in the house miserably!
I really do not believe he thinks it will pass this time becasue even other republicans believe it should be left to the states to decide. But I think he can say to his religious fanatical base that "Hey I tried two times to pass this and it didnt work but I tried 2 times more than any other president."
I think he thinks it might get them off his back and he can spend his time thinking of new ways to make his friends richer.
Just my two cents......
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks