Monday, June 05, 2006

Washington - With the situation in Iraq all but stable, high gasoline prices weighing on the minds of US consumers, large federal deficits, a national debate over immigration reform and a crisis brewing over Iran's nuclear programme, President George W Bush chose to defend the institution of marriage in his weekly radio address.

The address, and a subsequent televised speech on the same issue Monday, is part of an effort to shore up Bush's conservative base ahead of congressional elections in November.

The president's approval rating has hovered just above 30 per cent in recent weeks, as the war in Iraq and high gas prices weigh on the minds of Americans.

The majorities that Bush's Republican Party enjoys in the US House of Representatives and Senate are expected to shrink in November and it is possible, though not certain, that opposition Democrats will win control of one or both chambers of Congress. This would likely put an end to Bush's agenda and make him much less effective in his last two years in office.

To get his core supporters involved, Bush picked gay marriage as an issue to speak out on. The US Senate is currently debating whether to amend the US Constitution to define marriage as the union between a man and a woman.

You know, years and years ago, I wouldnt have had a problem with this, but now that I have a kid a lot of my views inside myself have changed: some for the better some for the worse, on a social scale. I think supporting marrage between a man and a woman is a good thing. A child needs both and man and a woman in their lives to grow properly....in my humble opinion. I dont really care about the gay bullshit per say but more about the union between man and a woman. Just my 2 cents....I am sure this will piss some of you off, but if you cant stand up for w hat you believe in, you might as well not stand at all.....

27 comments:

Scott said...

Maybe you ahould pray thanks to God that you are not gay. Not every one is born with it so easy in the sex department. Not pissed just saddend and annoyed, and yes I do pray thanks.

Sickboy said...

Prayer is fine my brother, however I dont necessarily think you are born gay. This is for another arguemnt Im sure though.....

steve butt said...

the only question i have to ask is what does anyone else's personal relationship have to do with anyone else. why does the union between man and woman need to be defended at all. with out it, there are no more children. there is no danger that i can see. i also truely believe that if two people find happiness and a connection with each other, nothing else matters.

Martin said...

Is this whole thing just an excercise in semantics? I mean if gays were able to enter into a legal relationship that bestowed all the rights, priveleges and responsibilities of "traditional" marriage and it were called something other than marriage, would it be that big a deal? Would there be such resistance if gay people could become "legal partners" or some such thing?I'm a very traditional kind of guy, to my wifes chagrin, but I have a hard time seeing why this is a problem. I think people have a hard time differentiating the legal institution of marriage versus the religious rite of matrimony.

Martin said...

One more thing, I kind of have a problem w/ the President trying to amend my beloved Constitution purely w/ the intention of galvanizing convervatives in the face of an upcoming election.

dad-e~O said...

How does gay marriage effect the sanctity of straight marriage?
If someone can answer that without quoting scripture, or being biased I will give credence to the idea of banning gay marriage.

But since this is another attempt by the companies and the gov't to save $$ ..... ponder this. If companies were forced to acnowledge gay marriage their insurance and HR costs would increase, and if insurance companies were forced to carry all these gays in order to keep the companies buisness their cost would go up because of the aids epidemic.
Don't forget the gov't panders to the people who pay for their office.

dad-e~O said...

Eric,
I have always thought idea that people CHOOSE to be gay is absolutly silly.
Have you ever heard this theory?: God (or whatever controls these things) has made a certain portion of the human population unable to reproduce in order to avoid overpopulation. but since relationship building is so important to the human experience that remains, just adjusted to same sex relationships.

dad-e~O said...

I'm not sayin I beleve it, I'm just sayin it makes about the same amount of sence as choosing.

Scott said...

I can not tell you what to believe in Eric, however I would like to know this. If you ever found out your daughter was gay, what would you do?

Scott said...

Pete I am all for a government that protects commerce, but I wonder at what cost? Correct me if I am wrong but don’t gays make up less than 1% of our population? When I went to collage there were times when I needed to cut back my hours to less than full time now and again. In my employers eyes this made me a part timer and no longer eligible for insurance. I was lucky how ever my girl friend (and future wife) worked for a company who’s insurance covered “domestic partners”. She still works at the same company and they are still profitable and they still have the same insurance. Again I just wonder how deep an impact the recognition of domestic partners would really have on the pocket books of corporate America? It just makes me wonder if this issue really is fuelled by concrete economic numbers or just plain old hatred.

Martin said...

I have to agree with Scott on the economic issue. I'm guessing a lot of people this would affect already have insurance and a lot of companies have gone to providing insurance for "domestic partners". Disney for one. This raised the ire of a lot of Johnny God types and Southern Baptists protested at Disneyland. This is driven by moral superiority. It's also an attempt to take away even more power from the states. The Federal Guv'ment really doesn't need to be involved in this. The individual states have already decided for themselves that gay marriage is not recognized.

Sickboy said...

My daugther being gay isnt the issue here, I just think some things in this nation should remain sacred and this is one of them I guess. I dunno, turning older and having a kid has made me pretty narrow minded towards somethings nowadays. I apologize if I offend.

dad-e~O said...

point taken and granted Scott and Mike, thanks.
Eric, your daughters sexuality is not the issue, your absolutly right, the so called sanctity of marriage is( over 1/2 of marriages end in divorce).
but Scott asks a valid question. would you still feel the same if it was your childs hapiness that was being denied by a faceless beurocracy that's pandering to the "johhny God Types".
The constitution should not be changed for a whim or a vote, remember prohabition, what a pain in the ass that was.

Martin said...

I for one am not offended. The dogma of the religion I choose to follow does not recognize the union of anything but a man and a woman as marriage. I believe in that in terms of my religion. The secular version of marriage is a contract bestowing rights and responsibilities. that's all. There's really nothing sacred about that. It's like giving someone power of attourney. My marriage is sacred because it is so in the eyes of my Church. I do have a problem with the members of the federal government trying to apply their personal religious values on the citizenry. That's not their job. In fact, it's forbidden by the very Constitution GB wants to amend.

Martin said...

Ooh, speaking of prohibition. check this out. 19th amendment, women get the vote. 20th amendment, prohibibiton. Women get to vote and then everything goes to hell. coincidence?

steve butt said...

sorry martin but you point is miles off 19 amendment= suffrage for woman, 18th amendment = prohibition passed a year and a half earlier.

but of course prohibition is still with us and eroding our civil rights and exacerbating some serious medical problems and the crime surrounding them.

i don't like the drugs(but the drugs like me)
-marilyn manson

Martin said...

wait a minute, got my years fucked up.19th amendment 1920, something like that. My bad I fucked up.

Martin said...

20th amendment=lame duck amendment. I feel stupid. but hey I'm not a poli sci major, just an American. Boy you sure know how to fuck up a joke if the expense is accuracy

steve butt said...

just defending our sisters

Martin said...

I'm gonna be a man about this and leave up my wildly inaccurate, embarrasing, non-fact checking post up as an excercise in humility and a reminder to myself to CHECK THE FUCKING FACTS

Scott said...

lol

steve butt said...

martin, by the "lame duck amendment" to what are you refering?

Sickboy said...

Im just curious to see if this will be our last all time high thread post of 26 replies.

Martin said...

section 1 that specified when the exiting President would leave office, reducing the amount of time an official would remain in office after losing an election.

Martin said...

Amendment XX
Section 1

[Terms of president, vice president, senators, and representatives.]

The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the twentieth day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the third day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

I did my research this time

Sickboy said...

all this research is making my head spin, but good job and thank you Mike.

Martin said...

(Re)Search and Destroy