Monday, May 15, 2006

Laura Bush Says Don't Make Gay Marriage an Issue

AP ^ | 05/14/2006 | By NEDRA PICKLER

Posted on 05/14/2006 12:28:06 PM PDT by notes2005

WASHINGTON - Some election-year advice to Republicans from a high-ranking source who has the president's ear: Don't use a proposed constitutional amendment against gay marriage as a campaign tool.

Just who is that political strategist? Laura Bush.

The first lady told "Fox News Sunday" that she thinks the American people want a debate on the issue. But, she said, "I don't think it should be used as a campaign tool, obviously."

(continued- for rest of article click "Monday" below and scroll down, or just scroll down if sent directly to this article)

10 Comments:

Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

""It requires a lot of sensitivity to just talk about the issue — a lot of sensitivity," she said.

The Senate will debate legislation that would have the Constitution define marriage as the union between a man and a woman early next month, Majority Leader Bill Frist said on CNN's "Late Edition."

President Bush supports the amendment, but Vice President Dick Cheney does not. Cheney's daughter, Mary, is a lesbian and has been speaking out against the marriage amendment as she promotes her new book, "Now It's My Turn."

Mary Cheney wrote that she almost quit working on the Bush-Cheney campaign in 2004 because of Bush's position on gay marriage. Asked Sunday about reports that White House political adviser Karl Rove and other Republicans want to use the issue to mobilize conservatives for the midterm election, she said she hoped "no one would think about trying to amend the Constitution as a political strategy."

"I certainly don't know what conversations have gone on between Karl and anybody up on the Hill," she said on Fox. "But you know, what I can say is look, amending the Constitution with this amendment, this piece of legislation, is a bad piece of legislation. It is writing discrimination into the Constitution, and, as I say, it is fundamentally wrong."............
****** END OF AP EXCERPT ********

Senator Frist is in favor of the Amendment. Because of the "Full Faith and Credit" Clause in our Constitution, homosexual marriages in any state must be recognized in all states. Only an amendment to the federal constitution will prevent this. Activist Judges in states like Massachusetts have imposed homosexual marriage on the population.

Our Founders surely never dreamed that we the people would depart this far from good sense and virtue. The Full Faith and Credit clause insures that contracts made in one state will be honored in another. It is now being used by runaway judges to redefine marriage and force us to accomodate it.

If the Founders did not forsee us losing the vigilence needed to remain free (and no people have ever departed from virtue and long remained free) they at least offered us a method to amend the Constitution. By this means we might close any loopholes that the enemies of virtue might use to take away our right to order our society as we see fit. And by all that America stands for we do have that right. The Declaration declares that "the consent of the governed" is the basis for all just governmental power.

The attempt to redefine marriage from the purity of form that has served humanity so well for these last thousands of years does not have the support of the people. Rather our ruling class and media are attempting to impose it on us from above. To quote Jefferson "to oppose tyranny is to serve God".

Now we come to the unfortunate issue of who is imposing it. The liberal courts and media are of course. But the frustrating thing is that those whom we the people have commissioned to stop them are not fufilling their charge. Mrs. Bush does not seem to realize that without marriage amendments on the ballots in so many states she and her husband would be back in Crawford Texas herding cattle.

The article says that Mr. Bush is "for" the amendment. But he has a strange way of showing it, and a strange way of showing gratitude to the tens of millions of pro-family voters who surged to the polls to return him in office. He has not spent one ounce of political capital trying to get the Marriage Amendment passed. Not one ounce. Tonight he is going on television to try and push his "not amnesty" plan to provide 11 million illegal aliens with a "path to citizenship".

George W. Bush will fight for the things he wants done no matter what the polls say. Clearly, the Marriage Amendment is not one of the things he really wants to do. It was just a Rovian Ruse to get us idiots to vote for him so that he can finish pushing his "not amnesty" plan through.

Mrs. Bush seems like a wonderful person and a breath of fresh air compared to the graceless Mrs. Clinton. When it comes to interjecting herself in policy matters- especially coming out agsainst the issue that got her husband elected, she loses much of her appeal.

Ala Animal Farm, the pigs and the farmers are getting harder to tell apart every day.

8:05 AM, May 15, 2006  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

Bottom line, they got elected on the issue, now the Bushes don't want to talk about it. America elected them to get it done.

8:06 AM, May 15, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mark-

You are transparant. That is a good thing, its just that I don't like what I see some times. Unlike some of the bloggers on arkfam, you are bold enough to attach your name to your principles, and I respect that.

This is a sensitive issue, the constitution is a rare and special document that shouldn't be used as a campaign tool -no matter what amendment is being proposed. I agree with you that this country has only recently been forced to more narrowly define marriage as between man and wife. I think Mrs. Bush has a point though, in attempting to differentiate campaign politics and regular politics.

This is not to say that I agree with her totally, but the point she raises shouldn't be dismissed off hand.

10:35 AM, May 15, 2006  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

but the Founders provided a means to amend it, how is that ever to be exercised if not through the political process?

To say that the Constitution is too sacred to be touched over something like marriage turns reality on its head. I am a member of the Constitution Party, but marriage is more sacred than the Constitution, and if it must be amended to protect marriage then so be it.

Yes, I am like Popeye the Sailn' Man. I Yam what I yam.

10:52 AM, May 15, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Did you read my post Mark? I said I agreed with the general sentiment of Mrs. Bush's comments. The constitution should not be changed because it gets people elected.

There are times when it needs to be changed, and those times should be initiated independant of the whoring of vote getters.

I agree it should be changed, but it must be done with the most clarity of thought allowed. Clarity of thought is not tantamount to pleasing the populace to get votes. There is a subtle difference, and yet again you have shown that you are above (below?) subtlty.

3:15 PM, May 15, 2006  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

Yes you are far to subtle for me. When runaway judges try to redefine marriage, I would act decisively, not hold off on making it an issue out of fear that it might somehow influence elections during the process. I would act to amend the Constitution to preserve traditional marriage while you are off composing hi'-ku or something.

4:00 PM, May 15, 2006  
Anonymous Will said...

Mark is right, hehe, they mobilize a Christian base that isn't that interested in fiscal conservatism (lucky for the GOP) on this issue, then back away from it. Not exactly political technology.

4:42 PM, May 15, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is beautiful
Mark Moore stops being crazy
The GOP wins

Is that subtle enough for you? I am not a fan of ends justfying the means philosophy of politics. Especially when it regards the constitution, maybe you should change your party platform to "whatever scares you enough to vote for me".

8:39 PM, May 15, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maybe the judges who are trying to impose a new definition of marriage over 5,000 years of Western tradition are the crazy ones, not the people trying to stop 'em.

Worried about scaring people with the facts? Fine, you go contemplate your naval lint, we will go save the country.

10:01 PM, May 18, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Enjoyed a lot! side effects of buspirone hcl Anyone like zoloft Asphalt driveway should thick 120 cheap pill tramadol

3:38 AM, February 16, 2007  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home