Advertisement
President Bush in Washington Monday told a room full of revved up anti-gay Christian conservatives that, rather than focus attention on the pressing issues of the day--Iraq, Iranian nukes, the economy, gas prices--one of the biggest priorities facing the country today is making sure homosexuals cannot legally marry. If you believe Bush, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's call for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is critical to the moral survival of the country. No matter that recent polls show that Americans view the gay marriage issue as #7 on the priority list. We're in an election year here, folks, and these Repugs desperately need their wedge issue to rile up the base.
"Our policies should aim to strengthen families, not undermine them," Bush said in his speech. "And changing the definition of marriage would undermine the family structure." Honestly, has there ever been a more non-issue than this?
Despite his public support for the amendment, the NY Post Monday cited an unnamed friend of Bush who told Newsweek magazine that the the issue is nothing more than a Republican rallying cry for the president. "I think it was purely political. I don't think he gives a shit about it. He never talks about this stuff." I guess The Decider has decided to lie yet again.
The measure, which has virtually no chance of being approved in the Senate and becoming law, is merely a symbolic gesture to appease the right wing sickos who are once again demanding that Bush and the GOP cater to their extremist conservative views...or else. With the November midterms around the corner, it's placate or vacate.
The question is, will voters allow themselves to be duped again by the Repugs' discriminatory, racist, xenophobic campaign themes? Will they overlook their own self-interests, as they did in 2004, and focus their anger and frustration on gays, Mexicans and flag-burners? Or, as many suspect, and as polls indicate, will the Rovian game plan backfire this time, as voters demand an end to the war, a bigger paycheck, and lower gas prices?
As an aside, fifty percent of heterosexual marriages end in divorce. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Frist, Hastert, Delay, Rove, and the rest of the Busheviks are presumed hetero as well. If you ask me, not only should gays be allowed to legally marry, they should be running our country.
"Our policies should aim to strengthen families, not undermine them," Bush said in his speech. "And changing the definition of marriage would undermine the family structure." Honestly, has there ever been a more non-issue than this?
Despite his public support for the amendment, the NY Post Monday cited an unnamed friend of Bush who told Newsweek magazine that the the issue is nothing more than a Republican rallying cry for the president. "I think it was purely political. I don't think he gives a shit about it. He never talks about this stuff." I guess The Decider has decided to lie yet again.
The measure, which has virtually no chance of being approved in the Senate and becoming law, is merely a symbolic gesture to appease the right wing sickos who are once again demanding that Bush and the GOP cater to their extremist conservative views...or else. With the November midterms around the corner, it's placate or vacate.
The question is, will voters allow themselves to be duped again by the Repugs' discriminatory, racist, xenophobic campaign themes? Will they overlook their own self-interests, as they did in 2004, and focus their anger and frustration on gays, Mexicans and flag-burners? Or, as many suspect, and as polls indicate, will the Rovian game plan backfire this time, as voters demand an end to the war, a bigger paycheck, and lower gas prices?
As an aside, fifty percent of heterosexual marriages end in divorce. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Frist, Hastert, Delay, Rove, and the rest of the Busheviks are presumed hetero as well. If you ask me, not only should gays be allowed to legally marry, they should be running our country.