Tuesday, June 06, 2006

Save Your Marraige From The Gays AKA The Latest Scare Tactic To Divide & Distract Us From The Failed Presidency Of Dubya

Our nation faces significant problems that need to be addressed. Like you know budget deficits and a growing national debt, Iraq War, a job not well done in Afghanistan, the economy (inflation on the rise, high gas prices and anemic job creation), health care costs, stagnant pay,border and immigration issues.

Here is where the American people stand on this issue. From a gallup poll via Athenae

Situation in Iraq/war: 42%
Fuel/oil prices/lack of energy sources/the energy crisis: 29%
Immigration/illegal aliens: 23%
Economy in general: 14%
Poor healthcare/ hospitals; high cost of healthcare: 12%

I suppose gay marriage could be classed with "Ethics/moral/religious/family decline", which was the 20th of the 28 issues listed by respondents, important to only 1% of those polled.
Here is another poll.

So what does dear leader do? Get his lackeys in the Congress to pass an amendment banning two people of the same gender from getting married. That threatens us? No Mr. President why don’t you stay out of the marriage business and instead actually govern for a change? Also since they can't go after the gays directly they cloak this as if they are defending marraige.

I guess when you are tanking in the polls the only strategy left is go after the gays? How typical of this administration.

But guess what no one is buying Mr. Bush's argument anymore. From the brilliantly snarky (in his own quiet way) Eli we find out that this amendment has no chance to garner the two-thirds majority needed to pass. In addition that base of wingnuttia freeperville thinks so too. Via Athenae ..

"I think consenting adults should be free to enter into whatever marital contract they please, as long as no physical harm or other crime is committed. Securing the nation's borders is, however, probably the main task of any government. It'd be nice if this government got around to performing this task."

As if this was not enough, they have in mind an amendment to ban flag burning. Apparently there has been only one or two incidents of flag burning in the past few years (esp since 9/11) one of which was by a drunk, unstable teenager. As much as I abhor and detest that anyone that might want to burn the flag, there is just no reason to ban it.
Also our elected officials work fewer hours in Congress now than they used to before, there are more important things to do rather than this. Get real folks or get booted out in November.

On another note I am off to my buddy Ken and Mike’s civil union in CT this weekend. I have known Ken for about 3-4 years now. I need no help from Mr. Incompetence or his minions in defending my marriage from gay folks, who want to just live in peace like the rest of us.


Aditi said...

Well I wonder what happens when america, the land of free speech begins to morally police.
About the flag burning thing, I think there is an organisation that has been trying to bring that amendment into place for years now. I know, cuz it was on my scholarship search way back when in high school

chandni said...

there is no limit to his stupidity i think!!

Keshi said...

**banning two people of the same gender from getting married.

thats so un-American...


Dadoji said...

Bush is concentrating on the wrong issues and not doing enough on things that *really* matter. Take the India-US Civilian Nuclear Agreement for example.

nowheregirl said...

well... we all know the president is stupid... now just to hope the people of that country is not so stupid to re-elect him back...

karmic_jay said...

@Aditi.. it can only lead to trouble. The flag burning amendment has been tried several times before but it failed. Will happen again.

@Chandni, Keshi.. yup!

@Dadoji. The nuclear agreement I believe is not on anyone's radar. But you are right about mispplaced priorities.

@Nowheregirl.. One can only hope the poeple realize they got duped once, hopefully not again.

Aditi said...

no no good news is they CANNOT re-elect him
can they?

Ash said...

Takes all kinds to make the world go round!

Thanks for visiting my blog ;-)

karmic_jay said...

Yep Aditi, they cannot re-elect him, but there are enough clones like him around.

@Ash :) yup indeed

Dadoji said...

KJ: Exactly. IUCNA is too important for both US and India but the dimwits in Senate and House do not realise that. For once Bush is right on that and I want him to be re-elected.

Jordan's Dad said...

You might be surprised, but I actually agree with you on this one (but without all the cheap shots, etc.)

I've been telling you all along that his drop off in the polls is due to conservatives losing faith in him because of issues like immigration and federal spending. This is an easy way to get their attention again - back an amendment that has no chance of passing. Its pure pandering, no question.

But unlike 2004, it might not work since there has been no recent judicial outrage like the Lawrence v. Texas decision (finding a constitutional right to sodomy) and the Massachussetts decision (finding its 200 year old constitution suddenly required gay marriage). Plus, many states have since amended their constitutions to ban gay marriage. So there's really no "emergency" requiring this action.

There will always be a danger that the Supreme Court will one day "find" a constitutional right to gay marriage. So I do believe an amendment is necessary to prevent them from doing that.

But the amendment as its written now would prevent state legislatures from passing their own laws allowing gay marriage. Whether you want gay marriage or not, any true conservative should oppose that since it would prevent states from engaging in their own democratic process.

Personally, I would have no problem with the state I live in allowing gay marriage.

opinionatedinjerzee said...

he is a dumbass.. he cant handle the real issues so he has to control things like this...

opinionatedinjerzee said...

omg, jordans dad... is that you being reasonable??????????? i am throwing a party!!!!

Jordan's Dad said...

Thanks for noticing, Opin.

Nice house by the way. More evidence of how we're suffering under Bush?

karmic_jay said...

Are you seriously saying that one has to personally suffer under this administration to be able to critique it? Issues like rising health care costs, stagnating incomes, poverty, budget deficits, border security don't always have to affect you personally to necessarily understand then right? I believe the term is empathy something some conservatives have a hard time getting their minds around.

Also you are not a religious conservative so I am not surprised that you agreed.

Jordan's Dad said...

Ha! I'm sure ALL of those issues were causing Opin to fret as she installed her 50" plasma.

Don't be so testy Jay! Didn't mean to attack anyone's liberal "street cred"

Us "nonreligious conservatives" are fully familiar with the concept of the "limousine liberal." You know, the ones that drive fancy cars and live in fancy houses (and go to fancy restaurants and spend more money on one meal than some families spend on food in a month) but who are morally absolved of guilt because they pull the lever for a democrat in November.

The ones that reap the benefits of economic prosperity "under Bush" but complain that we are not taxed enough. (Acutally, I think Opin complained we are taxed too much!)

You don't actually KNOW anyone who is suffering "under Bush," but maybe you read about them while sipping herbal tea on your new covered terrace, or you actually did see them - on your 50" HDTV.

"Hey, I wish Bush would tax us more, but I did all I could - I voted for Kerry in 04!"

Spare me.

Teri said...

family decline?
Caused by gays?

Excuse me? Last time I looked, the majority of divorced people were straight. Maybe, in order to prevent such a high divorce rate, we should also ban marriage between men and women.

Teri said...

oh, and p.s. to Jordan's Dad. Liberals aren't opposed to wealth. We just think we have a MORAL OBLIGATION to help those who need it, and a moral obligation to fight discrimination in all its forms, among other things. I don't think anyone's disputing the fact that's it's nice to be wealthy - you've misconstrued the mainstream liberal argument, I think.