(no subject)

[apocalypsos]

President Bush said the Republican Party is wrong to oppose civil unions for gay and lesbian couples, but stuck to his opposition of same-sex marriage during an interview that aired Tuesday on ABC's "Good Morning America."

Ooooooooookay. *stares*

Comments

[doqz.livejournal.com]

NYT had the story two days ago, and it was fine line he was drawing. I was also surprised because politically speaking this is in no way a help to him a week before the campaign. It's not going to change the minds of the gay community, but the Christian Right will be plenty pissed.

[lots42.livejournal.com]

I enjoy the thought of the Christian Right being pissed off.

[doqz.livejournal.com]

To a degree this plays into a theme I push more or less incessantly. People consistently underestimate the degree of this administration's idealism and the degree of influence that Bush is willing to exert. he has certain principles on which he will simply not compromise for any reason because they form a foundation of his moral cosmology. Liberalisation of the Middle East, gay marriage, stuff like that.

So I should really be surprised that he would play a card that can hurt him politically, but I was. Most of my surprise however came from the fact that I was sure that he - unlike Rove who I am certain is playing the federal amendment schtick for the Bible Belt vote turn ot - Bush is honestly uneasy of homosexuality to say the least. Much more like Santorum rather than say Guiliani or Arnold.

It appears I assumed too mcuh.

As i said i don't think this is a political move. he's liable to lose much more than he stands to gain. So it appears that despite to the widely held views, shared by me in all frankness, we should all get comfortable with the idea that perhaps we need to reasses that assumption and ponder on the fact that Bush possibly significantly more moderate than iscommonly held, on the question of homosexuality.

Opposition to the gay marriage but support for civil unions puts him much closer to Kerry's position.

Now in all honesty, it would be foolish to claim equivalency. Kerry would probably not blink twice about allowing the marriage if he thought the country at large would accept it. Bush wouldn't But what it amounts to is a dynamic between a left of center and a right of center candidate on this issue rather than a moderate and a fanatic.

[apocalypsos.livejournal.com]

ARGH. Hold on, I'll fix it ... *hates this computer*

[midnightbex.livejournal.com]

I saw an article about that yesterday. Is it just me, or does it make absolutely no sense whatsoever? If even he thinks gay and lesbian couples deserve equal rights, what political reason is there for them not to be married? Just because his religion says so? It also makes me highly suspicious that he's just saying it to get people's votes.

[anne-jumps.livejournal.com]

It almost seems like gibberish, given how little sense it makes for him to say.

[midnightbex.livejournal.com]

It really does.

[silly-dan.livejournal.com]

Um, that link leads to a story on Ashlee Simpson...

Anyway, the Bush administration has also been saying that they want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, while at the same time claiming that they aren't convinced global warming from greenhouse gas emissions is even happening. Remind me again why Kerry gets pegged as a flip-flopper?

[lots42.livejournal.com]

I don't get it. I don't think greenhouse gas causes global warming but I'm all for lowering pollution amounts.

[silly-dan.livejournal.com]

In the Bush team's answers to various science policy questions posed by Physics Today, http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-10/p28.html, they say "considerable uncertainty remains about the effect of natural fluctuations on climate", but then go on to specifically mention their efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. If they aren't yet convinced that global warming is a man-made problem, they'd at least sound more consistent if they referred to general pollution controls in their answers. In the answers they submitted, they sound like they're trying to take both sides.

(To be fair, the Bush team did do a decent job of answering most of the other questions, while Kerry's team tended to respond with vague generalities.)

[dorei.livejournal.com]

It's technically a valid argument. The act of marriage is religious, civil unions are not. If you want to get into biblical theory, I think it's in Romans where it mentions you shouldn't have homosexual relations. Christian Dogma, as a general rule, says homosexuality is a sin. Therefore, gay marriage would be an abomination in the eyes of their god. I can understand that and I can respect it. It's not my religion, though.

Civil unions afford the same rights as marriages do, just without the religious trappings. Of course, I'd love to take it one step further, call ALL marriages civil unions, unless they were done in a church, by a person who is invested in that church, like a reverend, priest, pastor, what have you. Make marriage a strictly religious thing, not a civil one. Then, if your personal religion/church has nothing in its articles of faith that says it's wrong to be in a homosexual relationship, you can freely marry in your church of choice, but still have to file a legal civil union paper with your local clerk's office in order to be afforded the privileges under the law of a married couple.

But hey, that's just me.

[spyderqueen.livejournal.com]

Very close to my belief that Marriage should SOLELY be a religious state and Civil Unions be the union officially acknowledged by the government, whether het or gay. Plus, this would mean that gays could get married in some churches, and other churches could keep heads up their asses about interfaith or interracial marriages and refuse to do those at their whim.

[azurelunatic]

That's my stance too.

[dorei.livejournal.com]

Pretty much. Leave the issue of marriage up to the individual churches.

I was trying to say what you just said, but botched it. I call lack of sleep and food. :)

[adjectivegirl.livejournal.com]

Dunno if you know this, but can het couples get civil unions? It could be a pretty good way of firing back.

[wufeidragon.livejournal.com]

Christian Dogma also says you cannot wear poly-cotton t-shirts. It's a sin.

Leviticus 19:19

It's there, really!

AND that's the same book that condemns homosexuality. I wonder how many of those who use the bible argument are sinning... right now, as they wear their poly-cotton clothes.

[dorei.livejournal.com]

Actually, Leviticus would technically be Hebrew/Jewish doctrine, not Christian. When Jesus was sacrificed on the cross, this was creating a new covenant with the gentiles, allowing them to become clean, and not having to follow the Jewish laws. (I'm not competely clear, however, if those who were Jewish and chose to follow the teachings of Jesus were freed from those laws that make up the Old Testament. I'm guessing probably so, but that is just a guess. I don't have a masters of divinity, or even any kind of theological degree.)

Of course, this also then brings up the whole question of tithing, which I believe is only in the Old Testament, and therefore part of the old covenant, not the new one. If it's old covenant only, why then, do churches require tithing? Just a thought.

[wufeidragon.livejournal.com]

Christianity encompasses the old testament as well. Hece, Creatonism. Adam and Even was the old testament. The fundamental difference between Judaism and Christianity was Jesus being viewed as the Messiah. They still had all of the religious texts, they just didn't agree with how the Jews interpreted them.

Yeah, I'm in a Holocaust class so we've done a lot about the split of the Jewish and Christian religions... so the old testament is still christian.

[dorei.livejournal.com]

I didn't say they didn't believe what was in the old testament. But I think in the new testament it says that there is a new covenant. In fact, I'm almost positive that it's something that's in the pauline letters ... damn. Now I'll have to go see if I still have a bible in this house.

[dorei.livejournal.com]

Ah yes, here it is. The letter to the Galatians, written by Paul, told them that those who followed the new covenant were not to be held to the old covenant, which is the law.

As to homosexuality, while it does say in Leviticus it is wrong, which is Old Testament, it also says it in Romans, which is New Testament.

One could still argue, however, that Romans was NOT the words of Jesus and therefore possibly suspect as being bad doctrine, but I'll leave that to Christians to argue amongst themselves.

[musyc]

Christian doctrine. dorei. My word has gone asunder.

*runsssssssss*

[dorei.livejournal.com]

~snerk~

Just because I know it doesn't mean I follow it. But remember, I freely admit that I once did follow it. Rabidly. ;)

Fire and Brimstone!!! You will all go to hell unless you immediately confess your sins, pray for forgiveness, get fully baptized and then eat all your veggies.

[lots42.livejournal.com]

Actually, Civil Unions currently do -not- provide the same range and quality of rights as marriages do.

[dorei.livejournal.com]

Oh? Where are the differences? I was unaware.

Dammit LJ let me reply

[lots42.livejournal.com]

For civil unions, it takes -longer- get the benefits

Re: Dammit LJ let me reply

[dorei.livejournal.com]

Hm. I'm not really sure about that. My husband and I applied for a license at the County. We called a civil servant who was on the list the county provided. We arranged for her to come to our house to do the ceremony on a Friday evening about two weeks later, because that was what was convenient for us and for her. She had up to three days to file the paperwork with the clerk, which I believe is the same amount of time for a non-secular ceremony.

[azurelunatic]

It makes a certain kind of logical sense.

Marriage is for Christian, god-fearing heterosexual folks.
Civil unions are for them as who ain't Christian and can't get married.

We queers can't get married, but we can unionize.

[silly-dan.livejournal.com]

If civil unions were equivalent to marriage in all but name, I'd bet real money that within ten years everyone would be calling them marriages anyway. (Of course, to make sure they do carry the same rights as a religious or secular heterosexual marriage, I'd prefer they just get legally referred to as marriages from the start.)

I got ashlee simpson, too

[slashfairy.livejournal.com]

but that almost makes sense, in a country where the head of state can say something like that and hardly raise an eyebrow in the collective awareness, but a girl gets a little gassy, and hey-it's a headline.

get out the vote, folks. get out the vote.

[dhaunea.livejournal.com]

Yes, and Kerry is the 'flip-flopper'.

*snorts*

This is the last minute vote-grubbing wherein someone actually got through to Bush and whispered 'Dude, you're alienating too many voters. Quick, pick a last minute topic and change your mind'.

[lots42.livejournal.com]

I dunno.

Personally I think nobody should smoke but I understand how stupid it would be for the goverment to make cigs illegal.

[dawning-star.livejournal.com]

*headwall*

[shinga.livejournal.com]

Hmm...


interesting...


o_O I hate this election. A lot. I want to cover my ears and scream "LA LA LA" until some time next May. By then, some people may've shut up. :P

[sabra-n.livejournal.com]

That's really similar to Kerry's position, actually. But Kerry isn't the one who lets his party underlings do all the hateful talk for him, or trying to pass a friggin' Constitutional Amendment on this issue.

-blue

[dorei.livejournal.com]

Well of course he wouldn't try to pass a constitutional amendment. Kerry's stance is that while he's personally against gay marriage, he doesn't think it's a federal issue, but a state issue, and thus should be determined state by state whether gay marriage should be accepted.