Is Bush a fanatic or just a hypocrite on gay marriage?
So even now, as George W. Bush is in the process of defacing the institution of the presidency by supporting a constitutional amendment that would deface the U.S. Constitution, we discover, according to an unnamed Bush friend, that the president actually doesn’t give a shit about the issue.
(Newsweek) Politics of the Altar (from second page)
Though Bush himself has publicly embraced the amendment, he never seemed to care enough to press the matter. One of his old friends told NEWSWEEK that same-sex marriage barely registers on the president's moral radar. "I think it was purely political. I don't think he gives a s--t about it. He never talks about this stuff," said the friend, who requested anonymity to discuss his private conversations with Bush. White House aides, who also declined to be identified, insist that the president does care about banning gay marriage. They say Monday's events with amendment supporters—Bush will also meet privately with a small group—have been in the works "for weeks" and aren't just a sop to conservatives.
(Wasn’t it nice of Newsweek to shield our sensitivities with the “s--t.”)
So as to the perennial debate over whether Bush is acting as a true believing fanatic or a hypocritical opportunist when he publicly supports extreme-right wing policy proposals, in the case of gay marriage hypocrisy wins by a mile.
I have little doubt that Bush does personally oppose gay marriage, but it’s in the same way I oppose putting vegetables in Jell-O: It is a firmly held belief, just not one I’m prepared to put a lot of effort into advancing.
It isn’t hard to recognize which issues George W. Bush actually feels passionately about -- the ones he doesn’t mind putting full effort into (at least as long as it doesn’t interfere with his vacations): For example, as I’ve noted before, when it comes to killing people (smiting evil), he’s unquestionably a true and dedicated fanatic. Capital punishment, killing terrorists, dropping bombs on evildoers -- now, that’s the stuff that gets his heart pumping.
When discussing such subjects his eyes light up, his speech becomes less sloppy and he shows every indication of enjoying himself.
Opposing gay marriage, on the other hand, well -- yawn. Where’s the killing? Where, for that matter, is the profit? It just really isn’t a Bush kind of thing. And while he will happily do anything for political gain, the politics of an anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment is a little too murky right now for him to want to do much more than get his toe wet.
He’s perfectly happy, of course, to go in front of the cameras to give the Religious Right a show. He’s played the hypocrite so many times during these God awful six years it must be second nature by now. And if his words cause pain, well, it’s just a bunch of queers anyway, so who cares?
But in the end it’s just one more con. He’ll say the magic words -- sprinkle a little hate, praise the Lord and curse the devil. Then he’ll go back to clearing brush, riding his bike and screwing up the country in all of those other ways. And if he can possibly help it, he won’t lift another finger on gay marriage. Not one.
I guess in that sense a little good may flow from his hypocritical nature after all.
June 5th, 2006 at 3:27 pm
Why do I have this terrible feeling that your country is going down the road from the movie “Escape From LA” with Kurt Russel? I remember the line Stacey Keach said to Kurt’s character Snake Plisken… “The United States is a no smoking nation… no read meet, no bad language, no women (unless you’re married) and so on… and Snake shoots back… “Yeah.. America… Land of the free!) (NOT!).
Gods… I hope this all blow up in Bush and his right-wing freakaziods faces!
June 5th, 2006 at 9:56 pm
Let’s see…marriage is a sacred institution, right? I guess that’s what went through married-man Neil Bush’s brain the night he nailed 3 women in his Far East hotel room a few years ago. No handshake, no exchange of names, no “What’s your sign? I’m Aries,” no “Hmmm…do we have anything in common, you think?”…nope; just a quick act of sacred nocturnal sex with a bunch of strangers. But of course, that’s OK with Neil and his brother George, because Neil isn’t gay and his involvement that night was heterosexual, thus the institution of marriage remained “protected.”
June 6th, 2006 at 3:00 pm
I don’t understand how anyone can even entertain the thought of taking “equality” OUT of our Constitution. To further ostricize and penalize those who have been kicked around for ever is cowardly and cold.
Congress is going to tell us who is more equal? Our constitution will be changed to reflect the poltics of hate? It’s a strange world we are living in these days. It makes no sense to me that Americans tolerate this behavior from their leaders. We should be marching in the streets and demanding they do their jobs and stop playing us for fools….but we aren’t marching or even making much of a fuss and that worries me.
June 6th, 2006 at 8:01 pm
If marriage is so sacred an institution, why are divorces so common? Especially in the Bible belt? I don’t know if my long-time companion and I would choose to marry were it legal, but I firmly believe we should have to right to, just like any other US citizen. I often think that, given the near 50% divorce rate for first marriages, heterosexuals aren’t doing too well at it themselves, so why bother? Then I think about little things, being able to visit my partner in Intensive Care, a right to survivor benefits (my partner is a disabled veteran), and over 1300 other rights and responsibilities automatically afforded to married couples in this country. So, if people really want to protect the sanctity of marriage, they should first clean up their own houses. Start by outlawing divorce, and then we’ll see how really sacred these folks hold their marriages. Fine Christian icons like Newt Gingrich make wonderful poster boys for the sanctity of marriage. I’m sure he really agonized over asking his cancer-stricken wife for a divorce so he could have a trophy wife. That’s one sacred institution there, yes indeed…one would think that if it were indeed so, it would be sacriligous to divorce.
When my parents divorced in the 60s my mother was told she could no longer participate in the church’s sacraments because of it (I’m a recovering Catholic). At least there was some consequence for failing to maintain at least the appearance of a commitment — though the Catholic Church has always been good at rules, punishment, and the attendant hypocrisy, not to mention public humiliation and guilt.
You don’t see right-wing, fire and brimstone Evangelicals turning people away from their mega-churches because they divorce — they’d have few members left! Did you ever stop to notice just how screwed up things get when religion is tossed into the mix?
So, to the fundy nuts behind this pathetic pandering I say “You can have this sacred institution all to yourselves, I think…just give my family the same rights as married folks, and I promise not to invite you to dinner, have a commitment ceremony in your church, or do anything else to expose you to our “lesbian cooties”..and while I’m at it…please keep your noses (and legislation) out of my bedroom, and I won’t point out that a majority of pedophiles doing prison time or trolling for dates at myspace.com are married and self-define as heterosexual and born-again. And for those of you who don’t know it, Jesus Christ never said one word about homosexuality…and if he didn’t condemn us, how dare you?
June 7th, 2006 at 7:15 am
This really has already been answered in one court case. Just substitute the word gender for race.
“The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State”.
Loving v. Virginia Supreme Court
The opponents of Gay Marriage have three main arguments:
1. Historical or Custom: Marriage has always been, since the beginning of time, between one man and one women.
This is not true. Even today, in many countries, polygamy is a fact….even in America. We forced Utah to stop polygamy for statehood. Which begs the question; why certain Christians should be allowed to place their religious beliefs into laws of the land and other religions cannot? Many historical documents, the Bible being one, report on many marriages which were between one man and one or more women.
2. Biblical: Marriage is a sacred, religious union and is between one man and one women, for life, as the Bible states. Here is a short list of some of the Bible’s laws on marriage.
A. Solomon … had seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines. 1 Kg.11:2-3
B. Marriage shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5
C. Marriage shall not impede a man’s right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21
D. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow, even if he already has a wife. If he refuses to marry his brother’s widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10
E. Marriage shall not impede a man’s right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21
3. Legal: Marriage is codified into law as being between one man and one women. Many laws have been passed which are unconstitutional. They are overturned.
What other License can the State deny an American based on sexual orientation? Driver’s License, Real Estate License, Beautician License or Hunting License? See my article at:http://www.lastbastionofreason.com/2006/03/11/by-the-power-vested-in-me-by-the-state/
Do everything that you can do to stop these idiots from messing with our Constitution. All Human Rights are for All Humans! To be treated fairly, like all other American’s is what America, at the core, is and was the dream. It is what we should always aspire to.
June 7th, 2006 at 9:39 am
Donna and Susan,
Great posts.
The dishonesty and outright deception of this kind of legislation is sickening.
Like “Clear skies” and “Healthy Forests” and “Death Tax” , this “Protection of Mariiage” will be just the opposite of what is implied. In each instance we have lost quality of living and forfeited rights and resources. This is religious fanatacism at it’s scariest. To declare everyone who doesn’t share your faith AND your politics as Godless is the very mindset of the terrorists we are forced to fight.
And as you both pointed out, the hypocrisy and the audacity of their arguements is astonishing. And of course there is always irony with these people. How ironic that they approve the death penalty and fewer women’s rights, that they seek to punish gays by law, that they are building exclusive communities of followers of different religious leaders, that they welcome war and torture as doing God’s work. They are becoming the people they are fighting. The “base” would follow Bush off a cliff. I have hope that the sane people of America will not. This amendment won’t pass but I’m afraid the voices of hate won’t either. We’ll have to fight them off again and again, but hey, the alternative is too grim. I read a poem by Patmore, the last line is
“The truth is great and shall prevail, when none care whether it prevail or not.” I hope that’s true.