Sunday, May 14, 2006

Laura Bush Opposes Gay Marriage Amendment

First Lady Laura Bush tells FOX News Sunday host Chris Wallace that she opposes the use of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages for political purposes. The first lady told Wallace "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." "It requires a lot of sensitivity to just talk about the issue — a lot of sensitivity," she said.

If that is how she really feels, then she should have a sit down with her husband's chief political strategist Karl Rove. Rove has advised political candidates he has consulted to use gay baiting as a political wedge issue for many years. It was he who master-minded a plan to get as many state constitutional amendments on the ballot over the past several election cycles to activate the religious right. And her husband has done nothing to dissuade Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist from taking up the federal Marriage Protection Amendment for debate next month.

9 comments:

Randy said...

Isn't it nice to trot out the sweet face of reason -- Mrs. Bush-- while keeping the harsh rhetorical side of the argument going in campaign ads. No, no.. we're not bad mean people.. why.. look at what Mrs. Bush said. Reminds me kind of how the Republicans used Mary Cheney.. and were shocked that anypne would talk about her being a lesbian-- after they used her identity themselves to promote a kinder face on a brutal administration.

These people are gross hyprocites and should be called to heel every time they step out of line!

And now Mary Cheney steps forward to have words with her party-- after it doesn't matter any more (they won the frickin election) and she wants to hawk her book (oh, look at me the lesbian daughter of the bigot party--BUY MY BOOK!)

Anonymous said...

Randy-

Your response is typical of the hyper-emotional extreme of the homosexual rights movement.

People like you seize upon any moderately supportive remark by a Republican and use it to skewer them.

Take my free advice for what's worth, but that doesn't strike me as a very good way to build your movement.

You make yourself sound petty, cheap, and intolerant...exactly the attributes you're decrying in your opposition.

I'm sure it feels good to vent and bitch about Mrs. Bush and Mary Cheney, though.

Paula said...

Anonymous,
Try having your life used as a political wedge issue for several elections in a row and see if it doesn't make you a bit "hyper-emotional" and "extreme".

Thanks for the "free advice" to stay in the closet and be good little gays.

Explain to me about how we beat this racket? The people in power keep driving the wedge (not enough to beat the marriage drum, now they are going after adoption, once that is accomplished, what's next?) and conveniently have their apologists that paint a happy face on the party - "see, we aren't homo bashers"

Kind of a sick version of Good Cop / Bad Cop with my life hanging in the balance.

Advance Indiana said...

Paula--it's the same debate I've been having with some of the self-proclaimed leaders of Indiana's GLBT community regarding Garton--and he never made as much of a supportive statement as Laura Bush.

Paula said...

Gary -

1. I can't keep track of which of you think Garton is our bestest friend in the whole world, and which don't. I honestly thought you were in the bestest friend camp, but if so, this comment doesn't make sense to me.

2. I really wouldn't call Laura's comment supportive. Obvious, yes. Supportive, not so much.

NO ISSUE should be used as a campaign wedge. This country is about as divided as you can get right now.

Advance Indiana said...

Paula--no I set the record straight on Garton as you may recall--and it was not a good record.

Anonymous said...

If you give no quarter to those who seek a middle ground, don't be surprised when moderates abandon you in the crunch.

So often, it sounds like what homosexuals want is not tolerance and acceptance (which MANY Republicans and conservatives have offered), but an outright endorsement of their lifestyle.

Quite simply, that is never going to happen for a majority of people in this country. Not, at any rate, for as long as this country remains predominantly Christian.

Why? Because 2000 years of Christian tradition on sexual morality argue against it.

And lest you think that organized Christianity is your greatest enemy, I suggest you take a tour of the rest of the world--particularly the "sotatic zones" around the middle East and sub-saharan Africa. There, you will find the true meaning of intolerance.

So, you may rant and rave all you want about "intolerance" and "hate," but that is not what is motivating most people who disagree with you in this country. What motivates them is a desire to remain faithful to their religious tradition.

You would deny them the right to their own beliefs and moral judgments--an violation of their private psychological domain that makes you far more intolerant than they could ever hope to be.

Randy said...

Ok.. I will admit that I responded rashly and out of an emotional context. But I do think it is rather opportunistic to send Laura Bush out to make this administration seem less harsh towards my family and me. Maybe taking the whole issue out of the election cycle and leaving people to live their own lives would be a good thing. Of course, as Mrs. Bush was saying these comments, Karl Rove-- the indicted White House political guru -- was promoting the very idea she was decrying on television.

By the way, people who know me would hardly call me part of the hyper-emotional extreme of the gay rights movement. I am often one who calls for moderation, working within the system, making a difference in the middle where people can be swayed.

Some days you just have to express those pent-up emotions you have from working with people who see nothing wrong in vilifying your family and grossly mischaracterizing them. I don't honestly know how Mary Cheney did it all those years.

I could have expressed myself better, and for that I apologize.

Kevin said...

anonymous,
are you the same anonymous who couldn't answer my request on another thread to give examples of "quiet support" from republican moderates for the GLBT community?

I'm with Paula on this one. Staying quiet and comfy in our closets has gotten us soooooo far hasn't it? I'm tired of jumping through hoops to placate others' comfort levels. If you truly support us, instead of asking us to be quiet, why don't you speak up on our behalf for once?

Randy,
you have nothing to apologize for regarding your original comment.