Speaking of same-sex marriage and anti-SSM opponents who enjoy using ‘protect children, hetero-parented-families, and the “sanctity of marriage,” from the extremist Queer agenda‘ rhetoric, President Dubya Bush has renewed his plea to Congress to reintroduce a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.
(Nashville, Tennessee) President Bush called on Congress Tuesday to pick up the pace and pass a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.
Addressing 11-thousand delegates at the annual Southern Baptist Convention in Nashville, Bush praised the denomination for its strong “family values” and support for the amendment.
“Building a more compassionate society starts with preserving the source of compassion – the family,” Bush told the convention.
“Strong families teach children to live moral lives and help us pass down the values that define a caring society. And Southern Baptists are practicing compassion by defending the family and the sacred institution of marriage. Because marriage is a sacred institution and the foundation of society, it should not be re-defined by local officials and activist judges. For the good of families, children, and society, I support a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage….”
How interesting. You think he would mention the group of people, Lesbians and Gay men, he has a problem with marrying and having children, but no. How rude. Does mentioning LGBT people make him feel “icky” or something?
A proposed amendment failed last year in Congress, but was reintroduced this year. (story)
Bush also chastised Democrats for attempting to hold up Bush’s judicial nominees.
“And for the good of our legal system, I will also continue to nominate federal judges who faithfully interpret the law and do not legislate from the bench,” the President said.
Does the same thing go for conservative Christian “activist” judges too, who attempt to “legislate from the bench” by imposing their religious views on others? I wonder if “faithfully interpret the law” is some code for “faithfully carrying out God’s law” that only the neoconservatives and other religious anti-SSM opponents are privy to. Because Dubya knows how pesky human law and civil rights/liberties can get in the way of faith being imposed on the masses. Off tangent, back to the article…
“Every judicial nominee deserves an up or down vote on the floor of the United States Senate, and I thank you for your strong support of the fair-minded jurists I have named to the federal courts.”
Bush also told the convention he wants legislation that would allow faith-based groups that receive federal money to be able to restrict workers to those only who adhere to the tenants of that faith. Such a proposal would allow groups to fire gays from jobs such as soup kitchens, HIV/AIDS outreach programs, or thrift stores that are run by churches.
“Because faith-based groups should never have to forfeit their religious liberty to get federal dollars – and that’s an important concept — we want your help, we want your love, but at the same time, you do not have to forget the mission of faith or ignore the mission of faith that calls you to action in the first place.”
It was the fourth time the president has addressed the convention, which boasts more than 16-million members and more than 43-thousand churches.
The conservative Southern Baptists heavily supported the president in last year’s election.
Among the motions to be discussed at this week’s convention is one urging members to take their children out of schools deemed too tolerant of homosexuality. (story)
Now I understand why I’ve seen some bloggers and commenters on other blogs, refer to themselves as “recovering Southern Baptists.” I’m fairely certain the name of this amendment would be something along the lines of, ‘Protection of the Sanctity of Marriage,’ or something similar. Never mind the very large number of hetero couples who’ve experienced marriages that were anything but “sacred” (ie: divorce, spousal abuse), and the number of children who’ve grown up in very dysfunctional, abusive, and damaging households headed by hetero-parents, but oh well. I suppose all of that is still considered to be “sacred” and “what’s best” for the children, simply because the parents or married couples are heterosexuals. So the sex of the person that is sleeping next to you on your honeymoon will determine how screwy your hypothetical children will be and the “holiness” of your previous wedding, that you’re now too drunk to even remember.
There’s been a series of small explosions in my head. Eeeearrrrgh, how about, to “build a more compassionate society”, you start by being more compassionate for society? Aaack, now my ears are bleeding.
God this is depressing to read in the morning.
“Bush also told the convention he wants legislation that would allow faith-based groups that receive federal money to be able to restrict workers to those only who adhere to the tenants of that faith.”?
What constitution is Dubya reading? How is this NOT blatant discrimination? He has to know that this will never fly- think of how many other things will be affected. Not only would a law like this discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, but it will encourage sex, race, and more than likely class, based discrimination. Sometimes I think he just shoots his mouth off in order to satisfy is lunatic fundie supporters. I also suspect that this crusade against the LGBT community is probably designed to give him positive press after his fuck ups in Iraq and with social security and pretty much every other domestic issue.
I honestly don’t even know why crap like this surprises me anymore.
Yes because, as we see, good Christian heterosexual marriages always leads good parenting and capable, well adjusted children like, for example, ‘Jennifer Willbanks & Perry Manley
Amen. Did anyone happen to see the recent Andrew Sullivan post making the case that homo-haterism is the new anti-Semitism? The blood curdles.
This whole “faith based” initiative is just a lawsuit waiting to happen when an athiest group applies for money.
And we all know they’re being selective in which groups they give money to.
“Building a more compassionate society starts with preserving the source of compassion – the family”??????
Shrub has obviously never met my mother.
I’m afraid to turn on my tv ’cause if I do I think I will find that Ozzie and Harriet is still playing.
Here’s the link to the full text of his speech:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/06/20050621-3.html
And yes, he was addressing his core constitutency, so it should be no surprise that the speech was couched in Evangelspeak and hit the 5 or 6 buttons he used to get them to vote for him. I really didn’t see anything new in this one – pretty much the same sound bites strung together with “compassion” as the linkage. It’s not even worth the energy to rant.
Low polls, drag out the anti-gay legislation proposals. He did it in the election. Rove isn’t really looking like an evil genius anymore.
It’s nothing more than a cynical move to fire up the conservative base for the 2006 mid-term elections.
“Every judicial nominee deserves an up or down vote on the floor of the United States Senate, and I thank you for your strong support of the fair-minded jurists I have named to the federal courts.”?
So the sixty-some judges Bill Clinton nominated to the bench who didn’t get up or down votes on the floor of the United States Senate, they deserved an up or down vote? How come you didn’t say anything back then? (Let’s just leave out the bizzarity of calling someone who even our esteemed Attorney General suggested was a judicial activist a fair-minded jurist.)
Way to stand on principle, George.
“Way to stand on principle, George.”
Yep. Too bad the Democrats are busy playing more-moral-than-thou right along with him. Watch them find a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory again next year. Blecch.
Here we go again. In case we’ve forgotten, here’s the president of our own country proving once again that “compassionate conservative” is a contradiction in terms.
I’m strongly tempted to pick apart his speech and rant at each part in turn, but somehow I think even simple logic is beyond him. Oh, what the hell, it’ll make me feel better, so here goes:
“Building a more compassionate society starts with preserving the source of compassion – the family.” Oh, so if gays get to be called families, then heterosexual families will somehow self-destruct? I was right. Even simple logic is beyond him.
“Strong families teach children to live moral lives and help us pass down the values that define a caring society.” So do families that Dubya would not define as strong. So do families that Dubya would not define as families. And HIS strong familiy didn’t do such a hot job with him or his brother.
“And Southern Baptists are practicing compassion by defending the family and the sacred institution of marriage.” No, they are practicing bigotry by denying recognition to families that are not like them. And might I point out a certain state in our Union that has allowed same-sex marriage for over a year, in which heterosexual marriage is still alive and well?
“Because marriage is a sacred institution and the foundation of society, it should not be re-defined by local officials and activist judges.” Never mind all the times it’s been redefined before: from polygamy to monogamy, from an arrangement to a love match, and from various degrees of sexism to an equal partnership. Also, for the United States government to recognize and support and grant benefits to the sacred unions of some reiligions (conservative Christianity & Judaism, etc), but refuse to do the same for the sacred unions of other faiths (Paganism, some liberal Christianity, and others who believe that homosexual unions are as sacred and valid as heterosexual ones) is discrimination and a violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment.
“For the good of families, children, and society, I support a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage….”? For the good of families, children, and society, I support same-sex marriage. Dubya wouldn’t know logic if it walked up and bit him.
“Every judicial nominee deserves an up or down vote on the floor of the United States Senate.” No, they don’t. The crazies that he’s seen fit to nominate generally deserve suspension. If he starts nominating people qualified to serve on a Federal court, he can have his up-or-down votes.
“Because faith-based groups should never have to forfeit their religious liberty to get federal dollars.” Not all their religious liberty, just the right to discriminate that the government allows them because of the separation of church and state. Religious groups can be as unequal as they want, as religious communities. As functioning parts of society and recievers of federal money, they have to abide by the nondiscimination rules of the government that gives them that money.
Strangely, the same man who just said this, is the same man who denies funding to 3rd-world reproductive health centers that don’t follow his rules on how they may be used. Strange, that my tax money can’t be sent to a women’s clinic that provides abortions (which I have no problem with), but it could (if Bush gets his way) be sent to a charity that refuses to hire me because I’m Pagan.
Hmmm . . . I wonder if those two could cancel each other out. A faith-based charity recieves federal funds and uses them to hire a doctor to perform abortions at no cost to the women who need them. “Hey, that other charity over there uses its federal money to hire only whites, thus breaking a law! It’s discrimination if we can’t use ours the same way!” Might be interesting.
Sydney, that passage lept out at me right away too. Now, I’m no legal scholar, but I did take a government class in high school, and I’ve read the Constitution (even those funny added thingies at the end–what were they called again?)–and that just felt like a smack in the face. But I’ve been thinking about, and this is what I came up with.
The standard interpretation of the establishment clause is that every individual has a right to worship (or not) as he or she sees fit, without forfeiting any other rights. This is the idea behind anti-discrimination laws in hiring practices–everyone should have a fair shot at any job based on one’s own qualifications, regardless of one’s religious affiliation (or lack thereof). I’ll admit that reasonable people can disagree over whether the government should be allowed to force private-sector employers not to discriminate. (I think they should, but it’s not insane to disagree.) But all legal precedents that I know of concerning jobs in government or federally-funded organizations very obviously flow from this interpretation.
The kind of legislation Bush is proposing here would require a different interpretation. He seems to be saying that making federal funds contingent on non-discrimination is itself a kind of religious discrimination. His premise must be that institutions should have the same rights as persons (not unlike the legal basis for considering corporations as persons, and we all know how much he loves corporations). “Forcing” non-discrimination when it conflicts with the organization’s principles would then amount to abridging the “free exercise” of religion guaranteed to it by the establishment clause.
Now, if those were the only considerations, I might allow that such an interpretation is possible (even though I would disagree with it). The only problem is that there are CENTURIES of legal precedent for the first interpetation, and ABSOLUTELY NONE for the second. What was the line about activist judges again?
The Heritage Foundation lawyers must have dreamt this one up, ’cause it seems really fucking shady to me.
Kyra–that’s a really good point about funding for sex-related charities in other countries. If the kind of legislation Bush is proposing ever actually makes it to Congress, that should be one of the first things brought up to argue against it.
Of course, blatant logical contradictions are nothing new to this administration…
Dresden: You gave a pretty good summary of what the Bush Admin must be thinking of when they make statements like that. I especially think the “making federal funds contingent on non-discrimination is itself a kind of religious discrimination”?, is actually a very interesting argument to present (nobody said that his people were stupid. They’re righteous wingnuts, but not stupid) . But I think what you said:
>>> The only problem is that there are CENTURIES of legal precedent for the first interpretation, and ABSOLUTELY NONE for the second. What was the line about activist judges again?
crap- my whole post didn’t go through. Here is my WHOLE comment this time. sorry!
Dresden: You gave a pretty good summary of what the Bush Admin must be thinking of when they make statements like that. I especially think the “making federal funds contingent on non-discrimination is itself a kind of religious discrimination”?, is actually a very interesting argument to present (nobody said that his people were stupid. They’re righteous wingnuts, but not stupid) . But I think what you said:
“The only problem is that there are CENTURIES of legal precedent for the first interpretation, and ABSOLUTELY NONE for the second. What was the line about activist judges again?”
is going to get them every time. Now I myself am not a legal scholar but if there is one thing I do know, its that the legal system loves precedent. Loves, loves, loves it. Without clear precedent or the presence of a serious enough situation to create precedent, they are probably not going to budge. Especially if it would involve granting institutions the same rights and privileges as private citizens. I mean the potential for wrong doing is enormous. Although I would be very interested to hear what a lawyer has to say about this- mythago?
Thought of another possible loophole:
If an organization is explicitly religious in nature, then perhaps an employee’s religious affiliation could be considered part of his/her qualifications?
I can’t think of any current situations that would be relevant comparisons, though.
Never forget what this is really about. Bush is obviously a homophobe who doth protest too much, but that’s not the real issue. The issue is to get us talking about something other than the Downing Street Memo and impeaching his sorry ass. He needs the evangelicals in his corner if Congress moves on him, and we need to do everything in our power to make sure that they do.
If an organization is explicitly religious in nature, then perhaps an employee’s religious affiliation could be considered part of his/her qualifications?
If the affiliation is a qualification for the job, yes. (You want your rabbi to be Jewish.) Otherwise, no.
Another distraction: Rehnquist resigning this week?