Bush Drops Gay Marriage Amendment

[sunshine]

(Washington) President Bush said Sunday that he will not press the Senate to pass a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

In a wide-ranging interview with the Washington Post Bush said that he remains opposed to gay marriage but believes there aren't the votes in the Senate to ensure the amendment would be adopted.

"The point is, is that Senators have made it clear that so long as DOMA is deemed constitutional, nothing will happen. I'd take that admonition seriously," Bush told the Post.

The change in position comes just days after Democrats called on the President to abandon his push for an amendment. (story)

A year ago, in his State of the Union Speech, Bush attacked "activist judges" like the Massachusetts Supreme Court which ruled gays could not be excluded from marriage.

"If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage," Bush told the joint session of Congress. (story)

But, in September, when the proposed amendment came to a vote, it failed to get the two-thirds majority needed. (story) Even with greater numbers in both the House and the Senate it remains doubtful the amendment would pass.

The DNC in its Pride at the Polls newsletter to more than 100,000 party supporters last week called on President Bush to tell House Majority Leader Tom Delay to " stop discriminating against Americans."

DeLay (R-Texas) has made it clear that he wants the amendment approved. "We will come back and come back until this is passed." (story)

Republicans used same-sex marriage to their advantage in last November's election painting Sen. John Kerry as pro gay. Kerry opposes same-sex marriage but believes in granting rights to same-sex couples - a position that Bush also endorsed in an interview with ABC. (story)

Bush said that he didn't think "we should deny people rights to a civil union [or] a legal arrangement if that's what a state chooses to do."

By dropping his push for a constitutional amendment Bush will likely incur the wrath of social conservatives within the GOP, but avoid a confrontation with Democrats when he needs their support in the Senate to confirm dozens of appointments.

[monsoon]

They were never serious about it anyway. It was just a wedge issue created specifically for the election. It called gay baiting and one of the GOP's favorite tactics to win over the stupid and gullible. It always seems to work.

Never mind we have an economy that doesn't create jobs, a national debt the current 20 somethings are going to spend the rest of their lives paying off, another Vietnam called Iraq, and all manufacturing being sent to China to make a few people rich in this country.

The idiot Democrats were foolish and stupid for letting them get away with it.

[BrandonTO416]

Yes, they were serious about it. Bush just realizes it has no hopes of passing in Congress, so he's abandoned the idea due to politics.

So round the world goes...

And I'm not sure blaming the Democrats is the best thing when the people are at fault for electing Bush. Regardless how stiff and elitist Kerry was, he was an extremely better choice then Bush. The people have chosen Bush. That doesn't speak bad for Democrats, it speaks bad on behalf of the people.

[PghUSA]

http://www.pittsburghfirst.com/pg/05017/443573.stm

Interesting how this drop of the GMB was timed the 2006 Senate Campaign is going to be hot, Rick Santorum from Pa. and 3rd leader in the Senate, heir apparant to Majority leader Bill Frist and the "leader" of the moral majority types in the party--all this from a state that Kerry won and Gore won. Dem Leader Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer are getting involved with this campaign seeing it as the perfect rebound to 2004, only trouble is the strongest candidate in the field is Bob Casey Jr. the son of the two term Governor (who garnered the more votes then any other Democrat in 1990) who was exiled from the Dems for governing from religion. How the issues are represented here and what the party platforms become is going to be interesting to watch. Santorum is not strong is most populated Pennsylvania counties but a Casey Jr. won't be as liberal as the party on social issues (or so it is believed). I'm wondering if Rove is playing the game to keep the Senate in 2006 with this abandoment of the Gay Marriage thing.

[waccamatt]

Time will tell, but I agree with monsoon on most of what he said. The Anti-Gay Marriaige Amendment will never pass, but the far right loves to here about it. Methinks they are all a little bit too worried about what gay men and lesbians do in and out of bed. Typical small town mentalities.

[sunshine]

Washington) Conservative groups that supported President Bush's reelection wasted no time in reacting to his suggestion Sunday that he would not push for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in his second term.

Bush made the remarks in an interview with The Washington Post. (story)

"The point is, is that Senators have made it clear that so long as DOMA is deemed constitutional, nothing will happen. I'd take that admonition seriously," Bush told the Post.

But within hours of the Post hitting newsstands Bush aide Dan Bartlett and other conservatives were on the TV Sunday talk show circuit to "clarify" the president's statement.

Bartlett said the president was only speaking about the reality of getting a two-thirds vote in the Senate, adding that it doesn't change Bush's position that an amendment is needed and that " he'll continue to push for an amendment."

The switchboard at the White House "lit up like a Christmas tree" shortly after the Post article hit the streets noted one White House employee.

Conservative Christian groups that backed the President last November warned the GOP shortly after the election that they had better make a second attempt at passing the amendment if they want support in 2006. And, conservative Republicans say they intend to bring the amendment back in the new session of Congress.

Speaking on Fox, Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pennsylvania) said, "I can tell you, I'm not going to break faith with social conservatives, and I know the president won't either."

Last September, when the proposed amendment came to a vote, it failed to get the two-thirds majority needed. (story) Even with greater numbers in both the House and the Senate it remains doubtful the amendment would pass.

Democrats last week called on the President to abandon his push for an amendment. (story)

The DNC in its Pride at the Polls newsletter to more than 100,000 party supporters last week called on President Bush to tell House Majority Leader Tom Delay to " stop discriminating against Americans."

DeLay (R-Texas) has made it clear that he wants the amendment approved. "We will come back and come back until this is passed." (story)

It is not the first time Bush has sent out conflicting statements on same-sex relationships.

In an interview with ABC in the days leading up to the election Bush said that while he opposes gay marriage he would support giving rights to same-sex couples. (story)

Bush said that he didn't think "we should deny people rights to a civil union [or] a legal arrangement if that's what a state chooses to do."

[knuckle50]

Bush voter mentality:

I lost my job to outsourcing, and now I've lost healthcare benefits. I've fallen into poverty under the Bush administration. My son was sent to Iraq and now he's paralyzed. But we can't have stem cell research to help him. I voted for Bush because I don't want the hags to marry. And because Jesus said so.

[PghUSA]

^^Well that's a great description of the Heartland, if the Democrats want leadership again they will have to win a Southern or Rocky Mountain/Prarie state, attitudes like that don't help. I don't like one-party government though I did vote for Bush (as I mentioned on another post most reluctantly), one party government leads to policies that eventually swing back--only problem is we the people are left to pay for the arrogance of leaders (Reagan's "mafia" mid 1980's, Johnson 1960's etc.).

I don't like either party "writing off" whole states or regions just because they don't think like us. I'd rather find out why they think that way and how all of us can come together as one nation and live out the creed of our founders and statemen.

[demon]

It would never hold in the Supreme Court anyway.

[BrandonTO416]

Democrats will have better luck by focusing on states like Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, Missouri, Iowa, and Ohio to get into the whitehouse then the deep south.

The party right now needs to captivate the base and keep them on while adding with these demographically changing and traditionally swinging states.

Ohio is only Republican because of its 50+ population, a demographic that is shrinking as it becomes more Democratic leaning.

The south is the totally opposite and is actually becoming more Republican, in many respects is becoming more fundamentalist even with youth, and is the backbone of GOP electoral votes. You can't go after the other party's base until you've secured your own and expanded the moderates.

I think the Democrats best chance for winning in the future is having a party outsider run instead of insiders like Kerry. The outsiders need to either be strong midwestern candidates (Iowa, Missouri, Ohio) or southwestern flavor, maybe hispanic (New Mexico, Colorado, Arizona, Nevada).

An outsider would need to be moderate on gun issues, steadfast in equality but not make issues like gay marriage central, and focus on public issues like social security, healthcare, the war, and be very accessible and friendly in demeanor.

[Urban_Legend]

^Yeah, I don't really like how divided our nation is.

[PghUSA]

^^ It is only divided if we let them "write off" whole states because of outdated stereotypes. I like your breakdown of the politics behind it Heckles. Although not demographically "deep south" Florida does have a chance to go Democratic. Remember though it is not just the White House but Senate and House races, Governor races help the depth of the national party as well (future Senators/VPs/Presidents).

I wonder what will happen in the 6 (was it 6?) states that passed bans on GM in 2004. Wouldn't they be forced to recognize a Mass. wedding?

[BrandonTO416]

Any future Democrat is going to have to be innovative, not carry the same old message again.

For example, Democrats should come out with a simplified tax plan. Replace the entire tax code with a single no-exemptions, no-deductions tax system where you can file taxes on one sheet of paper without strings attached. If you have investments, that'd be a second sheet. No exemptions. No deductions.

And that doesn't mean switch to supporting a flat tax, Democrats need to stand firm and continue to support progressive income taxes. Just simplify them so that everyone pays with no loopholes.

To be bold, innovative, and attention-getting I'd like to see something simple like this:

$0-15,000 bracket is 0%

$15,000-$30,000 is 10%

$30,000-$50,000 is 20%

$50,000 and above is 30%

Create a tax system that has zero deductions, zero exemptions, and is filable on one sheet of paper. Have tax code that is a couple pages long and will put lawyers, corporate loopholes, and everything else out of business.

Its this simple:

Person earning $12,000 a year (common minimum wage earners) would get no income tax funds taken out - they would not even need to file for a refund.

Person earning $30,000 a year would have $15,000 of that taxable at 10%, thus pay $1,500 in income taxes.

A person making $50,000 would pay $0 on the first $15k, $1,500 on the next $15k, next $20k would be $4,000. Total tax bill for $50,000 income would be $5,500.

See how simple that concept is?

No exemptions. No deductions. Still promotes a progressive agenda by giving those who spend all their incomes on the lower end more purchasing power and the upper classes paying their fair share as well.

Find a Democrat willing to be this forward thinking, innovative, and bold - and you've found my favotite candidate for President. Someone with NEW ideas.

[sunshine]

Florida is the key state. It has more chances to become democrate than any other southern states. Major cities such as Miami all the way to Palm Beach and Orlando are all blue counties because of the influx of younger people and more gay people. When city become huge, people get more open minded and see the truth and not blindly support Republican for no reasons. The old people start to move more to deep south states such as NC, Alabama, MS ...because Florida start to become unafforable for them...Maybe give it ten more years, Florida will be as blue as it can be.

[BrandonTO416]

Guys, not to rain on the parade, but 2004 has taught everyone a lesson in politics. Florida is not as Democrat as Ohio. Ohio was razor thin, and its becoming more Democratic with time.

Florida was not razor thin, Bush won it handily this time by a few percentage points.

Again, I go back to my argument that you first hold down your base before knocking on the competition's door.

A political campaign has limited money and limited resources. Especially Democrats, who only raised money to keep up with Bush this time around because of the 527 groups backed by Soros and etc. Democrats simply don't have as much money and corporate power, and never will. The biggets donors to Democrats are unions, liberal corporations on the West Coast (Intel, Apple, lots of tech firms) and Northeast, and poor individuals donating $20, $50 at a time.

Republicans get buckoos of $2,000 a pop from individuals in suburbs nationwide.

Its not an even playing field, and it won't be. Democrats have to be smart.

[PghUSA]

^^heckles you know your stuff! Hats off to you! I believe sunshine was speaking only for the southern region when mentioning Florida, you are correct Ohio was close, Pennsylvania also was 49% to 51%. As long as the leaders in Washington realize they don't ONLY represent a segment of people but ALL the people, they have my vote. A GOP lock on the Govt. makes me a bit queezy. I like Harry Reid and Liberman, I just think the Dems have an image problem (real or perceived) as being too closely aligned with the Moores etc.

[BrandonTO416]

The simple fact that Pennsylvania was that close makes me sick to think about, quite honestly. That's not a hit at you, its how I feel generally taking the entire state into consideration. It makes me sick because Bush is so extreme. How so many people can side with such extremism disgusts me. The only good news is that I feel a significant minority of Bush voters voted reluctantly, especially in places like PA.

Pittsburgh, Philly, and Philly's liberal suburbs are what save PA. The rest of the state is a Bush obsessed land.

Its going to take a fresh, innovative, progressive but moderate Democrat to bend those type of voters away and strongly take back states like PA, add Ohio, and maybe entertain the idea of a Florida win again.

[PghUSA]

Pennsylvania has been called Pittsburgh and Philadelphia with Alabama in the middle. I love it, wouldn't want it any other way. I'm stronger on the "get govt. off the backs of the people" side of the GOP, but have seen what Reagan's free trade did to the Steel Valley here in Pittsburgh (the "rust belt" was born in the 1980s), and don't warm up to the "government in our bedrooms" thing the GOP has. Rick Santorum is going to have a contest in 2006. Probably the most powerful "neocon" and extremely religious-right is going up against Bob Casey Jr. who as those skilled in the polysci will remember--his dad was a leader of the National party and very popular two term governor of the state--only to be exilied for being "religiously conservative". Don't know how much Bob Casey Jr. follows in his dad's footsteps on that, but Pennsylvania even in the large cities has been more "blue collar/civil rights" liberal not neccesarily on the religious side. This Oregon Pledge of Alliance thing, the GM thing tends to hit nerves in the minority communities of Pittsburgh and Philly as well as the union democrats and blue collar folk. I know to some on the board it is a civil rights given, but the plank will have to be part of a bigger package of "makes sense" policies for Joe Schmo for it to win a big election. Pennsylvania and Ohio and the like though are losing population when compared to the electorally rich sunbelt states. Its all about those electoral points. A Keystone no more, when it comes to national elections?

[BrandonTO416]

Pennsylvania and Ohio aren't losing people, they just aren't gaining at the rate of the boom states. It all comes back to job growth. OH and PA aren't creating jobs to attract masses of people, only to subsist the current population plus a little on the side (or in Pittsburgh's case not enough to retain residents). I think Democrats can be smart and pick those votes back up in states like Colorado, Nevada, and Arizona. These states are growing equal to, and in many cases more, then the southeastern states.

Its going to take a coalition between hispanic growth and white moderates who don't take well to the modern GOP to allow a Democrat win.

Clinton proved its possible by winning Colorado, Nevada. Only back then it was Ross Perot taking away Republican votes. Nowadays the Perot factor isn't needed so much. Colorado and Nevada both were closer then any southeastern state between Bush and Kerry for a reason (Bush won both states by 52 and 51%, Kerry near 50%). Arizona is a tougher state, Bush won it 55 to 45% for Kerry. But its possible with its trends.

Democrats also have another traditional base that NEEDS to be catered to: the urban black vote. This starts by putting for very pro-urban policies which Democrats have been overly lame on in recent times.

The Democratic party needs a makeover, and 2005 is the time for soul-searching. We just had a defeat of massive proportions having such a wacko as Bush win in my opinion. I blame the people more then the party. I too thought Kerry was a weak candidate, but Bush is too much.

[monsoon]

Honestly the Democratic party has sundered itself by selling out to the corporate interests that it used to oppose and that is the reason they are losing elections even in traditionally democratic areas of the country.

And they are no longer willing to take a stand on anything. Remember they were just as happy to go to war with Iraq when they thought it would benefit them politically. If they had been doing their job, they would have raised a bunch of red flags about the need to fight it. We probably would have still gone to war, but at least they could have said "we told you so". But instead, John Kerry had to explain his flipflopping.

Until the Democrats are willing to take a stand on something and quit being a party of 17 states (to use Al Sharpton's remarks on this) they are going to continue to lose elections. The failure is theirs and theirs alone to put forth a compelling message as to why you should vote for them.

Even on the issue of Gay Marriage they won't take a stand. This "I am against Gay Marriage but I support the State's rights to choose" is one of the dumbest things that I have heard. That really means "I am a politician and I am afraid to say what I mean because it will piss off someone, so I am going to weasle word my way out of it". People don't like that.

[sunshine]

My explanation that Bush won Florida is because of the 4 hurricances that we had in a row before the elections. A lot of people here equate Jeb Bush to George Bush....besides GB can used his name as president to dump money here to help the victims while Kerry cant do nothing but to come here and have a look.

[BrandonTO416]

With all said and done, politics is politics. I've heard people make the argument that the gay marriage thing went too far and we shouldn't have delve into it too quickly, just to turn around and make the same statement that "you can't be wishy washy, and the Democrats are to blame for being too wishy-washy instead of firm."

The Democrats didn't have the ground to stand on in 2005 if they wanted to win and go full force with full support of gay marriage, and anyone who studies politics knows this.

There are plenty of people - even gay people - who think the approach Kerry took was the best political chance of defeating Bush on this one issue.

[monsoon]

...  There are plenty of people - even gay people - who think the approach Kerry took was the best political chance of defeating Bush on this one issue.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They were obviously wrong.

During the election Kerry plainly said he was "Against Gay Marriage" Yet, he voted against the Marriage of America Act. Here comes the flip flop label, because that is what he did.

He should have said. "I am for Gay Marriage as demonstrated by my votes in the past. I will resist all efforts at a Constitutional Amendment...." But the didn't do this. He changed his tune to the current political winds and he got pasted for it.

This was his and the Democrats problem in general. They will no longer take difficult stands. People might think this is a good approach, except well... they continue to lose elections. The party is in worse shape now than when it blew up in 1968. For a president as bad as Bush to win re-election speaks to the idiots that were/are running the Democratic party. The only good thing is several of the democratic "leaders" are no longer in office.

Above all else, no one likes a wishy washy politician. The Democrats define this now.

[BrandonTO416]

Democrats also need to work on party loyalty. A candidate who has no backbone to rely on, even when they don't agree with him 100%, is a candidate that will never get elected. I don't always consider myself a Democrat, but under the circumstances I was not about to throw my vote away on something else in an important election like Bush vs Kerry.

Bush's people don't always like Bush, but he gets their vote. And Republicans consistently get those kinds of votes from Libertarian voters all the time because they fall for the smaller government bit all the time, nevermind in the past 50 years whenever a Republican has been elected the government always grew more then with the Democrat. ....Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, and the two Bushes all included.....

Somehow moderate Republicans are able to ignore the fact that their party is ran by yahoos who have very little regards for separation of church/state, and little regards for responsible defense. Democrats have maybe a 10% following of Al Sharpton or Kucinich types and are ran into the ground because of it. When does the voter's brain come into play???

So who really is to blame for why Kerry isn't in office? The voters.

All in all, Kerry wasn't a bad choice. I didn't agree on everything, I didn't think he had charisma. But he was a professional, intellectual, and is very respectful in public life.

If you don't like Bush, and the candidates were chosen in the primaries as they were, who are you going to vote for?

[BrandonTO416]

BTW, further expanding the discussion, America has become a nation of people who whine about wanting healthcare, but are enraged when they hear that it'll take a tax to fund something they wanted.

Voters are the problem in our nation, but then again that's the way its supposed to be in a real democracy. So at least it isn't all bad.