Marriage is the "legal union between one man and one woman" - according to which President?

[heartsurgeon]

Clinton He agreed with and signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act.

"I have long opposed govermental recognition of same-gender marriages" - "W. J. Clinton, 1996.

So why is Bush "bigotted" and a "homophobe" when he isn't advocating anything that Clinton already spoke to?

 

[Sternfan]

Because there is a double standard, Clinton can say something and its all good, Bush states the same thing and he is evil. come on heartsurgeon you know that

 

[alchemize]

The difference is that while Clinton just pandered to the middle, Bush stand behinds what he believes and wants it in the constitution. I won't debate the right or wrong of it because I'm not convinced either position (allow vs ban) is right.

 

[maddogchen]

I think it was because Clinton was considered a "liberal", and when a liberal says it, he can't be attacked by fellow liberals, and he won't get attacked by conservatives because he's saying what conservatives want. But in the case of Bush, liberals can always attack him because he's a conservative and he only says conservative stuff.

Although Clinton was portrayed as a liberal, I'm not quite sure he was really liberal because many of his actions showed otherwise.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
Clinton He agreed with and signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act.

"I have long opposed govermental recognition of same-gender marriages" - "W. J. Clinton, 1996.

So why is Bush "bigotted" and a "homophobe" when he isn't advocating anything that Clinton already spoke to?

Your question should be: Why isn't Clinton also considered a bigot and/or a homephobe. I guess it's OK in your book to be a bigot as long as there's a whole line of bigots behind you? I'm sure that makes sense to you somehow or another.

 

[DT4K]

Because liberals are hypocrites.
But so are conservatives.
Face it, both sides have selective anger. There is a natural tendency to hold back when you disagree with the guy on your own team and really let loose when you get a chance to bitch about something the other side is doing.

I do find it odd that democrats are urging Bush to send troops to Haiti immediately.
Do they have WMD?

 

[Romans828]

I think the left can look past Clinton easily enough, When you operate under a flag of moral relativism its quite simply to condone one minute and condem the next..................

 

[UltraQuiet]

I already covered this in the other thread. Evidently the line is somwhere between a federal law and a Constitutional amendment. Of course Kerry isn't a bigot, or maybe he is, just not as big a bigot as Bush. Who knows. It just depends on which side of his face Kerry is currently talking out of. In any case BUSH IS TEH EVAL!!!!!!!!!!! and that's all that matters.

 

[Nitemare]

Professional courtesy?

 

[tallest1]

This case differs because you didn't have Clinton quoting the bible to argue his position. As opposed to making the issue a non-issue and coming up with stuff like "don't ask don't tell", Bush is literally declaring war on the lifestyle by publicly stating how wroooooong it is and how much its troubles his poor little wittle heart. Bush is getting attacked because hes politicizing it to kingdom come. If bush simply stated that he was against gay marriage like everyone else and went back to the stuff that mattered, there'd be less backlash from the Bush haters but thanks to his extremist views, we're looking at a constitutional amendment and newspapers highlighting gay marriage on the front pages instead of the war on terrorism.

In fact, the whole gay marriage topic has so flooded the media, just look at these recent threads - no more than 1 thread about Iraq. Congratuations folks, Bush just changed the subject on ya.

 

[heartsurgeon]

what i find unbelievably amusing is that homosexual men want to "get married" , "have children" and "serve in the military"...

HAHAHA..they sound like Republican's for heaven's sake!

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: tallest1
This case differs because you didn't have Clinton quoting the bible to argue his position. As opposed to making the issue a non-issue and coming up with stuff like "don't ask don't tell", Bush is literally declaring war on the lifestyle by publicly stating how wroooooong it is and how much its troubles his poor little wittle heart. Bush is getting attacked because hes politicizing it to kingdom come. If bush simply stated that he was against gay marriage like everyone else and went back to the stuff that mattered, there'd be less backlash from the Bush haters but thanks to his extremist views, we're looking at a constitutional amendment and newspapers highlighting gay marriage on the front pages instead of the war on terrorism.

In fact, the whole gay marriage topic has so flooded the media, just look at these recent threads - no more than 1 thread about Iraq. Congratuations folks, Bush just changed the subject on ya.

No, the media switched their focus because there haven't been daily attacks over in Iraq that caused American deaths. If there were - we wouldn't be having half the debate of this "marriage" thing because the media would be serving up the hysteria of our soldiers dying.

Also, one must realize WHO is putting this issue out there. It sure as hell wasn't Bush - it was the activists who are flaunting California law which has led to other activists trying to capitalize on the situation and trying it themselves.

CkG

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
what i find unbelievably amusing is that homosexual men want to "get married" , "have children" and "serve in the military"...

HAHAHA..they sound like Republican's for heaven's sake!

It would be one well dressed Military!

 

[PELarson]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
what i find unbelievably amusing is that homosexual men want to "get married" , "have children" and "serve in the military"...

HAHAHA..they sound like Republican's for heaven's sake!

Maybe upto the "serve into the military" part!

 

[Gaard]

The fact that Bush took us to war with Iraq was Saddam's fault.
The fact that Bush supports a discriminatory amendment is the activists fault.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Gaard
The fact that Bush took us to war with Iraq was Saddam's fault.
The fact that Bush supports a discriminatory amendment is the activists fault.

It was Saddam's actions that brought us to Iraq.
IF the renegade mayor of Frisco wasn't doling out illegal marriage licenses and the Judges in Massachussetts weren't being so radical, I doubt that Bush would've brought up this issue.