The Nightstar Zoo

Nightstar IRC Network - irc.nightstar.net
It is currently Wed Oct 17, 2018 4:14 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Oct 28, 2004 12:40 pm 
On civil unions, at least.

[url=http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewCulture.asp?Page=\Culture\archive\200410\CUL20041027b.html]Bush wants to allow states to give anyone civil unions[/url] which is in line with the whole state's rights platform the Rep party used to firmly believe in, but now only mildly follows. Too bad he won't just hand the power to give out marrages over to the churches, and get the government out of the marrage business entirely.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 28, 2004 7:34 pm 
Umm, flip flop?

Or has he just not addressed this very specific aspect of the issue before?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 28, 2004 8:43 pm 
I don't think he's addressed that specific issue before. He's only talked about marrages the whole time.

Of course, it's against the radical re-ligio-publican agenda, if Bush ever completely supported that then it might be a flipflop.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2004 1:16 am 
Kazriko wrote:
I don't think he's addressed that specific issue before. He's only talked about marrages the whole time.

Of course, it's against the radical re-ligio-publican agenda, if Bush ever completely supported that then it might be a flipflop.

I'd say it is definitely a flip-flop. The people who are pushing hardest for the anti-marriage amendment regard the "civil union" idea as gay marriage by another name. Or, in the case of Senator Santorum, possibly an insidious way for men to marry their dogs.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2004 12:42 pm 
But, do you have proof that Bush followed that particular line of thinking prior to stating his opinion on civil unions? Or is it just the more radical members of his party, who I just called re-ligio-publicans (aka the Authoritarian bastards) in the last post?

His backing of the stupid amendment could be to placate the powerful re-ligio-publicans whom he is depending on to get reelected. (such as the "Senator Santorum" you mentioned.)

You should know that the most radical people in a party (the ones pushing hardest) may not particularly agree with everything the president believes, nor will the president agree with everything they believe in. He may endorse something more moderate to get their support, but will usually stop short of their most radical views.

The candidate for president is usually the one that can placate the hard-core party members, while appearing moderate enough to get the indecisive voters. Example from 2000: McCain couldn't placate the hard-core party members because he is too moderate, while Alan Keyes and the other candidates are just too radical for the undecided voters, so Bush won.

Of course, neither stupid side of this debate ever seems to mention the only fair way to solve this problem. Civil unions for everyone, and hand Marrage over to the churches and the churches alone. Maybe the religiopublicans realize that there are chuches out there that would permit it though... They are so adamant about the sanctity of holy marrage, it'd be better for it not to be under the control of a secular institution if it's a religious concept, so they should relinquish control already. Jeez.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2004 1:16 pm 
Kazriko wrote:
Civil unions for everyone, and hand Marrage over to the churches and the churches alone.


So, what legal effects would that have? Would civil unions have the protections and benifits that marriages now have?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2004 2:02 pm 
Kazriko wrote:
But, do you have proof that Bush followed that particular line of thinking prior to stating his opinion on civil unions? Or is it just the more radical members of his party, who I just called re-ligio-publicans (aka the Authoritarian bastards) in the last post?

His backing of the stupid amendment could be to placate the powerful re-ligio-publicans whom he is depending on to get reelected. (such as the "Senator Santorum" you mentioned.)

Haven't got a search engine to pull up any specific quotes, but it certainly wouldn't be beyond Bush to make one group think he was in favor and another to think he wasn't.

Bush often speaks of his admiration for Ronald Reagan, and one of Ron's specialties was conning the Religious Right. All the things Bush has been more or less trying to deliver for them have been on the RRs agenda since the mid-seventies. Reagan promised to push the Religious Right's platform in both of his presidential campaigns and both times dropped it like a live grenade as soon as he was in office. GH Bush and Bob Dole couldn't keep the scam up, so they lost control of the party to even more conservative Republicans. GW Bush had proved in Texas that he could fake being a moderate while pushing a right wing agenda; that allowed the RRs and the corporate conservatives to unite behind him and win the White House back from the Democrats.

So, yeah, he might well be speaking favor of civil unions in one venue and carefully avoiding denouncing them in another. As the PIPA study shows, that is his greatest gift as a politician. Most of his supporters have very little understanding of what he actually stands for.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2004 10:37 pm 
Pronto wrote:
Kazriko wrote:
Civil unions for everyone, and hand Marrage over to the churches and the churches alone.


So, what legal effects would that have? Would civil unions have the protections and benifits that marriages now have?


Of course, since there would no longer be any political institution of marrage. Everyone who has talked Civil Unions has implied that it's basically marrage without the name. It would have all the benefits and protections offered by the state. Things like joint tax filing and being allowed into the hospital as family. Of course, it may not be recognized by the churches, but I really don't see any obvious benefit/detrement to that.


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group