Gay Marriage, Again

One thing that has been bothering me are the claims that Bush's statement yesterday should be construed to mean that he does not want to ban state's rights to create civil unions. There are two problems with that contention. One is that he did not put forth any language to suggest that he would not support the most popular amendment up for consideration, the Musgrave Amendment. That amendment clearly has language, as I previously posted, indicates that civil unions would illegal if the amendment was adopted. If Bush was against such a thing, why did he not make it clear that he does not support the Musgrave Amendment as written?

Secondly, it is clear that Bush is against Civil Unions.

MR. McCLELLAN: [...] The President has made it very clear that he would not have supported it for the state of Texas.

Q Civil union?

MR. McCLELLAN: Right.

So, Bush is all about state's rights, I guess, except when it comes to marriage. States can relegate homosexuals to second class citizens, but they can't allow them to be full citizens with equal rights. Hmmm, sounds like a bigot to me.

I will give a shout out to Rob Bernard for getting a traffic surge from the 800-pound gorilla, but a commenter on Rob’s site referred to me as an "unknown blogger." Now, I am a nobody in the Blogosphere, but what kind of ego trip does it take to slam me for having an opinion, voicing it, but not having a reputation big enough to fit that commenter’s sense of self importance?

Just so we are clear, Bush is a bigot. Bush opposes allowing homosexuals the rights given to married couples. If he even wanted to help homosexual with some rights, like hospital visitation, I have not heard him once voice support for it either at the federal or state level. Now, to say that he is merely doing this for political reasons begs the question, if he is willing to work against gays, why would he not also wage a war for political reasons?

Cheney

Are the vultures starting to circle?

Broken Record: Bush is a Bigot Without a Doubt

I couldn't disappoint anyone by not once again pointing out that Bush is a bigot, so there ya go. I guess his fence sitting State of the Union quasi-support for the Gay Marriage Ban Amendment was not playing well in the bible belt, so he had to go full tilt.

Well, I have said why I think Bush is a bigot enough, so I will instead deal with why Bush is flat out wrong on what the proposed FMA will do. He seems to think that states will be able to create "Civil Unions." Claims otherwise are being refuted by many legal scholars. Eugene Volokh gives a conservo-libertarian view on why the FMA does ban civil unions as currently written.

Kevin Drum has excellent Analysis and Atrios has comments as well.

The most surprising posts and comments are coming from Andrew Sullivan. Sullivan is a conservo-libertarian Bush supporter who is also a firm Gay Marriage supporter. A large portion of his readers seem to be pissed at Bush?s stance on Gay Marriage, which appears to be the last straw holding up their support of Bush. I can't see how there can be any homosexual Bush supporters after today. I mean, the man came out and gave no rationale why any can't marry a person of the same sex. I mean, Bush did not even have the guts to say why Gay Marriage is bad. How will it affect Heterosexual Marriage? It is freaky how Bush sounds like he is defending an anti-miscegenation laws:

Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all. Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife.

That makes me want to vomit. WHY can't marriage be severed from the past as it was when anti-miscegenation laws were repealed? HOW do two men or two women getting married weakening society? HOW does making homosexuals serve "us all?" Bigoty does not serve me. I guess oppressing homosexuals serves Bush's political aims buy getting the bible thumpers all good and frothy.

Locally Covington Jim comments, as does Wes Flinn.

Lynch Steps Down as CBUF President

Damon Lynch has stepped down as the President of the Cincinnati Black United Front. His reason appears to be to focus on a 2005 Council Run. Politically this is a great move for Lynch. Stepping away from the boycott was the one thing he needed to make council. He has done that and should walk easily onto council.

What is troublesome, yet inevitable, is that Dwight Patton would take over as President. Dwight's reputation has a racial reconciler is laughable. Dwight is a confrontationalist who pushed CBUF into racist positions and stances. It is with those type actions that make it odd that Dwight's biggest enemy is Nate Livingston.

Why I Give a Damn

Have some of you folks out there, my few yet brilliant readers, wondered why I tend to throw around terms like "theocratic fascist around? Well look no further than the scary congressmen behind the movement to strip power from the Supreme Court, and in the name of religion. It appears that Sen. Zell Miller (D) of Georgia seems to have joined Congressmen ADERHOLT and PENCE in pushing for a theocratic state, where freedom of religion is only for the 'majority', not the individual.

Read the Christian Coalition's list of issues and you wonder why I oppose them and those who work with them.

[Via Atrios and Wes Flinn]

Portman for Vice President?

Well, WCPO reported the rumor, which they call "speculation" and had this teaser in their article "Rob Portman will speak with 9News this morning and we'll have an update as soon as it is available." WLWT seemed to have the same story.

WCPO's website has nothing new reported on Portman, in fact the story was buried. This kind of speculation is very interesting, but highly dubious. Someone from Portman's camp is floating the idea out there to see if any remnants of a ground swell can be built for ousting Dick Cheney from the GOP Ticket. Cheney is nothing but a drag on Bush. Now, I of course have no problem if President Bush sees fit to stick to loyalty. I see no problem with that at all.

In all seriousness, Bush will keep Cheney on unless he needs new blood to pull in more votes in a race he could be losing. Think of dumping Cheney as a reserve. When Bush's polls are running low, he will tap into a new VP to inject a new heart to GOP ticket. That would at least be the pragmatist’s play. Is Bush really a pragmatist?

Ohio the Heart of it All

Will Ohio be the battle ground state for 2004? Edwards was here. Bush's Approval rating here in Ohio (pdf) is below 50%. That should be scaring the crap out of Republicans. Bush must win Ohio. If Bush loses Ohio, the Democrat will win.

Edwards has to at least win Ohio, New York, or California if he really plans on winning the Democratic nomination.