You reap what you sow Mr. Bush. And some fiscal conservatives didnt think these guys would be trouble. :lol

 

Backers of Gay Marriage Ban Use Social Security as Cudgel

By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK and SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

 

Published: January 25, 2005

 

 

WASHINGTON, Jan. 24 - A coalition of major conservative Christian groups is threatening to withhold support for President Bush's plans to remake Social Security unless Mr. Bush vigorously champions a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

 

The move came as Senate Republicans vowed on Monday to reintroduce the proposed amendment, which failed in the Senate last year by a substantial margin. Party leaders, who left it off their list of priorities for the legislative year, said they had no immediate plans to bring it to the floor because they still lacked the votes for passage.

 

But the coalition that wrote the letter, known as the Arlington Group, is increasingly impatient.

 

In a confidential letter to Karl Rove, Mr. Bush's top political adviser, the group said it was disappointed with the White House's decision to put Social Security and other economic issues ahead of its paramount interest: opposition to same-sex marriage.

 

The letter, dated Jan. 18, pointed out that many social conservatives who voted for Mr. Bush because of his stance on social issues lack equivalent enthusiasm for changing the retirement system or other tax issues. And to pass to pass any sweeping changes, members of the group argue, Mr. Bush will need the support of every element of his coalition.

 

"We couldn't help but notice the contrast between how the president is approaching the difficult issue of Social Security privatization where the public is deeply divided and the marriage issue where public opinion is overwhelmingly on his side," the letter said. "Is he prepared to spend significant political capital on privatization but reluctant to devote the same energy to preserving traditional marriage? If so it would create outrage with countless voters who stood with him just a few weeks ago, including an unprecedented number of African-Americans, Latinos and Catholics who broke with tradition and supported the president solely because of this issue."

 

The letter continued, "When the administration adopts a defeatist attitude on an issue that is at the top of our agenda, it becomes impossible for us to unite our movement on an issue such as Social Security privatization where there are already deep misgivings."

 

The letter also expressed alarm at recent comments President Bush made to The Washington Post, including his statement that "nothing will happen" on the marriage amendment for now because many senators did not see the need for it.

 

"We trust that you can imagine our deep disappointment at the defeatist position President Bush demonstrated" in the interview, the group wrote. "He even declined to answer a simple question about whether he would use his bully pulpit to overcome this Senate foot-dragging."

 

The letter also noted that in an interview before the election Mr. Bush "appeared to endorse civil unions" for same-sex couples.

 

The group asked Mr. Rove to designate "a top level" official to coordinate opposition to same-sex marriage, as a show of commitment.

 

Trent Duffy, a spokesman for the White House, said on Monday that "the president was simply talking about a situation that exists in the Senate, not about his personal commitment or his willingness to continue to push this issue." Mr. Duffy said the "president remains very committed to a marriage amendment" and added, "We always welcome suggestions from our friends."

 

Some Senate Republican leaders were not optimistic on Monday about the amendment's prospects this year.

 

"I think if we had the vote right now we'd come up short," said Senator Rick Santorum, the Pennsylvania Republican who is a member of the leadership and one of the amendment's most vocal backers in Congress. "We'd like to bring it up when we have the best possible chance of getting it passed."

 

The members of the coalition that wrote the letter are some of Mr. Bush's most influential conservative Christian supporters, and include Dr. James C. Dobson of Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council, the Southern Baptist Convention, the American Family Association, Jerry Falwell and Paul Weyrich.

 

Several members of the group said that not long ago, many of their supporters were working or middle class, members of families that felt more allegiance to the Democratic Party because of programs like Social Security before gravitating to the Republican Party as it took up more cultural conservative issues over the last 20 years.

 

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, declined to talk about the letter, but said, "The enthusiasm to get behind his proposals is going to require that he get behind the issues that really motivated social conservative voters."

 

Asked to estimate the level of discontent with the White House among the group on a scale from one to 10, Mr. Perkins put it at 8.

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/25/politics/25marriage.html

This country makes me sick.

Gotta love it when the Republicans don't follow their own creed.

That's gheyer than ghey marriage. Social Security is a top priority while an unconstitional constitional amendment to take away rights of a group of people isn't necessary. :thumbdown

That's gheyer than ghey marriage. Social Security is a top priority while an unconstitional constitional amendment to take away rights of a group of people isn't necessary. :thumbdown

666908[/snapback]

I guess your base is more moonbatty than you'd like to admit. This wedge issue is your 2004 presidential tipper. Enjoy it while it lasts cause' this ain't going to happen again.

 

I was just about to post this F_M...beat me to it.

This proves several things. 1 that bush is no neocon. 2. He never intended to pass the gay mrriage ban, 3. But he may be forced to pass it b/c social security reform is too important. Damn social conservatives

Ignore them - where else are they gonna go?

 

Its like the dems and the loopy far left.

667466[/snapback]

Would you consider abolitionists of the 19th century to be loopy? Seems to me conservatives (on social issues) are nearly always proven wrong throughout history. Progressives seem to always be on the right side of issues and I'm sure some of us will look pretty bad in about 30 years.

 

 

 

PS I'm not being sarcastic :cool

Ignore them - where else are they gonna go?

 

Its like the dems and the loopy far left.

667466[/snapback]

Would you consider abolitionists of the 19th century to be loopy? Seems to me conservatives (on social issues) are nearly always proven wrong throughout history. Progressives seem to always be on the right side of issues and I'm sure some of us will look pretty bad in about 30 years.

 

 

 

PS I'm not being sarcastic :cool

667493[/snapback]

 

To play the devil's advocate, I wouldn't call the Soviet Union to be on the right [correct] side of history for social issues.

I was in grade school in the 60's when a bunch of "progressive" education fads were gripping the nation - like "open classrooms". One social studies class in 8th grade had no syllabus, no classes, and no study at all. Students were allowed to do anything they wanted - the teacher just sat there and read the newspaper all day. Some played "Risk" (a board game) for the whole year, others actually went to the library and motivated themselves. At the end of a semester you gave yourself whatever grade you wanted and that went on your report card. It was compelete utter hogwash.

 

 

Not much different than what I hear happens in some regular classes in my school.

 

I take honors classes so I havent seen such thing but I hear it happens a lot.

The Republican Party is going to be splintered into many pieces in the next few years, thanks to all these different divides.

This proves several things. 1 that bush is no neocon. 2. He never intended to pass the gay mrriage ban, 3. But he may be forced to pass it b/c social security reform is too important. Damn social conservatives

667447[/snapback]

 

 

 

You're right on with #1.

The Republican Party is going to be splintered into many pieces in the next few years, thanks to all these different divides.

667683[/snapback]

 

Not really. As long as the far left continues to hijack the democratic party, itll be enough to alienate the wings of the rep party that may have otherwise defected

The Republican Party is going to be splintered into many pieces in the next few years, thanks to all these different divides.

667683[/snapback]

 

Not really. As long as the far left continues to hijack the democratic party, itll be enough to alienate the wings of the rep party that may have otherwise defected

668002[/snapback]

 

How has the far left hijacked the democratic party? What policy? What leadership?

This proves several things. 1 that bush is no neocon. 2. He never intended to pass the gay mrriage ban, 3.? But he may be forced to pass it b/c social security reform is too important. Damn social conservatives

667447[/snapback]

 

 

 

You're right on with #1.

667911[/snapback]

Bush saying he cant get it done doesnt mean he doesnt want to get it done.

I think it's just the opposite, the Democrats embrace the far left with open arms in order to nearly guarantee a loyal voting base, ex. pro choice women, homosexuals, etc.

I think it's just the opposite, the Democrats embrace the far left with open arms in order to nearly guarantee a loyal voting base, ex. pro choice women, homosexuals, etc.

668023[/snapback]

Are you actually claiming that being pro choice and supporting the right to be homosexual is far left?

C'mon guys, we just signed Delgado. Let's all make a pact to go one day without arguing .

I think it's just the opposite, the Democrats embrace the far left with open arms in order to nearly guarantee a loyal voting base, ex. pro choice women, homosexuals, etc.

668023[/snapback]

Are you actually claiming that being pro choice and supporting the right to be homosexual is far left?

668026[/snapback]

 

 

 

Not in that post

 

But there are a plethora of extreme liberals that ONLY vote democratic because of this.... not because the Democrats will help with social progress, but they feel like Republicans in office will impede it and take away what they believe are "rights"

 

which we won't get into

pro-choice women are the far left? :blink:

 

I guess democrats embrace pro-choice women, but that's an awfully big group to be on the "far" side.

pro-choice women are the far left? :blink

668040[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

some

I think it's just the opposite, the Democrats embrace the far left with open arms in order to nearly guarantee a loyal voting base, ex. pro choice women, homosexuals, etc.

668023[/snapback]

Are you actually claiming that being pro choice and supporting the right to be homosexual is far left?

668026[/snapback]

 

 

 

Not in that post

 

But there are a plethora of extreme liberals that ONLY vote democratic because of this.... not because the Democrats will help with social progress, but they feel like Republicans in office will impede it and take away what they believe are "rights"

 

which we won't get into

668033[/snapback]

ok..maybe some on the far left vote democrat because they are antiRepublican...but that doesnt mean the converse that the democratic party embraces the far left is true, which is what legacy was claiming.

I think it's just the opposite, the Democrats embrace the far left with open arms in order to nearly guarantee a loyal voting base, ex. pro choice women, homosexuals, etc.

668023[/snapback]

Are you actually claiming that being pro choice and supporting the right to be homosexual is far left?

668026[/snapback]

 

 

 

Not in that post

 

But there are a plethora of extreme liberals that ONLY vote democratic because of this.... not because the Democrats will help with social progress, but they feel like Republicans in office will impede it and take away what they believe are "rights"

 

which we won't get into

668033[/snapback]

ok..maybe some on the far left vote democrat because they are antiRepublican...but that doesnt mean the converse that the democratic party embraces the far left is true, which is what legacy was claiming.

668055[/snapback]

 

 

Actually, that was me.

 

And I'll just revise it and say that the Democratic party.... doesn't oppose it.

pro-choice women are the far left? :blink

668040[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

some

668046[/snapback]

 

 

 

there's some of all groups in both parties.

 

 

that proves absolutely nothing.

I think it's just the opposite, the Democrats embrace the far left with open arms in order to nearly guarantee a loyal voting base, ex. pro choice women, homosexuals, etc.

668023[/snapback]

Are you actually claiming that being pro choice and supporting the right to be homosexual is far left?

668026[/snapback]

 

 

 

Not in that post

 

But there are a plethora of extreme liberals that ONLY vote democratic because of this.... not because the Democrats will help with social progress, but they feel like Republicans in office will impede it and take away what they believe are "rights"

 

which we won't get into

668033[/snapback]

ok..maybe some on the far left vote democrat because they are antiRepublican...but that doesnt mean the converse that the democratic party embraces the far left is true, which is what legacy was claiming.

668055[/snapback]

 

 

Actually, that was me.

 

And I'll just revise it and say that the Democratic party.... doesn't oppose it.

668060[/snapback]

The Republican party doesnt oppose David Duke voting for them...doesnt make them racists. A group being a loyal voting block for a party doesnt make the party part of them.

 

Plus like hotcorner said..prochoice and probeing gay is not some small extremist group.

I also think there are plenty of republicans who could really care less whether homosexuals get civil unions or not, and don't consider it a critical issue right now in the grand scheme of things.

 

The Swartzeneggar crowd of socially liberal fiscally conservative Republicans certainly aren't backing the "defense of marriage Amendment" idea or whatever it's called.