Advocate Breaks Stunning News: Bush Thinks Marriage Is Man+Woman
What on God’s green earth is the point of this “breaking news” email from our Gay Pravda, The Advocate? Other than to take a pot shot at the poll-weary President, of course.
Bush says marriage is between a man and a woman – Advocate.com e-news bulletin
At a contentious news conference Tuesday that was mostly about the war in Iraq, President Bush took another opportunity to restate his belief that marriage is for heterosexual couples only. When asked a point-blank question about marriage equality, Bush reiterated his position that marriage is the union of a man and a woman.
Framing the question in terms of the children and families of thousands of gay and lesbian couples married in San Francisco and elsewhere, the reporter asked him, “Are you still confident that society’s interest and the interests of those children in gay families are being met by government saying their parents can’t marry?”
Bush responded, “I believe society’s interests are met by defining marriage as between a man and a woman. That’s what I believe.”
Duh. Not only is he restating his own belief, and the belief of an overwhelming majority of Americans, the headline actually also accurately restates the law in most parts of the United States, increasingly so due to the results of popular votes on the subject. Maybe Advocate forgets that they are still swimming upstream?
The Advocate – Our News Source of Record — “The New York Times of the Angry Gay Leftists.”
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
38 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Would seem as though the poll numbers for same sex marriage are way below the president’s approval ratings.
I don’t really care about polls, personally. But it seems like the people who always like to trumpet Bush’s low approval numbers as proof of … whatever it is they are trying to prove at the moment… should be consistent in their reliance on public opinion.
Comment by V the K — March 22, 2006 @ 7:06 pm - March 22, 2006
It shows that Bush doesn’t consider gay families, families at all.
=
Comment by chandler in hollywood — March 22, 2006 @ 7:53 pm - March 22, 2006
” Maybe Advocate forgets that they are still swimming upstream?”
Why didn’t you write “we” are still swimming upstream?
Comment by Gene — March 22, 2006 @ 8:24 pm - March 22, 2006
I guess they felt that the current level of outrage amongst us GLBT folk wasn’t high enough, so they had to stoke the fire, so to speak, by restating the obvious.
Comment by SouthernGayRepublican — March 22, 2006 @ 8:25 pm - March 22, 2006
Maybe I’m living in the dark ages, but I’m afraid that I don’t understand why gay marriage is even an issue in politics. Marriage doesn’t include the possibility of an official union with close relatives, animals, gays or inanimate objects – period. It’s intent (though one could argue it has fallen short in its attempt) is to ensure parents remain together to provide a secure home for their children (no, it’s NOT simply about love) by creating legal and social disincentives to the disruption of this essential ralationship, and it gives a special status of honor (along with the responsibilities) to those who choose to become a part of it. Anything other than this male-female arrangement is a less than ideal substitute at best, and an undermining of this most sacred of basic family institutions at worst. At a time when even heterosexuals fail to appeciate the value of marriage, why erode its value further by broadening the “standards for admission?”
Comment by Larry Davis — March 22, 2006 @ 10:20 pm - March 22, 2006
what gets me on marriage is the myth that it is something sacred…when 50% of the couples that engage in marriage divorce and in undisclosed amount separate, leave for no apparent reason, or cheat without divorcing where is the nobility
Comment by ralph — March 22, 2006 @ 10:39 pm - March 22, 2006
I’m confused about the intent of your post. Are you highlighting that the Prez thinks marriage is only for a man or a woman, or that you think the Advocate is tired in continuing to point it out?
Where do you stand on gay marriage??
Me personally – as a gay man I have no interest in ‘marriage’, since I consider it a religious institution that has no requirement to include me. I’m fine with that – but I want all the LEGAL rights that come with it.
Comment by Matty — March 22, 2006 @ 11:31 pm - March 22, 2006
#5 “inanimate objects” ???????????
Mindblowing
Comment by hank — March 23, 2006 @ 12:28 am - March 23, 2006
Let’s put it this way, Matty….when John Kerry said the same thing AND endorsed and praised state constitutional amendments to enforce that, the gay left and gay Democrats, including the Advocate, cheered, clapped, shoveled millions of dollars his way, and called it “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”.
Thus, the point of GP’s post, and, to Gene’s statement, why GP said “the Advocate” instead of “we”; the gay left alternately supports and denounces people who oppose gay marriage based solely on their political affiliation.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 23, 2006 @ 12:51 am - March 23, 2006
The swim upstream may be getting easier.
According to FOX News and the Associated Press, the highly respected Pew Research Center poll indicates that opposition to same-sex marriage has dropped to 51 percent from the 63 percent recorded two years ago.
More importantly, in the new poll only 28 percent strongly oppose same-sex marriage compared to 42 percent in 2004. The AP said: “Strong opposition has dropped sharply among senior citizens and Republicans.”
On the issue of gay adoptions, the Pew poll found 46 percent in favor and 48 percent opposed — within the 3 percent margin of error. In 1999, only 38 percent favored it and 57 percent opposed it. (BTW, blacks have not changed their stance, they still overwhelming oppose gay adoptions.)
Sixty percent of those polled favor letting gays to serve openly in the military.
Comment by Jack Allen — March 23, 2006 @ 1:00 am - March 23, 2006
#2
I disagree since Bush has said that he supports Civil Unions. But then that PISSES in the Cheerios of the anti-Bush gay left.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 23, 2006 @ 3:39 am - March 23, 2006
#5 — Nope, you’re wrong. Based on the legal arguments put forth by SSM advocates, one can not help but conclude that marriage isn’t about any of that. It’s just a pinata full of social benefits, and it’s unfair to deny them to any people who are in love. Polygamists are already suing for marital rights using the exact same legal arguments. Activists on the cutting edge of progressive thought advocate abolishing traditional marriage entirely, in favor of the state honoring whatever free-flowing arrangements people choose to make.
Comment by V the K — March 23, 2006 @ 5:43 am - March 23, 2006
I find it more telling that Bruce would rather keep rimming the President (hey, if you do it right, your nose doesn’t actually get brown) than admit that Bush’s response was no response at all.
and the belief of an overwhelming majority
When is 51% (down from 63%!) an “overwhelming majority”, Bruce?
Comment by God of Biscuits — March 23, 2006 @ 5:49 am - March 23, 2006
P.S. to #12 — Oh, and then there is that all-important issue of feelings. Sure, we could have civil unions, which most of the population is okay with, and which would provide identical social benefits to marriage, but then the atate wouldn’t be validating our feelings. And, as everyone knows, the only real validation in life comes in the form of a notarized document issued by a state bureaucracy.
Comment by V the K — March 23, 2006 @ 6:06 am - March 23, 2006
#11 If Bush really supports civil unions as I heard him say once during the 2004 campaign, it would be nice to hear him say that in an SOTU when he reaffirms his belief in marriage. And at the press conference, why couldn’t he reiterate his support of civil unions and state when he is going to propose a bill to Congress?
And NDT has it right. If the Advocate is going to state the obvious, why not also state that both John Kerry and Hillary Clinton also oppose gay marriage. And while they are at it, also state that Hillary Clinton also chose to march in the NYC St. Patrick’s Day Parade organized by a homophobe out of the 1300s, instead of taking a stand there.
And when I see comments like I did from #5 (second sentence), I get the heebie jeebies. Yikes! Many of us feel that gays should be removed from Larry Davis’s exclusive list. And although some of the intent of marriage is to provide security for children and all that, the fact is that many couple do remain married well after the youngest one leaves the nest. Further, there are plenty of couples that marry who can’t or who have no intention of having children, including elderly couples.
#14 I would be happy, for now at least, with civil unions with IDENTICAL benefits of marriage, since I wouldn’t want to disrupt the feelings of those who have antiquated personal issues of gay marriage, while they can still get their marriage licenses because of their feelings that marriage should be limited to a man and a woman.
Comment by Pat — March 23, 2006 @ 9:10 am - March 23, 2006
My support of traditional marriage is based on the unique value it imparts to society. Personal feelings do not enter into it. Most of the people on my side of the debate can likewise justify our support of traditional marriage in terms of both its value to society, and to the damage that would inevitably come through expanding it to encompass a wide variety of human relationships. It is not all about feelings. Nice try.
Comment by V the K — March 23, 2006 @ 9:20 am - March 23, 2006
I wasn’t trying anything more than you were regarding feelings. I am arguing that there is value to society by contracting (not expanding) the definition of marriage by removing the words “of the opposite sex” and leaving the rest of the definition. But it’s because of feelings by others that it isn’t happening. At least not yet.
Comment by Pat — March 23, 2006 @ 9:44 am - March 23, 2006
My partner and I took the time, energy and effort to work thorough the legal process to have that bucketload of social “benefits” Matty demands as his right to be unionized.
It took time but it’s do-able; although we didn’t have to work on the issues of access to retirement health care benefits since it’s not an option for us. Total cost? About $1,300; the value is priceless.
I think Bush has it right and I sense he is sincere; civil unions are a fair compromise for society at this point in time. We need to compel our gayLeft brothers and sisters to drop their hardcore activism and turn our community’s attention to other civil rights.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 23, 2006 @ 10:12 am - March 23, 2006
Exactly what is your problem Bruce? That the Advocate reported the truth of the matter? There was nothing “leftist” in how and what they reported. If so kindly quote and prove it.
These are the policies of your Favorite guy, so why do you object to them being presented and discussed? Is your objection because statement of the facts might lead to criticism of your fearless leader? You would apparently prefer that all debate on the subject be silenced? Censored even? Really Bruce, an American such as yourself should really be the last person to try and sell other Americans on the “benefits” of tyrannical, Stalinist anti-freedom of the press principles. Don’t you think?
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — March 23, 2006 @ 11:05 am - March 23, 2006
Larry says:
Odd reasoning don’t you think? Thats the same exact rationale for polygamous marriage, a grand tradition of the Bible. That the critics of gay marriage say it will lead the country into adopting.
Get a clue Larry. Gays and lesbians don’t want “gay marriage”, what we want is traditional monogamous marriage. It’s people such as yourself that attach all the labels to it. The facts are that we have families and children to take care of just like straight people. So we should have benefits of marriage to help us shoulder those responsibilities like everyone else. So quit hiding simple prejudice behind pseudo-intellectual word games.
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — March 23, 2006 @ 11:11 am - March 23, 2006
Then you won’t have any problem doing it the correct way, through the state legislatures, rather than by a judicial absolute monarchy.
Comment by rightwingprof — March 23, 2006 @ 12:28 pm - March 23, 2006
Patrick… regrading your rhetorical query to Bruce… “(it’s about policies of) your Favorite guy, so why do you object to them being presented and discussed? Is your objection because statement of the facts might lead to criticism of your fearless leader? You would apparently prefer that all debate on the subject be silenced? Censored even?”
Is that sort of like rightwing blogs reminding America that J F Kerry still hasn’t released his Naval records –as he repeatedly promised to the press during the heat of his losing campaign? If a headline at Weekly Standard read “Kerry Still Hiding War Records” –it would be similar to the effort of the editors at Advocate.
Sometimes editors highlight an issue to “beg the question” –and you know that. Advocate editors are solidly in the Kerry-Feingold radical fringe camps of the Democrat party. To ask anyone to demonstrate the obvious is wasteful and nothing more than an attempt to brace a false assertion.
Advocate editors are just taking a page from HowieDean’s playbook… throw the mob some red meat to keep em feeding and near the trough. All the easier to persuade, sell to your base, build brand loyalty. Plus it’s a stunt that has political benefits… so that’s a bonus.
It’s no different than your earlier unsupported allegation that Sen Frist was getting ready to sally forth with Pro-marriage Constitutional Amendment issue even if he knows he doesn’t have the votes to win. Feed his base, build brand loyalty at the expense of countless gays wanting, needing, pleading for the right to marry their partner.
No different except it’s you defending the Advocate editors who want to gore Bush in the underbelly this time –and that makes it fair.
“Gays and lesbians don’t want “gay marriage”, what we want is traditional monogamous marriage.” Hmmm, I’m gay –my partner is gay, many of my friends are gay and we DON’T want that Patrick. The GayLeft doesn’t speak for us anymore than Democrats do.
What I think America doesn’t want is to expand the definition of marriage to a class of people who generally have a rotten track record on commited relationships and who generally define “long term relationships” in months and not years. Marriage is having a rough enough time in our culture –why we should do anything that diminishes it further just so some can be validated is sheer folly for the culture. Go construct a civil union and leave our marriage laws and traditions alone.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 23, 2006 @ 1:07 pm - March 23, 2006
Patrick: “So quit hiding simple prejudice behind pseudo-intellectual word games.”
I’m not the moderator of the site, but I think keeping the debate focused on public policy points would have greater utility than resorting to bullying tactics like demeaning Larry’s opinion. I didn’t discern any pseudo-intellectual word games in Larry’s post; just fair opinion backed by reasoning.
Don’t you?
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 23, 2006 @ 1:14 pm - March 23, 2006
“Gays and lesbians don’t want “gay marriage”, what we want is traditional monogamous marriage.” Hmmm, I’m gay –my partner is gay, many of my friends are gay and we DON’T want that Patrick.”
Isn’t that part of the whole debate? M-M already has the legal ability to do whatever he wants on this point. Others, who want something else, don’t.
Non-gay couples have the “common law” marriage option. There are guys here in Palm Springs who have been together for over 30 years. Would that be enough “common law” time?
I vote for something like the European system where all unions are civil, and then a second spiritual ritual is available, but not legally binding (I think).
Comment by Gene — March 23, 2006 @ 1:16 pm - March 23, 2006
#20 – “Gays and lesbians don’t want “gay marriage”, what we want is traditional monogamous marriage.”
LOL
Gryph – Show me a male couple that is out there on the activist front lines for gay marriage, and 80% of the time, I will be able to show you a couple that eschews monogamy as an offense to correct gay ideology.
Conversely: show me a male couple that truly wants and practices monogamy, and 80% of the time, I will be able to show you a couple that doesn’t think they need legal marriage to validate their relationship (or their mutual legal arrangements).
Comment by Calarato — March 23, 2006 @ 1:21 pm - March 23, 2006
Oh wait, the “prejudice” card was the self-loathing gay, homophobic manuever… I missed it entirely. Shame on Larry for his phobia. Let’s kick him to the curb and take away his “I’m Gay” card –and VdaK’s too. Gheez, who’d have thought imposed uniformity would be so hard in a community that is awash in fab fads, wildly eclipsing trends, and momentary “it” celebs.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 23, 2006 @ 1:21 pm - March 23, 2006
Well, maybe I should have said 75% (in both cases).
Comment by Calarato — March 23, 2006 @ 1:23 pm - March 23, 2006
well said Calarato –again.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 23, 2006 @ 1:23 pm - March 23, 2006
Gene, if those legal sanctions aren’t what gay activists want in the license to marry, what exactly is it that you THINK they want? The paper certificate? The act for validation? What?
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 23, 2006 @ 1:28 pm - March 23, 2006
M-M, Yes. One assumes they want legal sanction for their committment–as well as the 1,000 plus benefits which devolve from those sanctions. Others don’t want that–your friends who don’t are in good company: Robbins and Sarandon, Kurt and Goldie. Everybody should have equal opportunities to participate in the manner they choose.
With a bit of reluctance: didn’t property rights figure into the marriage equation, especially inheritance issues?
And then, there’s Boswell’s book which reproduces Christian blessings for same-sex couples. The marriage tapestry has many threads.
Comment by Gene — March 23, 2006 @ 2:15 pm - March 23, 2006
Bruce, VtheK, Larry Davis and Michigan-Matt, will you marry me? Polyandrously, of course …?
You have collectively stated exactly what I have always thought the on the gay-marriage issue and done it far more succinctly than I have ever been able to.
The only point I would add to your comments is the basic fact that homosexual relationships cannot produce biological offspring and thus do not propagate the species. (If you think this is irrelevant in modern times, take a look at Europe, where the population is aging and will soon start to decline because people aren’t having enough babies.) There are many arguments for allowing gay couples to receive marriage-like benefits, and this end can be achieved through civil unions. However, the most basic need of society is to ensure its own demographic survival, and that can only happen through heterosexual relationships. This is the fundamental reason for providing a special reward to those relationships.
Two arguments often raised against this point are gay adoption and childless heterosexual marriages. With regard to the first: Adoptions – gay or otherwise – are irrelevant to the issue because the children are not biological offspring of the adoptive parents. This doesn’t make them wrong or bad; it just means that they are not procreative and thus do not apply to the discussion. With regard to childless straight marriages, one can only say that the people in these marriages are enjoying an unintended side effect of a social practice not aimed at them. To eliminate the side effect would require fertility testing as a prerequisite for marriage, which would be both odious and counter-productive.
I guess that was more than an “only point.” Sorry about that. The marriage offer stands, however
Comment by Essex9999 — March 23, 2006 @ 3:05 pm - March 23, 2006
Essex9999, we beat the “gay” adoption thing too –our family is made up of two Dads, two sons and a yellow lab. In a suburban home. In the middle of the socialist state of Ann Arbor.
Gene, the oft quoted 1000+ benefits are kind of an overstatement. Look over that list sometime –about 30 of those are seriously germane; the others are nothing more than pile-on tits to make the apparent absence of same look larger and gay marriage more compelling. Compliments of the gayLeft.
Gheez, it’s not like us gays aren’t used to being told something is larger than it appears, eh?
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 23, 2006 @ 5:04 pm - March 23, 2006
If thats what you think, you don’t get out nearly enough. Besides, the same things happen with heterosexuals too. That doesn’t disqualify them from getting married in the first place. Or the second, or the third, etc.
Comment by Patrick (gryph) — March 23, 2006 @ 5:26 pm - March 23, 2006
Essex1999, I think it’s terrific that you think that social artifice is a stronger force than biological imperative.
Yeah, that was sarcasm.
Comment by God of Biscuits — March 23, 2006 @ 11:56 pm - March 23, 2006
God of Biscuits at #13 “I find it more telling that Bruce would rather keep rimming the President (hey, if you do it right, your nose doesn’t actually get brown) than admit that Bush’s response was no response at all”
I think it would have greater utility if you’d cease the personal attacks and focus on the policy debate at hand. I think even YOU can do that.
“Yeah, that was sarcasm.”
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 24, 2006 @ 9:52 am - March 24, 2006
So, God of Biscuits, do you oppose laws against pedophilia, because that’s imposing “social artifice” rather than following the “biological imperative” these people have to molest children?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 24, 2006 @ 1:23 pm - March 24, 2006
Michigan Matt, #23, you’re really the last person who ought to lecturing somebody about using “bullying” tactics and resorting to name-calling! Go back and read some of your posts.
Comment by Jack Allen — March 25, 2006 @ 2:42 am - March 25, 2006
Personal attacks, Matt? Holy Christ, you’re a hypocrite. You attack me on my blog, you attack me on this blog. you attack anyone and anyone’s motives who disagrees with you. you know, instead of refuting the statements those folks make.
you’re an intellectual coward. I’m not accusing. I’m just concluding it.
Comment by God of Biscuits — March 29, 2006 @ 5:13 am - March 29, 2006