Gay-marriage monkey see... gay-marriage monkey do....
Bush pushes for gay marriage ban - Politics - MSNBC.com:
Ladies and gentlemen, if you look south of the border you can see a desperate president with approval ratings in the 30's making a desperate, some say disgusting political ploy to rally his so-called "Christian" conservative base to the polls for this year's mid-term elections by attempting to write bigotry and discrimination into the Constitution of the United States of America....
And now if you shift your gaze 180 degrees and look north of the border you will see a conservative Prime Minister who, when he is not feuding with the national news media and making false claims of bias, he can be seen in his natural habitat of mimicking the US President by scheduling a vote on same-sex marriage in the House of Commons in the fall of 2006....
So why do this? And who is monkeying who in this case?
What do the articles say?:
"An election-year debate on the constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman was never in doubt, however doomed the legislation. As Republicans geared up to defend their majorities in the House and Senate, conservative groups earlier this year let them know that they were dissatisfied with the GOP’s efforts on several social issues, including gay marriage."
What does A.L. say?:
Bush fears a loss of the Republican majorities in the House and the Senate.
Why?
Because a Democratic House could move forward on articles of impeachment and a Democratic Senate would then mete out the punishment.
For what?
Illegal surveilance of Americans on US Soil, over-hyping Iraq war intelligence known to be false, etc.
Would they really do that?
Surely those are much more heinous crimes against the country than lying about cigars, a blue dress, and office stress-relief practices.... If not, what kind of bizarro-world are we living in?
In Canada, the PM's moves are a little more puzzling, but maybe better politics, and maybe with slightly more moral justification.
During the campaign Harper said he would re-visit the Same-Sex Marriage issue, and now he is doing just that.
But, this is not really going to bring him any political advantage. He wants to increase his seat-count in both Ontario and Quebec if he is to achieve his desired Parliamentary majority. In both provinces, reversing SSM is not a popular idea.
So, to deflect that criticism a bit, the vote will only be on whether Parliament would like to re-visit the SSM issue, and not a direct vote to bring back the supposed "traditional definition of marriage". So, people can be absent, and MPs can come up with all manner of talking points to explain how their vote (either way) actually supports the view of those for and those against SSM.
It's actually pretty good politics.
So folks, you can see both politicians are pandering to their respective bases, but one is attempting to distance himself a bit from his base, and the other is trying to get cozier.
Our tour of the Canada-US border ends here.... Come back soon! It may not be the world's longest undefended border for long!
A.L.
1 Comments:
Oh, EX-NDIP you've been gone so long, I was beginning to think you were dead....
Pity.
Anyhow, I will now engage in reasoned debate with you, even though you don't give me the same in return... It's like a bad relationship that we just can't get out of, isn't it?
I am pretty sure you didn't read my post in its' entirety, because if you had you would have read this:
"During the campaign Harper said he would re-visit the Same-Sex Marriage issue, and now he is doing just that."
So, you can see that I did mention Harper's campaign promise-pandering to his base, and now he is following through on his promise.
Good for him. Still, it is fair game to ponder the reasons why, and that was the point of my post.
And, yes GWB did campaign to write discrimination into the US Constitution, but it is very clear it will not pass even a Senate vote. So, he is wasting government time and money on an issue that is not nearly as important to Americans as the impending hurricane season, the war in Iraq, rising gasoline prices, immigration, I could go on and on.
Make no mistake, bringing up a SSM Constitutional amendment at this time in his presidency is an example of a Weapon of Mass Distraction. It is deployed at times when a presidency is particularly unpopular. Some say, Clinton even used one in his day. Have you seen "Wag the Dog"?
As a, oh how did you put it? 'Real person' with 'real values' of tolerance, true Christianity, morality and patriotism, I think it's morally disgusting to use the issue of SSM for political gain.
Bush is of course more guilty of this than Harper is. At least Harper can read the tea leaves and understands that it is a losing fight.
Harper has a long way to go before he gains the stature remotely close to that of Chretien.
There, I think I have answered each of your challenges, if that's what you call them.
Again, I implore you to think before you write, read the whole posting before commenting and try to make coherent, logical arguments.
That's what I give, and I treat my neighbours as I would like to be treated. The same goes for my blog commenters.
Is that too much to ask?
Cheers,
A.L.
Post a Comment
<< Home