Give Him Credit, But Expect More
I was raised in a home where, no matter what, you showed respect to the person who holds the title “President of the United States.” You might not like that person, or agree with him, but you showed respect to him and to the office. Period.
I have not always followed that rule with the current President, but I do think he deserves credit for what he said to People magazine about Mary Cheney.
Responding to a question about his 2005 comment that “a child is raised in a married family with a man and a woman”, the President said that the Vice President’s openly gay daughter is going to be “a loving soul to her child”.“The Vice President took me aside and gave me the good news. He and his wife, Lynne, are very happy for Mary,â€? Bush said. “I think Mary is going to be a loving soul to her child. And I’m happy for her.â€?
So give him credit, but at the same time, expect/hope/demand that he extend the same civility to other openly gay individuals and couples, whether he likes their chosen lifestyle or not.
Yes, Presidents deserve our demonstrated respect … when they, in turn, demonstrate respect to all of their constituents.
Share This
I don’t think Bush deserves any credit for saying the most apolitical thing he could regarding a very divisive political topic. What is so hard about that?
I have no doubt that President Bush meant what he said, but what would really earn my respect would be having the political courage to extend Mary Cheney and her family the same rights that other citizens in this country enjoy. There are 100 million reasons why he would never do that- the numcer of evangelicals in America that constitute a large segment of his base. He can wish Mary Cheney well, but his party’s position which put a law outlawing gay marriage on the ballot in her home state of Virginia says it all. With Bush, as with many politicians, actions speak louder than words.
Well, generally, the president deserves respect for his difficult, even sometimes dangerous job (check assasination on Wikipedia). But there is an obligation for Bush, too, he has to respect the people he is serving. I don’t think this can be a one way street, with the ppresident all but accusing the majority of citizen of aiding the terrorists, when they call for withdrawal, and those very people still having an obligation to respect him. Sorry, but that doesn’t make sense. Maybe elected presidents deserve respect, but they have to earn it to keep it.
Just to strenghten my point: Who still respected Nixon after August 5, 1974?
What an opportunity to be inspiring leaders. President Bush and VP Cheney to publicly declare that gays deserve the fair and equal treatment of the law. That homosexuality is for the most part not discretionary but an expression of God’s will which we should accept and respect.
Image a leader… leading.
Well I somehow dont think that God wills homosexuality. Its very existence is an annomoly of nature. Yes there are gay animals and gay people and gay micro organisms but the very nature of all creatures is to PROCREATE to insure the perpetuation of the species. Homosexual relationships are not capable of procreating and therefore I do not think they have Gods Endorsement as Paul in Austin proclaims.
Now let me say this. God loves Homosexuals as much as he loves any Christians. The question then becomes what rights have gays been denied? The same rights that come with marriage. No one is saying we dont want these people to have maritial rights and enjoy the freedoms and priveledges that every other American has. THIS IS MORE LIES PREPETUATED by the GAY RIGHTS MOVEMENT.
We are not saying that Gays should not have every right that any other American or World Citizen has. We are NOT saying that Gays should be banned, persecuted or otherwise reduced in anyway to second class citizens.
Most Christians are simply stating if you want these protections then Civil Unions will grant you this and the sanctity of MARRIAGE shall remain defined as a man and a woman. Lord, why is this such a hard pill to swallow other then to just continue to stir the pot against Christians as somehow being evil????
Since when has the President ever done anything different? Your suggestion that he “extend the same civility” to others suggests that he has not done so before. Any evidence of that? “Gay marriage” and related issues are political disputes. One can respect one’s political opponents without agreeing with their political positions, no matter how stridently and self-righteously demanded.
For that matter, the President has voiced support for civil unions (he said that very clearly in one of the debates against Kerry). Instead of working toward a compromise, however, activists for the gay community have largely demanded all or nothing, rather than working toward a political compromise.
Peter,
Like you, I too was brought up to respect the office, but not necessarily the man. And this particular president deserves none whatsoever. To witness what is being done in our name to people who he continues to insist were picked up on the battlefield when even those charged with interrogating them admit many were handed over for money and are in all likelihood innocent, is to watch the soul of America withering before our eyes.
Suggesting he is deserving of our respect for making a statement any friend would be expected to make shows how warped America has become under his leadership.
amen, Truflo! Too many lives have been sacrificed out of respect for this man and his policy- he doesn’t deserve it in my view.
I respect our system of government. Our founders established 3 branches which were supposed to function autonomously, in order to keep any one part from seizing too much power. We have witnessed what occurs when a man with poor judgement, but a big ego, goes on a power grab, and the other branches cease to serve as checks and balances as they were intended.
Does continued arrogance and incompetence at the highest level deserve our respect? Don’t we have the right to expect a president to live up to any of their campaign promises? Or is this pre-9/11 thinking? In the post-9/11 world do human rights and our constitutional checks and balances still matter? I say they should matter now more than ever. Much more than respect for one petty individual who has risen far beyond his level of competence does.
Upinsmoke
If God is infallible then how can Homosexuality not be his/her intention?
Perhaps homsexuality is one of God’s methods for controlling population growth?
So it’s just the Jews, Muslims, Wiccans etc. that God doesn’t love?
If so, Paul, then we are circumventing his plan by allowing artificial insemination and IVF
I’m not saying I necessarily agree with that view, but my statement follows logically from it, doesn’t it? My personal view is that it isn’t really something that is knowable, in terms of the “why” of homosexuality. I think we should err on the side of giving respect and civil rights to those who feel they are inherently homosexual, but at the same time I don’t feel that those rights include the right to have everyone agree that the practice is morally equivalent to heterosexual monogamous unions.
Upinsmoke, you said:
Frankly, that might be the most ignorant paragraph I’ve ever read. What rights have gays been denied? Well, in most states they can’t get married. They can’t adopt children. They do not get medical benefits for their partners. They have no legal recourse in custody, healthcare, or any other life-altering decisions that a heterosexual couple has automatically.
No one is saying they shouldn’t have these rights? Where have you been for the last 10 years? There are groups like Focus on the Family, the 700 Club, The American Family Association, the majority of Christian denominations, and most of the Republican Party that speak out regularly, denouncing gays and claiming that civil unions or marriage rights for gays are an abomination. That allowing gay men and women to create their own families is tantamount to wrecking the entire institution of marriage for everyone. These are not lies perpetuated by the Gay Rights Movement any more than glitter and feather boas for everyone is the ultimate goal of the Gay Agenda.
If you want to find out what these people really think about homosexuality and marriage rights, try the AFA suggested reading list or take a look at Pat Robertson’s responses to questions about homosexuality. My personal favorite is the candy-coated prejudice found on the sexual identity issues page of Focus on the Family’s website.
C Stanley, I don’t feel that those rights include the right to have everyone agree that the practice of Christian marriage is morally equivalent to pagan non-monogamous unions.
But can one circumvent God’s intentions?
I am not religious. I was only expressing my secular point of view that people are people and laws should be fair and equally applied.
I accept that some societies are not yet ready to accept Gay marriage, but civil unions is pretty reasonable progress.
“Well I somehow dont think that God wills homosexuality.”
And I somehow think that God wants us to love our neighbors in the first place, no matter what sexual preferences they have. And it is a neighborly thing to support people who are in a longtime partnership to have the rights to legally care for each other and for their children (if they have some). I understand you are for civil unions, too? Great. But sadly, not all support the idea.
“No one is saying we dont want these people to have maritial rights and enjoy the freedoms and priveledges that every other American has.”
Sorry, but that’s wrong. There are people who are stomping for bills that will deny gay couples exactly those rights. If they are successful, this will result in gays not neing able to care for their partner nor for his children in the case of trouble. There have been lots of news reports covering this.
And one last point:
“the sanctity of MARRIAGE shall remain defined as a man and a woman”
Personally, I couldn’t care less if its called marriage or civil union. But since you raised the point: By speaking of the “sanctity of MARRIAGE”, you essentially consede that marriage is a religious issue. But if its a religious issue, what legal grounds, if any, are there for the US to privilege it with special rights? And what about other churches who may have different views on marriage? I see a whole lot of problems attached to your view.
Mainly the state’s interest is in supporting the family construct for children. I personally would be in favor of that being the only real function of “civil unions”, and leave the rest up to churches.
There are actually some other tangential benefits to society for people to be in committed monogamous relationships though, and one could argue that these form the basis of the special legal status. For example, people in these relationships tend to be healthier, to have more economic power for home ownership, and (theoretically, if they are truly monogamous), to avoid STDs and pregnancies that are not able to be supported by both parents.
So then shouldn’t all heterosexual couples that want to get married be forced to procreate?
And as for the original topic, Bush doesn’t deserve credit for mouthing niceties. Actions do speak louder than words.
Uh, if you read the rest of my post you’ll see that I said I’d support special legal status only for those that have children (no one is forcing anyone to have children, just saying that the main point of having any benefit to a legal marriage or civil union contract would be to recognize the state’s responsibility toward the children involved, when they are involved). From there, anyone who believes that marriage has a religious, convental quality to it would seek to have that ratified by their church. Anyone who wants to cohabitate and not have children could have some other kind of secular ceremony if they simply wanted to plege a lifelong commitment of monogamy to a spouse (either of the opposite gender or their own). To me that is ultimately the most fair and constitutional of constructs to define the various types of unions.
Well, that may be why you’re missing my theological point. Yes, one can circumvent God’s intention, because we believe that He gave us free will to do so, and we believe that it is sinful to intentionally do so.
Yet you want Bush and Cheney to make a statement that Christians should recognize that homosexuality is simply part of God’s will. I agreed with the first part of your post about this (that it would be an opportune time for them to publicly state that gays should have equal treatment under the law), but I disagree when you say that they should also include the second part of your statement because that implies that everyone must fully accept homosexuality as morally equivalent to heterosexuality. The latter is not only not required by the constitution, but it would be contrary to it. We aren’t required to agree with other people’s morality or stop thinking of certain individual’s behavior as immoral; we are simply required to treat them with full respect and give them equal legal status.
I am comfortable with your revision of my statement leaving the religious overtones out.
I have no personal experience of a personal God and have little clue on how to relate.
Morgan: Get rid of your hatred for anyone that espouses an opinion that differs from your own an reread what I posted.
I admitted that they have been deprived the rights that come with marriage. I chose to then focus on rectifying this with Civil unions rather then Marriage.
This is the classic example of why no one listens to the other as we all just start shouting our point of view as if OUR VIEW is the omni potent viewpoint of the entire universe.
I am ALL for granting GAYS all the rights and priveldges afforded married people and I think most Christians are too. MOST. The debate now has switched to a single word or phrase…….MARRIAGE.
All this Bible/God stuff. Not a very original story, is it? I mean really, do you believe in virgin birth, announced by an angel, heralded by a star in the east, raising the dead, resurrection following crucifixion? All that?
Oh, did you think I meant Jesus? No way, I meant the original, a thousand years earlier from whom the entire story seems to have been lifted. The Egyptian God Horus.
I like myths, and the have much to teach us, especially the hero journey. We don’t have to believe them literally. Oh, and by the way, Merry Christmas.
One billion Muslims are opposed to gay marriage too. Most Christians do not belong to those groups you mentioned. Remember there are by a consevative guess about 90 percent of all DEMOCRATS elected……..CHRISTIANS.
By your hatred of CHRISTIANS you are condemning nearly all of America as being Followers of PAT ROBERTSON or what other groups you mentioned.
THIS IS more LIES perpetuated that somehow because the 700 club airs on cable with about a 1 share that ALL Christians are DEMANDING GAYS be SHOT.
READ the article here on PSA. This is what I continually harp against………Lets talk about facts not perceptions.
MOST DEMOCRATS IN FAVOR OF GAY RIGHTS ARE CHRISTIANS.
Stop with the blatant falsehoods about Christians and what they believe.
To me his sentiments are typical of the right wing. They believe in a black and white morality that virtually no one lives up to, and when it applies to themselves or someone they know exceptions can be made. But the rest of the godless liberals out there better start going to church and repenting.
Slamfu- I agree. The Reagans didn’t support stem cell research until Ronnie was stricken with Alzheimer’s Disease. Then Mrs. Reagan became an advocate for federal funding, testifying numerous times in Washington.
The Brady’s were conservative supporters of gun owner’s rights until Jim Brady was shot in the head. Then his friends and family lobbied for The Brady Bill, to limit handgun rights.
This falls into the same category.
What exactly is the complaint about Bush in regard to the gay civil union issue? He’s already said that he would support this if the citizens of states vote to enact such legislation (though I think he opposes the use of the term marriage). I think that some of you are mistaking Bush’s position for that of some of the fundamentalist leaders who don’t want to allow any kind of recognition of gay unions.
You mean we’re confusing the fundamentalist Christians with the Republican party?
Whoa. I wonder how that happened.
egrubs,
I suppose you think it is perfectly understandable to confuse radical environmentalist groups, anti-war activists (including the ones who harass families who’ve lost loved ones in the war), militant African American groups, free trade protestors and animal rights activists with the Democratic party then, and to assume that all Democratic candidates espouse the views of all of the voters who put them in office.
Upinsmoke don’t even try to pretend that the Focus on the Family types are trying to extend civil unions and the frothing “gay lobby” is demanding marriage. This is very easily provable since the base for most of those groups — Colorado — actually had two amendments for the last election.
The first amendment banned homosexual “marriage.”
The second amendment would adopt homosexual “unions.”
The first had a large base of support and even the gay rights groups weren’t even challenging it. The second one was relatively close and all of those Focus on the Family and related organizations were very loud about how it needed to be defeated.
To be fair, I assume most of those that voted yes for both are Christians but there were enough that voted no on the second that it didn’t pass — I believe it got 45% yes.
CS I’d respect your point about Bush if he were consistent. He can get away with saying that in theory if states were to extend civil unions then it’d be fine because in most states it’s not an issue. If it were, I’m sure the rhetoric would change to reflect what it did recently in Colorado where people argued you can’t let there be unions because it’s just a stepping stone to try to get marriage (or that it’ll make everyone devalue marriage more or whatever inane argument).
If civil unions are good enough to be left to federalism marriage should too because all the relevant law is handled at the state level. Thus I’d expect Bush to either say all should be left to the states or try to push for a ban on both on the federal level.
I should note that I think on a personal level I doubt Bush even cares much about banning marriage and definitely is happy when his gay friends find lifelong mates. I think he is genuine about his compassion and empathy for individuals while completely oblivious to how policy affects people. In that way he’s the opposite of most politicians.
I guess I should have said:
You mean we’re confusing the evangelicals, Baptists, Catholics, Mormons, and fundamentalist Christians with the Republican party?
Whoa. I wonder how that happened.
What is the complaint about Bush? Here is the amendment to the U.S. Constitution that he supports.
“Marriage in the United States of America shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.
Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.”
Read the second sentence. It’s quite clear. The 2004 revision made clear that it was aimed only at same-sex couples. Bush supported the idea of civil unions? The so-called FMA explicitly bans them. Please not that it states that no constitution at the state or federal level or any law at either level may require that the legal incidents of marriage can be conferred on unmarried couples. Since gays can’t get married they can’t receive any rights resembling marriage so civil unions would be banned by this Constitutional amendment that Bush has repeatedly stated he supports.