# A vote for Bush is a vote for bigotry. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 10, 2004, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-vote-for-bush-is-a-vote-for-bigotry/254487 "2004-07-10T21:42:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2004, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-vote-for-bush-is-a-vote-for-bigotry/254487/21 "2004-07-10T23:49:39Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Absolutely. And I would remind you that Bill Clinton supported the 1996 legislation that defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman when he signed the so-called Defense of Marriage Act. Yes he did, and he was wrong and I ripped him for it, but I would also point out that DOMA was a fairly toothless act of legislation. It defines marriage as being between a penis and a vagina at a federal level and it says that states don’t have to recognize gay marriage under the Full faith and Credit Clause. It’s still stupid, but it doesn’t ban states from legalizing gay marriage as Bush’s amendment would and it doesn’t ban civil unions as Bush’s amendment would. Furthermore, Clinton’s support of both DOMA and DADT were the result of pragmatic political compromises. They were _concessions_ to the other side, not initiatives from Clinton himself. Clinton did not use homophobia as an active and aggressive wedge issue to rally personal support from a bigoted base. And aside from the policy issues we still have a POTUS who is hurling completely unsupported slurs against a huge and diverse group of American citizens. > [@](#): > > And in its News Editorial of February 26, [In Newsweekly](http://www.innewsweekly.com/Pages/NewsStories/current%20week/1327/fred022604.html), which bills itself as “companion to New England’s largest Gay & Lesbian News & Entertainment Weekly” wrote: Kerry, in typical Kerry fashion, is simply nuancing his position. His amemnability to possibly supporting the penis/vagina definition of marriage is really more semantic than substantive. He still supports civil unions and he hasn’t said that Rosie O’Donnel is going to “undermine” my family. ---
**Author:** ![SolGrundy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bbce88/32.png) [@SolGrundy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SolGrundy)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2004, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-vote-for-bush-is-a-vote-for-bigotry/254487/22 "2004-07-10T23:51:48Z")
> [@Brutus](#): > > Give them a break. It’s all they have in their empty little lives. My life would be a little less empty if some dipshit weren’t denying me the right to marry the man I love just so he could stay in office. Also: you are a colossal twat. Come back to the thread when you have something useful to contribute, fuckwit. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2004, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-vote-for-bush-is-a-vote-for-bigotry/254487/23 "2004-07-10T23:58:33Z")
[Kerry’s stance on SSM](http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/2004/02/26/kerry_backs_state_ban_on_gay_marriage/): He opposes SSM. He opposes a federal constitutional amendment. He supports an amendment to the state constitution of Massachusetts, but only if said amendment provides for civil unions which offer all the same rights, benefits and responsibilities of marriage. This is not a very pro-gay position. It is, however, light years ahead of the Bush position, which would result in the destruction of thousands of actual marriages in the aleeged name of “saving marriage.” To address yet again the tired “Clinton signed DOMA” argument…yes, Clinton signed DOMA and he is not to be forgiven for it. However, there is a difference between signing a law which is vulnerable to Constitutional attack and making the passage of a federal anti-marriage amendment a central issue in a presidential campaign. Bush is an evil fucker for a lot of reasons, and his commitment to the destruction of legal families in Massachusetts (and apparently as of Friday, [Oregon](http://news.findlaw.com/ap_stories/l/0000/7-9-2004/20040709180004_01.html)) is one of them. And for all of you who feel the compulsion to open up threads for the sole purpose of complaining about the existence of the thread on the front page, shut the fuck up ya whiny fucks. If you don’t like a thread, ignore it and eventually it will go away. Get a fucking grip. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2004, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-vote-for-bush-is-a-vote-for-bigotry/254487/24 "2004-07-11T00:05:04Z")
And may I add that I am proud to be a resident of the only state to date with a governor who has [vetoed](http://www.jsonline.com/news/state/nov03/183291.asp) in its entirety a DOMA, rightly calling it “divisive” and “mean-spirited.” Good on ya, Jim Doyle! ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2004, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-vote-for-bush-is-a-vote-for-bigotry/254487/25 "2004-07-11T00:06:58Z")
Personally I think this is like Bush Sr’s flag-burning amendment - something to get the media and the masses all worked up over in order to distract them from other issues. I doubt Bush really cares whether it passes or not, as long as it keeps people from asking about more awkward issues (of course, he could always tell them to “go fuck themselves” if they did). Which is not to say that we shouldn’t oppose the amendment. I hate these constant attempts to tinker with the Constitution, almost as much as I hate the constant attempts to undermine it with legislation supposedly in defense of the country. But I digress. And while I don’t think Rosie O’Donnell is a threat to my marriage, I know that the quality of my life is improved by her absence from my television. Maybe we could get some legislation for that? ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2004, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-vote-for-bush-is-a-vote-for-bigotry/254487/26 "2004-07-11T00:10:29Z")
> [@](#): > > I’m pretty sure that no matter what your political philosophy is, we can all agree that certain ideas and attitudes are beyond the pale and that when a candidate for office expresses, hateful, ignorant, bigoted and uninformed opinions he has disqualified himself from serious consideration. Well, no. Because here’s the thing: Realistically, we only have the two choices. (There is no viable third choice, and the Dems would do well to convince Nader of that before he hamstrings them again.) So on this limited Chinese menu, you can have Column A, or you can have Column B, but you can’t have both. And if you order A, because it’s got the shrimp fried rice and the mu shu guy pan, maybe you also have to take the vile egg drop soup that comes with it. You may hate the egg drop soup with every fiber of your being, but if there’s nothing in Column B you think you can live with, you’re going to order A anyway. In other words, for people who are not one-issue voters, you have to look at who you think is going to be the best guy for the job _overall_. Most people have issues that are deal-breakers for them, and it’s no surprise that for many, many gay people, gay rights is that issue. But for many people who are _not_ gay, it is certainly defensible to be far more concerned about things like the economy and the validity of the nation being at war. For most of us, this is not a one-issue contest, and it’s stupid to demand that we treat it as if it is. I don’t think GWB is a bigot, I think he’s a pragmatist. But even if he was the biggest bigot from Bigottown, I might still vote for him if my only other choice was someone I thought was even worse. Nothing dismisses either of them from consideration, because they are the only real choice we have, and we _have_ to choose. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2004, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-vote-for-bush-is-a-vote-for-bigotry/254487/27 "2004-07-11T00:10:49Z")
> [@Brutus](#): > > Give them a break. It’s all they have in their empty little lives. Oh, its more than that, friend **Brutus** , its a hoot! The Forces of Darkness, so recently impregnable, are getting the living snot kicked out of them, and the angels chuckle. It is well. Its not simply that the Bushiviks move toward a Constitutional amendment is wrong, it is that it is utterly cynical as well. It will ultimately fail in its purpose, even if it should succeed in passage. It defines “marriage”, but, at the same time, it does not. What is to stop a state from sanctioning a "contract for living " that mirrors some or all of what is commonly known as “marriage”, and calling it something else entirely? Which court gets to decide if a given arrangement is sufficiently akin to marriage to qualify? Further, even if it should get past our craven congresscritters, it will still have to be ratified, and that will take years. GeeDubya is urgently pressing for action that will have no effect in the immediate future. When the gavel drops and the Amendment is agreed to, nothing at all will have changed. Nothing, but a sanctimonious display of empty moralism. States that are performing or permitting such marriages may continue on the presumption that full ratification will never occur. Its entirely possible. The Pubbies are professional politicians, they know all this, they’ve had civics classes. This is nothing more than an empty gesture towards a political constituency that they ought to be ashamed of. But it may even be worse than morally wrong, it may be politicly stupid. Our bent brethren and sistren have made tremendous strides PR-wise. The photos of dull as dishwater, ordinary, _non-scary_ homosexuals getting married, wearing suits and ties, being congratulated by family…they look so _normal_. And if enough Americans feel that the amendment makes nice folks feel bad for no good reason…look out. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2004, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-vote-for-bush-is-a-vote-for-bigotry/254487/28 "2004-07-11T00:14:31Z")
> [@](#): > > However, there is a difference between signing a law which is vulnerable to Constitutional attack and making the passage of a federal anti-marriage amendment a central issue in a presidential campaign. There certainly is. One is enshrining discrimination as law, while the other is talking it up on the stump. Neither is either president’s shining moment, but I don’t think you want to seriously argue about which is realistically more damaging. ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2004, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-vote-for-bush-is-a-vote-for-bigotry/254487/29 "2004-07-11T00:23:21Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Oh, its more than that, friend **Brutus** , its a hoot! The Forces of Darkness, so recently impregnable, are getting the living snot kicked out of them, and the angels chuckle. It is well. Yes, and for all that shit-kicking, the polls are flat. Like I have said before, you fellahs should pace yourselves. You have another 4 1/2 years of starting stupid threads regarding this President Bush, and quite possibly another 8 regarding the right honorable Jebediah. Relax a little! Flip on the TV and root for the noble Iraqi ‘insurgents’ or whatever you do when not posting here. Perish the thought that you may burn out before the Bush family runs out of Presidents! ---
**Author:** ![SolGrundy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bbce88/32.png) [@SolGrundy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SolGrundy)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2004, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-vote-for-bush-is-a-vote-for-bigotry/254487/30 "2004-07-11T00:26:07Z")
> [@Jodi](#): > > Most people have issues that are deal-breakers for them, and it’s no surprise that for many, many gay people, gay rights is that issue. But for many people who are _not_ gay, it is certainly defensible to be far more concerned about things like the economy and the validity of the nation being at war. For most of us, this is not a one-issue contest, and it’s stupid to demand that we treat it as if it is. So in other words, this is only an issue for the homos to deal with. And we have to take it on the chin for the good of the country until the war’s over. I think it’s stupid to dismiss human rights as a secondary concern. Especially to the economy. But I guess it’s because I’m just one of those over-emotional drama queens. I just hope that after the war’s over and we’ve successfully repelled the Iraqi invasion, there’s still an America left worth living in. ---
**Author:** ![Brainiac4](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/brainiac4/32/3534_2.png) [@Brainiac4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brainiac4)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2004, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-vote-for-bush-is-a-vote-for-bigotry/254487/31 "2004-07-11T00:27:46Z")
I find it interesting that this is being covered as mere political posturing. From the [Reuters story](http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=2&u=/nm/20040710/pl_nm/campaign_bush_dc) on it: > [@](#): > > The constitutional amendment would need approval by two-thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives and then would have to be ratified by 38 states. **Even supporters admit they do not have the support of half of the 100 senators**. (bolding mine) So this is about as meaningful as yesterday’s non-increase in the terror alert level. Sound and fury, signifying nothing. It does make me dislike the guy more, but not because he’s really going to do something to prevent gays from marrying. No, I dislike him more because he’s using fear (of gays and lesbians, in this instance) to motivate his base and increase his vote count. And that’s despicable. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2004, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-vote-for-bush-is-a-vote-for-bigotry/254487/32 "2004-07-11T00:28:10Z")
> [@Jodi](#): > > There certainly is. One is enshrining discrimination as law, while the other is talking it up on the stump. Neither is either president’s shining moment, but I don’t think you want to seriously argue about which is realistically more damaging. Oh yes I do. DOMA is largely symbolic and, in truth, does not actually prevent SSM from being legalized, performed or recognized at a state level, neither does it prevent the legalization of civil unions neither did actively _dissolve_ any existing marriages or destroy existing familes. Bush’s amendment would do all those things. It’s like the difference between legislating against affirmative action and advocating a return to Jim Crow on the stump. The latter is not destructive or reprehensible simply because it may not have any chance of passing. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2004, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-vote-for-bush-is-a-vote-for-bigotry/254487/33 "2004-07-11T00:29:32Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > The latter is not destructive or reprehensible simply because it may not have any chance of passing. Damn it! That should have said the latter is not _less_ destructive…" ---
**Author:** ![Brainiac4](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/brainiac4/32/3534_2.png) [@Brainiac4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brainiac4)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2004, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-vote-for-bush-is-a-vote-for-bigotry/254487/34 "2004-07-11T00:32:54Z")
> [@Brutus](#): > > You have another 4 1/2 years of starting stupid threads regarding this President Bush, and quite possibly another 8 regarding the right honorable Jebediah. Relax a little! Flip on the TV and root for the noble Iraqi ‘insurgents’ or whatever you do when not posting here. Perish the thought that you may burn out before the Bush family runs out of Presidents! Point 1, re Jeb: Have you _seen_ Jeb Bush? The man looks like he was assembled from parts of lesser Bushes – he’s a giant freaky-looking guy. There’s a reason why the Bush clan ran GW. Point 2, re “rooting for the noble Iraqi insurgents”: **Fuck you**. As with the majority of liberals and Democrats on this board, I love my country. I support the men and women in uniform, who are out there dying. I do not – WE do not – root for the noble Iraqi insurgents, and you fucking know it. **Asshole**. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2004, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-vote-for-bush-is-a-vote-for-bigotry/254487/35 "2004-07-11T00:38:11Z")
> [@Brutus](#): > > Flip on the TV and root for the noble Iraqi ‘insurgents’ or whatever you do when not posting here. Y’know, I remember the days in which **Brutus** used to make constructive contributions to threads. These days I can’t decide whether he still seriously believes that opposing Bush is the same as supporting Saddam Hussein and/or wishing harm to our troops, or he just keeps repeating this stuff to annoy people. Stupidity or malice: you pick. ---
**Author:** ![leander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/bcef8e/32.png) [@leander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/leander)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2004, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-vote-for-bush-is-a-vote-for-bigotry/254487/36 "2004-07-11T00:41:37Z")
> [@Brutus](#): > > Give them a break. It’s all they have in their empty little lives. As opposed to **Brutus** , who spends his days chasing bugs around the yard and then babbling on for pages about it here. Oh wait, maybe we’re actually talking about the same things… ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2004, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-vote-for-bush-is-a-vote-for-bigotry/254487/37 "2004-07-11T00:45:09Z")
Yeah, **Brutus** , is that a new low or merely another one? ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2004, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-vote-for-bush-is-a-vote-for-bigotry/254487/38 "2004-07-11T01:03:31Z")
SOLGRUNDY – > [@](#): > > So in other words, this is only an issue for the homos to deal with. Right, because this is _exactly_ what I said. Oh, wait, no it isn’t. In fact, it doesn’t even fucking remotely resemble _anything_ I said. “This is not a one-issue campaign” != “No one gives the smallest shit about this issue except you.” Sorry if that distinction escaped you. I never said human rights should be “dismissed.” But while you are certainly have the right to consider gay marriage more important than the war or the economy, you don’t have the right to inform me, or anyone else, that we must feel the same way. Let’s hope you consider the America of tomorrow worth living in; if not, I’m sure we’ll miss you very much. DIOGENES – > [@](#): > > Oh yes I do. DOMA is largely symbolic and, in truth, does not actually prevent SSM from being legalized, performed or recognized at a state level, neither does it prevent the legalization of civil unions neither did actively dissolve any existing marriages or destroy existing familes. Bush’s amendment would do all those things. I’m interested to hear that you think the DOMA is largely symbolic, and surprised to hear you dismissing the power of symbolic government action. That hardly jibes with how you’ve posted on the subject in the past. I, on the other hand, do not consider any act that prohibits people from receiving federal benefits they would otherwise be entitled to as “largely symbolic.” I also consider even “largely symbolic” federal laws to be very dangerous, since they almost always supercede state laws when the two conflict. Very few federal laws summarily prevent anything from being performed at the state level. The problem is the standard the federal law sets, and the problem is that if there is later a conflict between the two, the federal law wins. Furthermore, if you’re going to parse out “civil unions” from “marriage,” I must point out that a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage would not necessarily prevent the legalization of civil unions, either. But the bottom line is that it is IMO just dumb to compare what a hypothetical law _would_ do (if passed, which is unlikely for reasons already set forth), with what an existing law, in full force and effect, _does_ do. If Bushe’s amendment passes, the earth may crash into the sun, but then if my aunt had balls, she’d be my uncle. > [@](#): > > It’s like the difference between legislating against affirmative action and advocating a return to Jim Crow on the stump. The latter is no less destructive or reprehensible simply because it may not have any chance of passing. Well, reprehensible is a judgment call, of course, but it seems to me self-evident that, in terms of impact, a proposed law is much less destructive than a real law, because the former has zero legal effect whatsoever. ---
**Author:** ![Saltire](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saltire/32/553_2.png) [@Saltire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saltire)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2004, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-vote-for-bush-is-a-vote-for-bigotry/254487/39 "2004-07-11T01:24:13Z")
[QUOTE=Brutus] right honorable Jebediah. [QUOTE] By the way, the First Little Brother’s name is John Ellis Bush. ‘Jeb’ comes from his initials, not as an abbreviation of Jebediah. ---
**Author:** ![Morgyn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/morgyn/32/3041_2.png) [@Morgyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgyn)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2004, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-vote-for-bush-is-a-vote-for-bigotry/254487/40 "2004-07-11T01:40:35Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Dopers, I give you [George W. Bush](http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/37773%7Ctop%7C07-10-2004::14:46%7Creuters.html), who has now gone on record as saying that allowing same-sex marroage will somehow “undermine” the American family. Here are the Chimp’s own words: > > > [@](#): > > > > “A great deal is at stake in this matter,” Bush said. “For ages, in every culture, human beings have understood that traditional marriage is critical to the well-being of families. … And changing the definition of traditional marriage will undermine the family structure.” Maybe someone should teach him a little history. He obviously wasn’t paying attention in class if he thinks history validates his position. The Old Testament Jews often had one man, many women marriages, as did the Egyptian culture, the Chinese culture, and the Islamic culture. Brehon law (Welsh, Scots, or Irish? I can never remember) provided for, I think, about 5 or 6 different types of marriage, including ones between the same sexes, one for short durations, and ones for multiple partners. Last week I sent a very emphatic letter to my federal representatives telling them that if they supported this amendment, I would be actively working against them. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-vote-for-bush-is-a-vote-for-bigotry/254487.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-vote-for-bush-is-a-vote-for-bigotry/254487.md?page=3)