Unlike his predecessor, President Bush will not issue a proclamation designating June as Gay Pride Month, a White House spokesman says. “The president believes every person should be treated with dignity and respect, but he does not believe in politicizing people’s sexual orientation. That’s a personal matter,” said spokesman Scott McClellan. Members of the Administration were advised via E-mail that the executive office of the president would not sponsor an observance of Gay Pride Month. David Smith, a spokesman for the gay lobby group Human Rights Campaign, said that since Bush became president in January, he has signed proclamations designating Black History Month, Women’s History Month, and Irish-American Heritage Month. “His refusal to reach out to our community calls into question his promise to be president of all the people,” Smith said. President Clinton issued proclamations observing Gay Pride Month, and his Administration sponsored speakers’ forums for the occasion. This year some executive branch departments, including the Interior and Transportation departments, are still planning their own observances regardless of White House endorsement.
—Well, I can hardly say I’m surprised; in fact, knowing Bush’s opinions, I’d have been stunned if he HAD signed it. Not sure where to put this; maybe it will move to GD (“should he have signed it?”) or the Pit (“blast his eyes!”), depending on where it goes . . .
Looks like it’s staying right here for the time being.
What a steaming pile of horse manure. Siding against same sex marriage initiatives isn’t politicizing people’s sexual orientation? When moderator Jim Lehrer of PBS asked Bush about his views on same-sex relationships, Bush responded: “I’m not for gay marriage. I feel strongly that marriage should be between a man and a woman.”
Shrub also opposes efforts to have sexual preference added as a protected minority under civil rights laws & supports a continued ban on homosexuals in the military.
It’s times like these I want to shout from the rooftops that I supported Gore.
And as for the gays in the military thing - when I was in it was a hot topic for conversation (1992, Clinton had just come up with the ineffectual “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy). Granted, my squadron represent a VERY small percentage of the military as a whole, but very few of the people at the time seemed to have a problem with it.
I’m stunned. No. Really. Shocked. You could knock me over with a feather.
:rolleyes:
Of course he supports those other proclamations. He’s wanting the blacks, women, Irish-American votes in the next go round! Not to mention the Religious Reich.
:: climbs up on the rooftop to proclaim that she didn’t support Shrub ::
If no one else will speak for George W. Bush, I will:
What America needs to understand is that Dubya signs a lot of things. A lot of legistration. When he was governor of Texas, he offered several bills to legistration. Human rights were probably most of them. Gays are human rights, that’s not the question. Doesn’t gays have pride all year? Pride doesn’t come from a pen as much as rights do. You can’t legistrate from being gay or not, unless you have it within your character, not within your pen, and that’s nobody’s business because you’re the president. It’s like I read the Constitution. Every American in the world should read it, or a copy of it. The founding fathers were in favor of rights. I have rights, my whole family does, deeply. Pride is a right, too, just like the founding fathers wanted, and I want. Everybody wants, I know that. The constitution doesn’t say anything about extruding gays, at least I don’t think so. But Gay Pride just extrudes everybody else, and that’s not what the constitution means.
Now, do you see how you’re mis-judging the poor man?
If anybody else wants to keep track of Dubya’s score on the Hell/handbasket issue, bookmark http://www.wage-slave.org/scorecard for Dubya’s Scorecard of Evil.
May I add that you ought to keep in mind that while he is not signing for Gay Pride month, neither is he signing for Straight Pride month or anything else like that…
Yes, he has signed for the heritage and history months. At these times as far as I can see, children learn about different people that have been significant in history during these months. However, pride is something different. Pride is something you don’t have to have a signed bill for … right?
I just have to say that although I’m not paticularily noted for my tolerance on a lot of issues, frankly if you’ve been with your partner for a year or 2 or 4 or 5, you’re married as far as I’m concerned. I mean, my wife and I were considered married after what was it - a year? 18 months? without benefit of government sanction. Heck, I’ve known gay couples who’ve been together for years longer than that who are still not considered to be wedded. Well, enough already. If you’re married, you’re married.
Thanks goodness things are starting to change (in Canada anyway - albeit slowly.)
Bush’s excuse for not signing the bill is poorish at best, especially considering he signed the one for Black History Month. Gee whiz, George, aren’t you “politicizing” race? You exploitative bastard, you! Or maybe it has something to do with the fact that your Religious Right cronies who saved your election for you won’t give you trouble if you sign Black History Month, but they’ll burn you in effigy if you sign Gay Pride Day.
I just want to say again for the record that I voted for Gore.
You know, this could be a big coup for the Gay Pride groups. Something along the lines of “We’ll have a pride month even if Bush doesn’t sign off on some piece of paper.” Maybe if they raise a big enough ruckus the idiots will lash out, giving the gay groups that most envied of political postions: Victim Status. Once they have that in the eyes of the public, passing favorable legislation will be a lot easier. Just look at how much Gandhi and King could do with Victim Status.
I’m fairly liberal when it comes to most social issues–for example, I think gays should be allowed to marry, and adopt children–but I also support President Bush on this Gay Pride Month decision.
I mean, come on. Does anybody REALLY need some Presidential Proclamation in order to feel that their sexuality is somehow validated? Get over it and live your lives, for crying out loud.
As for Black History Month, isn’t that ALREADY in February? Is this something that has to be renewed every year? If so, I did not know that.
So I guess sexual orientation is sufficiently private that Bush won’t designate a “gay pride” month, but religion isn’t a sufficiently private issue that he won’t proclaim “Jesus Day,” “Bible Week,” and a thousand other Christian holidays?
Yeah, I’m just waiting for “Grab-Your-Torah-And-Do-A-Jig Day” to go past him. That’s a crowd pleaser. Although I don’t agree that people need a day, week, or month to validate their sexuality, it’s not nice to deny them that when you otherwise hand them out like candy.
