In another attack on gay rights today. Bush expressed support for federal legislation which would prohibit same-sex marriage.
He also offered this backhanded lip service to tolerance of GLBT people.
Who said anything about “sinners,” prick? You were asked about homosexuals.
The fact the he hears the word “homosexual” and thinks “sinners” basically proves that he is the barely restrained fundie bigot that I’ve always suspected he was.
The proposed legislation is obviously an abortion unto itself but I wish the little shit would at least pretend to follow the “compassionate” conservatism that he once proclaimed himself to represent.
Well, I’m hardly surprised—the guy is a very religious, right-wing, born-again Christian. The part that gave me the willies was, “I believe marriage is between a man and a woman and I believe we ought to codify that one way or the other and we have lawyers looking at the best way to do that.”
Bah. Why don’t people like this just admit they want to establish a theocracy in this country?
It’s funny how these “religious” people are so quick to talk about morality and sin when it comes to gay issues, and how they are always eager to propose legislation.
But start talking about insider trading or accounting fraud, then they fight tooth and nail against any type of legislation. How come nobody ever talks about how the Enron big-wigs are sinners?
It could be worse, Dio (yes, I have to resort to that argument. I have realized the utter futility in reminding whoever reads the email I sent to Bush that we aren’t all his brand of christian). He didn’t compare being gay to having any communicable disease or relations with wildlife. He didn’t directly say that gay people caused 9/11.
I’m surprised his lawyers are still looking for a way to do this:
Simply remove the first amendment and you’re set, George. That is, remove it, rather than merely ignoring it.
I’m curious as to whether he dumbed down the bible to ‘speck’ and ‘log’ from those trickier intimalectual words of ‘mote’ and ‘beam’ in order to get his brain around the concept or in order to convey it to everyman. Somehow I suspect the former.
DtC claims that Dubya was not asked about the morality/sinful nature of homosexualty…therefore his mention of morality/sinfulness in his answer was a backhanded label of homosexuality.
The reality (if it matters, I guess) is that Dubya was specifically asked about the morality of homosexuality (in reference to many of his supporters who consider it immoral)…so his response that mentioned morality/sinfulness did answer the question that DtC claimed was never asked.
andros, the sticking point IMO (I am not defending W … I am not defending W … I am not defending W…) is whether or not W thinks that being gay makes you a doubly-bad sinner or whatever you want to call it. Bush refrained from saying that specifically today, IMO (and I’m open to correction). But … well, it’s clear from his other words what he thinks of the validity of homosexual couples, for one. For one.
Well sure, Pun . . . I don’t think Bush would ever say that he thinks homosexuality is a worse sin than any other. Few evangelicals ever make a point of quantifying sin (outright).
But I still think Mr. Bush did, however obliquely, state that he considers homosexuality to be sinful.
This statement is 100% correct from the bible itself. Please explain how a factual statement from the bible can be translated to ‘homophobe’. Stating a fact about something is not the same thing as being scared of homosexuals.
anewthought, please show the capacity to entertain one by explaining why any statement from the Bible is required here to the effect that gay people are or are not sinners. This isn’t about Bush misquoting the Bible, this is about whether or not there was something between the lines of “President Bush on Wednesday rejected same sex marriage but declined to pass moral judgment on homosexuality, saying he was “mindful that we’re all sinners.””
andros, I think Bush espoused his beliefs on that long ago, sadly. These days one can but hope he knows enough to at least not say “them gays can all go to cuba for all I care” or something like that.
You know what? I could give a fuck about what G.W. Bush thinks about homosexuals. He could consider them the spawn of Satan for all I care. It’s his personal opinion. He can believe whatever he wants; he has that right, because he’s a human being. But, goddamn it, he should not be using his beliefs in this manner to dictate the way this country is run.
Not everyone worships at his stone idol. Not everyone who calls their god by the same name believes as he does. And the fact that he is president does not make his personal beliefs any more correct than anyone else’s in this country. He’s dictating the behavior of consenting adults in a way that fucking promotes promiscuity and screws over innocent people.
So what if he believes that marriage is between a man and a woman. A couple generations ago, everyone believed that marriage should only be between a white man and a white woman or a black man and a black woman, but not between a white man and a black woman or a black man and a white woman. Looking back on that now, we wince at how backwards we once were, and pat ourselves on the back about how far we’ve come. We’ve only taken baby steps. We’re still looking over into our neighbors’ yards and deigning to dictate their behavior.
It doesn’t matter what he thinks; it matters what he does. And his actions today–the announcement that he’s essentially taking all possible legal measures to ensure that a large group of the population be denied certain rights–speak louder than any bile he could have spewed or any slurs he could have used. Who cares if he thinks they’re sinners? He thinks everyone’s a sinner. But he’s taking special action to make sure that a group of “sinners” that isn’t hurting anyone gets screwed over. He’s an asshole. Plain and simple. And no amount of quibbling over his words is going to change my opinion, there.