Come on, Merijeek, that is hardly fair. Though he is heavily conservative, I have found Bricker to generally be quite reasonable on the topic of gay rights. In fact, his commentary in this thread elevates it in that without his words it would simply devolve into a Bush-is-the-devil screed. Now we are really analyzing their motivations and showing that they really do not have a leg to stand on. It is always good to have someone say, “Lets look carefully to see if they might have a good reason for what they are doing.” Either it helps you understand their point of view or, as in this case, helps to prove how wrong they are.
I wasn’t aware our civil rights were based on an opinion poll. I know it’s been brought up again and again, but what if the president during the Civil Rights struggle had insisted on supporting the states and people who approved of segregation?
Sorry your blood is boiling…how about a funny?
And some (hopefully) good news from my state…
"OLYMPIA, Wash. - The Washington state Senate is expected to vote today on a gay rights bill that has failed in the Legislature for nearly 30 years.
The bill would add “sexual orientation” to a state law that already bans discrimination in housing, employment and insurance based on race, gender, age, disability, religion, marital status and other factors.
The bill was passed out of the House last Friday, and passed a Senate committee Tuesday to be sent to the floor.
The bill lost by just one vote in the Senate last year.
The measure is believed to have a better chance this year because Republican Senator Bill Finkbeiner of Kirkland announced earlier this month that he would switch his vote to yes. "
king5.com-lots of pops and registering tho…
Idiots in positions of power are not going to stop people from getting the rights they deserve.
Eh, see it how you want to see it.
Every thread discussing gay rights involves him trying to find the thinnest justification for sticking it to 'em. If this thread is any different, it’s only because he doesn’t like being lumped in with the likes of Iran.
When he doesn’t have anything to fall back on he tries to use the amendments to state constitutions for his justification. Because, as he points out often, polls and elections are what determines what’s “right”.
-Joe
There is no reasonable way to interpret that article as requiring or mandating the recognition of same-sex marriage. That article is clearly referring to forced marriages. It’s about the rights of women, not gays.
Then he would’ve been shirking his duty as the executive. The Civil Rights act was passed by Congress, not by the president. It was his job to enforce it, not to legislate it in the first place. Ture, Johnson helped push it through Congress, but without the law behind him, the president couldn’t have done much.
Well, women are only mentioned twice, and neither has anything to do with the marriage article. That article specifically says ‘spouses’. That is where my guess came from. Of course, I could be (and probably are) totally wrong.
Slee
I would disagree, not with your factual situation, but with your assertion that the President has little or no power to influence civil rights. The President is probably the single most powerful person who has the ability and power to act as a catalyst for societal change. You have Presidents who work for civil rights, like Johnson or Truman, and you have shitheads like the current President (and to a lesser, but still shithead like extent, Clinton) who actively work against those civil rights issues.
It’s been awhile, but this was an interesting, if somewhat stilted and dry, book.
But the president could not have desgregated the schools or lunch counters if that segregation hadn’t been made illegal. Yes, the president can do a lot to influence things, but he can’t enforce laws that aren’t on the books. In the context of the post I was responding to, that’s what’s important. It sounded like that poster was implicitly assuming (as people often do) that the president can make laws.
Rather than vote against, the least the US could have done was to have abstained like some of the others. The fact that it voted “against” decidedly makes the administration appear homophobic.
Yes, the President cannot make laws, but he can certainly take actions to either help or hinder civil rights. Truman desegregated the military 6 years before Brown. On the other hand, Congress had to override Reagan’s veto of the Civil Rights Restoration Act. These actions, while not legislation themselves, had huge effects on the civil rights movements. The President has huge responsibility in setting a domestic agenda that either furthers or restricts civil rights. Bush has consistently done the latter.
Even in a ‘Time of War’? 
Yeah, but that’s pretty much what he does on any subject. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a “me too” post out of the guy. In any serious debate topic, if he posts at all, it’s because he’s seen something debatable, and wants to follow that. God knows, I’ve got absolutely no use for George Bush, but is another big Pit pile-on of the guy going to do anyone any good? It’s much more useful to have someone who can point out possible rationalizations for the President’s actions, if for no other reason than we can show that they’re wholly baseless.
C’mon, the guy is absoltuely unambiguous in his support for gay rights, up to an including the right to marry. What more do you want from him?
I, for one, would like him to admit that denying homosexuals the right to marry is not reasonably related to any legitimate governmental interest. Or that defining the right to marry to exclude same sex couples is circular and conclusionary. I’d also like Frank’s pony.
Sure thing – here’s his pitchfork, and there’s the pile.
Yeah, but that’s more about legal process, and not morality, right? I don’t really understand all that scary lawyer stuff, but that disagreement isn’t really about homosexuality, but about how you each interpret the law. His interpretation of the law happens to disadvantage gays, but that doesn’t make him a homophobe.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t believe Bricker is a homophobe. However, Bricker believes that the ban on same sex marriage is rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest. It’s not a matter of interpretation, it’s a matter of him agreeing that it is reasonable for the State to determine that homosexual couples aren’t as good as parents as heterosexual couples and that the procreation is somehow inherent in marriage, even though it’s not for heterosexuals.
In this one issue, it’s not a matter of interpreting the words “due process” or “equal protection”, it’s a matter of accepting what I consider to be bigotry as reasonable and rational.
The Administration policies appear homophobic. I don’t support the President or his Administration. This means I don’t eat shit and die, right? I need to be crystal clear each day about this, after all…
Again, IAsoNAL, but from the GD threads I’ve read, it seems that the disagreement turns on how you both define “reasonable” as a legal term. I believe that Bricker has conceded that discrimination against gays is not at all reasonable under the lay definition of the word.
Well, the administration has explained itself, sort of.
From http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/27/international/middleeast/27nations.html?_r=1 (caution: NYT link, registration may be required):
Because an association that the ILGA publically broke off twelve years ago is a fine reason to stand shoulder to shoulder with Cuba, the Sudan, and freakin’ Iran. Yeesh.