ambivalent imbroglio home

« Growl | Main | Stoopid Style »

May 05, 2005


So I'm researching this damned DOMA business and I'm reminded that in February 2004 Yubbledew called for a Constitutional amendment to “protect” marriage. He used very strong language to let us know he meant business:

An amendment to the Constitution is never to be undertaken lightly. The amendment process has addressed many serious matters of national concern. And the preservation of marriage rises to this level of national importance. The union of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution, honoring -- honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith. Ages of experience have taught humanity that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society.

Sounds pretty serious, doesn't it? I guess this should be a major part of his agenda in his second term, then, shouldn't it? But wait, I've heard absolutely nothing about it since last November's presidential election. Have I missed something, or is “the union of a man and a woman” no longer so important? Don't we care anymore about the welfare of children and the stability of society?

If I was cynical I'd say that Karl Rove timed that February 2004 announcement perfectly to get Christian fundamentalists all worked up in a frenzy so that gay marriage would be a big “values” issue in the November election. That would make Yubbledew's call for a Constitutional amendment seem pretty hollow and manipulative, wouldn't it?

Good thing I'm not cynical.

Posted May 5, 2005 08:07 PM | election 2004 general politics

A couple months after the election Newsweek ran an article about this. Their take was that Bush never wanted an amendment and that yes, Bush's February call for the amendment was hollow. There's seems to be some evidence for this if you look closely (i.e., Bush saying he supports civil unions). I personally(along with plenty others) think that Bush is a lot less socially conservative than he is portrayed.

Posted by: JMoore at May 5, 2005 08:54 PM

Have you run into the ohio Marriage amendment? A judge in the last few months overturned a domestic violence law in the setting of an unmarried heterosexual couple. Apparently the amendment banned recognizing marriage-like situations where htere was no marriage. Awful stuff. I've heard that the proponents of these amendments know it could screw up straight unmarried lives too -- and thats part of their point.

Americablog had the details.

Posted by: luminous at May 5, 2005 09:15 PM

From day 1 this administration has been nothing but smoke and mirrors. The real machiavellian genius of handlers like Karl Rove was not in highlighting a few well timed comments from "public figures" but in mobilizing people on the ground to sponsor referendums in numerous states leading up to the election. They sowed the ground well in advance with their fear and hate mongering.

Posted by: edmund at May 6, 2005 01:50 AM

You said this like you were surprised that, *gasp* W would be political.

Posted by: Unreasonable Man at May 6, 2005 04:29 PM

No, not surprised. But amazed at how people keep buying into the rhetoric. Afterall, Bush is sucessful because he taps into a whole network of grass roots support. At what point will they realize they are being played. We saw some of this possibility when the Save Terri Shiavo crowd turned on Jeb Bush calling him a coward for not doing more.

Posted by: edmund at May 7, 2005 04:24 AM

Ambib, I had written a rather long post this morning... looks like it didn't get posted for some reason. Do you filter your comments by any chance?

By the way, I've discontinued my blog on blogspot (my cousins were spamming it, inadvertantly, of course) and have started a new one at

Hope your DOMA paper went well!

Posted by: Res_Ipsa_Loquitur at May 7, 2005 10:40 PM

Res-Ipsa: Sorry about that. I have no idea what happened. I do use MT-Blacklist and some other plugin I've now forgotten to screen comments, but I didn't see anything from you earlier and I even went back to my trashed/deleted comments to check. I guess the web ate it! What did you say?

Posted by: ambimb at May 8, 2005 10:38 PM

I think I said something to this effect:

I personally don't believe "Yubbledew" is socially conservative. During the '00 election (and I was still in S'pore), I read somewhere that although he decried abortion, he pursuaded one of his ex-girlfriends to have one. After knocking her up, of course. And then there were his drug habits during his wild youth days. And all his brishes with the law that he managed to wrangle his way out of because of his connections. Even IF I believed that he truly changed and became religious, what bugs me most is the fact that despite having been given so many chances, he himself now refuses to give others (especially the less fortunate people) even a second chance for even ONE of the mistakes he made in the past.

And all this talk of acitivist judges and a judiciary gone wild - it was the same judiciary that gave Yubbledew (I love that name!) the presidency back in 2000. Where was all that talk then?

And as to gay marriages, if marriage is so important to preserving stability and promote children's welfare, he ought to do something about the spiralling divorce rates. It's stupid to have a constitutional amendment for gay marriages when marriage between heterosexuals is rapidly becoming a joke. The number of instances of infidelity in such marriages is shameful, and the number of divorces in this country is alarming. A child in a heterosexual marriage is adversely affected by these circumstances more than the child would be in a same-sex marriage lacking the same circumstances.

Posted by: resipsacrap at May 9, 2005 10:38 AM

Hello, very nice page, keep on. Greetings from C.A..

Posted by: Cathy at June 1, 2005 06:13 PM

about   ∞     ∞   archives   ∞   links   ∞   rss
This template highly modified from The Style Monkey.