Is DOMA Enough?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mlchance
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mlchance

Guest
Over the weekend, an in-depth interview with President Bush about his second-term priorities ran in The Washington Post. Included in the interview was a discussion of a marriage amendment. When asked if he would expend political capital to lobby senators aggressively for an amendment protecting marriage, President Bush replied, “I think that the situation in the last session–well, first of all, I do believe it’s necessary; many in the Senate didn’t, because they believe DOMA [the Defense of Marriage Act] will–is in place, but–they know DOMA is in place, and they’re waiting to see whether or not DOMA will withstand a constitutional challenge.” Pressed for a clearer answer, the president said nothing would happen until DOMA was struck down.

Let’s be clear: both here and abroad, the judicial assault on man-woman marriage is well underway. Liberal activist judges do not give a second thought to overturning laws passed on this issue by 70-percent majorities. No serious constitutional scholar believes that this assault will be deflected by legislative and executive passivity. If there were one issue on which the president could claim a mandate, it’s protecting marriage. The president should lead the Senate in checking the pending judicial assault on marriage. While Social Security reform and tort reform are important initiatives, there was far less clamor for them from the American public. No doubt there are many in the Senate–even within the president’s own party–who oppose such policy initiatives. However, there is no evidence such opposition is deterring President Bush from including these economic issues in his second-term agenda. He should have at least the same resolve, if not more, to protect the institution of marriage.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
What ticks me off more than anything else is the clear, heavy handed manipulation of conservative voters by the administration. Before the election, they’ll push for an amendment; now all they care about is Social Security reform. If I had voted for Bush on the “moral issues,” I would feel very betrayed, and I fail to understand the support he still commands among the ranks of people on this board. Fine, so Bush was better than the alternative. He should still be held accountable (and be willing to be held accountable). As it is, he is willing to promise religious conservative the moon for their votes, and then tell them to settle for cheese after the election.
 
First off, I want to make it clear that I still support the FMA. However, the November election ushered in a slew of state-level prohibitions on SSM. While I agree that we are in danger from judicial activisim, the FMA seems less urgent now that so many state electorates have spoken so forcefully for marriage and the family.

An administration has to set priorities, and Social Security reform is topping the list. You need to also keep in mind that the initial vote for the FMA was defeated in the senate. While there is now a larger Republican majority, it’s still not filibuster-proof. The Senate needs also to set priorities and right now the Senate Republicans seem to be focusing on judicial nominations (a very good and necessary thing).
 
I should be clear as well - I thought the FMA was a bad idea from a policy perspective from the beginning. The state amendments are fine (that was the way to go about it to begin with, not a federal program). The odds of any state marriage amendment being found as violating equal protection in any federal court is slim to none, and a state-based system maintains a two century old tradition of leaving family law to the states.

I don’t have a problem with the administration “setting priorites,” etc., I just feel that the entire drama surrounding the FMA was a lot of sound and fury specifically designed to manipulate and energize a specific voting segment. Now that they have fulfilled their purpose by getting up and voting on 2-Nov, they can be quietly ignored for the next four years. Regardless of the principles driving the voters who supported it, FMA was clearly doomed from the outset - the only reason they pushed it was to make it a news story. If 0 states had passed their marriage amendments, the Bush administration would still have backed off of the FMA. it indicates a lack of integrity within the Republican party and a lack of respect for those people who care more about moral ideals in society than the rules for malpractice lawsuits. The Republican party has their priorities set, alright, and they have little to do with anyone here.
 
Not to single out a certain poster, but let’s give Bush some credit here. He did bring FMA to the floor, as promised. It failed. Most of those who voted against it are still there, plus we have more who have voiced opposition (like my own state’s senator, Barrack Obama).

Overall, with Daschle and a few other democrats gone, we have a net gain in support for the amendment. But not enough to overcome the number of votes it failed by (thank you, to pick one republican at random, John McCain and friends).

This may not be a welcomed opinion by some, and i’m certainly not making a defense of my boy Dubya just because I like him (I voted for him, but have also been critical of him many times)–but I think it is smart of Bush to put it on hold for a while. If it were on the ballot today, it would fail. Maybe if it is on the ballot right before the 2006 election, certain to get the support that it got in 11 states last year, there would be far more pressure to pass it. And a far greater likelihood of replacing those who voted against it if it is right before an election.

Postponing it till next year will lead to 2 possible positive outcomes–pressure from the public to pass it, and punishment by the public against those who stop it.

It may be frustrating, but it is probably the most effective way to pursue it–to do it today would mean certain failure.
 
40.png
GULaw:
I should be clear as well - I thought the FMA was a bad idea from a policy perspective from the beginning. The state amendments are fine (that was the way to go about it to begin with, not a federal program). The odds of any state marriage amendment being found as violating equal protection in any federal court is slim to none, and a state-based system maintains a two century old tradition of leaving family law to the states.
Click to expand...
Ideally, I wouldn’t want the amendment–but it may be the only alternative to judical dictators who have no respect for laws or the will of the people. If it is necessary, it is because activist judges don’t know their boundaries.
 
40.png
StJeanneDArc:
First off, I want to make it clear that I still support the FMA. However, the November election ushered in a slew of state-level prohibitions on SSM. While I agree that we are in danger from judicial activisim, the FMA seems less urgent now that so many state electorates have spoken so forcefully for marriage and the family.

An administration has to set priorities, and Social Security reform is topping the list. You need to also keep in mind that the initial vote for the FMA was defeated in the senate. While there is now a larger Republican majority, it’s still not filibuster-proof. The Senate needs also to set priorities and right now the Senate Republicans seem to be focusing on judicial nominations (a very good and necessary thing).
Click to expand...
Agreed.

Bush is going to end up being possibly the best and most get-things-done president in our history. He says what he’s going to do, and he’s going to do it.
Tax relief across the board? Done.
Faith Based Intitiatives?? Done.
More accountability in public education? Done.
Medicare reform?? Done.
PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION BAN?? Signed it.
DOMA amendment?? Drew a line in the sand.
Social Security Reform?? On the way…

Two brutal regimes ousted, more than 50 million people freed.

3 years and counting since 9/11 without an attack on our soil.

Now, about those judges…
 
jlw,

Not one unborn baby saved during the four years of Bush’s presidency. NOT DONE!

Not one authentic change has occurred to help control judicial activism, that threatens the fabric of our culture. NOT DONE!

Thousands of illegal aliens cross our borders everyday. NOT DONE!

A very weak effort to save the institution of marriage, and nothing more in sight. NOT DONE!

When you let the babies be murdered with doing anything real, when you do nothing real about horrible judges, when you let our nation be slowly overtaken by illegals without doing anything to stop or slow the onslaught, when you do essentially nothing to protect marriage–that is not getting the job done. Those are culture busting, culture destroying issues, and Bush has effectively done nothing to help in any of those areas.

I voted for the man, I still like him, yet he is a HUGE disappointment making social security more important the babies and marriage!
 
40.png
TPJCatholic:
jlw,

Not one unborn baby saved during the four years of Bush’s presidency. NOT DONE!

Not one authentic change has occurred to help control judicial activism, that threatens the fabric of our culture. NOT DONE!

Thousands of illegal aliens cross our borders everyday. NOT DONE!

A very weak effort to save the institution of marriage, and nothing more in sight. NOT DONE!

When you let the babies be murdered with doing anything real, when you do nothing real about horrible judges, when you let our nation be slowly overtaken by illegals without doing anything to stop or slow the onslaught, when you do essentially nothing to protect marriage–that is not getting the job done. Those are culture busting, culture destroying issues, and Bush has effectively done nothing to help in any of those areas.

I voted for the man, I still like him, yet he is a HUGE disappointment making social security more important the babies and marriage!
Click to expand...
A worthy post, my friend. Don’t disagree with you!! But Bush got elected because he is neither Alan Keyes or Pat Buchannan. Better to get elected and get something done for our cause than to get 2% of the vote and be powerless.

He is moving us in the right direction. That is not perfect, but I have realistic expectations. Politics is an awful business–cloudy muddled, compromised, corrupted self-preserving work. He has been better than that in many instances.

Does he use the bully pulpit as often as I would like?? No. But I think he will fight for these judicial nominees far more than he did for the previous ones (for this, I am annoyed with him). For this I pray.
 
AND…

Our borders are a mess. But do you think any democrat would do ANY better on this issue??

I think that the Bush presidency HAS saved lives of the unborn. Maybe not legislatively. But the culture has shifted, and I think more people are valuing “The Culture of Life”.
 
40.png
TPJCatholic:
Not one unborn baby saved during the four years of Bush’s presidency. NOT DONE!
Click to expand...
Many were. He reinstated the Mexico City Policy.

Never forget that the other choice was going to renege on the Mexico City policy his first day in office.
 
Bush has done nothing to halt abortions, at least nothing real. He has played lip service to Christians of all stripes in order to get our votes. The PBA ban was a joke law and he knew it. He has done nothing about judges, nothing to advance the cause of life in the United States. Sure, he has many efforts that seem “oh so productive” on the surface…yet the simple fact is Bush has not saved one single unborn baby in the United States in the four years he has been in office and I have no reason to think he will.

His defense of marriage is lukewarm at best (what does the Bible say about lukewarmness?). When it comes to these truly important social issues, he is always playing the soft approach game…and that just will not work. The republicans will have control for only so long, then the opportunity will be gone.

It is clear that Bush cares more about his legacy, then about human life. He cares more about creating history by reforming social security and the tax code. He is wise enough to know that most Americans care more about their waller, then they do about the 4,000 babies that will die today.

I like the man, I continue to support him–but I will not do so with blinders on…

[btw, just because the other choices were worse, does not mean that Bush is a good choice–he has to prove that himself.]
 
Slow and steady.

Too much flash in the pan, and you’ll blow your face off.
 
40.png
TPJCatholic:
Bush has done nothing to halt abortions, at least nothing real. He has played lip service to Christians of all stripes in order to get our votes. The PBA ban was a joke law and he knew it. He has done nothing about judges, nothing to advance the cause of life in the United States. Sure, he has many efforts that seem “oh so productive” on the surface…yet the simple fact is Bush has not saved one single unborn baby in the United States in the four years he has been in office and I have no reason to think he will.
Click to expand...
So what do you think should be done? Defining the human embryo as a person is a first step along with overturning Roe V Wade. I don’t mind hearing problems or issues people have, but offer some solutions as well. Changing our culture and laws does not happen overnight.
40.png
TPJCatholic:
btw, just because the other choices were worse, does not mean that Bush is a good choice–he has to prove that himself.]
Click to expand...
He was the ONLY choice.

In Christ,

Todd
 
toddc,

Part of any campaign to change the nation has to include changing the hearts and minds of the population, getting them to come fully onboard with your plans. Bush is doing that with social security, he already has commercials built to help sell and convince America about his plans…he constantly pounds the pavement about tax reform and SS reform…those are without doubt the two major planks of his second term. He never pounds the pavement to save the unborn, or to save marriage…those are always talks that are mere whispers as if he is afraid to rock the boat.

He was NOT the only choice…there was another choice that was truly pro-life.

Bush should be taking this battle to the people with hard evidence of the “life” status of unborn babies, and hard facts about the pain babies feel as they are aborted, and hard facts about how women’s lives are often changed forever after having an abortion, and how women’s reproductive systems can be damaged from abortion, how breast cancer risks might go up, how teenagers are at risk because they think nothing of sex because they can just go get an abortion…there are a hundred ways of selling it…have commecials with aborted babies…show the facts…show the tears, show the pain…show the real everyday loss of all those precious lives that God created, show the millions of couple that long to adopt kids, but have trouble doing so because women abort their babies–do all of that and more, but for heavens sake, don’t just treat it like a whisper in the dark!

Do the same for marriage…

If he did that…he would make a mark on history that would elevate him beyond thge status of Lincoln! But instead, he concerns himself about money issues, social security and tax reform. Boy, those unborn babies really care about tax reform as they are being murdered!
 
TPJ,

I appreciate your passion!! Do not ever waver!!

AND…Don’t lose sight of the forest through the trees. There are big fish to fry in the White House. Many of them take center stage, many of them are backstage. All are going at once though!!

I agree that securing the Right to life quite frankly should be the FIRST priority of anyone with a conscience. But in the murky world of politics, the job of moving policy forward in the right direction demands both a hard AND a soft hand. Politics is not just about the bully pulpit (although it should be used more in my opinion), but it is about time, marketing, strategy, opportunity and luck. (not to mention having to make deals that don’t necessarily do anything for anyone!!).

Social security is not more important than babies. Marriage and abortion with be front and center again, especially when new judges are nominated. Bush will fight (I pray to God!!) and show us who he is. Mark my words.
 
jlw,

I fear we have been duped into thinking that this president is fighting for the most important causes, when I think the evidence suggests he is actually fighting for his own legacy.

Time will tell, yet sadly I do not expect to see much of a fight for unborn babies or for marriage…I really do not think Bush has the stomach for it, much to emotional those issues.
 
40.png
TPJCatholic:
jlw,

I fear we have been duped into thinking that this president is fighting for the most important causes, when I think the evidence suggests he is actually fighting for his own legacy.

Time will tell, yet sadly I do not expect to see much of a fight for unborn babies or for marriage…I really do not think Bush has the stomach for it, much to emotional those issues.
Click to expand...
Well, my optimism stems from lower expectations of government.

If he does nothing else but put conservatives on the bench in the next four years, I’ll be satisfied. If he does less than that I’ll be mad, if he does more than that, I’ll be thrilled.
 
jlw,

I agree, it will be a good thing if he puts some conservatives on the bench. The problem is the dems are ready for battle, I think they are really far more ready then Bush is.

In the meanwhile, while all these games continue, 4,000 babies get murdered everyday and marriage is slowly being transformed into something we will not even recognize. Entire cultures have fallen under the weight of that much sin.
 
40.png
TPJCatholic:
jlw,

I agree, it will be a good thing if he puts some conservatives on the bench. The problem is the dems are ready for battle, I think they are really far more ready then Bush is.

In the meanwhile, while all these games continue, 4,000 babies get murdered everyday and marriage is slowly being transformed into something we will not even recognize. Entire cultures have fallen under the weight of that much sin.
Click to expand...
No argument here.

But the mudslide of our culture didn’t happen overnight. I can’t expect the mud to be cleared overnight either.

We’ve got to get to work. Diligence. Patience. Prayer. Work.

The tide is turning. But we can’t look to government. We have to shift peoples perspectives and win hearts and minds OURSELVES.

Soon the politicians will have no choice but to act. By the people and for the people.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top