Here's how Bush may win by losing

[Tigermike 3,052]

Here's how Bush may win by losing

Peter A. Brown

Sentinel Columnist

March 18, 2005

Politics is a funny game. A win can turn out to be a loss, or sometimes you can lose by winning.

The betting here is a California judge's decision to legalize gay marriage there will eventually fall into that category.

In the long run, those unhappy with the ruling may come to view it as a catalyst that advanced their overall agenda -- and not just when it comes to same-sex marriage.

Gay-rights proponents may well wonder, as they did after last November's election, whether court victories are worth the political cost.

That's because the decision likely will help President Bush win the upcoming war over judicial confirmations about to engulf Washington, D.C. Such a victory could tilt the national verdict on many issues.

The nation's political polarization has created consolidated agendas among Republicans/conservatives and Democrats/liberals that cut across single-issue constituencies.

First of all, the California Supreme Court may overturn this decision. If not, a state constitutional amendment taking the matter out of court hands by banning gay marriage would seem quite possible.

After all, voters in 11 states last fall banned gay unions. California is unlikely to be any different if the question is on the ballot.

However, the decision could help the anti-gay marriage crowd on the other side of the country. In politics, everything is interrelated, and the impact of this lawmaking by judicial fiat will be felt in Washington, D.C.

For the most part, Republicans who oppose gay marriage also don't like abortion, tax increases, business regulation, too much government spending, the United Nations and efforts to restrain U.S. power.

The left's mantra is almost exactly opposite, so that the notion of two teams fighting each other on a variety of matters is a largely accurate metaphor.

It doesn't matter that it was a California state judge appointed by a Republican who ruled on gay marriage. It could not have come at a better time for the GOP team arguing that confirming federal judicial appointments is worth spending serious political capital.

That is obviously true for both parties, but the GOP has the edge because it controls the Senate, where the war over the judiciary is about to be fought.

Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist has cancer. Bush will almost certainly have at least one high court appointment this year, perhaps more.

At the same time, he has resubmitted seven appointments to the U.S. Courts of Appeals for Senate confirmation. Democrats stopped them from getting up-or-down votes through use of the filibuster last year.

Historically, both parties have used their majority power to reject court appointments in the Senate. But never before has a minority prevented confirmation by refusing to stop talking. Under current Senate rules, 60 of the 100 senators are needed to cut off debate, and the Democrats have 45. That has been enough to sustain a filibuster, but not to win up-or-down votes.

The Republicans are threatening to change Senate rules to make it impossible to filibuster judicial nominees, a possibility dubbed "the nuclear option" because Democrats have said in response they will use procedural rules to stop the Senate from conducting business.

The threats to go nuclear over the current seven nominees are a dress rehearsal for the real show: the Supreme Court. So far, this battle over the appeals-court appointments has been like the National Basketball Association regular season. The basketball public only becomes engaged once the playoffs began, and that will be the case in spades when the high-court nomination is made.

Democrats are daring the president and the Republican Senate to eliminate the filibuster and take them on in an exceptionally high-stakes public fight that could have enormous consequences at the ballot box.

Democrats will argue, as they did during last year's campaign when they warned re-electing Bush would create judicial Armageddon, that they should use any means possible to stop Bush's nominees.

Bush will say he wants only judges who will follow the law and let the people decide political questions. He'll dare the Democrats to act like sore losers and question, as he did successfully last fall, whether they have any ideas of their own or are just reflexively against anything the GOP favors.

In campaigning for a federal constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, which also might get some help from the California decision, Bush has decried activist judges who legislate from the bench.

That's why the ruling in California can't do anything but help confirm the kind of nominees who could help his team's agenda for years to come.

Peter A. Brown can be reached at 407-420-5276 or pbrown@orlandosentinel.com

link

[Tiger Al 0]

In campaigning for a federal constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, which also might get some help from the California decision, Bush has decried activist judges who legislate from the bench.

It sounds like this is exactly what he's hoping the "win from a loss" would be; The appointment of more conservative judges who will overturn more liberal state laws.

[Tigermike 3,052]

In campaigning for a federal constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, which also might get some help from the California decision, Bush has decried activist judges who legislate from the bench.

It sounds like this is exactly what he's hoping the "win from a loss" would be; The appointment of more conservative judges who will overturn more liberal state laws.

151774[/snapback]

If that's the case, then for the dems it would be what goes around comes around, wouldn't it?

[Tiger Al 0]

In campaigning for a federal constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, which also might get some help from the California decision, Bush has decried activist judges who legislate from the bench.

It sounds like this is exactly what he's hoping the "win from a loss" would be; The appointment of more conservative judges who will overturn more liberal state laws.

151774[/snapback]

If that's the case, then for the dems it would be what goes around comes around, wouldn't it?

151819[/snapback]

So, activist judges who legislate from the bench isn't a bad thing if they're doing your style of legislation. OK, I got it. In the future I'll know what that little neocon catchphrase actually translates to.

[Tigermike 3,052]

No that is not what I am saying. Just making a point. But I think that the judges W has nominated would not be judicial activists, but would rule on the law and not rule what they wanted. That is the difference in the libs and conservatives, for years your lib judges have legislated from the bench. As a conservative I don't want judges usurping duly elected officials. The left sees the judicial branch as their only way of forcing their beliefs on the country. That is why Ted Kennedy said: "that Republicans have taken the Presidency and Congress," and then he told the crowd of supporters that "he would not stand by and allow the Republicans to take the Judiciary as well."

[Tiger Al 0]

Is it "legislating" or applying general laws to specific circumstances? I mean, traffic laws are pretty clear-cut. You were driving 65 mph in a 40 mph zone therefore you pay a penalty of X dollars and whatever else the law prescribes. When you talk about more complex issues, say, church/state seperation, doesn't it get a little less clear-cut? I think it does. And sure, liberal judges will interpret and apply laws more liberally, just as a conservative one will interpret/apply them in that way.

Just because a lot of duly elected officials agree that something should be a law in this country doesn't mean that it can't be unconstitutional. While that can be characterized as "usurping", that term can also be applied to what the officials tried to do to the constitution as well. A case in point that we can all hopefully agree on would be laws that prohibited interracial marriages. Duly elected officials made these laws and those laws were eventually ruled unconstitutional.

[Tigermike 3,052]

It is legislating Al and you know it. The left has used that particular tactic to advance themselves for years. You know that as well as anyone.

While we are talking about marriage Al.

And how do you respond to the California Superior Court judge "The denial of marriage to same-sex couples appears impermissibly arbitrary," wrote San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer. "Simply put, same-sex marriage cannot be prohibited solely because California has always done so before."

His activism on this subject is not swayed by the fact that he is in San Francisco, is it? The States and the United States governments have every right to define marriage as they see fit. If the fudge packers in California or New York or Montgomery want to live together, I don't care one bit. I truly don't care what they do and I don't want to hear about what they do. Incidentally, I don't want to hear about what you and your wife do either.

Court Rules California Cannot Ban Gay Marriages

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=580110

[Tiger Al 0]

I'm in agreement with you regarding the fudge packers, too. However, that doesn't change some of my overarching beliefs.

The States and the United States governments have every right to define marriage as they see fit.

I disagree with this. I see marriage as a religious institution and, as such, must be untouchable by the government even/especially when it comes to defining what marriage is and who can enter into it as much as I don't want the government to have the authority to tell my church who it can and cannot baptize. Do you see my point?

As a Christian, I certainly believe that a marriage is between a man and a woman. So, what happens if there are religions that believe otherwise? Won't the government be violating their constitutionally protected right to freedom of religion by dictating the terms of a religious institution?

And, before you go there, I know people have tried to use religion as ways to break drug laws, etc., by setting up the Holy Apostolic Church of the Jamaican Red Bud, but there are standards in place that serve a secular function as well, primarily, that drugs are illegal because their use can adversely affect others. I don't see how two men marrying adversely affects you or me.

As channon has said before, I think ALL marriages should be viewed by the government as civil unions, or some such nomenclature.

[Tigermike 3,052]

I'm in agreement with you regarding the fudge packers, too. However, that doesn't change some of my overarching beliefs.

The States and the United States governments have every right to define marriage as they see fit.

I disagree with this. I see marriage as a religious institution and, as such, must be untouchable by the government even/especially when it comes to defining what marriage is and who can enter into it as much as I don't want the government to have the authority to tell my church who it can and cannot baptize. Do you see my point?

As a Christian, I certainly believe that a marriage is between a man and a woman. So, what happens if there are religions that believe otherwise? Won't the government be violating their constitutionally protected right to freedom of religion by dictating the terms of a religious institution?

And, before you go there, I know people have tried to use religion as ways to break drug laws, etc., by setting up the Holy Apostolic Church of the Jamaican Red Bud, but there are standards in place that serve a secular function as well, primarily, that drugs are illegal because their use can adversely affect others. I don't see how two men marrying adversely affects you or me.

As channon has said before, I think ALL marriages should be viewed by the government as civil unions, or some such nomenclature.

151863[/snapback]

I would say that the crusade for same-sex marriage has never been aimed merely at adjusting the familiar boundaries of married life to make it more inclusive. The real target is the significance of marriage itself -- the idea, fundamental to human happiness and all successful societies, that the purpose of marriage is to bring men and women together for their mutual welfare and for the protection and well-being of any children they create or adopt. It is that deeply ingrained belief that the marriage radicals are determined to do away with. One purpose of the official marriage Newspeak is to make such thoughts increasingly unthinkable. Already it is becoming hazardous to speak of marriage as an opposite-sex institution or to suggest that one of its core functions is to provide children with fathers and mothers.

I will also say that to attempt to equate the agenda of the gay rights folks to the same struggle that Blacks had is as disingenuous as it is abhorrent.

[Tiger Al 0]

And you can find plenty of evidence that unmarried people have raised perfectly wonderful children in a loving and caring environment. The same goes for single parents. You can also find many heterosexual marriages that provided children with the worst possible environment to be exposed to.

You didn't address my point that marriage is a religious institution. Do you believe that it is or it is not?

I wasn't attempting to equate any agendas but trying to show how laws, conceived by duly elected officials, are not always constitutional. Popular maybe, but not constitutional. We were talking about the constitutionality of laws and those who make/interpret them, not the particular agendas of those affected by those laws. I'm not trying to muddy the water on this so I'd ask that you do the same.

[Tigermike 3,052]

Sure marriage is a religious institution, it is also recognized and acknowledged by government. Would you concede that? And governments have the right to define the guidelines and definition of marriage. If the government "defines" marriage, that would not infringe or put them in the position of determining "religious" doctrine or terms of worship. The government also allows marriage deductions for tax purposes. Why would they do that since "marriage" is a religious term or institution?

So you are saying that the judge in San Francisco was constitutionality correct when he made the decision he did?

I wasn't attempting to equate any agendas but trying to show how laws, conceived by duly elected officials, are not always constitutional. Popular maybe, but not constitutional. We were talking about the constitutionality of laws and those who make/interpret them, not the particular agendas of those affected by those laws. I'm not trying to muddy the water on this so I'd ask that you do the same.

151878[/snapback]

But if the gay rights folks had no agenda, there would be no problem and they would not be trying to change and redefine marriage for the entire country would they?

You say:

there are standards in place that serve a secular function as well

The definition of marriage might fall into that category as well wouldn't it?

[Tiger Al 0]

Sure marriage is a religious institution

Then if the government defines who can and cannot marry (religious institution), how is that not infringing on someone's freedom of religion? Remember, freedom of religion does not exclude non-Christians.

[mcgufcm 4,107]

the government should have no input into the definition or legality of a "marriage." it should only relate to civil unions because it would then be legal to define a union however it wants. the fact that the church had to join up with the u.s. government to protect its idea of a marriage just shows another failing of the modern church. marriage should only take place within the confines of a religion, but instead, we have judges handing out marriage licenses. that is the real problem.

personally, i think this entire debate was sparked in reality when the government started giving tax breaks to "married" couples. until then, there was no real motivation to challenge the system in place, but when you give a monetary value to a title, you'd dang well better expect as many people as possible to do whatever they can to qualify, even if it means feigning some sort of moral objection on an issue they honestly didn't care about 6 years ago.

as for the sanctity of marriage, i'm sorry, but that defense doesn't hold water for me. the fact is approximately 25% of all adults have been divorced once in their lives and approximately 40-50 percent of all marriages currently taking place will end in divorce. and it's not any better for Christians. it is estimated that 27% of protestant Christian adults have been divorced at least once. that's higher than the national figure. so i'd say straight, Christians have done a good enough job on their own of making sure marriage isn't a sacred institution.

figures from: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm

which is somewhat sketchy, but they do reflect numbers i've heard from my preacher (steve scoggins) and seen on tv (for what that's worth).

[channonc 466]

If the fudge packers in California or New York or Montgomery want to live together, I don't care one bit. I truly don't care what they do and I don't want to hear about what they do.

Then what is your beef? Why do you care if they want to sign a piece of paper that entitles them to LEGAL rights as a spouse.

[Tigermike 3,052]

If the fudge packers in California or New York or Montgomery want to live together, I don't care one bit. I truly don't care what they do and I don't want to hear about what they do.

Then what is your beef? Why do you care if they want to sign a piece of paper that entitles them to LEGAL rights as a spouse.

151916[/snapback]

My beef is the legalization of sin. I realize it's hard for democrats to make an absolute statement like that, but there it is, in a nut shell. Sin being legalized on the alter of political correctness and moral relativism.

[channonc 466]

If the fudge packers in California or New York or Montgomery want to live together, I don't care one bit. I truly don't care what they do and I don't want to hear about what they do.

Then what is your beef? Why do you care if they want to sign a piece of paper that entitles them to LEGAL rights as a spouse.

151916[/snapback]

My beef is the legalization of sin. I realize it's hard for democrats to make an absolute statement like that, but there it is, in a nut shell. Sin being legalized on the alter of political correctness and moral relativism.

151999[/snapback]

Ok... what about the fact that divorce is legal, alcohol, and even gambling. Do you feel the government should restrict those as well?

[Tigermike 3,052]

If the fudge packers in California or New York or Montgomery want to live together, I don't care one bit. I truly don't care what they do and I don't want to hear about what they do.

Then what is your beef? Why do you care if they want to sign a piece of paper that entitles them to LEGAL rights as a spouse.

151916[/snapback]

My beef is the legalization of sin. I realize it's hard for democrats to make an absolute statement like that, but there it is, in a nut shell. Sin being legalized on the alter of political correctness and moral relativism.

151999[/snapback]

Ok... what about the fact that divorce is legal, alcohol, and even gambling. Do you feel the government should restrict those as well?

152014[/snapback]

The fact that something is legal does not make it right does it? The fact that something is legal does not mean it is not sinful does it?

As far as the government goes, I am always for less government.

Does the fact that the gay community has a huge PR and lobbying organization make homosexuality less of a sin? If marriage is redefined by gay activists and liberal judges will that make you and them happy? Will that make them feel less sinful? Once they attain their goal of "equal status", will they then begin suing preachers who preach against the sin of homosexually? Preaching that could be construed as a hate crime couldn't it?

Moral relativism is the view that ethical standards, morality, and positions of right or wrong are culturally based and therefore subject to a person's individual choice. We can all decide what is right for ourselves. You decide what's right for you, and I'll decide what's right for me. Moral relativism says, "It's true for me, if I believe it."

Do you believe that right or wrong are not absolutes, but can be determined by each individual? Can morals and ethics can be altered from one situation, person, or circumstance to the next? Essentially, moral relativism says that anything goes, because life is ultimately without meaning. Words like "ought" and "should" are rendered meaningless. In this way, moral relativism makes the claim that it is morally neutral and morally superior.

Why is it wrong to be right?

[channonc 466]

The fact that something is legal does not make it right does it? The fact that something is legal does not mean it is not sinful does it?

I think this sentence sums it up for me. If gay "unions" are allowed to exist, no one is forcing you to think its right.

Just like there are plenty that think drinking, gambling and divorce are morally wrong and condemn those who participate in those activities.

Your own words contradict your stance.

[Tigermike 3,052]

Where is the contradiction?

I will ask you point blank: Is homosexuality a sin?

[mcgufcm 4,107]

what do you mean "where's the contradiction?" here, i'll break it down for you.

in one sentence you say, "My beef is the legalization of sin." so what you're saying is that the government should be dictated by Christian definitions of sin, and it should have laws that correspond. okay. so by that, you are saying that homosexuality (yes, i KNOW it's a sin. i don't think. i know.) should not be legal.

then you say in your next post, "The fact that something is legal does not make it right does it? The fact that something is legal does not mean it is not sinful does it?" that statement means that legal acceptance or prohibition has no bearing on whether it okay to actually partake in the action. so why do you have a beef with legalizing unions when you real beef as you point out is the legal acceptance of sin which we already have: homosexuality isn't illegal, alcoholism isn't illegal, gambling isn't illegal, divorce isn't illegal. so if you have a problem with legalization of sin why aren't you opposed to these sins?

i have a question for you since i answered your's: does a man living with and sleeping with and being contractually binded to another man make him MORE homosexual? i ask because i don't believe in levels of sin. a sin is a sin is a sin. so if a guy is already participating in the homosexual lifestyle (which is legal), how is the government suddenly legalizing sin if it allows him to qualify for tax breaks by getting a union?

[channonc 466]

Where is the contradiction? 

I will ask you point blank:  Is homosexuality a sin?

152025[/snapback]

Well, I think mcgufcm answered the first question rather well.

As far as whether or not it is a sin, doesn't matter from a public policy point of view, which is what we have been arguing. I don't think it should matter what my personal beliefs are.

[CCTAU 3,342]

Where is the contradiction? 

I will ask you point blank:  Is homosexuality a sin?

152025[/snapback]

Well, I think mcgufcm answered the first question rather well.

As far as whether or not it is a sin, doesn't matter from a public policy point of view, which is what we have been arguing. I don't think it should matter what my personal beliefs are.

152080[/snapback]

In the absence of light, darkness prevails. So when you throw out your personal beliefs (your individual light) you give Satan the right to dictate what YOU will accept.

[channonc 466]

What I meant was... my personal view on whether or not homosexuality is wrong has nothing to do with whether or not 2 guys have a LEGAL union.

[Tigermike 3,052]

what do you mean "where's the contradiction?" here, i'll break it down for you.

in one sentence you say, "My beef is the legalization of sin." so what you're saying is that the government should be dictated by Christian definitions of sin, and it should have laws that correspond. okay. so by that, you are saying that homosexuality (yes, i KNOW it's a sin. i don't think. i know.) should not be legal.

then you say in your next post, "The fact that something is legal does not make it right does it? The fact that something is legal does not mean it is not sinful does it?" that statement means that legal acceptance or prohibition has no bearing on whether it okay to actually partake in the action. so why do you have a beef with legalizing unions when you real beef as you point out is the legal acceptance of sin which we already have: homosexuality isn't illegal, alcoholism isn't illegal, gambling isn't illegal, divorce isn't illegal. so if you have a problem with legalization of sin why aren't you opposed to these sins?

i have a question for you since i answered your's: does a man living with and sleeping with and being contractually binded to another man make him MORE homosexual? i ask because i don't believe in levels of sin. a sin is a sin is a sin. so if a guy is already participating in the homosexual lifestyle (which is legal), how is the government suddenly legalizing sin if it allows him to qualify for tax breaks by getting a union?

152032[/snapback]

Sure marriage is a religious institution.

Is marriage not also a secular term? Doesn't the government require a marriage license? They used to require a health certificate as well.

what do you mean "where's the contradiction?" here, i'll break it down for you.in one sentence you say, "My beef is the legalization of sin." so what you're saying is that the government should be dictated by Christian definitions of sin, and it should have laws that correspond.

No that is not what I said nor is it what I meant.

okay. so by that, you are saying that homosexuality (yes, i KNOW it's a sin. i don't think. i know.) should not be legal.then you say in your next post, "The fact that something is legal does not make it right does it? The fact that something is legal does not mean it is not sinful does it?" that statement means that legal acceptance or prohibition has no bearing on whether it okay to actually partake in the action. so why do you have a beef with legalizing unions when you real beef as you point out is the legal acceptance of sin which we already have: homosexuality isn't illegal, alcoholism isn't illegal, gambling isn't illegal, divorce isn't illegal. so if you have a problem with legalization of sin why aren't you opposed to these sins?

I don't recall saying that I was not opposed to any sins, have I? I have not attempted to compare any of the sins. I merely pointed out that homosexuality is a sin. You and channonc were the ones trying to make comparisons.

i have a question for you since i answered your's: does a man living with and sleeping with and being contractually binded to another man make him MORE homosexual? i ask because i don't believe in levels of sin. a sin is a sin is a sin. so if a guy is already participating in the homosexual lifestyle (which is legal), how is the government suddenly legalizing sin if it allows him to qualify for tax breaks by getting a union?

If you don't believe in levels of sin, how can you ask "does a man living with and sleeping with and being contractually binded to another man make him MORE homosexual?"

The gay activists are not pushing for a union are they? They are pushing for a marriage.

[Tiger Al 0]

Where is the contradiction? 

I will ask you point blank:  Is homosexuality a sin?

152025[/snapback]

Well, I think mcgufcm answered the first question rather well.

As far as whether or not it is a sin, doesn't matter from a public policy point of view, which is what we have been arguing. I don't think it should matter what my personal beliefs are.

152080[/snapback]

In the absence of light, darkness prevails. So when you throw out your personal beliefs (your individual light) you give Satan the right to dictate what YOU will accept.

152096[/snapback]

Is "sin", which comes from personal religious beliefs, really the best barometer for what should be legal or illegal in a secular society and its' government?