The New York Times > Washington > Campaign 2004 > Political Memo: Steady on the Right, Bush Pitches to the Center: "'I'm running with a clear and positive plan to build a safer world and a more hopeful America,' Mr. Bush said. 'I'm running with a compassionate conservative philosophy: government should help people improve their lives, not try to run their lives. And I believe this nation wants steady, principled, consistent leadership.'"

Bushie thinks that people will buy his compassionate conservative vaudeville act. However, lesbians, gays and their straight allies see through the smoke. Supporting the FMA is both NOT improving lives AND instead running and controling many lives. If Bush wants to be seen as a compassionate conservative, than he ought to act like one. Nothing that has occured durring his tenure in office is evidence of any sort of compassionate policy. The No Child Left Behind act is crippling America's education systems. The new Medicare Bill is causing the biggest cost hike for medicare in its history. Every day hundreds more Americans, British and Iraqis are blown away forever in Najaf or Mosul. Unemployment is NOT going down any time soon. The market is still having more bad days than good days. Meanwhile Bush is attacking hardworking, loving whole families that love eachother and love this country--his own vice president's family for one. Whether you're socially conservative and want to see America return to some version of the 50's, or you're socially liberal and want America to turn into some version of Amsterdam, anyone with an OUNCE of compassion in their blood can see this smoke and mirrors act is a mean-spirited ploy to make a political scapegoat out of real human beings and their loved ones. If you believe in honesty, fairness, and equality, don't vote for Bush. And if you live in Michigan, don't vote for the Constitutional Amendment.
I'm not going to blow smoke up your ass and try to make you think that if the Constitutional Amendment isn't passed, Michigan still won't get gay marriage. Well, chances are if the amendment is voted down in November Michigan WILL EVENTUALLY get gay marriage. But WHY NOT? First of all, it's not going to affect heterosexual marriage. Straight marriage will still be straight marriage. We're not going to see hundreds of straight couples breaking up because now they can finally marry their gym buddies. We're not going to see children CONVERTING to homosexuality because their neighbors are two wedding-band-bearing harley-riding dykes on bikes. If they do, it was going to happen anyway, whether or not they witnessed any same-sex "I-Do"s. Heterosexual Marriage will not be any LESS. Your straight daughter's wedding will still be as beautiful and wonderful whether or not she shares the same conference center with a gay wedding. Churches would never be FORCED to marry anyone--its never been mandatory in any case. Many churches in EVERY denomination already offer commitment ceremonies for gay and lesbian couples. These will be the same ones that will just convert over to marriage. The cathedral downtown will probably remain primarily a straight-wedding stop. No danger there.
What do straight people loose? Absolutely nothing. Their religious beliefs don't have to change. If you don't believe in homosexual marriage, don't have a homosexual wedding. Just because you don't believe in Islam, doesn't mean it should be outlawed. Muslims should be allowed to practice Islam because it is a human right to be able to practice what one believes in. And that does not get in the way of your own personal beliefs. Marriage is also a human right. We don't deny marriage to ANY OTHER consentual heterosexual pairing. If two 80 year old people meet at a Hawaii resort, and after two days decide they want to tie the knot, we know they aren't doing it for purposes of procreation. We aknowlege their union, however, we don't aknowlege Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin's 51 year relationship together. When two straight people want to get married, "procreation" is usually not a hot topic durring the wedding planning. We never make it issue when it comes to heterosexual couples. However, its the reason we claim we're denying marriage to homosexual couples. Do you really want to say that your marriage is strictly based on procreation? So does that mean that when you and your spouse no longer have the ability to procreate your marriage is over? Of course not. Marriage is for love. Marriage is for security. And Gay people are just as deserving and capable of these things as straight couples.
If Bush wants to come across as a compassionate conservative, than he ought to come out and say he's pro family--every family--and drop the FMA. Otherwise he's only blowing smoke up our asses. And if he's not ready to give me a ring and a date, he better get away from back there!