RLN
06-03-2006, 05:23 PM
I'm sure that every one here knows about the water brought back over the dam--I mean this Federal Marriage Amendment Act.
I knew that it was just about time for the republicans to rehash this and see just how much they could stir up the religious right; however, a lot of the religious right are just not excited about this thing this time and here is why. You see this Monday Dubya is planning to get up in front of news cameras with VIPS looking on. But here is what plenty of religious right groups are thinking:
"I'm going to go and hear what he says, but we already know it is a ruse," said Joe Glover, president of the Family Policy Network, which opposes gay marriage. "We're not buying it. We're going to go and watch the dog-and-pony show, [but] it's too little, too late."
"Social conservatives are disappointed that there hasn't been more action on the issues that were highlighted in the 2004 election," said Gary Glenn, head of the American Family Assn. of Michigan.
He added: "Increasingly, social conservatives expect real action, not just politically timed attempts to motivate and organize the base."
"President Bush's position is actually quite good on many … life and family issues, but he needs to get out front on them," Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, wrote in a message to supporters last week. There is also dismay among some activists over the wording of the amendment.
Andrea Lafferty, executive director of the Traditional Values Coalition, and others say the second sentence leaves open the option that gays and lesbians could enter unions other than marriage; and that's a deal breaker for them.
On its website, the Concerned Women for America says it "does not support the Marriage Protection Amendment as currently worded because the second sentence is open to differing interpretations."
However, Dubya is lucky to have Rev. James Dobson giving it an OK; but, that is all it sounds like to me; just an OK.
Social conservative groups such as Focus on the Family, headed by James C. Dobson, support the amendment, despite the flaws they see in it.
"We would prefer stronger language, but we're content with this language," said Tom Minnery, Focus on the Family's vice president for public policy. "It leaves the issue of civil unions to the states. We recognize that this is the best we're going to get at the federal level."
Well good for them! A party that promises to a solid base of supporters, that gets that party elected, should receive just a little bit more than something at the state level, don't you think?
I was always wondered just how long that these Religious groups would choose to be used--although a better word would be abused--it does seem that they are coming to the kitchen table because they know the smell of coffee, and they really want their share!
You can read the whole article at the LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gay3jun03,0,5316780.story?coll=la-home-headlines)
I knew that it was just about time for the republicans to rehash this and see just how much they could stir up the religious right; however, a lot of the religious right are just not excited about this thing this time and here is why. You see this Monday Dubya is planning to get up in front of news cameras with VIPS looking on. But here is what plenty of religious right groups are thinking:
"I'm going to go and hear what he says, but we already know it is a ruse," said Joe Glover, president of the Family Policy Network, which opposes gay marriage. "We're not buying it. We're going to go and watch the dog-and-pony show, [but] it's too little, too late."
"Social conservatives are disappointed that there hasn't been more action on the issues that were highlighted in the 2004 election," said Gary Glenn, head of the American Family Assn. of Michigan.
He added: "Increasingly, social conservatives expect real action, not just politically timed attempts to motivate and organize the base."
"President Bush's position is actually quite good on many … life and family issues, but he needs to get out front on them," Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, wrote in a message to supporters last week. There is also dismay among some activists over the wording of the amendment.
Andrea Lafferty, executive director of the Traditional Values Coalition, and others say the second sentence leaves open the option that gays and lesbians could enter unions other than marriage; and that's a deal breaker for them.
On its website, the Concerned Women for America says it "does not support the Marriage Protection Amendment as currently worded because the second sentence is open to differing interpretations."
However, Dubya is lucky to have Rev. James Dobson giving it an OK; but, that is all it sounds like to me; just an OK.
Social conservative groups such as Focus on the Family, headed by James C. Dobson, support the amendment, despite the flaws they see in it.
"We would prefer stronger language, but we're content with this language," said Tom Minnery, Focus on the Family's vice president for public policy. "It leaves the issue of civil unions to the states. We recognize that this is the best we're going to get at the federal level."
Well good for them! A party that promises to a solid base of supporters, that gets that party elected, should receive just a little bit more than something at the state level, don't you think?
I was always wondered just how long that these Religious groups would choose to be used--although a better word would be abused--it does seem that they are coming to the kitchen table because they know the smell of coffee, and they really want their share!
You can read the whole article at the LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gay3jun03,0,5316780.story?coll=la-home-headlines)