President Tries Marriage Defense “Perfect Cheer” To Again Fool His Base
By John Lofton, Editor
Craig: We’re down by 2 points, and time is running out! The Spartans need a miracle!
Arianna: Or the perfect cheer. — NBC “Saturday Night Live” skit featuring Will Ferrell and Cheri Oteri.
Sis. Boom. Bah.One of my favorite skits on “SNL” is these “cheerleaders” for the “Spartans.” Whenever their team is in trouble, “Arianna” calls for “the perfect cheer.” They cheer this cheer and, presumably, they — well, I’m not sure what happens. Maybe the team does better or at least these cheerleaders feel better.
In any event, the Bush/GOP team is in trouble. The President is down in the polls — a lot more than two points. So, he’s tried the marriage-defense “perfect cheer” to re-energize his base, individuals and organizations that are supposedly Christian but in reality are Republican Party cheerleaders. Mr. Bush hopes that trying this “perfect cheer” will cause his demoralized cheerleaders to, once again, pick up their poms-poms and cheer wildly for him just like they did to elect him before he sold them out on the issues they care about.
Will Mr. Bush’s “perfect cheer” work? Probably because his supposedly “Christian” cheerleaders are slow-learners.
The President says a Constitutional amendment to protect man/woman only marriage “is necessary because activist courts have left our Nation with no other choice.” But, this is not true. There are other choices to deal with “activist” judges who render Godless, un-Constitutional decisions. And two of these choices are:
(1) Impeach these “activist” judges! Deactivate them by getting them off of the bench. And/or (2) Ignore the rulings of such “activist” judges because (a) court rulings are not law; only Congress can make law. And (b) court rulings that contradict God’s Law are not law.
But, of course, neither Mr. Bush nor any of the GOP Congressional “leaders” have advocated either of these choices.
HOMOSEXUAL deathstyle does not deserve tolerance or respect and is certainly not dignified.The problem here is obvious. The President doesn’t really care if homosexuals get “married” and he’s proved this by endorsing so-called “civil unions” for homosexuals which is, basically, the same thing as homosexual “marriage” in that such “civil unions” give homosexuals the same legal “rights” as if they were “married.” In a little-noticed interview on national TV shortly before his re-election — on ABC’s “World News Tonight” program (10/25/04) — Mr. Bush repudiated the Republican Party Platform which opposes “civil unions” for homosexuals. Interviewed by Charles Gibson, the President said “sure,” he thought it was a possibility that homosexuals could be homosexual by their nature.
Gibson: So how can we deny them rights in any way to a civil union, that would allow, give them the same economic rights or health rights or other things?
President Bush: Well, I, I, I don’t think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that’s what a state chooses to do so.
Gibson:The Republican platform opposes it.
President Bush: Well, I don’t. I view the definition of marriage different from legal arrangements that enable people to have rights….
But, no one has any “rights” simply because they are homosexual. And, regardless of what Mr. Bush may believe, being for “civil unions” for homosexuals is the same as being for homosexual “marriage.”
In addition, the President has made it clear that he really doesn’t care if some people are homosexuals. At Kutztown University in Kutztown, Pennsylvania (7/9/04), Mr. Bush was asked about banning homosexual “marriage.” He said, in part:
“And I repeat to you — my own view is, is that if a state — if people decide to — what they do in the privacy of their house, consenting adults should be able to do. This is America. It’s a free society. But it doesn’t mean we have to redefine traditional marriage” (emphasis mine).
The “consenting adults” argument is, of course, the same argument sodomites make for practicing their vile, perverted sex. And to say that “consenting adult” sodomites can practice their perversion because America is “a free society” is shockingly ludicrous and outrageous.
Indeed, much of what Mr. Bush has said regarding the alleged need for a Constitutional amendment to protect “traditional” marriage makes no sense. Here’s some of what he said in a recent national radio address:
Bush: “Marriage is the most enduring and important human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith.”
Comment: But there is no single definition of “marriage” that is “honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith.” For example, the one man/one woman only marriage Mr. Bush says he wants to protect is not the way Islam sees marriage. Islam allows men to have multiple wives. And marriage was not instituted by human beings. Marriage was God-created, God-ordained and God-defined by the God of the Bible, the only God there is.
Bush: “Ages of experience have taught us that the commitment of a husband and a wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society. Marriage cannot be cut off from its cultural, religious, and natural roots without weakening this good influence on society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all.”
Comment: The ages of experience referred to here is the experience of Christian marriage. It is not the view of “all cultures and by every religious faith.” Furthermore, who cares if marriage “serves the interests of all?” True marriage must be what God says it must be.
Bush: “In our free society, people have the right to choose how they live their lives. And in a free society, decisions about such a fundamental social institution as marriage should be made by the people — not by the courts.”
Comment: Our society, because it is no longer Christian, is not free. And what, exactly, is meant here by the “right” of the people “to choose how they live their lives?” The “right” to live any way they want to? No way. Not at all — at least not from the Christian view. As for decisions about marriage being made by the people and not the courts, this notion is OK if by this statement the President means the elected representatives of the people are the ones to affirm and defend God-defined marriage, period. I fear, however, that this is not what Mr. Bush means since his religion seems to be “democracy” not Biblical Christianity.
Bush: “Democracy, not court orders, should decide the future of marriage in America.”
Comment: See what I mean? Mr. Bush worships at the altar of “democracy” even though we are not a “democracy” but rather — for the umpteenmth time — a representative, Constitutional, Republic.
Bush: “As this debate goes forward, we must remember that every American deserves to be treated with tolerance, respect, and dignity. All of us have a duty to conduct this discussion with civility and decency toward one another, and all people deserve to have their voices heard.”
Comment: No, no, no! I strongly disagree. As a Christian, I will not be tolerant of the views of homosexual sodomites who argue that there is nothing wrong with what they do. I do not respect practicing, unrepentant homosexuals. And the abominable, sinful practices of such sex-perverts do not deserve to be treated with dignity.