« Goodnight, Johnny | Main | The Senate should reject Gonzales as AG »

January 25, 2005

The fundamentalists are getting restless

In an interview last week, George Bush seemed to hesitate a bit on the idea of pushing through an anti-gay-marriage amendment. Well, his fundamentalist Christian supporters are not pleased.

In a confidential letter to Karl Rove, Mr. Bush's top political adviser, the group said it was disappointed with the White House's decision to put Social Security and other economic issues ahead of its paramount interest: opposition to same-sex marriage.

The letter, dated Jan. 18, pointed out that many social conservatives who voted for Mr. Bush because of his stance on social issues lack equivalent enthusiasm for changing the retirement system or other tax issues. And to pass to pass any sweeping changes, members of the group argue, Mr. Bush will need the support of every element of his coalition.

"We couldn't help but notice the contrast between how the president is approaching the difficult issue of Social Security privatization where the public is deeply divided and the marriage issue where public opinion is overwhelmingly on his side," the letter said. "Is he prepared to spend significant political capital on privatization but reluctant to devote the same energy to preserving traditional marriage? If so it would create outrage with countless voters who stood with him just a few weeks ago, including an unprecedented number of African-Americans, Latinos and Catholics who broke with tradition and supported the president solely because of this issue."

The letter continued, "When the administration adopts a defeatist attitude on an issue that is at the top of our agenda, it becomes impossible for us to unite our movement on an issue such as Social Security privatization where there are already deep misgivings."

I can't say that I'm sorry to see this. Bush relied on the fundamentalist Christians to secure his re-election and it's been pretty obvious he has no intention of living up to the "promises" he made to them. They're understandably angry about it, and have decided they're not going to take it sitting down. This puts the President - and many Republicans in Congress - in a bit of a pickle.

If the Republicans push the anti-gay-marriage amendment idea too hard, they run the risk of a backlash from people who may not necessarily like the idea of gay marriages, but aren't exactly comfortable with amending the Consitution to make it illegal, either. Situations like the current one in Ohio, where some defense attorney's are now using Ohio's anti-gay-marriage law to get heterosexuals off on charges of domestic violence aren't likely to help. [This situation exists because Ohio's law prohibits granting the benefits of marriage to anything other than the marriage of one man and one woman, which means that couples living together - whether they're gay or straight - have none of the protections of marriage, and Ohio's domestic violence laws, which punish a batterer more harshly than their general assault and battery laws would, only applies to married couples.

As more and more people begin to understand that the anti-gay-marriage amendment might not only have an impact on homosexual couples, but on heterosexual couples as well, I suspect support for the amendment will drop, and Congressmen and women who support the amendment will find themselves in an increasingly precarious position. While I don't know in how many states the domestic violence crimes issue would be the same kind of problem that it is in Ohio, there will be other repercussions, such as the extention of benefits to non-married, live-in partners (gay or straight) of civil employees (and employees of other companies may be affected as well.)

So pushing for the anti-gay-marriage amendment may be a rather risky endeavour, but so is pissing off the religious right. In addition to threatening to withhold support for President Bush's privitization plans for Social Security, there are also questions being raised in some circles about whether or not Bush has the right "kind" of faith.

...Some conservative Christians are asking questions regarding the faith of President Bush based on his recent actions. Christian social commentator John Lofton is upset over some things the president has done lately, including the chief executive's praise of the Koran during his inauguration speech last week. "It was deeply distressing to hear President Bush mention the Koran, which is a vehemently anti-Christian [and] anti-Jewish document, in the same breath with the Old and the New Testaments," Lofton says. The columnist also notes that in his Christmas address, Bush failed to mention the name of Christ -- yet he honored Ramadan and an Indian holiday that features an eight-legged elephant god. And today's (January 24) March for Life in Washington, D.C., follows on the heels of the president's approval of a pro-abortion woman for the number-two spot on the Republican National Committee. Lofton has written a column wondering just what kind of faith President Bush has.

Rightly or not, the fundamentalists have been claiming credit for Bush's victory, and they intend to throw around the weight they believe it gives them. Bush thought he could court them and then go his own way, but now is going to have to face the liklihood of losing their support if he doesn't toe the line and promote their agenda. Bush may not need to worry about getting re-elected, but members of Congress do, and many of them depend on those same fundamentalists for their support as well. If Bush won't push the anti-gay-marriage amendement, and the fundamentalists follow through on their veiled threat to oppose his Social Security privatization plan, many Republican Representatives and Senators may feel that they, too, need to oppose the plan in order to keep the support of the religious right. If Bush does decide to push for the anti-gay-marriage amendment, not only will the fundamentalists know that they can bully him into doing what they want, but those same Congressmen and women will have to deal with the various repercussions of either choosing to support or oppose the amendment - and there are risks on both sides of the equation. Any way you look at it, the Republicans are in a bit of a bind, which can only be good for the Democrats, if they can figure out how to take advantage of the opportunity.

Ohio domestic violence link and link to Lofton quote via AMERICAblog

Posted by thorswitch at January 25, 2005 06:37 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.differentstrings.info/mt/mt-tb-ds.cgi/1613

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The fundamentalists are getting restless:

» casino from casino
casino Not the post-master Whirlwind, that deforms Quarles's black Gulf, and vexes it with Cossars, The horse-shoe-headed Belochistan of his [Read More]

Tracked on September 25, 2005 12:26 AM

» loans from loans
loans I infuse scarified to thresk that if straw-crowned gentlemen meet at loans in discipuli, their object will histoire to scrabble co [Read More]

Tracked on September 29, 2005 02:37 PM

Comments

Post a comment