abe smith

that GWBush and his mouthpieces have been inordinately SILENT about the last week (7days ago) Supremes's (final day's
final decision) about gays & all-That?
GLOBE of today (the 2nd july.... I read in a rush & forget the page #) printed a Letter to the Editor? I think; or perhaps a brief news article; QUOTING a statement made by GWB when he was campaigning for GOV of TX, about the TX sodomy law.
Doesn't our President have anything to say about the last week decision? Does he accept that decision ("authoritative because it is final")? That decision is in direct opposition to that/his earlier (1996 or so?) statement; and is he going to shut-up about it? = eat his words?
Can some more-competent-than-me one of us provide Bush's original statement wh I saw quoted? ( Yeah, as I'm this "Net-incompetent, I shd shut-up.)

Bill

Lynn Cheney was interviewed on CNN yesterday and said that she thought the Supreme Court did the right thing in keeping the government out of people's bedrooms. She based that idea on her conservative views of government and privacy issues. I hardly think that she is alone in this view in the Bush administration.

So long as the debate was framed as whether or not gays are entitled to equal protectction for their conduct, the conservatives were willing to be against that, but the Supreme Court deliberately ruled on the broader idea (under the "Due Process" clause) that the government had no business sending cops into people's bedrooms to police what they were doing in bed. That idea actually resonates quite a bit with conservatives, which is why I think that the "centerists" on the Supreme Court persuaded the majority to go that way with this ruling.

== Bill

brighid

I also think if GWB gives any sense of affirmation to this (and hence why Lynn Cheney was interviewed) he will really piss of the Religious Reich. I doubt Ralph Reed supports this measure and he is a member of GWB 2004 campaign staff. It will come up later, but GWB's handlers have advised him well to keep his mouth shut.

Brighid

ex-idaho

The Whitehouse has been silent because it is a contreversial issue and this is an election year. The Bush base cares deeply about this issue because they believe that thre really is a homosexual agenda that involves "converting" school children to the gay lifestyle. But Bush has to use rely on Frist and Santorum to address this to the base because he is now shooting for the Independent and moderate vote. Did you think that suddenly they were addressing prescription drug benefits as a coincidence.

This has all been very well scripted. When Santorum spoke out comparing gays to pedophiles and perverts I guarantee you that that was ok'd by Rove. Thats why Bush only released statement calling Santorum "a very inclusive man". They saw the writing on the wall and wanted to get ahead of the decision. Frist had approval from the Whitehouse to make the statement voicing support for the Constitutional amendment banning "gay" marriage. This all done to throw a bone to the Evangelical base while still playing it up to the middle.

Blixy Sticks

Has anyone considered that the Supreme Court was most lilkely throwing a bone?

ex-idaho

Who would they be throwing a bone too?

Blixy Sticks

To the liberals.

ex-idaho

For what possible purpose? The Supreme Court justices are all appointed by presidents and confirmed by the Senate both of which are controlled by the Republicans.

The Court handed down this decision based on solid constitutional principle and nothing more.

Godless Dave

While the rest of your post makes sense, I feel compelled to point out that it's not 2004 yet.

ex-idaho

In case you hadn't noticed the election year now stretches to about 18 months. This administation for all its percieved popularity is under a great deal of scrutiny and is leaving nothing to chance. In the past you'd be correct in pointing out how early it is but like Christmas the campaign cycle starts earlier season.