Dear ex-gay supporters,
Didja hear about this?
President Bush sends this note:
I send greetings to the members of the Metropolitan Community Church Los Angeles as you celebrate your 35th anniversary.
Faith plays an important role in the lives of many Americans, offering strength and guidance for the challenges of each new day. By encouraging the celebration of faith and sharing the message of God’s love and boundless mercy, churches like yours put hope in people’s hearts and a sense of purpose in their lives.
This milestone provides an opportunity to reflect on your years of service and to rejoice in God’s faithfulness to your congregation. In the days ahead, may your community continue to grow grow in faith and fellowship.
Laura joins me in sending our best wishes for a memorable celebration.
Dear gay supporters,
Didja hear about this?
President Bush proclaims:
Marriage is a sacred institution, and its protection is essential to the continued strength of our society. Marriage Protection Week provides an opportunity to focus our efforts on preserving the sanctity of marriage and on building strong and healthy marriages in America.
Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and my Administration is working to support the institution of marriage by helping couples build successful marriages and be good parents…
During Marriage Protection Week, I call on all Americans to join me in expressing support for the institution of marriage with all its benefits to our people, our culture, and our society.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim the week of October 12 through October 18, 2003, as Marriage Protection Week. I call upon the people of the United States to observe this week with appropriate programs, activities, and ceremonies.
“Baffled” and “intrigued” are two of my favorite self descriptions. Both convey a degree of mystery, of shades of gray instead of blacks and whites, and of my heartfelt interest.
It’s not often, though, that both apply simultaneously. Bottom line? My brain hurts.
Howsabout you?
Yes, my head hurts too. And the Shrub had better watch his back. Much of the political religious wrong does not cotton too well toward right-wingers who are nice to GLBT people in any way, shape, or form. Recent example: Virginia attorney general Jerry Kilgore told a gay group that he would not discriminate using sexual orientation as a basis and the anti-gay Family Policy Network went bloomin’ nuts.
Somewhere between being baffled and intrigued, my pragmatic side says that Bush knew all along that he’d dig into his retro bag-o-tricks to pull out Gilda Radner’s befuddled Emily Litella character for a cute “Never Mind!” postscript.
And, compassionate conservatism aside, I have no delusion that he’ll be behind the relationship between me and my beloved.
More proof that Dubya isn’t always the brightest bulb in the chandelier.
Sounds to me like someone got a standard request, probably through a White House connection or a Congressman, and asked for the Presidential letter without ever revealing the type of ministry MCC really is (notice his statement has nothing to say about MCC’s focus on GLBTs). If this is Barney Frank “punking” the President, I might die laughing.
The notion that Shrub’s staff didn’t realize what was being congratulated occurred to me too.
If Frank did punk the Resident, all I can do is quote Ashton Kutcher: AWE-some!
There are a number of factors at work here. From what I can tell there are two governing principles in the President’s thought:
1. Marriage, properly defined, is between a man and a woman.
2. Point one notwithstanding, that there should be understanding and tolerance with those whom you disagree.
Bush has been ambivalent with respect to marriage amendment, at one point considering it to be unnecessary. Here’s the President on July 3:
“I don’t know if it’s necessary yet,” the president said. “Let’s let the lawyers look at the full ramifications of the recent Supreme Court [ruling]. What I do support is the notion that marriage is between a man and a woman.”
Here’s some quotes from the same August 1 press conference to back up my analysis:
“[T]his is a principled stand,” McClellan said. “This is a view he feels very strongly about. And the president will not compromise on that view. … Make no mistake about it, the president is strongly committed to protecting the sanctity of marriage and defending a sacred institution that he believes is between a man and woman.”
McClellan also was asked about the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would add language to the constitution banning same-sex “marriage.” It has more than 75 cosponsors in the House of Representatives.
“Obviously that is something to look at in this context,” McClellan said. “But we need to see where these court cases come out.”
—-
Another reporter asked him how Bush views himself as a compassionate conservative “when he’s against same-sex marriage [and] he doesn’t think that he should allow [marriage] for gays?”
McClellan said Bush respects those who disagree with him.
“I think the fact that we may disagree on certain issues doesn’t mean we can’t work together on areas where we agree,” McClellan said.
McClellan also was asked to expand on Bush’s views on homosexuality.
“[T]he president believes we’re all sinners,” McClellan said. “The president believes we are all the same in God’s eyes. And the president does not believe it’s his place to judge others. The president is not one to cast stones. The president believes we ought to treat everybody with dignity and respect.”
—-
Given these two things in play, it makes perfect sense to both support Marriage Protection Week and to congratulate the MCC. The former because of principle one and the latter because of principle two. It is possible to disagree and be respectful.
Here’s some more quotes that back up my point:
Bush said it is “important for society to welcome each individual,” but administration lawyers are looking for some way to legally limit marriage to heterosexuals.
“I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and I think we ought to codify that one way or another,” Bush told reporters at a White House news conference. “And we’ve got lawyers looking at the best way to do that.”
…..
“Yes, I am mindful that we’re all sinners,” the president said Wednesday when asked for his views on homosexuality. “And I caution those who may try to take the speck out of the neighbor’s eye when they’ve got a log in their own.”
“I think it’s very important for our society to respect each individual, to welcome those with good hearts, to be a welcoming country,” Bush added. “On the other hand, that does not mean that somebody like me needs to compromise on an issue such as marriage.”
To an extent, yes.
As much as I dislike the current President, I unfortunately have to admit that Bush like many politicians is sorta stuck in a loop. If you believe that homosexuality is sin then you must do everything to prevent gay marriage, but on the other hand homosexuals are people and treating any group of people harshly is wrong. Which is the cause of the conflicting signals. Both parties are stuck in this loop and I don’t think that a Democratic President would have done anything different.
It is sorta his version of love the sinner but hate the sin. (Which can someone every truly do such a thing as love the sinner and hate the sin? I mean most people wouldn’t take someone working against the possiblity of marriage with a person they love as being a sign of love.)
“If you believe that homosexuality is sin then you must do everything to prevent gay marriage”
Not really. I know plenty of people (though not nearly enough) who believe homosexuality is sin, yet don’t feel that it is moral or just for them to inflict their religious beliefs on others via secular law.
Update from the Family Research Council:
See? Even congratulating queers is “troubling.” Boggles the mind.
The entire point of the MCC is that gay love and relationships are not sinful. Yet the President is using his own (perverted IMHO) form of Christianity to state that gay marriage must be legally blocked, even if he is not endorsing the FMA yet.
If we are to have real freedom of religion, there must be respect for those religions that believe gay people are full and complete human beings who deserve to be married in all the sense of the word. Bush clearly does not agree with that, and he is at best trying to pander to two segments of his base – the “Christian” right and the more tolerant soccer moms.
However, I am willing to bet $$ that he had not idea the letter was even sent – after all, you can get an official birthday greeting from the President for anyone who is celebrating a “big” birthday (I believe it is 80, 85, 90, 95, 100)
Rich, I understand that Bush has personal ambivalence about these issues. Among religious orgaizations, MCC churches are more likely to relegated to mock-quoted references, particularly by the religious folk Bush is determined to retain as supporters, marginalized or shunned by ecumenical organizations, castigated as faithless and contrived. MCC churches perform thousands of same-sex marriages annually and have pushed for their legal recognition for decades. That’s the context within which congrats were sent to the founding church of the fellowship of churches.
I’d be happy to hear Bush confirm that he believes the MCC has put hope in hearts and purpose in lives by sharing God’s love and mercy, that God has been faithful to them, and he hopes MCC will continue to grow.
I gotta admit that I’m skeptical about hearing anything like that, though.
Steve, I think things are better in the Bush Administration than you fear. Note to whom the imperatives are addressed. He tells the Religious Right not to judge homosexuals using their own religious texts. When he disagrees with you he calls you people of “good will” and makes “I” rather than “you” or “they” statements. The Bush Administration got in trouble with the Religious Right when they refused to practice hiring descrimination against homosexuals. In short, the Administration’s only point of contact with the Religious Right is the belief that only heterosexual marriages are “real”. They differ on tactics and on how to relate with the homosexual community. Even though neither the left nor the right get it, the new tone is not some political artifice. And that’s why both sides are scratching their heads on this one.
Bush is a sharp politician. I detect that he sees the whole gay marriage issue is a political turkey. While the RNC wants to make this the defining issue for the Republicans, I sense that Bush doesn’t want it to be that way. This is almost completely analogous to what campaign finance reform was for the Democrats in the last cycle. That is, when you poll on these two issues, it appears to be a political winner. However, when you ask whether the American people feel that it is an important or defining issue, it polls in single digits. The next election will be determined on the economy and national/homeland security. If Bush doesn’t push this issue, he won’t lose the Religious Right but he could lose some Log Cabin Republicans. On the other hand, if he does push it he will have a net loss of votes.
Combining the fact that Bush doesn’t believe in pushing this issue with it being a political loser means that this won’t be an issue in the 2004 Presidential Campaign — at least from the Bush camp.
My previous post should have said:
If Bush does not push this issue, he won’t lose the Religious Right but he could gain some Log Cabin Republicans. On the other hand, if he does push it he will have a net loss of votes.
Hiya Rich… I certainly see the promotion of compassionate conservatism as evidence of sharp political execution. I remain skeptical, not fearful, that the Bush will confirm its affirmation of the MCC and would love to see my skepticism proven to be ill-founded.
From White House Press Briefing by Scott McClellan
November 14, 2003
The Houston Voice covers this, adding a couple of fresh quotes to what we’ve already heard:
Robert Knight at the Culture and Family Institute weighs in with commentary on the Bush letter, saying that Scott McClellan called it a “form letter” (McClellan’s actual words were “standard greeting”) and describing Troy Perry and the MCC this way:
The CFI statement summarizes:
It disputes MCC biblical interpretation, quotes ex-gay writer Joe Dallas about Rev. Perry, and says that Perry advised gay men not to get tested for HIV until a cure is found in an “MCC newspaper” without attributing the paper, its date, or the context in which the purported statement was made.
Michelangelo Signorile in New York Press: