Bush wants 1.5 billion to "encourage marriage..."

Forget the moon as far as sending someone. Now Bush wants moon to rhyme with June and honeymoon. He's proposing 1.5 billion to "promote" marriage, theoretically among those who'd otherwise not know of its myriad pleasures and rights? This bald attempt to woo the born again brigade strikes me as, among other things, deeply anti-Republican. How can you be against big government, and keeping bureaucrats out of your bedroom, when you're telling people -- sorry, reminding people -- that marriage is out there, and available and oh-so-RIGHT for you? (Roxy, Papa? Surely you libertarians aren't excited by your tax bucks going to this? A billion and a half?!)

Forget the bigger needs of society. Schools, health care. Forget, even, the obscene irony of the same regime trying to stop people who WANT to marry from doing so, while shoving a license application at any teen who might be tempted to buy (gasp) a condom ... isn't this incredibily patronizing toward the have-nots? Give money to the rich, give marriage to the poor. What a philosophy. Maybe it's part of a bigger plan: Let's get the underclass married, then send 'em to Mars.

---

Updated On: 1/14/04 at 09:54 AM

Half of that budget is to pay Britney Speers as spokeswoman, though. And money well spent, I might add.

---

"It's always a good idea for Heterosexual married couples to brush up on their abilities to properly belittle, ignore and demean their offspring."

They can hone those skills at any professional sporting event.

In the words of Karen Walker "I'd barf but, that would be a waste of vomit"

Let's see, my tax money could be used to increase scholl budgets, give higher salaries to teachers and provide them with the equipment needed to ensure that the children who will someday run this country are well educated.

It could prevent the elderly from havin to decide between food or medication.

It could be used to purchase high tech equipment to aide firefighters and police.

Or, it could be used to encourage people to get married and settle on Mars. I'll need to think about this. It's such a tough decision.

---

I didn't think Bush had the ability to say anything that stupid. He is a marvel - just one stupid statement after another.

And, tell me again why they call Charlie Brown a blockhead.

Let's see, my tax money could be used to increase scholl budgets

Whell poot. I culd not hav sayed it bitter.

---

Now I really didn't care what this guy did, but this is going WAY TOO FAR! Doesn't he get it??

---

I'm just speaking from personal experience. Most of my friends are from divorced families. Some of them are very stable and level-headed individuals. I don't think that's particularly sexy at all. My parents were high school sweethearts and are still together. We've had a very stable family and we're all still close. My brother is straight and on his second marriage. I'm gay and "married" (in spirit, if not legally). A heterosexual wedding does guarantee heterosexual children, stability, love, or emotional strength. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. I do believe it helps to have two parents (whatever their sex) just for the support they can provide. But if one of them is a horrible human being or if all they do is fight, they it cannot possibly be a healthy stable environment for any child, married or not.

---

Coming from someone so vehemently opposed to gay marriage, I wouldn't take this strictly at face value.

---

Erik, How do you see to it that the woman you talk about doesn't have a child with someone that would be so destructive to her future?

Can you educate her, provide her with birth control, send all bad guys to Mars?

There are too many contradictions in these issues. Both sides pick a couple sentences out of a multi-thousand word issue and beat them around.

The majority opinion on this board is one of obvious distaste. I get it.

No matter what side you're on, 50% of the country doesn't agree with your opinion.

---

I was just veering slightly to show that there are more than one side to this issue... all issues.

You probably can't imagine how frustrating it is for me to be a moderate Republican in the theatrical community. I feel like I should be eligible for special therapy benefits.

---

CKeaton-

So you are frustrated to be an outsider and feel you deserve specialtherapy benefits for your pain. How interesting.

You drive home the contradiction that is the Republican party as a whole. There may be some very compassionate, intelligent and evolved Republicans but this law student has yet to meet one.

Your party decries "special interest rights" as a way to keep society from giving marginalized groups the basic rights they are guaranteed by the Constitution (before the Bill of Rights was gutted in the name of "safety."). According to Republicans, marriage is a "sacred" union- conveniently forgetting the separation of church and state. The general overview is "Our God is better and we get to say what he means." Think of Christianity as McDonalds- a franchise with lots of money behind it whose bottom line is making more money for the few while the masses who get health problems from eating there or the people who get paid a substandard wage don't matter as long as a profit (not prophet) is shown.

There are many viable alternatives to McDonalds- healthy food, food grown by people who do that for a living and are being queezed out of the equation. Food served by people who might make gratutities and be better treated. Food that nourishes- like true spirituality. But those people who do that are "funny" and who cares if they lose their businesses? "Ours" (people with money and power) is better than "theirs" (Everyone else).

Spirituality can not be governed. The Bible says"Thou shalt no kill." Yet the current regime has no problem bombing and killing innocent civilians for their spOILS of war. I do not have the accurate date at hand, but well over TEN THOUSAND children have been killed in the current conflict. No child left behind, indeed.

The Republicans quote the Bible when it suits them and ignore it when it does not. There was a brilliant diatribe on this on WEST WING once.

Rush limbaugh can break the law in a million ways- then turn around and insist he is due special consideration- despite his own words that white people who do drugs should be killed. Funny how that changed when he was in the hot seat. Has his fall given him a new found compassion for those who suffer from the same afflcition he does? Nope.

Ms. Spears highighted the absurdity of how available heterosexual marriage is. To tell people their love is not valid is going to lead to emotional/mental problems which may in turn lead to addicion, infection or suicide- unfortunately the first two get money from the governement so maybe we can just get everyoe who is NOT white, affluent and controling the reins to commit suicide after they have poured enough moeny into the accounts to justify their existance.

The people who scream over the attempt to take the phrase "under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance would scream even louder if they were asked to insert the name Mohammed as an alternative. Yet to many who are forced to say that Pledge, Mohammed is their God. Again. My God good, yours bad.

Why not 1.5 BILLION dollars to promote mental health? Racial tolerance? Acceptance of gays? Because that would not buy him votes. Gov. Daivs in CA was crucified for wanting to allow illegal immigrants to have drivers licenses. Now they are all being offered immunity by the benevolent drug addict we have in the highest post of the nation.

And God/Mohammed forbid that the money be spent on education- then people might be taught tot hink and would realize how badly they have been/are being misled and do something about it.

And if having two married parents is a guarantee of good behavior and well-adjusted children, Are Jenna and Laura adopted? I doubt their behaviour would be deemed as that of well adjusted children.

The bottom line is discrimination is discrimination. You feel like a minority in the theater community? Well, take that feeling, multiply it a _____ times and think about how you would feel if that meant you could lose housing, be denied the right to make your most signigant relationship legal and recognzied, be hated on sight for being different, have your life in danger if a gang of people who hated you for what you are decided to kill you since you don't count anyway- do that and you will have a FRACTION of an idea of what is like to be gay/lesbian/transgendered or a race other than white in this society.

Stop being a part of the proble and be a part of the change.

I started this thread, hoping for some spirited debate, and clearly, it's provoked that.

What troubled me only Orion has touched on in detail, which is how inconsistent this is with the predominate Republican philosophy, wherein big government is the anathma, and intrusion into the personal romantic practices of law abiding citizens could never be stanctioned as the state's reponsibility (particularly at such expense).

With those Repubicans and Libertarians, I (a Dem) stand: I don't think it's ever the Government's job to "model" lifestyle, to decide if single heads of households need to be "encouraged" to marry. The idea of "promoting" -- pushing people into -- one of the most personal decisions one can make in life feels like an Orwellian world concept, and a nightmarish one. What's next, demanding church attendance? Because it "encourages" people to "behave?" Where does it stop?

Like the recent immigration plan, this stands to offend people on all sides of the political spectrum, while theoretically making Bush looks "positive." I hope there are strong Republicans who will stand up and rebuke this for the shameful, pandering nod to the Christian Right that it is. Marriage is a big step, one that may require the state's imprimatur. But the decision to take that step will never be the Gov's damned business.

---

Updated On: 1/14/04 at 04:15 PM