- The Washington Times - Thursday, July 31, 2003

Bush and gays

What do you do these days if you’re a strong supporter of the war on terror, an admirer of tax cuts, a believer in individual liberty, a supporter of welfare reform, and yet you’re also gay? Wednesday, the president made it far more difficult to reconcile these facts of your life. He came close to endorsing a federal marriage amendment to the very constitution of the United States to prevent gay citizens from exercising a right to marry. That’s not the same as a law. A law can be repealed. It is not enshrined for- ever. But placing a bar on gay civil rights within the Constitution takes things far further. What it says, in effect, is that it is part of the meaning of America that gay couples are inferior to straight ones. It connects all the rights and duties and privileges of being an American to an assertion that gay relationships are, in the words of the Vatican yesterday, “evil.”

My mailbox was crammed yesterday morning with e-mails. Here’s a brief one:

“Any gay person who supports the Republican party and/or Bush deserves everything that he/she gets from them. This really is a case of chickens supporting Colonel Sanders.”

Here’s another:

“Andrew, it’s time to stop believing in your dream president and start looking at the one we’ve got. Bush has lots of strengths. A sincere desire to grant equality to gays and lesbians — or even a sincere desire not to increase our second-class status — is not one of them. It never will be. It’s time for you to get over whatever spell Bush has cast on you and see the truth. This is the man who backed Santorum. This is the man who is trying to amend the Constitution to exclude gays and lesbians from marrying forever. This man definitely would like to see us marginalized, simply because of who we are.

If you’re going to support Bush despite his stated wishes to see you, and everyone who shares a sexual preference with you, shunted to one side and forever ostracized, that is your choice. But please understand that that is the choice you are making. This game where you pretend that Bush might be the president you want him to be, despite every word that comes from his mouth and every policy that comes from his office, is getting really old.

Like every other gay and lesbian conservative in this country, you’ve got to decide between a party you despise and a party that despises you. So make your call, blog about it, explain your reasons; it may help the rest of us faced with that choice. But drop the better living through denial routine. Sooner or later, even the most resolute fantasist has to bow to overwhelming evidence, and that day has come for you.”

Increasingly hard to refute that, isn’t it?

BBC vs. Blair

Here’s how they spin quotes. What Tony Blair said at his press conference yesterday was: “There is a big job of work to do — my appetite for doing it is undiminished.” Here’s how the BBC described it: “Tony Blair has fended off questions over the death of weapons expert Dr. David Kelly — but acknowledged that trust in his government was an issue which he had to confront. Mr. Blair, who said his appetite for power remained ‘undiminished’ despite his recent troubles, said he understood the ‘very legitimate questions’ to be asked over Dr. Kelly’s death.” The war continues.

BBC vs. Churchill

Yes, their record of appeasing dictators goes back a long way. According to the Web site Tech Central Station, “A July 23 editorial in London’s Daily Telegraph points out that ‘BBC journalism exhibits the same ‘agenda-setting’ mentality … The BBC’s bias against the war led it into grotesque distortion of reality.’ History repeats itself. Winston Churchill’s access to the radio broadcasting state monopoly in the 1930s was blocked by John Reith, the BBC director, who was an admirer of both Hitler and Mussolini. Radio broadcasting was then the only way Churchill could reach the masses and inform Britons about the growing Nazi threat. But Reith was an appeaser, like Prime Ministers Stanley Baldwin and Neville Chamberlain. Reith wrote in his diary that the Nazis ‘would clean things up,’ and about Churchill: ‘I absolutely hate him.’ ” Churchill, as always, had the right enemies. So does Mr. Blair.

Correction of the day

“Correction: July 27, 2003, Sunday. An article last Sunday about the author Ann Coulter and her emergence as a major conservative voice in television, radio and newspaper interviews misstated her age. She is 41, not 39.” — New York Times. Meow.

Quote of the week

“This time I think the Americans are serious. Bush is not like Clinton. I think this is the end.” — Uday Hussein, Saddam’s son, in early April, according to an associate.

Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide