Question for the social conservatives on BGP

[Frances Bavier]

I don't think unmarried people should have children whether they are gay or straight.

Since you are pro-life, I would ask you if a gay/lesbian couple should be allowed to adopt?

 

 

I don't think that unwed parenthood should be criminalized.

Mighty big of you.

 

 

I don't think that a lesbian having a child is a good thing but she is within her rights to do it.

I agree, but no one is debating that particular aspect.

 

 

I seen no hypocrisy at all in conservatives expressing concern about this.

The conservatives expressing concern are not the hypocrits, nor are they being portrayed as such (in this instance). Many of them voted for Bush based on his pleadge to protect "family values". Many of them view this support of a lesbian couple having a baby as being in direct conflict with that pledge. They see it as an attack on "family values". Thus, they see Bush (and VP Cheney) as being hypocritical in this instance.

 

In fairness to the social conservatives, I see absolutely nothing hypocritical in their position on this issue at all. I do see it as intolerant, but definitely not hypocritical.

 

 

 

Frances

[Frances Bavier]

...His comments are not a policy stance. [/Quote] I agree. His policy is clear - it is one of intolerance and discrimination against the lifestyle of gay and lesbian people. No question about that.

 

 

Nor are they an affirmation of gay parenthood. [/Quote] His policies are definitely not an affirmation of gay parenthood. His statements, in this limited instance, most assuredly are. He is, point blank, saying that he endorses Mary Cheney and her partner as parents. They are lesbians. Could it possibly be more clear, that he is in support of this couple raising this child?

 

 

Nor are they hypocritcal. [/Quote] I don't see how the position he is taking in regards to the daughter of his VP could possibly be in a more striking contrast to his stated policy. You may not see this as hypocritical, but it is obvious that the fundamentalists that voted for him based on these issues clearly do.

 

 

The man is simply being nice and congratulatory. [/Quote] He is being nice and congratulatory. I wonder if he would be nice and congratulatory to the other gay and lesbian couples that would like to have a child to raise, or if he would sacrifice them on the altar of gathering votes, since he doesn't work with the father of any of them?

 

 

...As to the comment about the social conservative base being upset, so what....

So what? If not for that voting bloc, he would not be sitting in office today. Without that voting bloc, the next President is highly unlikely to be a social conservative.

 

 

 

Frances

[Frances Bavier]

Tell that to the Supreme Court of the state of Massachusetts.

My guess is that the Supreme Court of the State of Massachusetts is fully aware that this administration does not legislate anything.

 

 

Frances

[75center]

My guess is that the social conservatives are pleased with his policies and don't worry about where his personal feelings in the matter fall. Since the question was directed to social conservatives on this site, who on here considers him/herself a social conservative? On the flip side of the same question I remember listening to an interview early in the Bush term when he had done something the liberals liked but I simply don't remember what it was. The person being interviewed would not give Bush any credit because he had not done it "for the right reasons as his heart wasn't in it." I remember thinking how funny that was.

[All Tell]

Since you are pro-life, I would ask you if a gay/lesbian couple should be allowed to adopt?

Only if there is no traditional couple willing to do so. In that insatnce I feel a child is better of in a "family" unit rather then in the system.

 

The conservatives expressing concern are not the hypocrits, nor are they being portrayed as such (in this instance). Many of them voted for Bush based on his pleadge to protect "family values". Many of them view this support of a lesbian couple having a baby as being in direct conflict with that pledge. They see it as an attack on "family values". Thus, they see Bush (and VP Cheney) as being hypocritical in this instance.

A relation of mine recently recieved an inviatation to his neice's "committment" ceremony to her partner. This person makes me look absolutely liberal with his views. He sent a reply wishing her well. That doesn't mean that he approves of the lifestyle, it means he was being polite, nothing more nothing less. I would submit that those with that opinion are over reacting.

[All Tell]

Under current law, say five or six years into the relationship, and after a strong bond is set with the child and parents, and Mary Cheney dies, her partner has no leagal right to the child.

If Mary Cheny leaves it in her will that her partner is to get custody of the child then her partner gets custody.

[scooterbob]

I am a social and legal conservative. However, I am not in a position to judge anyone. Under the circumstances, Bush could give no other answer. It was a question designed to cause controversy regardless of the answer.

 

I did vote for Bush- twice. I did so for one and only one reason. I felt that he would be far more likely to appoint federal judges sharing my constitutional philosophy than would his opponent. So far, I am pleased with Roberts and Alito although I would have preferred Scalia as chief justice. I am disappointed with his lack of backbone in filling vacancies at the district and appellate levels.

 

Most of these "social issues" are merely to rouse up the applicable electorate. The Democrats do the same with Social Security and by sucking up to the poor, the minorities (race and otherwise), the unions, and similar groups.

 

After the election is history, neither side delivers much but will "drum up" the issues again in time for the next election. In this respect, Bush is no different from the others- on both sides. Voters usually choose the one who, at least, pay lip service to their issues and end up voting for the lesser of the evils. For instance, I am not pleased with Bush but I would sure as you know what vote for him again if he were running against Kerry, Gore, one of the Clintons, or someone of that ilk.

 

As for blood-boiling issues like abortion, don't be fooled. If you know anything about our system of jurisprudence with the emphasis on precedent, you know that overturning Roe v Wade isn;'t going to happen. And, if by some real quirk, it were overturned, it would not outlaw abortion but merely make it an issue to be resolved by each state independently. In other words, the 10th Amendment would come into play again which, as a "states's rightist", would suit me fine.

[scooterbob]

If Mary Cheny leaves it in her will that her partner is to get custody of the child then her partner gets custody.

 

I am not familiar with the state law of her domicile but I doubt that that would necessarily be the case. A child is not a chattel to be dealt with in a will. However, her wishes would be considered as are the wishes of anyone who provides for a guardian for his/her minor children. I would think that the birth father would have the upper hand unless, of course, his parental rights are terminated. If that were the case, the partner may well end up as guardian of the child but that doesn't make her a parent.

[Diamond Dandy]

If Mary Cheny leaves it in her will that her partner is to get custody of the child then her partner gets custody.

 

So if you will your kids to your neighbor a court would uphold it? LOL

[All Tell]

If you make your wishes known for whoyou wish to raise your minor children in the event of your death then in most instances they abide by those wishes.

 

Also why doesn't the "partner" adopt the child?

[Diamond Dandy]

If you make your wishes known for whoyou wish to raise your minor children in the event of your death then in most instances they abide by those wishes.

 

Also why doesn't the "partner" adopt the child?

 

Because the partner would be in line behind the Cheney's, as maternal grandparents, the donar, and his parents who have a blood line to th child.

[All Tell]

Sorry but I don't see this as a problem.

[scooterbob]

DD is obviously not an attorney but he did stay at a Holiday Inn Express.

[75center]

So if you will your kids to your neighbor a court would uphold it? LOL

 

I have known that to happen. I can't say in every instance it will but the courts have often held that the parents knew who best would be able to raise their children. The circumstances I know of were actually challenged by siblings of the parents. I don't know what would have happened if the grandparents had challenged the custody.

[Diamond Dandy]

DD is obviously not an attorney but he did stay at a Holiday Inn Express.

 

Think I'll pass on my comeback line this time. LOL