FederalRepublic.net

By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos

WASHINGTON — With Republicans facing a potential backlash at the polls in November, a renewed national debate over gay marriage can only boost the morale of the party’s religious conservative base, which for a variety of reasons is near mutiny, say sources in the movement.

“It could be an issue that may not necessarily bring them back, but it will bring them out, which is the key thing for the fall elections,” said Bill Greene, head of RightMarch.com, an Atlanta-based conservative activist organization.

He described the Republicans’ conservative base as “pretty ticked off” over the way GOP senators have handled illegal immigration reform, the budget and President Bush’s judicial nominations, many of whom are still stalled in the Senate. But Greene said a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage “may be one prong of a multifaceted attempt at re-energizing the base.”

On May 19, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved the Federal Marriage Amendment. And the Associated Press reported Thursday that Bush will lend support to the amendment in an announcement Monday.

Link

As much as I agree with most Americans that the ultimate definition of marriage should be a union between a man and a woman only, a constitutional amendment is not needed to regulate an issue which I believe, clearly lies with the states.

Republican leadership and the Bush Administration, attempting to pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage, has turned the constitution into a catalyst for social change, something I fear could be harmful to our republic in the long run. I believe the proper place for such social change, like the definition of marriage, lies squarely on the shoulders of the states or the people. The attempt to socialize the constitution, in my opinion, is a cheap trick designed to win votes in the November election, a short term priority for the Republican Party. Passing an amendment to the constitution and changing the basis of our laws altogether is a permanent action, an action that will forever change legislation and hamper the struggle to renew states rights.

Using the constitution as a catalyst for social change cheapens the respect it deserves and shows that officials in our federal government have no respect for a once thriving federalism, but only care about the power of the central government in Washington.

By Jessamy Brown

A Keller school district parent said political correctness has run amok at her daughter’s elementary school, where the principal chose to omit the words “In God We Trust” from an oversize coin depicted on the yearbook cover.

Janet Travis, principal of Liberty Elementary School in Colleyville, wanted to avoid offending students of different religions, a district spokesman said. Students were given stickers with the words that could be affixed to the book if they so chose.

Debi Ackerman of North Richland Hills said she is offended by the omission. It’s yet another example of a politically correct culture that is removing Christian references from all public places, she said.

“I think it’s really ridiculous,” said Ackerman, whose daughter Tawni, 10, took the book home Thursday afternoon. “Now it has come to this. … When is it going to end?”

She likened the situation to retailers that use “Happy Holidays” rather than “Merry Christmas” in their displays and advertising.

“First, we can’t say ‘Christmas’ trees. It’s ‘holiday’ trees. Then it’s ‘holiday’ decorations,” Ackerman said. “It just doesn’t make any sense to me.”

Link

In a show of idiocy, this school district has played the “offence” card on displaying our country’s totally legal and uniting mottos on an oversize coin display. Instead of acknoledging our country’s deep heritage and traditional ideals, this school has let political correctness get in the way of common sense. By the way, did anyone think removing “In God We Trust” would not offend patriotic citizens or Christians? Didn’t think so. Another example of the wreckless political correctness the ACLU and so-called democratic organizations have wrought.

Right Wing News and Betsy’s Page have more:

Geesh, I realize that the principal was just trying not to offend anyone, but then pick another symbol. Since they’re Liberty Elementary, you’d think that the Liberty Bell would be a natural. It proclaims “Proclaim Liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof.” Who could object to that? Oops, that is from Leviticus. Can’t have that.

Michelle Malkin is carrying a related article about the hypocracy of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals as it relates to the treatment of Christianity and Islam in the classroom:

In California, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (the one that outlawed the Pledge of Allegiance for its reference to God) approved putting public school students through Muslim role-playing exercises.

The Philadelphia Inquirer has an interesting article detailing the difficulties President Bush and religious conservatives will have in getting a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage passed:

The religious conservatives who worked hard to reelect President Bush in 2004 have long anticipated that the White House would reward them by pushing a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

But that’s not happening.

Too many other issues predominate, everything from Iraq to immigration. As a result, Bush seems ill-positioned to spend dwindling political capital on a social crusade - especially at a time when a nod toward greater religiosity might turn off secular Republican voters and thus imperil the moderate Republicans in Congress who are already struggling to keep their jobs in November.

So the religious right, which may well have been pivotal in helping Bush keep his job, appears destined for major disappointment in 2006.

-Snip-

Why are so many moderate Republican voters feeling alienated? Party strategist Craig Shirley suggested, “There is a fear, among some in the party, that the Republicans are being identified too much as a theological party.” With good reason, apparently: Fabrizio estimates, based on his own surveys, that half of today’s Republicans are “theocrats” who want government to “promote traditional values by protecting traditional marriage,” as opposed to wanting less government intrusion into personal lives.

-Snip-

But religious-right leaders insist that saying no to gay marriage is a mainstream position; they cite recent Pew polls showing that 51 percent of Americans oppose the concept. For that reason, said Gary Bauer, “President Bush should be pushing this. This is an issue where the public is on his side, yet he seems too busy to deal with it. At least he’d be able to talk about something that can get people’s heads nodding, instead of him getting tuned out.”

While I agree with the President’s motives for preserving traditional marriage between a man and a woman and support for the core family unit, I don’t believe a constitutional amendment is the right way to go on this issue. Sure, conservatives and American society in general, have largely rejected gay marriage in the legislatures and at the ballot box. However, issues like this remind me of why we have a Tenth Amendment to the constitution.

The Tenth Amendment to the constitution states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Clearly, because the federal government is not granted a license to govern social unions or the arrangement of the family unit in the constitution, it is up to the states to decide the status of gay marriage or define marriage in the traditional sense. President Bush and conservatives in my opinion, are wrong for attempting to use the constitution as a catalyst for social change. Not only is this not in the best interest of our republic, but it implies that the constitution should be changed for minor social issues that are clearly in the interest of the states to decide.

Instead of looking to the federal government to define what “marriage” means, conservatives should look to their state governments for defining law. As much as I support the traditionalist cause, some just might want to read the constitution for once and see how federalism allows judgement in the gay marriage fiasco.

By Jim Rutenberg

WASHINGTON, April 28 - President Bush has never been shy about speaking Spanish in public, and he is known to love all kinds of music: country, folk and even Tex-Mex style rock. But one thing you will not find on his iPod: “Nuestro Himno,” the new Spanish version of the national anthem that was released on Friday as part of the growing immigrants’ rights movement.

President Bush speaking to reporters today in the Rose Garden of the White House.
Asked at a news briefing in the Rose Garden on Friday whether he believed the anthem would have the same value in Spanish as it did in English, Mr. Bush said flatly, “No, I don’t.”

“And I think people who want to be a citizen of this country ought to learn English,” Mr. Bush said. “And they ought to learn to sing the national anthem in English.”

Mr. Bush has tried to occupy a middle ground in the raging debate over immigration, supporting legislation that would grant immigrant workers temporary legal status and perhaps a path to citizenship, while pushing for immigrants to learn English also pressing for more steps to stop the flow of newcomers over the border. But his statement about the anthem was taken by members of both parties as a clear signal to conservatives that he stood with them on what many of them see as a clash between national identity and multiculturalism.

Link

While many issues are at stake in the debate over illegal immigration and border security, it is absurd the national anthem of the United States has been toyed with and destoryed in hispanic circles. Written by Francis Scott Key while observing the British bombardment of Fort McHenry in 1814, the Star Spangled Banner has given hope and courage to millions of soldiers and U.S. citizens. However, the anthem has now been abused by those who don’t care about this country’s history or what the anthem stands for.

We’ve seen time and time again illegal immigrants and other minority groups take to the streets to protest the ongoing fight in Congress regarding border protection legislation. However, during protests, many immigrants have pledged their loyalty to Mexico, have flown the American flag upside-down, and called for the Mexican re-annexation of the American Southwest. Now, radical hispanics have destroyed the Star Spangled Banner. In my eyes, this is not only dishonorable, this is dispicable. Illegal immigrants wish for the American people to sympathize with their cause, yet they continue to destroy American symbols.

As an American citizen, I am angry, and I hope other Americans are angry as well. It is time for the silent minority to step out of its comfort zone and speak out for border protection and the rule of law. Though these radicals may destory our national symbols, they must not destroy our determination to close the borders and prevent amnesty for those who disrespect our laws and freedoms.

By Richard D. Walton

A federal judge on Friday dismissed claims that a new Indiana law requiring voters to show a photo ID in order to vote is unconstitutional.
 
The decision clears the way for the first statewide test of the requirement during the Indiana primary election on May 2.

U.S. District Judge Sarah Evans Barker said that plaintiffs including the Indiana Democratic Party failed to back up their contention that the law is unduly burdensome and would keep many people from casting ballots.

“Plaintiffs also have repeatedly advanced novel, sweeping political arguments which, if adopted, would require the invalidation” not only of the photo ID statute “but of significant portions of Indiana’s election code which have previously passed Constitutional muster,” Barker wrote.

Link

I am very pleased with the result of this ruling. As a resident of Indiana, we must protect our earned right to vote from those who haven’t - illegal aliens and felons. Illegal aliens shouldn’t even be in the state in the first place, and therefore aren’t entitled to civil rights granted to residents or citizens of the state.