"Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said he will vote against (the Marriage Amendment) on the floor but allowed it to survive his panel in part to give the Republicans the debate party leaders believe will pay off on Election Day....As that hearing gets under way, debate on the marriage amendment will enter its second day on the Senate floor. All but one of the Senate Democrats, the exception is Ben Nelson of Nebraska, oppose the measure and, with moderate Republicans, are expected to block an up- or-down vote, killing the measure for the year. Democrats say the amendment is a divisive bow to religious conservatives, and point out that it conflicts with the GOP's opposition to big government interference.  "A vote for this amendment is a vote for bigotry pure and simple," said Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, where the state Supreme Court legalized gay marriages in 2003. Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco, which in 2004 began issuing marriage licenses to gay couples, on Monday denounced Bush's move as predictable and "stale rhetoric" aimed at rallying conservatives for this year's midterm elections. "It's politics. It's pandering and it's placating a core constituency, the evangelicals," Newsom said on ABC's "Good Morning America." Gay Marriage Ban Short of Votes in Senate Jun 05 LAURIE KELLMAN Associated Press http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/05/D8I271G01.html

Associated Press is reporting that the Gay Marriage Amendment has no hope of passing either the Senate or the House. So Bush's offering up the Gay Marriage as an issue right after his support of the Senate's Amnesty Bill has got to be viewed as disingenuous.

If Gay Marriage was really important to Bush2, then you'd have thought he'd have been pushing it a year ago, instead of bringing it out at practically the zero hour to get the issue into play for the 2006 Elections. Given his terrible approval ratings in the polls for his radical foreign policy positions and disastrous jobs performance, Bush/Rove certainly aren't risking alienating any moderate voters---he lost those votes long time ago.

Isn't it downright bad taste to bring up gay marriage after ramming through the Amnesty provisions under the pretense of a "guest worker program"?  If the Republican Party honchos support an immigration bill whose purpose is to cheapen the most valuable thing the working class has---it's American citizenship----by giving away the benefits of citizenship to anybody who walks across the border, why should we believe that they give a hoot about gay marriage?

Of course, liberals have been accusing the Republicans of bringing out "divisive" social issues when they come looking for votes for years. Until recently, that dog won't hunt. After all, aren't the Democrats the ones who are being "divisive" about social issues? Are not the Republicans merely responding to public reaction to the attack on their traditional social values?

After all, the vast majority of Americans just don't agree with the liberal elite that gay marriage is a civil right, or that defining marriage as one man and one women is discriminatory. If the Democrat appointed judges are hell-bent on a radical redefination of marriage and family, why is President Bush being so "divisive" in bringing it up?

The working class folks and those in the middle class have been looking suspiciously at the Democrats since 1968. The Democrats like to claim that they are the party that protects the economic security of "working families" even though 8 years of Clinton-omics did little to reverse the declining wages of working class folks. If Democrat Party was so concerned about working folks economic well being, then why are they doing everything they can to denigrate the social values of these folks?   

If the Democrats are supposed to be on the side of "working families", then why are always allied with those folks who think that traditional family values are outdated and oppressive?  After all, isn't the Democrat Party the party of those folks like People for the American Way, who want to kick all references to God out of public discourse? Isn't the Democrat Party the political arm of the Teacher's Unions, whose agenda is to indoctrinate our kids in political correctness and cultural relativism instead of teaching basic math and science? Isn't the Democrat Party the party of the radical feminism groups like NOW? And NOW's agenda of abortion-on-demand that so many people are uncomfortable with. Isn't the Democrat Party the party of the HRC and it's well-funded media campaign to redefine the traditional family to accomodate it to the "modern" views of morality held by the cosmopolitan elite in places like San Francisco, or Washington DC?

Frankly, the Democrats have got to learn that a voter is not going to be inclined to trust anyone with their economic security who is denigrating and undermining their religious and social values.  If the Democrats finally learn that simple fact, they might even become a true opposition party to Bush and his agenda.