Related articles and links |  1 of 17

Religious conservative leaders to Bush: Back FMA or lose election
Upset that President Bush hasn't used stronger language to condemn gay marriages in San Francisco and Massachusetts, leaders of conservative Christian political organizations say they might as well let John Kerry win the election. That's the jist of a story in today's Washington Times.

The chief critics seem to be Sandy Rios and Robert Knight, both from Concerned Women for America.

"[The Bush campaign] can't possibly guarantee a large turnout of evangelical Christian voters if he does not do what is morally right and take leadership on this issue as he did on the [Iraq] war" Rios said. "The strength of this president is in his convictions, but our people do not admire his indecision and lack of leadership on an issue so basic as the sanctity of marriage."

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins made a very similar prognostication: "Social conservatives coalesce around strong leadership. That's what motivates and energizes them. And on their core issues, the leadership from the White House is not there right now." American Family Association founder Don Wildmon (who says Bush has "a major problem" with evangelicals), Christian Coalition activist Sadie Fields, and Gary Bauer are also quoted with critical marks, as is an unnamed "prominent evangelical leader" who says he's "just furious over what's going on in California and over what the President is not doing in California."

It looks like all those names are from what's called the "Arlington Group," a coalition of about 20 conservative religious political organizations that is pushing for a federal marriage amendment that would ban civil unions as well as homosexual marriages.

But while many of these groups have made gay marriage their top agenda item for this election year, the Times says they're upset by other issues too, where they say the Bush administration has wilted: pornography, abortion, funding of the National Endowment for the Arts, the Leave No Child Behind education bill, judicial nominees (they're upset about Bill Pryor and Bush's promise not to use a prolife "litmus test").

We've been here before, and it's all part of the political game. A candidate's core constituency is always going to complain that they're not getting enough, or not being paid enough attention, or that one comment (or lack thereof) is going to cause people to change parties or to stay home in protest. It's a way of keeping the candidate in line. In this case, it's an effort to get Bush to make a strong statement of support for a constitutional amendment against gay marriage.

But the each of these quotes tiptoes around the issue: Are these activists making a threat, or are they just playing pundit? Are they saying, "Religious conservatives aren't happy with Bush," or are they saying, "We're not happy with Bush, and we're going to do something about it"? If it's the former, then let's hear some numbers; let's get some polling data; let's call John Green. If it's the latter, why not take the gloves off? None of the quotes suggest that any of these organizations will work against Bush if he doesn't support the Federal Marriage Amendment. Ask yourself: why not? Could it be because these groups really don't want to see Bush lose to a guy who called the Defense of Marriage Act "unconstitutional, unprecedented, unnecessary and mean-spirited" and called the bill's supporters gay bashers?

You know what happens to the kid who keeps threatening to take his ball and go home? Eventually the other kids let him.

next page... |  1 of 17

February (Web-only) 2004, Vol. 48