Bush appears to open door to same-sex unions

Reuters News Service ^ | December 16, 2003 | Randall Mikkelsen

[AFA-Michigan]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- President Bush on Tuesday appeared to open the door to same-sex unions that stop short of marriage, by saying people should be able to make "whatever legal arrangements" they want as long as a state recognizes them.

Bush, who has steadfastly opposed gay marriage, said in an ABC News interview for the first time that he would support a constitutional amendment enshrining heterosexual marriage. "If necessary, I will support a constitutional amendment which would honor marriage between a man and a woman, codify that."

However, he also said, "The position of this administration is that whatever legal arrangements people want to make, they're allowed to make, so long as it's embraced by the state or at the state level."

He said marriage should be a state issue, "except and unless judicial rulings undermine the sanctity of marriage. In which case, we may need a constitutional amendment."

His comments indicated that Bush, as he heads into his reelection campaign, was walking a fine line between the interests of his social conservative base which favors a constitutional ban on gay marriage and other voters who have shown more acceptance of same-sex unions.

Same-sex marriage emerged as a major issue last month when a Massachusetts court ruled in favor of it, prompting calls from some conservatives for a constitutional amendment to say marriage could only be between a man and a woman.

"The court I thought overreached," Bush said. "It did the job of the legislature. It was a very activist court in making the decision it made."

The Massachusetts ruling was preceded by a U.S. Supreme Court decision in June which struck down a Texas sodomy law, raising speculation laws barring gay marriage may be vulnerable to challenge nationally unless the constitution was amended.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Bush had not changed his position against same-sex marriage. "He (Bush) always said states have the right to pass their own laws, but this president is committed to doing what is legally necessary to protect the sanctity of marriage."

FEDERAL LEGISLATION

Bush continues to support federal legislation that defines marriage as heterosexual and allows states to refuse to recognize any same-sex marriage performed elsewhere, McClellan said. Bush said he feared that the federal Defense of Marriage Act "may be undermined at this point."

Bush's comments sparked concern among supporters of an outright constitutional ban on gay marriage, but also from advocates of legalizing same-sex unions. "This sounds as though the administration would support civil unions which are counterfeits of the institution of marriage," said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council.

Political director Winnie Stachelberg of the Human Rights campaign, a gay and lesbian rights group, said "it's never necessary to amend the constitution in this way." She said an anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment now before Congress could strip existing state protections of gay and lesbian relationships.

Spokesman Mark Mead of the Log Cabin Republicans, representing gay and lesbian party members, said the group was pleased with Bush's states'-rights position. "Leaving it up to the states is what conservative Republicans should support."

A Pew Research Center poll taken in October showed that 59 percent of Americans opposed gay marriage, but 51 percent favored giving same-sex couples some of the same legal rights of marriage.

It said only 10 percent favored amending the constitution to ban gay marriage, but 42 percent supported prohibiting gay marriage by law.

Amending the constitution requires a two-thirds vote by each house of Congress and ratification of three-fourths of states. Since the adoption of the original 10 amendments in the Bill of Rights, there have been only 17 amendments.

[AFA-Michigan]

Bush says he'll support a federal marriage amendment, but only if it's necessary. (What's he waiting on? The U.S. Supreme Court to legalize so-called homosexual "marriage"?) Then he gives states-rights consent to Vermont-style "civil unions" and California-style "domestic partnerships," fake marriages in which homosexual couples receive all the legal status and benefits of marriage except the legal right to call their relationship by that name.

[Paleo Conservative]

What President Bush thinks about any constitutional amendment is irrelevent. It is up to the House, Sentate, and State legislatures. Perhaps you should reread the Constitution.

[At _War_With_Liberals]

"for the first time that he would support a constitutional amendment enshrining heterosexual marriage."

Huh? Marriage is not heterosexual marriage. its just plain marriage.

Enshrine? No. I think THOUSANDS of years has accomplished that. It does not need 'legitimizing'.

[CharliefromKS]

Oh boy. The camel's nose is working it's way into the tent.

[I still care]

I don't know how they got that headline out of that interview.

[AFA-Michigan]

A bit presumptive on your part, Paleo. We're very familiar with the constitutional requirements. Bush's position certainly is relevant politically even though he plays no formal role in the amendment process. He could have set a firm clear standard in support of protecting the institution of marriage, not just the name. We're disappointed that he didn't and instead legitimizes the homosexual agenda by giving his administration's consent to so-called "civil unions" and "domestic partnerships," fake marriages that will serve to undermine the real thing.

[Sloth]

Are you suggesting that people be prohibited from making private contracts unless we all feel good about them?

[jwalsh07]

We're disappointed that he didn't and instead legitimizes the homosexual agenda by giving his administration's consent to so-called "civil unions" and "domestic partnerships," fake marriages that will serve to undermine the real thing.

Talk about presumptive. I saw the interview and president Bush said no such thing. In fact he said all the right things. To wit, marriage is the union of a man and a woman, he favors a constitutional amendment to that effect and that it is up to the states regulate contracts for their citizens.

I am about as adamantly for conserving marriage as anybody on this board and I agree with everything he said. What do you disagree with?

PS: The phrase "civil unions" never passed his lips.

[Arkinsaw]

A homosexual pair can make each other beneficiaries of life insurance right now. They can sign over a power of attorney right now. Anybody can do that. I'm not seeing where he is saying anymore than that.

[AFA-Michigan]

"I don't know how they got that headline out of that interview."

They got that headline because they understand the well-crafted euphemism Bush used in saying his administration thinks "whatever legal arrangements people want to make" are just fine so long as they're approved at the state level, i.e., Vermont "civil unions" and California "domestic partnerships."

That's the position the White House has been taking for months behind the scenes. In fact, they're circulating their own version of a federal amendment that's even weaker on the union-partnership issue than the proposed amendment already before Congress, whose sponsors emphatically insist will not prohibit such homosexual marriages-in-all-but-name.

See box graph at: http://www.allianceformarriage.org/reports/fma/fma.cfm

[NutCrackerBoy]

It depends on whether a civil union is a private contract (Sloth) or all the legal status and benefits of marriage except the legal right to call their relationship by that name.(AFA-Michigan)

[Arkinsaw]

I don't know how they got that headline out of that interview.

LOL. On terrorism or war reporting, or Israel reporting, or for any other damn reporting nobody here trusts REUTERS at all. ZEEEERO PERCENT. Everyone knows how Reuter's feels about Bush policy in these areas.

But hey, if Reuter's say that Bush supports homosexual marriages then its God's honest truth to a large percentage of people here.

[AFA-Michigan]

"Are you suggesting that people be prohibited from making private contracts unless we all feel good about them?"


Individual citizens are free today, as they always have been to enter into private contracts.

We're not suggesting, but emphatically stating, that we believe state governments should not amend their laws to create new fake marriage entities that grant individuals in homosexual or polygamous or polyamorous or incestuous or pedophilious relationships all the legal status, recognition, and benefits of marriage save one...the right to call it by the name "marriage."

[NutCrackerBoy]

State governments should not amend their laws to create new fake marriage entities.

Moreover, beware the equal protection Trojan horse. Once equal protection becomes established at the state level, then any laws that discriminate are toast, if they discriminate in favor of marriage but against same-sex unions.

[AFA-Michigan]

"But hey, if Reuter's say that Bush supports homosexual marriages then its God's honest truth to a large percentage of people here."


It just so happens that in this case, Reuters got it right. We know for a fact that the Bush White House's position -- if it ever actually does support a federal amendment rather than just say it will "if necessary" -- is to support a federal amendment that does NOT prohibit homosexual "civil unions" and "domestic partnerships."

In fact, the marriage amendment language the White House is floating provides that states will retain the right to enact "unions" and "partnerships" even more clearly and specifically than the current Musgrave version now before Congress...which doesn't state it as clearly, though the Musgrave sponsors clearly state outside the language of the actual amendment that their intent is that it will leave the union-partnership option to the states.

[fiscally_right]

I don't get you guys. Most people on here complain about the promiscuity and STD rates among homosexuals. Then you vehemently oppose a mechanism which would encourage monogamy.

[AFA-Michigan]

"Moreover, beware the equal protection Trojan horse. Once equal protection becomes established at the state level, then any laws that discriminate are toast, if they discriminate in favor of marriage but against same-sex unions."


Right on. Witness the Iowa judge who, citing the Constitution's "full faith and credit" clause, last week granted an Iowa divorce to a homosexual Iowa couple who had traveled to Vermont to enter a "civil union," thus treating a Vermont "union" -- across state lines -- as the legal equivalent of an Iowa marriage. And this in a state whose laws specifically define marriage as only between one man and one woman.

[NutCrackerBoy]

You vehemently oppose a mechanism which would encourage monogamy.

That might be a fair criticism. Might. On the other hand, there is valid concern that marriage itself will be impacted.

Something else: gays and gay activists have repeatedly failed to take necessary epidemiological steps to slow HIV, resulting in thousands of deaths. And it is not clear at all how the behavior of homosexuals will change if the gay marriage agenda gets enacted.

[Kooch40_dwc]

hey fiscally_right did you know that two homosexual psychologists did a study of 800 homosexual couples in "committed" relationships? guess what. the infidelity rate was 83%. homosexual marriage ain't going to do much to correct that. in fact all homosexual marriage is going to do is give homosexuals the right to adopt and all that is going to do is screw up the children of america.

[AFA-Michigan]

"I don't get you guys. Most people on here complain about the promiscuity and STD rates among homosexuals. Then you vehemently oppose a mechanism which would encourage monogamy."


That's because you falsely assume that individuals who engage in homosexual behavior, if allowed to "marry," would suddenly become "monogamous."

Admissions by homosexual activists are voluminous that their intent is not to submit their lifestyle to the monogamous model of marriage, but to redefine marriage by applying it to their promiscuous lifestyle.

You're no doubt aware that so-called homosexual "marriage" has existed in the Netherlands for several years.

A recent study by the Amsterdam Municipal Health Service found that 86% of all new HIV infections in Amsterdam occur among so-called “steady” homosexual partnerships, wherein so-called "safe sex" is practiced less often, researchers said. (Which begs the question of how the disease is being transmitted if these so-called "steady" homosexual relationships are supposedly monogamous.)

The answer, of course, is that they're not, according to the study.

It found that Amsterdam’s homosexuals averaged between 16 and 28 sexual partners each year, while those who said they were in a “steady” relationship with another man were sexually involved with ONLY six to ten other men each year.

What homosexual activists really want from the legalization of so-called homosexual "marriage" is not monogamy, but official government recognition followed, they hope, by social approval of their behavior.