Bush marriage stance not 'clear'

THE WASHINGTON TIMES ^ | December 18, 2003 | Stephen Dinan

[RogerFGay]

Pro-family groups said yesterday that President Bush "drove a wedge" into their efforts to protect marriage by seeming to accept homosexual civil unions, even as he said he could support an amendment defining marriage as solely between a man and woman.

[WorkingClassFilth]

Again, so by your logic we should abandon everything to RATs who will everything in their power to deconstruct traditional families? I don't get it.

[sinkspur]

He talked about both civil unions and the Marriage Amendment, your bloviations notwithstanding.

[ravingnutter]

What part of this statement...

Mr. Bush, in an interview with ABC News that aired Tuesday night, said, "If necessary, I will support a constitutional amendment which would honor marriage between a man and a woman, codify that."

...do you not understand? Good grief.

[Orangedog]

I would love to see Bush tap somebody like Phil Gramm as his '04 running mate: conservative all around, and best of all another Texan! :)

Can't happen. President and Vice President cannot reside in the same state. In fact, there was some flap about where Cheney's legal residence was when he was tapped for the VP spot on the ticket.

[Orangedog]

Blackwell is the only man for the job in '06 as far as I'm concerned. We'll have to find out what his position is on licensing spandex ;)

[RogerFGay]

He talked about both civil unions and the Marriage Amendment, your bloviations notwithstanding.

Can I talk to sinkspur? I know she's in there. Try and get in touch with sinkspur!

You seem to have already had your mind dragged away by the partisan spirit. Any chance of recovery before maybe mid-way through the next presidential term?

[RogerFGay]

Again, so by your logic we should abandon everything to RATs who will everything in their power to deconstruct traditional families? I don't get it.

You don't seem to understand yet that both parties have been supporting the same family policy agenda for about the last 15 years -- they just wind their rhetorical spin differently in an attempt to please different audiences. Traditional family, from a legal perspective, was deconstructed, burned, and dragged off to the trash dump some time ago -- the Mass courts order to recognize same-sex "marriage" became inevitable in relation to the new government marriage thing. It wasn't something they just suddenly invented out of the blue.

I'm going to write more articles on this subject, because I understand how few people know what's happened, and that you're not getting any help from the "mainstream" media. You're also not getting any help from socially conservative groups that have defined themselves as the "core of the Republican Party." I hope that my article "Divorced Dads: Family Champions" makes that clear -- their legal position is exactly the same as that of the homosexual lobbiests. Now in order to preserve their socially conservative ideas, they need a constitutional amendment. It never would have come to this in the first place if they hadn't been just as anxious to replace traditional marriage in a "free country" with government sponsered, government controlled social policy -- and to redefine family as something that arises out of a government license rather than a natural human phenomenon.

In any case, the Republican Party isn't out to save anything. They're not in the mood to reverse the trend to fix the problem. And they're not going to even consider doing the right thing unless not doing it is coupled to a credible political threat.

And once again, while this is an interesting discussion, I'm not a politician or a political leader. You're pressing me to define a specific political agenda. You're pushing beyond the scope of my article. So, it's only fair that you respond point for point. What's your idea? Do you favor supporting a party that has a policy agenda that opposes your beliefs and well-being?

[WorkingClassFilth]

Uh, Roger, I have discussed, at length, my political views regarding viable options open to us at this time. If you'll recall, I responded to your article that concluded that the best course of action was to do nothing. Since that time I have endeavored to get you to clarify that position and you have been fair evasive since. Up until now, you've been long on the 'what's wrong' end, but short in the practical outworkings.

It is your turn to respond...

What would you have all of us conservatives do in order to turn things around?

[churchillbuff]

the bottom line is clear enough, no matter how fractured the president's syntax: he won't support an amendment banning civil unions.

Civil unions are not marriage, by definition. They're civil unions.

So we're agreed - - - Bush won't support an amendment banning civil unions. Dean likes civil unions. Bush has no problems with civil unions. Sinkspur seconds Bush (as Sinkspur always does).

[MikeJ75]

According to the Alliance for Marriage, which is the primary promoter of the proposed amendment, the amendment would not affect legislatively created civil unions or domestic partnerships, such as those in California.

Following is their chart explaining the amendment:

Some people, however, believe the phrase "legal incidents" includes civil unions. One of the legal incidents of marriage is the ability to leave property through inheritance to a person who is not a blood relative. If registered domestic partners are allowed to inherit from each other without a will, would that violate the proposed Constitutional amendment?

The wording of the amendment is confusing. Nobody, not even the President, seems able or willing to articulate a clear position on this issue.

California has a law forbidding same sex marriage, but it does not forbid the "legal incidents" of marriage to same sex couples. The California legislature recently created same sex domestic partnerships, which provide many of the benefits that would normally come with marriage. In California, there is a lawsuit about whether the domestic partnerships violate the California law against same sex marriage.

So would the phrase "legal incidents" affect civil unions?

[TheCrusader]

The organized homosexual deviants have most of America on their knees,(pun intended). While some of our elected leadership struggles to ban gay marriages they have compeletly caved in to legalizing homosexual unions and rewarding those dubious 'unions' with monetary benefits ---- from OUR tax dollars.

On some issues there should be no compromise, no retreat. Rewarding homosexuals with our tax dollars to improve their "lifestye" is one of them. If we ban gay 'marriages' but officially bless their co-habitation who wins? It's one step forward for the perverts, one giant step backwards for our society.

[MEGoody]

I realize that some of these groups want Bush to try to make a national law against same gender sex. But given recent court rulings, it just wouldn't stand up in the Supreme Court, so why waste his time.

Bush says he is leaving it to the states to determine whatever legal arrangements they want to make as long as it doesn't endanger the sanctity of marriage. I don't know how they deem that to be support of civil unions.

[MEGoody]

"Robert Knight, director of Concerned Women for America's Culture and Family Institute."

Just a side note - wonder why a man is director of anything for Concerned Women of America. LOL

[TheCrusader]

"Civil unions are not marriage, by definition. They're civil unions."

It's all just a disgusting play on words and people are deceiving themselves. Do you really think the homosexuals give a rats tail whether the Churches in America bless their filthy unions or not? All they really want is for the U.S. government to approve their co-habitation, approve their lifestyle, and to support that lifestyle with our tax dollars.

Banning homosexual pervert 'marriages' and compromising with them by blessing their 'civil unions' with new rights and special privileges is nothing more or less than a 100%, complete and total victory for sexual perversion.

[MEGoody]

"Bottom line: the prez said civil unions are OK with him"

Sorry, don't see where he said that. He said leave it to the states whatever legal arrangements they want to make UNLESS it threatens the sanctity of marriage.

[TheCrusader]

"Just a side note - wonder why a man is director of anything for Concerned Women of America."

Because they elected him?

[MEGoody]

"He doesn't support a constitutional amendment that would prohibit states from creating "civil unions"

Where in the article did he say that? Ah, no where. Didn't think so.

[TheCrusader]

"Sorry, don't see where he said that. He said leave it to the states whatever legal arrangements they want to make UNLESS it threatens the sanctity of marriage."

Sure thing. Just like the Supreme Court said late term abortion is illegal, "unless it threatens the health of the mother".

Once people stop playing with words to deceive others maybe our nation just might have a slim chance of re-gaining a sliver of moral decency.