Oh really? Is the news so slow these days that someone has to make up this crap to sell papers?
Bush is crystal clear: he is not going to come out against people being able to set up legal agreements with each other, something that they can do now.
The Gary Bauers and Robert Knights of the world see even the status quo as a threat to heterosexual marriage, and, of course, they're just being hysterical.
"Civil unions" is essentially a legal issue, and can be done now. The radical right is just trying to grab on to an issue, since Bush supports the Federal Marriage Amendment.
How DARE Knight ask for clarity from President Bush! Doesn't he know he's supposed to salute at everything Bush does? Doesn't he read freerepublic?
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.
1660 The marriage covenant, by which a man and a woman form with each other an intimate communion of life and love, has been founded and endowed with its own special laws by the Creator. By its very nature it is ordered to the good of the couple, as well as to the generation and education of children. Christ the Lord raised marriage between the baptized to the dignity of a sacrament (cf. CIC, can. 1055 § 1; cf. GS 48 § 1). |
1625 The parties to a marriage covenant are a baptized man and woman, free to contract marriage, who freely express their consent; "to be free" means: - not being under constraint; - not impeded by any natural or ecclesiastical law. |