[churchillbuff]

He supports states rights (as he should)...not civil unions. Big difference.

Sorry, you don't get it. He doesn't support a constitutional amendment that would prohibit states from creating "civil unions" - such as Vermont's - that mimic marriage. I DO support such an amendment. Bush, by NOT supporting it, is in effect, SUPPORTING civil unions. He's allowing states to enact this upside-down version of marriage. People in civil unions are then going to try to go to other states and get them recognized. Thanks, Bush.

[CWOJackson]

"...Charles Krauthammer, a former shrink, who earlier this month said he had identified a new psychological syndrome: Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS), described as "the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency—nay—the very existence of George W. Bush."

[ravingnutter]

Bush, by NOT supporting it, is in effect, SUPPORTING civil unions

That is so laughable...kind of like "lack of proof is proof of a conspiracy". Licenses for any union are issued by the STATE...therefore it is a STATE issue, however the FedGov does not recognize them under the DOMA. Bush said if the states stepped on the toes of the FedGov, he would step in and pass a consitutional amendment. So...if he would step in, then logically one must assume he supports an amendment, but he is just not sure if that will be necessary yet, as there are court cases still pending on the matter.

[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.