Skip to comments.Bush Says His Party Is Wrong to Oppose Gay Civil Unions
Posted on 10/26/2004 5:05:21 AM PDT by ruralgal
President Bush said in an interview this past weekend that he disagreed with the Republican Party platform opposing civil unions of same-sex couples and that the matter should be left up to the states.
Mr. Bush has previously said that states should be permitted to allow same-sex unions, even though White House officials have said he would not have endorsed such unions as governor of Texas. But Mr. Bush has never before made a point of so publicly disagreeing with his party's official position on the issue.
In an interview on Sunday with Charles Gibson, an anchor of "Good Morning America" on ABC, Mr. Bush said, "I don't think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that's what a state chooses to do so." ABC, which broadcast part of the interview on Monday, is to broadcast the part about civil unions on Tuesday.
According to an ABC transcript, Mr. Gibson then noted to Mr. Bush that the Republican Party platform opposed civil unions.
"Well, I don't," Mr. Bush replied.
He added: "I view the definition of marriage different from legal arrangements that enable people to have rights. And I strongly believe that marriage ought to be defined as between a union between a man and a woman. Now, having said that, states ought to be able to have the right to pass laws that enable people to be able to have rights like others."
Mr. Gibson then asked, "So the Republican platform on that point, as far as you're concerned, is wrong?"
"Right," Mr. Bush replied.
Mr. Bush announced in February that he supported an amendment to the Constitution that would ban same-sex marriage, and said at the time that the union of a man and a woman was "the most fundamental institution of civilization." He acted under enormous pressure from his conservative supporters, who had lobbied the White House to have the president speak out in an election year on a matter of vital importance to them.
But Mr. Bush also said at the time that states should be permitted to have same-sex civil unions if they chose.
Mr. Bush has sought to walk a careful line between pleasing conservatives who oppose same-sex marriage and not alienating more moderate voters who might see bigotry in his views. Mr. Bush's support for civil unions and his opposition to his party on the issue is in part an effort to reach out to swing voters, whom he needs to win on Nov. 2.
Well, this should make some Bush supporters stay home. Or at least the NY Times/Kerry campaign hope so.
Can we step into any more potholes this final week?
And keep other Bush supporters from staying home.
I don't believe this. The NYT is really going full boar trying to smear the President.
Bush has ALWAYS said that this should be left up to the states. Why? Because all states so far oppose civil unions, and have voted against them. That's the reason activist judges are overturning the laws...
He saying let the PEOPLE choose what they want - and since they overwhelmingly want marriages between men and women only, it becomes a enfranchisement issue.
I'll still be there to vote for the President, even though I oppose the legal recognition of sodomite perversion.
I gotta think he's just pandering for the moderates or something. I'm disappointed, he needs to cater to his BASE.
According to Fox and friends the Times hasn't bothered to retract thier missing weapons story today. I veiw anything they say with suspicion.
Looks like it's going to air today on Good Morning America. Anyone watching it?
This is the first I've heard him say this, too. He's always said it should be left to the states, but his personal opposition to the GOP platform is news to me.
Leaving it up to the states and the people is a stance pretty consistent with most Republican party statues.
I think the NYT is embellishing it a bit...
This is making a mountain out of a mole hill. As I read it Bush is saying that whether civil unions are allowed should be decided at the state level, and that as govenor of Texas he would have opposed it. As long as the federal government protect states' rights to make this decision, I have no objection to it.
If President Bush actually said what the article alleges he said, his statement cannot be blamed on MSM misrepresentation. The last thing Bush needs is to depress voter turnout among social conservatives. "Civil unions" give the blessing of the state to perversion and immorality.
Wait - I thought he had changed his mind and was pushing to amend the Constitution? I have to say I'm worried about this because I know a lot of people that are going to vote for Bush for that reason alone.
I have zero problem with that.
He's shooting for the Andrew Sullivan/Log Cabin vote.
I actually think he's done a Kerry there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.