Bush Says His Party Is Wrong to Oppose Gay Civil Unions

The New York Times ^ | October 26, 2004 | ELISABETH BUMILLER

[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.

[cartan]

Right; I have always contended (well, half-jokingly, perhaps) that George W. Bush is too goddamn liberal. That, however, is no reason to support someone like Kerry who is even more goddamn liberal. So, there is no reason why any conservative would care about this little piece of news. If anyone, it is swing voters with slightly liberal tendencies who might be persuaded to vote for Bush instead...

[Ditto]

He added: "I view the definition of marriage different from legal arrangements that enable people to have rights.

Don't confuse this with the gay issue. Think of all the millions of both related (old sisters) or long-time friends who live together for years. They should have some relief from the death tax and other take-away schemes.

[Fayre Verona]

The President is wrong about civil unions. But I voted for him anyway. And I'd do it again.

[AHerald]

Mr. Gibson then noted to Mr. Bush that the Republican Party platform opposed civil unions.

I can't find opposition to civil unions in the Republican Party Platform. I do however find opposition to "forcing states to recognize other living arrangements as equivalent to marriage."

Here's the relevant sections from the Republican Party Platform:

States should not recognize gay marriage from other states

After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence, and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization, the union of a man and a woman in marriage. Attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country, and anything less than a Constitutional amendment, passed by the Congress and ratified by the states, is vulnerable to being overturned by activist judges. On a matter of such importance, the voice of the people must be heard. The Constitutional amendment process guarantees that the final decision will rest with the American people and their elected representatives. President Bush will also vigorously defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which was supported by both parties and passed by 85 votes in the Senate. This common sense law reaffirms the right of states not to recognize same-sex marriages licensed in other states. Source: 2004 Republican Party Platform, p. 85

Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage

We strongly support a Constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage, and we [oppose] forcing states to recognize other living arrangements as equivalent to marriage. The well-being of children is best accomplished [when] nurtured by their mother & father anchored by the bonds of marriage. We believe that legal recognition and the accompanying benefits afforded couples should be preserved for that unique and special union of one man and one woman which has historically been called marriage. Source: 2004 Republican Party Platform, p. 85

[lainde]

Don't be presumptious. At the moment I'm frustrated and have no desire to fight with another Freeper. But the fact that political junkies are squabbling over "what did he really mean" gives some credence to this as a potential problem for the base. We shall see.

[miloklancy]

Exactly. Well put.

[rodeo-mamma]

Civil unions should not be allowed period, it is a security risk to survival of the United States. Civil Unions are a perversion of our system of laws that are based on the principals of justice. The spirit of the law is to promote lives that are healthy and happy, not to promote self-destructive behavior.

In addition, I will repeat that civil unions are a security risk to the United States. I say this, because to go against the spirit of the law is to sellout. And when one sells out on principal, then evil enemies are encouraged because they know we have weakened ourselves from a character point of view, and that makes them smell blood. And we know how blood thirsty the enemy is.

[BibChr]

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.

Um... was this on the editorial page?

Dan

[Rightwingmom]

I watched the interview with Gibson this morning and he said that he does want an amendment to protect marriage between a man and a woman. He also said that civil unions should be left to the states.

[politicsfan]

leaving civil unions to the states is a good idea. period. this will NOT backfire on GWB.

I knew about Bush's position on civil unions so I was happy that the topic didn't come up in the debates. I am disappointed that he is doing interviews now. Most evangelical christians are vehemently opposed to civil unions. 37% of the public is opposed to them. 49% of blacks are opposed to it. The reason you see doubling of Bush's support among blacks has something to do with the gay marriage/civil unions issue. If people know that Kerry and Bush have same position on civil unions that Bush is certainly going to lose votes. If every one hears about this, some of the 4 million evangelicans who stayed home last time will stay home again. I have no doubt about this. It is very disappointing hear. I am strongly opposed to civil unions but will be voting for Bush anyway since his Supreme Court appointees will be more conservative than Kerry's.

[Dog Gone]

There's nothing which prevents civil unions now. Two (or even more) people can enter into a binding contract to share property, wealth, income, and anything else. They can give each other Powers of Attorney to make medical decisions, etc. They can name each other in wills or as beneficiaries of retirement accounts and life insurance.

The only question is whether such things should be granted automatically without entering into such formal documents.

[SuziQ]

Thanks for posting the Repub. platform information. I hadn't remembered the platform as opposing civil unions. Just another attempt by the Old Grey Lady to keep Christians away from the polls for the President this year.

[RightMike]

I dont think anyone's talking about not voting for him...I think he just could have handled the topic a little better, though Gibson did kind of trap him.

[Aquinasfan]

"Civil unions" are marriage in everything but name. Disappointing, to say the least.

[SQUID]

Nothing will happen with his comment that is why he is saying it.

[rodeo-mamma]

I will still vote for Bush because I know the other side is evil enough to take everything he says out of context. If you want to know why I think this way, then read my tag-line.

[AHerald]

It's look like Bush might have been snookered by the question. I can't find any reference in the Republican Party Platform that opposes civil unions. The opposition is against "forcing states to recognize other living arrangements as equivalent to marriage," not civil unions, per se.

In short, it looks as though Gibson misrepresented what was in the party platform and that Bush didn't know the truth of what was in the platform. So there's ultimately nothing for Bush to disagree with in the platform. It is consistent with Bush's views on states' rights.

[Clint N. Suhks]

It's still wrong and will be punished by God. But there is no reason for us to be his "Enforcers" here on earth.

I'm always suspect of statements like this, reminds me of the goofy diatribe from the left trying to relate "thou shalt not judge" to how we relate right to wrong here on earth. That passage clearly means man cannot judge whether someone will go to heaven or not but it doesn't mean we cannot judiciously judge right and wrong here on earth.

[livius]

there is no differnece between marraige and civil unions

Actually, there is. Throughout history, people have always been living together without being married, and frequently have had or claimed legal benefits for doing so (in the Middle Ages, there was considerable discussion relating to the inheritance rights of children born out of wedlock). But it has always been recognized as something unstable and discrecional, and not the foundation for a society as marriage is.

Individuals - regardless of their status - can arrange all of the protections on a piece by piece basis (vistation and inheritance rights, for example), and the "civil union" would simply be a way of consolidating these protections.

What I don't like is the name; if they called it something like "household status" or some such thing, I'd mind less, and it could also then apply to everything from friends to siblings or other relatives who form a household but for some reason are not automatically legally entitled to certain benefits (such as visitation rights).

Of course, this is not what gays want: they want "marriage" -but they're not going to get it, unless the Supreme Court gives it to them.

[Aquinasfan]

Sounds good to me. Let states decide.

I don't see how this can work. Does State A recognize a couple of homosexuals who have been granted a "civil union" and who have adopted a child in State B when they move into State A?

Didn't the federal government force Utah to prohibit polygamy?