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.

[rodeo-mamma]

Very well said, lord knows we have all had our personal struggles with sin. However, that doesn't mean we have to sell out and put a stamp of approval on every other obnoxious protesters forehead either!

[ravingnutter]

Gay marriage is one of my main issues as a Christian so this is very relevant to me.

Then people like you have two options...vote for Bush who consistently opposes gay marriage or vote for Kerry who will support gay marriage after he doesn't support gay marriage. To not vote at all would just defeat your cause and could be disastrous. Bush has said that although these matters should be left up to the state, if Congress puts a bill on his desk for the Constitutional Amendment, he will sign it. It would have nothing to do with civil unions...it would only protect the status of marriage as between a man and a woman, and put a stop to the judicial activism.

[livius]

The weapons story is discredited, it's hard to imagine any reason for alarm over more money for Iraq (since we all knew that was in the offing), and what Bush said about civil unions is no different from what he has been saying all along. So where's the bomb?

[Eva]

The point is that civil unions would have no effect on heterosexual couples, at all. We won't have to start teaching our kids that its ok to have homosexual sex. It simply gives homosexual couples the right to the same legal rights and restrictions as hetero couples. It does however open up some legal questions about other types of unions. Frankly, I don't think that Civil Unions are what Gays want. They provide very little benefit that couldn't be gained through other simpler means.

[Dante3]

No doubt this will cost Bush some votes.

While I am opposed to the federal government consistently taking over rights that should belong to the states, the definition of marriage -- after demands for same-sex marriages, plural marriages, marrying ones pet, etc. -- should be clarified on the federal level for many obvious reasons.

[AHerald]

Just another attempt by the Old Grey Lady to keep Christians away from the polls for the President this year.

Precisely.

It looks like Bush got snookered. Still, it would have been much better had Bush not accepted Gibson's question at face value and responded with the actual party platform position.

[Wallace T.]

Statements like this will definitely not help Bush in the Florida panhandle, the "T-zone" of Pennsylvania, the Missouri Ozarks, northwest Arkansas, and southern Ohio, where turnout has to be strong to overcome the union, minority, and metrosexual vote in the large cities and college towns. Reportedly, four million registered evangelical voters skipped the 2000 election. Had they voted, or even 50% of them, the Bush-Gore contest would have been over on election night. You may rest assured that the MSM will churn this one, as well as certain persons on our side (can we say Michael Savage and Pat Robertson?).

[carlo3b]

WOW, A NEWBIE... Welcome aboard, how quickly you learned how to find an issue that you mistakenly thought would divide us.. Nice try.. have a ZOT day.. :)

[Witch-king of Angmar]

It is nothing but another Slimes bogus scoop. Calm down!

[UsnDadof8]

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.

Strangely I don't remember bringing up that passage. Don't get me wrong. Homosexuality is wrong. But Bush is right. It is a matter for the states to decide. He probably could have chosen his words better though. But my point was we shouldn't let that keep us from the polls.

[rwfromkansas]

Sounds good to me. And I am a rabid social conservative....but heaven help me, I just can't get myself worked up in a lather about civil unions.

I am opposed to gay marriage, but I do not believe the feds should ban unions. Leave that to the people to decide.

[Aquinasfan]

The biggest threat of gay marriage, and the major reason that the gay lobby is pushing so hard for it, is that once Gays are considered the same as heterosexuals, it would be only one more step to declaring any teaching against homosexual behavior to be a hate crime.

The biggest threat of "civl unions" and homosexual "marriage" is their adoption of children.

[rwfromkansas]

He is for an amendment to ban gay marriage, not unions.

[Clint N. Suhks]

I hope you're not referring to me as a troll.

My gaydar is pretty sensitive and I don't detect a pro-sodomy agenda in you. The problem is you posting an article like this so close to the election. Don't do it again.

Watch your P's and Q's here on out and you won't have any more problems.

[rampage8]

Are you a troll? You're awfully new (10/22) to come in here and get everyone fired up with your inflamatory comments (abomination, etc).

This issue will not divide Bush's base. We know the alternative is a liberal and we're not fools.

[Edit35]

A civil union is the equivalent of marriage in all but name

I don't necessarily think that is true.

A marriage (legal) carries many rights a civil union does not such as tax IRS implications, inheritance rights, adoption and child rearing rights, spousal right not to implicate, buaral preferance, etc.

A civil union allows hospital visitation, check cashing privledges, etc. It does not give the homo the right to trump legitimate (blood or marriage) family decesions.

[anton]

I want that unlimited federal and state marital deduction. Can I marry my dog after a civil union? He could inherit with no tax, then my sons (2) could marry the dog in a three way civil union and the dog could gift the estate (less kennel fees) to the boys. I sure hope that civil unions are extended to pets as well.

[An.American.Expatriate]

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.

So, the President has been in open opposition to the Republican Party Platform since at least February and the NY Slimes decide to report this SEVEN DAYS BEFORE the election??

[sandbar]

This is pretty much my opinion. I do not oppose same sex civil unions.