Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush Says His Party Is Wrong to Oppose Gay Civil Unions
The New York Times ^ | October 26, 2004 | ELISABETH BUMILLER

Posted on 10/26/2004 5:05:21 AM PDT by ruralgal

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 241-248 next last
To: ruralgal
I'm not sure what to make of this. This is the first I'm hearing about it.

What is the confusion? Seems pretty straightforward to me and consistant, despite Elisabeth trying to make it appear there's a contradiction.

First, he says it's up to the states and Bumiller says he wouldn't have supported it as governor.

Well, that's governing Texas, isn't it. Not the whold U.S. of A.

This an effort to divide the party (I hope you don't labor under the illusion that the president endorsed the whole platform).

121 posted on 10/26/2004 6:09:41 AM PDT by cyncooper (And an angel still rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightthinkinAmerican
Two newbies doubting Bush on the same thread with the same sign-up date.

Yep, I smell trolls about.

122 posted on 10/26/2004 6:10:20 AM PDT by ABG(anybody but Gore) (Dan Rather plans to spend the winter in Valley Forgery.-hflynn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

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

Hey Rural Gal, you have some type of arrogant atitude that to me smells like a lib in disguise.

Instead of disrupting and trying trying trying to find fault with GWB, why don't you just go out and steal some Bush/Cheney2004 yard signs like all the other Democrats.

123 posted on 10/26/2004 6:11:10 AM PDT by Edit35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: johnfkerrysucks
Or at least the NY Times/Kerry campaign hope so.

Yup. I can't wait to read the 100+ replies (It's only just after 6am here so y'all have a head start on we westerners) and see who the easy patsies are.

124 posted on 10/26/2004 6:11:19 AM PDT by cyncooper (And an angel still rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SuziQ; ruralgal; RightMike
I hadn't remembered the platform as opposing civil unions.

Upon rereading, looks like I was wrong and judged too quickly. I neglected this last line, which can obviously be interpreted as opposition to "civil unions":

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.

So, it looks like Gibson's question was fair. And Bush wasn't snookered.

Nonetheless, Bush gave the right answer as far as I'm concerned. Leave the matter to the states.

125 posted on 10/26/2004 6:12:21 AM PDT by AHerald ("I'm George W. Bush, and I approved this butt-whoopin'")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: SuziQ

Civil Unions mean marriage without the word. All of the things that people are claiming civil-unions are about are already available: Power of Attorney, Wills, contracts, etc.

Fine, if you want to argue that this should be banned at the state level and that Bush's position is correct (which it may well be), but don't give us this nonsense that "civil unions" are ok, just, needed and right.


126 posted on 10/26/2004 6:12:26 AM PDT by grassboots.org
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Josh in PA

Why do you phrase it in such an odd way. It is the NYT presenting this as if it's new. Not "we".

Please, if you want to play their game, you might not like yourself in the morning.


127 posted on 10/26/2004 6:12:37 AM PDT by cyncooper (And an angel still rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ingo

Thanks for clearing that up.. I'm still crawling through broken glass to vote for a real man.. You can vote for AGENT ORANGE if you want.. :)


128 posted on 10/26/2004 6:12:50 AM PDT by carlo3b (http://www.CookingWithCarlo.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: ABG(anybody but Gore)

They are defintely trolls... can we get them and their thread booted? I'm sure they're having fun with this over at DU.


129 posted on 10/26/2004 6:12:53 AM PDT by rampage8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: ruralgal

President Bush, I disagree. But I'll still be voting for you.


130 posted on 10/26/2004 6:16:22 AM PDT by MEGoody (Flush the Johns - vote Bush/Cheney 04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rampage8

Fe, Fi, Faux Polls, I smell the blood of DU Trolls! ;^)


131 posted on 10/26/2004 6:16:23 AM PDT by ABG(anybody but Gore) (Dan Rather plans to spend the winter in Valley Forgery.-hflynn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: rampage8
Are you a troll? You're awfully new (10/22) to come in here and get everyone fired up with your inflammatory comments (abomination, etc).

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

Whoa! Go back and read what I've said. I never said this would divide Bush's base - other posters have said that. Not me. I already stated he's got my vote no matter what. The only thing I said even remotely like that was that I know people who are voting for Bush mainly because of this issue and that's the truth. Would you prefer I lied?

I don't think that me saying that gay marriage is an abomination is inflammatory unless there are a lot of gays here in which case I apologize but I stand by my statement. It's what I believe, and I view civil unions the same.

I still don't see why it was wrong for me to post this. If anything, it helps with planning a counter-offensive to this story if it gets around.

132 posted on 10/26/2004 6:16:37 AM PDT by ruralgal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: ruralgal

States rights. At a minimum, though, we need a Constitutional amendment providing that the States do not have to recognize gay marriages effected in other states.


133 posted on 10/26/2004 6:16:43 AM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ruralgal

R I G H T
newbie - suspected DUer


134 posted on 10/26/2004 6:17:45 AM PDT by Rightproud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
"I veiw anything they say with suspicion."

To say the least.

135 posted on 10/26/2004 6:18:02 AM PDT by MEGoody (Flush the Johns - vote Bush/Cheney 04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper


Sorry.. I'm starting to get campaign fatigue here and starting to slip..

I can sense the onslaught of "Kerry Big Mo" news coming in the headlines for the next 7 days..


136 posted on 10/26/2004 6:18:20 AM PDT by Josh in PA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: AHerald
"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."
I have zero problem with that.

Agreed. It is the common sense position. In fact, the Problem i do have is the militant stridency devoted to defiling the sacrament of Marriage, rather than who visits who in the hospital.

137 posted on 10/26/2004 6:18:36 AM PDT by hobbes1 (Hobbes1TheOmniscient® "I know everything so you don't have to" ;)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ruralgal
I'm sorry if you think I have ulterior motive

If you really are not a troll, than I am truly sorry.

But it seems awfully suspicious to me that a person who realizes the importance of this election, and who really supports GWB and what he stands for, would be signing up on a conservative forum six days before an election just to find fault with President Bush on itty bitty issues which are low on the totem pole.

And not on ONE issue, but TWO.

It doesn't make logical sense.

138 posted on 10/26/2004 6:18:40 AM PDT by Edit35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: danceordie
I actually think he's done a Kerry there.

No, he hasn't. Doing "a Kerry" would be flip flopping.

Being consistant is being President Bush.

139 posted on 10/26/2004 6:18:42 AM PDT by cyncooper (And an angel still rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks

Do you think that if FR doesn't discuss an issue, it will go away - I don't think so.


140 posted on 10/26/2004 6:18:48 AM PDT by grassboots.org
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 241-248 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson