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.
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).
Yep, I smell trolls about.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.. :)
They are defintely trolls... can we get them and their thread booted? I'm sure they're having fun with this over at DU.
President Bush, I disagree. But I'll still be voting for you.
Fe, Fi, Faux Polls, I smell the blood of DU Trolls! ;^)
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.
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.
R I G H T
newbie - suspected DUer
To say the least.
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..
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.
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.
No, he hasn't. Doing "a Kerry" would be flip flopping.
Being consistant is being President Bush.
Do you think that if FR doesn't discuss an issue, it will go away - I don't think so.
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.