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.
HOW TO LOSE AN ELECTION 101
It may be true that gay marriage is their 'hot button' issue. It's most likely also true that abortion is a big issue for those same individuals.
No one who has either of both of these things as hot button issues would ever vote for Kerry. I suspect these folks you are thinking of will still be voting for Bush.
When legislation is brought up in the states for a vote on civil unions, it is encumbent upon that states' voters to inform themselves on the wording and ramifications of the legislation. I would vote AGAINST civil unions if the only reason for them was to equate homosexual partnerships with marriage, like the VT case. I know that there are legal ways in place right now for homosexuals to get all the 'benefits' that married couples have as far as medical coverage, hospital visitation, etc., so for the most part they are unnecessary. I was simply pointing out that states DO have the right to bring up legislation allowing for civil unions, and the voters of those state that have the right to reject them, just as the President stated.
Can you honestly think most people would buy that with a straight face? I think not. Everybody needs to cast their vote, though, and this is a transparent effort to get some Bush supporters to sit it out.
They do that with or without any legal union. The courts have seen to that.
I'll pick another adjective. But regarding the issues. The weapons "blunder" story has NOT been discredited in medialand. I've heard it ALL morning on cable. And I'm sure it's on the networks. WE know the facts but I don't hear it getting out loud and clear on MSM. Some of Republican talking heads are doing a good job disputing it, others aren't. The president hasn't addressed it directly. The MSM will conveniently delay correcting the story. It's early, so I'm waiting to see how they'll spin the "president disagrees with his party on civil unions" issue. On reflection, Kerry has flipflopped on that one and might leave it alone. But I do expect the supplemental funding to have legs. It fits the RAT domestic theory that because of "wrong war" Iraq we don't have more free gov't giveaways.
No, but your comments, bordering on silly and hysterical are not iimpressive.
Gay marriage is one of my main issues as a Christian so this is very relevant to me.
This is not Gay marriage.
Hey, polygamy.
I DO think it is in the NY Times for that reason, however. The story will be picked up and reported breathlessly all over the country, in hopes of suppressing those who might come to the conclusion from the story that the President is waffling on the issue. I don't think the Times understands that this issue is not as important as SECURITY in the minds of most Bush voters.
You couldn't be more wrong about me. But I give up.
One week before the election there's nothing to "discuss".
Regardless of how you feel about this issue, it was not smart for Bush to comment with one week to go in the election. The whole key to Bush's success this year is getting religious Americans who stayed home in 2000 to come out and vote this year. This is their number one issue.
Bush is ahead right now. Would it be too much to ask that everyone in the campaign just keep their traps shut for seven more days?
P.S. The Times published this for the express purpose of keeping evangelicals at home.
Now I'm "hysterical" because I said I was disappointed. Wow. And while I'm well aware what the definition of civil union and gay marriage is, I'm opposed to both and nobody can change my mind on that. Everyone had different issues that to them are the most important ones, this is one of the ones most important to me. Second only to abortion.
Varies by state. The legalization of "civil unions" would force the issue in states where the practice isn't yet legalized.
From a free legal advice website:
This is a bit dicey. Some jurisdictions (e.g., New York and California) allow gay and lesbian couples to adopt, others do not, and in many states, "it depends" on the judge, the lawyer, and the individual involved.
That is the point of "let the states decide".
You said a lot more than that you were disappointed. Trying to back off your other comments?
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.