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.
Hint it's the New York Times.
I see you missed the news last night that NBC's embedded reporter was with the troops when they came to the weapons site in April 2003 and they were already missing. Also the UN had gone to the site in March 2003 and they were gone, then. Believe me, the "missing explosives" has backfired, big time, in the dems' exploitive faces.
And BTW, this civil union stance is not new, so to pretend you don't know it or be ignorant of that is one thing. To claim he is saying something different now is flat out wrong.
That is not what he said.
What is your purpose for coming here and spinning a web of deceit?
I'm not spreading anything other than my reaction to the article posted. I fully support Bush, and he's 100X better than Kerry. I simply was not thrilled with his answers to the question, that's all.
Yes, I can tell you're so disappointed.
Um, in what again? President Bush maintaining the same position (contrary to your assertion) he always had? That doesn't seem to make sense, now, does it,
I have no idea why Bush is doing interviews now. If every one hears this than Bush on longer has all the social conservatives locked up.
He's giving interviews saying what he's always said. You just hope he no longer has the social conservatives locked up. Thanks for saying explicitly what the aim here is.
You most certainly were spreading more than your reaction to the article. You were attempting to make a false assertion about President Bush's position.
The record has now been set straight.
No. Care to point which one it was that you deemed "hysterical"?
You probably have a point there...and I hope no conservative takes this and doesn't want to vote for Bush. I don't think anyone should overreact to a few evangelicals just raising a question about it either. I hope all conservatives, pro-marriage and all, vote for Bush and dont let this get to them.
Don't worry. Sometimes folks here don't want to deal with reality.
I was NOT attempting to make a false assertion about his position. I was stating my reaction to the interview. Don't overstate what others say in reaction to something, simply becuase you may have a different take. My take was he could have handled it better. I was NOT AT ALL trying to make a false assertion about his position.
How much you wanna make a bet that the NY Slimes tooks Bush's words out of context. NY Times is on an all out smear campaign to get Kerry elected. As far as I am concerned - the NY Times is no longer a major Newspaper. They have been wrong too many times and shown their hatred of Republicans and Bush too many times now.
And by the way, I do like your sig with your quote from his inauguration. it is one of my favorites..
What the h---?
Uh, I don't see "Admin Moderator" on your page, so who exactly are you to tell other people what they can and cannot post? The person who posted this didn't write the article, and its not like they dug it up from some obscure rag. It's from the Slimes, which is a very well-known rag, and whose articles usually get wide dissemination. It's a fair thing to post, and its fair to for other Freepers to comment on hit. Most of us aren't lefties who try to suppress media coverage.
Watch your P's and Q's here on out and you won't have any more problems.
Oh boy. You really have an ego issue here.
Wholly apart from your self-appointment as the Content Police, it's a good thing that this article was posted. It gives other Freepers a chance to comment on it, spread the word about why its not a big deal, and help disseminate the truth about what the President said without the NYT "spin" on his comments. Without this thread, Freepers who come across this story on their own may make the incorrect assumption that the President supports civil unions. The discussion here helps point out that is untrue.
The President supports a Constitutional Amendment to protect marriage. He opposes civil unions, but believes that's a matter that should be left up to the states. Hardly a liberal position.
Yes I do..
I honestly believe there are enough impressionable people in this country that will buy whatever the newspapers and Tom Brokaw wants them to believe.
That number in my opinion being about 55% of the country, who are either stupid or gullible enough to believe whatever they hear.
You are so right about the NYT. I don't usually read this paper but I saw the link on a news start page I have set up through my ISP that gives me a few headlines from a bunch of different papers.
Guys, I really don't think this is going to hurt that much. I think it might disappoint some people but probably not enough to actually change their vote unless something else goes wrong in the next week. Frankly I'm more concerned about the 70 billion dollars request hurting us with hardcore financial conservatives, but I'm not really worried.
The only thing I see this hurting us with is the black voters we've picked up because as I understand it it's because of this issue. Hopefully it won't though, I have faith but I'm getting jumpy this last week like probably a lot of people are.
Here's what you said that I commented on:
he's saying he OPPOSES his party's platform on civil unions. Basically saying, he has no problem with them. That's different form saying "I am opposed to civil unions, but states are free to do waht they wish"
Well, just what did you expect to gain from posting this? It is so obvious that this is one ploy among many thrown at us to get us to shriek, "Oh, nooooo!!" and stay home from voting. As you say, gay/civil unions is one reason some are going to vote at all. Where would you attack if you were the opposition party. Right...you one (or two) issue people are perceived as the soft underbelly of the GOP voting block.
You are being played like a Stradivarius. How do you like it?
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.