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.
No, I DIDN'T miss that news. But what we know on FR and what the general public knows can be very different. I'm sitting here listening to CNN wanting to smash the monitor. The issue for me is "what's out there being repeated over and over" like Goebbels 101. It's the timing of these issues and how they're distorted that's very worrisome. During normal news cycles there's time for FReepers and bloggers to weigh in with some success. The timing now is very critical. Do you think for one minute that CNN and MSNBC will make corrections quickly to help the president? Or will they stonewall and delay the correction until the new DNC talking point propaganda is issued?! Like the million disenfranchised black voters in Florida phenomenon.
He's talking about TWO separate situations.
A LEGAL union would be a Binding Contract. One person agrees to provide for another person. ONLY AN ATTORNEY could sever the contract for one or the other party. Just like any other business contract one party would have to buy out the other. (Ideally there would be no 'children' involved, but some same-gender couples have the 'mothering/fathering' instinct -- which leads me personally back to "same-gender is a choice because your biological clock wants a child which child is produced from 'opposite-gender' consumation -- leaving artificial means out of the original picture -- so you aren't 'really' a same-gender person. BUT YMMV, so no flames.)
A MARRIAGE is a Covenant between two people and their G*d. It is also seen as a binding contract where one person pays -- alimony and/or child support -- when the covenant is broken. It's the COVENANT in a marriage that must be broken to disolve a marriage. Covenant= A binding and solemn agreement to do or keep from doing a specific thing. An agreement between two parties and their G*d to defend and maintain their faith in each other and the marriage.
So there IS a difference between a legal contract and a Covenant (which also includes the legal contract). Legal contracts are binding. They require an attorney to break. A Covenant includes a third entity, a greater power. To break a covenant is a very serious thing. It shouldn't be taken as lightly as it is today in American culture.
YMMV, but that's my Highly Opinionated comment.
I was giving her advice Einstein. Newbies posting perceived “negative” articles around here so close to the election have gotten them booted, I’ve seen it a dozen times. Or did you miss all the “freepers” calling her a troll and actually pinging the Admin? You’ve got too much time on your hands to admonish me especially when I was trying to give her some sound advice and encouragement.
I did forget to welcome her to FR.
Welcome to FR ruralgal!
Well, he did say that in the interview, that he opposed his party's platform...that was a direct answer to a qeustion, by reading. Now, its quite possible he was taken out of context, and maybe he does have a problem with civil unions. It just was unclear. Now, I am glad he reaffirmed his opposition to gay marriage and that he supports the amendment.
You are mixing up MARRIAGE with so called civil unions allowing gays certain legal rights. Bush is for a marriage-defining amendment, just as he stated. He is against civil unions too, but he thinks each state has the right to pass them if they choose.
You seem about to fall for PROPAGANDA from the media who makes this mean something it doesn't. Please please PLEASE be informed, and steady in your support. And help others not to be deceived, either!
This scam makes me so ANGRY!!!
What do you make of this part of the article:
------
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.
-----
That's what I was reacting to.
It did come up. President Bush answered (followed by Kerry's infamous reference to Mary Cheney where he went on to refute the president's concern that unions would be forced to be recognized from state to state). But here is GWB's answer to Schieffer:
BUSH: You know, Bob, I don't know. I just don't know. I do know that we have a choice to make in America and that is to treat people with tolerance and respect and dignity. It's important that we do that.
And I also know in a free society people, consenting adults can live the way they want to live.
And that's to be honored.
But as we respect someone's rights, and as we profess tolerance, we shouldn't change -- or have to change -- our basic views on the sanctity of marriage. I believe in the sanctity of marriage. I think it's very important that we protect marriage as an institution, between a man and a woman.
I proposed a constitutional amendment. The reason I did so was because I was worried that activist judges are actually defining the definition of marriage, and the surest way to protect marriage between a man and woman is to amend the Constitution.
It has also the benefit of allowing citizens to participate in the process. After all, when you amend the Constitution, state legislatures must participate in the ratification of the Constitution.
I'm deeply concerned that judges are making those decisions and not the citizenry of the United States. You know, Congress passed a law called DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act.
My opponent was against it. It basically protected states from the action of one state to another. It also defined marriage as between a man and woman.
But I'm concerned that that will get overturned. And if it gets overturned, then we'll end up with marriage being defined by courts, and I don't think that's in our nation's interests.
You have morals, remember that the Liberals do not. In fact, they are against all morals!
You hope that he's really Kerry in a Bush mask??
I make of it as what he's always said.
And I note someone has found that Gibson misrepresented the platform.
Oh my, off topic but Kerry is talking about the explosives "vanished" after the invasion when that has been shown to be false. Talk about "rope a dope".
Joe Lockhard must be so proud of you!
Politicians always try to have it both ways.
It was an NBC embedded reporter that was with the troops.
I am aware as anyone of the DNC propaganda organs known as the MSM, but yes, I not only think, I know, that the facts will come out.
Kerry just asserted at his rally in Green Bay (where he was an hour late---how can he already be behind schedule?!) that the explosives "vanished after the invasion". But he looked like hell saying it.
Oh, yes, it is going to be refuted.
I'm not trying to pick away anything. Someone reacting to a piece in an article posted on here is not trying to rip away unity. Please, look at the other posts i've made on FR. I'm just very opposed to civil unions and didn't like what Bush said. i still support him, 100%. don't overreact to a comment on an article.
"WHAT? This is ridiculous, who made the call to do this NOW? They couldn't wait just a few more days?"
Wait, isn't that how the liberals do it? Hide the truth until after the election? And don't we howl about it when they do it?
See #185(not originally posted to you)
I agree, Kerry is going to get hit hard on this question...its like Rathergate all over again. Over eager to make a point or an oct surprise and its blowing up in his face.
LOL!!
Great satire of meddling site nannies!
You had me going for a moment. ;^)
This absolutely Would not keep any Bush supporters from voting. Anyone who does, apparently does not understand the importance of this election. If they don't vote for Bush, and kerry gets elected, then those people will get what they deserve.
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.