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.
First off, these are your opinions. I am well aware what the definitions of marriage and civil unions are. What I am telling you is that I don't view them any differently. I also believe that if civil unions were allowed that over time they would eventually allow gay marriage because people would soften to it just like they have with other equally vile things.
Redleg - I'd like to know where I said I was a single issue voter. I said that this is high on my list of issues, #2 behind abortion. But I have many other issues that are important to me, but yes most of them do revolve around my religious beliefs. Prayer in school, 10 Commandments in public buildings, God in the Pledge, etc. I'm sorry if you don't think these are worthy issues, but they are to me.
sent you a private reply. do'nt want this discussion to get too carried away. I fully support Bush and one of the big reasons is this issue.
$5 says something has been taken out of context. W has stood firm on the marraige amendment, no reason he'd do a John Kerry now.
He knows he can live without the Andrew Sullivan vote.
I don't think he's doing a John Kerry at all...he is firm on the issue of marriage.
Taken out of context! He would refuse to sign a civil union law if he were still governor & TX were to pass one. BUT HE BELIEVES STATES HAVE THAT RIGHT IF THEY CHOOSE.
The media is lying, in their sneaky way. But do I expect them to flash a neon warning sign over their lie? HA HA HA! Good one!
NO, WE have to ferret it out for
OURSELVES.
Oh, yes, it is going to be refuted.
I'm just worried about the clock ticking on Nov. 3rd. It's one damn media distortion after another. I was just sitting here thinking about the 2000 election. I'm still astonished, given the choice between Gore and Bush, that people (the "base") actually STAYED HOME and didn't vote over an old DUI charge. After 8 years of hell with Clinton...It's just unthinkable. And, like many, I'm not happy how Rove handled it. And now, the stakes are infinitely higher. And it accounts for my borderline paranoia now:~)
I am tired of watching folks like you played for patsies! It ends up hurting all of us.
You really are a pompous prig!
No. This still supports the definition and legalities of
marriage between a man and a woman, and protects the
government from having to provide benefits. He is asserting
states rights, which is not a bad thing.
Huh? Bush said it. I agree with him.
Says the carping snipe...Pot meet Kettle.
Sh*t meet shovel.
This is coming from the New York Times. I think that says it all.
Leaving it up to the states is a conservative position, whether you agree with it or not.
Says the gnat to back of my hand.
there is nothing wrong with civil unions - its pretty hard to say that two consenting gay adults shouldn't be allowed to enter into various civil contracts, have medical proxy rights for one and other, wills and estate rights, tenant rights, etc. That is not marriage. They are two totally different things.
In fact, you see that courts are tossing these voter initiatives because they also ban civil unions - we've got to wake up on this. We can't try and bite off the entire apple on this - fully defined gay marriage is bad news, civil unions is not something worth losing that battle over.
At this point, wiith the election so close, I don't care if Bush tries to show himself to be a "compassionate conservative." I believe the President undertands the sanctity of marriage and the atrocity of gay adoption.
exactly right - leave civil unions "alone", because if we bundle them into the gay marriage opposition battle - its a sure loser for our side.
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.