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.
Apparently it's just the word marriage that he values. It's the fundamental word of civiliztion. How stupid. Well, I'll still vote for him even though I think he is a fool on this subject, and an even bigger fool for only now making this statment. He will lose key votes over it.
Utah and the polygamy issue set a national precedent. But the compromise was struck in order to get an amendment out that would cut the judges out of the process and return the issue to the people where it belongs. Bush seems to be ignoring that, and he is sounding like he favors civil unions. He sounds, in fact, just like John Kerry. The ONLY reason I will still vote for him is that the Amendment will disallow judicial rulers to legislate any of it. So Bush can be for civil unions or too dumb to argue effectively against them and it doesn't matter. We have two choices and neither is good, but Bush is better.
The first Republican platform in 1856 wanted to abolish slavery and polygamy. So much for consistency.
Rights? Allow people to have "rights"? He loses the entire argument, including the one against court mandated marriage, with that wording. If he had said "benefits" then maybe, but "rights"? No. Sometimes his inability to communicate can be exceedingly frustrating. And I also sometimes wonder if he has really even studied the issue. I don't expect him to have a lot of time, but it do expect him to associate himself with people to inform him thoroughly of the debate, terminology, and appropriate/effective arguments. He is just arguing against himself in this interview.
I do not have a problem with the states rights position, though it is a deviation from the position our nation took on the polygamy issue. My problem is with the way Bush sounds supportive of civil unions, and that he claims against logic that there is a difference. The Amendment actually does NOT protect traditional marriage at all. That is what he should be saying. All it does is return the issue to the people. And as a practical application of giving states the right to choose, there must be a different name so the distinction is clear and the choice can be easily differentiated among the states. Civil unions and marriages are the same. But you cannot offer a choice, practically, without using different terminology.
Exactly.
The whole "rights" argument is stupid. Homosexuals are not barred from marriage. They just have to keep to the same rules as everyone else. They must marry one person of the opposite sex.
I agree with you.
But many people don't, and this is why it should be fought out at state level, rather than imposed from above (by the Court). I believe there are more people on our side than on the other side, btw.
Read later.
Your point is well-taken.
I'd strongly suggest that you keep it in context of the big picture. In the next 4 years we will see at least 3 US Supreme Court replacements(yeah, we thought that in 2000, but there is no way some of these can hold out much longer). This is the last chance for social conservatives, if President Bush loses, we will have lost the culture wars for at least 2 decades.
And don't fool yourself into thinking a Santorum or other social conservative could win the nomination in 2008, if the President loses the GOP will go pragmatic and turn to the candidate with the broadest draw and best chance to win, Rudy Giuliani. We can't keep losing all the west coast, all the Northeast, and razor-thin Florida. There are more votes to be mined there by a tough, honest secular econ. conservative than among the segment of social conservatives who don't constantly search for another reason to sit-at-home, and the GOP will make the tradeoff.
Hopefully we will win THIS election and it will never come to that, but for social conservatives this is a win or lose power election of the utmost importance. It is about retaining power to get much(but never all) of what we want, versus giving partial power to those who would roll back our wins and losing much of our voice and access to the other half of power.
I don't believe a damn thing the New York Times "reports".
I agree with you. I'm a Christian and I held the same view of civil unions for homosexuals as the President did. Perhaps he thinks he's being compassionate. That's what I thought. Then I woke up. Perhaps he will too.
But this isn't enough for me to stay home and cry ... or to change my vote for a man who will DEFINITELY push for homosexual marriage and FORCE it onto the states!
"He saying let the PEOPLE choose what they want - and since they overwhelmingly want marriages between men and women only, it becomes a enfranchisement issue."
Thank-you. I respect differences on this issue but the bottomline is that the PEOPLE get to choose...and most will reject gay marriage but will consider civil unions.
Let the PEOPLE speak truth to liberal desires.
I find it offensive when someone insists others are trolls. Personally, I don't care. This is a debate. Just because someone doesn't think like you doesn't mean they are a troll. And even if they are, so what? It still doesn't change the fact that others hold the opinion of the trolls. It also seems like a form of censorship when someone starts screaming about trolls.
I guess he did NOT find Jesus.
It's pretty clear that Bush is arguing for states rights, aka the 10th Amendment. As TX governor, he would have opposed it, but he didn't think that it was the right of the Feds to tell other states what to do on the matter of civil unions. This is a lot different than the marriage ammendment, which he supported. He's very clear on marriage. So, what's the problem? Hopefully, the deeply religious right will be able to see through the spin and turn out on Nov 2nd. This is a non-issue.
BTTT
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.