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.
Actually, no. This is America and if you want to give someone who is not a spouse durable power of attorney and automatic inheritance of your assets, you may do so. You determine the fate of your property and your health - not the government.
Essentially, every benefit a spouse has can be granted via a legal document. This does not make a marriage. Very often, widowed elderly women will give all spousal type rights to a sibling or an adult child.
They are also unavoidable, as it's far too late in the game politically to stop them. Bush, the practical politician, realizes this. He also realizes that the existence of civil unions makes a ban on gay marriage more palatable to a lot of moderate voters than it would be if there were no alternatives.
I agree w/ Bush - but this story is designed to split the GOP.
Marriage is between a man and woman. Civil union is any other domestic contract. Sounds like an opening for the old-time Mormon arrangments too
Think a whole lot of his "base" is reading the NYT?
And if any of his "base" is such a rabid single-issue nutjob they would not vote for Bush solely because he'd leave civil union laws up to the states, I'm frankly surprised they'd have the brainpower to even read a newspaper.
If anything this article will help Bush.
Why? Bush is saying let the voters of each state decide how to resolve this matter. He's not promoting civil unions here. What is wrong with Bush's position?
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.
No its not. States all over the country are banning them. Missouri, Ohio, etc. I am dissa pointed in Bush on this one. He's my guy but now there is not much difference between Bush and Kerry on the meat of this issue. This is like #3 or 4 on my list after security issues and then abortion.
Arrgh..hopefully for Bush's sake this doesn't spread.
Think again. The NYT is trying to make it sound like Bush is pro-gay, which he's not.
He just lost my vote. Oh wait, I already voted. Nice try NYT.
yeah. thanks for keeping us up to date on the emmissions from the Times.
So, you're new to FR, right?
You think he was shooting for nuance? The way I see it, today he's got to straighten out the civil union, missing explosives and emergency funding firebombs. And here I thought we had maybe made it through the October surpise deadline.
No, because 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" (in that sense, I could se ehis position).
But, this is a back pedaling on this very critical issue.
Give it a break. He has not changed his position, as much as you may wish he had pulled a Kerry.
This position makes all the sense in the world, and is consistent to what he and other conservatives, inclusing Christian conservatives like myself and my family, have always said.
Two newbies doubting Bush on the same thread with the same sign-up date.
nahhh. nobody can Kerry like Kerry. Say, how do you breathe with your head up your *ss like that?
I agree with you, and that's why you've got to work to make sure that your state doesn't accept it. Unless we can get these things down to the local level where we can control them, and we have a Constitutional amendment to protect marriage itself, the courts are going to start imposing this on us.
If abortion had not been imposed by judicial fiat but had been left up to the states, it would still have been a contentious issue: but in the great majority of states, it would have been rejected or at least severely limited. The same is true of the "civil unions" issue: it's got to be worked out at the state level, and I think most states would have a very restrictive view of it, particularly if people like you get out and fight it.
I am very disappointed to hear this. I am sure Bush will lose some voters over this. I know a registered democrat at work who is voting for Bush because he is against gay marriage and civil unions while Kerry is for civil unions. 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.
Troll alert, and troll filled thread.
I fail to see any of these as "firebombs," but maybe that's just wishful thinking on your part.
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.