Posted on 10/26/2004 5:05:21 AM PDT by ruralgal
Three newbies, one thread. Do I smell ozone?
Bush is sure trying hard to lose my vote. What's next?, praying to the moon god again??
Speak for yourself. While This would still leave it in the hands of the states, if Bush at the heart of it has no problem with civil unions, that's a problem. He's better than Kerry, yes, because of the ban on gay marriage and the constiutional amendment, but when you get right down to it, there is no differnece between marraige and civil unions, so the fact he says he has no problem with that is bothersome. He could have phrased it in a different way.
I'll write it off as "things" we say in an election year.
It doesn't matter what we say about civil unions. It's still wrong and will be punished by God. But there is no reason for us to be his "Enforcers" here on earth.
If every sin were punished here on earth then there would be no reasonable assumption of the existence of a hell (Calvin)
Now I shall don my Firefighting Ensemble for those of you who wrongly think that I just said there should be no civil laws against sin. That's not what I said.
If this makes supporters of the President stay home it would be quite frankly stupid and petty. Social issues are like it or not at the periphery in this election and staying home is just as good as voting for Sen. Kerry and an agenda, which is in effect bolstering a position on social issues that couldn't be further from those positions held by opponets of Gay marriage and civil unions for homosexuals. My word to those who fly off the handle on this one, wise up.
I'm certainly no troll. I post on here quite a bit lately, and on other conservative blogs. Just being honest that Bush could have phrased this thing differently. He's fine--he's still got my vote, and I don't think thish is a huge story, but he could have handled it better. I just wish we had more Santorums who would tell it like it is on this issue.
I think it matters what we do here, but you're right int hat we can't let the MSM turn this into a Christian suppressing vote. but, Bush could have phrased it better.
alot of people are getting really bent out of shape on this thread over this issue...this will NOT depress voter turn out from the conservatives; their alternative is a candidate who will most likely endorse GAY MARRIAGE!! his wife even says her first order in the WH is to bring gay life more into the mainstream or words to that affect.
leaving civil unions to the states is a good idea. period. this will NOT backfire on GWB.
I do'nt think it was as clear as it could have been. I'ts not that big of deal, just dissapointing.
I agree. Bush's position is perfect, in my opinion.
Leave it to each state. Bush is placing his faith in the voters who have swarmed to the polls to ban gay marriage. If they tolerate legalizing civil unions, so be it.
The critical thing to focus on is the Supreme Court.
Same-sex marriage and civil unions are two different things.
George Bush has always supported a constitutional amendment to outlaw same-sex marriage--he knows that is the only way to stop it.
That position is quite consistent with saying that the issue of civil arrangements giving various rights should be left up to the states.
I hope you're not referring to me as a troll.
I just joined a few days ago, but I've been reading the board for awhile now. I joined up because I wanted to be able to post some because the election is coming up. That's all. I'm sorry if I offended anyone by posting this story, but it's a very important issue to me. I am fundamentally opposed to gay marriage and civil unions and frankly I wouldn't be against amending the Constitution to make homosexual practices illegal.
I'm sorry if you think I have ulterior motives. I'm still voting for Bush despite this, I'm just really disappointed and I hope he was just pandering and he will amend the Constitution in his second term.
Now that I agree with...Kerry is much worse, I overstated that at the meat, there is no difference. Just wish we didn't always have to cater or "be nice". oh well...
Civil unions could be defined by the states as any legal partnership. One example is a grown man or woman who is unmarried could form a legal union with his or her widowed mother for her own legal and financial protection. Anyone who is of age can make a legal partnership with anyone else; nothing sinister about that. Homosexuals might try to equate it with marriage, but it's not the same thing.
I don't see any reason to not vote for the President over this issue. He's made it clear that he supports the fact of traditional marriage. We should support him for that and not weenie out at this late date. We'd be shooting ourselves in BOTH feet by doing that.
What really happened? I suspect some sort of hypothetical.
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.