To: AHerald
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.
To: RightMike
He's saying that the issue of civil union law should be left up to the states, period. And that has been his consistent position. And given that the article makes clear that he wouldn't have endorsed civil unions when he was governor of Texas, it's pretty clear where he stands.
70 posted on
10/26/2004 5:38:48 AM PDT by
AHerald
("I'm George W. Bush, and I approved this butt-whoopin'")
To: RightMike
That is not what he said.
What is your purpose for coming here and spinning a web of deceit?
164 posted on
10/26/2004 6:37:56 AM PDT by
cyncooper
(And an angel still rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm)
To: RightMike
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.Exactly.
227 posted on
10/26/2004 1:21:46 PM PDT by
The Ghost of FReepers Past
(Legislatures are so outdated. If you want real political victory, take your issue to court.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson