[SuziQ]

I thought this is what he has said all along. He supports the Constitutional Amendment to define MARRIAGE as being between one man and one woman, because he doesn't trust courts to uphold what has been protected for thousands of years, even if voters in states all over the nation WANT marriage protected and vote accordingly.

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.

[RightMike]

I dont think anyone's talking about not voting for him...I think he just could have handled the topic a little better, though Gibson did kind of trap him.

[grassboots.org]

Civil Unions mean marriage without the word. All of the things that people are claiming civil-unions are about are already available: Power of Attorney, Wills, contracts, etc.

Fine, if you want to argue that this should be banned at the state level and that Bush's position is correct (which it may well be), but don't give us this nonsense that "civil unions" are ok, just, needed and right.