Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush's gay union stance irks conservatives
MSNBC.com ^ | 3:05 p.m. ET Oct. 26, 2004 | The Associated Press

Posted on 10/26/2004 4:26:20 PM PDT by Ed Current

Some conservative groups expressed dismay Tuesday over President Bush’s tolerance of state-sanctioned civil unions between gay people — laws that would grant same-sex partners most or all the rights available to married couples.

"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," Bush said in an interview aired Tuesday on ABC. Bush acknowledged that his position put him at odds with the Republican platform, which opposes civil unions.

"Civil unions are a government endorsement of homosexuality," said Robert Knight, director of the Culture and Family Institute….

(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: civilunions; homosexualagenda; mediabias; mobydicks; mobyisthatyou; mobysmarchingmorons; samesexmarriage; smearcampaign; thebiglie; welcometofr
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-185 next last
To: Ed Current
The FMA should do both. But as long as the courts can rule, you never know. I think we need both to be safe.

It would be awesome if MA would impeach those justices. What a statement that would be to all those activists judges out there.

161 posted on 10/26/2004 6:38:05 PM PDT by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Legislatures are so outdated. If you want real political victory, take your issue to court.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Ed Current

Again, can you back up your claim about me?
QUOTE ME.


162 posted on 10/26/2004 6:42:50 PM PDT by Darksheare ("Look out! He has a bad idea and isn't afraid to use it!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: jocon307

In case you were serious about not getting my sarcasm.

Voting for the "bad guy", just because the "good guy" disagrees w you "some of the time", is not an effective way to "send a message".

If you you have a message to send, wrap it around a $100 contribution and mail it.
BUT FOR THE SAKE OF THE FREE WORLD VOTE FOR THE GOOD GUY!


163 posted on 10/26/2004 6:43:10 PM PDT by G Larry (Support John Thune!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past

I appreciate your posts and think I have a little better understanding of why folk prefer the CMA over the MPA.

Thanks.


164 posted on 10/26/2004 6:43:59 PM PDT by Ed Current
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: Ed Current

"To: Darksheare
Since you are so obsessed with the loon (KERRY) see post #151.

153 posted on 10/26/2004 9:25:55 PM EDT by Ed Current "

Back your statement up with proof.


165 posted on 10/26/2004 6:46:53 PM PDT by Darksheare ("Look out! He has a bad idea and isn't afraid to use it!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: Alia
Hold on.. as I understand it: Domestic Partnership is a downgraded version of a civil union. Civil Union is a federally recognized partnership. But not a marriage. It's like a secular familial corporation. Larger legal umbrella. But neither is a marrriage. Have you seen the legal "interps" of Vermont Civil Union and MA homosexual marriage? I haven't. Tell me what you have read, pls?

Civil Unions are not federally recognized (what gave you that idea?), but at the state level they essentially are marriage. Civil Unions are recognized in Vermont, by court order, and they are equal to marriage, but only at the state level. They are exactly like the Massachusetts gay marriages only sport a different title. Domestic Partnerships, thus far, have had a variety of meanings. In California, they have meant any domestic arangement where two people want to enter this kind of shared contract. It is something any two people can do without any kind of sexual relationship at all. Domestic partnerships could be defined to be equal to marriage but are not on their face the same thing as marriage, like civil unions are. Marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman, traditionally. Domestic partnerships, as they've been defined in California, are not a union, but rather a legal contract between two people who share domestic quarters. When a legislative body decides to recognize them in any way, it is to bestow certain benefits on the legal arrangement. I'm against them, but that's the difference.

166 posted on 10/26/2004 6:49:51 PM PDT by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Legislatures are so outdated. If you want real political victory, take your issue to court.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: kingu


167 posted on 10/26/2004 6:52:19 PM PDT by Twinkie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: G Larry

"BUT FOR THE SAKE OF THE FREE WORLD VOTE FOR THE GOOD GUY!"

LOL, AGREED! And as some hollywood type once said: If you want to send a message - call Western Union!


168 posted on 10/26/2004 6:52:21 PM PDT by jocon307 (Don't let Australia down: Re-elect President Bush!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Ed Current
"To: Darksheare
Since you are so obsessed with the loon (KERRY) see post #151.

153 posted on 10/26/2004 9:25:55 PM EDT by Ed Current "

Back your statement up with proof.

169 posted on 10/26/2004 6:54:18 PM PDT by Darksheare ("Look out! He has a bad idea and isn't afraid to use it!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: Screaming_Gerbil

"President Bush isn't supporting Gay Unions, he's supporting State's Rights over Activist Judges."

Thank you! You've nailed the cruxt of the matter.

Rhetorical question: Is there a single conservative who would prefer "activist judges" over "state's rights?" Is there?


170 posted on 10/26/2004 6:54:30 PM PDT by NCPAC (Social Darwinists Unite!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past
Thanks for yours. Yes, you and I are on the same page in understanding Domestic Partnerships. We are pretty much on the same page regarding "civil unions". My use of "federally recognized" is a playout on my understanding of civil union laws. Basically these are laws (property, inheritance) similar to ones automatically accorded via "marriage". Ergo, these are recognized as a body of contracts between people in a union relationship. But still, these are not 'marriage.'

There is an automatic assumption of progeny co-written into "marriage". In the gay marriage, or civil union contract, there would have to be underwriting, new asidem-but-attached laws written since most gays adopt or do other forms of acquiring children.

I've been to "civil unions" -- folks wedding at City hall, in Reno, etc. These, as you do say, are like "marriages": carry the existant extension of traditional weddings and in the case of straight couples, the legal assumptions for progeny is inherent. This is not quite the same for civil unions, as I understand these laws.

Marriages, however, in the traditional sense of the word TAKE PLACE IN CHURCHES. There is a legal "assumption" or "conection" to recognizing the power of a church to perform the civil union as opposed to reciting the pledge before a clerk of the court.

The difference between marriage and civil union is slight; but exists nonetheless.

And the very reasons why the gay movement insists these "unions" be called marriage is in order to further their encroachment upon traditionalist religions.

171 posted on 10/26/2004 7:03:12 PM PDT by Alia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: kingu

My, my, look at how the MSM is trying to paint Bush as not being conservative enough. Yup, they're hoping that a million religious conservatives sit on their hands and don't vote again this time."

Meanwhile the MSM sprad the lie about Kerry being "against Gay marriage" when to the Gay Activists, he told them he opposed the kind of constitutional amendments that Missouri passed against gay marriage, he opposed doing anything in Massachusetts to derail gay marriage, and wants to put judicial activists on the court that would enshrine it as a 'right'.


172 posted on 10/26/2004 7:12:03 PM PDT by WOSG (George W Bush / Dick Cheney - Right for our Times!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MoonBat

"President Bush supports gay unions???"

NO. Bush suppports DEMOCRACY.
He merely said that if a state wanted civil unions, he had no quarrel with that, it is their right.
He did a parry oa the usual MSM trap-door questions.
If he said anything else he'd be against 'the will of the people'.


173 posted on 10/26/2004 7:14:54 PM PDT by WOSG (George W Bush / Dick Cheney - Right for our Times!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: MoonBat

I am shocked that a newly signed up one has time to quarrel on this.

States are going to decide on this anyway. Vote pro-marriage and it WONT happen in your state.

REPUBLICAN VICTORY = MARRIAGE SAVED
DEMOCRAT VICTORY = MARRIAGE DESTROYED THROUGH THE COURTS

WHAT HAVE YOU DONE TO HELP BUSH DEFEAT KERRY?????


174 posted on 10/26/2004 7:17:40 PM PDT by WOSG (George W Bush / Dick Cheney - Right for our Times!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Moconservative

"If you listened to the Charlie Gipson interview every question was worded in a way to get at the base of the Republican party. This question was the same as what Kerry tried to do with the Mary Chaney answer. It is to erode the evangelical christian support. If you fall for it then you are falling into the trap that the MSM and RATS have set for you. Get out and vote for Presdient Bush on election day because John Kerry is not the guy you want running things if you have these concerns."

So well said I had to make it bold! FOLKS WAKE UP, THE MSM IS TRYING TO PLAY YOU!
175 posted on 10/26/2004 7:19:47 PM PDT by WOSG (George W Bush / Dick Cheney - Right for our Times!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: MoonBat

MoonBat - Some reasons to vote Bush and to share ...

But First --- KERRY'S RECORD ON MARRIAGE:
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=5004 - #6 Kerry won't defend traditional Marriage

50 Reasons to vote for Bush - a photo essay:
http://www.americandigest.org/mt-archives/002445.php
This was a part of a Hugh Hewitt "why vote for Bush?" blog symposium - lots of good entries here:
http://hughhewitt.com/#postid1026

Kerry talked about foreign leaders supporting him.
Well, both Russia's Putin and Italy's Burlesconi have said terrorists would win if Bush loses. And then Arafat endorsed Kerry.
Now, from Iraq ... a pro-democracy Iraqi blogger begs for America to choose Bush:
http://messopotamian.blogspot.com/2004_10_01_messopotamian_archive.html#109796772942861120
" an election victory by President Bush would be a severe blow and a great disappointment for all the terrorists in the World and all the enemies of America. I believe that such an outcome would result in despair and demoralization of the “insurgent elements” here in Iraq, and would lead to the pro-democracy forces gaining the upper hand"

Speaking of Iraq, here are links to rebut Kerry's claims that Saddam was not linked to terrorism and Al Qaeda:
http://www.husseinandterror.com/
http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com/2004/07/saddams-regime-and-al-qaeda.html

My essay comparing this very important election with the election of 1864:
http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com/2004/10/lincoln-of-our-age.html
"As our nation needed Lincoln then, it needs a man like G W Bush now. It was a point Rudy Guliani made - at certain times when the ideas and character of a party or a person are more necessary than ever. George W. Bush is the right man for our times, navigating a difficult and treacherous world and rising to the challenge of defeating global terrorism. "


Human Events' has Ten Reasons Kerry should not be President. Here's 5 of them, with quotes and votes on Kerry's record:

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=5010 - Kerry will pack the courts with Liberal Activist Judges
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=4973 - Kerry is a pro-abortion extremist
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=4952 - Kerry will raise taxes
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=4957 - Kerry opposed a strong national defense

The Union-Leader endorses Bush and derides the shameless fearmongering of Senator Kerry:
http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=45792
"HALLOWEEN has come early this year, thanks to the relentless and shameless fearmongering of Sen. John Kerry."
Speaking to young audiences, Kerry falsely charges that President Bush might re-instate the draft. But Bush has never supported a draft. The only legislation in Congress to bring back the draft was introduced by Democrats, and the House version was dramatically killed by Republicans. ..."

Here is a very good editorial from Investors Business Daily endorsing President Bush:
http://www.investors.com/editorial/issues.asp?v=10/23

"Election '04: A strong leader is not to everyone's taste, but America is fortunate to have one at a time of war and national peril. George W. Bush has led with strategic clarity, constancy and, yes, competence. ... Just nine days after al-Qaida terrorists pulled off the most deadly attack ever on U.S. soil, he explained the realities and strategy of this new war to Congress with clarity and foresight: "Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have seen."

... His critics, taking many with them, soon chose to forget that he had not promised a quick, antiseptic victory. But Bush stayed on the offensive against terrorists and their state sponsors.

That strategy is gradually leading toward victory, and he has refused to abandon it simply because it's no longer as popular. Bush has walked his talk, in other words, showing a constancy so many of his critics, including Kerry, conspicuously lack.

... Afghanistan has just held its first free election. Iraq, despite stubborn violence, is set for a similar milestone in January, just two months after we vote. And though you wouldn't know it from news coverage, the most exhaustive report yet on Saddam's WMD ambitions vindicates Bush's decision to remove the dictator by force.

Among other current or former terror-sponsoring states, Iran remains unreformed but Libya has turned. North Korea now faces a united front of its neighbors and the U.S., a feat of multilateral diplomacy that Kerry, for some odd reason, wants to undo.

Al-Qaida remains a threat, but it has lost its sanctuaries and much of its leadership. Neither it nor any other terror group has been able to mount a significant attack on America since 9-11. ...

The economy, meanwhile, has fully recovered from a recession and the 9-11 shock with the help of Bush's two broad-based tax cuts. Kerry and the Democrats can try all they want to paint things black, but they have to ignore most of the data, such as GDP growth averaging well over 4% for the past year and a half, unemployment at just 5.4% and home ownership at record highs. ... Economic strength isn't just a domestic fact. It's of strategic importance as well. The 9-11 terrorists struck the World Trade Center, after all, in hopes of crippling our economy. They failed.

As mentioned, we've stated the case against Kerry. But one point bears repeating: Kerry's negative record on national security, if nothing else, disqualifies him from the presidency as long as America faces a serious threat — that is, for as long as we can foresee.

Where Bush faced the challenge of 9-11 and acted forcibly, as he's still doing, to destroy the terrorists on their own ground, Kerry has been incapable even for a few months of holding a firm position on this war. He has articulated no plan for winning it, and, given his deference to the "global test" of world opinion, there's no assurance he would carry out any plan if France, Germany and the United Nations didn't approve.

We face a stark choice on Nov. 2. We can vote for a proven leader, or we can gamble on a challenger who still can't give a straight, consistent answer to the question of how he would fulfill the central task of government — to protect the people."


Last but not least, this NRA ad will make you smile - a French poodle for Kerry 'that dog won't hunt' on Kerry's anti-gun-owner record:
http://www.nrapvf.org/media/pdf/poodlead.gif
Reminds me of a tagline I saw on a website:
"KERRY IS A POODLE: #1 He's French, #2 He's A Rich Woman's Pet, #3 He Won't Protect You"

Hopefully, we won't have to worry about him come November 3rd.


176 posted on 10/26/2004 7:22:59 PM PDT by WOSG (George W Bush / Dick Cheney - Right for our Times!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Ed Current

It depends entirely on the composition of the next Senate. This bill should have been brought for vote, imho, BEFORE the election to flush out those senators who actually support judges ruling our nation.....ending up with homosexual marriage.

The filibuster still exists, so anything less than 60 Republicans and this bill will be filibustered in the Senate.


177 posted on 10/26/2004 7:23:29 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army and Proudly Supporting BUSH/CHENEY 2004!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Ed Current

The principled solution is to remove domestic relations from the Supreme Court's jurisdiction.

The SCOTUS has no business ruling on matters of contraception (Griswold v. Connecticut), abortion, homosexuality, or any other sexual matter.

Madison and Hamilton have been rolling in their graves for generations. Let them rest.


178 posted on 10/26/2004 8:12:40 PM PDT by CobaltBlue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CobaltBlue

BEST POST I'VE SEEN ON FR!
NAILED IT!


179 posted on 10/26/2004 8:24:30 PM PDT by Ed Current
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: Ed Current
The principled solution is to remove domestic relations from the Supreme Court's jurisdiction.

The SCOTUS has no business ruling on matters of contraception (Griswold v. Connecticut), abortion, homosexuality, or any other sexual matter.

Madison and Hamilton have been rolling in their graves for generations. Let them rest.
178 CobaltBlue

______________________________________


BEST POST I'VE SEEN ON FR!
NAILED IT!
179 ed current

______________________________________


The SCOTUS is in the business of ruling on matters of contraception (Griswold v. Connecticut), abortion, homosexuality, or any other sexual matters, -- whenever States are accused of infringing upon individual rights affected by such matters.

[See Article III]

And let us hope that one of these days they get around to striking down CA's infringements on our 2nd Amendment.
180 posted on 10/26/2004 9:02:20 PM PDT by tpaine (No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another. - T. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-185 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson