Support NeoGAF

[Father_Brain]

www.nytimes.com/2004/10/26/politics/campaign/26gay.html

Bush Says His Party Is Wrong to Oppose Gay Civil Unions
By ELISABETH BUMILLER

WASHINGTON, Oct. 25 - 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.

I have no idea what he's thinking. This makes him look like a hypocrite for flip-flopping, and it's too late to win over Log Cabin Republicans and most undecided voters. As far as I can see, the only probable effect this will have is driving fundies away from the polls.

 

[sprsk]

ha?

 

[DarienA]

This is a blatant flip fop... desperate to try to get some votes next month.

 

[xsarien]

Did we swap Presidents with a parallel dimension or something?

This is a blatant flip fop... desperate to try to get some votes next month.

No, no. Republicans change their mind, only Democrats flip-flop.

 

[Meier]

I cant say this for sure, but has his stance always been completely opposed to civil unions? Or has he just been adamantly opposed to gay marriage. I was under the impression it was the latter although it very easily could be both.

 

[olimario]

Flip Flop? Nah
He made it clear that this is different than his view of marriage.
And isn't it a good thing? No more discrimination against gays.

 

[Cool]

HOMOSEXUALS FOR BUSH!

 

[Ripclawe]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-12-17-bush-gay-marriage_x.htm

Posted 12/17/2003 10:00 PM

On Tuesday, Bush said for the first time that he would, "if necessary," support a constitutional amendment that defined marriage as between a man and a woman. But he said he wouldn't prohibit "whatever legal arrangements people want to make" that are "embraced" by states.

That was a reference to civil unions and domestic partnerships for same-sex couples, now recognized by Vermont and California.

Bush's distinction between marriage and other "legal arrangements" brought protests from some conservative leaders. "I'm concerned that the president thinks that counterfeit institutions such as same-sex unions are OK, that he doesn't see that they threaten to devalue the real thing," says Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council. He relayed his objections to the White House on Wednesday.

This has always been his stance.

 

[xsarien]

Flip Flop? Nah
He made it clear that this is different than his view of marriage.
And isn't it a good thing? No more discrimination against gays.

The fact that he wants a Constitutional amendment that would stifle their religious rights says otherwise.

 

[Triumph]

Flip Flop? Nah
He made it clear that this is different than his view of marriage.
And isn't it a good thing? No more discrimination against gays.

Yeah. All the discrimination in the country is just going to stop because Dubya has decreed that he's for letting the states decide. Wow you're bright.

If you're smart, you'll have noticed that what he's actually saying is that he's for civil unions IF that is what the state decides to allow. Well, quite a few of the amendment proposals out right now would get rid of civil unions as well as outlawing gay marriage.

Take Georgia for instance. Gay marriage is already illegal in Georgia. There is no reason to have an amendment, except for the sneaky language that has been added to the amendment(but that doesn't show up on the ballot, interestingly enough) that would in effect strip gay couples of the rights that married couples have- rendering civil unions null and void. I'm sure that if it passes, Dubya will just say, "Well gosh and shucks, the state decided. It's not for me to poke my nose in their business!" And then he'll smirk.

 

[olimario]

Yeah. All the discrimination in the country is just going to stop because Dubya has decreed that he's for letting the states decide. Wow you're bright.

If you're smart, you'll have noticed that what he's actually saying is that he's for civil unions IF that is what the state decides to allow. Well, quite a few of the amendment proposals out right now would get rid of civil unions as well as outlawing gay marriage.

Take Georgia for instance. Gay marriage is already illegal in Georgia. There is no reason to have an amendment, except for the sneaky language that has been added to the amendment(but that doesn't show up on the ballot, interestingly enough) that would in effect strip gay couples of the rights that married couples have- rendering civil unions null and void. I'm sure that if it passes, Dubya will just say, "Well gosh and shucks, the state decided. It's not for me to poke my nose in their business!" And then he'll smirk.

I wasn't suggesting that. I meant no more discrimination from Bush against gays. It seems that all we see is his stance on Gay Marriage and not on civil unions. This will put Bush in a whole new light in the eyes of homosexuals.

 

[xsarien]

I wasn't suggesting that. I meant no more discrimination from Bush against gays.

Oh? He's going to not let the government define marriage, then? Awesome.

 

[Triumph]

I wasn't suggesting that. I meant no more discrimination from Bush against gays. It seems that all we see is his stance on Gay Marriage and not on civil unions. This will put Bush in a whole new light in the eyes of homosexuals.

Yeah, why don't we just wait until some of the gay members of GAF way in with their opinion. Then we'll see.

This is such a blatantly disingenuous move... ugh. So if a state were to outlaw civil unions, Gary, would it upset you? Would it further upset you if your idiot man-child President didn't do anything about it? Because he won't, Gary.

 

[Spike Spiegel]

Oh? He's going to not let the government define marriage, then? Awesome.

Wouldn't the proposed constitutional amendment strengthen and reaffirm the existing definition of marriage?

 

[xsarien]

Wouldn't the proposed constitutional amendment strengthen and reaffirm the existing definition of marriage?

Funny thing about definitions: None of them are carved into stone.

 

[Triumph]

Wouldn't the proposed constitutional amendment strengthen and reaffirm the existing definition of marriage?

If you're not gay it would.

 

[DarienA]

Let me guess... marriage is defined as a civil union before god? (I'm asking) Ugh... for a country that pushes separation of church and state....

 

[Mercury Fred]

Gayming-Ager here.

Total. Fucking. Bullshit.

The proposed Federal Marriage Amendment would have impeded civil unions as written. So, not only is this yet another cynical (and desperate) last minute attempt to grab votes, it's either a bold faced lie or a flip flop.

God, I can't wait for this joker to be gone.

 

[Spike Spiegel]

2008's going to be a pretty sweet year for you, then.

 

[IJoel]

Let me guess... marriage is defined as a civil union before god? (I'm asking) Ugh... for a country that pushes separation of church and state....

Your VALID LOGIC has no place amongst sheep.

Anyway... here we go again. I think we should just stop debating on this issue. It's clear those that don't agree with this are hiding bigotry behind a religious mask. And yes, religions that support such views are simply contributing to hatred and bigotry.

Anyway... things like that aren't really changed in people through reasonable debate, so we'll end up preaching to the choir or debunking religious nut #10238923700.

 

[JackFrost2012]

I said a flip, flop, the flippie, the flippie, to the flip flip flop, a you dont stop

 

[Mercury Fred]

2008's going to be a pretty sweet year for you, then.

There's no way in hell Bush would live through another term. If he's in office again, I'm guessing assasinated by late 2005 at the very latest.

 

[Christoff Yurievich]

^^ if that were true it would have already happened.

but then, that would make Cheny President. I think that alone would stop it from happening.

 

[Makura]

It's right there in front of you. Bush is against gay marriage, not against civil unions. There is no conflict or flip-flop here. This isn't news.

 

[Mercury Fred]

Bush is against gay marriage, not against civil unions. There is no conflict or flip-flop here. This isn't news.

Did you miss the part where the Federal Marriage Amendment that Bush strongly supported was written to impede civil unions?

 

[Pimpwerx]

olimario: Would you vote for Bush now knowing this? I don't know why this changes anything when it's clear that he is as anti-gay as the next Bible thumper. Why didn't he articulate this stance during the debates? He had a chance to. Personally, I don't know how there's even a Log Cabin when the whole Republican party is anti-gay. That would be like having a black lobby for the KKK. WTF are some people thinking? Should call themselves the Gay Self-Haters Society. Apparently they don't value their civil liberties enough. PEACE.

 

[Makura]

it's clear that he is as anti-gay as the next Bible thumper.

Rolleyes.

 

[Iceman]

basically what I was going to say, mirroring my current stance: pro-unions, anti-marriage.

 

[olimario]

I suppose he didn't find it important enough to mention during the debates, so he's having it aired on national TV soon. It sure doesn't seem he's anti-gay, especially not with the stance he's taking. Was he anti-gay before? Up in the air, but it's good that he's coming out and supporting gay civil unions now.

And don't assume all Christians are anti-gay, because any real Christian shouldn't be.

 

[luxsol]

There's no way in hell Bush would live through another term. If he's in office again, I'm guessing assasinated by late 2005 at the very latest.

If that zero year curse thing (where every president elected on a ###0 date is killed/dies in office) isn't broken (Reagan might have broken it)... it must happen!

 

[Escape Goat]

Read my lips: civil unions for gays!

 

[Mega Man's Electric Sheep]

Read my lips: civil unions for gays!

I read that as "Read my lisp"

 

[Iceman]

To all the people bringing up assassinations.. what the hell is wrong with you?

You're making people who support abortion clinic bombings look sane.

 

[DarienA]

I said a flip, flop, the flippie, the flippie, to the flip flip flop, a you dont stop

I wonder how many caught that Sugarhill Gang reference? :lol

 

[Mercury Fred]

Was he anti-gay before?

Bangs head against wall.

The proposed Federal Marriage Amendment would have impeded civil unions as written.

How can strongly supporting a proposed constituational amendment to bar gay folks from marrying or from civil unions be seen as anything other than anti-gay?

 

[xsarien]

I wonder how many caught that Sugarhill Gang reference? :lol

Anyone with a pulse probably got it.

 

[duderon]

It's right there in front of you. Bush is against gay marriage, not against civil unions. There is no conflict or flip-flop here. This isn't news.

If you're against gay marriage you're against civil unions, they are one in the same as long as religion isn't brought into the picture and it never should be.

 

[Meier]

If you're against gay marriage you're against civil unions, they are one in the same as long as religion isn't brought into the picture and it never should be.

And it never should be? Zuh? Arent 99.9% of weddings performed in a religious environment by a minister/priest/rabbi/whatever? How can you say religion should never be brought into a marriage distinction?

And this is entirely false btw. I support gays right to form unions and allow themselves to have similar rights to a married couple, but I am firmly against gay marriage.

 

[xsarien]

And it never should be? Zuh? Arent 99.9% of weddings performed in a religious environment by a minister/priest/rabbi/whatever? How can you say religion should never be brought into a marriage distinction?

And if that particular clergy happens to be fine with marrying a gay couple, you can see where things start to get very hairy.

 

[maharg]

And it never should be? Zuh? Arent 99.9% of weddings performed in a religious environment by a minister/priest/rabbi/whatever? How can you say religion should never be brought into a marriage distinction?

And this is entirely false btw. I support gays right to form unions and allow themselves to have similar rights to a married couple, but I am firmly against gay marriage.

The government has no place making this distinction. You can make it all you want, but for the government to say 'these two things are the same but called something different' is retarded.

Furthermore, what is the point of the added complexity? If some detail of marriage is changed down the road, does it have to explicitly state that it applies to civil unions as well? Or maybe a republican government would fail to amend that part and they'd be seperate AND unequal again.

 

[ErasureAcer]

Bush has done nothing for the GLBT community...this is last minute BS to the uninformed...all part of Bush's "Compassionate conservatism" or talking himself up big and doing nothing.

Bush must be feeling like toast if he is trying to get the GLBT to save his ass.

 

[duderon]

And it never should be? Zuh? Arent 99.9% of weddings performed in a religious environment by a minister/priest/rabbi/whatever? How can you say religion should never be brought into a marriage distinction?

And this is entirely false btw. I support gays right to form unions and allow themselves to have similar rights to a married couple, but I am firmly against gay marriage.

I'm not saying if gays are married in a church because i assume most gay marriages are done outside of a religious setting. Marriage is a broad term right now, it cannot be reserved just for the christian religions, that's what i'm getting at.

 

[Cerebral Palsy]

Uh, WTF? The Gay Marriage ban, which Bush supports, would have prevented civil unions for gays...

 

[IJoel]

And it never should be? Zuh? Arent 99.9% of weddings performed in a religious environment by a minister/priest/rabbi/whatever? How can you say religion should never be brought into a marriage distinction?

And this is entirely false btw. I support gays right to form unions and allow themselves to have similar rights to a married couple, but I am firmly against gay marriage.

What is the difference between a marriage and a union from a government perspective?

Ugh... these people just don't get it. WE DON'T WANT YOUR RELIGION DICTATING EVERYONE'S GOVERNMENT OR BE THE BASIS FOR CIVIL RIGHTS.

BTW, I'm a catholic, and I don't think every catholic is a bigot such as the church is dictating everyone to be.

 

[Zaptruder]

On a similar note, although they're meant to be pro-life as dictated by the catholic church, some 55% of catholics are for abortions.

Anyway, if Bush did truly support gay civil unions, he wouldn't bother with discriminating between 'marriage' and 'civil unions'. Moreover, he'd actually support them... instead of you know... looking the other way as the liberties are crushed by the state governments.

 

[gofreak]

I find it amusing that religion thinks it has a monopoly on the term "marraige". I don't know about your country, but in mine, you get married twice. Once under God, or whatever religion you want (if you want, not necessary), and once under the State. Both are termed marraige..the state only cares about the civil marraige. Unfortunately civil marraige is still only open to heterosexual couples only, but I see no grounds for it to be withheld from homosexual couples going forward. Civial marraige has nothing to do with religion! It doesn't affect you, so stop grumbling about it.

 

[Cool]

I find it amusing that religion thinks it has a monopoly on the term "marraige". I don't know about your country, but in mine, you get married twice. Once under God, or whatever religion you want (if you want, not necessary), and once under the State. Both are termed marraige..the state only cares about the civil marraige. Unfortunately civil marraige is still only open to heterosexual couples only, but I see no grounds for it to be withheld from homosexual couples going forward. Civial marraige has nothing to do with religion! It doesn't affect you, so stop grumbling about it.

What country are you from?