Bush Loves You

[eggwards]

I've shied away from the political talk lately, because I like many of you have had my fill of this campaign and am really glad that round one will be over next week (the counting stage is round two)

Still, I couldn't let a comment by the president pass. This past weekend, and broadcast on Monday's Good Morning America, George W. Bush spoke with Charlie Gibson about many subjects, giving mostly the standard answers, but he seemed to deviate from the norm on one, stating that he disagreed with the Republican Party platform opposing civil unions for same sex couples.

Boy that's news to me. Not only has he and other members of his party gone out of their way to not mention civil unions, but heck, except when forced to acknowledge Mary Cheney, they can't even get out the word homosexual, sometimes, preferring to say they are preserving some mysterious state created sanctity of marriage.

Bush himself, as Governor of Texas in the late 1990's helped pass the Texas Defense of Marriage Act, brought on by the challenges to Hawaii's marriage rules, that state that Texas cannot marry same-se couples, or create Vermont-style civil unions, going further than most states. This is the same legislation that Louisiana tried to pass a a state constitutional amendment, but forgot that you cannot use and amendment to ban two different things at once.

So now, against the platform of his party, Bush is saying that he's OK with civil unions? Just now? Should we say that he's (dare I say it?) flip-flopped?

You could say that his quotes that people should be allowed to make relationships they choose to make could be expanded to include this, but this certainly can't play well with his base, that doesn't want to see any same sex relationships validated. at this late date in the campaign, did he thing their votes were in the bag, so he could say something like this, or did he get away from his handlers?

Was his truly a moment of honesty, or just a calculated moment to try to fish for some last minute votes. Was he trying to find some people who had been on the fence because of bush's hard line stance? it seems a softening wouldn't change the fact that many battleground states have constitutional amendments on the ballots and fundamentalist christians (little "c") foaming at the mouth to pass them.

Try as I could, I couldn't find a Christian right site that mentioned the president's comments this morning, but i only had a few minutes as I was eating my breakfast. I think they know the battle has been won this year, but they know to have true satisfaction that they must constantly have satan to battle...for 2004 we've been it. Who knows if that will continue.

Here's a link to president Bush's comment's in the New York Times from Monday.(Registration Required)

Comments

[hylandr.livejournal.com]

What it says is that he's scared and trying to get votes next week before turning back and saying no civil unions again the day after.

Bush Stance on Civil Unions Upsets Groups

[jdvsqz.livejournal.com]

October 26, 2004 02:57 PM EDT

WASHINGTON - 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.

"I view the definition of marriage different from legal arrangements that enable people to have rights," said Bush, who has pressed for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. "States ought to be able to have the right to pass laws that enable people to be able to have rights like others."

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry backs civil unions for gay couples, too. He opposes gay marriage but also opposes the idea of a constitutional ban.

Some conservative organizations sharply disagreed with Bush and pressed him to seek a constitutional amendment that would ban both gay marriage and civil unions.

"Civil unions are a government endorsement of homosexuality," said Robert Knight, director of the Culture and Family Institute, an affiliate of Concerned Women For America. "But I don't think President Bush has thought about it in that way. He seems to be striving for neutrality while defending marriage itself."

Knight said "counterfeits" of marriage, such as civil unions, "hurt the real thing."

The head of another group, the Campaign for California Families, said it, too, wants a sweeping constitutional amendment that bars civil unions and same-sex marriage.

"Here's the truth, civil unions are homosexual marriage by another name," said Randy Thomasson, the group's executive director. "Civil unions rob marriage of its uniqueness and award homosexuals all the rights of marriage available under state law."

"Bush needs to understand what's going on and resist counterfeit marriages with all his might no matter what they're called," Thomasson said.

But Matt Daniel, the leader of a coalition that successfully pressed for legislation that would create the constitutional ban on gay marriage, said Bush had staked out just the right position.

A federal ban on gay marriage, not on civil unions, "is the way for America to resolve this in the fairest way, the best way," said Daniel, president of the Alliance for Marriage. "We do indeed support the president's position."

Re: Bush Stance on Civil Unions Upsets Groups

[eggwards.livejournal.com]

Thanks John!

I knew someone could find some fool saying exactly what I thought they'd say. "We are discriminating against these people, because they can't have any of these rights, period. It isn't about marriage, it's about homosexuality."

Nice that their bigotry really is on their sleeves.

[jeffdintexas.livejournal.com]

Forgive my politcal ignorance.. but is Ed Koch gay? I thought I heard something to that effect today. I do know that Ed Koch is a Democrat and as liberal as they come... and strangely enough he is strongly supporting Bush in this election.

[aadroma.livejournal.com]

I was even more amazed that, in an interview, he also stated that he indeed had no idea whether being gay was inherently born or caused later in life. Yet somehow he managed to make a completely illogical jump to the need of the marriage amendment.

For a while, it was as if logic was going to hit him and he'd go, "Wait a sec," but alas ...

[leiny.livejournal.com]

I'm not going to make an assumption that he's trying to get votes, its already to late, the log cabin's aren't going to change their stance now.

I have wondered exactly how much Bush really cares whether we can marry or not. I think he might be forced into it. I don't know.

Of course this is the same G.W. Bush who defended his states law banning sex between members of the same sex while he was governor, which the supreme court struck down a few years ago. So I don't know.
Maybe he's changed.

[guikc.livejournal.com]

Frankly, I wouldn't believe Bush if he said that grass was green and the sky is blue and puppies are cute.