Bush breaks with GOP on same-sex unions

Robert43 said:

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20041026-121303-1337r.htm


Robert

Click to expand...

Trying to win a few last minute votes.

WOW
That is a shocker.

Last minute votes? I was under the impression Bush supported civil unions for quite some time now, just not gay marriages.

Vylo said:

Last minute votes? I was under the impression Bush supported civil unions for quite some time now, just not gay marriages.

Click to expand...

I always thought he was deadset against civil unions too. Got any links?

That's the same guy who said this?

GW Bush said:

On a matter of such importance, the voice of the people must be heard. Activist courts have left the people with one recourse. If we are to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever, our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America. Decisive and democratic action is needed, because attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country.

Click to expand...

Looks like a flip-flop

Oh I see, I read it again, and we're playing with the meaning of words again, so he is okay for same-sex civil unions, with the rights and privileges of marriage, but you can't call it marriage because using the same term for it undermines family values.

It's a sort of fence-sitting thing isn't it? To the gay community he is supporting some rights, with the exception of the title, to the anti-gay marriage crowd, he isn't supporting gay marriage... It's different!

If people want to restrict "marriage" to a religious union and "union" to a civil union, I really wouldn't care. As long as everyone is equal under the eyes of the law.

But my guess is that even this "union" endorsement will turn off some of his base.

Sycophant said:

Oh I see, I read it again, and we're playing with the meaning of words again, so he is okay for same-sex civil unions, with the rights and privileges of marriage, but you can't call it marriage because using the same term for it undermines family values.

It's a sort of fence-sitting thing isn't it? To the gay community he is supporting some rights, with the exception of the title, to the anti-gay marriage crowd, he isn't supporting gay marriage... It's different!

Click to expand...

On the plus side is the gay community are gaining the rights they didn’t have before. Marriage is just a label anyway.

joebudda said:

On the plus side is the gay community are gaining the rights they didn’t have before. Marriage is just a label anyway.

Click to expand...

Or, alternatively, they are being allowed rights which should never have been withheld from them in the first place.

Just another perspective

Yes, heh heh. Like when white Americans graciously gifted black Americans with the vote.

Sooooooo...... I guess a lot of conservatives are going to just looooove this one.

Zoot said:

Yes, heh heh. Like when white Americans graciously gifted black Americans with the vote.

Click to expand...

I say, what ho, that was jolly sporting of the old chaps, what.

If you are going to give a same-sex couple the same rights as marriage without the title, I'd like to see a good reason to withhold the title only.

The idea that "marriage" be retained for religious unions is fine and dandy, but does that mean that atheists can't be married?

And after a civil union, is Suzy's new spouse her 'wife' or is that a term only to be used in conjustion with a marriage? Maybe it's her 'civially recognised partner'?

kermit said:

Trying to win a few last minute votes.

Click to expand...

Perhaps Dick Cheney has an even greater influence over Bush than even we cynics believed.

Sycophant said:

The idea that "marriage" be retained for religious unions is fine and dandy, but does that mean that atheists can't be married?

Click to expand...

<No! Must...not....agree...with...the....atheist.....> :o

ARGH!!!!

I have to admit, you make a good point.

I read the article. The title is somewhat deceptive because Bush is clearly talking about the rights of states to allow same-sex unions. At the state level, some Republicans DO favor same-sex unions.

Even at the federal level, not all Republicans voted for the Marriage Amendment and not all Democrats voted against it. (check the House of Representatives votes:
voting record which identifies Republicans versus Democrats by text-type:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2004/roll484.xml

MaryS said:

I read the article. The title is somewhat deceptive because Bush is clearly talking about the rights of states to allow same-sex unions. At the state level, some Republicans DO favor same-sex unions.

Even at the federal level, not all Republicans voted for the Marriage Amendment and not all Democrats voted against it. (check the House of Representatives votes:
voting record which identifies Republicans versus Democrats by text-type:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2004/roll484.xml

Click to expand...

Doesn't matter to some of these people Mary.. they want to spin it. I wonder if most people even read the links people put on here or if they just say to heck with it.. I am for such and such... so I will spin it to make my candidate look less like the bad guy that he is.

HAHA! It's not a good sign when the highest profile republican plainly says that the party platform is wrong.

Bush OK with same-sex unions. Wonder how THAT is going to play with conservatives, particularly social conservatives?

Well, Rove's polling probably showed that a majority of Americans think that same-sex "civil unions" are OK, so instead of trying to change the platform, he just had Bush make this pronouncement.

It's Rove's mistake for not catching the polling data early enough.

the_malevolent_milk_man said:

HAHA! It's not a good sign when the highest profile republican plainly says that the party platform is wrong.

Click to expand...