Bush Backs Gay Unions

[BDawg]

NYTimes Link

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

Published: October 26, 2004


ASHINGTON, 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.

 

[Pepsei]

Geez, this is pretty much the only issue that I agreed with him. Or used to.

It would be a MAJOR mistake for him to do this.

 

[nageov3t]

so why didn't he oppose the Republican platform if he didn't agree with it?

it's not like he's some junior congressman... he does have some stature in the Republican party.

 

[JustAnAverageGuy]

:shocked:

 

[Pepsei]

At this point, this is going to alienate more people, and I don't think the gay supporters would vote for him anyway.

 

[SirStev0]

i honestly dont see this helping... i know people that were backing him just cus they think he is anti-gay...

 

[Pepsei]

Originally posted by: SirStev0
i honestly dont see this helping... i know people that were backing him just cus they think he is anti-gay...

right, is he trying to loose this election? or maybe trying to win by the smallest margin possible?

 

[JustAnAverageGuy]

I don't see how this could possible benefit him politically.

Now if he said he supported abortions and admitted Iraq was a screw up, things would be... odd

 

[slyedog]

nobody cares if queers marry and call it a civil union. the word marriage means a union between
a man and a woman. and that is what bush beleives. contrary to what the liberal rag NYT said

 

[Vic]

Oops. I just showed the NYT article to a fundamentalist co-worker of mine and he just decided that he can't vote for Bush. Seriously. He is pissed. Said he probably won't vote at all now.

Anybody got any butter and syrup for GW's waffle?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: slyedog
nobody cares if queers marry and call it a civil union. the word marriage means a union between
a man and a woman. and that is what bush beleives. contrary to what the liberal rag NYT said

The Republican party platform is specifically opposed to the idea of same-sex civil unions.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: slyedog
nobody cares if queers marry and call it a civil union. the word marriage means a union between
a man and a woman. and that is what bush beleives. contrary to what the liberal rag NYT said

The Republican party platform is specifically opposed to the idea of same-sex civil unions.

I think it is more like marriage is between a man and woman and civil unions is best left to the states.

 

[Luck JF]

This is the same policy he has had all along.
Leave it to the states. The Federal Marriage Amendment would allow states to even have Homosexual marriage but not force any to.
Massachussetts current ones would be overturned due to the judicial rulings being unconstitutional and then their legislature could repeal their law that bans homosexuals from marrying. Thus Mass would have real, legal homosexual marriages. Which right now all those they have are invalid . The state Supreme Court had no right to order the legislature to make a certain law so the result of that is invalid.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: slyedog
nobody cares if queers marry and call it a civil union. the word marriage means a union between
a man and a woman. and that is what bush beleives. contrary to what the liberal rag NYT said

The Republican party platform is specifically opposed to the idea of same-sex civil unions.

I think it is more like marriage is between a man and woman and civil unions is best left to the states.

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: slyedog
nobody cares if queers marry and call it a civil union. the word marriage means a union between
a man and a woman. and that is what bush beleives. contrary to what the liberal rag NYT said

The Republican party platform is specifically opposed to the idea of same-sex civil unions.

I think it is more like marriage is between a man and woman and civil unions is best left to the states.

I think marriage is a religious ceremony which should be left alone by the state(s).

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: BDawg
NYTimes Link

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

Published: October 26, 2004


ASHINGTON, 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.

Desperation induced flip-flop.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: slyedog
nobody cares if queers marry and call it a civil union. the word marriage means a union between
a man and a woman. and that is what bush beleives. contrary to what the liberal rag NYT said

The Republican party platform is specifically opposed to the idea of same-sex civil unions.

I think it is more like marriage is between a man and woman and civil unions is best left to the states.

I think marriage is a religious ceremony which should be left alone by the state(s).

Which means little would change.

 

[TuxDave]

oh noes! is teh flip flops!

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: slyedog
nobody cares if queers marry and call it a civil union. the word marriage means a union between
a man and a woman. and that is what bush beleives. contrary to what the liberal rag NYT said

The Republican party platform is specifically opposed to the idea of same-sex civil unions.

I think it is more like marriage is between a man and woman and civil unions is best left to the states.

I think marriage is a religious ceremony which should be left alone by the state(s).

Which means little would change.

Exactly. If a church wants to recognize a homsexual relationship, they're free too.

For a state, a marriage should be a religious ceremony for a civil union. The benefits conferred by a marriage are the exact same as a civil union. States shouldn't be allowed to discriminate at all for a civil union.

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: slyedog
nobody cares if queers marry and call it a civil union. the word marriage means a union between
a man and a woman. and that is what bush beleives. contrary to what the liberal rag NYT said

The Republican party platform is specifically opposed to the idea of same-sex civil unions.

I think it is more like marriage is between a man and woman and civil unions is best left to the states.

I think marriage is a religious ceremony which should be left alone by the state(s).

Which means little would change.

Exactly. If a church wants to recognize a homsexual relationship, they're free too.

For a state, a marriage should be a religious ceremony for a civil union. The benefits conferred by a marriage are the exact same as a civil union. States shouldn't be allowed to discriminate at all for a civil union.

Are you saying how things SHOULD be done or how things ARE done because right now Civil Union rights != Marriage rights. Look it up and you'll see that the difference between marriages and civil unions is not just a name.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: slyedog
nobody cares if queers marry and call it a civil union. the word marriage means a union between
a man and a woman. and that is what bush beleives. contrary to what the liberal rag NYT said

The Republican party platform is specifically opposed to the idea of same-sex civil unions.

I think it is more like marriage is between a man and woman and civil unions is best left to the states.

I think marriage is a religious ceremony which should be left alone by the state(s).

Which means little would change.

Exactly. If a church wants to recognize a homsexual relationship, they're free too.

For a state, a marriage should be a religious ceremony for a civil union. The benefits conferred by a marriage are the exact same as a civil union. States shouldn't be allowed to discriminate at all for a civil union.

Are you saying how things SHOULD be done or how things ARE done because right now Civil Union rights != Marriage rights. Look it up and you'll see that the difference between marriages and civil unions is not just a name.

Getting married does alot of things legally automatically. A homosexual couple would require to see a lawyer to have the same rights and privledges(not denied anything, just takes more work)

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: JustAnAverageGuy
I don't see how this could possible benefit him politically.

Now if he said he supported abortions and admitted Iraq was a screw up, things would be... odd

I think we should all pause for a minute, and consider the possibility that he simply misread the teleprompter.

 

[Tom]

" This is the same policy he has had all along.
Leave it to the states. "

Then what's the issue ? Kerry has the same position.

 

[PatboyX]

Originally posted by: Tom
" This is the same policy he has had all along.
Leave it to the states. "

Then what's the issue ? Kerry has the same position.

its not the same position...bush was against "activist judges" (ie: state by state) and supported a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: PatboyX

Originally posted by: Tom
" This is the same policy he has had all along.
Leave it to the states. "

Then what's the issue ? Kerry has the same position.

its not the same position...bush was against "activist judges" (ie: state by state) and supported a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

Do you actually believe there will be such an Amendment if Bush wins ? There is no difference between Kerry and Bush, in the real world of what will actually happen.