Bush Backs Gay Unions

[tallest1]

So one of the primary reasons for voting for Bush has been false all along? Its amazing how well Bush hid this from the public

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: TuxDave
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.

The term civil union can also be applied to a couple consisting of a man and woman who are living together, own property, have children, etc., but aren't legally married.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

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.

Wow, now if this is not a painfully obvious act to get moore votes, I don't know what is. I remember this a-- holes comments in the debate about how his morals drive his decision making. Now he's for gay unions all of a sudden?

The end result. Gays still won't vote for him, but hte religious extremists will change there mind.

End Result:

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

FLIP FLOPPER!
George Bush is one!
FLIP FLOPPER!
George Bush is one!
FLIP FLOPPER!
George Bush is one!
FLIP FLOPPER!
George Bush is one!
FLIP FLOPPER!
George Bush is one!
FLIP FLOPPER!
George Bush is one!
FLIP FLOPPER!
George Bush is one!
FLIP FLOPPER!
George Bush is one!
FLIP FLOPPER!
George Bush is one!
FLIP FLOPPER!
George Bush is one!
FLIP FLOPPER!
George Bush is one!
FLIP FLOPPER!
George Bush is one!
FLIP FLOPPER!
George Bush is one!
FLIP FLOPPER!
George Bush is one!
FLIP FLOPPER!
George Bush is one!
FLIP FLOPPER!
George Bush is one!
v

 

[JustAnAverageGuy]

Originally posted by: IHateMyJob2004
The end result. Gays still won't vote for him, but hte religious extremists will change there mind.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[sandorski]

What's next, Pro-Post Birth Abortions(6th Trimester?)?

 

[PatboyX]

Originally posted by: 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.

no, i dont believe it will happen. i didnt say that. i was responding because it was, in fact, not the same position that he has had all along, like you suggest. im pretty certain nothing would change. he promised to get rid of abortions in 2000 and that didnt happen, im sure this would go the same way.
i was just letting you know that the reason why it is news-worthy is becuase its not the same position that he or his party has had.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: BDawg

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

Religious ceremony my ass. When I get married I'll be damned if I'm going to muck it up by allowing some hooey religious BS to interfere with it. No Priests or Priestesses will be involved at all!

 

[Thegonagle]

FLIP

FLOP

I'd better not hear that one more time from B*sh after this Hail-Mary Desperation Play.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: PatboyX

Originally posted by: 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.

no, i dont believe it will happen. i didnt say that. i was responding because it was, in fact, not the same position that he has had all along, like you suggest. im pretty certain nothing would change. he promised to get rid of abortions in 2000 and that didnt happen, im sure this would go the same way.
i was just letting you know that the reason why it is news-worthy is becuase its not the same position that he or his party has had.

oh, ok. I guess you were talking to Patboyx then, even though I was the person you quoted.

 

[Luck JF]

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.

That's a lie. The Federal Marriage Amendment would not ban gay marriage. It would leave it to the states.

 

[daveshel]

This a week before the election from the guy who accused his opponent of changing his position due to political pressure.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: Luck JF

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.

That's a lie. The Federal Marriage Amendment would not ban gay marriage. It would leave it to the states.

Wasn't it already left up to the states?

 

[CaptnKirk]

Wait until he finds out that 'Gay Unions' means homosexual relationships
and not 'Happy Production Workers' at the GM Plant.

 

[rickn]

Originally posted by: Luck JF

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.

That's a lie. The Federal Marriage Amendment would not ban gay marriage. It would leave it to the states.

this is the exact text

H.J. Resolution 56/S.J. Resolution 26 states:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups

------------

While I don't support the term "marriage" being used for homosexuals (or any couple who has a shotgun wedding in Vegas for that matter) discrimination does not belong in the constitution of this country.

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: TuxDave

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)

And $$$

 

[Yolner]

flip flop flip flop flip flop flip flop flip flop flip flop flip flop flip flop flip flop

 

[assemblage]

Cool. I'm not gay, but it does open other possibilities. Before long I'll be able to order as many wives as I can afford from 3rd world countries. Heck for some people they could get married and then later add the best man or woman to the marriage.

 

[chess9]

So, which gay unions does he back?

I would be happy to back the IFOQT.

-Robert

 

[JustAnAverageGuy]

Originally posted by: assemblage
Before long I'll be able to order as many wives as I can afford from 3rd world countries. Heck for some people they could get married and then later add the best man or woman to the marriage.

:roll:

 

[assemblage]

Originally posted by: chess9So, which gay unions does he back? I would be happy to back the IFOQT.-Robert

Could be just female homosexual unions. You know those manly men are prejudiced against male homosexuals but seem to like that female homosexual action (as long as they can watch).

 

[RobCur]

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.

what a bunch of hypocrite

 

[Luck JF]

Originally posted by: rickn

Originally posted by: Luck JF

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.

That's a lie. The Federal Marriage Amendment would not ban gay marriage. It would leave it to the states.

this is the exact text

H.J. Resolution 56/S.J. Resolution 26 states:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups

------------

While I don't support the term "marriage" being used for homosexuals (or any couple who has a shotgun wedding in Vegas for that matter) discrimination does not belong in the constitution of this country.

Yes that is true and it clearly states that the Constutution shall not be construed to require marital status be conferred on anyone else. But it does not Prohibit it either. It protects the term marriage for being a man and a woman as far as the federal government is concerned. It also protects states from being forced by the courts into allowing same sex unions. However states are still free to do so. It does not say anything about same sex unions being PROHIBITED.

 

[rickn]

Originally posted by: Luck JF

Originally posted by: rickn

Originally posted by: Luck JF

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.

That's a lie. The Federal Marriage Amendment would not ban gay marriage. It would leave it to the states.

this is the exact text

H.J. Resolution 56/S.J. Resolution 26 states:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups

------------

While I don't support the term "marriage" being used for homosexuals (or any couple who has a shotgun wedding in Vegas for that matter) discrimination does not belong in the constitution of this country.

Yes that is true and it clearly states that the Constutution shall not be construed to require marital status be conferred on anyone else. But it does not Prohibit it either. It protects the term marriage for being a man and a woman as far as the federal government is concerned. It also protects states from being forced by the courts into allowing same sex unions. However states are still free to do so. It does not say anything about same sex unions being PROHIBITED.

they don't have to use the word prohibit. lets dissect some of these sentenes and words

marriage will consist Union of man and woman

the constitution of the united states, a states constitution, nor any federal or state law shall be construed ( Interpreted ) to require that marital status or the legal incidents (Something contingent on or related to something else) thereof be conferred (Bestow) upon unmarried couples or groups

sure sounds to me like that prohibits same sex anything to me. They can't back peddle on that one. they are taking away rights to the people, the constitution should not be (ab)used that way

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Luck JF

Originally posted by: rickn

Originally posted by: Luck JF

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.

That's a lie. The Federal Marriage Amendment would not ban gay marriage. It would leave it to the states.

this is the exact text

H.J. Resolution 56/S.J. Resolution 26 states:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups

------------

While I don't support the term "marriage" being used for homosexuals (or any couple who has a shotgun wedding in Vegas for that matter) discrimination does not belong in the constitution of this country.

Yes that is true and it clearly states that the Constutution shall not be construed to require marital status be conferred on anyone else. But it does not Prohibit it either. It protects the term marriage for being a man and a woman as far as the federal government is concerned. It also protects states from being forced by the courts into allowing same sex unions. However states are still free to do so. It does not say anything about same sex unions being PROHIBITED.

If this amendment passed, could states still allow gay marriages?