Bush marriage stance not 'clear'

THE WASHINGTON TIMES ^ | December 18, 2003 | Stephen Dinan

[RogerFGay]

Pro-family groups said yesterday that President Bush "drove a wedge" into their efforts to protect marriage by seeming to accept homosexual civil unions, even as he said he could support an amendment defining marriage as solely between a man and woman.

[churchillbuff]

unless they come down on the side of homosexual marriage

civil union is an attempt to create a "marriage" by another name. Bush is ducking the issue.

[ravingnutter]

Bottom line: the prez said civil unions are OK with him, as long as states- such as Dean's -- do it.

No...he did NOT say it was okay with him, he said that states have the right to make the decision for themselves, as long as they do not undermine the sanctity of marriage. He supports states rights (as he should)...not civil unions. Big difference.

[Orangedog]

The Gary Bauers of the world understand that you can't deal with the devil and give him half of what he wants - for two reasons. (1). Even half of what he wants is bad for society, (2). Evil will never be satisfied with any half measure, it will continue to push and drive for its dark agenda.

They already have half of what they want. They've had it for 30 years. It's called no-fault divorce and they have been using it to get us where we are today. I refuse to take anyone seriously who wants to "defend marriage" and not propose as their first goal the elimination of the no-fault divorce laws. Get rid of those and the institution of marriage will be bi enough to take care of itself again.

[churchillbuff]

He supports states rights (as he should)...not civil unions. Big difference.

Sorry, you don't get it. He doesn't support a constitutional amendment that would prohibit states from creating "civil unions" - such as Vermont's - that mimic marriage. I DO support such an amendment. Bush, by NOT supporting it, is in effect, SUPPORTING civil unions. He's allowing states to enact this upside-down version of marriage. People in civil unions are then going to try to go to other states and get them recognized. Thanks, Bush.

[churchillbuff]

I refuse to take anyone seriously who wants to "defend marriage" and not propose as their first goal the elimination of the no-fault divorce laws.

How do you know that Bauer doesn't oppose no-fault divorce? I wouldn't be surprise if he DOES oppose no-fault divorce.

[CWOJackson]

"...Charles Krauthammer, a former shrink, who earlier this month said he had identified a new psychological syndrome: Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS), described as "the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency—nay—the very existence of George W. Bush."

[Orangedog]

Then he might want to actually say that he does.

[ravingnutter]

people who are granted these "unions" in one state can go to another state and try to get them honored there.

That statement just proves you don't even know what you are talking about...the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) declares that the Federal Government will not recognize gay unions (Social Security, IRS, etc.). There are also state DOMAs (37 states have laws...Alaska, Hawaii, Nebraska, and Nevada voters have approved Defense of Marriage Act constitutional amendments). ) that prohibit recognizing other state's same sex unions.

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is a US federal law defining marriage as only a heterosexual union of a man and a woman. The law is intended to curtail the legalization of same-sex marriage under the Full Faith and Credit clause of the United States Constitution by allowing a state to determine for itself whether it must recognize such a union recognized by other states or jurisdictions.

It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996 after moving through a legislative fast track and overwhelming approval in both houses of the Republican controlled United States Congress.

Some states have by legislation or referendum overturned their state court's recognition of such unions while Vermont is currently the only state to have given some legal recognition to such. California as well has a state-wide system for the registration and recognition of domestic partnerships.

Definition: Defense of Marriage Act

[TheCrusader]

"They already have half of what they want. They've had it for 30 years. It's called no-fault divorce and they have been using it to get us where we are today."

Bingo, great post.

[ravingnutter]

Bush, by NOT supporting it, is in effect, SUPPORTING civil unions

That is so laughable...kind of like "lack of proof is proof of a conspiracy". Licenses for any union are issued by the STATE...therefore it is a STATE issue, however the FedGov does not recognize them under the DOMA. Bush said if the states stepped on the toes of the FedGov, he would step in and pass a consitutional amendment. So...if he would step in, then logically one must assume he supports an amendment, but he is just not sure if that will be necessary yet, as there are court cases still pending on the matter.

[churchillbuff]

Bush certainly spoke confusingly enough that his sycophants on FR are able to explain away his statement (at least to their satisfaction, not mine) - - the bottom line is clear enough, no matter how fractured the president's syntax: he won't support an amendment banning civil unions.

[WorkingClassFilth]

So, this article is significant to you for what reason?

[sinkspur]

the bottom line is clear enough, no matter how fractured the president's syntax: he won't support an amendment banning civil unions.

Civil unions are not marriage, by definition. They're civil unions. Gays are not able to get Social Security survivor benefits, civil union or not.

The Federal Marriage Amendment would ban marriages, but would not likely ban civil unions.

Some of you guys are so funny.

You want the Federal Government to keep gays from any kind of legal recognition, but you want it to be a state matter when it comes to forbidding gays from having sex.

[RogerFGay]

Bush will never approve of homosexual "marriage". Nor will the people of the US. He's leaving it to the courts and to the states; which is downright strange since the two parties have federalized family policy past the breaking point over the past couple of decades. He's really just avoiding discussion on family policy during the election season.

[Orangedog]

Amending the Constitution is not neccesary. Congress has the power to pass a laws and keep the Judicial branch from monkeying with them if that restriction is written into the legislation. THAT is the real nuclear option. Passing an amendment just gives the judiciary another provision that they can rule means anything they say it means.

[RogerFGay]

So, this article is significant to you for what reason

It's part of the evidence that Republicans are not dealing with family policy, and that the core of the party is not happy with it. One of my articles that has been debated recently Why I Oppose The Federal Marriage Amendment suggests that Republicans are avoiding discussion on family policy during the election season; apparently a lot of other people think so to.

[RogerFGay]

Should point out a couple more articles that tie things together:

Divorced Dads: Family Champions

Fathers Rights? In defense of family and other fundamental rights

[RogerFGay]

LOL! He discussed them on national, prime-time television!

LOLRRH! And said nothing .... he took the new avoidance line -- let's just imagine some things we might talk about doing after the election is over. Well, we might not of course, might be too busy with other things. But in the mean time, let's just imagine things that we don't have any reason to talk about right now, wait and see what happens.