Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush Says His Party Is Wrong to Oppose Gay Civil Unions
The New York Times ^ | October 26, 2004 | ELISABETH BUMILLER

Posted on 10/26/2004 5:05:21 AM PDT by ruralgal

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.

According to an ABC transcript, Mr. Gibson then noted to Mr. Bush that the Republican Party platform opposed civil unions.

"Well, I don't," Mr. Bush replied.

He added: "I view the definition of marriage different from legal arrangements that enable people to have rights. And I strongly believe that marriage ought to be defined as between a union between a man and a woman. Now, having said that, states ought to be able to have the right to pass laws that enable people to be able to have rights like others."

Mr. Gibson then asked, "So the Republican platform on that point, as far as you're concerned, is wrong?"

"Right," Mr. Bush replied.

Mr. Bush announced in February that he supported an amendment to the Constitution that would ban same-sex marriage, and said at the time that the union of a man and a woman was "the most fundamental institution of civilization." He acted under enormous pressure from his conservative supporters, who had lobbied the White House to have the president speak out in an election year on a matter of vital importance to them.

But Mr. Bush also said at the time that states should be permitted to have same-sex civil unions if they chose.

Mr. Bush has sought to walk a careful line between pleasing conservatives who oppose same-sex marriage and not alienating more moderate voters who might see bigotry in his views. Mr. Bush's support for civil unions and his opposition to his party on the issue is in part an effort to reach out to swing voters, whom he needs to win on Nov. 2.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bush; civilunions; gaymarriage; homosexualagenda; marriage
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-248 next last
I'm not sure what to make of this. This is the first I'm hearing about it.
1 posted on 10/26/2004 5:05:22 AM PDT by ruralgal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ruralgal

Well, this should make some Bush supporters stay home. Or at least the NY Times/Kerry campaign hope so.


2 posted on 10/26/2004 5:07:04 AM PDT by PilloryHillary (John Kerry is a traitor! johnfkerrysucks.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ruralgal


Can we step into any more potholes this final week?


3 posted on 10/26/2004 5:08:00 AM PDT by Josh in PA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: johnfkerrysucks

And keep other Bush supporters from staying home.


4 posted on 10/26/2004 5:08:09 AM PDT by Strategerist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: johnfkerrysucks

I don't believe this. The NYT is really going full boar trying to smear the President.


5 posted on 10/26/2004 5:08:37 AM PDT by GopherGOPer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ruralgal

Bush has ALWAYS said that this should be left up to the states. Why? Because all states so far oppose civil unions, and have voted against them. That's the reason activist judges are overturning the laws...

He saying let the PEOPLE choose what they want - and since they overwhelmingly want marriages between men and women only, it becomes a enfranchisement issue.


6 posted on 10/26/2004 5:09:14 AM PDT by dandelion (http://johnkerryquestionfairy.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GopherGOPer; All

http://www.georgewbush.com/Values/BushRecord.aspx


7 posted on 10/26/2004 5:09:23 AM PDT by Perdogg (Dubya - Right Man, Right Job, at the Right Time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ruralgal
John Kerry is still gonna get whooped on November 2nd.

We have to be sure to tell our DUh friends that they get their turn to vote on November 2nd.
8 posted on 10/26/2004 5:09:34 AM PDT by Preachin' (Kerry/Rather 2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ruralgal
The NYT does its level best to discourage Republican turnout at the polls.

I'll still be there to vote for the President, even though I oppose the legal recognition of sodomite perversion.

9 posted on 10/26/2004 5:10:44 AM PDT by wideawake (God bless our brave soldiers and their Commander in Chief)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: johnfkerrysucks

I gotta think he's just pandering for the moderates or something. I'm disappointed, he needs to cater to his BASE.


10 posted on 10/26/2004 5:10:46 AM PDT by ruralgal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GopherGOPer

According to Fox and friends the Times hasn't bothered to retract thier missing weapons story today. I veiw anything they say with suspicion.


11 posted on 10/26/2004 5:11:58 AM PDT by cripplecreek (We've turned the corner and we're not smokin crack.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GopherGOPer

Looks like it's going to air today on Good Morning America. Anyone watching it?


12 posted on 10/26/2004 5:12:39 AM PDT by ruralgal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ruralgal

This is the first I've heard him say this, too. He's always said it should be left to the states, but his personal opposition to the GOP platform is news to me.


13 posted on 10/26/2004 5:14:09 AM PDT by 7.62 x 51mm ( veni vidi vino visa "I came, I saw, I drank wine, I shopped")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ruralgal

Leaving it up to the states and the people is a stance pretty consistent with most Republican party statues.

I think the NYT is embellishing it a bit...


14 posted on 10/26/2004 5:14:13 AM PDT by MikefromOhio (Rudi Bahktiar is hot!!!! Too bad she works for CNN.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ruralgal

This is making a mountain out of a mole hill. As I read it Bush is saying that whether civil unions are allowed should be decided at the state level, and that as govenor of Texas he would have opposed it. As long as the federal government protect states' rights to make this decision, I have no objection to it.


15 posted on 10/26/2004 5:14:35 AM PDT by HoustonTech (Vote for Strength. Vote a straight Republican ticket.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ruralgal

If President Bush actually said what the article alleges he said, his statement cannot be blamed on MSM misrepresentation. The last thing Bush needs is to depress voter turnout among social conservatives. "Civil unions" give the blessing of the state to perversion and immorality.


16 posted on 10/26/2004 5:14:50 AM PDT by Wallace T.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dandelion
Bush has ALWAYS said that this should be left up to the states.

Wait - I thought he had changed his mind and was pushing to amend the Constitution? I have to say I'm worried about this because I know a lot of people that are going to vote for Bush for that reason alone.

17 posted on 10/26/2004 5:14:59 AM PDT by ruralgal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ruralgal
"I view the definition of marriage different from legal arrangements that enable people to have rights. And I strongly believe that marriage ought to be defined as between a union between a man and a woman. Now, having said that, states ought to be able to have the right to pass laws that enable people to be able to have rights like others."

I have zero problem with that.

18 posted on 10/26/2004 5:15:32 AM PDT by AHerald ("I'm George W. Bush, and I approved this butt-whoopin'")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ruralgal

He's shooting for the Andrew Sullivan/Log Cabin vote.


19 posted on 10/26/2004 5:15:37 AM PDT by spodefly (I've posted nothing but BTTT over 1000 times!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AHerald

I actually think he's done a Kerry there.


20 posted on 10/26/2004 5:18:02 AM PDT by danceordie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ruralgal

"ruralgal" new to FR 10/22/2004.

Time to report your proud dirty work to your fellow "clymers" at DU.


21 posted on 10/26/2004 5:18:42 AM PDT by Rightproud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ruralgal

Sounds good to me. Let states decide.


22 posted on 10/26/2004 5:19:38 AM PDT by wingnutx (tanstaafl)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spodefly
He's shooting for the Andrew Sullivan/Log Cabin vote.

Ever occur to you it's what he actually believes?

23 posted on 10/26/2004 5:20:07 AM PDT by Strategerist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: ruralgal

Bush is pushing for a Constitutional Amendment that guarantees what the states have asked for all along, and what they have on their books as law ALREADY. These states need the amendment because they have already voted for and passed laws regarding this issue.

Unfortunately, we are now living under an unconstitutional "Judicial Fiat", where the laws are made by the Judicial branch instead. The voters, and the legislators have no power in the present structure. A new amendment, properly written, should correct the situation, not just address this one issue.


24 posted on 10/26/2004 5:20:24 AM PDT by dandelion (http://johnkerryquestionfairy.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ruralgal

Gay "marriage" and "civil unions" are two different things. The latter are arrangements that make it easier for unrelated people living together to dispose of assets, etc. Some states, for example, recognize "commmon law marriage," and some don't; probably any changes would be similar to the regularizing of common law (heterosexual) marriages.

The Constitutional amendment relates to gay "marriage."

He's not saying anything different than he has always said, but ABC was fishing for a soundbite, and unfortunately they got one.


25 posted on 10/26/2004 5:21:04 AM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Rightproud

Dirty work? Did I do something wrong by posting this? Gay marriage is one of my main issues as a Christian so this is very relevant to me.


26 posted on 10/26/2004 5:21:53 AM PDT by ruralgal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Josh in PA

Yes. We're asking for another 70 billion in emergency funding for Iraq. Flopsweat will howl that we don't have enough money for flu vaccine, heated classrooms, clean water, grandma's defibrillator and government subsidized cheese! I would have thought we could have held off on that request until Nov. 3rd.


27 posted on 10/26/2004 5:22:21 AM PDT by lainde (Heads up...We're coming and we've got tongue blades!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ruralgal
State's rights? How novel!!
28 posted on 10/26/2004 5:22:23 AM PDT by IrishGOP (I don't like John Kerry, because John Kerry is going to get me killed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ruralgal
Reasonable people can disagree on issues like this and realize John Kerry under no circumstances is a better option than George W. Bush. No one should stay home because of this, if they do they might condemn us all to John Kerry running the US into the ground.
29 posted on 10/26/2004 5:22:34 AM PDT by elizabetty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: danceordie
I actually think he's done a Kerry there.

Nonsense.

30 posted on 10/26/2004 5:23:23 AM PDT by AHerald ("I'm George W. Bush, and I approved this butt-whoopin'")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ruralgal

I don't agree. A civil union is the equivalent of marriage in all but name. I do oppose it and so do the American people.


31 posted on 10/26/2004 5:23:39 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ruralgal

Wake up! Can you not see that every day now the NYTimes is trying to hit President Bush and help their boy, Kerry? Everyday!

It is disgraceful. The Times is engaged in blatant political activism. It's as if Terry McAulliff is actually directing what hits he wants the Times to take on President Bush

It is so obvious. You are a hopeless fool if you fall for it, or succumb to it.


32 posted on 10/26/2004 5:24:07 AM PDT by Obadiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: livius

I understand the difference between civil unions and gay marriage, but I'm strongly opposed to both. It's an abomination in the eyes of the Lord.


33 posted on 10/26/2004 5:24:12 AM PDT by ruralgal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: GopherGOPer

Instead of believing snips from the NY Times let's wait to see and hear what was really said - I have a hard time believing Pres. Bush would say something like this one week from election.


34 posted on 10/26/2004 5:24:22 AM PDT by finallyatexan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ruralgal

I have to say this dissapoints me.


35 posted on 10/26/2004 5:24:44 AM PDT by RightMike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dandelion

He's not saying that Gays should be able to get married, though. He's saying that they should be able to have the same rights as married couples if the states choose to approve it. The difference is that while granting rights to homosexuals, it does not make homosexual couples the same as heterosexual couples and so does infringe on the rights of those who view homosexuality as wrong. The biggest threat of gay marriage, and the major reason that the gay lobby is pushing so hard for it, is that once Gays are considered the same as heterosexuals, it would be only one more step to declaring any teaching against homosexual behavior to be a hate crime.


36 posted on 10/26/2004 5:24:46 AM PDT by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ruralgal

Ah, another hit piece by the NYT. Trying to cut into the Presidents base.


37 posted on 10/26/2004 5:24:46 AM PDT by mware
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ruralgal
Not really a surprise for me but I still have to fall back on what I posted yesterday:
It is not a secret that I'm not a huge fan of GW's. I look at the overall picture and try an figure out which way we will lose the least. However, there are a couple of disqualifies. One of those is "abortion". Anyone who believes that it is ok to grind up a child and suck them out of the womb is simply unfit for ANY public office. In failing to understand the very basics of life, it is impossible for them to make wise decisions. Not only could I not vote for Kerry, I can not do anything that would contribute to or result in him getting into office.
38 posted on 10/26/2004 5:24:54 AM PDT by GrandEagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lainde

Josh...That was in response to your step in another pothole question.


39 posted on 10/26/2004 5:25:10 AM PDT by lainde (Heads up...We're coming and we've got tongue blades!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: ruralgal

States rights. States rights. States rights. That's Bush's position. And it's the right one.


40 posted on 10/26/2004 5:25:35 AM PDT by AHerald ("I'm George W. Bush, and I approved this butt-whoopin'")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: danceordie
I actually think he's done a Kerry there.

Actually, no. This is America and if you want to give someone who is not a spouse durable power of attorney and automatic inheritance of your assets, you may do so. You determine the fate of your property and your health - not the government.

Essentially, every benefit a spouse has can be granted via a legal document. This does not make a marriage. Very often, widowed elderly women will give all spousal type rights to a sibling or an adult child.

41 posted on 10/26/2004 5:26:33 AM PDT by old and tired
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: lainde
We're asking for another 70 billion in emergency funding for Iraq. WHAT? This is ridiculous, who made the call to do this NOW? They couldn't wait just a few more days?
42 posted on 10/26/2004 5:27:25 AM PDT by ruralgal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Wallace T.
"Civil unions" give the blessing of the state to perversion and immorality.

They are also unavoidable, as it's far too late in the game politically to stop them. Bush, the practical politician, realizes this. He also realizes that the existence of civil unions makes a ban on gay marriage more palatable to a lot of moderate voters than it would be if there were no alternatives.

43 posted on 10/26/2004 5:28:29 AM PDT by Mr. Jeeves
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ruralgal
Bush Says His Party Is Wrong to Oppose Gay Civil Unions

I agree w/ Bush - but this story is designed to split the GOP.

Marriage is between a man and woman. Civil union is any other domestic contract. Sounds like an opening for the old-time Mormon arrangments too

44 posted on 10/26/2004 5:28:37 AM PDT by rface (Ashland, Missouri - Monthly Donor / Bad Speller)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mware
Ah, another hit piece by the NYT. Trying to cut into the Presidents base.

Think a whole lot of his "base" is reading the NYT?

And if any of his "base" is such a rabid single-issue nutjob they would not vote for Bush solely because he'd leave civil union laws up to the states, I'm frankly surprised they'd have the brainpower to even read a newspaper.

If anything this article will help Bush.

45 posted on 10/26/2004 5:28:38 AM PDT by Strategerist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: RightMike
I have to say this dissapoints me.

Why? Bush is saying let the voters of each state decide how to resolve this matter. He's not promoting civil unions here. What is wrong with Bush's position?

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.

46 posted on 10/26/2004 5:28:50 AM PDT by AHerald ("I'm George W. Bush, and I approved this butt-whoopin'")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: ruralgal
Don't get confused like the MSM would like you to get on this issue.

Bush DOES support a Constitutional Amendment banning homosexual marriage.

What he has always said is States should not be prohibited by the Federal Gov't from permitting a person to confer rights to another person...such as the right to visit you in the hospital, or to leave your possessions to whom you choose, even if that involves a homosexual lover.

A very common sense---and conservative--position in my view. Nothing new in his position.
47 posted on 10/26/2004 5:29:25 AM PDT by June Cleaver (in here, Ward . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Jeeves

No its not. States all over the country are banning them. Missouri, Ohio, etc. I am dissa pointed in Bush on this one. He's my guy but now there is not much difference between Bush and Kerry on the meat of this issue. This is like #3 or 4 on my list after security issues and then abortion.

Arrgh..hopefully for Bush's sake this doesn't spread.


48 posted on 10/26/2004 5:29:59 AM PDT by RightMike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: danceordie

Think again. The NYT is trying to make it sound like Bush is pro-gay, which he's not.


49 posted on 10/26/2004 5:30:26 AM PDT by RightthinkinAmerican (Is the Republican attack machine an assault weapon?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: johnfkerrysucks

He just lost my vote. Oh wait, I already voted. Nice try NYT.


50 posted on 10/26/2004 5:30:27 AM PDT by HapaxLegamenon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-248 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson