Skip to comments.Bush Says His Party Is Wrong to Oppose Gay Civil Unions
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.
Well, this should make some Bush supporters stay home. Or at least the NY Times/Kerry campaign hope so.
Can we step into any more potholes this final week?
And keep other Bush supporters from staying home.
I don't believe this. The NYT is really going full boar trying to smear the President.
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.
I'll still be there to vote for the President, even though I oppose the legal recognition of sodomite perversion.
I gotta think he's just pandering for the moderates or something. I'm disappointed, he needs to cater to his BASE.
According to Fox and friends the Times hasn't bothered to retract thier missing weapons story today. I veiw anything they say with suspicion.
Looks like it's going to air today on Good Morning America. Anyone watching it?
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
I have zero problem with that.
He's shooting for the Andrew Sullivan/Log Cabin vote.
I actually think he's done a Kerry there.
"ruralgal" new to FR 10/22/2004.
Time to report your proud dirty work to your fellow "clymers" at DU.
Sounds good to me. Let states decide.
Ever occur to you it's what he actually believes?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I have to say this dissapoints me.
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.
Ah, another hit piece by the NYT. Trying to cut into the Presidents base.
Josh...That was in response to your step in another pothole question.
States rights. States rights. States rights. That's Bush's position. And it's the right one.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Think again. The NYT is trying to make it sound like Bush is pro-gay, which he's not.
He just lost my vote. Oh wait, I already voted. Nice try NYT.