[ruralgal]

I'm not sure what to make of this. This is the first I'm hearing about it.

[rface]

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

[the invisib1e hand]

I'm not sure what to make of this. This is the first I'm hearing about it.

yeah. thanks for keeping us up to date on the emmissions from the Times.

So, you're new to FR, right?

[RightthinkinAmerican]

Troll alert, and troll filled thread.

[Clint N. Suhks]

"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."

I'll write it off as "things" we say in an election year.

[UsnDadof8]

This is from the NY Slimes, so I am in doubt as to it's veracity. I'm surprised, but wild horses couldn't keep me from voting for the president on Nov 2. The Times/Kerry camp hopes that we Christians are as bigoted as they think we are. I hope we are better than that. Please brothers and sisters do not conform yourself to the world (and it's ridiculous hate filled view of you), but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what is the good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God.

It doesn't matter what we say about civil unions. It's still wrong and will be punished by God. But there is no reason for us to be his "Enforcers" here on earth.

If every sin were punished here on earth then there would be no reasonable assumption of the existence of a hell (Calvin)

Now I shall don my Firefighting Ensemble for those of you who wrongly think that I just said there should be no civil laws against sin. That's not what I said.

[proud American in Canada]

Same-sex marriage and civil unions are two different things.

George Bush has always supported a constitutional amendment to outlaw same-sex marriage--he knows that is the only way to stop it.

That position is quite consistent with saying that the issue of civil arrangements giving various rights should be left up to the states.

[SuziQ]

I thought this is what he has said all along. He supports the Constitutional Amendment to define MARRIAGE as being between one man and one woman, because he doesn't trust courts to uphold what has been protected for thousands of years, even if voters in states all over the nation WANT marriage protected and vote accordingly.

Civil unions could be defined by the states as any legal partnership. One example is a grown man or woman who is unmarried could form a legal union with his or her widowed mother for her own legal and financial protection. Anyone who is of age can make a legal partnership with anyone else; nothing sinister about that. Homosexuals might try to equate it with marriage, but it's not the same thing.

I don't see any reason to not vote for the President over this issue. He's made it clear that he supports the fact of traditional marriage. We should support him for that and not weenie out at this late date. We'd be shooting ourselves in BOTH feet by doing that.

[Publius6961]

Personally, I would want to see a report from another source.
Any Freeper watch this?

What really happened? I suspect some sort of hypothetical.

[Ditto]

He added: "I view the definition of marriage different from legal arrangements that enable people to have rights.

Don't confuse this with the gay issue. Think of all the millions of both related (old sisters) or long-time friends who live together for years. They should have some relief from the death tax and other take-away schemes.

[Fayre Verona]

The President is wrong about civil unions. But I voted for him anyway. And I'd do it again.

[AHerald]

Mr. Gibson then noted to Mr. Bush that the Republican Party platform opposed civil unions.

I can't find opposition to civil unions in the Republican Party Platform. I do however find opposition to "forcing states to recognize other living arrangements as equivalent to marriage."

Here's the relevant sections from the Republican Party Platform:

States should not recognize gay marriage from other states

After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence, and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization, the union of a man and a woman in marriage. Attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country, and anything less than a Constitutional amendment, passed by the Congress and ratified by the states, is vulnerable to being overturned by activist judges. On a matter of such importance, the voice of the people must be heard. The Constitutional amendment process guarantees that the final decision will rest with the American people and their elected representatives. President Bush will also vigorously defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which was supported by both parties and passed by 85 votes in the Senate. This common sense law reaffirms the right of states not to recognize same-sex marriages licensed in other states. Source: 2004 Republican Party Platform, p. 85

Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage

We strongly support a Constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage, and we [oppose] forcing states to recognize other living arrangements as equivalent to marriage. The well-being of children is best accomplished [when] nurtured by their mother & father anchored by the bonds of marriage. We believe that legal recognition and the accompanying benefits afforded couples should be preserved for that unique and special union of one man and one woman which has historically been called marriage. Source: 2004 Republican Party Platform, p. 85

[BibChr]

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.

Um... was this on the editorial page?

Dan

[Aquinasfan]

"Civil unions" are marriage in everything but name. Disappointing, to say the least.

[SQUID]

Nothing will happen with his comment that is why he is saying it.

[Dante3]

No doubt this will cost Bush some votes.

While I am opposed to the federal government consistently taking over rights that should belong to the states, the definition of marriage -- after demands for same-sex marriages, plural marriages, marrying ones pet, etc. -- should be clarified on the federal level for many obvious reasons.

[carlo3b]

WOW, A NEWBIE... Welcome aboard, how quickly you learned how to find an issue that you mistakenly thought would divide us.. Nice try.. have a ZOT day.. :)

[Witch-king of Angmar]

It is nothing but another Slimes bogus scoop. Calm down!

[rwfromkansas]

Sounds good to me. And I am a rabid social conservative....but heaven help me, I just can't get myself worked up in a lather about civil unions.

I am opposed to gay marriage, but I do not believe the feds should ban unions. Leave that to the people to decide.

[rampage8]

Are you a troll? You're awfully new (10/22) to come in here and get everyone fired up with your inflamatory comments (abomination, etc).

This issue will not divide Bush's base. We know the alternative is a liberal and we're not fools.

[anton]

I want that unlimited federal and state marital deduction. Can I marry my dog after a civil union? He could inherit with no tax, then my sons (2) could marry the dog in a three way civil union and the dog could gift the estate (less kennel fees) to the boys. I sure hope that civil unions are extended to pets as well.