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

Skip to comments.

Bush marriage stance not 'clear'
THE WASHINGTON TIMES ^ | December 18, 2003 | Stephen Dinan

Posted on 12/18/2003 8:51:51 AM PST by RogerFGay

Edited on 07/12/2004 4:11:11 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

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.


(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bush; bush43; gaymarriage; homosexualagenda; homosexualvice; marriage; marriageamendment; protectmarriage; romans1; samesexmarriage; vicenotvirtue
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-76 next last

1 posted on 12/18/2003 8:51:54 AM PST by RogerFGay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: JimKalb; Free the USA; EdReform; realwoman; Orangedog; Lorianne; Outlaw76; balrog666; DNA Rules; ...
ping
2 posted on 12/18/2003 8:52:33 AM PST by RogerFGay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WorkingClassFilth
ping
3 posted on 12/18/2003 8:53:17 AM PST by RogerFGay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay

Oh really? Is the news so slow these days that someone has to make up this crap to sell papers?

4 posted on 12/18/2003 8:56:13 AM PST by TheDon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay
"We're encouraged the administration appears to be embracing that centrist stance," said Matt Daniels, president of the Alliance for Marriage, one of the key backers of the amendment now pending. "The president's statements today reflect where most Americans are on this issue."

Bush is crystal clear: he is not going to come out against people being able to set up legal agreements with each other, something that they can do now.

The Gary Bauers and Robert Knights of the world see even the status quo as a threat to heterosexual marriage, and, of course, they're just being hysterical.

"Civil unions" is essentially a legal issue, and can be done now. The radical right is just trying to grab on to an issue, since Bush supports the Federal Marriage Amendment.

5 posted on 12/18/2003 8:58:49 AM PST by sinkspur (Adopt a shelter dog or cat! You'll save one life, and maybe two!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheDon
Your comment is recognized as a 100% fake partisan pitch.
6 posted on 12/18/2003 8:59:05 AM PST by RogerFGay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
It's crystal clear that he's trying to avoid discussion of family policy issues until after the election. The partisans have screwed up family policy really, really badly -- and there's a lot of corruption involved -- they're hopin' and prayin' and wishin' that none of it comes out during the campaigns.
7 posted on 12/18/2003 9:01:05 AM PST by RogerFGay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

Comment #8 Removed by Moderator

To: RogerFGay
"We need clear leadership in a time of judicial tyranny, not politicians who don't have the spine to stand up for something as basic as marriage," said Robert Knight, director of Concerned Women for America's Culture and Family Institute.

How DARE Knight ask for clarity from President Bush! Doesn't he know he's supposed to salute at everything Bush does? Doesn't he read freerepublic?

9 posted on 12/18/2003 9:06:29 AM PST by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #10 Removed by Moderator

To: sinkspur
Bush is crystal clear: he is not going to come out against people being able to set up legal agreements with each other, something that they can do now.

Well, that isn't correct - - most states don't now allow "civil unions." (Howard Dean's Vermont does, and I guess Bush is OK with that). But of course, you're right that we shouldn't criticize anything Bush does or says, so bravo for putting this criticizer in his place. Doesn't he read freerepublic? Doesn't he know that Bush is not to be criticized? Where does he get off?

11 posted on 12/18/2003 9:19:33 AM PST by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay
It's crystal clear that he's trying to avoid discussion of family policy issues until after the election.

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

He's in favor of the Marriage Amendment, and he sees no reason for the federal government to interfere in legal arrangements between consenting adults.

That's not "civil unions." It's what any two consenting adults can do today.

12 posted on 12/18/2003 9:20:29 AM PST by sinkspur (Adopt a shelter dog or cat! You'll save one life, and maybe two!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay
Bush will never approve of homosexual "marriage". Nor will the people of the US.
13 posted on 12/18/2003 9:22:43 AM PST by TheDon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
Well, that isn't correct - - most states don't now allow "civil unions."

They're not civil unions when two adults set up legal agreements between each other. Bush is not in favor of civil unions.

You're a Bush-hater; that needs to be taken into consideration.