I would say this is definitely a "Flip-Flop" - Bush now pro Gay Civil Union

[question]

Wednesday, October 27, 2004

WASHINGTON — Some conservative groups expressed dismay Tuesday over President Bush's (search) tolerance of state-sanctioned civil unions between gay people — laws that would grant same-sex partners most or all the rights available to married couples.

"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," Bush said in an interview aired Tuesday on ABC. Bush acknowledged that his position put him at odds with the Republican platform, which opposes civil unions.

"I view the definition of marriage different from legal arrangements that enable people to have rights," said Bush, who has pressed for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage (search). "States ought to be able to have the right to pass laws that enable people to be able to have rights like others."

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (search) backs civil unions for gay couples, too. He opposes gay marriage but also opposes the idea of a constitutional ban.

Some conservative organizations sharply disagreed with Bush and pressed him to seek a constitutional amendment that would ban both gay marriage and civil unions.

"Civil unions are a government endorsement of homosexuality," said Robert Knight, director of the Culture and Family Institute (search), an affiliate of Concerned Women For America. "But I don't think President Bush has thought about it in that way. He seems to be striving for neutrality while defending marriage itself."

Knight said "counterfeits" of marriage, such as civil unions, "hurt the real thing."

The head of another group, the Campaign for California Families (search), said it, too, wants a sweeping constitutional amendment that bars civil unions and same-sex marriage.

"Here's the truth, civil unions are homosexual marriage by another name," said Randy Thomasson, the group's executive director. "Civil unions rob marriage of its uniqueness and award homosexuals all the rights of marriage available under state law."

"Bush needs to understand what's going on and resist counterfeit marriages with all his might no matter what they're called," Thomasson said.

But Matt Daniel, the leader of a coalition that successfully pressed for legislation that would create the constitutional ban on gay marriage, said Bush had staked out just the right position.

A federal ban on gay marriage, not on civil unions, "is the way for America to resolve this in the fairest way, the best way," said Daniel, president of the Alliance for Marriage (search). "We do indeed support the president's position."

[taken from: FoxNews]

Assuming its true - that Bush flip-flopped and supports gay unions..... is this a bad thing?

[question]

It is true. He did an interivew with Charles Gibson and announced it. It's a good thing to support it, but it seems to be a contradiction of his stance for the past 4 years. This certainly won't help his re-election campaign efforts.

Originally Posted by xiannaix

Assuming its true - that Bush flip-flopped and supports gay unions..... is this a bad thing?

Originally Posted by question

It is true. He did an interivew with Charles Gibson and announced it. It's a good thing to support it, but it seems to be a contradiction of his stance for the past 4 years. This certainly won't help his re-election campaign efforts.

Do you think GW will lose hardline right voters over this when the alternative could be to have Kerry as President?

[question]

He'll lose them to Pertouka, not Kerry.

Originally Posted by xiannaix

Do you think GW will lose hardline right voters over this when the alternative could be to have Kerry as President?

Originally Posted by question

He'll lose them to Pertouka, not Kerry.

No, I'm not suggesting the voters Bush offends will vote for Kerry. I'm suggesting that not voting for Bush weakens his vote total - which benefits Kerry.

You believe that there are siginifcant enough numbers of single issue voters (on that specific issue) who'll either vote 3rd party or not vote to impact the election in a meaningful way?

[question]

There's a strong probability that it's possible. People are fickle, you know that as well as I do.

Originally Posted by xiannaix

You believe that there are siginifcant enough numbers of single issue voters (on that specific issue) who'll either vote 3rd party or not vote to impact the election in a meaningful way?

Originally Posted by question

There's a strong probability that it's possible. People are fickle, you know that as well as I do.

yes, people are fickle...

your line wa funny.... "there's a strong possibility that it's possible." you cracked me up

[question]

Hahahaha, yeah. I was like "wait, that's redudant. I better fix that."

Originally Posted by xiannaix

yes, people are fickle...

your line wa funny.... "there's a strong possibility that it's possible." you cracked me up

[psyon]

Originally Posted by question

There's a strong probability that it's possible.

sig material....


sorry I had to

Originally Posted by psyon

sig material....

I was thinking the same.... great stuff... you just can't make that up

[johnny861]

I thought he was only opposed to same-sex marriages, not civil unions...

Same with abortion, he's stance is against abortion, unless it's cases of rape, incest, etc...

[Dionysos]

http://www.nps.gov/malu/documents/jim_crow_laws.htm

Originally Posted by Dionysos

http://www.nps.gov/malu/documents/jim_crow_laws.htm

but race is not a social institution - marriage is

we can and do restrict "choice" of whom one may marry - the question is not "if" but rather, "is it appropriate in this case."

In addition, and as I have noted was recently pointed out to me by another on DDM, sexual orientation is not a protected class and as such does not receive the protections that race, gender and religion do.

[question]

This shows that this shit can be overturned, but it's gonna take another large-scale awakening.

Originally Posted by Dionysos

http://www.nps.gov/malu/documents/jim_crow_laws.htm