ANOTHER Flip-Flop?

Avatar for mommiemel
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
ANOTHER Flip-Flop?
4
Tue, 10-26-2004 - 11:11pm

Interesting blurb from the news today:


"Some conservatives are shocked at President George W. Bush's tolerance for civil unions that would grant gays and lesbians most or all the rights available to married couples.



In an interview aired by ABC, the president 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."




Bush supports a constitutional amendment that would prevent courts from imposing gay marriage on unwilling electorates. But Bush told ABC that lawmakers should be able to approve civil unions."


snowy.gif picture by mommiemel
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-23-2004
Tue, 10-26-2004 - 11:16pm
I didnt read from the link, but from your post, he doesnt say he supports gay marriage. Civil unions and legal arrangements are not marriages. He said the same thing at the debates, as did Kerry I believe. They were both in agreement on that issue. The whole problem and argument is that "marriage" is defined and should remain defined as something between a man and a woman.

>>In an interview aired by ABC, the president 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." >>

Avatar for mommiemel
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 10-26-2004 - 11:55pm

If this isn't a flip-flop, or at the very least, a *shift* on his agenda, then why would some folks be "shocked" by this statement?

snowy.gif picture by mommiemel
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-23-2004
Wed, 10-27-2004 - 1:42am
I don't know why they are shocked. I always thought that was his stance. Maybe because of Cheney I thought that. I always thought Kerry and Bush were in agreement and from this they are. Judging by the shock, it must not have been his original stance. I could have swore though he said that at the debate. The last one.

Here is his quote:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136712,00.html

"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."

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-23-2004
Wed, 10-27-2004 - 1:46am
I went and found the transcripts of the last debate, lol. And I was wrong, he didn't seem to be saying what he is saying now about unions and such. I must be thinking of Cheney, I will find Cheney debate now. Now I am curious!





SCHIEFFER: Mr. President, let's get back to economic issues. But let's shift to some other questions here.

Both of you are opposed to gay marriage. But to understand how you have come to that conclusion, I want to ask you a more basic question. Do you believe homosexuality is a choice?



BUSH: You know, Bob, I don't know. I just don't know. I do know that we have a choice to make in America and that is to treat people with tolerance and respect and dignity. It's important that we do that.

And I also know in a free society people, consenting adults can live the way they want to live.

And that's to be honored.

But as we respect someone's rights, and as we profess tolerance, we shouldn't change -- or have to change -- our basic views on the sanctity of marriage. I believe in the sanctity of marriage. I think it's very important that we protect marriage as an institution, between a man and a woman.

I proposed a constitutional amendment. The reason I did so was because I was worried that activist judges are actually defining the definition of marriage, and the surest way to protect marriage between a man and woman is to amend the Constitution.

It has also the benefit of allowing citizens to participate in the process. After all, when you amend the Constitution, state legislatures must participate in the ratification of the Constitution.

I'm deeply concerned that judges are making those decisions and not the citizenry of the United States. You know, Congress passed a law called DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act.

My opponent was against it. It basically protected states from the action of one state to another. It also defined marriage as between a man and woman.

But I'm concerned that that will get overturned. And if it gets overturned, then we'll end up with marriage being defined by courts, and I don't think that's in our nation's interests