Bush flip flops on Republican Platform issue (Gay Marriage)

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » October 27, 2004, 11:42 am

Hey did you hear George W. Bush Sunday on ABC?

Granted I agree with his 'new' position. The GOP Platform expressly prohibits same sex civil unions as well as gay marriage, so this is not some sort of loophole.

In September, George Bush said nothing about thinking it was OK for states to endorse civil unions between gays. And in fact, that is the real issue anyway. Marriages are religious ceremonies, civil unions are the only thing the government is actually involved in.

So my question is why does he wait until a week before the election to show the resolve for what he believes in? In my opinion they must have private polling that shows Bush is fading among women and gays (he got 25% of the gay vote in 2000). That or their internal polling is showing that they cannot depend on 'turning out the base', meaning Democratic turnout is higher than they had calculated.

So it is a last ditch pitch for the middle perhaps in my opinion.

One analyst i heard thinks it could hurt Bush among blacks who he had made progress with specifically with the gay marriage issue (lot of conservative Christians in that demo).

The NY Times wrote: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.

i saw the video and that's what he said.

Additionally, how much is this story getting hammered? not getting any real play at all actually. Liberal Media!!!

Anyway, it might be how he truly feels, which I think is the reasonable position honestly. But I would call into question his credibility for only revealing that now, in light of all of the rhetoric on gay marriage since his rose garden speech presenting the Constitutional Amendment in January.

this is the gay marriage amendment that the Senate voted on this summer:

CNN.com wrote:"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."

The last sentence is about civil unions, and Bush made no complaint about that sentence (added by the senate) in the summer when he was making political hay with his base on this issue.

I don't have a problem with politicians "coming around" to reasonable issues. However, Mr. Bush has predicated a substantial portion of his campaign to labelling Mr. Kerry as a "flip-flopper" and defining himself as somebody who has the consistency and resolve to project idyllic leadership.

This is a minor issue to some in this election, but the Republicans put it on the map thinking it would be positive for them. I wonder if this was a strategic error on the unflappable Mr. Rove's part to interject the gay marriage issue with such fervor earlier in the year.

Sylvos · Post by **Sylvos** » October 27, 2004, 11:49 am

That's awesome.

Post by **Sylvus** » October 27, 2004, 11:50 am

I'm interested to sit back and watch at least one or two posters on this board who have spoken out against gay civil unions change their position now that their master has given them the okay.

If Bush truly believes that and isn't just pandering at the last minute, I applaud him. Too little too late in my opinion, but it's a step in the right direction.

Sylvos · Post by **Sylvos** » October 27, 2004, 11:54 am

I seriously doubt that they will change their stance, if they do then well we can call them out and persecute them accordingly. I think its a good step in the right direction for Bush and I hope more republicans take his lead. Banning Gay Marriage (while I don't like it) is a clear violation of civil rights.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » October 27, 2004, 12:07 pm

The gay agenda has kidnapped the real Dubya and replaced him with a podling. IT'S A FARGIN CONSPIRACY I TELLS YA!!!

Midnyte_Ragebringer · October 27, 2004, 12:40 pm

Obviously many of you haven't been listening, as usual. That statement in no way differs from what he has been saying all along.

He has always said marriage is between a man and a woman. He has always said it should be left up to the state. The only reason for the ban on gay marriage was to nullify the defense of marriage act which forced other states to recognize the marriages of gays from another state which allowed such a thing.

Sylvos · Post by **Sylvos** » October 27, 2004, 12:42 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Obviously many of you haven't been listening, as usual. That statement in no way differs from what he has been saying all along.

He has always said marriage is between a man and a woman. He has always said it should be left up to the state. The only reason for the ban on gay marriage was to nullify the defense of marriage act which forced other states to recognize the marriages of gays from another state which allowed such a thing.

You spin me round round baby right round like a record baby spin me round and round and round.

Post by **Sylvus** » October 27, 2004, 12:45 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Obviously many of you haven't been listening, as usual. That statement in no way differs from what he has been saying all along.

Please tell me when George Bush has ever spoken out in support of Civil Unions before that interview. I'd say that it is quite different than what he's been saying all along.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · October 27, 2004, 12:52 pm

Sylvus wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Obviously many of you haven't been listening, as usual. That statement in no way differs from what he has been saying all along.
Please tell me when George Bush has ever spoken out in support of Civil Unions before that interview. I'd say that it is quite different than what he's been saying all along.

He said it should be left up to the states. That has always been the position. Are you seriously freaking out and thinking you hit paydirt, calling Bush a flip flopper, because he actually mentioned the words civil union? Please tell me you have some more.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » October 27, 2004, 12:58 pm

When did he ever say that before then was the question. He certainly didn't at the debates when the question was brought up.

You just make shit up as you go along, don't you

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » October 27, 2004, 1:00 pm

Actually if you look at the CNN site his stance, since March or so, has been to allow Civil Unions and leave it up to the state... just like Kerry and Edwards with minor changes in the wording. Now that is what Bush said, it's NOT what his party has pushed for nor what the ban was for. Bush said one thing, and just like many other times, did something completely different (supported the amendment). He did it so he could keep him main supporters but not loose the entire "gay vote" of which he got 25% in 2000.

Marb

Post by **Sylvus** » October 27, 2004, 1:02 pm

Actually, you're defending the wrong point altogether. Nowhere in this post did I call him a flip-flopper. I think that's a pretty ridiculous moniker to put on someone, and I view the ability to change one's mind to be an admirable trait. Both Kerry and Bush have changed their opinions on many different issues.

I was happy that he is actually saying that he's breaking from the Republican platform that does not endorse Civil Unions. "I view the definition of marriage different from legal arrangements that enable people to have rights" is a nice step forward. I'm not happy because I think I've hit paydirt, though you are wrong in saying that his statement is exactly what he's been saying all along. It appears that he is now giving tacit approval to "Gay Marriage" where he never has before.

Niffoni · Post by **Niffoni** » October 27, 2004, 1:12 pm

Flip-flopping, bullshitting, and dishonest pandering are the crux of both campaigns. If honesty and consistency were suddenly introduced into american politics, its democracy would collapse. I'm gonna let Bush slide on this one. Come on. As if Kerry isn't a pandering backpeddler too.

Mak · Post by **Mak** » October 27, 2004, 1:17 pm

Am I the only one that thinks it should NOT be up to the states to decide? I'm fairly indifferent to the subject itself, but I wonder what happens if one state recognizes a gay marriage/civil union but another does not. Seems like a lot of legal hassle.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » October 27, 2004, 1:24 pm

Niffoni wrote:Flip-flopping, bullshitting, and dishonest pandering are the crux of both campaigns. If honesty and consistency were suddenly introduced into american politics, its democracy would collapse. I'm gonna let Bush slide on this one. Come on. As if Kerry isn't a pandering backpeddler too.

my point is that Bush runs specifically on not being that person. that is really my entire point.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » October 27, 2004, 5:18 pm

Mak wrote:Am I the only one that thinks it should NOT be up to the states to decide? I'm fairly indifferent to the subject itself, but I wonder what happens if one state recognizes a gay marriage/civil union but another does not. Seems like a lot of legal hassle.

I agree, marriage should be available to everyone in every state

But if a certain church, say the catholic church is against gay marriage and they refuse to allow gays to get married in that church's eyes, they have the right to do so. But if a church or other organization is pro gay rights, they should have the freedom to allow gay marriage.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » October 27, 2004, 5:25 pm

Civil Unions for everyone to provide equal access. Drop "marriage" off the law books.

Marriage should be provided by your church or local community group.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » October 27, 2004, 6:14 pm

Midnyte says: We were always at war with Eastasia!! There was never any other reality at all.

Rekaar. · Post by **Rekaar.** » October 27, 2004, 7:33 pm

Did he flip flop, or did he break with his party on an issue? Must have missed the distinction in my scanning!

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » October 27, 2004, 7:43 pm

He flip flopped - twice in this case. His current possition is the same possition (or close to it) that he held when first appointed to the presidency. This changed during his presidency, when he strongly supported the Constitutional Amendment. His *new* possition now has reverted back to what it was. A clear flop flipper.

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » October 27, 2004, 7:53 pm

Rekaar. wrote:Did he flip flop, or did he break with his party on an issue? Must have missed the distinction in my scanning!

I would assume that your standard revisionist history of Bush events has editted out the Bush support for a Constitutional ban against gay marriages. This is fairly clear since this would be have made gay civil unions impossible.

Rekaar. · Post by **Rekaar.** » October 27, 2004, 9:06 pm

Or, my condescending friend, it could be I don't know the specifics and am genuinely curious but not concerned enough to look it up myself in an effort to bash my guy =p

Toshira · Post by **Toshira** » October 28, 2004, 12:22 am

Mak wrote:Am I the only one that thinks it should NOT be up to the states to decide? I'm fairly indifferent to the subject itself, but I wonder what happens if one state recognizes a gay marriage/civil union but another does not. Seems like a lot of legal hassle.

This is exactly why Bush says he wants it to be kept up to the states. One state cannot be forced to accept a union that another state has validated. ALL states MUST recognize a union that the federal government validates. Legally speaking, it's a weakening position...certainly a backtrack from amending the U.S. Constitution.

See Article 6, Clause 2 of your U.S. Constitution for exact wording.

Whatever it takes to stay in power...

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » October 28, 2004, 2:19 am

Rekaar. wrote:Or, my condescending friend, it could be I don't know the specifics and am genuinely curious but not concerned enough to look it up myself in an effort to bash my guy =p

I apologize, Rekaar. I generally assume that you know wtf is being discussed on every topic.

Bush has said on more than one occassion that he supports gay partnerships, including the recent interview. However, he seemed to be opposed to "gay marriage" at the debates and when he supported the Constitutional ammendment to prevent gay marriages. It is a stretch of the imagination to see how one can say that you support gay civil unions while attempting to pass a law that would make it impossible for state recognized gay unions.

Rekaar. · Post by **Rekaar.** » October 28, 2004, 3:24 pm

That part I'm aware of yes, but its the details I'm not clear on. Was the Amendment mutually exclusive of certain rights being granted to designated partners? I can picture an amendment stating marriage is defined as man and woman and nothing else, but leaving room for limited local rights of partnership. Hence it wouldn't be a flip flop but a continuation. Again though, I dunno!

Sirton · Post by **Sirton** » October 28, 2004, 9:34 pm

That was his position back at the last election. He only went more right wing on the issue when all the crap in Mass. happened with the judges making laws and not the legislature...not just striking down something, but telling the legislature what to do, and when they had to do it by!!! That was his main problem point....Ive Always thought he was ok for state rights for civil unions if the state did it correctly with the legislature and the people, but he says he believes in marrage is just between a man and a woman.

My personal view is I believe marrage is between a man and a woman: But,There should be no marrage in government. It should all be civil unions. And the word marrage and meaning the churches want, should be able to recognize it how they wish and should be able to not recognize others. Make it a seperation of church and state issue...Marrage is too built into religion and the government should not be able to tell them what they and people should recognize and what they shouldn't. Its not the governments role.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » October 28, 2004, 9:37 pm

Sirton wrote:That was his position back at the last election. He only went more right wing on the issue when all the crap in Mass. happened with the judges making laws and not the legislature...not just striking down something, but telling the legislature what to do, and when they had to do it by!!! That was his main problem point....Ive Always thought he was ok for state rights for civil unions if the state did it correctly with the legislature and the people, but he says he believes in marrage is just between a man and a woman.

My personal view is I believe marrage is between a man and a woman: But,There should be no marrage in government. It should all be civil unions. And the word marrage and meaning the churches want, should be able to recognize it how they wish and should be able to not recognize others. Make it a seperation of church and state issue...Marrage is too built into religion and the government should not be able to tell them what they and people should recognize and what they shouldn't. Its not the governments role.

Exactly. The government has no place in religious matters.

-=Lohrno

Fredonia Coldheart · Post by **Fredonia Coldheart** » October 29, 2004, 9:25 am

Sirton wrote:My personal view is I believe marrage is between a man and a woman: But,There should be no marrage in government. It should all be civil unions. And the word marrage and meaning the churches want, should be able to recognize it how they wish and should be able to not recognize others. Make it a seperation of church and state issue...Marrage is too built into religion and the government should not be able to tell them what they and people should recognize and what they shouldn't. Its not the governments role.

The major problem with this is the cost - just think of all the forms that would have to be reprinted to change martial status fields. Religious organizations need to get over themselves. It is just a word in the English language that has had its meaning evolve over the years just like so many other words. No one is going to force them to marry two gay people. Churchs can still be the same assholes they have always been when it comes to homosexuals.

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » October 29, 2004, 10:35 am

Thos conversation got me thinking about my own strained faith(Roman Catholic) and divorce issues.

I had been taught when I was a kid that a catholic wedding could only be dissolved under approval of somesort of bureaucratic authority at the Vatican in Rome. This morning I did some research and found out otherwise.

http://www.nacsdc.org/aware/aware01.html