Huh? WTF Bush supports civil unions now?

HyperionX · Post by **HyperionX** » 2004-10-26 11:47am

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=198800

Important part:

In a television interview aired Tuesday, Bush said he didn't oppose civil unions for same-sex couples even though the Republican Party platform opposes them. However, he supports banning gay marriage through a constitutional amendment.

"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 on "Good Morning America" on ABC. "I view the definition of marriage different from legal arrangements that enable people to have rights."

Flip-flop?! I can't say myself, but someone please tell Bush that said constitutional amendment will ban civil unions too:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-10-26 11:51am

Desperate bid to regain gay Republicans, I'm guessing. He realizes how close it is, and is trying an eleventh hour flipflop to nab some last-minute votes.

Hrm, would it be wrong to route this to fundies and see them abandon him en mass?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-10-26 12:23pm

Monkey-Boy wrote:"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 on "Good Morning America" on ABC. "I view the definition of marriage different from legal arrangements that enable people to have rights."

Since the government only recognizes marriage as a legal arrangement, it would appear that reality disagrees with him. Not the first time, of course.

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-10-26 12:29pm

SirNitram wrote:Hrm, would it be wrong to route this to fundies and see them abandon him en mass?

I suspect that most of said fundies would still vote for him on the basis that they'd still rather see Bush (even a Bush that now apparently supports civil unions) win than the "evil liberal" Kerry, and these same fundies probably still have the one or two braincells necessary to realize that switiching their vote to a third-party makes Kerry's victory more likely...

Post by **fgalkin** » 2004-10-26 12:39pm

Ma Deuce wrote:
SirNitram wrote:Hrm, would it be wrong to route this to fundies and see them abandon him en mass?
I suspect that most of said fundies would still vote for him on the basis that they'd still rather see Bush (even a Bush that now apparently supports civil unions) win than the "evil liberal" Kerry, and these same fundies probably still have the one or two braincells necessary to realize that switiching their vote to a third-party makes Kerry's victory more likely...

of course, the could decide to not vote at all.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Solauren · Post by **Solauren** » 2004-10-26 02:01pm

It also sounds ot me like a standard case of political double-talk.

"Let's ban gay marriage, but let them have agreements like it"

Either that, or Bush is more brainless then even this board believes

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2004-10-26 02:07pm

What a dick! I don't think they'll buy it. I hope the Fundies see it tho

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-10-26 02:44pm

Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:What a dick! I don't think they'll buy it. I hope the Fundies see it tho

I seriously doubt this will have much (if any) impact on how many votes Dubya will get either way...

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2004-10-26 02:47pm

Ma Deuce wrote:
Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:What a dick! I don't think they'll buy it. I hope the Fundies see it tho
I seriously doubt this will have much (if any) impact on how many votes Dubya will get either way...

W00t.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-10-26 03:28pm

HyperionX wrote:http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=198800

Important part:

In a television interview aired Tuesday, Bush said he didn't oppose civil unions for same-sex couples even though the Republican Party platform opposes them. However, he supports banning gay marriage through a constitutional amendment.

"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 on "Good Morning America" on ABC. "I view the definition of marriage different from legal arrangements that enable people to have rights."
Flip-flop?! I can't say myself, but someone please tell Bush that said constitutional amendment will ban civil unions too:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

He's playing fundy but he's also willing to toss in some seperate but (un)equal in order to win votes.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-10-26 03:31pm

fgalkin wrote:
Ma Deuce wrote:
SirNitram wrote:Hrm, would it be wrong to route this to fundies and see them abandon him en mass?
I suspect that most of said fundies would still vote for him on the basis that they'd still rather see Bush (even a Bush that now apparently supports civil unions) win than the "evil liberal" Kerry, and these same fundies probably still have the one or two braincells necessary to realize that switiching their vote to a third-party makes Kerry's victory more likely...
of course, the could decide to not vote at all.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

But then we wouldn't be smiting infidel darkies in Iraq!

But seriously, the Fundies are going to vote Bush or some one more extreme. Say what you will about how they vote; they vote.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2004-10-26 03:43pm

Stormbringer wrote: But seriously, the Fundies are going to vote Bush or some one more extreme.

Oooh, there's a thought... have enough of them vote for Perotkua to take away some of Bush's possible edge.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-10-26 04:53pm

Stormbringer wrote:But then we wouldn't be smiting infidel darkies in Iraq!

No no, we're the infidels. They are the heathens.

Flakin · Post by **Flakin** » 2004-10-26 05:45pm

Its getting close to the election - hes trying to please all of the people all of the time.

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2004-10-26 06:36pm

I'm sure it will have little to no effect on the final outcome, as I doubt many gays planning on voting for Kerry will be won over with a half-hearted promise for civil unions, and there probably won't be that many fundies that will probably stay home and not vote since they are probably more determined to get him elected than they were 4 years ago.

Symmetry · Post by **Symmetry** » 2004-10-26 07:27pm

Better a flip-flop than wrong...but I'm still voting Kerry.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-10-26 09:56pm

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi wrote:I'm sure it will have little to no effect on the final outcome, as I doubt many gays planning on voting for Kerry will be won over with a half-hearted promise for civil unions, and there probably won't be that many fundies that will probably stay home and not vote since they are probably more determined to get him elected than they were 4 years ago.

No Kerry's support is half hearted; this is just plain bullshit,

Admiral_K · Post by **Admiral_K** » 2004-10-26 10:31pm

Actually, I'm pretty sure Bush has always supported civil unions for gays.

Its applying the actual term of "marriage" that he disagrees with since he considers marriage to be "sacred" were as civil unions are basically the same legally.

Personally, I think the whole issue is stupid and making it a constitutional amendment is about as wasteful of government time as you can get (let the states decide).

But, no its not a flip flop near as I can tell.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-10-26 10:32pm

Admiral_K wrote:Actually, I'm pretty sure Bush has always supported civil unions for gays.

Its applying the actual term of "marriage" that he disagrees with since he considers marriage to be "sacred" were as civil unions are basically the same legally.

The amendment he proposed made even granting the equivalent legal rights to gay unions unconstitutional. Try again.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-10-27 02:17am

I'm no lawyer, but Eugene Volokh is, and here's what he has to say about it.

President Bush's position is actually consistent with the FMA (whether or not either is right). President Bush said that "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" — that, in the Times' words, "the matter should be left up to the states."

The Federal Marriage Amendment would not block a state from recognizing civil unions. It provides (I quote the Mar. 22, 2004 version, S.J. Res. 30) that "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 first sentence would indeed ban same-sex marriages no matter what a state thinks. The second sentence probably bans state and federal courts from holding that a state legislature must recognize a same-sex union (which is what the Vermont Supreme Court did); and it probably bans voters from recognizing same-sex unions via constitutional amendment, though it's not clear whether the drafters intend this, and whether the provision would be interpreted this way. But neither sentence bans state legislatures — or state voters, via initiative statute rather than constitutional amendment — from recognizing same-sex unions.

So if the FMA is enacted (and note that, as I've blogged before, I do not support its enactment), the result will be almost exactly what Bush suggests: A state could still "choose to" recognize "a civil union" as "a legal arrangement." It would have to do so via a statute — just as most family law is defined by statute — not via a court decision or (probably) a constitutional amendment. But it would indeed be free to make such a choice.

Interesting.

Post by **Edi** » 2004-10-27 03:11am

Glocksman, if you have to go through that many interpretation hoops to get such a shaky conclusion qualified with halfa dozen "maybes" and a like number of "perhapses", which is what that blurb amounts to, you can be fucking sure that if the amendment passes, there will be an instant concentrated drive to ban these best-case interpretations in favor of a "no rights whatsoever" stance, and it would be years or decades before the issue would be established either way in court.

Edi

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-10-27 10:55am

Hyperion's quote of the FMA is from an older version of the bill.
The current one is SJ.40

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage. (Placed on Calendar in Senate)

SJ 40 PCS

Calendar No. 620

108th CONGRESS

2d Session

S. J. RES. 40
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage .

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

July 7, 2004
Mr. ALLARD (for himself, Mr. BROWNBACK, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr. ENZI, Mr. FITZGERALD, Mr. FRIST, Mr. HATCH, Mrs. HUTCHISON, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. KYL, Mr. LOTT, Mr. MCCONNELL, Mr. MILLER, Mr. SANTORUM, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. SHELBY, Mr. TALENT, Mr. CRAPO, and Mr. CRAIG) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read the first time

July 8, 2004
Read the second time and placed on the calendar

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage .

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:

`Article--

`SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

`This Article may be cited as the `Federal Marriage Amendment' .

`SECTION 2. MARRIAGE AMENDMENT .

`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.'.
Calendar No. 620

108th CONGRESS

2d Session

S. J. RES. 40

JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage .

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

July 8, 2004

Read the second time and placed on the calendar

This language is missing from the newer version:

nor state or federal law,

The difference is that this version doesn't prohibit states from enacting laws that recognize civil unions. It does prohibit both state and Federal courts from ordering the recognition of such unions based on either the state or Federal constitutions.

With the 'state law' language missing, Volokh's interpretation doesn't seem so shaky.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Huh? WTF Bush supports civil unions now?

Huh? WTF Bush supports civil unions now?

Re: Huh? WTF Bush supports civil unions now?

Re: Huh? WTF Bush supports civil unions now?