Comments: Bush Flip-Flops on Civil Unions within a 24-hour Period

You're about as fast and loose with "facts" as your candidate ;)

I commented on it while guestblogging at Chirstian Grantham's site on

Also, that "self-hating gay" is actually a proud, independent thinker in...Autin, Texas. I was saying he dare not drive down Santa Monica with that on his car.

Posted by BoiFromTroy at October 26, 2004 06:10 PM

It is important that Bush mentioned rights in his statement. This frames the issue of civil marriage for gays and lesbians as about individual rights. Bush and others have been framing the issue as about protecting children and traditional values - which is not only more difficult to challenge but is also very dangerous for gays and lesbians.

"Civil unions are a government endorsement of homosexuality," said Robert Knight, director of the Culture and Family Institute, 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." (AP)

The activists who are disgusted by gays and lesbians are more concerned about the redefinition of homosexuality than they are about the definition of civil marriage. By extending civil marriage to include gay and lesbian couples, society is voicing greater tolerance towards gays and lesbians.

Posted by Tom Kertes at October 26, 2004 07:30 PM

I don't know Byron, I imagine there's a certain segment of the gay population that really finds blithering idiots to be attractive.

Posted by Jim D at October 26, 2004 10:39 PM
I don't know Byron, I imagine there's a certain segment of the gay population that really finds blithering idiots to be attractive.

Oh, indeed we do. And one of them, John Edwards, is a hottie! But sound judgment compels us to vote for President Bush.

Posted by Paul at October 27, 2004 12:41 AM

It's typical of liberals to resort to name-calling when they have no argument. They can't stand the idea of people thinking for themselves. The HORROR! It might lead to...intelligent voting decisions! Ahh how they miss the good old days when a Democratic vote paid you 5 bucks in the ghetto. Don't think about it...just take the money and mark the ballot for anyone with a (D) next to their name. :)
Question- how do Democrats explain their own candidate's flip-flopping on support of anti-gay amendments in Missouri, Massachusetts, etc? *crickets*

Posted by Adam at October 27, 2004 08:57 AM

You appear to misquote the text of the amendment. There is no mention of state or federal law in the latest version:

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 above would leave civil unions, defined by state law, up to individual states.

I still think it's a dumb idea, but Bush appears consistent here.

Posted by TM at October 27, 2004 11:54 AM


There have been two possible ammendments running around. You quoted one, Byron the other. I think the wording, "that marriage or the legal incidents thereof," is the important part here. Legal incidents thereof would be referring to civil unions. It is also alarmingly vauge.

Posted by TA at October 27, 2004 02:16 PM

CWFA sure does have a lot of men in its organization and high ranks...

Posted by TA at October 27, 2004 02:18 PM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?