Bush for civil unions...

[m3talsmith]

"Mr. Bush has previously said that states should be permitted to allow same-sex unions, even though White House officials have said he would not have endorsed such unions as governor of Texas."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/26/politics/campaign/26gay.html

[J. J.]

I cannot access the site, but so far as I've seen he's never opposed to letting the states from doing it.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I cannot access the site, but so far as I've seen he's never  opposed the states from doing it.

When Bush changes his mind, he's being a strong and decisive leader, not a flip flopper.

[m3talsmith]

Here's a report from the Washington Times:

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20041026-121303-1337r.htm

Btw, I agree that it should be allowed. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy. People think that because he says yes for traditional marriage being one man and one wife, that he is against gays and lesbians getting married or having civil unions. What he really is for is spin. He is for Government control on the marriage, but private choices are different. If he believed that way he should just say it.

[J. J.]

When Bush changes his mind, he's being a strong and decisive leader, not a flip flopper.

I've never heard him state that he's opposes it and the language of the proposed amendment doesn't prohibit it.  Here is what he said during the debate:  "It basically protected states from the action of one state to another."

[J. J.]

Now, here is the text of the proposed 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.  

Here is, after lengthy discussion, what elcorazon said about it.

I believe your analysis of the language is inaccurate.  The proposed amendment would do 2 things:

1) make it unconstitutional for any state to recognize marriage other than between a man and a woman;
2) allow the states to set up other "rights", not including marriage upon same-sex couples, while not requiring other states to recognize those rights. [emphasis added]

Now, I disagree with him on his first point, but I agree with him on the second.  He is a Democrat and a Kerry supporter. 

It looks as jFRAUD blew it once again.

[opebo]

Bush could never be for civil unions - he doesn't want to burn in 'hell'.

[J. J.]

Bush could never be for civil unions - he doesn't want to burn in 'hell'.

He doesn't oppose the states doing it.  From what I can tell, he never has.