Slashdot Mirror
President Bush Flip-flopping on Gay Rights Issue?
An anonymous reader writes "In a move that has upset some in the GOP, George Bush has suddenly declared his support for civil unions for gay ane lesbian couples. Will such a move help or hurt him this late in the game?"
They can't be married but they're allowed to join a union? I didn't think Dubya supported unions at all! What next? Will he allow gay communists??
I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
Partial quote:
This is kinda like that "Bush banned stem-cell research" myth, when in fact he just stopped anti-abortionists from being forced to fund abortions (via taxpayer money).
[PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
Separate but equal? "If you ask Vice President Cheney's daughter, ... who is a lesbian ..., I'm sure she'd tell you she's just being herself." Sorry, couldn't resist quoting Kerry. "Want some wood? Heh, heh" There's a Bush one.
But, this is utter shit. I'm not gay, I only know a couple of gay people, and this whole state I live in seems to be populated by a majority of redneck homophobics. You don't have to be part of a cultural group to stand up for their rights.
If I recall correctly, about 78% of people in this state approved a bill "defining" marriage and forbidding civil unions. A judge overturned it as "too broad" but I'm sure it will be right back. I proudly voted against it. Haven't any of you ever heard of "and when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me"?
Vote Michael Badnarik in 2004. He is the only one who will bring about real change and bring civil liberties back to us. He supports rights for all minorities (I'm a white, straight Male) and majorities. So don't think I'm pandering or whatever to any specific group.
Read why you should vote for him. There are reasons for about every socioeconomic/cultural group.
What's a Libertarian you ask? No, you didn't ask? Read this anyway.
Chris
The thing with civil unions is that a lot of people don't see a big difference between them and "separate but equal." The only gay people that this really appeases are those who see it as but a step along the way to true equal rights.
As a straight guy this doesn't affect me much, but I hope this shows his hardcore religious following just how strong his beliefs are. Like any other politician he's just doing what he thinks will get him elected, and that's what he always has been doing. Flip-flop is not a term exclusive to Kerry, it applies to anyone trying to get the most amount of votes they can.
If you get nervous, just remember that there are a few billion other people who don't really give a damn.
Do a Google search for Bush flip flops and you'll see there is a whole pile of issues Bush has flip-flopped on.
The really frightening thing is some doctors think he is showing signs of pre-senile dementia.
I believe in civil unions, For EVERYONE.
Marriage is a religous act, and I believe in the seperation of Church and State. Simple solution, make everyone get Civil Union, and leave marriage upto the church.
Oh wait, that makes too much sense.
-
I think gays should get married, as long as both women are HOT!
If I was in the US I would seriously consider voting for that Badnarik guy. It seems as if he is by far the smartest voice out there.
A Multiplayer Strategy Game for Mac OS X, Windows, and Linux
Marriage as an institution has existed as a legally binding institution for thousands of years. For a very, very long time it was a transfer of ownership of a woman from father to the new husband.
Yet it's religious? Religions co-opted marriage. Marriage itself is neither inherently religious nor secular at this point. It has been one, the other or both for so long making such a statement is silly.
I haven't found one quote that says Bush supports civil unions between gay couples. He simply states that it should be up to the states to decide. Talk about spinning... sheesh
I don't think it is a reasonable assumption in the case of gay relationships that the union will yield children.
Ever hear of adoption? Artificial insemination? Kids from previous relationships? These situations are pretty common in both straight and gay families.
Should straight couples who don't want kids be excluded from the same marriage laws, since their union will not yield children?
94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act
>Marriage itself is neither inherently religious nor secular at this point. It has been one, the other or both for so long making such a statement is silly.
I'm sure that's true. It's also true that most people that are opposed to "gay marriage" are so opposed for religious reasons. Those that are in favor of the concept of gay marriage (call it a civil union or whatever) are not interested in barging into your local parish and demanding that God recognize their vows, nor are they interested in destroying "family values". The gay community just wants the same legal status as a heterosexual couple when it comes to patient's rights, wills, etc. The fact is that gay couples already have weddings and adopt children, and have done so long before any city or state started giving them marriage licenses. This "gay marriage" debate has nothing to do with that. This is all about the special secular legal status that a married couple gets if they're one male and one female, but no other combination thereof.
The only way to give them this legal status and still satisfy the religious folks (who are convinced that a homosexual couple getting married somehow affects them in a negative way, but won't share the mechanism) is to seperate the notion of religious marriage from that of secular marriage.
For once in his life, I agree with president Bush about something. Civil Unions are a good idea. I can't imagine why he was trying to ammend the constitution if that's really what he wants.
That said, I don't think the notions of two "seperate but equal" legal statuses for the same thing is a good thing either. Let's define "marriage" in the churches and define "civil unions" in the legislature. I'm aware that means scrapping the word "marriage" from the law books, and I think that's a good thing. Perhaps we can clean up the alimony laws while we're at it to get rid of this pre-nup bullshit.
BTW. I don't speak for the gay community... I'm a heterosexual that believes in equal rights for all.
Unitarian Universalists
They'll take anyone ^_^
"States' rights" used to be something of a codeword for "slavery," way back when; as in "it's a state's right to determine whether or not it will allow slavery." Granted, it was used to allude to other things, as well, but slavery was the main issue with which it was meant to be connotated.
No, I'm not intending to draw a direct line of connection, but I am pointing out the coincidence.
There's more I could say on this, but I'm tired, my mind is fuzzy, and my belly is full of pizza.
~UP
Eat the Path.
Bush has always believed that civil unions were A-OK, as long as you don't call it a marriage.
Most Southern Evangelicals, whom Bush was trying to win over with this whole anti-gay-marriage Amendment idea, feel exactly the same way.
You see, a "flip-flop" is when your position changes. Bush's position has always been:
Gay Marriage: A threat to mom and apple pie. Boo! Boo! You queers are trying to ruin our religious institutions and drag us all to Hell!!!
Civil Unions: States can recognize anything they want along these lines. Live and let live. La-di-da.
Is it a game of semantics? Yes.
Is it a change of position? No.
"Flip-flopping" is acceptable if "the facts" change.
I so wish that politicians were capable of (or is it that they are not allowed?) admiting a wrong decision based on wrong information or even a wrong decision outright. God forbid they be mortal...
The government should deal only in civil unions, and stop recognizing "marriage" altogether. It's too politically charged, too religiously entangled, and, frankly, too personal for the government to be messing with. Let people define their own marriages as they see fit, and if they want the legal benefits of a civil union, they can apply for one -- but they're separate things. Signing civil union documents would be a standard part of most marriage ceremonies, but neither would necessitate the other.
Yeah, it's just a linguistic trick, but it's really only the language that's hanging up the fundies in the first place.
(OT: If the doc your sig links to is supposed to justify the Iraq war, it's a lousy justification. I'm sure it would take you about 20 minutes to find some loon in northern Idaho who blows off the UN, cheats the government, and would really like to build a biological weapon, and he has about as much ability to follow through on that as Saddam did.)
Marriage is the best way to stop sex. So those that truly believe that gay sex is wrong should support gay marriage.
I am living proof of the Peter Principle
Instead of having Marriages left and right and divorces all over the place just get a civil union and avoid all the moral and ethical baggage religion tacks on to it... unless you are religious and believe in Marriage as an act of worship, which is how Christians and several other religions teach.
If your church doesn't allow for marriage between gay individuals that is a matter for the church to decide and those gay individuals to deal with. The Hebrew Temple won't marry you if you are not jewish, the Catholic Church won't marry you unless at least one of you is baptized and confirmed Catholic...
If you want to be together and enjoy partner status in regards to taxes or other benefits go get a civil union and avoid the issue all together... marriage is simply one accepted form of civil union.. not the only one. Well, it looks like it will be this way in the future.
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
Except, of course, for the fact that in previous statements, Bush has stated that in order to "protect" (from what, exactly?) marriage, it must be defined as only between a man and a woman, and that same sex couples do not deserve the same rights as others in this country. However, I agree: it's not flip-flopping, it's just that he doesn't actually know what he's said (or believed) in the past.
It's remarkable that two (at least) of the last three republican presidents can't (couldn't) remember what they say or do from day to day. It's also remarkable that those two presidents had essentially the same staff.
That's not the problem. The problem is that if the marriage is not recognized by the government, then it does not give any of the legal and monetary privileges that go with marriage.
Effectivly the state (government) discriminates between long-term commmitted homosexual couples and long-term commmitted heterosexual couples based only on thier relative gender; last I checked sexual discrimination goes against fundamental issues of human rights.
Any body (church) can say "yep, you're married, you may now kiss the other person", but if the government won't say "yep, we see you're married, so you get x, y and z privileges" then the value of the marriage is legally naught (even though perhaps religiously significant).
The solution to the problem is simple, SEPARATE CHURCH AND STATE. The state can recognize a union between any two people (even regardless of wether either person is already unioned with another), giving the privileges presently associated with marriage. The church can recognize a marriage between any two people (or, unlikely, more) but without any connection to the state.
People can get neither, one, or both, depending on thier wishes; and of course grandfather existing recognized marriages into a state recognized union.
While we're at it, get rid of any inkling of monetary 'rewards' for unions (marriage), why should people who don't find "that special someone" not be rewarded.
NZ Electronics Enthusiasts: Check out my Trade Me Listings
What the Bible says about homosexuality on religioustolerance.org analyses the various texts and tries to show the different points of views.
Watch great movie opening scenes!
And the reason for those laws (that discriminate against homosexual couples) is that homosexual couples will not breed. The system wants growth in the form of more consumers, and babies are consumers.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
Actually, author Jonathan Rauch makes the case in his book that one of the principal reasons that we have marriage -- completely ignoring the "shouting points" of love, children, etc. -- is that a couple making a promise to take care of each other in hard times is a boon for society in general, since it means that support networks like extended family, charities, and welfare don't have to spend as much time and money taking care of that couple when something drastic happens. From this perspective, it makes perfect sense to give couples a slight tax break.
Range Voting: preference intensity matters
As a licensed (Baptist) minister, I agree. There is a huge difference between marriage as I believe God ordained it and the mockery of marriage we call civil marriage, even if you leave aside the gay marriage issue. In God's marriage, divorce is allowed only in the most dire circumstances, remarriage is never allowed, and the husband and wife "become one flesh." In civil marriage, the opposite obtains. It's time to stop equivocating on what marriage is and get the state out of the marriage business.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
It's really amazing how far some people will go in an attempt to make their stance anything but pure bigotry. Suddenly, marriage is about having kids. Hey, you loons, if marriage is about having kids, why do we let people get marriage and have contraceptives? Why do we let infertile couples have marriages? More importantly, why do we let couples where one of them is infertile get married?
And, assuming the point of marriage is to encourage having children, why, exactly, should we stop gay people...they already aren't going to have children. (Ignoring adoption and artifical insemination, but bringing those up just weakens these crazy peoples' case even more.)
It seems like, logically, pretending that the purpose of marriage is to encourage people to have children (Which has, mysteriously, never needed encouraging before...look at China. Look at teen pregnancy.) it makes more sense stop a fertile person from marrying an infertile person, and removing themselves from childbearing, then it does to stop two gay people, who are rather unlike to have childen no matter what you do with them, unless you're considering forcing them to get married to fertile people of the opposite gender and have sex with them.
The real reason we have marriage is because at some point in your life you shift your family from your blood relatives, to a new family that consists of you and another person, and then manybe even some more people if you make them or adopt them. Gay people just want the right to have a new family that's recognized by law as their family.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
The Job of a politician is to make the best decision possible based upon all available information. That REQUIRES them to change their mind in the face of new evidence.
The dogmatastic is death to a country
If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
And the reason for those laws (that discriminate against homosexual couples) is that homosexual couples will not breed. The system wants growth in the form of more consumers, and babies are consumers.
Then they should just give incentives for having kids instead of for marriage. Why give benefits to useless infertile people? Or people that just don't want kids?
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
You're assuming that Bush has read and understood the FMA. Are you sure you want to make that assumption? :)
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
"The only reason for marriage is so that the human race can continue."
Someone else pointed out that marriage is also for helping each other (for when one person is down, or doesn't have a job, etc), which benefits society.
(assuming by continue you are referring to breeding)
I am somewhat curious as to why this is a topic for Slashdot.
I personally don't give a damn what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms, since it is none of my business, but it is slightly suggestive given the byline "News for nerds".
:-D
I am sorry, but I think you are totally off the mark here. The only reason for marriage is so that the human race can continue.
I call BS. As far too many paternity suits show, marriage is utterly IRRELEVANT to procreation.