I think you might have the wrong John, John.
I used the word “endorsed” to indicate acceptance and approval, not leading the battle charge.
As for a cite-
[QUOTE=Apos]
I think you might have the wrong John, John.[/QUOTE
Oh, neVER mind…
To me, he seems to be saying the same thing that most other politicians are saying on the matter, “I’m against same sex marriages, but if the states want to allow some kind of civil union arrangement, that’s OK with me.”
This brings up the very obvious question of what the difference is between marriage and civil unions. Did Charles Gibson ask him that? No. He felt it was more important to go off in some wonkish direction about the Republican platform, and let Bush slither away.
Jon Stewart is right. The media is failing us.
But back to the OP. I think what we are seeing is the beginning of the end of the gay marriage ban. Some sort of same sex civil union contract will be allowed, gays and lesbians will start referring to themselves as married, the world as we know it won’t come unraveled, and after a while the moderates and medium right will say “Oh, screw it. Let 'em marry.”
Emphasis added.
I took the “we” to refer to the federal government.
IOW, “marriage” is to refer exclusively to the union of one man and one woman beyond the prescribed degrees of consanguinity. But the decision as to whether or not to extend a legal arrangement like “civil union” to same-sex couples is left up to the states - the Supreme Court will not try either to impose it, or forbid it.
Seems reasonable to me. And no change at all from his previous position. And not all that different from Kerry. The only difference, of course, is that one is a slimy, disgusting homophobic liar and hypocrite.
The other is married to Laura Bush.
Regards,
Shodan
Indeed, I had meant to say in my post “he seems to be saying the same thing that most other politicians **- including John Kerry - ** are saying on the matter…”
Other than the part about codifying separate-but-(therefore inherently un)equal status to some of us, perhaps.
I presume you mean the one who advocates writing discrimination into the Constitution
Oh yeah, I almost forgot that was a Shodan post. Thanks for the reminder.
So you didn’t actually read the post, then. And have nothing of substance to add.
Color me not-surprised.
Regards,
Shodan
I read your post, Shodan. Is it your contention that Bush did not endorse the FMA. which would have banned “civil unions”? Do you believe that, if Bush gets elected this time, he and the GOP-run congress would allow a state to legalize same-sex civil unions?
You’ve characterized your posts in the last four years quite well, thanks.
You might review the text of the proposed FMA on which Mr. Bush was commenting when he endorsed it – it certainly could easily be construed to ban civil unions.
I hadn’t realized that Kerry and Laura had committed bigamy! :dubious: 
Unfortunately, that’s simply not the case. Ohio, for example, is on the verge of enacting an amendment providing that:
This text can be readily interpreted as preventing a court from recognizing or enforcing documents between same sex partners that intend to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect (i.e. rights) of marriage. That’s why even the Republican governor of Ohio is against it.
And, in case anyone thinks that civil unions are a compromise that would be acceptable to the people behind this amendment, please read the comments on civil unions in this article.
I think any state that tries to deny civil union arrangements of any kind will find that law or state constitutional amendment overturned by the SCotUS. The fight might be over what specifically can be included in a civil union, but that’s about it.
Yes.
Do you believe that, if Kerry gets elected this time, he would allow a state to ban same-sex civil unions?
Kerry is on record as stating that he opposes gay marriage. Bush is on record as stating that he opposes gay marriage. Kerry is on record as stating that he supports allowing states to implement same-sex civil unions. Bush is on record as stating that he supports allowing states to implement same-sex civil unions.
Many Dopers are on record that they are given to hysterical rants against a candidate who takes the above positions. Except if it’s not Bush.
:shrugs:
See you all after the election.
Regards,
Shodan
What part of “Constitutional Amendment” don’t you understand? Or “Separate But Equal”?
This is Shodan. If it doesn’t fit his argument, it doesn’t get mentioned.
Perhaps Shodan wishes to make an argument of his own.
Perhaps, but abscence of argument is not evidence of argument.
Actually, Kerry is on record as stating that he thinks marriage is between one man and one woman, but he doesn’t think that’s the federal government’s decision to make. Bush is on record as stating that he thinks marriage is between one man and one woman, and that should be written into the Constitution. I think they’re both very much in the wrong on the issue, but Kerry’s position is clearly the lesser of two evils.
Personally, if society wants to pretend that churches have a monopoly on the term “marriage” (and only those churches which use it to mean “the union of one man and one woman”), I, an atheist straight man, want no part of such a hate-filled word, and will seek a civil union if the time ever comes.
You left out one key point, although it doesn’t necesarily change your conclusion. Kerry thinks prohibition of SSM should be written into the state constitution of MA, and one must also assume that he would think the same of any other state he was resident of.