Hey! Bush likes gay people after all!

[UrbanChic]

Taken from Hamlet’s link:

WND: In his interview with ABC, the president said regarding homosexual unions: “Whatever legal arrangements people want to make, so long as its embraced by the state or at state level.” And my question, does this mean that the president sees no problem with any state passing civil unions or homosexual marriage laws that give them the same legal status as marriages between one man and one woman?

McCLELLAN: Thank you for that question, Les. I would point out that the president reiterated what he has previously said. The president has always been strongly supportive of the principle that marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman, and that he will do what it takes to protect and defend the sanctity of marriage. He made that very clear in the interview the other night. He strongly supports the Defense of Marriage Act, which says that for federal law purposes, marriage is between a man and a woman. And it says that states don’t have to recognize other states’ laws on the matter. So we strongly support that.

He has also made it very clear, in light of the recent Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling, that he will do what is legally necessary to protect the sanctity of marriage. And that’s what he’s committed to doing. We said, going back to the campaign, that states have the right to decide legal arrangements that they so choose. Certainly the president’s views during the campaign, we said that he would not have supported that for the state of Texas, and he was governor at the time.

Here’s the relevent text. Thanks, by the way, Hamlet. It’s good to know that information.

Neither candidate is going to do anything about allowing gays to get married or allowing gays to enter into civil unions and extend to them the same federal rights and responsibilities as homosexual married couples. Both candidates disgust me on this issue.

[Miller]

Okay, the next person to thank another poster in this thread gets a beating. This is the Pit, people! Shape up!

[Frank]

@Hamlet

At least that’s the way I see it in my head…

I think you need a nap.

I don’t believe that any sane person can believe anything but that this is one last twisted attempt to wring even one more possibly desperately needed vote from anywhere. I don’t believe that even I can follow that last sentence; oh well; submit

[Leonard]

I wonder how this will affect voter turnout of the religious right. I seriously doubt any of them at all will vote Kerry, but they might not be so excited about voting at all. He has thrown them a few bones, but surely they have to be tired of getting nothing substantial, and then this right before the election. It could bite him in the ass.

[gobear]

Given that this is bound to piss off the fundies, I’d be willing to bet that the Constitution party picks up 4-5 percent of Virginia’s vote.

[Polycarp]

@Miller

Okay, the next person to thank another poster in this thread gets a beating. This is the Pit, people! Shape up!

Thanks for reminding us, Miller!!!

[Miller]

Aw, man. Now I gotta beat up Polycarp.

[Talon_Karrde]

@gobear

Aw, man. Now I gotta beat up Polycarp.

It was just his accent. He actually meant “fuck you for reminding us”

[gobear]

Since when am I Miller’s dummy? I’m definitely a dummy in the common sense, but not so much in the ventriloquism line.

[leenmi]

It’s consistent with Bush’s answer in the second debate against Kerry. He didn’t trot out a new opinion one week before the election. He’s still wrong, but he is wrong consistently.

[wring]

@gobear

Given that this is bound to piss off the fundies, I’d be willing to bet that the Constitution party picks up 4-5 percent of Virginia’s vote.

I’m’ not so sure. Certainly it’s a given that the fundementalist vote wouldn’t go to Kerry. But to not vote (or vote third party which equates to the same) at a point when Rhenquist has cancer and a couple other Supremes will probably retire soon? Not bloody likely IMHO. They’ll vote third party or not vote for Representatives, Senators and the like (to demonstrate their power and dissatisifaction), but too much is at stake with the Presidency for them to flex their political muscles by ditching their presidential votes.

Especially since Bush seems to have no problem changing his position and calling it statesmanship.

[SolGrundy]

George W Bush, you have consistently and repeatedly acted against the rights of gay people, proposing and voting on legislation that denies homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals to the point of modifying the US Constitution for your bigoted and… ah… oh, I can’t stay mad at you! Come 'ere, you big lug! Give me a hug and let’s go out for drinks, good buddy!

[Talon_Karrde]

@gobear

Since when am I Miller’s dummy? I’m definitely a dummy in the common sense, but not so much in the ventriloquism line.

:eek:
I am SO sorry!
I guess I got the two of you mixed up. Must be because you both have two-syllable names. Yeah, that’s it.

[iampunha]

@Polycarp

Although bluntly, sir, and I apologize if this offends anyone, I had formerly had quite a bit of respect for him as a man who seemed to be acting out of deep-seated convictions that did not quite match my own, but lately he’s been acting like he’ll say whatever will win him the most votes, and that negated the respect I did have for him.

Doesn’t offend me, I just don’t think you’re remembering a few things:

1. His administration at one point wasn’t answering questions on his/its stance on gay marriage/issues, saying they didn’t want to make it a political issue. This, ISTR, was decently early in his presidency, probably before 9/11, though I don’t know that I’d be able to provide a cite on it without doing some looking later on tonight (class in 90 minutes).

2. Back in the 2000 debates, he was on record as saying, during one of those debates, that he thought gay marriage was an issue of states’ rights that ought to be left up to each individual state. I don’t recall the exact wording (I saw it on a re-run of the debate), but it was a distinct and far cry from his SotU address calling for the FMA and invoking God/The Church in same lip service to fellow FMA supporters. Rick Santorum was almost beside himself in masturbatory glee.

Any notion that his stance was borne out of a deeply-held conviction, other than his belief that he should be president, seems a bit naive to me.

[Slacker]

Has Gee Dubya made his position on whether homosexuality is a choice clear? I know when he was asked about it at the debates he responded something to the effect of: “I don’t know, I don’t know, I don’t know, I don’t… know.”

Is that all we have to go on?

[capacitor]

Bush was saying that all along, so it isn’t a ‘softening’ of his position. For the top ranked elected conservative to even say that is a big victory for the gay community in of itself. The problem is that the proposed bans on gay marriage even ban civil unions, and gays should not take that.

[thursday_next]

semi-hijack
I’m reading this and look at the top of my browser and see: Hey! Bush likes gay people after all! - Opera. I was beside myself with giggles, which one needs after the way this administration has acted towards homosexuals. (Isn’t it fun to get used to a new browser?)
/semi-hijack

[Miller]

@Talon Karrde

:eek:
I am SO sorry!
I guess I got the two of you mixed up. Must be because you both have two-syllable names. Yeah, that’s it.

I, for one, was flattered by being confused with gobear. He, on the other hand, should probably feel mildly insulted.

[betenoir]

@wring

I’m’ not so sure. Certainly it’s a given that the fundementalist vote wouldn’t go to Kerry. But to not vote (or vote third party which equates to the same) at a point when Rhenquist has cancer and a couple other Supremes will probably retire soon? Not bloody likely IMHO. They’ll vote third party or not vote for Representatives, Senators and the like (to demonstrate their power and dissatisifaction), but too much is at stake with the Presidency for them to flex their political muscles by ditching their presidential votes.

All true, but you are talking like people vote rationally. And I’m not saying right-wing homophobics vote less rationally than others (well, I do say that, but I’m not saying it right now…) I’m saying lots of people all along the politcal spectrum don’t always vote according a sensible plan based on their best political benefit.

Sure, some fundimentalist will realize they have to vote their main chance. But we’re talking about a mindset that doesn’t allow compromise with, ya know…evil. So I would say some of them could be discouraged by this and go for a third party.

I can only hope it’s enough of them .

[jayjay]

@thursday next

Hey! Bush likes gay people after all! - Opera.

Wait’ll you hear the “Axis of Evil” aria!