The NY Times has the story this morning - Bush says his party is wrong to oppose civil unions.



From the vice presidential debate:


In my opinion, this is a monumental flip-flop, you simply can't go from supporting (and in fact encouraging) a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, and then say that the states should handle it. Furthermore, even during the debates Bush still held the position that marriage was between a man and a woman. And of course he blames someone else for "making him support a ban on gay marriage".

Questions for debate:
1. How can voters be expected to take Bush seriously when he has taken such a hard line position on gay marriage for over a year and now has essentially flip-flopped to take Kerry's position? Is this just sweet nothings whispered in the ears of voters for the election, or is he representing his true beliefs here?

2. Will this change in position hurt him with his socially conservative base that has previously rallied behind him on this issue? Will it help him with more socially moderate voters or undecided voters?

Good day CJ, but as usual, I vehemently oppose your view.

1. George Bush does oppose Gay Marriage. This is a stark contrast from civil unions. Marriage according to most republicans is a religious and social institution, while as a civil union is only a legal matter tha would allow people to share property, file on insurance forms, etc, etc. This isn't a flip-flop. Please show where GW publicly opposed Civil Unions. As the NYT article states, "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" All he's saying is that the states should choose, and that there's a distinction between civil unions and marriage. Mr. Kerry has never opposed gay marriage. This isn't a Kerry position, but a stand for what many of the republican constituency believes is an issue of morality and social values.

2. As we all know, in this race, nearly all voters have made up their minds. Republicans will not change their votes, and it more than likely will not change the minds of the undecided. In terms of moderates, I am confident that their votes are split but decided. Social and economic moderates often times are choosing the candidate that they identify with most, and as most research shows, are regionally split.

This statement by Mr. Bush doesn't constitute a flip flop or waivering in the Kerry-esque fashion. He's been consistent, but just didn't publicly oppose the party. It's not like Mr. Kerry and his changing view on war, his support of outsourcing with his wife's company but opposition in public, etc, etc, etc.

I think most republicans could absoultely careless if homosexuals have each other listed on insurance forms, share accounts, split property, etc. We just believe that our nation and social values see marriage as a different action all together.

I don't see how you can say this isn't a flip-flop, a constitutional amendment would have likely prevented civil unions as well. The difference between marriage and a civil union is a difference without a distinction. You suggest it is solely because of some old religious sentimentality, but legally the two are exactly the same. You simply cannot ban marriage in the constitution and then say you are for civil unions.

Your logic for how this isn't a flip-flop just doesn't follow. Bush has made gay marriage an isssue in this election and now in the days leading up to the vote he is backing out of it. It doesn't get more blatant than that.


I'd disagree with you here as well, and as proof you might consider browsing through some of the threads here on AD dealing with Gay Marriage - specifically Same Sex Couples Married in the USA, Gay Marriage, and there are a few others if you want to browse the archives. I think you'll find that you are wrong and many Republicans are opposed to homosexuals having any rights at all whether in the guise of civil unions or not.

I know this is a lot to follow for those reading... and I hope it doesn't get confusing.

Flip flopping would simply mean that he has publicly stated two different things, as illustrated with Kerry's views on outsourcing or the war. As even the NYT (which is far from conservative) states, his views during his presidency and the campaign have not faltered. He has not backed away from his stance on gay marriage, as I will discuss.

In reference to the republican views on marriage, it does revolve around "some old religious sentimentality". Lest we not forget how we got here CJ, as plymouth rock happened because of protestants being persecuted. As I'm sure we've read in my (and other posts), this idealism doesn't have to revolve around Christianity, as Muslims and Jews believe the same way in terms of marriage. This is our issue. For many of Americans, our morals are rooted in our religion.

In terms of the links you provided in reference to republican views, you have to consider the fact that these boards don't constitute all conservative views. The people that take the time to post aren't necessarily billboards for the republican party.

Republicans are opposed to "gays having any rights"? That's absurd. Even during the debates, the president articulated well the way we feel. We believe that all tax-paying, hard-working Americans deserve all the respect and rights that we have. We however believe that sexual orientation should not give anyone special rights.

Cube, certainly we can distinguish between marriage and civil unions?

Has the President ever said he is against same-sex civil unions? I don't think he has. He is against same-sex marriage.

Here is the Republican Platform 2004 on this issue:



The platform does not say anything about civil unions. Unfortunately, a Constitutional amendment may be required so that states have the decision about whether or not to permit gay marriages. The whole amendment issue sprang up after the fears sprang up that a same sex marriage in one state would amount to same sex marriage everywhere. The States would have no recourse.

Civil unions are not the equivalent of marriage in the eyes of the culture, although they may be legally equivalent. There is the difference. I see no change of position from the President on this issue.

This is political posturing at its finest and Cube hit the nail on the head with Bush’s proposed amendment. A civil union and gay marriage is the exact same thing with the exception that a civil union between members of same sex can’t produce little tax deductions. Civil union is just an excellent sound bite for those who want to appease the masses.

Dubya had his chance to let everyone know his latest revelation during the debates but failed. When questioned in the third debate he never mentions the word ‘civil unions’, and consequently didn’t put his famous rubber stamp on the idea, so yes it’s a bit of a flip flop.

I also take issue with Dubya that this is a ‘states’ issue. Nice tactic for the current administration to straddle the fence and not loose the Lob Cabin votes which might turn out to be the deciding factor. Nice pass, Dubya for the Heisman.

This is not a states issue for the simple reason that it will limit personal economic efficiency and freedom. What happens if you’re a couple living in a state that recognizes civil unions and you are offered a job/promotion/pay raise in another state that doesn’t recognize civil unions?

I remember Bush supporting civil unions at the get go, so no flip flop here. However, the whole marriage amendment thing is a silly appeal to ultra-right wingers who don't want any "special rights" given to gay people.

Um, folks, Colorado's anti-gay Amendment 2 did not make it through the Supreme Court. It was sold as not granting "special rights" to gay people. Listen: No matter how you cut it, *taking away rights* from one specific group of people is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

So, would the marriage amendment make Colorado's failed Amendment 2 constitutional? Oh man, that's the real reason they want to do this! Hurry, hit the alarm buttons!



I don't think Bush has any problem losing his socially conservative base. They don't care what he thinks because they know he isn't the real President. No, just kidding. They don't care because Bush isn't Kerry. Bush is GOP, and four more years!

Socially moderate voters? Probably too late to impact them. Undecideds might swing his way on this one point, but I doubt it.

I don't see this as a flip flop but a very effective cop out. I can't even fathom him ever having any care for the rights of gays OR States rights. This is a desperate last ditch effort to grab a few more votes. By running to the States Rights argument they can try and distance themselves from the doctrines of the christian Coalition Cartel, and hope that the morality police can head off civil unions on the state level.(all the while trying to short circuit the Constitution by shouting about the will of the Mob, er, I mean the People, when they attempt to deny gays marriage rights, or more accuratly,Civil Unions, to call the rose by another name.)

Will it affect his base? doubtful. They're so rabid for a chance to gain enough power to rewrite the Constitution to outlaw those who they dislike that they'll keep quiet in the hopes of not screwing it up when they're so close.

I am the wrong person to be asked about this--I take Bush very seriously, and that's why I'm against another four years of Bush/Rove/Cheney.

Bush is undoubtedly realizing that a lot of his supporters were gay, and he has lost a chunk of voters by pandering to the Religious Right. Who knows what his true beliefs are? That's why Karl Rove is so close to the throne--he'll tell him!

Yes, it will, because the same people who oppose same sex marriages usually oppose civil unions for gays, because it lends legitimacy to their raising children, being insured as next-of-kin, visiting their partner in the hospital, and getting time off from work to attend their loved one's funeral.

But not everyone is offended by gay civil unions, and if this is the only thing that is keeping an undecided voter from backing Bush, Bush will get another vote.

I would go so far as to say that fundamentalists and insurance companies do not want to see even civil unions permissible for gays. It might cost them something and, if the fundamentalists do not want to fund abortions, they certainly do not want their insurance premiums raised in order to include coverage for those in gay civil unions.

To reiterate what Paladin Elspeth said, “I take Bush very seriously, and that's why I'm against another four years of Bush/Rove/Cheney.”

Under the first 42 Presidents of The United States, marriage was understood to be a union between a man and a woman, usually sanctioned by a church. Usually the marriage ceremony was performed by a Minister or Priest, but occasionally the marriage ceremony was performed by a Judge, a Justice of the Peace, or some other legally authorized person. Bigamy was legal for awhile and practiced by the Mormons. “Gay marriage” was a term which would have simply been dismissed as an oxymoron under any previous administration.

Suddenly from the Right, George W. Bush and his administration was clamoring for a Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage, and passed a “Protection of Marriage Act” to define by law, what common wisdom already understood. Cooler heads in Congress managed to prevent a Constitutional Amendment from being sent to the States for ratification. I suspect that if the States had failed to ratify it, that Gay Marriage might have become a de facto right. (Anything not prohibited is legal.)

As a direct result of this controversy, on Michigan’s ballot Tuesday is the following ballot initiative:


The ambiguous language is a real issue. As a personal example, Paladin Elspeth and I both divorced our first spouses. We were married by a minister, in a church. She later joined the Catholic Church, where a priest informed us that in the eyes of The Catholic Church, we are not married. If this ballot initiative passes, and it is likely that it will, it is completely plausible that someone from the Catholic Church could file a civil suit challenging the right of the state to recognize our marriage as “a marriage or similar union for any purpose."

Questions for debate:

1. How can voters be expected to take Bush seriously when he has taken such a hard line position on gay marriage for over a year and now has essentially flip-flopped to take Kerry's position? Is this just sweet nothings whispered in the ears of voters for the election, or is he representing his true beliefs here?

This “President” has been viewed by many of us as a puppet who says what he is told to say. Perhaps sweet nothings were whispered into W’s ear by Cheney’s daughter, by Cheney himself, or by Karl Rove. The impact of a law on someone's life could suddenly have become more personal.

What are his true beliefs? There is very little original thought to be found in his words. He has campaigned this year on such unremarkable statements as:
“My opponent is a Liberal.”
“I wish Laura was here today.”
“My opponent doesn’t understand that this job is hard work.”
“The number one reason I should be re-elected is so that Laura will be the First Lady for four more years.”
“Flip-Flop”

2. Will this change in position hurt him with his socially conservative base that has previously rallied behind him on this issue? Will it help him with more socially moderate voters or undecided voters?

Don’t you remember what he considers his base?


As a voter, I won’t presume to guess why anyone would choose to vote for George W. Bush. I can only tell you that I listened to his warnings that terrorists might try to interrupt the election process this year. We followed the advice of the local Republican Party, made plans to leave town on Election Day, and voted by absentee ballot. Even if this were something that could have swayed my vote, it is too little and too late.

If you are a Busch Republican, hypnotized by the twin mantras of “Flip-Flop” and Four More Years, I might suggest an alternative. You have been told that you can’t vote for someone this year who “Flip-Flops ” Try a new mantra. Repeat after me:

Four More Beers!

George W. Bush was the acting President when gay couples got married in Schwarzenegger's California, and there is talk that the Terminator is going to be campaigning with George in the final week. (Personal view, this is so that it will look like George has a working command of the English language.)

Four More Beers!

Review the tapes of the Republican Convention. That’s right! This candidate was nominated by people who wore bathroom slippers as necklaces and gloves.

Four More Beers!

This “Conservative” President has presided over more government spending than any other in our history.

Four More Beers!

Electing George W. bush on Nov.2 will only be a short term panacea. Starting on November 3, regardless of the outcome of the election, Republicans will need to start their search for a Presidential Candidate for 2008. What will you look for in a Presidential Candidate? Youth and good looks are always nice, but shouldn’t we expect a candidate who can think on his feet? Wouldn’t it be nice to have a candidate who represents not only your party, but your views that brought you to that party?

Four More Beers!

What was the President’s latest request? He wants another $75 billion dollars authorized to keep Halliburton in Iraq? He has sent this request to Congress while they are in recess for the current election. Imagine being a Republican on the campaign trail defending the President's latest request and explaining the fact that you are home campaigning and not in Washington supporting the President's war.

Four More Beers!

Look in the mirror. What can you do? Go to your local party headquarters and volunteer. Perhaps in four more years, we’ll be able to tune in the debates for the Presidential Primary and hear the reasoned tones of a skilled debater who honed his abilities here on America’s Debate.

Four More Beers!

If you can't support either major Presidential candidate on Election Day because they both Flip-Flop, count yourself among the undecided this year. Don't vote for a President. None of the above may not be on the ballot, but marking nothing is a decision too. Go to the polls and vote for the Congressman, Senator, City Councilman, Sheriff, and the other candidates of your choice. Vote on the issues. Then ask yourself before you leave the voting booth, do I really want to spend four more years defending my choice of George W. Bush as President? If not, please consider voting for John Kerry. Remember, the curtain is closed and it is a secret ballot. No one but you will know how you actually voted.

Four More Beers!

And if we can find something else to debate next Wednesday... I'll drink to that!

1. How can voters be expected to take Bush seriously when he has taken such a hard line position on gay marriage for over a year and now has essentially flip-flopped to take Kerry's position? Is this just sweet nothings whispered in the ears of voters for the election, or is he representing his true beliefs here?

The latter. Politicians are whores by nature; they sell whatever the customer wants. It’s amazing to me what Bush will do to pander to whatever voting bloc he feels he needs. Now he’s trying to appeal to moderates and gay Republicans by essentially doing a U-turn and saying it’s not so bad for gay couples to have civil unions. The thing is, he’s splitting hairs and giving himself an “out” (pardon the pun) by claiming that just because he’s against gay marriage doesn’t mean he’s against “civil unions.” It’s a safe position to take.

2. Will this change in position hurt him with his socially conservative base that has previously rallied behind him on this issue? Will it help him with more socially moderate voters or undecided voters?

His ultra-conservative “base” will offer excuses; it’s the liberal media distorting what he's truly saying, he was just confused (as he so often is). I think Bush would have to bite the head off a live chicken before die-hard supporters would even start to have doubts about him. I would venture to say it won’t affect the voting choice for 99.9% of them. No, this is a blatant appeal to moderates to show them he “ain’t such a bad guy" and they can rest assured he's not such a hardliner.

Mudge, you might want to check your facts....

The Defense of Marriage Act was passed under the Esteemed Bill Clinton, in 1996.
Wikipedia: Defense of Marriage Act

Recall how inclusive it was:


The gay marriage issue has been percolating for years. Bush did not make it an issue.

Recall that it was judicial activism that brought this to a head:
Gay Rights and Gay Marriage Timeline



Bush did not pre-emptively suggest a Constitutional amendment. It was a reaction to events around him.

The rest of your post was, well, off-topic.

To me Amlord, it makes no difference if he suggested and pushed for a Constitutional amendment as a pre-emptive strike on gay rights or as a reaction to the events going on. The important point is that he suggested and supported this amendment.

I also do not care one bit what Bill Clinton did or didn't do, he is not relevant to this discussion. The amount of support for gay rights in 1996 was vastly different from what it is today. I really find it funny when people use Bill Clinton as an example of something and then assume his actions apply to every Democrat out there trying to paint them as hypocrites for their position today.

It is impossible to support an amendment banning homosexual marriage and then say that you support gay civil unions. As I have said, this is a difference without a distinction. Even the people trying to argue with me on this point have admitted that legally they are the same thing. If you hold that position, then it becomes very difficult to justify how a constitutional amendment wouldn't prevent gay civil unions from taking place, because a lawyer could easily argue that it was the same thing as marriage and be correct. If they are legally the same then how exactly do you define marriage? Some people have said it is because of religious tradition, what about those people who were not married by a religious authority such as myself? Does that mean I am not "married" but rather "civil unioned" to my wife? The terms are completely interchangeable because they describe the same relationship and benefits.

I really don't know how that anyone can come to any other conclusion than this is purely a political move to try and garner a few more votes amongst moderates before the election. I haven't seen one person make a credible argument that would stand up in a federal or the supreme court that marriage and civil unions are fundamentally different.

Luckily for me, I did not take that tack. I was rebutting Curmudgeon's assertions that it was Bush that brought this issue to the fore. It was not Bush. Bush's actions were reactive, not proactive.





Maybe in your opinion, but the President feels otherwise and so do many Americans.



In politics as in so many things, perception is everything. If people perceive a difference, than there IS a difference. People perceive a difference between civil unions and marriage. That is a fact that can be verified by checking how many people are against gay marriage but pro-civil unions.



Maybe everyone isn't as cynical as you are, Cube. I highly doubt that at this point in the election cycle, a statement by the President re-iterating his support for the States' right to determine the legality of civil unions will garner him many votes. This is not a new position. Your question for debate was pure spin. It has been demonstrated here that this is not a new position for Bush.

1. How can voters be expected to take Bush seriously when he has taken such a hard line position on gay marriage for over a year and now has essentially flip-flopped to take Kerry's position? Is this just sweet nothings whispered in the ears of voters for the election, or is he representing his true beliefs here?

If “y’all” want an answer about the “Texan” in the White House, turn to Molly Ivins, the Texan with the barbed wire pen. W’s words were crafted so as to make him appear more “moderate” without alienating the “base.”

Molly Ivins and Lou DuBose write in Bushwhacked: Life in George W. Bush’s America





Should it surprise anyone that this same Scalia is one of Bush’s favorite justices?



Bush's Favorite Justices[[

2. Will this change in position hurt him with his socially conservative base that has previously rallied behind him on this issue? Will it help him with more socially moderate voters or undecided voters?

As the examples above illustrate, even when Bush speaks in moderation, the “socially conservative base” knows exactly where he stands through surrogates and praise for perhaps the two most backwards justices—Scalia and Thomas.

I don’t think the “socially conservative base" is going anywhere. They know that if Renquist quits, Bush will nominate another socially regressive monster to fill the vacancy and perhaps elevate Scalia to Chief Justice. Bush, as far back as Governor of Texas, gets to appear moderate--the "nice guy," while others do the dirty work.

To answer the second part of the question, I don’t think this will appeal to moderate voters, this close to the election.

I stand corrected on the "Defense of Marriage Act." I had not heard it mentioned or discussed until very recently. I thought the Bush administration was taking credit for it, and I let them.


From your time line, George W. reacted swiftly to events which took place from November 18, 2003 (GWB administration) through Mid February of 2004 (GWB administration) in two states, involving a handful of people. The Supreme Court has not had time to rule whether or not gay marriages are Constitutional, but there has been a rush to change both Federal and State Constitutions in order to "protect marriage." As I pointed out, such an amendment is on Michigan's ballot right now, and it is so poorly worded, that it is completely conceivable that only marriages, recognized as such by a church; as opposed to "Civil Unions," performed by judges would be recognized as a marriage in Michigan. I have to presume this is a reaction either to the large number (zero) of marriage licenses issued to gay couples in Michigan, or to the pandering to the Right and the Bush administration. I used to listen to people argue that a Constitutional Amendment banning flag burning would prevent people in the Streets of Baghdad from burning the American Flag. I could not persuade them that American law would not impact the actions of people in other countries. I think the Constitution should only be amended when it can be demonstrated that a need for change exists, and the amendment will actually change something.

Now, we are faced by a widespread effort to "protect marriage." From what? I've known married couples that sleep in separate bedrooms. Has that affected my concept of marriage? No. I've known married couples who had no children. My ex used to claim that such couples weren't truly married and shouldn't call themselves families. Has that affected my concept of marriage? No. The President of the United States, without allowing the courts to work through an appeal process, having decided that activist courts are affecting marriage, "announced that he supported a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage." According to your source, the first legal gay marriage took place in August 2001 (during the GWB administration) in another country. I fail to see how that action, or the marriage of gays in Vermont and California affects the institution of marriage other than making it more inclusive, or how it "threatened" my marriage. The button in my kitchen reads, "It's you and me against the world, let's attack!" It is a far better description of marriage, in my opinion, than to say that all of the married couples in the world are in a single homogeneous arrangement, the foundation of which is threatened by the concept of allowing a few gay couples to be married.

By your source, the President took a public position on the issue February 24 of this year. The avalanche he started resulted in an ambiguously worded amendment to the State Constitution being placed on my state's ballot. Does it make me more secure in my marriage? No! Then the President comes out with:


Next Wednesday "the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose." likely will be the law in Michigan; and as I have pointed out before, because we were previously divorced, the Catholic Church teaches that we are not married.

Pardon me if I state my belief that the biggest threat to the legal status of my marriage, was not the actions of a clerk in San Francisco who allowed gay couples to be married, but the actions of a President and his administration who defined those marriages as a threat to all marriages, and endorsed the need for a Constitutional Amendment. Now that his actions have presented a real threat to marriage, he is not against civil unions. FLIP-FLOP!

Will the President's actions change anyone's vote a week before the election? His followers have been wearing bathroom clogs on their hands so that they could dull their applause every time he said "Flip-Flop!" Of course this won't change any votes. Why would anyone dressed to walk on their hands while they listen to their candidate speak actually pay the least attention to what he actually says? The only people that have been frightened by this President are the ones who actually do listen to him! We've been promising to vote Anybody But Bush for months!

Respectfully, someone marrying a chair also would not threaten your marriage either. Since someone marrying a chair "does not threaten your marriage", should we make Human - Living Room Furniture marraige legal?

This is the argument

I would venture to say that insulting republican constituents on the thread isn't the best way to get your point across.

"The only people that have been frightened by this President are the ones who actually do listen to him!"

As I've stated before on this thread, the republican stance is and always has been that marriage and civil union are not the same. That is not a flip-flop. To us, marriage and the meaning are deeply rooted in religion. In the same vain, if homosexuals want to have legal rights to share property, file insurance forms, etc, we could care less. It's not just a Christian mentality, as both Muslims and Jews believe the same in reference to marriage and its relationship between a man and a woman.

There are numerous posts that illustrate that Mr. Bush's stance has not waivered. It's interesting to see how many admitted liberals want to lump GW into the flip-flop category like Mr. Kerry, yet stick up for his absolute changes in public statement. Show me where Mr. Bush made contradictory statements, as I haven't seen them. The "flip-flop" idea is a stretch...

No Red, the argument that makes no sense is that the "sanctity of marriage" needs to be protected and that allowing homosexuals to marry would somehow damage that "sanctity".

But, looking back at the questions for debate it seems we may be getting a bit off topic here because now we are back to discussing whether gay marriage is appropriate, are civil unions the same thing, etc. We haven't had a debate on that subject for a while and maybe it is time to start a new one. I personally don't have a desire to start a topic, but I think that someone should consider doing so because it is clear we all want to discuss this issue.

[quote=redliner1989,Oct 27 2004, 03:41 PM]

Respectfully, someone marrying a chair also would not threaten your marriage either. Since someone marrying a chair "does not threaten your marriage", should we make Human - Living Room Furniture marraige legal?

This is the argument

I'm sorry redliner, but your analogy is so flawed that you have no argument.

Try relating animate objects (people) to other animate objects and inanimate objects (chairs) to other inanimate objects.

I hope this isn't your idea of logic.

Are we have an argument based on vocabulary here or are there real differences between the terms: marriage and civil union? CJ is arguing that these are synonyms whereas the counter argument is that they are different. How are these terms different as far as secular society is concerned? And if they are different, how can one avoid the inevitable 14th Amendment issues which crop up (i.e. Massachusetts decision)?

1. How can voters be expected to take Bush seriously when he has taken such a hard line position on gay marriage for over a year and now has essentially flip-flopped to take Kerry's position? Is this just sweet nothings whispered in the ears of voters for the election, or is he representing his true beliefs here?

If one believes marriage and civil unions are synonyms, then this is obviously a dramatic shift in policy for Dubya. If one believes these are different things, then I suppose there isn't a conflict. I'm confused though as to what the difference is apart from the number of syllables and spelling.

2. Will this change in position hurt him with his socially conservative base that has previously rallied behind him on this issue? Will it help him with more socially moderate voters or undecided voters?

No, I think the social conservatives will vote for Dubya no matter what.

BoF: Actually you must have misread the previous post. The "logic" offered was that if "Gay Marriage" is legal, it would not threaten "Curmudgeon's" marriage, therefor, no reason it shouldn't be legal.

Odd logic for sure. But taken to it's logical conclusion, the same is true if someone marries their sister, brother, mother or father, or for that matter thier Lazy-boy recliner. None of which would "threaten" Curmudgen's marriage either.

It's not my logic you are having a hard time with, it might indeed be you own.

Red, if the sole criterion for judging the legality of a given type of marriage is whether or not it would threaten one's own marriage, then you would be correct. Fortunately, this isn't the sole criterion. Things like "consenting adults" or other legalisms enter the picture as well. I believe you are willfully misconstruing Curmudgeon's point so as to present a slippery slope.

I agree. The problem with red's original analogy was the chair. If we carry this forward to your post, then we should point out that chairs aren't "consenting adults." Again, analogies like this not only break apart, but shatter--there is no basis in reality.

Perhaps red needs to try another analogy.

I saw no flip flop. To say that Bush now supports Gay Marriage after opposing gay marriage would be a flip flop.

Bush has been quite clear all along the way by rightfully stating that "marriage" should always be between a "Man and a Women". What Bush said in the interveiw was that he saw no harm in the "States" deciding if they (The States) would allow "civil union".

Where's the contridiction?

Bush also stated that he supports a Constitutional Amendment so the citizens of each State can openly debate the merits then vote (whether by ballot or in the legislative process, whichever applies). I would think that this would be what the supporters of "Gay Marriage" would want anyway, a forum in which they could plead their case?



Red did, you chose to ignore them, OH and the logic that was FIRST brought forward by Curmudgeon.

To refresh the memory:



CJ, "Sanctity" is a religious term. We debate civil "marriage".

Well, the contradiction (flip-flop) is that in February 2000, George W. Bush said on the Larry King show that gay marriage should be a state's right to decide. Somehow, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling which allowed gay marriages has changed his opinion, despite that the Supreme Court's decision only applied to Massachusetts. (source: Issues2000.org)

1. How can voters be expected to take Bush seriously when he has taken such a hard line position on gay marriage for over a year and now has essentially flip-flopped to take Kerry's position? Is this just sweet nothings whispered in the ears of voters for the election, or is he representing his true beliefs here?

I wouldn't say he flip-flopped on this issue. That is, he has said the states should be allowed to decide on other forms of unions for non-marital couples. While I find this offensive (it reduces the love of gay couples to that of platonic cohabitation), I'm willing to accept it. In Utah, for instance, we have a Constitutional Amendment which will not only outlaw gay marriage, but prohibit any form of recognition of civil unions as well. Unfortunately, the amendment has solid support and will ultimately pass. Which brings me to wonder how this will all work out--there are severe quandaries which have yet to be looked at.

As someone pointed out, if a gay individual is offered a job but must move to another state which does not recognize marriage or civil unions, is this fair? Isn't it gender discriminatory to prohibit marriage to one man and one woman? After all, you are judging based on an individual's gender and nothing else. Infertile couples marry all the time. There's basically no difference between a woman-woman and a man-woman union if the latter can not produce children. The only difference is the gender, which would result in gender discrimination.

Excuse me guys, but when is a civil union not a marriage? Are not the couple still Mr. and Mrs. on legal documents?

Curmudgeon and I were married by a Unitarian Universalist minister. Now you have to decide whether being married in this denomination was valid or not. The Catholic church by its tenets has said that until our previous marriages are anulled by a Church tribunal (never mind that most of the "witnesses" to our previous marriages are either dead or we have lost touch with them--I tried) and then the marriage ceremony performed by a Catholic priest, we are considered to be living in sin. What do you think?

But if our ceremony had been performed by a Justice of the Peace, would it be any less valid as a marriage? Yes and no, because the validity of a marriage is ensured by the devotion the couple holds for each other. This cannot be legislated or created by a church. It can only be accomplished by the couple. So then, a minister/priest may recognize or not recognize a marriage; the couple actually sanctifies it by their daily behavior toward each other and in public.

So what right does the government have to dictate who may and who may not be married, especially when it is based on religious beliefs not held by all in our society?

I do not advocate gay marriage, but I don't think it is the business of our government to say who can and who cannot be married, provided that health concerns that have a potential impact on the community are addressed (i.e., making sure the parties involved are not diseased through blood testing, and that genetic lines aren't so close together to produce genetically unhealthy children).

So what George W. Bush is doing is quibbling over words. Some fundamentalists will recognize this, that it is basically a ploy to enlist their votes because of his characterization of the "sanctity" of marriage. I would even suggest that Bush knew his proposal to legislate a Constitutional amendment regarding the definition of marriage was going to lose, that it was largely a symbolic gesture to placate his supporters from the "Religious Right."