October 26, 2004

• Now THAT'S one hell of a flip-flop. *Breaks out ice skates* Meet you on the Styx in an hour!!!!
• Wow. He must be worried. Maybe it's the tinted lenses of my own political perceptions talking here, but this is looking a bit like an eleventh-hour dash to the center. I, um...yeah.
• Correct me if I'm wrong, but states cannot pass a law that violates the Constitution. But I guess his proposed amendment covers only "marriage" and not "civil unions?" Of course we all know that in a governmental and legal sense "civil union" and "marriage" are EXACTLY the same thing and it is nonsense to claim to be for one and against the other, but both candiates are doing what they feel they have to do. (I dont have the link but Kerry's answer to being confronted with this fact on NPR was a classic example of political nonsense.)
• I'm pummeling my brain right now, trying to come up with a memory of when the President has come out in favor of civil unions before. I don't recall him ever mentioning them in the debates. Furthermore, if the civil unions are okay, then why do we need a federal marriage amendment? To protect the word? Not trying to be snarky here, but really trying to understand the sense of this. You're okay with extending the legal rights of marriage to homosexual couples, but somehow amending the Constitution so that it includes the definition of a word is somehow vital to our future?
• yeah, mct, I don't think I've heard this yet either. I wonder if it will become a big deal, it seems like it should.
• Shit...now Bush will have the gay vote locked up. Kerry doesn't stand a chance.
• I don't remember Bush ever coming out against unions. I bet their rights will be limited some how to deter our kids from becoming godless homosexiles. Are there really that many log cabiners that would make this move worth while?
• Well considering the log cabiners already came out staunchly against Bush (but, I think the quote was, "we'd rather eat dirt" than vote for kerry), I don't think that Bush has ever been this forthcoming about civil unions. Remember he's the faith-based president; he's spent all his time appealing to the bible belt, and this sudden flip-flop could hurt him quite a bit.
• Well, Seeing how this is the text of the amendment that bush wholeheartedly supported, i cannot see how this can be viewed as anything other than a complete reversal of his prior stance. [1.] Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. [2.] Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups. I smell a whole new category of desperation.
• See Wikipedia on the subject.
• I doubt this latest comment was intentional, as it will gain him no gay-friendly votes this year, and can only hurt him with the religious right. It looks like a genuine slip to me. Look at his advisors in his first term -- blacks, Jews, unmarried women, and more than one probable homosexual. Mary Cheney wears a ring on her finger. He's said that Islam is a valid way to reach God. The man does not personally believe in the xenophobic agenda of the religious right. Regardless of whatever he feels in his personal life, he and his party are committed to appointing right-wing judges and dividing the electorate on same-sex issues. That's the scary, hypocritical part I can't understand.
• This play is so fucking calculated and pathetic. I'm sure the Right will come up with some way to smooth it all over. If the LCRs fall for this they are just as dumb as they were back in 2000. Let there be no mistake: the Right is waging war on homosexuals. If Bush gets reelected it will be a rough four years for civil rights. His speech is pure BS.
• I went to college with that Matt Daniels fella mentioned in the article. Didn't know him hardly at all, but he didn't seem like a pod person back then. Must've gotten infected in the intervening years.
• The only way this is a bad thing is if gay rights are less important than getting rid of Bush. If Bush can say this and _win_ then it's a triumph, I think, because it opens the possibility that a religous Republican can support civil unions. Bush has no more than 4 more years, but I think it's a safe bet religious Republicans aren't going anywhere.
• “States ought to be able to have the right to pass laws that enable people to be able to have rights like others.” Man, that's a clumsy sentence.
• It's called "having your civil union/wedding cake and eating it too."
• BTW, I predict that should Kerry win (and it appears entirely possible that he will), that the republican party will undergo a meltdown and reinvent itself in the old, moderate Eisenhower small c conservative mold (fiscal conservative, moderately progressive national spending programs, socially moderate) with McCain, or someone like him, leading the party. The neocons will have had their day, at least for now. They will still lurk in the shadows and cling to the underside or rocks...
• You are being too optimistic. If Kerry wins and either the senate or the house remains Republican, then the Republicans will unite against a common enemy. They will decide, like they did with Clinton, not to give a single vote to any Democrat-sponsored legislation. The Republicans may have many faults, but disloyalty isn't one of them. I would say that a revolution in the Republican ranks will happen if either (a) Bush wins, or (b) The Republicans lose both houses. At this point save for a handful of senators there really isn't any common ground between the Democrats and the Republicans.
• God I hope you're right, squid. I would really, really hate to be on the recieving end of a pogrom.
• It seems to me that the simplest solution would be to require a cival ceremony for all couples who want to marry and let individual churches decide which couples they'll grant religious ceremonies to. As I understand, this is the system in some (most? at least for heterosexual couples?) of Europe. And, it would be true separation of church and state in this issue. I'd like to have been a fly on the wall in the meetings where they convinced Bush he needed to take his new stance. It certainly seems distant from his past rhetoric.
• Too late, Bush. Andrew Sullivan already left you. Nice try though. Maybe ten years down the road you'll bump into him at a party and he'll fall for you again.
• Like Sept. 11, this changes everything.
• How'bout the words lying, hypocritical sack o'shit? Yup.
• The words from my gay son's mouth when he read this earlier today: "What a crock of shit." The rest of us just nodded in agreement. Flip flop, indeed. That he expects to pick up some votes with this transparent ruse is pathetic. It reminds me of another recent 'change of heart'. Bush on Canadian prescription drug imports: "They're dangerous, third world poisons!" Bush on flu vaccine: "Please, Canada, won't you please sell us some because we're too stupid to plan for an event which occurs every year!"
• You know, it's just damn weird not having a post from Sullivan here. It's like the thread is Voltron and he's the robot that makes the left leg. It cannot stand!
• Am I understanding this correctly? Bush opposes gay marriage but will tolerate a "legal arrangement with rights." Does he still favor a constitutional amendment which would preclude such arrangements? I'm with coppermac; this is just bushspeak.