October 29, 2004

• Change of heart? Or flip-flop...
• oooh ooooh yah! that's exactly the word I was looking for...but wait, this isn't Kerry I'm talking about...weird. Flip-floppers all abound. I wonder how long before Karl comes out saying "what he meant by "OK with civil unions" is "kill all the fags"...ok, yeah, next question?" :)
• "...he would support civil unions but remains opposed to gay marriage..." That's always been his position and on the record since day one of his administration. What's your point here? It's certainly not news. You just got spun.
• I was operating under the assumption that the civil union position was something that Cheney always favored, but Bush was more hardline conservative about it... The whole "living in sin" crap, so he was vocal about opposing gay marriage, especially with the proposed amendment, but kept mum on any real standpoint converning civil unions. I think we all know how Bush really feels about gays joining together. Civil unions or marriage.
• I suppose the fact that he's coming on "Good Morning America" about this issue 5 days before election makes no difference, and neither does the fact that the ambiguity of his proposed ammendment could, indeed, go so far as to ban Civil Unions? Spun, sure. Fooled, nah.
• .
• oh yeah.. shawnj...cognitive dissonance has wreaked its havoc on my brain, causing me to delete any prior memory of that post. It's funny how I said nearly the same exact thing twice, but didn't remember posting it... seems your post was more accurate than previously thought.
• The desperation is becoming palpable.
• So, if I may clarify. It is a sin for heterosexual couples to live together and have sex out of wedlock, and it is a sin for homosexual couples to live together and have sex within (?) wedlock. So gays can only morally have sex when they are not married, while breeders can only morally have sex when they are married.
• less than a week less than a week *rocks back and forth*
• Listen, I hate George Bush, OK? But I am getting sick of this profound misunderstanding and your shoddy - indeed risky to me and my non-American kin - marksmanship. You are missing the point and it makes you all look really dumb and makes them shut up and smirk. That is bad, BTW, when Rovians are laughing at you. Here's the score: George W. Bush, to my knowledge, has always supported the rights of gay couples to "marry", OK? Just don't take the quotation marks away and be sure to file on time. God isn't in the details, you faggot, He's in the punctuation marks, for Christ's sake. Again? OK. It's like this: A couple in love = Civil Union = Gay Marriage. Not on my watch. That would be illegal. And against the law of the land (that pesky so-called constitution written in that inpenetrable grey ink). We are talking law here, we are talking politics and deeply held truths, not the feeling of a cock in your ass. However good that might feel to you. So what is it about Civil Unions vs. Gay Marriage that you don't understand? THERE'S A FUCKING WAR GOING ON HERE!
• So what is it about Civil Unions vs. Gay Marriage that you don't understand? Um, basically what you're trying to say, JG - I'm confused (if its because of sarcasm, just put it down to my dimness). I don't think we should conflate civil union with marriage - even if it's all the same to me and you, it's definitely not for those who want to be married and those who don't want them to be. So what have Bush's stances been? (I don't know - I'm asking here) Was he ever against civil union, or only against marriage?
• He claims to be against marriage, for civil unions. But the text of the Marriage Amendment appears to also block the legal rights of civil unions to gay couples, even though Bush seems to be saying that he's in favor of conferring those rights to gay couples. In short, I don't know what he really thinks about this issue, and probably no one outside of the White House does.
• I thought he came out against civil unions in the debates? Was I wrong?
• THERE'S A FUCKING WAR GOING ON HERE! pun intended?
• Defending Marriage President Bush believes that marriage between a man and a woman is the most enduring human institution, and the foundational building block of our society. President Bush has fought to defend traditional marriage laws from activist judges who threaten to legislate from the bench to impose same-sex marriage and deny the voice of the people. In his second term, President Bush will: * Protect the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) - Vigorously defend the constitutionality of DOMA, which was passed by overwhelming bipartisan majorities in Congress in 1996. * Pursue a Federal Marriage Amendment - Continue to urge Congress to send to the states for ratification an Amendment to the Constitution to define and protect the institution of marriage in the United States. 'nuff said. (or not said, rather.)
• Well, if we're confused about his position, it doesn't bode well for the effectiveness of this as a campaign tactic. Seems that it will just confuse everyone else too. I'm sure hoping that his ultra-rightwing fundamentalist base gets the most confused.
• His ultra-conservative base believes that the end justifies the means and that he can say anything to get elected. Then, with no re-election concerns to fetter him in the next 4 years, he can do anything his radical heart desires.
• A very eloquent defense against the idiocy of the entire gay marriage debate...
• Look. If you're interested in preserving marriage as a union between a man and a woman, there is one way to do so, without the courts making the decision. That's through the constitutional process and obviously I think that's the way to go, because I am concerned that courts are making this decision. This is too important a decision to have a handful of judges making, on behalf of the American people. He says that there's one way to preserve marriage, outside of courts, and it's through the "constitutional process." That vague buzz phrase sounds like the supreme court he talking about, but that would contradict the first part of the sentence. It would also contradict the end of the paragraph, where he says it to important to leave up to a handful of judges, i.e. the supreme court.
• In legal terms, a civil union is a binding of assests, a marriage of money, so to speak. It's also much easier to get out of, since your assets are clearly defined. What's more, a civil union doesn't allow some of the "perks" of marriage, such as being able to visit your life-partner in the hospital during "family-only" hours, etc. As far as I've heard, all Bush wants to do is "protect the santity of marriage," which means to keep marriage heterosexual. However, I think the real debate is whether this is the jurisdiction of the federal government or individual states.
• Mr. Knickerbocker: "constitutional process." He is referring to the constitutional ammendment process. such as being able to visit your life-partner in the hospital during "family-only" hours Let us not forget 'testifying against your spouse'. Rosie O'donnell found that out when her life partner was forced to testify against her.
• Why doesn't the Right just come out of the closet and say they hate fags? I mean, when you boil down the essence of this amendment, hatred of gay people is what motivates all of this. No one was calling for this amendment when non-Christian straights were getting married (and divorced). How about some honesty? I'd respect Right-leaning people a little more if they would just come clean and admit they hate gay people. Because they sure as hell aren't chastizing Britney Spears for all the marriage-breakup bullshit she's been pulling lately.
• Mr. Knickerbocker, the constitutional process doesn't use the court system at all. Instead, congress must vote on the constitutional amendment, and then each state (using varying methods, right? I think some state's legislatures vote, and other states use a referendum?) must ratify the amendment or not. A majority of states needs to ratify to make the amendment valid. (You may already know this... I just was not sure.)
• I can't see how anyone could possibly misunderestimate his views. It's right there in black and white: "I view the definition of marriage difference from legal arrangements that enable people to have rights. And I strongly believe that marriage ought to be defined as between, a union between a man and a woman," Bush said. "Now, having said that, states ought to be able to have the right to pass … laws that enable people to you know, be able to have rights, like others." I mean, what, you people can't read gibberish or something?
• Does anyone have a link to him definitely stating support for civil unions early in the campaign? I've tried and failed to come up with a quote. But my google-fu is weak.
• I agree with Alex Reynolds. That is why it is important for some public figure (in my fantasies, it would be John Kerry) to explain about rights conferred by the state to individuals and the importance of not conferring these rights equally to all people. No one on the left seems to be able to stand up and say that. Elect me. I'll say it.
• Him Bush, him say it allright so --- I'ma find myself one HAIRY ass to fuck! Tonites0r!!!!1! Outy!!!
• Well, if we're confused about his position, it doesn't bode well for the effectiveness of this as a campaign tactic. i think it's been quite effective. some socially progressive conservative commentators have jumped gleefully all over this. i think the confusion is part of the strategy
• I'm confused. For one thing, hasn't 'State's Rights' has been a Republican plank for years? Which was confounded by the use of the Supreme Court to undermine same during the election of 2000? And further undermined by the attempted use of a Constitutional amendment (which failed) to deny LGTB marriages. Also, Bush can say anything he wants right now - weekends are slow news days. I'd guess (and it's a guess) that his base aren't paying attention whatsoever, and he's throwing bones to those uneasy parts of the base that are paying attention. Those who really despise discrimination.
• Bush to Seek Gay-Marriage Ban in New Term