?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous | Next

Flip-floppin' Bush!


Bush flip-flops on civil unions issue.

Once again the very weird "civil unions - which are exactly the same as marriage - are ok, as long as you don't actually call it a marriage." So does that mean he'd be willing to pass a constitutional amendment worded such that it doesn't affect civil unions and/or state laws per se, but would just prevent anyone from calling it "marriage?"

Our president confuses me. Then again, Cheney flip-flopped on this as well. At least they're in essence bucking the party platform, although it's interesting that Bush does it 5 days before the election (to prevent a lot of publicity that might hurt his voter base, perhaps?).

Comments

( 12 comments — Comment )
sacredessence
Oct. 29th, 2004 11:26 am (UTC)
lots of taboo on that topic if you're a candidate. Seems they are ALL afraid to do the right thing! wussies. Neither candidate would get my vote if the only issue was marriage. Notice I don't call it "Gay Marriage" since I think no matter who you are it is simple an all equal "marriage".
esprix
Oct. 29th, 2004 11:39 am (UTC)
Yay for you! :D
pansyfilmmaker
Oct. 29th, 2004 12:58 pm (UTC)
hmmm...if its publicized...then it will hurt his base.
esprix
Oct. 29th, 2004 12:59 pm (UTC)
But doing it so close to election day means it has less time to be publicied, and so late in the campaign it's likely not to affect the people who've already decided to vote for him at this point.
pinoyboytoy
Oct. 29th, 2004 03:46 pm (UTC)
He said in a interview that his stand on the marriage isn't the same as his party/platform. To bad he has no say in whatever his party's issues are.
esprix
Oct. 29th, 2004 08:22 pm (UTC)
Yeah, you know, he's just the president and all.
darrelx
Oct. 29th, 2004 05:30 pm (UTC)
Marriage is not a candidate-deciding issue for the presidential election. Both candidates have stated just about the exact same thing on their speeches, platforms, and yes, even in the debates.

Bush said almost the same thing that you are referring to above in the 3rd debate. He's not flip-flopping. Kerry's followup on the same question also said nearly the same thing.
esprix
Oct. 29th, 2004 08:21 pm (UTC)
He's flip-flopping in the sense that up until this statement he has said that a constitutional amendment is the only way to "protect the institution of marriage." Now he's saying it's up to the states, which is contrary to what he's said before. Cheney said the same thing. Kerry, on the other hand, has said all along that it was a states' right issue, and that he opposed any kind of constitutional amendment. (Not that I think any amendment has a chance of passing, but it's the principle of the thing.)

And yes, marriage is a candidate-deciding issue for some people who are directly affected by it.
darrelx
Oct. 30th, 2004 11:12 am (UTC)
He's flip-flopping in the sense that up until this statement he has said that a constitutional amendment is the only way to "protect the institution of marriage."

Actually, the consitutional ammendment was an attempt to cut off the COURTS from deciding an issue that belongs with the people.

As for Kerry's position on the constitutional ammendment, I haven't been able to find it officially stated anywhere. He and Edwards were the ONLY two senators who were not present for the vote when it failed to pass, so we may never know how they might have voted.

That said, if you can find an official position from Kerry on the constitutional ammendment, then I'll change my opinion that there might be a difference between the candidates on this issue. Until then, I don't see anything separating them.

The two Parties definitely have different views on this issue, I grant you that... but the candidates themselves, not so much.
esprix
Oct. 30th, 2004 03:03 pm (UTC)
First, a constitutional amendment that discriminates against an entire class of the American public does not belong in the constitution. Second, if marriage was an issue to be decided by the people then mixed-race marriages would still be illegal; the courts are there to protect the rights of Americans when other Americans would deny them those rights. All this nonsense about "activist judges" is ridiculous considering this system has been in place since about the time the country was founded (and I'm sure they said the same thing when segregation was outlawed, too).

From Kerry's website:

"John Kerry believes that same-sex couples should be granted rights, including access to pensions, health insurance, family medical leave, bereavement leave, hospital visitation, survivor benefits, and other basic legal protections that all families and children need. He has supported legislation to provide domestic partners of federal employees the benefits available to spouses of federal employees. He was one of 14 Senators -- and the only one up for reelection in 1996 -- to oppose the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)."

In the third debate Kerry said he opposes same-sex marriage but does not support changing the Constitution.

So yes, there are differences between the campaigns, except with Bush's latest statement he's actually made them more similar (i.e., it should be up to the states to decide), but unfortunately the Republican party platform hasn't change just because Bush (and Cheney, for that matter) now says he disagrees with it.
jayjaybear
Oct. 30th, 2004 03:51 pm (UTC)
And, frankly, I don't trust a word out of Bush's mouth, so I'm thinking this is just a last-ditch attempt to draw back the moderate Republicans who are refusing to vote for him because of this and similar issues where he's on record as following the wingnut branch of the party. Too little, too late for me.

I can't wait to fire his ass on Tuesday.
downeastmike
Oct. 31st, 2004 06:12 am (UTC)
I think what it means is that he wants the gay voters who have otherwise been alienated to think he may be an ok guy.
( 12 comments — Comment )

Latest Month

August 2019
S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lilia Ahner