Flip-Flop?

Same-Sex Marriage: Bush Says His Party Is Wrong to Oppose Gay Civil Unions

Forgive me if I'm a bit cynical about Bush's latest statement regarding gay rights, made during an interview with Charles Gibson for Good Morning America: "I don't think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that's what a state chooses to do so." This followed his statement that he supports an amendment banning gay marriage.

That an eloquent bit of dancing, Mr. President; you're doing John Kerry proud. But there's a problem: The amendment you're pushing is currently worded to BAN civil unions and domestic partnerships. So are amendments in eight states that voters will likely pass next week. So which one is it? Do you believe that gays deserve equality under the law or not?

I don't know what George W. Bush really believes on this issue, but I do know that, politically, he's trying to use it every which way to help him pull out a win in the election. He hopes that by saying he supports civil unions, and by acknowledging on camera that he's open to the possibility that sexuality may be determined by nature rather than choice, he can erase this issue from the minds of fair-minded women who might be tempted to vote for him for his "resolve" in fighting the war on terror.

I hope it comes back to bite him. Don't a lot of red-staters and red-leaning swing-staters watch GMA? Isn't it possible that they'll be horrified to learn that their golden boy, who they think was chosen by God to be in this place at this time, believes that gays and lesbians may also be a choice not of humans but of their Almighty?

I applaud the sentiment, Georgie: As others are pointing out, a year ago supporting civil unions was thought to be a radical position, and today saying you think they should be allowed is the default of candidates for national office; that's quite a change. But there's a difference between words and deeds. These words may make swing voting women tingle with the belief that Bush is a good, fair-minded man, but they don't change the facts on the ground for me. Bush didn't introduce civil union legislation, or recommend that the tax benefits of marriage be extended to gay couples. Instead, he pushed for a constitutional amendment that would ban both. He didn't urge states to pass legislation that would make my life better, the same legislation he says, today, that he supports; instead, his party operatives urged states to put amendments to the opposite effect on their fall ballots to boost turnout by his bigoted base and place a more difficult roadblock in the way of the very thing about which he says his party is wrong. If he's re-elected, Jupiter forbid, I hope this supposed change of heart is played out in the way he handles this issue for the next four years. But I also hope that the people he's trying to trick at this late date don't fall for it. The best way to get the kind of equality he says, today, he can accept, is to send George W. Bush packing.

[UPDATE: Rapid responses from a couple of groups, including Concerned Women for America--the group I protested just two weeks ago--indicate that I was right about the reaction of the Bush base. See this article, Bush Stance on Civil Unions Upsets Groups, for more. Expect Scott McClellan to clarify any minute now and explain that Bush didn't say he endorsed such "arrangements," only that he wouldn't deny states the right to allow them. Expect this to pacify no one. And know that those who find Bush's statement appalling have this to say: "Civil unions are a government endorsement of homosexuality," said Robert Knight, director of the Culture and Family Institute, an affiliate of Concerned Women For America. Horrors! And this: "Here's the truth, civil unions are homosexual marriage by another name," said Randy Thomasson, the group's executive director. "Civil unions rob marriage of its uniqueness and award homosexuals all the rights of marriage available under state law. Bush needs to understand what's going on and resist counterfeit marriages with all his might no matter what they're called," Thomasson said. I know I've been waiting for the day I could get married and rob other people of their uniqueness. Thomasson is exactly right, of course: Giving gays the same rights as straights would transform marriage from the equivalent of an all-white country club to an institution whose primary purpose is to make life better for citizens who choose to pledge themselves to another person for life. Wait, wasn't that the whole idea of civil marriage in the first place? And until it's realized, for everyone, the whole damned institution--sorry, friends and family--is just as counterfeit as Thomasson fears it will be the day I can enter it.]