Hey fundies, Bush says homosexuals should have legal benefits of marriage

[troublemaker]

The most valuable story in this closing week is something we're temperamentally disinclined (and poorly positioned) to publicize. But it's a killer.

In a surprise move President Bush has indicated (on TV, which is what matters) that he supports homosexual unions and thinks it's fine for gay and lesbian couples be legally recognized by the government:

In an interview on Sunday with Charles Gibson, an anchor of "Good Morning America" on ABC, Mr. Bush said, "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."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/26/politics/campaign/26gay.html?ex=1099454400&en=dafebd106eaa4161&ei=5006&partner=ALTAVISTA1

Bush's stupid waffling helps a tiny bit with suburban moms who probably make up a lot of Good Morning America's audience, but Bush is hoping the story stays there, rather than spreading. If everyone in Bush's base knew this he would be unable to poll above 40%. (on edit:) Bush has taken this position before when convenient, but not lately or on TV. His strategy is hoping his base has forgotten his civil union position. And they have. Bush's base is convinced he opposes all legal recognition of homosexual relationships, so to that base this is politically equivalent to Kerry saying something like, "The Klu Klux Klan has bad elements, but they've also accomplished a lot of good."

So hold your nose and promote this story among RW types (but not among suburban women). Bush and Kerry now have exactly the same position on civil unions. It's the ultimate desperate flip-flop.

As with everything, FRAMING THE ARGUMENT is key. Bush is approving of legal recognition of homosexual couples equivalent to the legal recognition of married couples.

[jhain]

1. hold your nose!

thanks for that ! heeeee heeeee heeeeeeeeeeee

fowarding away..........

[jhain]

2. CNN carry it?

They are all over the fake stuff from NBC

[troublemaker]

4. The MSM will make their own decisions, but RW and Christian internet

sites (and mailing lists) should be innundated with reminders.

This isn't nessecarily a bad story for Bush in the mainstream, but anyone who feels like being banned from some RW sites ought to disseminate it, and progressive bloggers shouldn't be afraid of it as an hypocrisy story.

[HFishbine]

3. Bush and Kerry -- not exaclty "the same positions."

For our own edification, Bush still supports a consitutional amendment defining marriage as only between a man and a woman. Kerry does not support such an amendment. Your point is well-taken, there's fodder there, but Bush and Kerry are not identical on this issue.

[troublemaker]

5. identical on CIVIL UNIONS

Both have now said they do not object to civil unions if that's what a state wants to do. If I've mis-stated Kerry's position then I'm wrong, but I think that's correct.

Of course Bush also supports a constitutional amendment against gay "MARRIAGE" with language that would also ban civil unions, so that means Bush is a hypocrite and a liar. But his GMA statement was an intentional copy of what Kerry says on the topic. Bush was trying to have it both ways, and that's what can't be permitted.

[HFishbine]

9. You're right

I didn't quite catch where you were drawing the comparison. You are correct.

[unfrigginreal]

6. The headline in the NY Times is priceless

I wish a thread with that headline could stay open in LBN because it's much more useful to us than 'Bush On Homosexuality And Same Sex Marriage'.

[m_welby]

7. FLIP-FLOPPER !!

Thats how this should be pushed. The whole 'he'll say anything to get elected', etc etc etc

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

13. It one of those "mexed missages" that Bush talked about in the debate...

How can a good Christian like GWB support government handouts for sodomites?! Let's go out and leaflet the parking lots of every Baptist and Pentacostal church in America this Sunday. And let's all do it in drag...

[TexasSissy]

8. This has been *'s position all along. No change. He and Kerry

agree on this.

The difference between the two is that * thinks that marriage ought to be protected on a national level, while Kerry thinks the states ought to take care of that issue for themselves.

But * has commented several times before that he supports civil unions. Old news.

Kerry & Bush know what they're doing...most people in America are against gay marriage but approve of some sort of civil union or guarantee of legal rights for gay couples.

[troublemaker]

10. Bush supports an amendment that bans civil unions while saying he doesn't

oppose civil unions. (The House ammendment does indeed outlaw civil unions)

It is thus meaningless to talk about what his position has been "all along." His position today is that govt recognition of defacto homosexual marriages is cool with him. And he should be tied to his own position.

[TexasSissy]

15. Well, the proposed amendment could be construed to ban civil unions,

but it did not outright say that. Which is my understanding why it didn't pass.

But yes, * did support that amendment, as I recall. You're right about that.

[Q3JR4]

11. Here's my take on all of this.

Like most political policies we cannot listen to what the politicians say. We can only look at how they've voted on and/or pushed/thought about specific issues.

* started with the whole "homosexuals are destorying this country" thing and is responsible for the big push for a constitutional amendment. Kerry, on the other hand, voted against the Marriage Protection Act. That says it all to me, right there.

[troublemaker]

12. This isn't about whether Bush *actually* supports gay rights

which he doesn't.

This is about how his base perceives his devotion to the cause. If the 700 Club started playing that GMA clip it would be curtains for Bush

[hangemhigh]

14. Do you mean...

that he was AGAINST it before he was FOR IT? There's a good ad.