Jackson Free Press

Washington Times reports:
"Now, having said that, states ought to be able to have the right to pass laws that enable people to be able to have rights like others," Bush told ABC's Charlie Gibson in an interview broadcast Tuesday on "Good Morning America."

"So the Republican platform on that point, as far as you're concerned, is wrong?" Gibson asked the president, to which Bush replied: "Right."

MSNBC reports:
Some conservative groups expressed dismay Tuesday over President Bush's tolerance of state-sanctioned civil unions between gay people — laws that would grant same-sex partners most or all the rights available to married couples.
...
"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. "But I don't think President Bush has thought about it in that way. He seems to be striving for neutrality while defending marriage itself."

Previous Comments

ID

137239

Comment

I'm curious how this will hurt or help him. On one hand, some of gay republicans may swing votes to him... But, could this damage Bush's hold on the Religious Right? I guess only time will tell. I am amused that he did go against the GOP platform. Does this qualify as an act of rebellion and/or an act of flip-flopping?

Author

kaust

Date

2004-10-26T14:10:05-06:00

ID

137240

Comment

Knol, Hopefully, people in all realms will see this as just another one of W's lies... this time for no other purpose than to gain votes.

Author

Jen

Date

2004-10-26T14:15:55-06:00

ID

137241

Comment

Well, it would seem that under either of the candidates, legal, homosexual unions are not far away... Will they be both State and Federal is the next logical question. State rights are great but the benefits of federal rights are what most are seeking (social security and tax breaks, specifically).

Author

kaust

Date

2004-10-26T14:19:54-06:00

ID

137242

Comment

Exactly, Knol. And when will people (voters, candidates, legislators, etc.) understand the fact that churches can and will decide who they are going to marry within their own walls? The government protects their right to do this--as well as it protects our right not to be told what to do (or not to do) BY the churces. Freedom of and freedom from. No one pushing for "gay marraige" is trying to legislate what churches do. Civil "union" and civil "marriage" are one in the same thing. If I choose to "marry" a same sex partner, would it not (yes) be the same thing as a heterosexual couple choosing to "unionize" (marry) at the Justice of the Peace or in front of a Judge instead of "marrying" inside the walls of a church or religious building?

Author

Jen

Date

2004-10-26T14:39:21-06:00

ID

137243

Comment

y'all, have you seen this? excuse me if I am behind in reading here. but to me the below look dangerously not like clarification, but instruction. and did Bush really say that? and does he even know what he is saying half the time? or the other half for that matter.. the bulge made him say it. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: October 26, 2004 CONTACT: David Blount, 601-359-6342 Clark Clarifies Gay Marriage Amendment Secretary of State Eric Clark today issued a statement to answer questions regarding the proposed constitutional amendment on gay marriage that voters will decide on election day. "We've received many questions from ministers, election officials, and other citizens who are confused and want to make certain that they vote in a way that reflects their beliefs," Clark said. "I know most Mississippians believe, as I do, in the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman. To outlaw gay marriage in our state Constitution, a voter needs to mark 'YES' on November 2." House Concurrent Resolution 56, passed by the Legislature in the 2004 Regular Session, asks this question: "This proposed constitutional amendment provides that marriage may take place and may be valid under the laws of this state only between a man and a woman. The amendment also provides that a marriage in another state or foreign jurisdiction between persons of the same gender may not be recognized in this state and is void and unenforceable under the laws of this state." Voters may mark either 'YES' or 'NO'. A 'YES' vote is in favor of prohibiting gay marriage. A 'NO' vote is opposed to prohibiting gay marriage in Mississippi. The measure requires a simple majority of those voting on the question to pass and be added to the Mississippi Constitution, Clark said. ####

Author

sunshine

Date

2004-10-26T19:38:16-06:00

ID

137244

Comment

No, sunshine, I had not seen that. Where was it? Paper? Do you have a link? And, yes, Bush did say that. Sometimes I don't know if he knows where he is, much less what he is saying/has said.

Author

Jen

Date

2004-10-28T13:01:10-06:00

ID

137245

Comment

Sorry I didn't get back to you on this, Jen. I received it from someone who works at the VPost and must have gotten it through a new service. Heard Clark's comments again on MPB this morning, telling folks how to interpret the amendment language. Let's hope lots of people think No means no gay marrriage and vote that way, ha!

Author

sunshine

Date

2004-11-01T08:46:07-06:00

ID

137246

Comment

Exactly... yeah, I heard his mess on the news later that evening. Also, our Governor doing the same thing... except he outright said please vote Yes, if I recall correctly.

Author

Jen

Date

2004-11-01T08:57:42-06:00