President Bush Flip-flopping on Gay Rights Issue? 304
An anonymous reader writes "In a move that has upset some in the GOP, George Bush has suddenly declared his support for civil unions for gay ane lesbian couples. Will such a move help or hurt him this late in the game?"
Re:Perhaps not a flip-flop at all? (Score:2, Informative)
"Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."
Bush is being inconsistent by supporting the amendment while claiming that he is for civil unions.
Re:Unfortunately... (Score:2, Informative)
They'll take anyone ^_^
Non-story (Score:2, Informative)
Most Southern Evangelicals, whom Bush was trying to win over with this whole anti-gay-marriage Amendment idea, feel exactly the same way.
You see, a "flip-flop" is when your position changes. Bush's position has always been:
Gay Marriage: A threat to mom and apple pie. Boo! Boo! You queers are trying to ruin our religious institutions and drag us all to Hell!!!
Civil Unions: States can recognize anything they want along these lines. Live and let live. La-di-da.
Is it a game of semantics? Yes.
Is it a change of position? No.
Re:Perhaps not a flip-flop at all? (Score:3, Informative)
That is completely untrue. Go ahead and search the Constitution [usconstitution.net] for "marriage", "marry", or even just "marr". It's not in there.
Maybe you meant "dictionary" instead of "constitution"? But that doesn't have much legal weight, because laws often use definitions of words different from what they really mean.
Re:Perhaps not a flip-flop at all? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Perhaps not a flip-flop at all? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Perhaps not a flip-flop at all? (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, if the FMA were passed, it would outlaw the recognition of civil unions as well. The phrase "legal incidents thereof" is referring to the benefits that come as part of the marriage package (e.g. joint tax filing, power of attorney, hospital visitation rights, child custody rights, etc.). This means that, while a state could legalize civil unions (or even marriage), neither other states nor the federal government would have to recognize the rights that the state bestowed on the couple. (Which means you'll get crap like the recent Vermont/Virginia custody battle fiasco [queerday.com], except that then it'll be enshrined into the constitution and thus that much harder to mop up the mess.)
Re:Perhaps not a flip-flop at all? (Score:3, Informative)
There is no ban on stem cell research. It is just not federally funded any more. You may be of the opinion that the government should fund it, but that is a different issue.
There is no ban.
Re:Non-story (Score:2, Informative)
The Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) prohibits states from using the word marriage for anything other than the union of a man and a woman. However, the FMA clearly and deliberately allows states to define civil unions in any manner they choose. If states want to give civil unions to homosexual couples the FMA permits them to do so. If Bush supports the FMA (and he has) then he supports the states' right to define civil unions however they choose. So his recent statements are not, in fact, a change. There is no flip-flop.
As an aside, are you aware of the difference between Bush and Cheney (yes, Vice-President Cheney disagrees with the President on this question) on the question of gay marriage? Both support a state's right to define civil unions, but Bush wants to reserve the word marriage for heterosexual relationships, while Cheney wants to leave that decision up to the state. That's why Bush supports the FMA and Cheney does not. The difference between Bush and Cheney on this issue is entirely about the use of the word marriage. Neither of them have a problem with giving some measure of legal recognition and protection to homosexual couples.
Re:Perhaps not a flip-flop at all? (Score:2, Informative)
It's not only just not funded - you are forbidden from sharing lab space, equipment, supplies, chemicqals, personnel (I believe) with research that is federally funded. If you currently receive federal funds, you essentially have to set up a whole new research lab to do anything with embyonic stem cells. This is a major undertaking, for even the most independently funded laboratories, because almost every scientist in the US gets some sort of federal funding. It's not specifically a ban on this research, but it might as well be.