President Bush Flip-flopping on Gay Rights Issue?

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:Unfortunately...

[rhakka]

Marriage as an institution has existed as a legally binding institution for thousands of years. For a very, very long time it was a transfer of ownership of a woman from father to the new husband.

Yet it's religious? Religions co-opted marriage. Marriage itself is neither inherently religious nor secular at this point. It has been one, the other or both for so long making such a statement is silly.

States' Rights

[Undefined Parameter]

"States' rights" used to be something of a codeword for "slavery," way back when; as in "it's a state's right to determine whether or not it will allow slavery." Granted, it was used to allude to other things, as well, but slavery was the main issue with which it was meant to be connotated.

No, I'm not intending to draw a direct line of connection, but I am pointing out the coincidence.

There's more I could say on this, but I'm tired, my mind is fuzzy, and my belly is full of pizza.

~UP

Sorry, wrong universe

[leonbrooks]

The Catholic church of the time was focussed around various forms of Mithraism and Zoroastrian-like groups, although it later absorbed the cult of Vesta (ever heard of Vestal Virgins?) and half a dozen others before conquering much of the Christian movement by a kind of internal takeover. The canon existed pretty much as the Protestants use it long before the Catholic Church officially endorsed it - and IRL their endorsement varied from accepted practice and was varied a couple of times.

The New Testament states flat-out that homosexuals (very carefully differentiates between butch and limp-wristed blokes too, and also lesbians, then groups them all together with thieves and liars and such) will not be found in heaven, so if you're a Christian and your "love" leads someone to miss their chance, were you really loving them, or were you just being weak at a different level? The Old Testament is even blunter, prescribing stoning to death for homosexuals.

Of course, if you hate homosexuals, you're also going to miss out. If you can put together a coherent world-view which incorporates both facts, then you're pretty much on the right track.

Re:How is this flip flopping?

[mopomi]

So, according to your definition, women past the age of about 50 http://www.mayoclinic.com/invoke.cfm?objectid=94F4 C769-0E44-4BA5-AF20E9E264577527 [mayoclinic.com] should not be allowed to marry? A man or woman who is sterile due to age or accident or choice should not be allowed to marry? These situations preclude procreation, and thus, according to the extreme views you espouse above would preclude any reason to marry, other than for some sort of monetary benefit (I guess).

So this seems reasonable to me, and doesn't strike me as flip flopping.

Except, of course, for the fact that in previous statements, Bush has stated that in order to "protect" (from what, exactly?) marriage, it must be defined as only between a man and a woman, and that same sex couples do not deserve the same rights as others in this country. However, I agree: it's not flip-flopping, it's just that he doesn't actually know what he's said (or believed) in the past.

It's remarkable that two (at least) of the last three republican presidents can't (couldn't) remember what they say or do from day to day. It's also remarkable that those two presidents had essentially the same staff.

Re:Unfortunately...

[CTachyon]

While we're at it, get rid of any inkling of monetary 'rewards' for unions (marriage), why should people who don't find "that special someone" not be rewarded.

Actually, author Jonathan Rauch [indegayforum.org] makes the case in his book that one of the principal reasons that we have marriage -- completely ignoring the "shouting points" of love, children, etc. -- is that a couple making a promise to take care of each other in hard times is a boon for society in general, since it means that support networks like extended family, charities, and welfare don't have to spend as much time and money taking care of that couple when something drastic happens. From this perspective, it makes perfect sense to give couples a slight tax break.

As a Licensed Minister, I agree

[Fished]

As a licensed (Baptist) minister, I agree. There is a huge difference between marriage as I believe God ordained it and the mockery of marriage we call civil marriage, even if you leave aside the gay marriage issue. In God's marriage, divorce is allowed only in the most dire circumstances, remarriage is never allowed, and the husband and wife "become one flesh." In civil marriage, the opposite obtains. It's time to stop equivocating on what marriage is and get the state out of the marriage business.

Re:Unfortunately...

[Danse]

And the reason for those laws (that discriminate against homosexual couples) is that homosexual couples will not breed. The system wants growth in the form of more consumers, and babies are consumers.

Then they should just give incentives for having kids instead of for marriage. Why give benefits to useless infertile people? Or people that just don't want kids?

Err...

[BrokenHalo]

Pursuing this line just a little further:

I am somewhat curious as to why this is a topic for Slashdot.

I personally don't give a damn what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms, since it is none of my business, but it is slightly suggestive given the byline "News for nerds".

:-D

Re:Unfortunately...

[geminidomino]

I am sorry, but I think you are totally off the mark here. The only reason for marriage is so that the human race can continue.

I call BS. As far too many paternity suits show, marriage is utterly IRRELEVANT to procreation.