Bush Supports Civil Unions

[Shrike]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/26/politics/campaign/26gay.html

and its even from the hated old york times.

[akip]

according to the new republic, bush doesn't go to church either.

[Digit1001]

He's such a flip flopper, unless that article is just another one of them thar exzaageerashuns.

[dcXhc]

Originally posted by Digit1001
He's such a flip flopper

How so?

[hoh]

im still trying to figure out what exactly the difference between marriage and civil union is. marriage is one word? marriage is a church thing? thats all i can come up with.

[onest2.0]

marriages are recognized nation-wide, civil unions are not.

[Johnnylama]

Bush spent years kissing up to the Fundamentalists. Now he needs more moderates to vote for him (esp. young people, who as a whole don't have a problem w/ gays), so he's separating himself from the Fundamentalists a bit, who are going to vote for him no matter what. Why would this float now? When has he ever shown support for the gay community in any way? It's all politics.

[Johnnylama]

Originally posted by hoh
im still trying to figure out what exactly the difference between marriage and civil union is. marriage is one word? marriage is a church thing? thats all i can come up with.

Mainly nomenclature. There really isn't a "civil union" until a state defines one legally (as far as I understand it). The idea is to give gays a joined status w/o using the word "married," which is basically a religious word. I say just call all "legal" marriages "civil unions," then let people get "married" in a church if they want. Whatever. Just give people health insurance for God's sake and stop arguing.

[hoh]

Originally posted by Johnnylama


Mainly nomenclature. There really isn't a "civil union" until a state defines one legally (as far as I understand it). The idea is to give gays a joined status w/o using the word "married," which is basically a religious word. I say just call all "legal" marriages "civil unions," then let people get "married" in a church if they want. Whatever. Just give people health insurance for God's sake and stop arguing.

Originally posted by onest2.0
marriages are recognized nation-wide, civil unions are not.

so basically, their nearly identical. thanks, i was just making sure

[akip]

Originally posted by Johnnylama


Mainly nomenclature. There really isn't a "civil union" until a state defines one legally (as far as I understand it). The idea is to give gays a joined status w/o using the word "married," which is basically a religious word. I say just call all "legal" marriages "civil unions," then let people get "married" in a church if they want. Whatever. Just give people health insurance for God's sake and stop arguing.

this is basically the argument i had with my sister-in-law a couple weeks ago. my point was let the churches decide what qualifies as marriage in the religious sense, but let gays have basic legal rights in a committed relationship.

she argued that tradition is what prevents a society from sliding into decadence and tradition has always defined marriage as between a man and a woman.

i said monogamy is what constitutes responsibility and morality, not heterosexuality.

we will never see eye to eye on this.

[DaysWithoutEnd]

Originally posted by hoh
im still trying to figure out what exactly the difference between marriage and civil union is. marriage is one word? marriage is a church thing? thats all i can come up with.

Civil unions only give you the rights that your state allows. A marriage gives you many, many federal rights, including those above and beyond rights that can be assigned through legal proceedings, such as a living will.

Many federal benefits of marriage would not apply to a civil union, as it exists today.

Ps. Vote NO for Issue 1 in Ohio.

[Johnnylama]

Originally posted by akip


she argued that tradition is what prevents a society from sliding into decadence and tradition has always defined marriage as between a man and a woman.

i said monogamy is what constitutes responsibility and morality, not heterosexuality.

we will never see eye to eye on this.

That hits the nail on the head!!!: tradition vs. reason! Slavery was tradition, segragation was tradition, a lot of bad things were tradition! I'm not saying that all tradition is wrong, but when something that restricts the freedom of another is only based on tradition, I say throw it away. I'd be interested to hear her definition of "decadence." Interracial marriages have been called that too.

The ironic part is that this country was based on rationalist principles, which clearly advocate reason over tradition, yet many people cling to this mythic picture of "traditional American values," namely their own tradition. The greatest American value is to think it though and do what makes the most sense.

[Johnnylama]

Originally posted by DaysWithoutEnd


Ps. Vote NO for Issue 1 in Ohio.

With you 100%!!! Even Taft doesn't want it to pass. I've never heard any numbers: anyone know how likely it is to pass?

[Shrike]

I've seen some polls that its pretty likely to pass. I'm going to just not vote on that issue. Like I do with Judges that run against no one.