I support gay civil unions myself, and frankly don’t have any problem with the idea of gay marriage either. Thus, this post is apropos of nothing except that at our company picnic over the weekend, I overheard yet another comment to the effect that “Bush hates gays.”
Well, damn it, that just ain’t true. Think back to Bush’s appearance on Larry King Live, in the middle of the 2004 campaign:
KING: Many gays in the Democratic Party. Many gays in America. You want a constitutional amendment to protect heterosexual marriage?
G. BUSH: Yes, I do.
KING: Why? Why do you need an amendment?
G. BUSH: Well, because I’m worried that the laws on the books that basically define marriage as between a man — not basically, do define marriage between a man and a woman will be ruled unconstitutional, and then judges will make the decision as to the definition of marriage. And I think it’s too important an issue for judges to make that decision. And I think that one way to guarantee that traditional marriage is defined as between a man and a woman is through the constitutional process…
KING: What about the union of gays? G. BUSH: Well, that’s up to states, you know. If states choose to do that, in other words, if they want to provide legal protections for gays, that’s great. That’s fine. But I do not want to change the definition of marriage. I don’t think our country should, from the traditional definition of marriage that’s between a man or a woman.
The other thing about the constitutional process, it will get states involved. In other words, the people ought to be involved in this decision. And so that’s why I took the stand I took.
(Emphasis added.)
In other words, Bush was making the traditional Federalism argument — let the states do what they want as far as giving same-sex couples exactly the same legal protections as married couples. Just don’t call it marriage.
Perhaps other parts of the country just saw that as a throw-away comment, but I remember waiting with bated breath for the San Francisco papers to blare the next day “Bush Supports Gay Civil Unions – Just Don’t Call It Marriage” or some such thing. Nope, nothing to see here.
Anyway, in light of this seemingly underreported statement by the President, I find it odd that Bush, who essentially has taken a position that would have had gay-rights activists cheering not too many years ago, could be derided as “hating gays.”
Apparently the San Francisco newspapers are more discerning than you are. Bush did not support civil unions, he suggested that states could institute them. He’s on record as opposing them at the state level. Furthermore, he supported a constitutional amendment banning them and marriage. With support like that, who needs opposition?!?!?