ArchivedBush supports bid to block marriage of same-sex coupleshttp://www.etaiwannews.com/World/2003/0 ... 703386.htm
Bush supports bid to block marriage of same-sex couples
Gays should be treated respectfully, he adds
2003-08-01 / New York Times /
President Bush said yesterday that while he believed Americans should treat gays in a welcoming and respectful manner, he remained firmly opposed to gay marriages and that administration lawyers were working to ensure that the term "marriage" would cover only unions between men and women.
At a Rose Garden news conference today, Bush used a general question from a reporter about his views on homosexuality to plunge into the hotly debated issue of gay marriage and offer reassuring words to many supporters. His response contained his trademark political mix of an expression of tolerance accompanied by a firm conservative position on the actual policy.
"I am mindful that we're all sinners," the president said, and borrowing from Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, added:
"And I caution those who may try to take the speck out of their neighbor's eye when they got a log in their own. I think it's very important for our society to respect each individual, to welcome those with good hearts, to be a welcoming country."
Bush then added: "On the other hand, that does not mean that somebody like me needs to compromise on issues such as marriage. And that's really where the issue is headed here in Washington, and that is the definition of marriage. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and I believe we ought to codify that one way or the other and we have lawyers looking at the best way to do that."
Bush's comments about codifying a way to prohibit same-sex marriages suggested to some lawyers that he was becoming more open to the idea of a constitutional amendment to ban them.
His remarks also come as many social conservatives, an important element of his political base, are seething over a 6-to-3 ruling in June by the Supreme Court in which the court offered a sweeping definition of personal liberty to strike down a Texas law outlawing private gay activity. Some Senate Republicans have said there might be a need for a constitutional amendment to prohibit same-sex marriages, if more states sanctioned them and courts required other states to recognize them.
At the same time Bush left little doubt as to his views about gay marriage, Democratic presidential candidates who have been confronted with questions about their views on the issue have often given ambiguous and calibrated answers.
Professor William Eskridge Junior of the Yale Law School and an authority on the law and history of gay marriage, described Bush's comments as a contemporary and more politically palatable approach to homosexuality by its opponents.
"It's moving away from outright persecution or criminalization of gay people and their conduct to a more tolerant, but not gay friendly, public policy," he said. "It's not even gay neutral because the state is allying itself on the side of people who believe all sexual relations should be heterosexual relations."
Eskridge said that "much of this is symbolic politics, and it appears Bush is trying to situate himself as tolerant, which he defines as not persecuting people, but not anything more."
In other words, go Bush!
I'm definitely going to vote for him. (Keep in mind that when the last election took place, I wasn't a registered voter.)
| View dfilename Return Home |