'Civil Unions' Should Be an Issue for States, Bush Says

by Jody Brown
October 27, 2004

(AgapePress) - The president's recent remarks favoring "civil unions" -- which some conservatives say is just another name for homosexual "marriage" -- have worried some conservatives. But representatives from the other side of the political spectrum see the comments merely as a political ploy to attract voters on the eve of the election.

In an interview aired by ABC on October 26, President Bush dropped a bit of a shocker on conservatives when he told Charles Gibson on "Good Morning America" that while he remains opposed to homosexual marriage and supports a constitutional amendment that would prevent courts from imposing same-sex marriage on unwilling electorates, he is not so strongly opposed to civil unions.

"I don't think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that's what a state chooses to do," the president stated. "[S]tates ought to be able to have the right to pass ... laws that enable people to, you know, be able to have rights, like others."

As noted by UPI, that is in sharp disagreement with the Republican Party platform. In fact, ABC's Gibson followed up with: "So the Republican platform on that point, as far as you're concerned, is wrong?" To which Bush replied: "Right."

As expected, some pro-family leaders are obviously irritated at the president's apparent change of direction. Bob Knight of the Culture and Family Institute says Bush "seems to be striving for neutrality while defending marriage itself."

"Civil unions are a government endorsement of homosexuality," Knight says. "But I don't think President Bush has thought about it in that way."

And Randy Thomasson of the Campaign for California Families -- who has described civil unions as "homosexual marriage by another name" -- says the president needs to "understand what's going on and resist counterfeit marriage with all his might, no matter what they're called."

But one proponent of the federal marriage amendment is taking the comments in stride. Matt Daniels of the Alliance for Marriage, which drafted the proposed constitutional amendment, says his group supports President Bush's tolerance for civil unions. "The courts are forcing the issue -- and protecting marriage while leaving state legislatures in charge of benefits questions, including civil unions, is the best and the fairest solution," Daniels tells Associated Press. "It's a solution that we can live with as a country."

Daniels says his group's amendment protects the people of the states from having civil unions forced on them by courts. "In other words, if it's a democratic decision -- done democratically through the state legislature -- it would be allowed under our amendment," he says, "and that's the position supported by the president."

According to a pro-homosexual news website, the Democratic National Committee and the homosexual lobby group Human Rights Campaign see the comments as a political ploy.

DNC spokesman Brian Richardson tells 365Gay.com that Bush has "discriminated [against] the GBLT [gay, bisexual, lesbian, trans-gender] community on every possible occasion" during his White House tenure, but that the American people will not be drawn into what he describes as "an attempt to grab voters."

HRC president Cheryl Jacques calls it an "election eve conversion" that will have no effect. "After years of promoting discrimination, President Bush's attempt to reinvent himself a week before election day will not persuade voters," she says.