I bring this up because of recent family discussions on the issue of gay unions. Disagreements would be a better word. So in the interest of perspective:
Back on February 24, 2004 the President said this:
Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all. Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife. The amendment should fully protect marriage, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage.
America is a free society, which limits the role of government in the lives of our citizens. This commitment of freedom, however, does not require the redefinition of one of our most basic social institutions. Our government should respect every person, and protect the institution of marriage. There is no contradiction between these responsibilities. We should also conduct this difficult debate in a manner worthy of our country, without bitterness or anger.
In the October 26, 2004 365Gay.com, Washington Bureau Chief Paul Johnson wrote:
(Washington) President George W. Bush has softened his approach to same-sex unions as he makes his final bid to reach out to moderate voters in the final days of the campaign.
Tuesday morning Bush told ABC's Charles Gibson that he would support civil unions but remains opposed to gay marriage.
I disagree with Mr Johnson. I don't believe this represents a softening of approach. I've thought from the outset, that Bush favored civil unions, and I got that from the comment he made in February about leaving the states free to define legal arrangements other than marriage. He's been pretty clear about wanting to prevent activist judges from legislating the issue from the bench.
So now that the election is over, and Bush has said out loud that he favors civil unions, will there be a rush to pass this amendment? And if there is, what happens if and when it passes and goes on to the states? I've pondered these questions in an earlier post, and I suggested then that we contain our hysteria on the issue.
At a web site called BeliefNet I found these interesting exit poll numbers.
Which Comes Closest to Your View of Gay and Lesbian Couples? | Kerry | Bush | Nader | |
They should be allowed to legally marry Percentage of Electorate: 25 |
77% | 22% | 1% | |
There should be no legal recognition of their relationships Percentage of Electorate: 37 |
29% | 70% | 0% | |
They should be allowed to legally form civil unions, but not marry Percentage of Electorate: 35 |
47% | 52% | 0% |
According to these numbers 60% of voters favored either gay marriage or civil unions. Of those who favor gay marriage nearly a quarter voted for Bush, which indicates that it was not a hot button issue for them in this election. Of those who favor civil unions more than half voted for Bush.
Here are some more interesting numbers to put some perspective on the Federal Marriage Amendment debate. According to CNN, 23% of gay or lesbian voters felt that the President's position on gay marriage was either not a threat to gay rights, or not enough of a threat that they could actually bring themselves to vote for John Kerry.
ARE YOU GAY, LESBIAN OR BISEXUAL? |
|
![]() |
KERRY | ![]() |
NADER | |||
TOTAL |
2004 |
2000 |
2004 |
2004 | ||||
![]() | ||||||||
Yes (4%) |
23% | -2 |
77% | 0% | ||||
![]() | ||||||||
No (96%) |
53% | +3 |
46% | 0% | ||||
![]() |
While these numbers may not say much about the 2004 presidential election, the fact that 60% of voters favor either gay marriage or civil unions, says a to me that a constitutional amendment won't have an easy time of it when it comes to ratification by the states. And further, if a constitutional amendment somehow or other manages to pass, it's probable that there will be a rush to pass legislation creating civil unions in many states. My bet - the amendment won't make ratification.
Hi Tom,
Happy Thanksgiving! I should first say that I find your website very interesting. It's extremely refreshing to see a right-leaning political view expressed in such an articulate way that I am compelled to consider it.
Often when the "under-dog," fights for certain rights much time is spent debating the value of terminology. I've heard the argument more times than I can count that the issue should be about rights and not what those rights are called. Civil Unions or marriage, who cares as long as equal rights are granted? On a personal level and a political one, I care. We have seen that historically separate rights, no matter how similar, are not equal rights. There is no better example of this than the Jim Crow laws that were ruled discrimintory 50 years ago. I see the concept of giving gay people the rights of marriage while protecting the sanctity of the word marriage the same as making sure that blacks don't put their lips on a "white-only" water fountain.
In the gay rights movement, like so many other minority movements, there is difficulty presenting a united front. We all want essentially the same thing, but some of us are willing to concede here and there to get our rights faster. I think there is a generational difference in this respect. Most of the gay people that I know who don't care about terminology are middle aged or older. They have been waiting their whole lives to have any recognition of their unions and so they will take what they can get. I see things differently. I was born into a different world and I have time make sure that world lives up to its potential. There will always be those within the gay community that will stifle the movement. The existence of Log cabin republicans has been used for years to quiet us. I don't argue that there were gays who voted for Bush. I would venture to guess that those gays were most likely middle-aged or older, and I don't doubt they were wealthy. I can't speak for all gay people or explain why some gay people voted in a way that limits their rights. No matter how others voted, the rest of us, the majority in fact, have a right to be heard.
My understanding is that you support equal rights for gay unions but think that time and energy is being wasted debating terminology. I understand your point and I hope you understand mine. My knickers are in a bunch over this one. I want to ride the bus but I don't want to have to sit in the back.
Thanks for hearing me out. I'm glad I found your website and I'll be sure to check back from time to time.
Enjoy the holiday,
Yamara
P.S. I found an article written by a young republican that you might find interesting:
http://www.yaledailynews.com/articlefunctions/Printerfriendly.asp?AID=25633
Posted by: Yamara | November 24, 2004 at 12:04 PM
Yamara please read this article by John Corvino Ph D.
"Those who dismiss civil-union advocates as “Uncle Toms” — sellouts in the cause to win marriage rights and full equality for gay Americans — aren't rejecting the case for civil unions. They're not even bothering to understand it."
http://www.indegayforum.org/authors/corvino/corvino13.html
Posted by: Erik | February 28, 2005 at 08:19 PM
Gay rights group changes mind, supports civil unions
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/connecticut/ny-bc-ct--same-sexmarriage0301feb28,0,6360529.story?coll=ny-region-apconnecticut
Change will happen, it will just take time.
Posted by: Erik | March 01, 2005 at 08:54 AM
CT votes for Civil Unions providing equal rights to all couples!
Posted by: Erik | April 08, 2005 at 04:13 PM