How can this be Bush?

From Andrew Sullivan, as originally reported by somebody else:

quote:

---

Louise Casselman, who was at that White House Yale reunion with her husband, Kirk Casselman and a Bay Area contingent, says that although Yale was still all-male in 1968, one alum has since had a sex-change operation. "You might remember me as Peter when we left Yale," said the woman upon coming face to face with the president. George W. didn't pause for a moment, reports Casselman, grabbed the alumna's hand, and said "Now you've come back as yourself." Casselman says the host was generous and open.

---

I think that's an amazing thing to say. My reaction to reading that was quite profound.But how can it be Bush that said that? The guy who nearly choked to death on a pretzel? The guy who complained that too many OBGYN's are unable to practice "their love of women?"I guess I can't actually verify the quote, and a lot of people on both sides don't believe he could actually say that. It is hard to imagine someone who could extend such a gesture of tolerance to a marginalized person and then turn around and support the Federal Marriage Amendment. It's hard to imagine someone with such a profound difficulty with extemporaneous speaking - or speaking of any kind, really - suddenly offering such a marvelous turn of phrase.

I've always bought the idea that Bush doesn't really like supporting the marriage amendment. He personally has no problem with gays and doesn't feel threatened by them, according to the theory. I think it's probably true. By all accounts his relationship with his wife is profoundly healthy. And that's exactly why I believe this woman's account. If Bush's sexuality was being repressed he's be much more rabid in his condemnations of gay marriage.But to my mind that makes him all the more reprehensible. He's the sort of man who puts political expediency above doing the right thing, all the while talking about moral absolutes.He's a petty, petty little man who bears no resemblance to a real leader.

They say Bush is quite good in smaller settings. It may be he just freezes up in front of the camera and has a phobia there.On the gay marriage thing, I am sure there is a political component on both sides of the issue, but believing marriage should be between a man and a woman is not necessarily mean you are anti-gay. That may seem like the logical conclusion, but Bush could be pro-gay if someone is a homosexual but favor something like civil unions or simply favor not changing around the definition of marriage.

randman writes:

quote:

---

...believing marriage should be between a man and a woman is not necessarily mean you are anti-gay.

---

Yes it does. It means that you think people should be treated differently based on their sexual orientation. Whether, in his heart, Bush wants to treat gays differently isn't really important. He's chosen sides and I absolutely regard him as anti-gay.

quote:

---

...Bush could be pro-gay if someone is a homosexual but favor something like civil unions or simply favor not changing around the definition of marriage.

---

Under what clause of the constitution is it the government's responsibility to define words? I thought that was Merriam-Webster's job. And it would appear that they've already taken care of it, listing as one of the primary definitions of 'marriage':

Marriage is a legal term as well as a traditional term to describe a legal contractual heterosexual union.

Well, no it isn't, and that is why the Fundies and Evangelicals have their pants in a wad and are so busy trying to pass laws to make that the case. Marriage as law does NOT say it is between a man and a women or there would be no reason for the Defense of Marriage Act.It is the Religious Right that is clearly trying to change the laws and add new laws that discriminate against one segment of the population.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

State laws do, in fact, define marriage as between a man and a woman, but some states are changing that. The problem is whether states that don't change the definition of marriage will have to recognize those marriages. Proponents of gay marriage want to force those states, even states that prefer the civil union route, to recognize gay marriage.That's how the federal government comes into it. Most of the population and most states oppose gay marriage (though perhaps not civil unions), and so if we are going to have a uniform standard for marriage reflective of the will of the people and traditional understandings of marriage, then you need a federal law to do that.That's reality. All the blustering from the gay marriage folks, imo, is just crap. If the issue were justice, then civil unions should be a perfectly acceptable solution, but the issue is trying to impose on the majority a minority definition and view of marriage and imo, to do so for political purposes, and so you will get ny sympathy from me for the gay marriage advocates.If you want equal benefits and rights, then civil unions can confer that without meddling with the whole issue of "marriage", which is a religious as well as a legal concept.

a civil union is not an equal right. a civil union is not justice.

The changes I'm aware of are from no such definition to that definition. I don't know if Massachusetts enacted a law allowing same-sex marriage or not, but Texas most assuredly did the opposite - defined marriage as man+woman - this last election.

If gay marriage was the norm, gay marriages would already be recognized as legit. You know and I know that marriage in the past has been defined as a heterosexual union, which is why there are in some states things like civil unions.

States are now defining gay marriage as not legit, though. There was no definition in the law before - just a presupposition.

So why weren't homosexuals getting married if the law was that they could?

The same reason why blacks weren't getting equal treatment even though the law said they were supposed to.

gasby, no, the reason is marriage has always been understood to be a heterosexual union in America, period.

Yes, and blacks had always been understood to be inferior and not be treated as equals.Added by edit...Sorry for the interruption. I'll go back to my lurker mode now.Edited by gasby, : No reason given.