I have stated in other forums that the Bush Administration was ambivalent towards the issue of gay marriage and civil unions. The following Washington Times story is further proof.
Pro-family groups said yesterday that President Bush "drove a wedge" into their efforts to protect marriage by seeming to accept homosexual civil unions, even as he said he could support an amendment defining marriage as solely between a man and woman."We need clear leadership in a time of judicial tyranny, not politicians who don't have the spine to stand up for something as basic as marriage," said Robert Knight, director of Concerned Women for America's Culture and Family Institute.
"Let's be clear: Creating counterfeits is no way to protect marriage, no matter what you call them," he said.
Mr. Bush, in an interview with ABC News that aired Tuesday night, said, "If necessary, I will support a constitutional amendment which would honor marriage between a man and a woman, codify that."
But he also said he will leave to states "whatever legal arrangements people want to make." Asked specifically about civil unions, he said it is a state issue "unless judicial rulings undermine the sanctity of marriage."
What this shows is that the President is for both defending the traditional definition of marriage and attempting to protect the rights of those who disagree with him. Proponents of the extremes on both sides are asking for him to choose between them and he is wisely refusing to play that game.
Comments