Bush Flip Flops on Civil Unions

In an interview with Good Morning America taped Sunday, President Bush said:

"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 so."

Now let's compare that to the Federal Marriage Amendment that he has been promoting:


Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

As I pointed out in a previous post, two of the authors of the Amendment, Robert George of Princeton and Gerard Bradley of Notre Dame, have both said that it bans civil unions as well as gay marriages. If no state law can require that the legal incidents of marriage be conferred upon unmarried couples, then civil unions are forbidden, as they would do so. I don't really think this is a flip flop, however, I think it's an attempt to deceive. The backers of the bill have repeatedly said that it would not ban state civil union laws, but the text clearly states otherwise. I think they're trying to put a moderate face on a very extreme bill and pretend it does not say something it clearly does.

More like this

The Washington Post is reporting on the framing of the Federal Marriage Amendment, which has been proposed in Congress to ban gay marriages nationwide, that it is so poorly written that even its proponents don't know what it would prevent and what it would allow. The article begins: In the spring…
Eugene Volokh discusses Bush's statement that he's okay with civil unions and has a different version of the FMA than I had. The original Musgrave amendment that was rolled out with a good bit of fanfare said: Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.…
The more I read from conservatives and their arguments against gay marriage, the more I'm convinced that there simply isn't any there there. The latest is from William Kristol, who, along with Joseph Bottum, writes this article in the upcoming issue of the Weekly Standard. The article is almost…
Ladies and Gentlemen, are you ready for your headliner? You've seen him on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno and on the HBO special of his sold out tour with Eugene Volokh and Glenn Reynolds, The Barristers of Comedy. Please welcome, from Yale University, Professor Jack Balkin: Because the Federal…

I find it interesting that people seem to have missed that the FMA would also ban religious marriages.

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.

This applies to all types of marriage, religious and legal. If a legislature wanted to, they could make it a crime for any religious leader to conduct a gay marriage or any same sex couple for holding themselves out to be married. This sentance would supercede whatever religious-freedom protection they now have.

What the heck do you guys think he's up to with this? I don't want to critcize it because it suggests movement in the right direction. But politically, what does this do for him?

Well, my sense of this is that Bush's earlier stance - denying even civil unions - puts him outside the mainstream on this issue. I get the feeling that your "average American" would support civil unions for same sex couples, even if they wouldn't support "marriage" for them. Bush doesn't have to worry about the support of his conservative Christian base - he's got them all convinced that a vote for Kerry is a vote for the Antichrist - so he can appeal to more moderate undecided voters by waffling on the civil union position.