BUSH ADVANCES GAY RIGHTS: Steven Waldman

President Bush's endorsement of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage could prove to be a great moment for gay rights.

This may seem an absurd statement, both to gay rights activists who have roundly denounced the decision and to religious conservatives who have cheered it.

But in explaining the president's position, White House spokesman Scott McClellan insisted that while Bush backed the amendment, he would also support the rights of states to provide various partnership benefits, including civil unions. Though the news emphasis has been on the former, the practical consequences of the latter are huge.

Until recently, that position -- that states should allow partnership benefits such as insurance and health care -- was considered extreme. It wasn't too long ago that Howard Dean was thought unelectable because he signed Vermont's civil union law, which in effect provided a full slate of partnership benefits.

Amazingly, Bush has now said he can live with that, which means his position is not all that different from that of John Kerry or John Edwards. All three say states should be allowed to have civil unions. All three say they oppose gay marriage. The main difference is that the Democrats want to ban gay marriage by statute and Bush wants to ban it by constitutional amendment.

True, saying states may allow for civil unions is not the same as saying they should. McClellan added that while Bush believes states should be allowed to permit civil unions, he wouldn't support such legislation if he were still governor of Texas. But he isn't a governor anymore, and as a matter of federal law, Bush has adopted the same states' rights approach to civil unions as the Democrats. ...

In other words, Bush will have retreated to defend a more fortified position -- and will then lose anyway.

more
posted by Eve at 9:02 AM VOTE

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home