Bush Reversal On Homosexual "Civil Unions" Proves Republican Party Platform Sucker-Bait To Fool Christian/Conservative
By John Lofton
An example of the kind of unwarranted euphoria I'm alluding to is in the October 2004 issue of "The Phyllis Schlafly Report" in a front-page article headlined: "What Do The Two Parties Stand For?" In the lead paragraph of this piece, we are told: "To find out what the two major parties stand for, we should be able to compare their Party Platforms adopted by their National Nominating Conventions in the summer of 2004."
Comment: No, what matters is not what some Republicans write down on paper as representing the views of their Party. What matters is what President Bush has actually done or not done while he was in office. As the old saying goes: Actions speak louder than words. Or, as our Lord has noted, we are known by our fruits.
Contrasting the GOP with the Democrats, this article points out that the 2004 Republican Platform states that "the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed." This, it is said, is language almost identical to the pro-life plank in every GOP Platform since 1984.
Comment: So, what? This language, obviously, does not bind President Bush because he is for "infringing" this "fundamental individual right to life" of the unborn. He has said he believes that abortion should be legal in cases of rape, incest and what's called "the life of the mother" --- though no "abortion" has ever been necessary to "save" any mother's life.
This "Schlafly Report" article also quotes from a part of the 2004 GOP Platform which says, rejecting so-called "civil unions" for homosexuals: "We further believe that legal recognition and the accompanying benefits afforded couples should be preserved for that unique and special union of one man and one woman which has historically been called marriage."
But, shortly before the election, in an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America" (10/26/04), Mr. Bush explicitly rejected this 2004 Platform language. Reiterating his previously expressed view that he doesn't know if homosexuals are born homosexual, this exchange occurred between the President and his interviewer Charles Gibson:
Gibson: They could be born that way. If that's the case, just for sake of argument, that's an unalterable characteristic for them. That's like being black or being a woman. So, how can we deny them rights in any way to a civil union that would allow, give them the same economic rights or health rights or other things?
Mr. Bush: I don't think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that's when a state chooses to do so.
Gibson: But the platform opposes it.
Mr. Bush: Well, I don't. I view the definition of marriage different from legal arrangements that enable people to have rights. And I strongly believe that marriage ought to be defined as between, a union between a man and a woman.
Gibson: So, the Republican platform on that point, as far as you're concerned, is wrong?
Mr. Bush: Right.
Earlier, on CNN's "Larry King Live" (8/15/04), Mr. Bush said, when asked about "civil unions," that this was up to the states: "If states choose to do that, in other words, if they want to provide legal protections for gays, that's great. That's fine." Great? Fine? Yep, that's what he said.
Now, make no mistake about it, President Bush's blatant repudiation of the Republican Party Platform's position on "civil unions" --- his endorsement of "civil unions" --- is, for all practical purposes, a de facto endorsement of homosexual marriage, regardless of what he says. It was a slap in the face of all the Christians who supported him because they thought he was a strong backer of traditional man/woman only marriage.
Mr. Bush's election eve flip-flop on "civil unions" for homosexuals was a shocking cave-in on one of the premier moral issues of our time. It revealed an arrogance which said that he took for granted the votes of millions of Christians. This shameful flip-flop showed he believed he could do as he wished on the marriage issue because he thought millions of Christians would vote for him any way.
Well, Mr. Bush was right. His abrupt about-face on "civil unions" was greeted by no criticism by any "Christian leader." Their attitude was grin-and-bear-it. Being the knee-jerk, Republican Party cheerleaders they are, they voted for him, as did millions of other Christians.
What was particularly interesting about Mr. Bush's endorsement of "civil unions" for homosexuals was that during the election campaign the Republican National Committee, on its Web site, listed among the shortcomings of John Kerry and John Edwards the fact that both men were also for "civil unions." In a section headlined "Kerry Wrong On Social Issues," three sources were cited reporting Kerry as favoring such "civil unions." One source reported Edwards as having said he believes (like Bush) that states should decide whether to allow "civil unions" for homosexuals.
Paul Johnson, Washington Bureau Chief for the homosexual online publication 365Gay.com, reporting on Mr. Bush's repudiation of his Party's Platform on "civil unions," said that he "has softened his approach to same-sex unions….Bush's new position puts him closer to Democratic candidate John Kerry"!
Taking a very different view of Mr. Bush's "new position" on "civil unions," the "Associated Press" quoted Robert Knight as saying: "Civil unions are a government endorsement of homosexuality." He added that "counterfeits" of marriage, such as civil unions, "hurt the real thing." Knight is Director of the Culture And Family Institute, an affiliate of Concerned Women For America.
Randy Thomasson, executive director of Campaign For California Families, says: "Here's the truth, civil unions are homosexual marriage by another name. Civil unions rob marriage of its uniqueness and award homosexuals all the rights of marriage available under state law. Bush needs to understand what's going on and resist counterfeit marriages with all his might no matter what they are called."
Other Christian conservatives --- prior to Mr. Bush endorsing "civil unions" --- made the same points made by Knight and Thomasson. In mid-January of 2002, in a nationwide broadcast, "Focus On The Family" President Dr. James Dobson, "Alliance Defense Fund" President Alan Sears and "Family Research Council" President Ken Connor called on Christians to oppose a California bill (Assembly Bill 1338) which would establish "civil unions" for homosexuals in that state. A "Focus On The Family" press release about this broadcast said: "Dobson, Sears and Connor predicted that the enactment of civil unions would lead to the legal recognition of group marriage and other non-traditional relationships." Dr. Dobson is quoted as saying: "If marriage means everything, it means nothing."
Don Wildmon, president of the "American Family Association," had said, about himself and Mike Farris, president of Patrick Henry College: "Both of us would like to have the strongest Federal marriage amendment possible. One that would ban 'civil unions' as well as homosexual marriage."
Daniel Allott, a policy analyst for Gary Bauer's organization "American Values, has written: "Same-sex marriage advocates won't settle for civil unions or any other arrangement short of a total overhauling of marriage as we know it. Their objective is not simply to obtain legal or financial benefits, but to re-define the common understanding of the word marriage. They understand what many do not; capturing the definition of the word is the key to changing the meaning of that word.
"Words are important. The Constitution is made up of words, so is the Bible.Indeed, Christians believe that in the beginning was the Word, and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us...By surrendering the meaning of the word, its true essence is slowly eroded. Soon, the defenders of marriage will have a difficult time holding on to the real meaning of many of our most vital words and institutions. In fact, we have already seen significant assaults aimed at the family, motherhood, life, and freedom. How far are we willing to retreat?"
Well, pretty far, obviously, as Mr. Bush's retreat on "civil unions" demonstrates. And when Mr. Bush retreated, on national TV, we didn't hear a peep out of Phyllis Schlafly, Dr. Dobson, Mr. Sears, Mr. Bauer, Mr. Connor, Mr. Wildmon or any other so-called "Christian leader."
Discuss this article