President Bush a bigot?

Brian Griffin has a link saying Bush will probably support an amendment to define marriage as a union of a man and a woman. To Brian this makes President Bush a bigot. Not that him calling people bigots is that out of the ordinary, the word’s appeared in his blog 36 times in the past month.
Being in favor of defining marriage a certain way is nowhere close to the same thing as being a bigot. There are plenty of reasons someone might be in favor of an amendment to define marriage without it being bigotry.
Throughout history marriage has been defined as a union between a man and a woman. Why should the courts be allowed to change that definition based on trumped up equal rights grounds? Homosexuals have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as heterosexuals have, and heterosexuals have the same limits preventing them from marrying someone of the same sex. The ability to marry whomever you please is not currently a right.
This is the text of the proposed amendment: “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.”
Now we come to the part of my post where I ask a bunch of questions and answer them all


  1. mstehlin says:

    What exactly is the difference between a civil union and a civil marriage? Is it just that you want some verbal distinction, or would it actually award more benefits to be married?

  2. Rob Bernard says:

    Well, technically it would depend on how each locality set it up, but every proposal I’ve seen for civil unions offers the same legal rights as your standard marriage.

  3. mstehlin says:

    Then why have a distinction at all?

  4. Rob Bernard says:

    Because, as much as prospective rights might be similar, the union of two people of the same sex does not fall under the definition of marriage as it has been used for centuries. Truthfully I may not even be that opposed to calling it marriage if there was an honest to God debate over the merits of redefining the term marriage, but that’s not what the pro-gay marriage people are trying to do.
    They’re trying to push through the idea that of course marriage can, and already does, include two people of the same sex and anyone who says differently is a bigot or a closet case. When you have Judges and Mayors and County Clerks trying to circumvent all debate on the matter you simply can’t have the national conversation that I think would be required to decide and thus I think action may need to be taken to prevent those people from making an end run around the decision making process.

  5. Goose says:

    Marriage has been redefined plenty of times. There used to be no interracial marriage in the US (and kudos to Alabama for finally changing that in 2000! gaw). Also, marriage used to be, in essence, the selling of a teenage daughter to a much older man.

  6. Rob Bernard says:

    Before and after each of those events marriage was still the union of a man and a woman. The end of bans on interracial marriages didn’t come because marriage was redefined from a union of two people of the same race, it came because those bans didn’t follow the actual definition of a union between a man and a woman.

  7. Bush Still a Bigot

    Rob Bernard is on me for calling Bush and using “bigot” a lot. Sorry, that I have to use the word so often, but there are no synonyms that capture the meaning I am after.
    Now Rob’s attempting to play the game that not everyone against Gay Marriag…

  8. Covington says:

    Yes, it would ban civil unions.
    “nor the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups”
    Rob, you should read the text of things you cut and paste before stating that they mean exactly the opposite of the text.

  9. Rob Bernard says:

    There seems to be a great deal of debate over that second sentence. A great many very smart and unbigoted people can

  10. Bush a bigot? Part II

    Brian Griffin has responded to my first post on the subject and now the ball’s back in my court. [He now has trackback, so now we can both know exactly when we have a problem with each other. :)] Bush…

  11. Carnival of the Bush Bloggers

    The Carnival of the Bush Bloggers: February 23, 2004 Edition

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *