For social conservatives (that includes many Mormons) who think that President Bush actually shares their values, Bush’s recent statements on civil unions may come as a surprise. Here is an excerpt from an Oct. 27 story from Agape Press:
In an interview aired by ABC on October 26, President Bush dropped a bit of a shocker on conservatives when he told Charles Gibson on “Good Morning America” that while he remains opposed to homosexual marriage and supports a constitutional amendment that would prevent courts from imposing same-sex marriage on unwilling electorates, he is not so strongly opposed to civil unions.
“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,” the president stated. “[S]tates ought to be able to have the right to pass … laws that enable people to, you know, be able to have rights, like others.”
As noted by UPI, that is in sharp disagreement with the Republican Party platform. In fact, ABC’s Gibson followed up with: “So the Republican platform on that point, as far as you’re concerned, is wrong?” To which Bush replied: “Right.”
As expected, some pro-family leaders are obviously irritated at the president’s apparent change of direction. Bob Knight of the Culture and Family Institute says Bush “seems to be striving for neutrality while defending marriage itself.”
“Civil unions are a government endorsement of homosexuality,” Knight says. “But I don’t think President Bush has thought about it in that way.”
Me? I’m not surprised. I think it must be hard to be faithful to your Skull and Bones oaths while still maintaining true family values. Given all that the Book of Mormon says against secret combinations, it amazes me that most Mormons don’t seem to care that our current president is a member of an extremely powerful and secretive secret combination, as is his opponent. Hey, Nephites, will you vote for Kishkumen or Gadianton as your next chief judge?
I think what we have here is an extreme case of Sevendaystilelectiondayitis. If all goes as usual he will be re-elected and forget he ever said that.
Bush and Kerry were both in Skull and Bones at Yale, so how does that really affect the choice? I’ve heard rumors Mitt Romney might run next time…? Wish we had some better choices.
In the context of a classically liberal state, it only makes sense to allow for gay relationships in a manner similar to that of civil marriage.
If we were truly founded on the precepts that all of mankind was created free and equal (because, as Locke would say, of each person’s ability to reason), then it is only logical that we accept each person’s choices as equally valuable.
We can see examples of this in areas such as religion. Religion is seen as a free, private, personal choice, and each religion is treated equally by the state, in that no religion is sponsored or denounced by the state.
The same should hold true of intimate relationships. I for one do not believe that the state has any right to interfere in such relationships, but we have the deeply entrenched concept of state-sponsored marriage to deal with. The government has chosen to become involved in this sort of relationship, but in a very unequal way.
To finally get to the point, if the government is going to sponsor (via civil marriage) one kind of relationship (monogamous, heterosexual couples), it must then sponsor *in an equal way* other kinds of relationships, such as gay “civil unions”.
Civil unions would not be a government endorsement of homosexuality, but rather, the government protecting freedom of choice and the equality of persons.
Just some Constitutional political theory to think about.
Just as long as he doesn’t turn into Kerry, flip flopping his decisions on gay unions like Kerry does on the war.
I can’t believe Jeff is still going on about the Skull & Bones “secret combinations” nonsense. There are much more important things to worry about with Bush, like his willingness to restrict free trade for the benefit of special interests.
It is entirely plausible that Bush’s eagerness/willingness to restrict free trade is actually a symptom of his membership in Skull & Bones. Given that it is the goal of Gadianton Secret Societies to gain power in government that they may benefit economically, serving the desires of special interest thru economically disastrous policies fits in as one of their key strategies for accomplishing that goal. See Hazlitt’s Economics in One Lesson for correct economic analysis of such policies.
Okay, sure; it’s plausible. But the point is that my support for a candidate is based on his actions and political philosophies, not his affiliations (unless it is proven that the latter affect the former, which it hasn’t been).
Bit doesn’t it bother you that these guys make oaths of allegiance and refuse to talk about them? Mormons talks a lot about the temple – there’s just a few parts that can’t be told, but we can be proud to say what oaths we make – oaths to obey the law of God, consecrate our lives to Christ, be morally clean, etc. – but Bush and Kerry when asked on national TV about their oaths just dismissed the question and said it’s too secret. Shouldn’t we be pressing for some answers?
Press all you want, but all you’re going to come up with is a silly fraternity with a typically exaggerated sense of its own importance – hence the oaths. It isn’t some thieving, murderous gang.
Well, maybe some of its members are thieving, in that they promote income taxation, restrictions on outsourcing, federally controlled public schooling, etc., etc., but if some secretive group is behind those idiotic policies (I doubt it), it hardly makes them more idiotic or evil.
Jeff,
What do you think of Mitt Romney? Positive or negative I would like to hear. I could give you the password to edit this wikipedia type site:
http://myclob.pbwiki.com/
which is dedicated to analizing Mitt…
I am also looking for fellow bloggers to help me with this site:
http://mormons-for-mitt.blogspot.com/2006/08/managment-christians-romney.html
and this site:
http://illinisans-4-mitt-romney.blogspot.com/
I know you don’t live in Illinois, but maybe I could change the title to great lakes for romney or something… Besides, you visit Chicago enough, you are almost a local!
I know it might not seem very original for you to support him, but if we really need your help, he is big on education reform, and some other things I know you are interested in…
Thanks for the offer, but my campaigning activities are limited pretty much to Crazed Great Lakes Mormons Who Are Sick of Republicans and Democrats Destroying This Country. As the sole member, I’m stretched pretty thin, but am graciously accepting donations of cash or farm equipment that can be sold on Ebay.