Bush and Larry King, 2000

[Z]

BUSH: It doesn't matter. Let's talk about that issue. Each person needs to be judged with their heart and soul. I don't ask the question what somebody's sexual orientation is. I don't ask the question.

KING: So if you have gays working for you, that's fine. And you don't have a problem. You'd appoint gays in the Cabinet, et cetera.

BUSH: Well, I'm not going to ask what their sexual orientation is.

KING: Oh, so you wouldn't know.

BUSH: I'm going to appoint conservative people in the Cabinet. It's none of my business what somebody's -- now when somebody makes it my business, like on gay marriage, I'm going to stand up and say I don't support gay marriage. I support marriage between men and women.

KING: So if a state were voting on gay marriage, you would suggest to that state not to approve it?

BUSH: The state can do what they want to do. Don't try to trap me in this state's issue like you're trying to get me into.

KING: You just did. You have an opinion.

[jerseyhoya34]

This is just one among a string of flip-flops that Bush has made on the issues. (See also the Dept. of Homeland Security, nation-building, balanced budget, uniter not divider, and compassionate conservatism).

[Z]

agreed, although this is one of the few that can't be explained away by the seismic shifts caused by 9/11.

[jerseyhoya34]

Z said:

agreed, although this is one of the few that can't be explained away by the seismic shifts caused by 9/11.

He flip-flopped on the Dept. of Homeland Security even after 9/11. When Lieberman et. al. put the issue out there after 9/11, he claimed that such a Dept. was not necessary and the original setup was fine, but he changed that afterwards. So, 9/11 did not cause the flip-flop there. It did, however, with his position on nation-building.

[TrueHoyaBlue]

Then:
Cheney made comments in 2000 during a nationally televised debate that seemed to support leaving the matter to the states.

``The fact of the matter is we live in a free society, and freedom means freedom for everybody,'' Cheney said in a debate against Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman, who was Democrat Al Gore's vice-presidential running mate in the 2000 campaign.

``And I think that means that people should be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to enter into. It's really no one else's business in terms of trying to regulate or prohibit behavior in that regard.''

On the question of ``whether or not there ought to be some kind of official sanction'' of such relationships, Cheney said, ``I don't think there should necessarily be a federal policy in this area.''

And now:
More recently, however, Cheney seemed to shift from that view, saying in a Jan. 11 interview with the Denver Post that Bush was the one who would decide administration policy on the issue and ``I will support whatever decision he makes.''

www.nytimes.com/reuters/politics/politics-bush-gays-cheney.html

[DallasHoya]

The gay marriage issue was left to the states. But here's what's going to happen. A state court judge in CA will rule that its state statute prohibiting gay marriages violates that state's constitution. Gays who marry there will then try to get the marriage recognized by another state where it would otherwise be illegal. The Defense of Marriage law that was passed last year will be invoked by the non-recognizing state. That law will be challenged as violating the contract clause and full faith and credit clause of the federal constitution. Some federal judge somewhere will agree and gay marriages will then have to be recognized everywhere.

I'm not commenting on whether gay marriages should be allowed or not. But I certainly understand that the position of people who argue that the gay marriage issue should be left to the states, provided that the states' positions should be respected if they disagree. But that's just not going to happen - it will be forced on all the states by the very people who are now complaining that the issue should be left to the states.

[Z]

well, then let's call a spade a spade: the FMA is not a "response to judicial activism run amok" (as many have argued)--it's a decision to amend the founding document of our country based on potential, future "judicial activism" that hasn't even occurred yet.

pre-emption: its not just the administration's foreign policy stance anymore.

[DallasHoya]

It certainly would be more intellectually honest to those claiming to act under federalism principles if the amendment said something like "Nothing in this constitution shall require a state to recognize a marriage in another state if the marriage would not be legal under the law of the first state."

This would allow each state to define marriage its own way (as has been done for 200+ years), and prevent liberal states from imposing their views on conservative states and vice versa.

[Z]

agreed, but speaking of intellectual honesty, how about bush et al admit that the musgrave amendment, as currently worded, facially forecloses the possibility of civil unions, not just gay marriage.