• Home
  • About
  • Guest Post

    I’ll even be your danger sign

    Sometimes I think I should learn to spaz more. I seem to miss out on so much fulminating, which I’m given to understand is very cleansing and restorative. Evil Queen Rosemary, along with everyone else and his decorator, posted about Bush’s apparent change of stance on gay unions:

    You can call if a flip-flop if you wish but I prefer to think of it as evolution.

    Now, he and Cheney are simpatico and I am much pleased. It’s a baby step but it’s an important baby step.

    Well, okay, she’s not fulminating–just take a look at those comments, though! Now, what I don’t get is this. The FOXnews article quotes him as saying:

    “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 so,” Bush said in an interview aired Tuesday on ABC. Bush acknowledged that his position put him at odds with the Republican platform, which opposes civil unions.

    “I view the definition of marriage different from legal arrangements that enable people to have rights,” said Bush, who has pressed for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage (search). “States ought to be able to have the right to pass laws that enable people to be able to have rights like others.”

    Great! Fine by me. But is this new? If I recall correctly, he said something similar on Larry King in August (how long ago in the life cycle of campaign-related unpleasantness that seems now!):

    “That’s up to states,” Bush told CNN’s Larry King Thursday night. “If they want to provide legal protections for gays, that’s great. That’s fine. But I do not want to change the definition of marriage. I don’t think our country should.”

    When asked about federal benefits for same-sex couples Bush pointed to inheritance taxes which are lower for people who are married Bush said gays should support Republican moves to get of inheritance taxes altogether.

    The president told King that gay couples should work with Congress not depend on ‘activist judges’.

    See? We already spazzed about this. It’s true that this ABC interview is just before the election and less likely to be forgotten, and that Bush’s phrasing makes him sound a bit more personally supportive of civil unions, but the idea that it’s something he’s hauled out without warning…unless there’s a significant dimension I’m missing here, it’s not.


    BTW, what does it mean when someone tells you you “dress like a Republican”? Not a compliment, I don’t think from context; but don’t all those DNC-loyalist trial lawyers shop at Brooks Brothers, too?


    Atsushi’s flying in for the three-day weekend tomorrow. No typhoon at either end this time. One hopes.

    Added at 20:30: I wasn’t the only one to remember–one of GayPatriot’s readers did, too. This is very odd.

    Added at 00:31, 30 October: As Atsushi reminded me when we spoke on the phone, this is not, actually, a three-day weekend. :( On the bright side, he is, in fact, coming, having dispatched his end-of-the-month crunch work.

    2 Responses to “I’ll even be your danger sign”

    1. Mrs. du Toit says:

      Better watch out there, Sean. You are giving all appearances of being reasonable and desirous of truth, rather than achieving the ambitions of activists acting on your behalf.
      You don’t really expect people to believe that it really was the “gay marriage” issue that most Republicans objected to and not civil unions, do you? We all know that Republicans really want to strip gays of all their rights!
      You’re going to lose access to the secret decoder ring sites if you keep this up.

    2. Sean Kinsell says:

      Thanks, Connie. What would I do without you? I don’t know what I was thinking.
      Uh…second-class citizens! Uh…objectively pro-homophobia! Uh…internment camps are already being prepared in desert locations! Uh…marriage is lo…ZZZZZZ.
      *Sigh.* Obviously, if I’m so far gone in sin that I “dress like a Republican,” I can’t be trusted to toe the Fembot party line.
      Well, that’s not an appropriate analogy, because the whole point was the that Franklins created the Fembots to be able to act and sound like different people, which was why it was always so thrilling when Jamie figured out yet another of her associates was being impersonated.
      But you get the idea. It’s just bizarre that more right-leaning gay and gay-friendly bloggers aren’t remembering the Larry King interview, because–for me, at least–it helped to take the edge off the dissatisfaction over his backing of the FMA.