Bush the last president to run against gay rights?

For more than four years, the Bush White House has run against any changes in the law that would allow gay Americans -- even his vice president's daughter -- to marry.

Under the guidance of political maestro Karl Rove, George W. Bush even ran against gay rights in his 2004 reelection bid. The strategy: push a constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman and thereby stir the base of evangelicals to the polls. It worked.

Four years later, the climate has changed. Both Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain, while not embracing the still-politically-radioactive concept of gay marriage, support rights.

Obama and his running mate Joe Biden back civil unions, along with spousal visits in hospitals, insurance benefits as partners, and rights of inheritance and adoption. At some political cost, McCain voted against the Bush administration's proposal for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, arguing that states, not judges or the federal government, should make these decisions. He also has signaled his support for legislation (an earlier version of this post said he supports the bill) to ban workplace discrimination against gays. Both presidential campaigns have reached out to gay Americans, seeking their votes. Even Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, an evangelical, sounds inclusive toward gays. "No one would ever propose, not in a McCain-Palin administration, to do anything to prohibit, say, visitations in a hospital or contracts being signed," she said during the vice presidential debate. That's one reason the Log Cabin Republicans, the largest gay Republican organization, which did not endorse Bush four years ago, are backing McCain-Palin this year.

But Bush remains passionately opposed to any movement on the issue.

Friday, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that a ban on gay marriages was illegal, putting that state in concert with decisions in Vermont, where gay unions are legal, and in California and Massachusetts, which allow gay marriages.

Vermont is the only state Bush has not visited as president, perhaps because several cities have warrants out for his arrest on war crimes. As for Massachusetts and California, well, from a Republican point of view, enough said. Bluer than blue. Template for liberal.

Now comes Connecticut, home to hedge fund operators and home design queen Martha Stewart. Could that state be the tipping point?

The White House rose to object.

"President Bush has always believed that marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman," said Karl Zinsmeister, a domestic policy advisor. "President Bush remains firmly committed to protecting the sanctity of marriage."

In a statement issued from South Carolina, where the president was traveling, Zinsmeister also said:

It’s unfortunate that activist judges continue to seek to redefine marriage by court order –- without regard for the will of the people. Today’s decision by the Connecticut Supreme Court illustrates that a federal constitutional amendment may be needed if the people are to decide what marriage means.

Asked to respond, Patrick Sammon, president of Log Cabin Republicans, told Countdown to Crawford:

It's unfortunate but not surprising that the Bush administration is once again talking about a federal constitutional amendment. Of course, it has no chance of going anywhere. Times have changed a lot in a short period of time. Never again will a presidential candidate make the assessment that they may be able to benefit politically by using gay and lesbian people as a divisive wedge issue. The Bush administration was wrong on the marriage amendment in 2004. And they're wrong today.

Noting that even among GOP convention delegates in St. Paul, a CBS poll found 49% support for civil unions, Sammon added: "Momentum is on our side."

-- Johanna Neuman

Photo: Tom Olmscheid/Associated Press captures scene at the state Capitol in St. Paul, Minn., on March 21, 2006, when hundreds of demonstrators rallied against gay marriage.

Comments

[David McFadden]

If homosexual marriage is legal, why isn't plural marriage legal? If that becomes legal, why isn't other group marriage legal? Then what becomes the purpose of marriage anyway?

[Steve]

Actually, you need to do a bit more homework on your end. John McCain has OPPOSED attempts to ban discrimination in employment. And long ago Bush has pandered to the gays. You're simply not correct in your article. Aside from the Federal Marriage Amendment, there's actually very little difference between McCain and Bush on gay 'rights'. Don't forget that McCain has endorsed gay marriage bans all over the country.

[Grant]

George Bush ran on a platform of hate. The majority of Republicans polled after the last election said that they voted Republican because of "moral issues" – i.e. bigotry towards gays and lesbians. When a country votes based upon who they want as their beer buddy, or what kind of fundamentalist ideology they want imposed upon all the population, they should not be surprised when these excesses turn into the financial fiasco we confront today. Isn't an election about competence, or ability to govern, rather, it was about who could be more bigoted?. Shame on the voters who voted in such an administration, let us hope that this year the voters will show more maturity and elect a team of leadership, intellect and competence, not ideology - leave that to theocracies like Iran.

[Robert]

So True To Form, Bushson Chose Henry Paulson... The CEO of Goldman Sachs, a Wall Street Company, Who "HELPED CAUSE THE CRISIS"?

As Goldman Sachs CEO, Paulson OBTAINED the SEC exemption which allowed brokerages to increase leverage to 60 to 1 from 12 to 1.

Now Paulson as Bush's Man, PUSHED and GOT $ 700 Billion to buy commercial and residential mortgages and mortgaged backed securities as he chooses.
No one effectively has any oversight over him, and he can pay any price he wants to, including face amount of the debt, thus Enriching His Financial PEERS....
At Taxpayer Expense For YEARS TO COME!

Courts "may review his decisions", but Not Regulators.
He has to report to Congress once every six months.
He gets 700 Billion dollars to use as he sees fit, looking after the taxpayer is a "consideration" not a requirement.
Bet on that 700 Billion dollars being gone before January 20, 2009.
Bet on Treasury asking for more.

That is $2,324 dollars per man, woman and child in America - PLUS Compound Interest!
There is no bailout for mortgage holders. Banks get bailed out, but not ordinary people.
Banks and brokerages made record profits these last eight years. Ordinary Americans barely broke even. In 2007 Wall Street paid itself bonuses equal to the raises of 80 million Americans. Banks bailed out by this plan need make no changes in how they do business. Banks bailed out need not replace the management which drove them into insolvency.
Shareholders and bondholders of such banks Will Not lose a cent, and Share Values Should Now Go UP!

The securities which caused this crisis are still allowed.
Expect the 700 billion dollars to increase inflation, especially in oil.
Bush is asking you to trust his administration with 700 billion after spending 980 billion on the Iraq war.

Thanks George "Mushroom Cloud" Bushson. Should We Trust Them Again....
You Betcha?

[Michael]

Do NOT give Palin credit for being reasonable or decent on gay rights issues. She simply said a McCain/Pailin administration wouldn't prohibit gays from visiting gays when they are dying in the hospital. Big Deal. Palin views marriage as a sacred institution joining two unwilling teenagers. Ask her daughter and what's-its-face. Palin is a Nazi brownshirt, not all that well disguised. Elect her and she'll really show that she's the SheBush.

[blueskies]

I thought the issue decided by the public long ago, civil unions ok any 2 people, but the term marriage is reserved for the traditional marriage between a man and a woman, that creates a family.
According to every vote I have seen, that has been the result.

[Druid Dude]

Outside of San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York City and Boston, most people couldn't care less about homosexual marriage. Homosexuals, many of whom work for mainstream media outlets, think this is an important issue. Homosexual marriage is something that matters to perhaps 5% of the U.S. population, 15% at most if you count the liberals who pander to the homosexuals. Fiscal responsibility is more important than the gender of who you have sex with. Too bad mainstream media is fixated on promoting the homosexual agenda instead of promoting fiscal responsibility.