Alex Soojung-Kim Pang, Ph.D.

I study people, technology, and the worlds they make


Kimberly Guilfoyle Newsom’s recent remarks seem a model of clarity in contrast to this position:

Bush Says His Party Is Wrong to Oppose Gay Civil Unions

President Bush said in an interview this past weekend that he disagreed with the Republican Party platform opposing civil unions of same-sex couples and that the matter should be left up to the states….

In an interview on Sunday with Charles Gibson, an anchor of “Good Morning America” on ABC, Mr. Bush said, “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.” ABC, which broadcast part of the interview on Monday, is to broadcast the part about civil unions on Tuesday….

Mr. Bush announced in February that he supported an amendment to the Constitution that would ban same-sex marriage, and said at the time that the union of a man and a woman was “the most fundamental institution of civilization.” He acted under enormous pressure from his conservative supporters, who had lobbied the White House to have the president speak out in an election year on a matter of vital importance to them.

But Mr. Bush also said at the time that states should be permitted to have same-sex civil unions if they chose.

I thought part of the purpose of the Constitutional amendment was to short-circuit exactly this scenario, and to keep activist judges from rewriting marriage law. So it’s up to each individual state to decide of it wants to destroy civilization? Can someone explain this?


  1. It is important that Bush mentioned rights in his statement. This frames the issue of civil marriage for gays and lesbians as about individual rights. Bush and others have been framing the issue as about protecting children and traditional values – which is not only more difficult to challenge but is also very dangerous for gays and lesbians. Turning gays and lesbians into threats against children and society is a low form of propaganda.

    The activists who are disgusted by gays and lesbians are more concerned about the redefinition of homosexuality than they are about the definition of civil marriage. By extending civil marriage to include gay and lesbian couples, society is voicing greater tolerance towards gays and lesbians. No longer are gays and lesbians immoral perverts shunned by society, as viewed by a fundamentalist worldview. Perhaps that’s why people who are opposed to homosexuality can’t win by being honest, as Americans are a tolerant people. Most Americans would be horrified if the Christian right exposed their theocratic agenda in broad daylight.

  2. It’s good politics, a week before the election, suddenly to look like a moderate federalist. It would be ideal if the plank about the constitutional amendment were dropped as well.

    In the meantime, I continue to fail to understand how my marriage is supposed to be more affected by legally recognized loving relationships between same-sex couples than by “starter marriages.”

Comments are closed.

© 2019 Alex Soojung-Kim Pang, Ph.D.

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑