The social right, whose state amendments would ban civil unions in eight states, is mad at Bush for backing civil unions. Money quote:
“Civil unions are a government endorsement of homosexuality,” said Robert Knight, director of the Culture and Family Institute, an affiliate of Concerned Women For America. “But I don’t think President Bush has thought about it in that way. He seems to be striving for neutrality while defending marriage itself.” … The head of another group, the Campaign for California Families, said it, too, wants a sweeping constitutional amendment that bars civil unions and same-sex marriage. “Here’s the truth, civil unions are homosexual marriage by another name,” said Randy Thomasson, the group’s executive director. “Civil unions rob marriage of its uniqueness and award homosexuals all the rights of marriage available under state law… Bush needs to understand what’s going on and resist counterfeit marriages with all his might no matter what they’re called,” Thomasson said.
So why didn’t this debate happen earlier? Because the White House was smart enough to keep Bush’s views under wraps, only allowing spokesmen to utter them, while signaling to the hard right that Bush wanted to gut gay relationships of all civil protections. How would this debate have played out if Bush had endorsed civil unions – perhaps in a federal bill – back in February? Completely differently. But Rove decided to use the issue to gin up the base and stiff a million gay Bush-backers. I’m sorry, but I’m not falling for this last-minute socially moderate spin now. Meanwhile, though, the message is clear from Bush himself: vote against those state amendments that ban civil unions as well as civil marriages for gay couples. Vote no in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Utah. Still waiting for word from Gallagher and Kurtz, on whether they support these amendments.
The Dish 