In an interview with Good Morning America taped Sunday, President 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.”
Now let’s compare that to the Federal Marriage Amendment that he has been promoting:
Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.
As I pointed out in a previous post, two of the authors of the Amendment, Robert George of Princeton and Gerard Bradley of Notre Dame, have both said that it bans civil unions as well as gay marriages. If no state law can require that the legal incidents of marriage be conferred upon unmarried couples, then civil unions are forbidden, as they would do so. I don’t really think this is a flip flop, however, I think it’s an attempt to deceive. The backers of the bill have repeatedly said that it would not ban state civil union laws, but the text clearly states otherwise. I think they’re trying to put a moderate face on a very extreme bill and pretend it does not say something it clearly does.