CommonMan said:
Didn't he bring up changing the constitution to include "marraige defined as man and woman" wording? He was at least supportive of it. I don't care what you think about this, that sort of thing doesn't need a freakin' amendment. The neo-cons were in power in many states during the Bush tenure and carried a lot of weight nationally as well. One of the platforms that was pushed over and over again was limiting homosexual couples rights. In Arkansas, for example, single people can no longer adopt children. This was never a problem until more recently when homosexual couples started adopting more and more children. So, you have to be married to adopt, and you have to be straight to marry so well, you have a nice roundabout way to stop homosexuals from adopting. Due to the general tenor of the national discussion during the Bush era, these type of changes were much easier. |
Didn't Clinton as well?
As for your issue in Arkansas, that is a state issue, not a federal issue. Comparatively, I could cite the legalization of homosexual marriage in MA, CT and NH during Bush's tenure as progress. In fact, the first legal homosexual marriages in the US were under Bush's presidency. So I believe your argument is totally moot.
In fact, here is the homosexual marriage timeline. Bush's years as president were the greatest increase in homoseuxal marriage/union rights in the US:
- 2000 - Vermont legalizes civil unions
- 2004 - San Fransisco marriages begin
- 2004 - Rhode Island recognizes same sex marriages
- 2004 - Massachusettes legalizes same sex marriage
- 2008 - Domestic partnerships in Maryland
- 2008 - New York recognizes same sex marriages
- 2008 - Conneticut legalizes same sex marriages
- 2008 - Civil unions are legalized in New Hampshire (for homosexuals)
- 2009 - District of Columbia legalizes same sex marriages
- 2009 - Iowa legalizes same sex marriages
- 2009 - Vermont legalizes same sex marriages
- 2010 - New Hampshire legalizes same sex marriages
Now, admittedly 09-10 have been good in terms of state rights, but you can't deny that 2000-2008 saw quite a bit of progress in terms of state's decisions on homosexual marriages and unions.
Back from the dead, I'm afraid.







