Bush abandons base on homosexuality

By Jane Chastain

President George W. Bush may have unwittingly given homosexual activists just the boost they need to get state governments to pass domestic partnership laws, which put gay unions on an equal footing with marriage.

OK. Perhaps I’m being charitable, but I would prefer not to believe it was a cold, calculated attempt to pander to yet another voting block.

On Aug. 15, in an interview with CNN’s Larry King, the president was talking about his support for a federal marriage amendment when King asked him, “What about the union of gays?”

Mr. Bush said, “Well, that’s up to the states, you know. If states choose to do that, in other words, if they want to provide legal protections for gays, that’s great! That’s fine!

The president went on to say a few words about the importance of keeping the definition of marriage as it is – a union between a man and a woman. However, the damage was done.

Here we have a president, who professes a faith in Christ, who has been endorsed by the religious right and heralded as the new leader of the conservative movement, giving his stamp of approval to gay unions.

How else can we take, “That’s great! That’s fine”?

In response to another King question, the president went on to elaborate, “There are ways to make sure gays have got rights. And you can do so in the law.”

This will be the new “gold standard” for those promoting domestic partnership laws: “Even George W. Bush says that states should pass these laws.”

To make matters worse, when King mentioned the difficulty of amending the Constitution, Mr. Bush said, “It’s an important debate. … I think our society is great because people are able to live their lifestyles, you know, as they choose or as they’re oriented.”

In this one brief interview, President Bush encouraged the passage of domestic partnership laws. Furthermore, by embracing the favorite buzzword of homosexual activists, “sexual orientation,” promoted the theory that one is either born a homosexual or a heterosexual and there is nothing anyone can do to change.

This is an affront to researchers and medical professionals who have battled the myth of the “gay gene” and have been swimming upstream against the tide of political correctness and media bias to have sound science applied to this important issue.

It is an affront to the thousands of former homosexuals who are ridiculed and ignored but serve as living exhibits that one can, in fact, change.

It is an affront to health workers who have to battle the ravages of a disease spread by the practice of unnatural sex acts and who suffer unnecessary exposure to infection because they are not allowed to screen patients for AIDS.

It is an affront to criminologists who are ignored or excoriated if they point out the fact that homosexual men are much more likely to molest children than their heterosexual counterparts: From 1 to 3 percent of the population is committing one-third of all sex crimes against children.

It is an affront to groups like the Boy Scouts who have fought an uphill battle against gay activists who want to force them to permit homosexual scoutmasters.

Nine days after the president made these regrettable remarks, Vice President Dick Cheney came out in support of gay marriage at a campaign stop in Davenport, Iowa. When the vice president was asked what he thought about homosexual marriages, Cheney replied, “My general view is that freedom means freedom for everybody. People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to. The question that comes up with respect to the issue of marriage is what kind of official sanction or approval is going to be granted by the government, if you will, to the particular relationship?”

Cheney tried to abdicate his responsibility by saying the issue should be decided by the states. However, Cheney also tried to distance himself from the federal marriage amendment by saying, “The president makes basic policy for this administration and he’s made it clear that he does, in fact, support an amendment on this issue.”

Personally, I don’t think this was an off-the-cuff response by Cheney. President Bush runs a tight ship punishing – even embarrassing – members of his Cabinet who publicly go against his policies. It appears to be a case of Bush and Cheney playing “good cop, bad cop.”

Unfortunately, on the issue of homosexual unions, it is the president of the United States who has given gay activists an arsenal of new weaponry.