Bush raised a few eyebrows this week by expressing his support for 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.
Mr. Bush has previously said that states should be permitted to allow same-sex unions, even though White House officials have said he would not have endorsed such unions as governor of Texas. But Mr. Bush has never before made a point of so publicly disagreeing with his party’s official position on the issue.
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.
According to an ABC transcript, Mr. Gibson then noted to Mr. Bush that the Republican Party platform opposed civil unions.
“Well, I don’t,” Mr. Bush replied.
Politically, this was an odd move. There must be some BC04 polling data pointing to support for civil unions as an alternative to gay marriage, because there’s no other reason for Bush to make such a pronouncement. After three-and-a-half years of hard-line conservatism, it’s a little late to try on the “compassionate conservative” hat again.
The interesting part, however, was the religious right’s response. It varied from muted to non-existent, which in and of itself, is telling.
Leading the “we love Bush, but not his position on civil unions” brigade was Concerned Women for America (which oddly enough, has a chief spokesperson who is a concerned man).
“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.”
Knight said “counterfeits” of marriage, such as civil unions, “hurt the real thing.”
It wasn’t exactly a sweeping condemnation. But Knight’s mild criticism was notable because it was rare. There was, interestingly enough, deafening silence from the rest of the religious right. Groups like the Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, and the Christian Coalition fought vehemently to include unequivocal anti-gay language in the GOP platform, Bush denounced that language on national television, and the groups responded with … absolutely nothing.
This was something of a test for the religious right and it didn’t do particularly well. Less than a week before the election, do the movement’s groups and leaders stand on principle and criticize the president for disagreeing with their anti-gay agenda or do they sit on their hands for political expediency? The movement chose the latter. So much for moral and principled outrage.
As it turns out, I think this is all for the best, at least as far as the Kerry campaign goes. I was a little concerned that the religious right would rant and rave about Bush’s new-found respect for civil unions, which in turn, would make Bush appear more moderate. In other words, centrist swing voters are turned off by characters like Falwell and Robertson, and if they’re criticizing Bush, the president looks more reasonable by comparison. Instead, the loons bit their collective tongues.
Whether Bush’s announcement dampers enthusiasm among evangelical voters, however, remains to be seen. I guarantee, however, that if Bush loses, the far-right will point his civil unions position as part of an explanation for his defeat.