Bush Flip-Flops Again
Gay marriage is a) a states' issue (2000) b) a federal issue (2004) or c) a states issue (now).
Bush supports a) civil unions (2000) b) not civil unions (outlawed by his propsed amendment) or c) civil unions (now).
He told Charlie Gibson on Good Morning America:
He [Bush]added: "I view the definition of marriage different from legal arrangements that enable people to have rights. And I strongly believe that marriage ought to be defined as between a union between a man and a woman. Now, having said that, states ought to be able to have the right to pass laws that enable people to be able to have rights like others."
Mr. Gibson then asked, "So the Republican platform on that point, as far as you're concerned, is wrong?"
"Right," Mr. Bush replied.
The article goes on to point out that back when Bush proposed the consitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, he said he believed states should have the right to recognize the civil unions if they so pleased. Of course, the amendment he supported, and the one Congress voted on, contains the following:
Marriage in the United States “shall consist only of a man and a woman.” It also would have required that neither the U.S. Constitution nor any state constitution “shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidence thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.”
The key to the latter part is the phrasing of "legal incidence thereof." This means all the things that come along with a marriage contract- property rights, financial rights-of-action, shared health benefits, hospital visitation rights, et cetera. These are all the things a civil union is designed to produce.
So, the problem with holding these two positions- 1) civil unions if states allow them and 2) supporting the amendment- is that they are inherently contradictory.
For most people, this results in what I learned in Psychology 101 as "cognitive dissonance" an uncomfortable feeling when one attempts to hold opposing thoughts as both true in one's head. The textbook (literally) example of this is the picture of a dress in the window- guy thinks 1) "I hate that dress! Who would wear something like that?" He thinks 2) of his girlfriend "I sure love Mary!" Naturally, he next sees Mary wearing the hated dress. He experiences "cognitive dissonance" and psychological stress as a result of it. He then "resolves" this by realizing "I still love Mary, but I do not like her taste in clothes or she made a bad decision about that or (better still) dumping Mary for a new girl. Just kidding, but either way it is resolved.
What worries me about Bush is, he does not even experience this moment. I do not think he sees the contradiction. His strategy is unwavering, but he never wants to change course even when new facts present themselves. When he does completely flip-flop, he never admits to having changed his mind, he just denies it and turns the criticism around. It's like since he saw Mary in the dress, he has loved the dress all along. The problem we face now is Mary's dress is a global war on terrorism, an Iraqi insurgency, a bloated federal budget, an economy still struggling to create jobs. His solutions are merely the same old things: more "resolve" on terror, more "hard work" in Iraq, more "tax cuts" despite the deficit and increased spending. None of these have done what he told us they would do.
So why not change course? Why not stop and check a map instead of driving further down the wrong way?
I get the feeling if Bush and I took a trip together, we might get on the wrong road and Bush would just keep going until he drove of a cliff, despite all the signs and warnings ahead. I would be stuck, a la the Griswolds, having a beer in the desert while our car sat there dead. I also think if I told him the map said to go the other way, he would either completely ignore me, or (more likely) question my patriotism and throw me out of the car. Kerry would stop, read the map, check the sun, check a compass, and ask 50 people which way to go. It might be slow, but at least we'd go in the right direction.
Bush supports a) civil unions (2000) b) not civil unions (outlawed by his propsed amendment) or c) civil unions (now).
He told Charlie Gibson on Good Morning America:
He [Bush]added: "I view the definition of marriage different from legal arrangements that enable people to have rights. And I strongly believe that marriage ought to be defined as between a union between a man and a woman. Now, having said that, states ought to be able to have the right to pass laws that enable people to be able to have rights like others."
Mr. Gibson then asked, "So the Republican platform on that point, as far as you're concerned, is wrong?"
"Right," Mr. Bush replied.
The article goes on to point out that back when Bush proposed the consitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, he said he believed states should have the right to recognize the civil unions if they so pleased. Of course, the amendment he supported, and the one Congress voted on, contains the following:
Marriage in the United States “shall consist only of a man and a woman.” It also would have required that neither the U.S. Constitution nor any state constitution “shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidence thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.”
The key to the latter part is the phrasing of "legal incidence thereof." This means all the things that come along with a marriage contract- property rights, financial rights-of-action, shared health benefits, hospital visitation rights, et cetera. These are all the things a civil union is designed to produce.
So, the problem with holding these two positions- 1) civil unions if states allow them and 2) supporting the amendment- is that they are inherently contradictory.
For most people, this results in what I learned in Psychology 101 as "cognitive dissonance" an uncomfortable feeling when one attempts to hold opposing thoughts as both true in one's head. The textbook (literally) example of this is the picture of a dress in the window- guy thinks 1) "I hate that dress! Who would wear something like that?" He thinks 2) of his girlfriend "I sure love Mary!" Naturally, he next sees Mary wearing the hated dress. He experiences "cognitive dissonance" and psychological stress as a result of it. He then "resolves" this by realizing "I still love Mary, but I do not like her taste in clothes or she made a bad decision about that or (better still) dumping Mary for a new girl. Just kidding, but either way it is resolved.
What worries me about Bush is, he does not even experience this moment. I do not think he sees the contradiction. His strategy is unwavering, but he never wants to change course even when new facts present themselves. When he does completely flip-flop, he never admits to having changed his mind, he just denies it and turns the criticism around. It's like since he saw Mary in the dress, he has loved the dress all along. The problem we face now is Mary's dress is a global war on terrorism, an Iraqi insurgency, a bloated federal budget, an economy still struggling to create jobs. His solutions are merely the same old things: more "resolve" on terror, more "hard work" in Iraq, more "tax cuts" despite the deficit and increased spending. None of these have done what he told us they would do.
So why not change course? Why not stop and check a map instead of driving further down the wrong way?
I get the feeling if Bush and I took a trip together, we might get on the wrong road and Bush would just keep going until he drove of a cliff, despite all the signs and warnings ahead. I would be stuck, a la the Griswolds, having a beer in the desert while our car sat there dead. I also think if I told him the map said to go the other way, he would either completely ignore me, or (more likely) question my patriotism and throw me out of the car. Kerry would stop, read the map, check the sun, check a compass, and ask 50 people which way to go. It might be slow, but at least we'd go in the right direction.
posted by Scott L. Stuart at
1:55 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home