Whenever I talk to liberals, I always hear that W. is a bigot when it comes to gays and lesbians. In someways, that might be easy to believe given his support last year for the Federal Marriage amendment. The reality though, is not so clear. Lanny Davis, a Democrat who was President Clinton's special counsel, was a classmate of Bush's while at Yale. He is one of the few Dems who write a realistic assesment of the President, not as some kind of god or demon, but as a human being. Here is the money quote in regards to gays:
"...omeone we all believed to be gay walked by, although the word we used in those days was "queer." Someone, I'm sorry to say, snidely used that word as he walked by.
George heard it and, most uncharacteristically, snapped: "Shut up." Then he said, in words I can remember almost verbatim: "Why don't you try walking in his shoes for a while and see how it feels before you make a comment like that?"
Remember, this was the 1960s — pre-Stonewall, before gay rights became a cause many of us (especially male college students) had thought much about. I remember thinking, "This guy is much deeper than I realized."
In light of that memory, I wondered last year why Bush chose to exploit the gay marriage issue in his campaign. I'm still not sure, but I think that's what politics sometimes does to a person. Now he appears to be backing off, and I am not surprised. I hope it suggests a return to the "compassionate conservatism" I remember and that he practiced in his two terms as governor of Texas."
I've never really thought Bush was a bigot when it came to gays. In many ways he seems to follow the lead of many conservatives in that "live and let live" attitiude. What this means all the more is that Bush's support for the FMA was political, to win re-election than it was about his own views.
I think that's sad. In church today, a pastor preached about how we should strive to have our inner lives reflect our outer lives instead of putting up a false front. We don't do this because of the danger that can come by living a life authentically. Bush wanted to win last year, so he played to the religious right's hatred of gays. One wonders what would have happened had he had the courage to live what he really thought and stand up to the theocrats. He might have lost the far right, but may have gained some votes in the process.
Just to be fair, the Dems are not any better on ditching the gay community when it is politically expedient. Witness how Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 which codified a ban on gay marriages and how John Kerry supported a measure in the Massachusetts state legislature that would have nullified gay marriages in the Bay State which had just been granted months earlier.
One hopes that politicians at some point will have the courage of their convictions and stand up against the bigots who preached hatred of gays. Hopefully, that day will come soon.
Posted by Dennis at January 23, 2005 01:56 PMI think Bush is a homophobe. THAT WAS THE 60'S! HE COULD HAVE CHANGED HIS MIND! I don't approve of Bush as anything except an unknown like the rest of us. He is a HORRIBLE president, and Dick Cheney would be an even worse president.
And one other thing... BUSH WENT TO YALE????????? It seemed to me that he was too dumb to make it through middle school.
Posted by: Anonymous at October 20, 2005 07:44 PMI am sorry, but George W, Bush is the president of the USA. To me, what he does in that capacity is more important than his actions in his personal life.
Gay people do not want 'compassion'. We want equal rights. And that is exactly what this president is trying to deny us.
His politics are homophobic.
Posted by: Luciene at May 12, 2005 12:55 AMYou know, I thought that same thing (check my journal) and wrote about it. I agree with Joel above.
Posted by: BigGator5 at February 4, 2005 01:44 AMInfrequent reader to this blog, but I want to give a thought here. This post brings up something personal to me. I am an evangelical Christian that abhors the God hates fags movement. However, I still believe Biblically that homose#uality is a sin. To most that means I am homophobic or that I hate gays, or at least that's how I feel.
Is it possible that within the evangelical community there are a significant number of people who hold the belief that homose#uality is wrong, but do not hate gays? Just like if you think eating a certain way is wrong, but you don't hate fat people. Somewhere I think we miss a chance to dialogue about differences by making things an us against them issue.
I imagine that the president does not hate gays, and his support for legislation to ban gay marriage is not necessarily about hate. Certainly the president is playing to his base for support. Still, does he, and all others who would vote to ban gay marriage, hate homose#uals? Just like with any issue I reserve my right to respect, show kindness and understanding to people even if I disagree with them. I must believe people who disagree can still find a common ground and support one another.
Posted by: Joel at January 26, 2005 11:50 AM
To me, the issue isn't Bush's personal beliefs anymore than Clinton's womanizing was an issue to me. To me, the issue is his public conduct as a politician and our president. If he advocates policies that are terrible or panders to people's prejudices, I don't care that he allegedly has nice personal beliefs. I'd much rather have someone like Harry Truman who was, by all accounts, a racist person but forced through integration of the military. These men as leaders, not as potential saints, is what interests me.
Posted by: Brian at January 25, 2005 02:40 PMYou really have to be careful about ascribing monolitic qualities to any group, and especially so about a group as large and diverse as conservatives. I've been active in the R-party since I was a toddler (my wading pool was taken over to chill watermelons for a Goldwater rally). I've met a lot of people who held views I consider abhorrent, mean, and some who were just plain wrong.
But I've met relatively few who wouldn't change their minds given facts, or in some cases given personal experience that challenges their assumptions.
It's also a good idea to remember that Bush didn't oppose civil unions. Marriage, as far as the state is concerned, is a civil contract. We'd do a lot better to work to separate the idea of "marriage" from the civil aspects. Then anyone could contract the partnership, and any church which chose to do so could give the arrangement the blessing of sanctity.
Posted by: M. G. Stinnett at January 25, 2005 02:17 PMThanks, Dennis, for pointing out that both Kerry and Bush do not support gay marriage. You rightly pointed out that neither did Clinton. All political candidates, if they are savvy enough, court the Evangelical Christians. That's where truck-loads of money have come from in the past several years. Take a look at the huge cathedrals they have built and the elaborate television sets which frame the tearful Bible thumpers in lush plants, flowers, draped fabrics, and gaudy furniture. I'll bet that most of the people who sit at home and watch the televangelists consider themselves avid church-goers even though they don't leave the house. That's O.K.-just as long as they send that big check! I'll take my humble, caring, little church any day over those monuments to over-spending. If only these fundamentalist churches would be willing to spend their millions to fund public education or healthcare for all Americans, since the Bush administration does not seem to see those issues as high priorities.
Posted by: Teena at January 25, 2005 12:16 PMI'm sorry but at least with the "God hates fags" crowd, you know where you stand and can react accordingly.
Posted by: Brian at January 24, 2005 08:42 AMFirst, this anecdote comes from what Bush did in the late 60s before he was "re-born."
Furthermore, it seems he's someone who's willing to put other people on the sacrificial altar, against his own personal tolerance according to your anecdote, for political expediency. In many ways, this attitude is even worse than that of an unabashed homophobe.
Posted by: Brian at January 24, 2005 08:41 AMUnlike most of my progressive brothers and sisters, I have never thought of Bush as any kind of bigot. Neither, in my view, was Ronald Reagan.
One of the problems that Reagan posed then and Bush poses now is that they serve as "front men" for an internally contradictory coalition of ideologues, racial bigots, and religious fascists. They provide an acceptable "conservative" face for right-wing extremists like Grover Norquist, James Dobson, and others whose views would never be acceptable to a majority of voters if they were at the top of a national ticket
Posted by: Robert Benjamin at January 23, 2005 10:18 PM