George W. Bush on Civil Rights

President of the United States, Former Republican Governor (TX)


Coalition for governor: Juntos Podemos & Amigos de Bush

Looking back [on the 1998 gubernatorial re-election], I am especially proud of our efforts to win over Hispanic voters. Our El Paso staffer, having never been involved in politics, refused to believe things couldn't be done. She opened our headquarters in a heavily Democratic and Latino neighborhood. The big warehouse was crowded with volunteers, many of them speaking Spanish as they manned the phone bank. We organized a statewide Hispanic coalition called "Juntos Podemos," which translates roughly "Together, we can." Our local leaders thought the slogan was too vague and opted instead for the more conventional "Amigos de Bush" for its El Paso chapter. It became fun to visit the city just to see what wild things the crowd of political first-timers were up to. The Democratic mayor shook things up when he gave Bush an early endorsement.

The Democratic mayor & the unlikely collection of amateur campaigners made Bush the first Republican gubernatorial candidate in history to carry El Paso.

Source: Courage and Consequence, by Karl Rove, p.118&122 , Mar 9, 2010

OpEd: Declined to address NAACP; signaled not worth dialogue

President Bush's failure to address the NAACP early in his presidency was a clear signal to the African American community that Republicans did not see them as worthy of engagement in dialogue. The country would have been better off if he had gone there and challenged them to uproot failing school systems, to lower taxes in failing cities, to attract jobs, and to tackle the problem of violence and murder in cities like Philadelphia. It would have shown he was prepared to take seriously the plight of the poorer elements of the African American community, even if the NAACP was too indebted to its bureaucratic and union allies to join him. The only downside was the risk of being booted; the upside was igniting a dialogue to save Americans in the inner cities from decay.
Source: Real Change, by Newt Gingrich, p. 21 , Dec 18, 2007

W stands for Women: get out the women's vote

I was happy to join Jenna & Barbara [on the campaign trail for their first time] on the campaign's "W Stands for Women" grassroots effort aimed at getting out the women's vote. Every vote counted. George thought the women's vote was key--naturally, because he's surrounded himself with so many strong women, like his chief political adviser, Karen Hughes, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and Margaret Spellings, his former domestic policy adviser and now secretary of education, to name a few.
Source: My Father, My President, by Doro Koch Bush, p.505 , Oct 6, 2006

2006: National Anthem sung only in English, not in Spanish

In April 2006, British music producer Adam Kidron introduced a Spanish version of the US national anthem, titled "Nuestro Himno," or "Our Hymn."

The intent may have been to show that even illegal immigrants feel patriotism and solidarity with America. But rewriting the national anthem suggested to many that the only intent of the millions of illegal immigrants in American was to take over and reinvent the US in their own image and to their own liking.

Even President Bush understood that "Nuestro Himno" was a public relations disaster. In response to a reporter's question, President Bush on April 28, 2006, said, "I think the national anthem ought to be sung in English and I think people who want to be a citizen of this country ought to learn English, and they ought to learn to sing the national anthem in English."

Source: Minutemen, by Jim Gilchrist & Jerome Corsi, p.272 , Jul 25, 2006

Withholding info from Congress OK on national security issue

Pres. Bush issued these signing statement instructing federal agencies on his interpretation of Congressional laws:

March 9, 2006:Justice Department officials must give reports to Congress by certain dates on how the FBI is using the USA Patriot Act to search homes and secretly seize papers.

Bush’s signing statement: The president can order Justice Dept. officials to withhold any information from Congress if he decides it could impair national security or executive branch operations.

Law passed by Congress on Dec. 30, 2005: When requested, scientific information ‘’prepared by government researchers shall be transmitted [to Congress] uncensored and without delay.“

Bush’s signing statement: The president can tell researchers to withhold any information from Congress if he decides its disclosure could impair foreign relations, national security, or the workings of the executive branch.

Source: Boston Globe, analysis of presidential signing statements , Apr 30, 2006

Federal courts have approved the authority to wiretap

It is said that prior to the attacks of 9/11 our government failed to connect the dots of the conspiracy. We now know that two of the hijackers in the US placed telephone calls to Al Qaeda operatives overseas. But we did not know about their plans until it was too late. So to prevent another attack, based on authority given to me by the Constitution and by statute, I have authorized a terrorist-surveillance program to aggressively pursue the international communications of suspected Al Qaeda operatives and affiliates to and from the US. Previous presidents have used the same constitutional authority I have, and federal courts have approved the use of that authority. Appropriate members of Congress have been kept informed. This terrorist-surveillance program has helped prevent terrorist attacks. It remains essential to the security of America. If there are people inside our country who are talking with Al Qaeda, we want to know about it, because we will not sit back and wait to be hit again.
Source: 2006 State of the Union Address , Jan 31, 2006

Congress can't protect flag; only Amendment can

The Court decided that desecrating the flag as part of a political protest was protected "speech" under the First Amendment (Texas v Johnson [1989]). With the country predictably outraged, Congress promptly passed the Flag Protection Act of 1989, which was now under constitutional challenge in the High Court (US v Eichman [1990]).

The Bush administration had strongly supported the goal of protecting the flag but differed with many in Congress over what it would take to accomplish that noble goal (as we saw it). In testimony before Congress, my colleagues in the Justice Department had taken the position that the broad sweep of the Court's opinion in the Texas case meant that only a constitutional amendment would suffice to protect the flag. A statute would not be enough. But Congress opted in favor of a statute, and it was not up to the Supreme Court to determine whether the law passed First Amendment muster.

Source: First Among Equals, by Kenneth Starr, p. 47&50-51 , Oct 10, 2002

Local control with consequences if racial profiling occurs

Q: Do you support a federal law banning racial profiling by police?

GORE: Racial profiling is a serious problem. Imagine what it is like for someone to be singled out unfairly and feel the unfair force of law simply because of race or ethnicity. That runs counter to what the United States is all about. If I am entrusted with the presidency it will be the first civil rights act of the 21st century.

BUSH: I can’t imagine what it would be like to be singled out because of race and harassed. That’s just flat wrong. So we ought to do everything we can to end racial profiling. One of my concerns, though, is I don’t want to federalize local police. I believe in local control of governments. Most officers are dedicated citizens who are putting their lives at risk, who aren’t bigoted or aren’t prejudiced. I do think we need to find out where racial profiling occurs and say to the local folks, get it done and if you can’t, there’ll be a federal consequence.

Source: (X-ref Gore) Presidential Debate at Wake Forest University , Oct 11, 2000

$145M over 5 years for disabled transportation

Source: Press Release, “Help for Disabled” , Jun 28, 2000

Government should promote independence for the disabled

I am proposing today a New Freedom Initiative to ensure that all Americans with disabilities have every chance to pursue the American dream. First, we will promote independent living. My administration will be a champion of assistive technology. Independent living should also include greater opportunities for homeownership. For the first time, a section eight recipient who has a disability will be able to use up to a year’s worth of rental vouchers to finance the down payment on a home of their own, and continue using vouchers to pay the mortgage. Second, we will help citizens with disabilities to claim their rightful place in the workforce. We will spend $20 million in federal matching funds to enable Americans with disabilities to buy computers and other equipment. We will help Americans with disabilities to gain fuller access to community life. My administration will seek $10 million each year to aid religious and civic groups in making their facilities more accessible.
Source: (X-ref Health Care) Speech on Americans with Disabilities , Jun 15, 2000

Ten Commandments OK in schools for “inherent values”

Q: Does posting the Ten Commandments in schools invalidate the religious expression of children who are not in the Judeo-Christian heritage?
A: “Thou shalt not kill” is pretty universal. Districts ought to be allowed to post the Ten Commandments, no matter what a person’s religion is. There’s some inherent values in those great commandments that would make our society a better place for everybody. I also believe our schools ought to expand character education.
Source: GOP Debate in Johnston, Iowa , Jan 16, 2000

Leave decisions on flying Confederate flag to the states

Q: At the South Carolina state capitol building, the Confederate flag flies with the state flag and the US flag. Does the flag offend you personally? A: I believe the people of SC can figure out what to do with this flag issue. I don’t believe it’s the role of someone from outside SC to come into this state and tell the people of SC what to do [about] the flag. Q: As an American citizen, do you have a visceral reaction? A: As an American citizen, I trust the people of SC to make the decision for SC.
Source: Republican Debate in West Columbia, SC , Jan 7, 2000

English-plus, not English-only

Bush firmly rejected “English-only,” which has caused problems among Hispanics. “I support English-plus, not English-only,” said Bush. “English-only says to me that if Hispanic happens to be your heritage, you’re not part of the process.”
Source: Mike Glover, Associated Press, on 2000 presidential race , Aug 6, 1999

State lottery OK, but qualms about casino gambling

Bush presided over a state lottery approved by Texas voters three years before he became governor. Bush himself, as a private citizen, voted in favor of creating the lottery, his office said. Yet, Bush has made clear that he has qualms about gambling and would campaign and vote against the introduction of casinos if voters are presented with another ballot question. “Casino gambling is not OK. It has ruined the lives of too many adults and it can do the same thing to our children,” Bush declared.
Source: Laurence Arnold, Associated Press , Jul 26, 1999

Patriot Act does not water down civil liberties

Q: Why are my rights being watered down and what are the specific justifications for these reforms?

A: I really don’t think your rights are being watered down. I wouldn’t support it if I thought that. Every action being taken against terrorists requires a court order, requires scrutiny. The tools now given to the terrorist fighters are the same tools that we’ve been using against drug dealers & white-collar criminals. Whoever’s the president must guard your liberties, must not erode your rights in America. The Patriot Act is necessary, for example, because parts of the FBI couldn’t talk to each other. Intelligence gathering and the law enforcement arms of the FBI just couldn’t share intelligence under the old law. That didn’t make any sense. Our law enforcement must have every tool necessary to find and disrupt terrorists at home and abroad before they hurt us again. So I don’t think the Patriot Act abridges your rights at all. It’s necessary.

Source: Second Bush-Kerry Debate, in St. Louis MO , Oct 8, 2004

Don’t let Patriot Act expire-terrorist threat won’t

We must continue to give law enforcement personnel every tool they need to defend us. And one of those essential tools is the Patriot Act, which allows federal law enforcement to better share information, to track terrorists, to disrupt their cells and to seize their assets. Key provisions of the Patriot Act are set to expire next year. The terrorist threat will not expire on that schedule. Our law enforcement needs this vital legislation to protect our citizens. You need to renew the Patriot Act.
Source: 2004 State of the Union address to joint session of Congress , Jan 20, 2004

On Patriot Act, willing to defy ethnic lobbies

When it was necessary to do so, Bush was more than willing to defy ethnic lobbies. Is administration wrote and put into effect new internal-security legislation, the USA Patriot Act of 2001, that expanded the government’s power to deport noncitizens associated with terrorist organizations. Bush’s FBI summoned Middle Eastern students for voluntary questioning. Bush’s INS directed enforcement resources toward Middle Easterners who had overstayed their visas. Bush added Hamas and Hezbollah to the list of terrorist organizations, to the dismay of the leading American Muslim organizations.

In the past, efforts to protect the country against internal threats had been tainted by prejudice and panic. The FBI disgraced itself with its espionage against Martin Luther King, and had overcompensated for past sins by building racial oversensitivity into its operations. Bush’s conspicuous religious and ethnic sensitivity helped achieve a public consensus in favor of a little less sensitivity in the ranks.

Source: The Right Man, by David Frum, p.167-68 , Jun 1, 2003

George W. Bush on Affirmative Action

Equal protection supercedes recruiting women & minorities

Since taking office in 2001, President Bush has issued signing statements on more than 750 new laws, declaring that he has the power to set aside the laws when they conflict with his legal interpretation of the Constitution. The federal government is instructed to follow the statements when it enforces the laws. Here is an example:

Law passed by Congress on Dec. 17, 2004: The new national intelligence director shall recruit and train women and minorities to be spies, analysts, and translators in order to ensure diversity in the intelligence community.

Bush’s signing statement: The executive branch shall construe the law in a manner consistent with a constitutional clause guaranteeing ‘’equal protection“ for all. (In 2003, the Bush administration argued against race conscious affirmative action programs in a Supreme Court case. The court rejected Bush’s view.)

Source: Boston Globe, analysis of presidential signing statements , Apr 30, 2006

Help minority business by unbundling government contracts

Q: Do you see a need for affirmative action programs, or have we moved far enough along that we no longer need to use race and gender as a factor?

KERRY: Regrettably, we have not moved far enough along. And I regret to say that this administration has even blocked steps that could help us move further along. On the Small Business Committee, we have a goal for minority set-aside programs. [The Bush Administration] doesn’t reach those goals. They don’t even fight to reach those goals. They’ve tried to undo them. The fact is that in too many parts of our country, we still have discrimination.

BUSH: Like my opponent, I don’t agree we ought to have quotas. I agree, we shouldn’t have quotas. I believe the best way to help our small businesses is to unbundle government contracts so people have a chance to be able to bid and receive a contract to help get their business going. Minority ownership of businesses are up, because we created an environment for the entrepreneurial spirit to be strong.

Source: [Xref Kerry] Third Bush-Kerry Debate, in Tempe Arizona , Oct 13, 2004

Minorities benefit from good climate for small business

Q: Do you see a need for affirmative action?

KERRY: We still have discrimination. And affirmative action is not just something that applies to people of color. It also is with respect to women, it’s other efforts to be inclusive. This president is the first not to meet with the NAACP, with the Black Congressional Caucus, with the civil rights leadership.

BUSH: It is just not true that I haven’t met with the Black Congressional Caucus. We’ve expanded Pell Grants by a million students. Do you realize today in America, we spend $73 billion to help 10 million low- and middle-income families afford college? I believe the best way to help small business is not only through loans, which we have increased, but to unbundle government contracts so people have a chance to receive a contract. Minority ownership of businesses are up, because we created an environment for the entrepreneurial spirit to be strong. Today more minorities own a home than ever before. And that’s hopeful.

Source: [Xref Kerry] Third Bush-Kerry debate, in Tempe AZ , Oct 13, 2004

Recognizes value of diversity on college campuses

In 2003, the Supreme Court struck down an admissions policy at the University of Michigan, where 20 points were automatically added to test scores of all minority applicants. But, by 5-4, the court upheld an affirmative action program at Michigan Law School, since the purpose of the discrimination in favor of minority applicants and against whites was the "compelling state interest" of "diversity."

The next generation of American students of European descent will thus, because of their race, endure discrimination in admissions to college and graduate schools until some future court determines that "diversity" has been achieved. And President Bush's reaction?

"I applauded the Supreme Court for recognizing the value of diversity on our Nation's campuses. Diversity is one of American's greatest strengths. Today's decisions seek a careful balance between the goal of campus diversity and the fundamental principle of equal treatment under law."

Source: Where The Right Went Wrong, by Pat Buchanan, p.223 , Aug 12, 2004

Race-neutral admissions first; race factor ok if that fails

Q In 2003, the Supreme Court split the difference on affirmative action, allowing Bakke to stand, but rejecting the numerical formulas used by the University of Michigan undergraduate schools. Your view?

A: I agreed with the Court in saying that we ought to reject quotas. I think quotas are discriminatory by nature. I think they discriminate on the bottom, and I know they discriminate on the top. And so I agreed with their assessment that a quota system was an unfair system for all. We also agreed with the finding that-in terms of admissions policy, race-neutral admissions policies ought to be tried. If they don’t work, to achieve an objective which is diversification, race ought to be a factor. I agree with that assessment. I think it’s very important for all institutions to strive for diversity, and I believe there are ways to do so.

Source: Speech at Washington DC Convention Center , Aug 6, 2004

Education, housing, and hiring must be equal for all

While our schools are no longer segregated by law, they are still not equal in opportunity and excellence. Justice requires more than a place in a school. Justice requires that every school teach every child in America. The habits of racism in America have not all been broken. Laws against racial discrimination must be vigorously enforced in education and housing and hiring and public accommodations.
Source: William Douglas/Tom Fitzgerald; Kansas City Star , May 17, 2004

Affirmative access: qualified candidates guaranteed college

I going to find people that want to serve their country, but I want a diverse administration. I think it’s important. I’ve worked hard in the state of Texas to make sure institutions reflect the state, with good, smart policy that rejects quotas. I don’t like quotas. Quotas tend to pit one group of people against another. But policies that give people a helping hand so they can help themselves.

For example, in our state of Texas, I worked with the legislature, both Republican and Democrats, to pass a law that said if you come in the top 10% of your high school class, you’re automatically admitted to one of our higher institutions of learning. And as a result, our universities are now more diverse. I labeled it affirmative access.

In the contracting business, government can help, not with quotas, but to help meet a goal of ownership of small businesses, for example. The contracts need to be smaller. The agencies need to recruit and to work hard to find people to bid on the state contracts.

Source: St. Louis debate , Oct 17, 2000

Guaranteed TX college racial preference for top 10% of class

Source: The Economist, “Issues 2000” special , Sep 30, 2000

Affirmative access: end soft bigotry of low expectations

Q: What are your feelings about affirmative action?

A: The best thing to do is to educate every child and to challenge the soft bigotry of low expectations. We can have affirmative programs that enhance people’s chance to access the middle class without quotas and without pitting race against race. We were the first state to put a rule in place that the top 10% of each high school class could go to a state university. I call it affirmative access. This is going to enhance the ability of state universities to attract minorities. The pool of applicants must be increased for small-business ownership. I don’t mind measuring, I don’t mind a scorecard.

Yes, racism exists. I’m not going to be making policy based on guilt. The fundamental question in certain neighborhoods is, how do we break a sense that the system isn’t meant for me? You need mentoring programs. Part of it has to do with there isn’t the entrepreneurial system being passed from one generation to the next.

Source: Interview with Time Magazine, CNN.com/Time.com , Aug 1, 2000

For affirmative action, but not quotas or preferences

Source: GeorgeWBush.com: ‘Issues: Policy Points Overview’ , Apr 2, 2000

1978: ERA is unnecessary

In his 1978 Congressional primary race, Bush staked out moderate positions with a pro-entrepreneur, anti-Jimmy Carter platform. His opponent labeled him a liberal East Coast Republican aligned with the "Rockefeller wing" of the party. He argued that the Equal Rights Amendment for women was unnecessary and, while he stated he was personally opposed to legalized abortion, he was not in favor of a "pro-life" amendment.
Source: Fortunate Son, by J.H.Hatfeild, p. 61 , Aug 17, 1999

Reach out to minorities, but without quotas

Bush opposes quotas and racial preferences, but said the private and public sector should be encouraged to reach out to minorities. He refused to state his position on a California law that eliminated affirmative action programs.
Source: Associated Press on 2000 presidential race , Jun 14, 1999

George W. Bush on Gay Rights

2004: Supported Family Marriage Amendment (no gay marriage)

When he finally endorsed the constitutional amendment on February 24, 2004, Bush described marriage as "the union of a man and a woman" and as "the most enduring human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith." He said marriage "cannot be severed from its cultural, religious, and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society."

At the same time, Bush made clear his endorsement of the FMA had been triggered by the actions of the Massachusetts high court. "After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization."

Source: The Case for Polarized Politics, by Jeff Bell, p. 84-5 , Mar 6, 2012

2003: Opposed MA decision legalizing gay marriage

On Nov. 18, 2003, a 4-3 decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court legalized gay marriages in the state. Pres. Bush opposed the decision and immediately pledged to defend traditional marriage as the cornerstone of a strong society.

While Bush supported same-sex partner rights such as hospital visits and health coverage, he did call for a constitutional amendment defending the institution of marriage. His concern was that state court decisions would undermine the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), passed by Congress and signed by Pres. Clinton in 1996, defining marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman and saying that states need not recognize a marriage from another state if it is between persons of the same sex.

The issue grew more intense, but Bush's rhetoric did not. [Bigotry accusations] made gay marriage the kind of issue most political candidates dread--not because they don't know where they stand, but because no one likes being branded a hater.

Source: Courage and Consequence, by Karl Rove, p.374-376 , Mar 9, 2010

Constitutional amendment to protect marriage

So many of my generation, after a long journey, have come home to family and faith and are determined to bring up responsible, moral children. Government is not the source of these values, but government should never undermine them. Because marriage is a sacred institution and the foundation of society, it should not be redefined by activist judges. For the good of families, children and society, I support a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage.
Source: 2005 State of the Union Speech , Feb 2, 2005

Don’t know whether homosexuality is a choice

Q: Do you believe homosexuality is a choice?

A: I don’t know. I just don’t know. I do know that we have a choice to make in America and that is to treat people with tolerance and respect and dignity. It’s important that we do that. I also know in a free society people, consenting adults can live the way they want to live. And that’s to be honored.

Source: Third Bush-Kerry debate, in Tempe AZ , Oct 13, 2004

We shouldn’t change our views on the sanctity of marriage

As we respect someone’s rights and profess tolerance, we shouldn’t change-or have to change-our basic views on the sanctity of marriage. I believe in the sanctity of marriage. It’s very important that we protect marriage as an institution, between a man and a woman. I proposed a constitutional amendment. I was worried that activist judges are defining the definition of marriage, and the surest way to protect marriage between a man and woman is to amend the Constitution. It has also the benefit of allowing citizens to participate in the process. When you amend the Constitution, state legislatures must participate in the Constitution ratification. I’m deeply concerned that judges are making those decisions and not the citizenry. The Defense of Marriage Act protected states from the action of one state to another. It also defined marriage as between a man and woman. If it gets overturned, we’ll end up with marriage being defined by courts, and I don’t think that’s in our nation’s interests.
Source: Third Bush-Kerry debate, in Tempe AZ , Oct 13, 2004

Protect marriage against activist judges

Because the union of a man and woman deserves an honored place in our society, I support the protection of marriage against activist judges. And I will continue to appoint federal judges who know the difference between personal opinion and the strict interpretation of the law.
Source: 2004 Republican Convention Acceptance Speech , Sep 2, 2004

Bush calls for constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage

Bush called for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, saying that’s the only way to protect “the most fundamental institution of civilization” from activist judges. “If we are to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever, our nation must enact a constitutional amendment,” Bush said. “The union of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution . . . honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith.”
Source: Deborah Orin, New York Post , Feb 25, 2004

Instinct on gay issues: do not touch them

Bush’s instinct on gay-rights issues was clear and emphatic: Do not touch them. During the campaign he had refused to comment on Vermont’s civil unions. They were, he said, a local issue for local officeholders. He refused to accept the support of the Log Cabin Republicans, an organization of gay Republicans-and then met with a dozen prominent homosexuals in Austin after he had clinched the nomination. In office, he retained Clinton’s Office of National AIDS Policy and named an openly gay man to run it. He did not repeal any of the spousal benefits that Clinton had introduced for homosexual federal employees. He did not object when some of his cabinet secretaries participated in Gay Pride events in their departments-and he did not object when others did not.

Bush tried to strike a formula of “morally traditional and socially inclusive.” Gay issues demanded a choice between those two imperatives, and for that very reason Bush wished to have nothing to do with them.

Source: The Right Man, by David Frum, p.103-4 , Jun 1, 2003

Offices on AIDS and race will remain open

President Bush scrambled yesterday to defend his commitment to race relations and helping people with AIDS after his chief of staff mistakenly said the offices devoted to those issues would be closed.

White House officials insisted chief of staff Andy Card had been misinformed when he told USA Today that the offices, both created by President Bill Clinton, would be shuttered. The officials said Bush will keep an AIDS office, although with a smaller staff, and will continue to focus on race relations with a Task Force on Uniting America that will not have its own office but will involve senior officials from several parts of the White House.

“We’re concerned about AIDS inside our White House - make no mistake about it,” Bush said. “And ours is an administration that will fight for fair, just law in the country.” Clinton created the Office of National AIDS Policy in 1994 to promote research on the disease. The Office on the President’s Initiative for One America was created in February 1999.

Source: Mike Allen, Washington Post, p A1 on 2000 election , Feb 8, 2001

Bush claims gay tolerance but record differs

Bush claimed to be tolerant of gays, but he’s on the record as being adamantly opposed to hiring an openly gay person in his Administration. And Dick Cheney was forced to back off on his support for recognition of gay and lesbian relationships. Bush got positively gleeful over sending the three men who dragged James Byrd on the back of a truck to the death chamber, when only two are going (the other got a life sentence). And contrary to what he said in the debate, he did block hate-crimes legislation.
Source: Time, p. 62, “Double Standard” at Wake Forest debate , Oct 19, 2000

Tolerance & equal rights, not gay marriage & special rights

Q: What is your position on gay marriage?

BUSH: I’m not for gay marriage. I think marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. I appreciated the way the administration signed the Defense of Marriage Act. I presume the vice president supported it.

GORE: I agree with that, and I did support that law. But I think that we should find a way to allow some kind of civic unions. And I basically agree with Dick Cheney and Joe Lieberman, and I think the three of us have one view and the governor has another view.

BUSH: I’m not sure what kind of view he’s ascribing to me. One day he says he agrees with me, then he says he doesn’t. I will be a tolerant person. I’ve been a tolerant person all my life. I just happen to believe strongly that marriage is between a man and a woman. I don’t really think it’s any of my concern how you conduct your sex life. That’s a private matter. I support equal rights but not special rights for people.

Source: Presidential Debate at Wake Forest University , Oct 11, 2000

No gay adoptions; but listens to gay GOP group

Bush invited us, a dozen gay Republicans, after he’d refused to meet with a gay Republican group that criticized him. Bush didn’t like everything we had to say. I was struck with his lack of familiarity with the issues, as well as by his desire to learn.

Bush admitted that, growing up in Texas, he had not been as open to elements of America’s diverse culture. He had a narrow set of friends and a firm set of traditions. But he was surprised and dismayed to hear that people saw him as intolerant. “What have I said that sent that signal?“ he asked repeatedly.

He assured us he would hire gays who both were qualified and shared his political views. When one of us talked about his lesbian sister and her partner adopting children, he acknowledged his often-stated belief that gays should not adopt.

Though Bush was attentive--and does show a willingness to hear all sides--I don’t think we changed his positions. He still opposes gay marriage and opposes classifying crimes against gays as hate crimes.

Source: Former Congressman Steve Gunderson, Newsweek, p. 43 , Apr 24, 2000

Against gay marriage, but leave it to the states

Q: So if you have gays working for you, that’s fine and you don’t have a problem-you’d appoint gays in the Cabinet and so forth.
A: Well, I’m not going to ask what their sexual orientation is. I’m going to put conservative people in the cabinet. It’s none of my business what somebody’s [orientation is]. Now, when somebody makes it my business, like on gay marriage, I’m going to stand up and say I don’t support gay marriage. I support marriage between men and women.
Q: So therefore if a state were voting on gay marriage, you would suggest to that state not to approve it.
A: The state can do what they want to do. Don’t try to trap me in this state’s issue.
Source: GOP Debate on the Larry King Show , Feb 15, 2000

No gays in Boy Scouts

Bush disagrees with the New Jersey Supreme Court ruling that said the Boy Scouts of America must accept gays in their organization. “I believe the Boy Scouts is a private organization and they should be able to set the standards that they choose to set,” Bush said
Source: USA Today, “Not taking GOP nomination for granted” , Aug 19, 1999

Hate-crime rules don’t apply to gays

Bush opposes the extension of hate crime laws to protect gays and homosexual adoption.
Source: cnn.com , Jul 2, 1999

  • Click here for 17 older quotations from George W. Bush on Civil Rights.
  • Click here for definitions & background information on Civil Rights.
  • Click here for VoteMatch responses by George W. Bush.
  • Click here for AmericansElect.org quiz by George W. Bush.
Other past presidents on Civil Rights: George W. Bush on other issues:
Former Presidents:
Barack Obama(D,2009-2017)
George W. Bush(R,2001-2009)
Bill Clinton(D,1993-2001)
George Bush Sr.(R,1989-1993)
Ronald Reagan(R,1981-1989)
Jimmy Carter(D,1977-1981)
Gerald Ford(R,1974-1977)
Richard Nixon(R,1969-1974)
Lyndon Johnson(D,1963-1969)
John F. Kennedy(D,1961-1963)
Dwight Eisenhower(R,1953-1961)
Harry S Truman(D,1945-1953)

Past Vice Presidents:
V.P.Joseph Biden
V.P.Dick Cheney
V.P.Al Gore
V.P.Dan Quayle
Sen.Bob Dole

Political Parties:
Republican Party
Democratic Party
Libertarian Party
Green Party
Reform Party
Natural Law Party
Tea Party
Constitution Party
Civil Rights
Foreign Policy
Free Trade
Govt. Reform
Gun Control
Health Care
Homeland Security
Social Security
Tax Reform

Page last updated: Feb 22, 2022