1. says

    Another Republican Wife pretends to be less bigoted than her husband and the party she has represented for much of her life.

    Don’t be fooled by the lying cunt. This is all a dodge to make the GOP appear to be more diverse than it is.

  2. Patrick says

    She may seem a hypocrite, but she’s so well-respected amongst conservatives as a sort of matriarchal figure that this might actually still have some significant effect.

  3. Hawthorne says

    I am deeply sad she did not publicly express these views while her husband was President, but I understand why she did not. She was married to the President. Perhaps she said more to him about it privately, maybe even George was willing to accept gay relationships as equivalent to straight relationships, but the public veneer on this will not likely ever be peeled back to reveal George’s true feelings on this issue. Politics trumped everything back then, and Karl Rove called the shots. Please don’t knock me, but I am hopeful perhaps Laura’s words will be heard by some calmer voices in the Republican Party and stem some of the vitriol coming from them these days.

  4. Rascal says

    Stop looking this gift horse in the mouth. It is politically unthinkable for a First Lady to oppose her husband in public, and rightly so. She is not the one who holds the job. And what possible benefit could be achieved from a “pretense” of this sort?

    This will make a difference to some conservatives, particularly women, and we ought to acknowledge her support rather than use vulgar epithets against her. Sheesh.

  5. Patric says

    I am pleased to see from these initial comments that people are not now fawning over her.

    The most infuriating disclosures about her book and Rove’s book are the revelations about their comments about Senator Kerry’s completely appropriate reference to Mary Cheney’s lesbianism in the 2004 debates. Senator Kerry, one of only 13 U.S. Senators to have been brave enough to vote against DOMA, requires no lectures on respect for gay and lesbian people from people who have stood by silently while their loved ones have used homophobia to advance their political careers. These book passages are nearly as nauseating as the contrived debate-night reaction to those same comments by Senator Kerry from the vile Lynne Cheney.

  6. Patric says

    As to those who are contending that a First Lady cannot take a position on a controversial social issue different than that of her husband, Laura Bush’s own mother-in-law was openly pro choice during her husband’s time in office.

  7. Gridlock says

    Acknowledge her support?

    Her useless support, NOW, after the fact, when it doesn’t matter, doesn’t cost her anything, has no real impact and after she stood by as her husband and his cronies vilified us, used us to terrify others, and made us out to be the bane of humanity?

    Give me a fucking BREAK. She deserves every bit of invective thrown her way and then some. Maybe after a few years repenting, volunteering to help our community in a tangible way.. maybe then.

    Now? With just a few queefs of hot air from her empty, stepford head? Not bloody likely.

  8. Jack M says

    Considering the family she married into, it’s a blessing she can feel free to speak out on anything at all. Imagine being married to that idiot and having a c–t like Barbara for a mother-in-law.

  9. Maxcor says

    I understand the anger at her for not saying something sooner but it’s such a difficult issue and I, for one, commend her for even daring to say she supports same-sex marriage. Don’t forget her modest, but still unexpected words in 2006 about the Federal Marriage Amendment. She could’ve easily said that her religion prohibited her from supporting it (like Obama) instead she said that, “I don’t think it should be used as a campaign tool, obviously. It requires a lot of sensitivity to just talk about the issue… a lot of sensitivity.”

  10. DavyG says

    The reaction to her support is disgusting. She SUPPORTS marriage equality. That’s what she just said. Why is a supporter of marriage equality a “cunt” for supporting marriage equality? Ugh …

  11. Dan says

    Patric, thank you for injecting this discussion with some common sense.

    Rascal, that this might make a difference among women and conservatives now isn’t what has people riled up. The fact is, she made a choice to stay silent while her husband rallied conservatives against gay marriage for eight years, all the while painting himself as a “compassionate conservative.” It was a political ploy, and it worked. She should be ashamed of herself not to have said something when it mattered, and to add this now, after the fact, “By the way, I think you gays are lovely,” is a slap in the face and a calculated move to sell more copies of her book to liberals.

    No one forced her to marry George W. Bush, or to stay married to him, or to become First Lady. If you were in her position, and your husband were railing against interracial marriage as a political platform, God help you if you tacitly supported it with your silence and then discussed all your nice black and white couple friends after the fact, as if that somehow excused it. It doesn’t. Laura Bush’s choices are her own, and she’s accountable for them.

  12. shane says

    Maybe she should be invited to speak at LGBT events and see if she accepts. For free. For recompense. For her conscience. If she accepts, and speaks, it could be transformative. Imagine news coverage of that event.

  13. Dan says

    I should add that I would be singing an entirely different tune if she said now, “I made a mistake by staying silent, and I regret it. Mea culpa.”

  14. walter says

    this is probably very hard for her to puts a much different face on support for gay marriage. laura bush is not some radical left fanatic. it is a face many conservatives can identify with and actually will listen to. also with her book tour a lot of people who would never hear positives about gay marriage are hearing. does anyone hear really thing george bush would have listened to her. he may have big ears but doesn’t use them for listening just to hold up his glasses. and those big ears are attached to a small brain. thank the former first lady for her support and use it to move foward. she has said more than obama has and we haven’t burned him at the stake

  15. Chitown Kev says

    Well, I can perhaps go to the heart of this from a different POV.

    I think that Hillary Clinton was pretty much to the left of Bill as far as NAFTA was concerned but Hillary Clinton wasn’t talking about that until she had a stable political career of her own.

    I kind of feel the same way here. Now Laura could have stemmed the tide of the social stigmatizing of gay people through all those marriage amendments…I do fault her for that, but I can’t imagine a sitting FL coming out against her husband.

  16. Leonard says

    Are First Lady’s brainless robots who must follow the political tracts of their President husbands? If true, it sounds as if while the rest of the country has come into the 21st century, the white house is stuck in the 50’s.

    She could have certainly said something during Bush’s terms in office.

  17. jersey says

    Walter summed it up well. We should welcome any unexpected supporters of gay rights, however late. Laura Bush was never the problem–her husband was.

  18. Rann says

    I agree this is too little too late. Just like now I wish Mrs. Obama would speak up for us in public. I am glad she is doing what she is for the fight against obesity but still as the first black couple in the White Hose as they are, I was hoping for so much more! Speak out now Mrs. Obama! Don’t wait for eight years. Larry King may be dead.

  19. ravewulf says

    Huh. Who knew she was a closet lib on social issues. Better late than never I suppose (would have helped a lot more if it had been a lot sooner though).

  20. Jubal Harshaw says

    It’s a lovely spring day and the spineless, tick-like apologists are moving from blog to blog in defense of another P.O.S. book shill.

    Praise Jeebus.

  21. Andres says

    People are being so harsh on her. Her job was to be married to the man that got elected (dubiously) to be president. First ladies (or gents) shouldn’t try to shape policy. I like to hold the persons we elect as the responsible ones for what goes well or doesn’t. She chose to stay above the fray- I can’t blame her for that.

  22. Jacob says

    oh, you silly gays hate everyone for everything. You hate those that don’t support us, but when they do support us, you still hate them for not having supported us earlier. You hate closeted celebrities for being in the closet, but once they come out, you still hate them for not having come out earlier.

    Sorry, folks, but life is a journey. People grow and change and modify their opinions based on experience. Can we fault people for not knowing everything automatically? Would it not be a little wiser to have compassion for the fact that there are certain circles of society that really do not like us very much and they will indoctrinate those opinions into their children. It’s up to the children to break that line of hate and make up their own minds on the matter. This can be difficult when you have little exposure to the other side. It can be impossible, however, when the ‘other side’ refuses to accept your support and trashes you just as much as your conservative environment would for offering said support.

    Better late than never, eh? You all seem to be upset that this revelation is coming now, rather than when it could have “actually made a difference”. Well, who says it’s not going to make a difference now? Laura is a very, even extremely, popular figure in the conservative movement. I can’t imagine how Laura saying these things could possibly not effect somebody somewhere.

    Furthermore, who says that it would have made a difference back then? Politics are very predictable. If Laura would have made these opinions public circa 2004, she merely would have been distanced from the Republican platform and maligned by conservatives. ‘Changing people’s minds” is not as easy as you people think it is. It takes more than a public figure expressing a contrary viewpoint to your own. It takes your own personal experience and education proving your former viewpoint wrong.

    Anyway, you all would’ve hated her just as much if she had said these things in 2004, because you don’t want support. You want someone to fight your battles for you. It’s not up to heterosexuals to validate our existence – they are busy validating their own. That’s up to us, individually. So stop whining about this public figure or that public figure refusing support, or finally giving support later than we would have liked.

  23. says

    The defenses of her show two things:

    1. Gross ignorance of American history. Try Googling “Eleanor Roosevelt,” Kids! She was First Lady through Franklin Roosevelt’s four terms as President starting OVER SEVENTY YEARS AGO AND SHE KICKED ASS!

    Particularly on poverty and racial issues, privately and publicly pushing her husband to go against the RABIDLY RACIST nature of the country and advance opportunities for blacks like no time since Reconstruction collapsed.

    While it wasn’t until Truman in 1948 that segregation in the military was officially banned, she was one of those driving the greater ADMISSION period of blacks to the military which enraged racist Secretary of War, Henry L. Stimson], as reflected in this 1942 memory from a DOD personnel planner for the Marines:

    “It just scared us to death when the colored were put on it. I went over to Selective Service and saw Gen. Hershey, and he turned me over to a lieutenant colonel … I told him, ‘Eleanor [Mrs. Roosevelt] says we gotta take in Negroes, and we are just scared to death, we’ve never had any in, we don’t know how to handle them, we are afraid of them’.” – “Integration of the Armed Forces, 1940-1965″ by Morris J. MacGregor Jr.

    2. Why we’re still second class citizens: too many gays….no matter how “out” they are, no matter how much sex they’re having….have so internalized that we’re inferior that they tolerate such betrayal as long as it’s wrapped in pretty words.

  24. Matthew says

    Americans did not elect her, they elected her husband. She didn’t have an obligation to voice her opinions then. I don’t understand why people are so upset with her. She’s a supporter of equal rights; that’s enough for me.

  25. Rascal says

    Michael, if the bar you’re setting for First Ladies is Eleanor Roosevelt, then you have been severely disappointed a dozen times already.

    Idealism is fine until it undermines reality. Acknowledging Laura Bush’s opinion on same-sex marriage is “tolerating betrayal”? Dial down the drama just a bit, here.

    Cosign Jacob.

  26. Chitown Kev says


    Eleanor Roosevelt was defintely one of a kind and I daresay that even Hillary Clinton didn’t follow in that great lady’s steps. Nor did Lady Bird Johnson, really, although she, as well, was an activist First Lady.

    Laura Bush was limited in what she could have done, IMHO (she was not about to jeapordize the election for her husband…and I daresay that Eleanor Roosevelt wouldn’t have done that either).

    I do agree that she could and should have said SOMETHING during her husband’s administration (even if it wasn’t out and out support for marriage equality). Hell, she could have said a thing or 2 about Proposition 8, for that matter. For that, she IS cowardly

  27. steve says

    Better late than never…useless and I won’t be buying her book. Her husband and her silence is unforgivable nonetheless to me. WORST PRESIDENT EVER and useless 1st lady to boot. BUSH sucks!

  28. sam says

    No surprise here. I believe she’s sincere – during W41’s term it was all but known that Barbara was pro-choice. However, she had to play the game and it seems that it was the only thing she ever kept her trap shut about until after he left office.

    One can only wonder where Michelle differs!

  29. Gerry says

    Oh please. She is entitled to her opinion just like the rest of us & if she decided to speak now good for her (better late than never I say).

    But dare I ask, does anyone know where Obama’s wife stands on these topics? Thought so.

  30. Bradley says

    Nowhere does she say she supports marriage equality. She said she thinks the subject should be debated. She “understands totally” the anti-gay marriage argument. And she thinks that that people who are committed and love each other should have the “same SORT of rights” as everyone else. There’s actually nothing there whatsoever about equal rights, or marriage equality.

    The headline here is wrong. By not putting the “sort of” that she said before rights in the title, it implies a much stronger position than one actually sees if one actually watches that video.

    And what that said, I don’t think it’s necessary to call her a cunt.

  31. Tex says


    She’s married to a war criminal and still has the nerve to hawk her book in public.

    Nobody cares Laura. You and your husband completely fucked this country over for almost a decade. Kindly STFU and slither back under your rock.

  32. Ninong says

    George H. W. Bush used to be pro-choice. He changed to anti-choice in order to be Reagan’s running mate. His wife Barbara remained pro-choice but kept quiet. Everyone knows Mitt Romney used to be pro-choice. It’s all politics.

    George W. Bush had a gay roommate at Yale and they have remained close friends ever since. This guy was a wealthy supporter of Bush’s campaign. Bush’s position on abortion and gay marriage was strictly a political move. There haven’t been any prominent pro-choice Republicans since the 1950’s.

  33. peterparker says

    For those of you who are complimenting Laura Bush on her recent arrival to the party for marriage equality, look again at her words. I took the time to transcribe them so you could all see them in print. She *never* says she supports marriage equality. She says we “…ought to definitely look at it and debate it”. And she says that loving, committed couples ought to have “the same sort of rights”. And then she says marriage equality is a “real…reversal really for (traditional heterosexual marriage)”.

    We ought to LOOK AT IT AND DEBATE IT?!” Yes, let’s “look at…and debate” the civil rights of blacks and asians and native Americans and women and the disabled while we are at it. Look at it and debate it, my ass!

    And marriage equality represents a “real…reversal”. You got that right, sister! It’s a real reversal in that gay Americans would be one step closer to full equality in this country. But Laura Bush thinks we ought to “look at…and debate” that.

    At best she is saying that we deserve civil unions with all the rights of marriage, but that we don’t get to call it marriage. At best, she is advocating separate but equal. ( And we all know how that turns out, don’t we, class?)

    Here is the transcript:

    King: Alright, gay marriage. You tell us in the book that during the 2004 campaign you talked to George about not making it a significant issue.
    Bush: Uh huh.
    KIng: Do you think we should have it?
    Bush: Well, I think that we ought to definitely look at it and, uh, debate it. I think there are a lot of people who have trouble coming to terms with that because they see marriage as traditionally between a man and a woman. But I also know, you know, that when couples are committed, um, to each other and love each other that, um, they ought to have, I think, the same sort of rights that everyone has.
    King: So would that be an area where you disagreed?
    Bush: Um, I guess that would be an area where we disagree. I mean, I-I understand totally what George thinks and what other people think about marriage being, uh, between a man and a woman, and it’s a real, um, you know, reversal really for that, to uh, um, to accept gay marriage.
    King: But you do?
    Bush: But I think we could, yeah.
    King: And what about…
    Bush: I think it’s also a generational thing that will slowly…
    King: Do you think it’s coming?
    Bush: Well, uh, yeah, that will come I think.

  34. chuychrist says

    I’m not surprised all these bitter queens throwing shade at Laura Bush. She could have forever remained silent on these issues, but she choosing to speak now. We don’t know what it’s like to have lived her life, so I have no judgements (and neither should any of these bitter fags). I’m glad she’s speaking now, in support of the same things WE are fighting for.

  35. Don says

    I love how you losers are jumping on Laura, who SUPPORTS gay marriage, but you give Obama a pass because he is a Democrat and apparently on “our” side. PLEASE DON’T FORGET the words that came directly from his mouth “I believe that marriage is a bond between a man and a woman and I believe that bond is sacred.”

    You must be completely brain dead if you think a First Lady would run to Larry King, WHILE FIRST LADY, and publicly speak out against her husband on extremely controversial issues that goes against the majority view of his political party. Why hasn’t the current First Sasquatch, um, Lady spoken out against her husband on this issue? Why do the Obamas get a free pass when LAURA BUSH and DICK FREAKIN CHENEY have come out and publicly stated they are more progressive when it comes to gay issues?

  36. Chal says

    Fuck her. So since she and W had some gay friends, they should think twice about being dicks to them. Isn’t this standard behavior for repugs? Special favors for friends and family– for example, they are anti-abortion until their teen daughter gets pregnant. If the Cheneys didn’t have a gay daughter, they would most certainly be staunchly against gay rights. What a bunch of morally repugnant assholes.

  37. Hannah says

    I understand what she means. Just cause they’re married people would assume it’s how her husband feels and call him a hypocrate. It wasn’t her place to have an opinion because she wasn’t running. She was supporting her husband and by speaking her opinion she’d also be undermining her husbands. It doesn’t matter doma was signed by clinton anyways.

  38. Bill Perdue says

    Clinton tried the same trick, Neither he or Laura Bush want to be thought of as bigots.

    Too bad, too little, too late.

    We’ll have to wait and see if Obama apologizes for “gawd’s in the mix.” He supported same sex marriage when he started out in politics but did a quick about face when the christer bigots called him on it.

  39. BuckeyeWxGuy says

    Is it un-pc to call a woman a douchebag?? I agree with all the other comments…she should of had the balls to speak out when she was in a position to do make a difference, NOT when she’s trying to sell a book. These were the 2000s not the 1950s. She had little to lose, no one could vote HER out. Ok, maybe not “nothing” but the Bush’s would hardly be destitue without the White House and she would have saved at least a little of her integrity. This has nothing to do with gay rights, it has EVERYTHING to do with self-respect and worth. Compromising what you believe for a man, even if he is the POTUS…sad! Her hypocriticism makes me want to burn down a library! (just kidding, I love libraries, just not Laura).

  40. larry says

    So many comments, so well stated… I agree with Jacob. She’s a fifties wife trapped in a 21st century point of view. She’s spoken her mind, it rings true, so be it and god (or buddha) bless her. Maybe now she’s free at last.

  41. BobN says

    Great, so she supports “same rights”.

    She also distorts her husband’s anti-gay record and tries to rewrite history about it.

    Give her a cigar…

  42. mcmgrant says

    If she had said all these things while First Lady, I’m sure all the Republicans would be up in arms and ask for Dubya to resign. Now we should be thankful she’s speaking out. She could redeem herself by making gay rights and pro-choice cause her rallying cry, speak at conventions and the media and join the party of liberal ideas–the Democratic Party.

  43. says

    I’m ok with her coming forward with this. I don’t care what it takes, I want people to hurry up and realize gay marriage isn’t the end of mankind. Good for her – she’ll get flack over this from the extreme right.

  44. B.G. says

    This has got me to thinking: how many straight supporters of marriage equality remain quiet on the issue? The first lady’s mind was changed years ago, most likely by the gay friends (and friends with gay family members) she mentions in her Lary King interview. I applaud those unnamed gays, yet the first lady was too afraid of public controversy. I can relate because my personal closet had me terrified of the vitreolic judgement of homophobes. So for the same reason I won’t criticize any LGBT for when they finally decide to come out, I too won’t judge Laura Bush for finally publicly joining our side. Welcome! Glad to have you!

  45. Rann says

    Why can’t a first lady give her opinions and speak for gay rights? Who says? It is bull crap for some of you to say they can’t. I am still waiting for Mrs. Obama to strongly come out for the repeal of DADT or for gay marriage or ENDA. That would take guts. If I was her I would do it regardless of what my other half was doing. Wouldn’t that get noticed? What a novel concept for a minority woman to speak for the rights or another minority! As for Mrs. Bush, at his point what difference does it make? Really, none.
    She had her chance and as some say she isn’t taking a real stand now.

Leave A Reply