Gay Marriage | Larry King | Laura Bush | News

Watch: Laura Bush on Marriage —
Gay Couples 'Should Have the Same Rights' as Everyone Else

Laurabush

Former First Lady Laura Bush discussed her views on same-sex marriage and abortion on Larry King last night. She said committed gay couples should have the same rights as everyone else and believes acceptance of it is a "generational thing." She also discussed her views on abortion, that she believes it should remain legal.

In late April I posted an excerpt from her new book, which said, "In 2004 the social question that animated the campaign was gay marriage. Before the election season had unfolded, I had talked to George about not making gay marriage a significant issue. We have, I reminded him, a number of close friends who are gay or whose children are gay. But at that moment I could never have imagined what path this issue would take and where it would lead.”

Watch, AFTER THE JUMP...

(Clip via Good As You)

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. 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.

    Posted by: jersey | May 12, 2010 11:25:22 AM


  2. 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.

    Posted by: Rann | May 12, 2010 11:25:30 AM


  3. 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).

    Posted by: ravewulf | May 12, 2010 11:28:20 AM


  4. 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.

    Posted by: Jubal Harshaw | May 12, 2010 11:33:26 AM


  5. 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.

    Posted by: Andres | May 12, 2010 11:34:12 AM


  6. 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.

    Posted by: Jacob | May 12, 2010 11:46:51 AM


  7. 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.

    Posted by: Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com | May 12, 2010 11:56:06 AM


  8. History will remember her for absolutely nothing and deservedly so.

    Posted by: Piper | May 12, 2010 11:56:43 AM


  9. 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.

    Posted by: Matthew | May 12, 2010 12:01:04 PM


  10. We all know that Laura Bush is really a Dem its not a secret, I'm just kind of glad that she's trying to at least taking a stand against it, even if it's a little late!

    Posted by: CountBelvedere | May 12, 2010 12:05:27 PM


  11. 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.

    Posted by: Rascal | May 12, 2010 12:06:05 PM


  12. good for her.

    Posted by: David T | May 12, 2010 12:12:35 PM


  13. @Michael

    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

    Posted by: Chitown Kev | May 12, 2010 12:20:52 PM


  14. 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!

    Posted by: steve | May 12, 2010 12:22:12 PM


  15. 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!

    Posted by: sam | May 12, 2010 12:29:19 PM


  16. 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.

    Posted by: Gerry | May 12, 2010 12:33:32 PM


  17. 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.

    Posted by: Bradley | May 12, 2010 12:41:34 PM


  18. STUPID CUNT.

    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.

    Posted by: Tex | May 12, 2010 12:49:29 PM


  19. So what is Michelle Obama on gay marriage? Who cares she is not the President.

    Posted by: brian | May 12, 2010 12:52:54 PM


  20. 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.

    Posted by: Ninong | May 12, 2010 12:56:34 PM


  21. 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.

    Posted by: peterparker | May 12, 2010 12:59:13 PM


  22. 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.

    Posted by: chuychrist | May 12, 2010 1:03:22 PM


  23. "so I have no judgements (and neither should any of these bitter fags)"

    That's the funniest string of words ever.

    Posted by: Bradley | May 12, 2010 1:09:27 PM


  24. 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?

    Posted by: Don | May 12, 2010 1:59:08 PM


  25. 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.

    Posted by: Chal | May 12, 2010 3:21:38 PM


  26. « | 1 2 3 »

Post a comment







Trending


« «Mistrial Declared in Brooklyn Hate Crime Trial of Keith Phoenix« «