Skip to content

Jeb Bush Moves Right

Dispelling any idea that he might be a moderate Republican, Jeb Bush made it clear in an interview on Sunday that he is absolutely against gay rights.

When asked if he believes there should be a constitutional right to marriage (which the mostly conservative Supreme Court could rule this summer), he said “I don’t”.

Bush could claim that this is a states rights issue (and gay marriage is legal in 36 states, DC, and 22 Native American tribal jurisdictions). But of course Bush had to double (and triple) down.

He went on to state that the country’s future would be at risk without traditional marriages:

To imagine how we are going to succeed in our country unless we have committed family life, committed child-centered family system, is hard to imagine. We need to be stalwart supporters of traditional marriage.

Seriously? Our country will fail if we allow gay marriage?

But it gets worse:

If we want to create a right-to-rise society, where people, particularly children born in poverty, if we want to have them have a chance we should be—a core American value, we have to restore committed, loving family life with a mom and a dad loving their children with their heart and soul.

As he is speaking against gay marriage, he is basically saying that gay couples are not capable to loving their children with their heart and soul. That’s about as bigoted and hateful as you can get (short of saying that gays aren’t actually human).

Bush also said that “absolutely” businesses should have the right to discriminate against gays based on religious beliefs.

Remember, Jeb Bush is widely regarded as the most moderate of the Republican presidential contenders. Given that 59% of us support allowing same-sex marriage, it is incredible that Republicans can be so out of step with American values of tolerance. But Bush believes that a “tolerant country” is one that allows people to discriminate against gays.

Given that he also believes that invading Iraq was a good idea, is he trying to make a habit of being on the wrong side of every issue?



  1. Hassan wrote:

    The thing about right/republicans is that they try to argue with half religion/half social science cases, and they fail miserably.

    To me, as a muslim, I am against evil morals (homosexuality being one of many) solely based on my religion. I have no social/scientific research, neither do I intend to do, to prove homosexuality is wrong. As a “believer” I “believe” that God has reasons, and if I try to find, I may, or I may not find those. And even if I do, I have no right to impose my religion on anyone else. Do I “believe” that society will be better and country will be blessed by God, yes I believe, but I cannot use my belief to impose it on society. Republican politicians to get votes from people of faith without alienating moderates, come up with these vague arguments and are easily made fun off.

    But then the thing about left/gay activist is that they do not compromise either. They want to enforce their beliefs on others. They want me to accept that homosexuality is normal, and I must participate in their wedding. Can they leave us alone please? I can assure you they will find many businesses that will cater to their needs. Plus most businesses do not care when you come to them whether you are gay or not, and serve you in public accommodation as anyone else. But no one (including gay) have rights to make businesses do contracts with them.

    Wednesday, May 20, 2015 at 8:01 am | Permalink
  2. ralph wrote:

    Ah, the blessed sacrament of holy Matrimony, where 50% of all traditional unions go down in flames.

    Many in the religious community will never accept same-sex marriage, as it presents an affront to their faith and moral compass. Fair enough, I get it, but in a free country, science and rationality must trump tribalism at all cost, and science is teaching us that sexuality is a sliding scale that is observed throughout the entire animal kingdom, of which we are a part and so bound to generate our fair share of homosexuals. It’s a biological trait, not a moral issue. You may not like it but get used to it and get over it, they’re not going back in the closet, at least in our more enlightened societies (of which I hope we can also count ourselves). They are only in our face because we have been in theirs, if not on their necks, for generations. My experience is when you treat people of any orientation with due respect, they will generally return the favor, and they are certainly not trying to indoctrinate or “turn” anyone, as absurd as that sounds.

    Wednesday, May 20, 2015 at 10:05 am | Permalink
  3. john wrote:

    Bush stated that, the country’s future would be at risk without traditional marriages… which is correct. BUT, nobody is suggesting disallowing traditional marriages.

    Meanwhile, Hassan, when was the last time you were told you must participate in Anyone’s wedding, traditional or not? I suppose I should be disappointed because that has never once happened to me.

    Thursday, May 21, 2015 at 1:31 pm | Permalink
  4. john wrote:

    Please take a moment to read this, from the American Friends (Quakers) Service Committee:

    Minute on Civil Marriage

    The Executive Committee of the AFSC Board of Directors, acting at the direction of the full board, approved the following statement in January, 2004. A “minute” is a Quaker term that refers to a formal communication from a group of people who are part of the larger Religious Society of Friends.
    Please note that AFSC does not speak for all Friends, who have widely differing views on the subject of equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people and on proposed “marriage amendments.” There is no central governing authority in the Religious Society of Friends that speaks for all Quakers.

    Board Executive Committee meeting, January 9-10, 2004
    BDEX04-12: Minute on Civil Marriage
    The Board Executive Committee made minor changes in the final two paragraphs of the Proposed Minute on Equality of Rights with Regard to Civil Marriage (Supporting Paper #8A) as follows:
    We minute our support for equal civil marriage rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people. We are aware that many are calling for civil unions for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people and some people wish to reserve civil marriage for heterosexual couples alone. It is our belief that government sanction should be applied equally. All couples should be granted civil union licenses or all should be granted marriage licenses.
    In doing so, we are careful to distinguish between civil law, in which no single religious view should predominate, and the right of various faith traditions, denominations, and congregations to decide for themselves whether they will perform, support, or recognize the marriages of people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender. Similarly, we wish to distinguish between the necessity for equality in the matter of civil law and coercive governmental “marriage promotion” policies that seek to enforce only one standard of worthiness for people who receive government assistance. We uphold equality in civil law and the principle of free choice in the matter of marriage while rejecting the idea that the worthiness of persons and families is determined by marital status. Approved.

    Thursday, May 21, 2015 at 1:35 pm | Permalink