Laura Bush is pro-gay marriage and pro-choice

by CynthiaYockey on May 12, 2010

Somehow this interview reminds me of the times I would be transferring Margaret from her wheelchair to something else depending on the place — a lift chair at our yogic flying program, a lift chair at the pool — where my attention would be totally focused on her until I had her settled and often when I looked up I would see someone staring at us who would look away and dab at a tear. People respect love and devotion. (And love and devotion deserve equality. What? Like I would let that go.)

Follow conservativelez on Twitter

Attmay May 12, 2010 at 10:22 pm

Wow. Go Laura!

It’s interesting to me that the respective wives of the last Republican president and the last Republican presidential candidate have opposite views on gay marriage from their respective spouses. Are women more open to supporting gay marriage/equality for gays and lesbians than men?

Also there’s one issue that no one has brought up in any gay marriage debate: spousal immunity. If a gay man or woman is accused of a crime, can his or her partner be forced to testify against the accused partner, even if they have a civil union?

Cynthia Yockey May 12, 2010 at 10:50 pm


Thanks for reminding me about Cindy McCain! One of George Bush’s friends at Yale, Lanny Davis, wrote in the Washington Post years ago that Bush liked to hang out in the dormitory lobby and rib fellow students as they walked by. But when his buddies were ridiculing one classmate for being gay, Bush refused to join in. I suspect both Bush and McCain’s views are held in place by the coalitions they work with. Once their wives had more freedom from those pressures, they spoke their minds. I like that both Laura and Cindy ARE speaking their minds even though they are expressing opinions with which their husbands disagree. That says good things.

You are quite right to bring up spousal immunity. I can’t remember if I’ve included spousal immunity in my lists of rights same-sex spouses can’t get through making contracts — I think I have. My guess is that people believe that the “separate but equal” civil unions really will be equal, so they would include spousal immunity. I starting to think the Mormon Church is behind the push for civil unions in order to fracture and dissipate support for full equality — that’s because they define marriage based on whether it took place between Mormons and in one of their temples, in which case it is a marriage for eternity, and all other marriages performed outside their temple, which are a degraded form of marriage only for a lifetime. They’ve had a lot of success with defining two states of marriage and getting almost absolute control over the people who want the “temple recommend” so they can have the better kind of marriage.


Syd May 13, 2010 at 10:12 am

I just love Laura. It takes some courage to speak out like that, and I for one respect her.

Wow, I never thought about spousal immunity regarding gay couples. (I’m not a big thinker. duh)

Cynthia Yockey May 14, 2010 at 6:35 pm


Spousal immunity, the right to plan a funeral AFTER the death of a same-sex spouse, and the right to ride in an ambulance with a same-sex spouse being transported to a hospital are three rights that you cannot obtain by making a contract.

Yes, Laura Bush’s speaking out like that made me respect and love her, too.


Amy May 13, 2010 at 8:52 pm

Attmay says:

“Are women more open to supporting gay marriage/equality for gays and lesbians than men?”

That’s an interesting point…hadn’t really thought about that. My hunch is yes…for a couple of reasons.One, like it or not, woman are the more nurturing sex and we just want everyone to be happy, damn it. Two, a lot of women are mothers and so, they want their kids to have everything they deserve, including being recognized as equal under the law, regardless of orientation, disabilities etc. So I think even if you personally are disinclined to support gay marriage, there is always the subconscious idea that this could hit home some day. I have a friend on a forum (and though it is not a political forum, it’s obvious that in general we all hold conservative values) whose brother came out recently and her tune on the subject changed. She wants her brother to have what she has…the taken-for-granted freedom to be a married couple.

Can’t get behind Laura on the choice issue. For years I was adamantly pro-choice, but as I’ve gotten older, learned more about abortion and the politics behind it, I’ve flipped on this issue. I think abortion should be illegal. Oddly enough, the birth of my own children did not effect my views in any extreme way, though having them certainly made me think. It’s just been a combination of things that have lead me to this conclusion.

Wish DH and I could be more like Laura and Dubya (both of whom I adore)…we have knock-down-drag-outs over these issues.

Cynthia Yockey May 14, 2010 at 7:00 pm


I’ve gone back and forth on abortion because the pro-choice advocates got ambitious and began to extend their campaign to euthanasia and assisted suicide — they were particularly after quadriplegics as “life unworthy of life” (I’ve forgotten the German words the Nazis used, although they got the concept from the U.S.). As you may recall, my late life partner was quadriplegic due to multiple sclerosis (MS) the last 10 years of her life. The largest group of people killed by Jack Kevorkian were people with multiple sclerosis. So Margaret was doubly targeted.

However, as I became conservative and began to understand the people whose social conservatism is totalitarian in nature, I realized that these people do everything they can to get control of the reproductive process. They see women as property for the purpose of baby-making. They stigmatize, or make unlawful, all behaviors that do not directly make babies. They work to force gays into heterosexuality and make homosexuality unlawful, or at least devastatingly unequal, because they want everyone making babies for them.

So the way I see it, the only way that women will be able to maintain our equality and liberty is to have the right to refuse to bring an unwanted pregnancy to term. That means access to a safe and legal abortion. I do not think this right should be unlimited — after 120 days, then bring the child to term and give it up for adoption. Basically, women have a hostage in the fetus and the only thing that keeps the balance of power between women and the church is the right to kill the hostage. Without access to birth control AND the right to choose, women are property.

By the way, did you know that birth control is illegal in Ireland? What are the odds the Catholic Church had something to do with that?


Comments on this entry are closed.

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: