Laura Bush Objects To Being Quoted Accurately Supporting Marriage Equality

[Lakhota]

By Zack Ford

This week, the Respect for Marriage Coalition launched a new $1 million print and television ad campaign highlighting bipartisan support for marriage equality. Unfortunately, it seems Former First Lady Laura Bush is not happy about being included in the ads, according to a statement obtained by the Dallas Morning News:

But Bush spokeswoman Anne MacDonald said in a statement Wednesday that the former first lady “did not approve of her inclusion in this advertisement nor is she associated with the group that made the ad in any way.”

“When she became aware of the advertisement last night, we requested that the group remove her from it,” MacDonald said.​

This request is a cowardly escape from her role as a public figure. If Bush did not want her support for marriage equality to be widely known or cited, she should not have written about it in her book or openly discussed it with Larry King on CNN. Her comments and her position are part of the public record, and unless her position has changed and she now opposes same-sex marriage, she doesn’t really have room to be making such a request.

More: Laura Bush Objects To Being Quoted Accurately Supporting Marriage Equality

 

[Lakhota]

From the OP link:

Here is the full conversation from her 2010 interview with Larry King. She conceded that she disagrees with her husband, President George W. Bush, on the issue of same-sex marriage and that she believes its full legalization is inevitable. Her comments as excerpted in the ad are in no way taken out of context. Watch it:

 

[Stephanie]

omy fucking gawd, make this person disappear..the hate from them is too much

 

[Political Junky]

They shut Laura up about being pro-choice too.

 

[buckeye45_73]

nmarriage equality, I love that doest that include the woman marrying a dolphin?

 

[Stephanie]

this place is being ruined with this ugly hateful troll

a real damn shame

 

[OriginalShroom]

She has the right to tell the group that she does not want them using her in their advertising.

And to sue them if they continue to do so.

 

[Lakhota]

She has the right to tell the group that she does not want them using her in their advertising.

And to sue them if they continue to do so.

As a public figure who has publicly made statements and written in her book that she supports marriage equality - why does she have the right to sue if her statements are used?

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Great - a former first lady who supports child molesting. Hey laura, before you say another word - tell us how you got away with t-boning and killing your former boy friend.

 

[squinch]

Even though the former First Lady made a disasterous marriage choice herself, I support her right to express her opinion.

 

[Michelle420]

From the OP link:

Here is the full conversation from her 2010 interview with Larry King. She conceded that she disagrees with her husband, President George W. Bush, on the issue of same-sex marriage and that she believes its full legalization is inevitable. Her comments as excerpted in the ad are in no way taken out of context. Watch it:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=HtNabdDx_mU]Laura Bush For Gay Marriage & Pro-Choice! - YouTube[/ame]

Good for her, she is supportive of gay marriage and she doesn't speak for her husband or anyone else.

 

[Gadawg73]

She has the right to tell the group that she does not want them using her in their advertising.

And to sue them if they continue to do so.

You are exactly right on part A.
She has no legal standing on part B. She appeared in public before and they were using that and they are not making any profit off of replaying it.
It is not advertising for profit.
However, I have no problem whatsoever with what she requested.

 

[Gadawg73]

Great - a former first lady who supports child molesting. Hey laura, before you say another word - tell us how you got away with t-boning and killing your former boy friend.

Auto ACCIDENT.

 

[blackhawk]

She has the right to tell the group that she does not want them using her in their advertising.

And to sue them if they continue to do so.

As a public figure who has publicly made statements and written in her book that she supports marriage equality - why does she have the right to sue if her statements are used?

Because I believe you have to have permission from said person to use them in your ad which it seems this group did not have. Just because you make a public statement in support of something it does not give every group out there that supports the same thing the right to use your name and likeness in their advertising.

 

[Katzndogz]

nmarriage equality, I love that doest that include the woman marrying a dolphin?

A woman was arrested for fucking her pit bull dog. Maybe she should have married him.

 

[g5000]

She has the right to tell the group that she does not want them using her in their advertising.

And to sue them if they continue to do so.

As a public figure who has publicly made statements and written in her book that she supports marriage equality - why does she have the right to sue if her statements are used?

She doesn't.

 

[g5000]

When you listen to Laura Bush speak, you hear a woman who is dozens of rungs higher on the intelligence scale above Sarah Palin.

A distinct difference.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

nmarriage equality, I love that doest that include the woman marrying a dolphin?

A woman was arrested for fucking her pit bull dog. Maybe she should have married him.

At least conservatives are consistent in their ignorance and stupidity.

 

[g5000]

nmarriage equality, I love that doest that include the woman marrying a dolphin?

It never fails that in a subject about gay marriage, a homophobe inevitably shows up to make a slippery slope fallacy involving bestiality and/or pedophilia and/or necrophilia and/or incest.

It is a 100 percent certainty one like you will show up.

 

[Seawytch]

nmarriage equality, I love that doest that include the woman marrying a dolphin?

It never fails that in a subject about gay marriage, a homophobe inevitably shows up to make a slippery slope fallacy involving bestiality and/or pedophilia and/or necrophilia and/or incest.

It is a 100 percent certainty one like you will show up.

I think it's a classic case of projection from people who need to learn the definition of consent before they get themselves into trouble.