Nobody is the victim here.

Gay people aren't the victim. Conservatives who oppose same-sex marriage aren't the victim.

The MA supreme court and the SF mayor didn't "victimize" anyone, and neither did Bush.

I am sick of crying about fate. All fate did was put you where you are. It is still your choice what to do at this time, what to make of it.

I wouldn't have chosen this battle to be fought right now, but it is. Remember Gettysburg...I posted once before, neither side wanted a fight at that time or place, but both sides stumbled into it (a confederate raiding party was searching for shoes, of all things, and ran into a Union detachment, and things moved from there), and the battle was joined.

Now we have to fight. Those who support gay equality (or who merely disapprove of amending the constitution about the issue) need to put aside their qualms about HOW we got here and join the fight.

Dean,

I think any politically educated person knows that the President has no administrative role in the Constitutional process - except to defend it as required by his oath.

However, President Bush has given himself a role by throwing the weight of his office behind this particular amendment.

Whether it's official or not, he is playing a role, because he chose to do so.

I'm going to feel like a jerk no matter who I vote for in November.

That boat had already left the dock, my friend.

:^)

Why fight this thing right now? Because it's the godamn right thing to do, and it hasn't been done yet. Quit freakin' out already.

Serenity now. Serenity now.

Balderdash. As the Chief Executive, it's the President's BUSINESS to make recommendations to Congress for legislation, up to and including Constitutional amendments.

I think the proposed amendment is among the dumbest that could be considered, and it has very little chance of ratification, and therefore is a huge waste of time.

But its proponents are apparently members of the all-too-vast body of political thinkers who want State Legislatures overruled in advance by the Feds. That body includes an awful lot of proponents of legislation from the judicial bench, and more from the proponents of '70s bombshells like the Endangered Species Act. Notice that they're not all evil right-wingers, they're just looking for trumps to support their own prejudices.

And a pox on all their houses.

Did we have to pick this fight right here and now?

Emotion admits of no "sensible" time or place. It demands action immediately even if it means getting destroyed (politically, in this case).

Proponents had previously gotten far in the debate by arguing that opponents have only emotion on their side. And yet the opponents are not picking the fight at a bad time for their own prospects.

If the argument in favor were as reasonable as proponents have claimed, this wouldn't be happening now, not this way.

But with the issue of gay marriage heavily in the news, support for such an amendment rose 8 percentage points from a similar poll taken last month.

If you're going to feel like a jerk either way, you may as well feel like a jerk that voted for Bush instead of that french-looking-guy :)

Bush did not "pick this fight."
I think blame for this needs to be place exactly where it is deserved: Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco. In his selfish and probably successful bid to become "Mayor For Life" in SF he has pushed not only Bush but a lot of other politicians off the fence.
You don't think Bush would have rather let this one lie? Damn right he would.
Let the country absorb civil unions for gays, then try for marriage. This was too much, too fast, and too soon for flyover country and the backlash has set the clock back 10 years.
A damn shame, but again...don't blame Bush.

Flyover country?

See the problem :)?

Nobody forced Bush's hand. He could have had the sense to keep his mouth shut on this issue and let things shake out as they may, instead of (literally) making a Federal case of it.

The California government and courts could have (and still will) deal with this.

When that judge in Alabama flouted the law, Bush didn't go ballistic, he let the events take their course and the alabama judge got what was coming to him.

Bush should have shown the same judgement here.

Actually, it might very well have been the Massachusetts decision that forced his hand. Given their ruling, once Mr A. and Mr. B. are married, they will go to (Colorado), and sue under full faith and credit, and likely win.

San Francisco was the PR front for gay marriage proponents, Mass. was the legal front, the more powerful one in the end.

But I think Bush could win this one if he frames this as being a battle not against gays, but against judges who seem to need less in the way of impact research for what they do than your average strip mall developer.

BTW - An elegant way to handle the SF issue? For the Repub party to quietly find a conservative mayor in Fresno or somwhere, and just have him start giving away concealed handgun permits. Against Cally law of course, but, hey, the second amendment supercedes that in this mayors holy opinion, and that seems to be all that's needed, so, hey ho, let's go. They couldn't prosecute him without prosecuting the SF mayor, and they couldn't just let him go on doing it, so the California authorties and Governor Ahnold would be forced to act, not the President. Possibly a missed oportunity for Bush.

But Massachusetts still looms, and that may be the real issue here overall.

Don't worry, I'll tell you who to vote for. You can lay the guilt on me.

As I read comments on Bush's speech I'm getting flashbacks to the whole "imminent threat" debate. In order to critique what Bush has said you have to listen to his actual statements and not the typically shoddy reporting "explaining" what he said.

Everyone please note that Bush has not thrown his weight behind any particular amendment. If he was happy supporting one of the proposed amendments floating around he would have said so. He did not.

Remarkably, Bush's actual position is similar to John Kusch's position. Bush said:

Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife. The amendment should fully protect marriage, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage.

That last sentence means that civil unions are just fine, which is all that was necessary for John Kusch. I know the current FMA may not allow civil unions, which may be why Bush didn't specifically endorse it.

I don't think this belongs in the Constitution, but I also don't think the discrimination inherent in current laws violates the US Constitution, nor did it violate that of the state of Massachesetts. But I can't count on the courts to agree. So how do would one keep the courts out of it? One way would be to add a Constitutional Amendment allowing a super-majority of the House and Senate to override the Supreme Court. Interesting, but very risky. Any other ideas?

Yours,
Wince

I'll go out on a limb and speculate that this debate was waiting to happen and the GOP started getting their ducks in line as soon as Howard Dean announced for president. I know that if I had been a strategist for the President, the fact that Dean had been among the first (if not the 1st) governor to recognize gay couples as something more than legal strangers would have started my wheels turning.

It's such a nice wedge issue, like so many issues we've battled over the last decade or so, with that nearly even split in the poll numbers. No security or economic consequences of note (except the couples' personal health care and inheritance concerns) and a slippery slope of possibilities and arguments. Morality and privacy and culture, matters generally of taste and individual preference, and best left alone in a "free" and tolerant society.

Then 2 of three judges in Kerry's home state ruled that equal rights and equal protection means that gays are equal too. That had to be irresistible to George and the gang who were probably in a quandary over what to do with all the stuff they had been preparing. So he threw out his own red-herring at the SOTU Address. San Francisco's Mayor took the bait and bit down hard. Now we're going to play with the Constitution itself, what fun!

You know who wins these "culture wars?" The extreme wings of both parties who manage to get their pet issues into the national consciousness during presidential campaigns. I'll submit that it's only the diehards on the left who would not settle for anything else than full recognition of their unions as a "marriage." Likewise the extremist on the right cannot even consider a "civil union," carrying with it many of the benefits enjoyed by "normal" married couples, let alone a "gay marriage." (not too sure I like that term yet, I'm sure the PC crowd will clean that up.)

I love the non sequiturs of the arguments, especially certain female republican governors who can't let go of their talking points. "What about incest!?!" What about it? So what if West Virginia lets first cousins marry and Michigan makes sure you are no closer than third cousins. Who is right here? To hell with WVa!!! They weren't good enough for Virginia, they're not good enough for the rest of the country either!!! Sell the whole damn place to Ohio at a loss.

"...or polygamy?!?" Would you feel better about Osama if his brother Salem (you know, GW's old business partner) had been from the same mother instead of wife numbers 3 and 8 of Sheik bin Laden's harem? Of course not. The point is that in some cultures polygamy has a very long tradition as well....history is no argument.

"The (SF) mayor has access to the deliberative process of the legislature and shouldn't break the law." Last I knew judges especially "activist" judges) deliberate ... legislatures debate. And since when is something right just because the majority feel that way. Our Framers didn't set up a Constitution to give or take away people's rights.....they set up a system designed to limit the government's ability to trample individual liberty.

The great English jurist Edmund Burke said, "Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny." That's why we have courts in the first place. Sometimes breaking a bad law is the only way to get a court to review whether the legislature overstepped its bounds. Checks and balances in separate but equal branches of government works that way. "Activist" judges have a long and storied history of recognizing and protecting individual rights throughout history. They don't create rights or find ones that aren't there. They stop the government from going where it's not allowed in the first place, like bedrooms. All powers not expressly given to the federal government are reserved to the states and the people. Ring a bell? People have "rights," the government has only limited powers to affect those rights.

Without acts of civil disobedience Boston Harbor would never had tasted of tea, Susan B. Anthony would have died in jail, and the Dred Scott decision would still be good law. Unless good people can stand up and say, "this isn't fair," Wade would have had his way and Ms. Roe would not have had any reason for a change of heart thirty years later. Without acts of protest we might never had gotten out of Viet Nam. Our Constitution protects individuals from the "Tyranny of the mob," Jefferson warned us about. It would be a shame if that singularly glorious document were used to separate and discriminate instead of remaining the unifying testament to freedom it has always represented.

To be fair (I try, but it's not always easy), the liberals have probably gone too far on this one as well. First of all, they fell into the trap laid out for them and jeopardize their cause and marginalize themselves, as usual. Geez guys, Dean is right. Did you have to make a fuss now, when you had Rove on the run and the conservatives questioning themselves? Did you have to give them an issue that could only unite the whole republican party? Patience was never a strongsuit for liberals. Note to NAMBLA: stay out of this one or you'll screw it up for the "normal" gay folks. They don't call the right "reactionary" for nothing. Their reaction will be to start rounding up the lot of you if you push this stuff too far, and no one will shed a tear.

Honestly, whenever some girl introduces me to her "wife," or a guy says his husband will wonder where he's at, I do a double-take. It's not natural or normal. That doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong, just different and the child in me thinks it's weird and giggles. Besides, many of the legal protections available to married couples can be obtained through proper contracts and estate planning.

I had a client, male, gay, whose lover died of AIDS. Before he died I was able to redo the will, transfer the property, setup joint POD accounts, prepare the living will and durable power of attorney. You can't get family medical coverage or social security survivor benefits, but both boys worked and had their own health insurance and anyone can buy life insurance on someone else, if they haven't been diagnosed with HIV that is... Deep Breath... OK! Maybe they shouldn't have had to go through all that crap and expense, but they did because they could and that's what they had to do.

When it comes to social security spousal benefits or the marital tax deductions, I got some bad news for you guys. It is a perfectly legitimate exercise of power to use taxes as a way to promote social public policy. It is the stated policy of the present administration to promote marriage between one man and one woman. Short of a constitutional amendment, little else can be done to further this end except play with the tax code. The Defense of Marriage Act, if and when challenged, is very susceptible to an equal protection and full faith and credit argument. That means boys and girls, that a marriage recognized in one state must be recognized in another if they happen to move. That does not mean that the federal government must recognize it.

Marriage recognition has a long and interesting tradition, especially in those States bordering Utah. This is one of the few issues where "activist" courts have carved out an exception so as not to recognize a right or condition. The issue is more commonplace in a common law marriage. Ohio, for instance, stopped recognizing common law marriages in 1993, but under the Federal Constitution's full faith and credit clause, still is obligated to recognize the marriage of a couple who move there from a State where their common law relationship was considered a "real" marriage. This goes right along with the promotion of marriage as a public policy. Ohio, nor any other State I know of, was never obligated to recognize a polygamist marriage from Utah or Bahrain for that matter. The Courts carved out an exception to full faith and credit that cannot be found in the document any more than the right to an abortion.

So relax fellow travelers on the left. You bit off more than you can chew, or swallow (sorry, I know that brings up gross imagery). You have gained no victory. Societal change does not happen overnight but is incremental and generational. It took 99 years after the civil war for the civil rights act to be passed. You were never going to make the leap from making gay bashing a hate crime to recognition of gay marriages when some states are grappling with whether their sodomy laws should be repealed. You should have pushed for civil unions state by state. You went too far and invited a counter reaction. Now you've got States that otherwise wouldn't care, Ohio again, declaring that they won't recognize anything but 1 man and 1 woman marriages because of a fear that a couple from Massachusetts might spread their evil ways westward. Sit down and shut up and fight the battles you can win, don't try and change the whole world at once.

This argument is only a minefield for democratic candidates. The republicans were given a gift to rally the troops, but a "viable" democrat must equivocate, be realistic and call for a middle ground -- thus looking wishy-washy. So, my gay friends, you threw a grenade at your only possible friend in this debate. Nice job. First Nader now this. Can we get back to "Bush's lies were worse than Clinton's," and "Whose recession was it anyway?" We have an empire to build and terrorist to destroy and schools to fix and sick people to care for and a great deal of other things, dare I say it, more F@#$%ing important to worry about.

"Damn it. Damn it, damn it, damn it. Did we have to pick this fight right here and now?" - Dean Esmay

Yeah. That pretty well sums up my feelings on it too, Dean.

Wrong place. Wrong time. And wrong arena.

And - pretty nicely stated, Mark. Kudos.

Then 2 of three judges in Kerry's home state ruled that equal rights and equal protection means that gays are equal too.

Here we go again. Equal rights and equal protection doesn't mean changing the definitions of our institutions to suit your needs. The word for that is selfishness.

We may change them, but the equal rights argument is meretricious -- and a sign of bad faith. The concept of equal rights has already come to mean a sense of entitlement from groups with perceived and real grievances. And it has resulted in unequal treatment under the law. So perhaps the term is already so meaningless and debased that its application here is not that big a deal.

To all those complaining that this takes away the rights of the States to make the call - reread your civics lessons.

Even if Congress passes it by the supermajority, it STILL GOES TO THE STATES.

Who STILL HAVE TO PASS IT BY ANOTHER SUPERMAJORITY.

Got it? Even if the Feds go for it 100%, the States have the final say.

Y'know, instead of two Courts, maybe 3, overruling the States?

Amen. I don't think I could vote with a clear conscience for any of this year's candidates.

"The word for that is selfishness."

I'm proud to be selfish.

FUCK the FMA. And FUCK President George W. Bush, lying, hypocritical, spineless wimp.

Only the politically immature will have difficulty voting. Bismark said you shouldn't watch the making of sausage or politics. Wise insight.

I'm voting for Dubya because there needs to be ONE country on this planet that has a 2nd Amendment and values freedom over socialism.

Pity that Howard Dean withdrew before he could repudiate Ted Rall and I could hold you to your promise to leave the Dhimmicrats if Dean became the nominee.

How much MORE would the left-of-Teddy Kerry have to do to get you to dump the Dhimmicrats?

Oh, and government SHOULD get out of the bedroom and the classroom.

There shouldn't be anything called a "government marriage" or a "government school".

"Marriage" is defined by one's faith. Hindus have theirs. Christians have theirs. Jews have theirs.

Legal contracts defining benefits are what is necessary. If I was sharing a room with my brother when we were both older and unmarried there shouldn't be an issue of negotiating with my employer or insurance company to assign inheritance benefits to him. Whether or not I was incestuous and homosexual with him is immaterial.

When people take marriage as a contract, divorce rates will be reduced, too.

Relationships based on Cupid and romance are stupid. You wouldn't launch a corporation with the lack of due dilligence people give to the groin-gratification masquerading as "love" that leads to the idiotic expensive pageant of the wedding day. Better to spend that much money on a down payment.

See my blog which annotates the recent LA Times article profiling Victor Davis Hanson--I can't believe this article was published by that rag.

There really is NO INTELLIGENT ALTERNATIVE TO FOUR MORE YEARS OF DUBYA.