I'm opposed to gay marriage and I see no reason to go through all that again. But, I'll just comment on it as an issue rather than as a topic in itself.
Jon says that President Bush "the self-proclaimed 'uniter' [is] employing the Constitution - the very foundation of American cohesion - as an instrument of division". Why is Bush the "divider" when more than 50% of the American people are opposed to gay marriage. Aren't the proponents, who have the support of only a minority of the American people the dividers? (Barely half of the American public believe that homosexual relations between consenting adults should be legal, never mind gay marriage.)
I never understand why it is that conservatives are always the "dividers" when they oppose a proposed change. This change is occurring despite the wishes of the voters. Is it any wonder that so many conservatives are annoyed? 4 of 7 judges in Massachussetts found a right in the Constitution that does not exist. Aren't they the ones using the Constitution as "an instrument of division"? The Mayor of San Francisco is breaking state law by issuing licenses to gay couples. Is he a uniter?
Still, I believe that the President is wrong to support this amendment, for now. I would have preferred if he had waited for courts higher than the Massachussetts Supreme Court to have ruled before he acted. Like most conservatives, I hate amending the Constitution. It's a huge deal. It still seems unreal to me that the Constitution has to be amended in order to define marriage. Conservatives' views on amending the Constitution are the reason support for this amendment is so light compared with the level of opposition to gay marriage.
The President has also blundered politically, I think. Rather than supporting the amendment, he should have used his opposition to judicial activism as a campaign issue. Overall, however, the economy and the war are the two key issues for this November. I doubt that the gay marriage issue will swing too many people.
