President Bush said Wednesday he has government lawyers working on a law that would define marriage as a union between a woman and a man, casting aside calls to legalize gay marriages.
“I believe marriage is between a man and a woman and I believe we ought to codify that one way or the other and we have lawyers looking at the best way to do that,” the president said a wide-ranging news conference at the White House Rose Garden.
Bush also urged, however, that America remain a “welcoming country” — not polarized on the issue of homosexuality.
“I am mindful that we’re all sinners and I caution those who may try to take a speck out of the neighbor’s eye when they got a log in their own,” the president said. “I think it is important for our society to respect each individual, to welcome those with good hearts.”
“On the other hand, that does not mean that someone like me needs to compromise on the issue of marriage,” he added.
Maybe it’s the way my brain is wired, but I just can’t wrap my mind around the way people like this President think they can have their cake and eat it to. He wants a “welcoming” country, not polarized… but then denies equal treatment to a segment of the population – with a constitutional amendment, no less! What else will be in this amendment, a clause designating gay people as 5/8ths of a person? I’m horrified by these right wing nut jobs who want to tamper with the very foundations of our nation for their ultra-conservative religious ends. With these people in charge, I certainly don’t feel welcomed in my own native land.
Meanwhile, Howard Kurtz in the Post reports on the potential for an anti-gay backlash in this country. He also quotes a good point from Andrew Sullivan, a guy who – while I thought was hunky until he gave me a sneering attitude one night at a movie theatre – I rarely agree with except for this one issue:
“It’s extremely depressing to see a magazine that has long championed federalism and states rights support a Constitutional Amendment that would shred such principles. . . .
“NR has essentially conceded in this passage that every link to procreation in legal marriage has been gutted already, except the abstract but practically inconsistent association of heterosexuality and procreation. Yet they are not proposing an amendment to make divorce or multiple re-marriage or sperm banks illegal — something that clearly would restore the ancient links between marriage and procreation. Their view is that although heterosexuals have severed the link between procreation and marriage, homosexuals should not be allowed to enter the institution on the same terms.
“Why? I can’t see a real argument, except that somehow admitting gay people would make what is already true too explicit. From the point of view of National Review, a civil marriage regime which allows the most shameless, intentionally childless, days-long, Green Card, Vegas chapel, heterosexual marriage is worthy of more legal and social protection than a long-term faithful and loving gay relationship with kids. It’s good to see how they really feel about gay relationships.”
