Did we just surrender to North Korea or something? Oh, it's just gay marriage that has so many people acting like Bush is all of a sudden the antichrist. I'm curious, exactly which policy that George W. Bush previously endorsed led anyone to believe he would come out in favor of gay marriage?

And please note that this comment has nothing to do with whether the President's endorsement of the FMA is good or bad policy, just the over the top reactions to it.

I agree.

People are shocked! Shocked I tell you!

I agree, the reaction to this has been way over the top. Especially considering he said this:

"The amendment should fully protect marriage, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage."

This is important for two reasons. It allows that two people may make a commitment to each other that a state may recognize. Additionally, if characterizations of the proposed amendments currently before Congress are accurate, then we're not anywhere close to having a bill that he would endorse.

Is it me or have we not had a real constitutional amendment push in a generation?

Seems to me we've forgotten how it works, like we did w/the electoral college in 2000. Wouldn't be the first time in the last 4 years we've had to bone up on constitutional law.

The best thing about this? All those people who want to get rid of the electoral college for "democracy." Democracy means majority rules. And if this is put to a vote of the people, I think we know how the majority will vote.

Be careful what you wish for. Can't have a democratically elected pres w/o the same option for other national issues.

Welcome to checks and balances, people.

This is alarmism that misses a lot of the actual concerns that conservatives and moderates have with Bush. The only two issues that Bush can be consedered to be on the "wrong" side of concerning national opinion is immigration and stem cell research.

Gay marriage in particular isn't going to hurt Bush a lick. The country is pretty well set against it, and the judicial antics going on in Mass. and San Fran are only going to turn more people off to the idea. bush may have just tossed conservatives the bone they need to get them excited about Bush again.

Robin Roberts posted this at Steve Verdon's and I agree:

"Consider the result if gay marriage is adopted nationwide by judicial fiat.

Our political process would be dominated by another Roe v. Wade. Every judicial nomination would become a partisan circus over whether or not the judicial nominee would defend / reverse the gay marriage decision. Perhaps the disaffected would bomb gay marriage chapels as a small hardcore of abortion opponents do.

Far better that the issue be one for resolution by ballot. If abortion had been handled this way, many people believe that the political furor would have gone away by now. Instead, judicial activism inflamed the issue."

To answer Charles, I don't think anyone expects Bush to favor same-sex marriage, but I certainly think there would have been room for him to take a true principled conservative stand -- like his Vice President discussed during the 2000 campaign -- and left the issue of marriage to the individual states, and using DOMA as a "protection" in case anyone tried to federalize the issue.

But isn't this what an amendment does, requiring 38 states to pass?

It still takes the issue of marriage out of the hands of individual states and gives it to the Federal government. The 10th amendment says: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Currently, marriage is delegated to the states since it is not provided for in the federal constitution. If the amendment passes, then the states will no longer have the choice of defining marriage as they see fit.

In effect, states which vote for the amendment would be voting to give away some of their powers. Kind of perverse if you ask me!

Then maybe it won't pass, Mike. What's worse, the states actually voting to take away some of their powers or their powers being usurped by the courts?

The response to this amazes me.

The FF&C act effectively allows the most radical judge in the system to LEGISLATE on this issue.

Why should a single person be allowed to set policy for an entire nation?

What is so horrible about letting the voters decided?

States voted to limit their power when they approved the (17th?) amendment changing the way the senate is elected.

Actually, the 17th Amendment took the power originally given to the States, in the governor and/or legislature choosing their Senators...TO THE PEOPLE.

The FMA, in my opinion, would be taking away the judicial activism (which has really messed this country up on many issues besides gay 'marriage') and assigning the issue to the State legislatures, and indirectly, TO THE PEOPLE...where it belongs!