Sticking Bush in the Constitution

In his last radio address, George "War President" Bush licked his lips and lunged into the Federal Marriage Amendment discourse. In his opening statement he thrusts the responsibility on his favorite foes, “"them activist judges."”


Kevin at Lean Left dissects Bush’s argument with a legalistic, logical, and somewhat snarky approach in his post Defending Traditional Bigotry (In Time for the Election). Despite the fact that should you read the whole thing, here's a sample:

In fact, it is state Constitutions and anti-discrimination statutes that are cited by judges and mayors in the various jurisdictions that require non-discriminatory marriage. The right has persisted in categorizing gay marriage as some sort of idiosyncratic crusade by "a few unelected judges," but it is the law that requires non-discriminatory practice, not anyone's personal opinion.

There are ambiguities or conflicts in some state laws: marriage statutes often assume an inter-sexual couple, while non-discrimination statutes often explicitly prohibit anti-gay discrimination. But this simply means that we must resolve these ambiguities - by coming down on the side either of traditional, unreflective discrimination, or of equality. Bush's choice is clear - we knew that already. But to pretend that the principle of equality just doesn't exist in the law at all - that every state, everywhere, requires discrimination, and the attempt to treat gays as equal citizens is somehow entirely out of bounds - compounds bigotry with ignorance (another Bush trademark).

While the Republicans are doing their utmost to make this The Summer of Brotherly Love™, I think Bush is not doing this only for campaign reasons. Obviously he doesn't mind if they're a wedge issue, however, I really believe he just wants to make changes to the Constitution, leave his mark as it were.

Later in the week I'll go into more detail on my theory, but for now just read Kevin's post.