And while we mention the DMA...

It is hard for me to collect my thoughts and discuss this issue. It should come as no real surprise that I support the right to gay marriage.

When I read this from our President's Radio Address:

The United States Senate this past week began an important discussion about the meaning of marriage. Senators are considering a constitutional amendment to protect the most fundamental institution of civilization, and to prevent it from being fundamentally redefined.

I instantly think this:

Fortunately, the United States has not maintained many of its traditions such as the requirement of a dowry when a woman weds, the practice of slavery and segregation according to color. Equal rights have been attained through the years only when such traditions are obliterated.

And when the President says this:

When judges insist on imposing their arbitrary will on the people, the only alternative left to the people is an amendment to the Constitution -- the only law a court cannot overturn. A constitutional amendment should never be undertaken lightly -- yet to defend marriage, our nation has no other choice.

I think that a judges responsibility is to protect the law of the land and uphold it equally for all. Judges do not arbitrarily impose their will, they define and impose the will of the people by enforcing the Constitution.

Sadly it seems the only way to push their idea of law is now through an amendment to the Constitution itself. If you doubt it, read this from the National Review. While I do not agree with their viewpoint, it does explain the current legal status of the DOMA fairly well.

And when the President talks of gay marriage weakening the definition of marriage itself, I wonder what can be better than two people who love each other deeply making a vow before a court, church, and everyone possibly weaken the institution itself? It seems odd that love is hardly ever mentioned when politicians define marriage.

Somehow I stumbled across an article that states only 4% of gays voted in 2000, and that 25% supported President Bush. Once again to alienate any group in such a close election seems like a bad idea, but President Bush is doing so by supporting the DMA.

First you can see the Log Cabin Republicans are outraged at Bush's support of the DMA. They take the Republican tact that this issue should be left to the states at this point, but eventually if the National Review is right, even that view will have to change.

Not only is he risking the Log Cabin Republicans, but another group as well, that being friends and family members of those who are gay. Studies show that those who know someone who is gay often support gay rights.

Clearly Bush's motto has become one of getting out the base. It will be interesting to see how far that base can carry him come November.