There is no doubt, Bush did not want to come out against Gay Marriage. He was content to provide "moral leadership" by making vague supportive statements. It wasn't until Bay Buchanan
called his bluff that Bush had to end his nimble dance. There were two options -- to piss off his base, or piss off his moderates.
It's quite understandable that the base won.
Problem is, it's a battle that Bush cannot win. Passage would require the votes of 2/3rds of both the House and the Senate, and 3/4th of the state legislatures.
The state legislatures seems easy, given that even states like Massachusetts are this close to voting the dark side.
But Congress is a whole different matter. The House, that bastion of hard-core conservatism, is a poor bet for the amendment. Why? Because of gerrymandering. Most incumbents are so safe that there is little electoral blowback to voting against such an amendment. In fact, with 205 Democrats (and Bernie Sanders), the Dems could suffer 60 defections and still defeat the amendment. And that doesn't include the handful of Republicans that would also vote "no" (like libertarian Ron Paul).
Tom Delay agrees, since he is cautioning against a course of action that would lead to almost certain defeat:
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, said he appreciated Bush's "moral leadership" on the issue, but expressed caution about moving too quickly toward a constitutional solution, and never directly supported one. "This is so important we're not going to take a knee-jerk reaction to this," Delay said. "We are going to look at our options and we are going to be deliberative about what solutions we may suggest."
Meanwhile, the Senate is even a bigger doubt, where Republicans would have to pick up 15 Dems and suffer no defections to pass the amendment. And again, that wouldn't take into account "moderate" Republicans who would likely oppose the amendment (like Chaffee).
So where does that leave Bush? Pushed into an extreme, hateful course of action that 1) shatters the myth of Bush's moderation and 2) shatters the myth that Bush aims to "unite, not divide".
And with no chance of victory, only the desperate need to hold on to the base and spur a culture war, Bush has now embarked on a course of action that will create serious problems in the political center. Andrew Sullivan is lamenting his trust in the Bush administration. He also reprints a letter that says it all:
We've witnessed a shift in Republican politics. The Republican establishment used to pay lip service to religious conservative interests while openly courting independent voters with moderate policies because it knew it could get the religious conservative vote regardless (who were they going to vote for, Clinton!?). But now, it seems Bush is paying lip service to independent interests while openly promoting religious conservative policy. Who are we going to vote for, Kerry?
Well, yes."
Now I'll try not to be naive. I realize that Bush has nothing to lose by taking this amendment and running with it full bore. He's got
nothing else to run on. War? Joblessness? Deficits? His only chance is to run around and lament the demise of the institution of marriage thanks to these ladies:
And I have no doubt that it may work. But the GOP will be dooming itself in the future. While opposition to gay marriage runs deep amongst older Americans, the opposite is true for younger generations.
But it's telling that Bush must resort to hate and bigotry in order to have any chance of winning this November.
Update: What our leadership has to say.
Nancy Pelosi
"I strongly oppose this amendment and will work to defeat it."
Tom Daschle
"But Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota said he did not think an amendment was necessary because the Defense of Marriage Act had not been challenged legally." (Link)
John Kerry
"I believe President Bush is wrong. All Americans should be concerned when a President who is in political trouble tries to tamper with the Constitution of the United States at the start of his reelection campaign [...]
“While I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, for 200 years, this has been a state issue. I oppose this election year effort to amend the Constitution in an area that each state can adequately address, and I will vote against such an amendment if it comes to the Senate floor.
“I believe the best way to protect gays and lesbians is through civil unions [...]" (link)
John Edwards
"I oppose gay marriage. I also oppose President Bush's attempt to amend the Constitution to ban gay marriage. Washington has no business playing politics with this issue. Marriage is left to the states today, and should remain with the states." (link)
Thank god for Pelosi. She's the best reason to work our asses off to take back the House.
