KantianBurke: Not a day goes by (perhaps not an hour) that finds you MIA on here sowing doubt about President Bush — no matter what the thread or topic. Well this time it can be proven in plain English that you don't know what the 'H' you are talking about. The ball is not in the President's court. The United States Constitution places authority to initiate Amendments to it in the Congress and the states. The best any president can do when it comes to Constitutional amendments is to express support or lack thereof, depending on the issue. GWB already has expressed support for an amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman.
Herewith, verbatim, is Article V of the Constitution:
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."
Odd how my original post wasn't even intended as a flame against Bush and yet you paranoid bots turn it into one. Is simply rhetorically reminding the President that during his State of the Union address he made it clear that activist judges calling for gay marriage would be responded to with a Constitutional Amendment a bash? Those judges just said in legalese "FU Dubya," not I.