I think referring to the "sanctity of marriage" sounds like a right wing Christian president.
Excerpt:
A strong America must also value the institution of marriage. I believe we should respect individuals as we take a principled stand for one of the most fundamental, enduring institutions of our civilization. Congress has already taken a stand on this issue by passing the Defense of Marriage Act, signed in 1996 by President Clinton. That statute protects marriage under federal law as a union of a man and a woman, and declares that one state may not redefine marriage for other states.
Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage. (Applause.)
~snip~
Actually, someone has proposed another possible cure for this constitutional punctilio-punctuating gay lawyering, and that is to use Article III, I think it is, to remove marriage from the purview of the federal court system. That would at least force the gays to fight it out, state by state.
That still might leave you with a pro-gay state court like Massachusetts's creating a Full Faith and Credit problem in a different state's legal system. E.g., even though a federal court couldn't hear an appeal from the state legal system if marriage were removed by Congress from the federal judicial purview (assuming there were no constitutional crises over that), Lambda could still argue FFC before, e.g., the Missouri Supreme Court on behalf of a Massachusetts homosexual dyad, or on behalf of two Vermont homosexuals holding a Vermont "civil union" paper.
Apropos your earlier remark about Bush's having opposed homosexual "were-marriage" publicly, I repeat that he has received the homosexual Republican lobby, the Log Cabin Republicans, repeatedly and privately and has negotiated with them privately. We don't know what undertakings he has offered them, and we don't know how far he will go in accommodating them if their support again becomes a question mark.
There is almost no doubt in anyone's mind that the Democratic Party is the Queer Party, and that they will go all the way in giving the homosexual lobby absolutely everything they want, up to and including court orders and executive orders staying Republican and Christian parents from interfering with homosexual predators who want to date and turn out their children.
But Bush has haggled with these people, too, and we don't know what Bush's real positions are on homosexuality in civil society, outside of the statement you quoted. So it's a real question: Yeah, I heard the same statements you did, but how far does it go if Bush thinks his reelection is on the line and he needs the Log Cabins to vote Republican?
Do you know whether Bush has given anything away to the Log Cabins?