[Howlin]

By conceding that this is even a federal issue Bush has betrayed conservatives yet again and we have already lost.

I actually agree with you, but not for the same reasons probably.

This is a HUGE mistake, IMO; Bush had no business jumping in the middle of this -- and it's going to backfire big time.

And I believe this is nothing more than pandering to the hard right; when the tidal wave comes, we can thank them for more than likely losing this election.

[Miss Marple]

I must disagree. It is not pandering. I have assumed for some time he would end up going with an amendment...especially after the Supreme Court action anad the Massachusetts court decision.

This is not pandering. It is a belief he has that without the amendment we will just have more of this stuff.

You should know he doesn't pander (regardless of what people think about his immigration proposal. Ha!).

[livius]

Bush had no business jumping in the middle of this

Normally, you might be right. But remember that in this case, the states have proven themselves incapable of regulating this issue, even when they actually have laws on the books defining marriage. This is thanks to activist judges, in the case of MA, and thanks to local pols in the case of CA, aided and abetted by an out of control legal apparatus (SF Supreme Court and Lockyer).

So in this case, as much as I normally oppose things like this, I think there's little other option but to go the Federal route.

[NittanyLion]

And I believe this is nothing more than pandering to the hard right; when the tidal wave comes, we can thank them for more than likely losing this election.

I've never seen you accuse President Bush of pandering to any group. Are you really so jaded by internet disputes that, when the President agrees with your "enemies", you must then disagree with him?

Isn't it possible that in this instance conservatives and President Bush could simply be right?

[EllaMinnow]

If he was truly pandering to the right, he'd have come out against civil unions, which he didn't.
He wants every state to make its own choice and set its own rules on civil unions, but have the same legal definition of marriage that as always existed - a union between a man and a woman.
It boils down to a couple getting married in Massachusetts in May can't return to their home state and file a joint/married tax return. I know it won't be done by May, but we're in for several years of court battles anyway - IMHO, the amendment will help states define their own standards.

[Burkeman1]

It is pandering to the ignorant hard "right" that has no idea what Federalism means. But I strangely agree with your popular assessment of this Bush move-it will backfire.