[longtermmemmory]

Does anyone know anything about capital city partners?

This must be an example of "inside the beltway". The people I have seen and heard since this started are solid behind keeping marriage normal. They also consider this a significant voting issue.

Whtether it is threats from terroists or attacks by homosexuals agains family institutions they both threaten the future of the USA.

This issue crosses party lines because kerry has no coat tails. It is every democrat for themselves.

[kayak]

bttt

[Brad’s Gramma]

Homosexuality is a deviant behavior.

[cartoonistx]

[atomicpossum]

As for the normally adroit Kerry, a baffling exchange in the same California debate with reporter Ron Brownstein seemed to leave him with the following positions: He is happy to have voted against the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, but he no longer believes, as he did then, that DOMA is unconstitutional. He is against DOMA now, but thinks Congress probably shouldn't repeal it. He is in favor of the definition of marriage as involving a husband and a wife, but any congressional effort to codify this Kerry position would be polarizing, "gay bashing," or (most likely) both.

Best encapsulation of the Kerry 'position' I have yet seen.

[William McKinley]

As this performance suggests, Democrats are both uncomfortable with where they are and stuck with it for now. Congressional Democrats are nearly unanimous against the Marriage Amendment, and thus any near-term vote count will show that the needed two-thirds majority is not possible in either house. Timid Republican congressional leaders will no doubt try to conclude that holding such votes in 2004 is a bad idea because "the votes are not there."

In the wake of the president's endorsement, this kind of contrived escape is the one thing that could make the GOP a net loser in this year's marriage debate. Now that he is committed on this issue, the president will need to make sure that House and Senate votes take place before the election, because only with stark, recorded, up-or-down votes will the Republicans clearly be seen by the electorate as the party that is serious about taking action to defend marriage. Because the national Democrats have no intention of openly advocating gay marriage, the lack of a vote on the constitutional amendment designed to prevent it would leave the two parties' positions on the issue muddled and hard to distinguish.

Bush didn't wade into this water without full intention of diving in.

The fight will be enjoined.

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

The very problem; "Debate," "Discussion," "Different Points Of View!" There is nothing to debate one must suppress. (However, that would take strength.The ability to take a stand, to say yes or no. I do not see the exhibition of such strength.)

[KantianBurke]

"many Republican elites found the idea of capitulating to gay marriage far more attractive than fighting it."

Pretty much their SOP for the past few years. Disgusting.

[Redcloak]

"Gay marriage" is, as Rush characterized it last week, a "gift from the heavens" to Bush. But what social conservatives need to realize is that Bush isn't going to go for a quick fix. There's no political advantage to that. This is going to drag out for several long, agonizing months. But during those months, Bush will use the issue to beat Kerry (or whoever) like a hot-pink, gold lamé-trimmed drum.

But the truth is, there is no quick fix. (Other than rolling over the way the country-clubbers would!) Bush is quite correct in calling for a Constitutional amendment. Under existing Constitutional law, there is no authority to ban gay marriage. Being grossed out by something doesn't translate into an ability to ban said activity. Just as the 18th Amendment was needed to ban alcoholic beverages, so to is an amendment needed to give the authority to regulate marriage.

Constitutional amendments need time to pass; and there's the rub. Not many social conservatives will have the patience to see this process run its course. They're fuming and want action NOW! Having Bush draw out the process for a few extra months won't help their demeanor. My only worry in all of this is that the social conservatives will lose perspective on this in the coming months; that their impatience will cause them to stay home come November.

[The Wizard]

Go GWB

[cyncooper]

Millions of voters are not simply disapproving, as they might be of the Super Bowl halftime show. They seem prepared to change their votes to the extent the marriage debate becomes politically central. For weeks, respected GOP pollster Bill McInturff, not known as a social conservative, has been sharing results of a national poll showing a 4-point Bush lead turning into a 15-point lead should a fight over the definition of marriage become a prominent campaign issue.

Ping for a most interesting poll reference.

[cyncooper]

As for the normally adroit Kerry, a baffling exchange in the same California debate with reporter Ron Brownstein seemed to leave him with the following positions: He is happy to have voted against the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, but he no longer believes, as he did then, that DOMA is unconstitutional. He is against DOMA now, but thinks Congress probably shouldn't repeal it. He is in favor of the definition of marriage as involving a husband and a wife, but any congressional effort to codify this Kerry position would be polarizing, "gay bashing," or (most likely) both.

I disagree Kerry is "normally adroit". There is barely a topic (I can't think of even one) that he hasn't taken two or three, or even more, positions on.

[thoughtomator]

Only a matter of time before junkies start marrying their needles...