Precisely the point. Which is why Bush's statement is idiotic. We're not talking about SIN - we're talking about PUBLIC POLICY, which is supposed to serve the common good, not tiptoe around people's feelings.
Certain "rights" assumed by gays to be theirs aren't actually theirs. I'm speaking here about adoption, for example. The state has an obligation to tend to the rights of the child first. The child has the right to life, and, placed in a situation where the normal attendees to that process have stepped aside, the state must, like a normal mother and father, put that interest ahead of all others. The evidence for a mother and father, together, being the optimal situation abounds. Any data about children placed with gay couples is incomplete and highly politicized. Remember, as the cultural marxists proclaimed: "the personal is the political." Just because the state has abandoned such obligation in the case of abortion way beyond any competing "rights" of the mother, especially in the case of non-rape and incest occasions, doesn't mean more social experimentation in the name of equality for all regardless of the social consequences of their "lifestyle," is either good for society or the right thing to do. Or, after 5000 years of so-called societal "evolution," has moral relativism metastasized to the point where any discomfort in laying down the law has become intolerable to the majority?