Another Losing Proposition From W

When in doubt, go after the gays. It seems to be the only "strategy" the Bush Administration knows. Now, "aides" say, the president will back a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage:

President Bush will promote a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage on Monday, the eve of a scheduled Senate vote on the cause that is dear to his conservative backers.

The amendment would prohibit states from recognizing same-sex marriages. To become law, the proposal would need two-thirds support in the Senate and House, and then be ratified by at least 38 state legislatures.

It stands little chance of passing the 100-member Senate, where proponents are struggling to get even 50 votes. Several Republicans oppose the measure, and so far only one Democrat -- Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska -- says he will vote for it.

Yes, Mr. President, another fine political move. Hop on board the bandwagon of legislation that will never pass. The Founding Fathers made it extremely difficult to amend the Constitution for a reason. But, of course, this has nothing to do with profound convictions of what is right or wrong. It's about trying to keep from losing votes this fall, as the White House looks weak on immigration and the Republicans in Congress look weak on everything.

Bush benefited as religious conservatives turned out to vote and helped him defeat Democratic Sen. John Kerry in 2004. In Ohio, an initiative rejecting the legality of civil unions won handily. The same state tipped the election to Bush.

"The president firmly believes that marriage is an enduring and sacred institution between men and women and has supported measures to protect the sanctity of marriage," White House spokesman Ken Lisaius said.

Bush has lost support among conservatives who blame the White House and Congress for runaway government spending, illegal immigration and lack of action on social issues such as the gay marriage amendment.

A sacred institution? Sanctity of marriage? I will believe that bullsh*t when we go back to the days of "cause" divorce and end no-fault marriage "dissolution." Until straight people can no longer change spouses by ending "marriage" quicker and easier than any other legal contract, sacred and sanctity are a joke. Let's put the pain back in divorce if we're really serious about this.

Or, better yet, let's get government out of the marriage business. It is a religious undertaking that has no business in our county courthouses. Instead, let the two lovebirds sign a binding contract to become partners, share assets and protect the other's fair-share if one strays. Gay, straight, in-between. If those same two people then want to stand before the local parson and say their "I Do's."

Of course, that won't win you any votes -- and it makes too much sense. We'd rather battle over the word "marriage." Gay civil unions and no-fault divorces ... you can't have one without the other.