I don’t think the President could have stirred it up anymore than he did today with his call for an amendment to the constitution that would effectively ban gay marriage. As I suspected, along with many of my fellow conservatives, the backlash has arrived on this issue. Don’t believe me? Take a look at this ABC News pollded):

Public support for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages has grown in the last month, leaving the nation split down the middle as President Bush announced his support today for an amendment. **Forty-six percent of Americans favor an amendment, while 45 percent say the states should be left to make their own laws on the issue. Just a month ago, by contrast, 58 percent wanted it left to the states. Much of the change has occurred in the West — an apparent backlash to the same-sex marriages now occurring in San Francisco.**

Apart from views on a constitutional amendment, opposition to homosexual marriages remains firm. Fifty-five percent in this ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll say they should be illegal, steady since last fall. And the intensity of sentiment is twice as strong among opponents: Forty-nine percent of Americans feel “strongly” that same-sex marriages should be illegal, while just 25 percent “strongly” want them legal.

The sodomy ruling from the USSC last year, along with the Massachusetts court ruling, and the marriage licenses being issued in San Francisco (and a New Mexico county) brought this to the forefront, without a doubt. The president, IMO, is doing the only thing he can to stop what he believes to be activist judges and local city/county officials taking the law into their own hands. Here’s the important part of his speech:

After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization. Their actions have created confusion on an issue that requires clarity.

For all these reasons, the defense of marriage requires a constitutional amendment.

Did Gavin Newsom and the Mass Supreme Court really give him a choice in this?

I am absolutely outraged at what is taking place in California at the moment - specifically, San Francisco. I suppose by now you’ve heard that the Mayor of SF (the newly-elected Gavin Newsom) ordered officials to issue licenses to same-sex couples, declaring that he was merely ensuring equal treatment of gays and lesbians.

WHAT? you ask. “Ordered”? Yep. Apparently, the mayor thinks he’s somehow above the law, despite the fact that California’s laws don’t state that two people of the same sex can get married.

I wonder how many people out there agree with what the mayor has done here? To gay marriage proponents: do you think this is ‘right’ to do because in your minds it’s the way the law should be? Or do you think this should have been taken through the democratic system our men fought and died for many moons ago? I’ve read at some places that have characterized this as some act of “rebellion” on the part of the gay couples - or “civil disobedience,” as Andrew Sullivan called it. But it’s not.

Think about it: this isn’t like the black men who defiantly sat at the segregated lunch counters. Those men weren’t “enabled” by a gov’t official who said “guys, look, I know it’s against the law, but you have my permission to sit at the lunch counter with the white people.” They sat there IN SPITE of the law (good for them, I might add). Mayor Newsom has effectively sidestepped any debate amongst the people, the state legislature of CA and ultimately the Supreme Court in CA by doing this. The mayor is the one who engaging in “civil disobedience,” not the gay couples. He has enabled them with the right to get married by his actions.

Think about it this way: some may think that what’s going on in SF right now is ‘right’ because it’s the ‘right thing to do’ but how would the pro-gay marriage groups feel if President Bush issued an executive order declaring that a marriage is supposed to consist of a man and a woman, foregoing the system? I pray gay marriage proponents are not advocating what’s happening in SF - Mayor Newsom is taking the slow route to tyranny, IMO. Gay marriage proponents are NOT going to gain more acceptance by going along with something like this. Proponents forget that something like this not only emboldens gay couples, but it will embolden opponents of gay marriage as well. Think about the fencesitters: would they advocate a mayor going above the law in order to grant a right to someone?

I love it! Major kudos to Lisa at Elegant Webscapes for helping me to get this just right. What a beautiful template - perfectly classy and feminine for a future prezeedente, eh?

Been on hiatus for a couple of weeks but I have returned. I have a LOT of commentary to go over concerning several issues that have happened as of late. This presidential season is shaping up to be - uh, “mucky” to say the least

Thanks!