The en
banc blog
makes mincemeat out of the New York
Times's claim of "strong support" for a constitutional
amendment to ban gay marriage. In fact, the reported figure of 55
percent favoring an amendment shows a country pretty evenly
divided. And by any measure, it's less than the overwhelming
majority needed to push an amendment through Congress and
three-fourths of the state legislatures.
This, coupled with the Times's mangling of the Bush quote (see below) to purport that the president is now supporting such an amendment (he's not, but says he might "if necessary"), begs the question of why the NYT wants its readers to think the news is much worse than it is. Recall that the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force also is telling its followers that Bush supports the anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment now before Congress (wrong again - while Bush "if necessary" might endorse some amendment, he also indicated he favors the rights of states to offer civil unions and domestic partnerships, which the proposed FMA would ban).
One explanation: the liberal-left would rather (a) demonize Bush
and (b) luxuriate in victimhood than deal with the practical
politics of lobbying an administration they despise -- even to the
point of declaring defeat while others choose to engage the
battle.