The New York Times takes
note of the president's deliberately ambiguous
language:
" President Bush never used the words "gay," "homosexual," "same-sex" or "amendment." Instead of an amendment, he referred only to a "constitutional process." And, as he has in the past, he qualified the present need for such a process. "
Some conservatives found fault with his reluctance. "He made the case for the necessity of an amendment, and I am puzzled as to why he did not, having diagnosed the problem, prescribe the only remedy, a federal marriage amendment," said Dr. Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention....
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, said Mr. Bush's failure to ask Congress to get to work on an amendment negated his other initiatives.
However:
Some gay Republicans said the president had gone too far.
"We will not stand with anyone who is willing to write discrimination into the Constitution," said Patrick Guerriero, executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans.But Charles Francis, chairman of the Republican Unity Coalition and a family friend of President Bush, said he was not yet ready to break ranks. He emphasized that the president had not mentioned an amendment and that his comments about the "constitutional process" remained conditional, although he acknowledged, "He has come about as close as he can get."
Will the religious right be placated by rhetoric minus an actual
endorsement of and lobbying for the amendment? Or will Bush be
pushed into giving anti-gay activists what they want, and thereby
alienate the moderates and independents who don't cotton to
legislative gay-bashing? Stay tuned.