Much commentary today about President Bush's formal endorsement of the anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment. Here's a sampling of two of the more interesting pieces.
From
James Glassman, on the website of the conservative American
Enterprise Institute:
"by supporting the FMA, the President is turning his back on conservative principles of federalism and limited government. Gay marriage arouses hot emotions on both sides. But there is a sensible solution, and it's being followed: Let each state decide on its own.
That is the view of Vice President Cheney. "Different states are likely to come to different conclusions," he said during the 2000 campaign, "and that's appropriate." "Many staunch Republicans agree with Cheney's approach. "I hold the Constitution in highest regard and I don't like to see it trifled with," says former Rep. Bob Barr. "I'm a firm believer in federalism. Even though I'm not an advocate for same-sex marriage, I want the states to decide the issue."
If the President is hunting for amendments, he might try one limiting federal spending".
"this divided country needs a compassionate conservative, not a cynic who panders to the meanest instincts.
And, from libertarian-minded, conservative-friendly
columnist James Pinkerton, in Newsday:
The gay rush to the altar has been compared to earlier spontaneous political combustion, in which old rules go up in a sudden whoosh of smoke. "
But now George W. Bush is gearing up to support a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, backed by a solid majority of Americans. Well, here's a prediction: Such an amendment will never pass. Why? Because there are too many gays and lesbians living a conservative lifestyle, now aspiring to be even more conservative by getting legally hitched. And in the final analysis, the political establishment will not be hard-hearted enough to crush their legal and human rights.
There is a crying need in America for the leadership of a fiscally conservative, free-trade supporting, excessive-regulation restraining, tax limiting, entitlement reforming, strong-defense minded, internationally engaged, limited-government president. That does not describe George W. Bush, whose domestic spending has been fiscally profligate and who has made a habit of over-reaching into areas where the federal government has no business being.
But it's certainly not John Kerry, whose muddled foreign policy pronouncements sound like warmed over Jimmy Carterism, and who will certainly increase taxes and business regulation, block fiscally prudent entitlement reform, placate the trial lawyer lobby by nixing much needed tort reform (especially if Edwards is veep), and appoint the liberal version of intrusive government meddlers to positions of power throughout his administration. Pick your poisons.
These past few days, I can't help thinking of what the country,
now torn apart with the ugliest partisan rancor in memory, might
have been like if John McCain had managed to buck the GOP
establishment four years ago and win against crazy Al
Gore.