Vows of Celibacy

Sully Joe's still pretending that Bush doesn't support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to ban gay marriage. Commenting on Bush's statement that "[i]f judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process," Sully asks:

What constitutional process? A State constitutional amendment? A federal constitutional amendment? The constitutional attempt to remove or elect judges? Again, who knows? And what would the president's position be if a state's legislature passed equal marriage rights? There's a majority in Massachusetts in the polls on such a matter. California has just passed a marriage-in-all-but-name civil union. Would he support a constitutional process to thwart the people's will as well? Again: who knows?

Later, Sully concludes, "Still, the good and important news is that the president hasn't endorsed the Federal Marriage Amendment."

Dream on, Sully. Bush is giving a State of the Union Address. He's talking about federal action; he's not micromanaging state politics.

More fundamentally, what difference would it make if Bush was talking about "a State constitutional amendment" or "The constitutional attempt to remove or elect judges." Would Bush's view be any less loathsome if he was urging states to amend their constitutions to prohibit gay marriage, or urging federal or state legislators to remove judges and/or oppose judicial nominees who recognized a right to same-sex marriage?

And don't forget, Sully, when Bush talks about abstinence, in your case he's talking a lifelong commitment.