Sully and Demmons (here, here and here) have expressed disfavor at Bush’s statements regarding gay marriage in the State Of The Union address. I’m sure this has been discussed just about everywhere (lazy me, arg), and here’s my two cents after I read that relevant passage:

A strong America must also value the institution of marriage. I believe we should respect individuals as we take a principled stand for one of the most fundamental, enduring institutions of our civilization. Congress has already taken a stand on this issue by passing the Defense of Marriage Act, signed in 1996 by President Clinton. That statute protects marriage under federal law as a union of a man and a woman, and declares that one state may not redefine marriage for other states.

Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people’s voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage. [Emphasis added. --- Ed.]

There is a conditional here, a very important one. Let’s put this in perspective. Bush could have easily usurped this entire debate by going hard-line Christian on the rest of us and push, right here and now, for the FMA. If anything he is watching this situation carefully and knows that the states are going to have to take it one by one. Just to gratuitously mind-read here: he knows it’s coming. But he also knows that states have to be ready for them, and if the Full Faith and Credit Clause is abused, we know what’s coming.

I know that no matter how the gay movement acts there will always be people who will consider their moves totally threatening. Not even a lobotomy on gays would be enough for these people. The trick here is to reduce that population by showing that gays pose no threat, not by accusing straights of ruining the institution of marriage, but by showing that gays can be “married” even without the blessings of the law, among other things to show and prove the legitimacy of their relationships.

I have a feeling that the real will of the people here is far different from the will of the people that Bush is talking about: at least state by state. I’d sooner see a purely federalist solution to this creeping slowly under the threat of an FMA push, than to have a president from either party forcing the fact of gay marriage on everyone across the nation. The responsibility of gays who want to marry is to reside where their marriages are accepted by society (in legal terms, of course).

The art of the compromise, dear friends. Could it be that this hot button issue totally ignores it?

(This is going to be only time I’m addressing the SOTU. Done and done with that. Besides, I’m late.)