Bush sucks, yo.

From today's Times: "Mr. Bush's advisers, in discussing the president's remarks [on supporting a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage], said the president was seeking to come across as opposing gay marriage but not as anti-gay."


...


...


Am I the only one who doesn't understand how this is possible?

If marriage is a secular institution, and so within the realm of what the Constitution can and cannot regulate, then there is no argument for restricting the rights of homosexuals and not heterosexuals. If marriage is a religious union of a man and a woman, then why is the Constitution being used to defend it? That's the Church's job, not the government's.

Well, that didn't come out quite as well as I would have liked, which is typical. I need some help here. If you can give, in 200 words or less, a more eloquent account of why this is ridiculous, there's a nice shiny quarter with your name on it.

Oooh, shiny.