It looks like the Federal Marriage Amendment isn't just for extremists anymore.
President Bush says legalizing gay marriage (search) would redefine the most fundamental institution of civilization and that a constitutional amendment is needed to protect it. ...Hm, if the Democrats aren't going to oppose it doesn't that mean there's pretty broad support? Of course, it may not get enough votes to pass, but I'm still very curious to see what happens. Rather than constantly label their opponents as "extremists", why doesn't the gay lobby make a case for extending to same-sex couples the benefits mixed-sex couples enjoy through marriage? The "it's not fair" argument doesn't seem to be winning many converts, so why not try a different tack?
The president urged the House and Senate to send to the states for ratification an amendment that defines marriage in the United States as a union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
Senate Democrats signaled they will not throw barriers in front of the resolution, paving the way for a vote on the amendment as early as next Wednesday. ...
The Human Rights Campaign (search), the nation's largest gay political organization, said the president and congressional allies "should focus on the priorities of the American people, not the agenda of their extremist base."