Welcome to the debate, Mr. President. I see that you’ve decided to take the bigoted asshole side. Well, good luck.

President Bush plans to endorse a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as the union of a man and a woman in response to a Massachusetts court decision requiring legal recognition of gay marriages in that state, key advisers said yesterday.

Bush plans to endorse language introduced by Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colo.) that backers contend would ban gay marriage but not prevent state legislatures from allowing the kind of civil unions and same-sex partnership arrangements that exist in Vermont and California.
. . .
Musgrave’s proposal, called the Federal Marriage Amendment, states: “Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.”

The amendment’s authors say it is a compromise that would not stop state legislatures from allowing civil unions. Gay rights groups disagree. Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, which supports marriage rights for gays, said the White House and “the Christian right” are “being deliberately deceptive.” He said the “vague and sweeping language” of the proposed amendment’s second sentence “is intended to deny any other measure of protection, including civil unions and domestic partnerships.”

He’s right, of course. The language is intentionally vague because they want to sneak a blanket of discrimination past everyone.

Now, I’m sensitive to the fact that not everybody is comfortable with the idea of two people of the same sex getting married, but to try to ban civil unions (Make no mistake. That’s exactly what this language does.) goes well beyond “protecting marriage”. It’s gay bashing. Once it’s pointed out that this language is vague enough to ban any laws that automatically confer rights such as inheritance, power of attorney, hospital visits, tax status, etc., I’m confident that there will be a significant enough uproar that Bush will back off some and support a “compromise” amendment (after all, he’s a uniter).

That’s when the hard part starts. Unlike every other time when Bush has gotten away with doing a 360 on some nutty idea of his, the Democrats can’t back off on this one. From the moment that Bush officially endorses this, call him a “homophobe” as loud as you can. If he backs down, use it as an opportunity to publicly question his judgment and his character.

In short, don’t let the Republicans use this as a wedge issue without using it as a wedge yourself. Because you’re not gonna have much time to get your digs in before Bush changes the subject.