I think you are right that its a political issue. Most people in the US oppose gay marriage. By forcing the Dems to publically state that they support it, Bush hits them where it hurts.

Personally, I find the idea that you'd vote on something like this, rather then, say, national security, or the economy, rather silly, but also not surprising. If conservative commentators can manage to memetically cast democrats as the "gay party" you can bet they'll be marginalized. They managed to memetically blame Saddam for 911. This ought to be easy. Look at what most people think of San Francisco.

Once again, the Republicans succeed at courting the essence of the American mindset, where the dems are too busy being correct to bother appealing to the masses.

] [ Actually, the wording is subtle, i think. It doesn't seem
] to forbid states from passing laws which confer the "status or
] legal incidents thereof" on gay couples, simply that they
] can't *requre* that such rights be conferred. In other words
] it says "No one can categorically define gay couples as equal
] to straight couples, even if they happen to recieve the same
] benefits."

I stumbled over this wording. Its subtlety is strange. I think it steps short of saying what it wants to say in hope of convincing people that it means something that it doesn't mean. I think the courts will see this for what it is irrespective of the tricky wording.

It says: (No law) shall be construed to require that (the legal incidents of marriage) be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

Read it again: No law shall require that the legal incidents of marriage be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups. (Construed to require and require are the same thing.)

One more time: No law shall confer the legal incidents of marriage upon unmarried couples or groups. (What laws do is require things. If you cannot require you cannot confer. What would be the meaning of a law which said that the legal incidents of marriage may be conferred upon unmarried couples, but this is not required? Who confers the legal incidents of marriage? The probate court? Do they get to decide whether or not to confer these incidents depending on whether they feel like it? No. Laws don't work that way. If you cannot require you cannot confer. Thus this version is the same, but more readable.)

See? Its a deception.

RE: Congress Is Urged to Begin Process to Amend Constitution