Today, the New York Times published a complete transcript of W’s Rose Garden press conference. Out of 11 webpages of text, three tiny paragraphs in the middle of page 5 somehow drew top headlines on both the Times’ website and CNN. Why? Because in those 137 words, the Collander in Chief finally made a statement on gay marriage. Surprise, surprise: he’s not in favor of it.
And yet, it’s not as simple as that. W may be an idiot, but he’s a crafty idiot. He’s kept quiet on the issue of queer marriage for as long as he has because he wants to look compassionate and not alienate the soccer moms who got him (s)elected. Now, however, the polls show a fairly strong backlash against homos since the Supreme Court effectively legalized sodomy earlier this summer: not to bum y’all out or anything, but according to CNN
The number of people who have endorsed the idea that homosexual relations should be legal has dropped from 60 percent to 48 percent since the ruling, and only 40 percent of Americans say they now would support civil unions for homosexuals.
Ergo, W thinks its safe to swim in the waters of social conservatism again. (Or maybe he’s just striking back at liberals after his lukewarm reception from the Urban League yesterday. Sour grapes.)
Still, all isn’t lost. Like I said, that’s one crafty dumbass we’ve got in that big ol’ white house: by arguing against a Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriages and suggesting that there are other legal solutions to the “problem,” W is essentially leaving open the door for a constitutional challenge to any law that he might propose. That’s not so bad in my book. I mean, if you were a homo lawyer fighting for queer marriage–and who’s to say you aren’t?–wouldn’t you rather argue against a measly law than a piece of the Constitution?
sturtle [dot] com 