I've been reading Sullivan for some time now, and yes, he has grown tedious. That said, I think what got his goat is the method Bush wants to use to "save marriage", i.e., a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, and I'm with Sullivan, Neal Boortz, and others on this one. Anyone cognizant of the value of states rights to our union would oppose such an anti-if not un-constitutional event. No marriage license comes from the federal govt., they come from the state.
If two homosexuals wish their union to be recognized by the state, I think it's foolish, unnecessary, makes them look petty, envious, and small, will have consequences that will make them rue the day they made it legal, but for the life of me I cannot think of ONE right that it takes away from me, or ONE harm that it does to me, except the attemp to stop it with a Federal intrusion which always harms our very fragile governing framework by usurping powers which to me clearly belong to the states.
I will vote for Bush no matter how he plays this issue, as it is simply not pivotal for me, but, with as much "triangulation" as he has been doing lately, I think not co-opting this issue by giving in to at least civil unions is a political blunder which may help to install the Commiecrats in 2004.
You make a great point here. Far too often people on one side of an issue that is not going their way will use the government to enforce what they want to see happen. Gay unions are a state matter and if Vermont, Mass and Hawaii want to recognize them, then so be it. Just don't make Virginia, Michigan, Arizona, etc follow suit if they elect not to. Conservatives who are trying to take the issue away from the states are not walking the talk here.