AP: Bush expected to support amendment to ban gay marriage

The Associated Press is reporting that President Bush will come out in favor of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. At least, that is the impression one gets from a casual reading of the story.

Bush is expected to make remarks on Monday in support of a measure that passed the Senate Judiciary Committee after debate which was punctuated by a shouting match between Arlen Specter and Russell Feingold. The amendment would prohibit any state from granting marriage rights to same-sex couples.

From Thursday night's story by Nedra Pickler:

President Bush will promote a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage on Monday, the eve of a scheduled Senate vote on the cause that is dear to his conservative backers.

The amendment would prohibit states from recognizing same-sex marriages. To become law, the proposal would need two-thirds support in the Senate and House, and then be ratified by at least 38 state legislatures.

Despite the headline (BUSH TO BACK GAY MARRIAGE BAN AMENDMENT) and the assertion in the lead sentence, however, this story is missing one important element. It doesn't quote anyone who actually says Bush will support a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

Pickler's story makes only two references to Bush's position on the amendment:

Bush aides said he would be making his remarks on the subject Monday.

A slim majority of Americans oppose gay marriage, according to a poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press from March. But the poll also showed attitudes are changing: 63 percent opposed gay marriage in February 2004.

And,

"The president firmly believes that marriage is an enduring and sacred institution between men and women and has supported measures to protect the sanctity of marriage," White House spokesman Ken Lisaius said.

Bush has lost support among conservatives who blame the White House and Congress for runaway government spending, illegal immigration and lack of action on social issues such as the gay marriage amendment.

At best, these quotes amount to an implication that Bush supports the amendment. They do not demonstrate that contention with any degree of confidence.

Considering the headline and the lead, one imagines that if Pickler had actual facts to support her thesis, she would have included them. She uses up more column inches explaining why the amendment is doomed to fail than she does making the case that Bush will campaign in favor of it. This is particularly damaging to the story in the light of Bush's complete lack of action on the subject of gay marriage while in office. He has always been willing to pay lip service to a federal crackdown at campaign time, but loses all apparent interest as soon as the election is over.

Perhaps Bush thinks that by telegraphing his support for what the religious right now calls the MPA (Marriage Protection Amendment), he can get a little breathing room for himself and for the party in this congressional election year. Maybe he thinks that he can skate along by merely implying his support has he has done for so many years. If so, he is wrong.

Unless Bush comes out Monday with a fire-breathing, damn-the-torpedoes speech in favor of amending the constitution to discriminate against homosexuals, his conservative base will be disappointed, to put it mildly. The reaction will be worse than it was after his fence-sitter address on immigration. That could put him and his party in a worse position than if he had said nothing at all.