George W. Bush has come out in favor of a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriages…and it's interesting that everyone today, including his supporters, seems to be presuming this was done for political reasons. I guess this year, every time Bush or Kerry exhales, it will be presumed to be for political reasons. But no one seems to think Bush is really as "deeply troubled" about this issue as he is about shoring up his support among Conservatives who are irate about the deficit and certain immigration-related issues. I tend to think this proposed amendment won't do for this Bush what that hollow campaign to bar flag-desecration did for his father. Remember when that was the, no pun intended, burning issue of the day?
Yeah, a lot of Americans think marriage should only be boy-girl. But I wonder how many of them think a law will do anything but deny gays the word "marriage" and a few of the social benefits (health insurance, for instance) that everyone is currently worried about being without. More of the point, I wonder how many Americans really want to see the government come down hard on people for loving one another and wishing to commit to one another. Wishing there could be no gay marriage is not the same thing as being eager to see that amendment pass. Ultimately, though Americans may tell pollsters that they are opposed to gay marriage, which would put them in lockstep with Bush's position, I suspect a lot of "swing voters," the kind Bush needs to win, won't be comfortable with actually bespoiling our beloved Constitution this way. I think they'd prefer to see this issue fudged, which would place them closer to Kerry's position.
I know this may not be the Conventional Wisdom…but then, I've come to think Ralph Nader won't do the Democrats as much damage as some are bemoaning/hoping, either. First of all, unless Republicans circulate petitions for him, he won't be on a lot of ballots. Secondly, people know. Few who want to see Bush defeated are going to think a vote for Ralph "says" something so important that they can risk helping Bush win their state. Last time, voting Nader said you were disgusted with the two major parties and wanted to see others become viable. This time, Nader doesn't even have a third party behind him.
Lastly, if running for prez gets Nader visibility during the election — and he must think it will or he wouldn't be running — he could do a lot to point up the failings of the present administration. Call him a narcissist or a demagogue or a relic of the sixties or whatever but he has a commanding presence with many when he speaks about government pork and corporate crime. He can and will say things that Kerry (or Edwards if it's Edwards) can't without looking radical or unpresidential. Like his father, Bush likes to run a dirty campaign with others hurling the mud and him keeping his hands clean. Whoever the Democratic nominee is, he's (sadly) going to need people out there doing likewise for him. Nader could be valuable in that regard. And like I said, no one who wants Bush out is going to be dumb enough to not vote for the Democrat.