If the law says that the legal incidents of marriage cannot be conferred upon unmarried couples, then how can this "leave the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage?" These two statements, presented right next to eachother by the NYT, seem mutually exclusive. Either Scott McClellan is out of line in his statement to the press, or Bush is lieing.

[ 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."

To me, it's an equal rights under the law issue, and possibly a church and state issue (since so many people define marriage based on a religious interpretation).

More than both of those things, it's a political issue. Bush wants to guarantee that the polls are filled with riled up ultra religious conservatives this november -- he wants to force the democratic rival into taking the opposing stand so that swing voters turn to Bush over this one, divisive, critical issue (for them). It's so controversial that the economy, Iraq, Bush's service record, the environment, etc. will be page 2 news as much as possible. The only hope is that it gets the left fired up enough to shake off their collective laziness and bring their young asses to the polls instead of sleeping through class. So much wrong in washington right now... -k]

Congress Is Urged to Begin Process to Amend Constitution