Interesting concept. But I heard on the news that Bush has already promised to reintroduce the amendment. Although, I don't recall them saying exactly when, I guess he could wait until 2008, but it seems unlikely, considering several states will have had judicial rulings about equality by then, something conservatives don't agree with.

Bush has to reward the Christian Right for its support. So, I think the national anti-gay marriage amendment will put in another appearance. I hesitate to say it will not go anywhere next time. Bush's second term, and actually having been elected, mean legislators will rush to grovel at his feet. The gravity attendant to amending the constitution may be lost in the slobbering over his calluses.

1.) Typically the Republican Party is the party of States' Rights and this is consistent with that idea

2.) More likely, Bush was armed with polls about the likelihood these state amendments would pass, changed his view because it appears that such state amendments will easily pass in most states (even CA and NY), so why not take the "states rights" issue? It makes him look better to the ignorant political follower, and his agenda IS being served by the states.

Makes sense to me.

Ummm.... Republican party for states rights? Except in 2000 when Florida was denied its right to decide and the issue was sent to the Supreme court, right? The Reps only opt for states rights when it goes in their favor. There may have not been a Bush presidency if they would have went the correct route in 2000.

Bush is the secular president. www.shakingspears.blogspot.com

Amendments take a long time to be voted on. A technically real push, whether facetious or not, would be under discussion for decades. If it passed Congress it would be put on the ballot as a referendum in every state in the Union. Which would schedule said ballot as appropriate.

Everyone thinks it has a snowball's chance in hell of passing.

But if you just ignore it all as a ploy the damn thing could become law in 10 or so years.

Wicked sneaky.

Hah! The GOP and state's rights. The very last thing John Ashcroft did before resigning was to lob another bomb at Oregeon's death with dignity law. He has been trying to undermine it for four years. Now, he has asked SCOTUS to go after it. I'll try to blog this later today.

At least what Ashcroft does ( I disagree with him) is within the law. The thing that drove the desire for states to have ballot measures on gay marriage was what was seen as courts legislating from the bench.

My point #2 was my main point. No one seems to be mentioning that, probably because it makes sense and is likely what happened here.

MrPC, while Bush flipflopped right before the election, he has flipflopped again after the election and said he will reintroduce the amendment. So that would make your point 2 erroneous.

I don't know, but I suspect he 'caved in' right before the election, so that those who would not vote for him because of that issue, might then go ahead and vote for him.