Once upon a time I would have been outraged by this comment. How dare he spew his religion at us like that?

Now...I no longer feel that way, not with the way this President seems to view his religion. I actually like that the President has sincere religious views that inform his personal morality, and that he seems to understand that while his religion is an important part of his personal moral feelings and composition, he seems to recognize that as far as his public policy goes, he must be the leader of a pluralistic, non-religious State. This man appears to posess a set of core values - values he doesn't feel the need to hide. That is an EXCELLENT leadership characteristic.

The Constitution has protected us for a long time from becoming a theocracy while being lead by people who had strong Christian convictions, and, if taken seriously, should continue to protect us for a long time to come. Why should I fear this President any more than those of the past, especially as I see no signs that he wants to take his beliefs any further than propriety and the law dictate?

Now, issues of marriage and Constitutional ammendments and the like are beyond the scope of this post. I'm simply reacting to Bush's overall religiosity here.

I'm still trying to figure out what everyone is talking about with their posturing on ammendments and new laws and the like. Is it simply a semantic argument? Equal protection for gay civil unions - just call it something other than "marriage..." I'd be all for that, but the trouble I see with much of the debate is that the people arguing the point don't seem to want to be straight about their intentions (excuse the pun). Either the sponsors want to ensure equal rights with a different name, or they're just looking for ways to keep gay folks down without doing so in an offensive way - so they couch their real goals in fuzzy language. I can imagine where some of The President's allies come down on the question, but I'm not sure where The President himself comes down.

The State ought to be about recognizing and serving the needs of the citizenry. If male (or female!) citizens are de facto marrying, then the law needs to catch up to that situation and recognize the facts. Our legislators need to be clear about what their intentions are.

Damn! I guess I rambled into the mariage issue anyway. Well, too late now...

(This post inspired by Roger Simon's post here.)