In my local newspaper, the Concord Monitor, the lead article is a pitiful piece about gay marriage. Our one term governor, Craig Benson, who is usually unpredictable, followed the GOP line.

I talked to a dozen or so people about this earlier today. New Hampshire is pretty libertarian in many ways, and all of the people under 50 said it was no big deal. A non-issue. The folks in the over 50 set, were pretty much against gay marriage.

My take on the whole thing is pretty simple. Marriage is a legal institution. Under the law, all of our citzenry is supposed to get equal treatment. To treat gays unequally would seem to be unconstitutional.

I saw in the NYT Online that GW Bush -- a known supporter of rights -- is reportedly backing the drafting of an amendment 'defining' marriage. This is not necessarily a position that Mr. Bush personally holds, but could be one borne out of political necessity. You know, to shore up his conservative base.

I think that this is an absurd decision to make, as the Massachusetts ruling is most decidedly not an act of 'activist judges,' but is based purely on the basis of equal rights. Equal rights for everyone, not just for people with whom you agree.

One shouldn't even be able to contemplate an amendment to the Constitution to discriminate against any group, much less support it overtly.

In his own words:

I showed the people of Texas that I'm a uniter, not a divider. I refuse to play the politics of putting people into groups and pitting one group against another." - GW Bush 6, May 1999

A uniter of convenience from all appearances.

In the very same interview, Mr. Bush was asked about Trent Lott's infamous statement concerning homosexuality. It is:

"It is [a sin]....You should try to show them a way to deal with that problem, just like alcohol...or sex addiction...or kleptomaniacs." - Senate Republican Leader Trent Lott, Associated Press, June 15, 1998.

To which then governor Bush said:

"I was taught that we should look after the beam in our own eye before searching for the mote in someone else's."

Hey! That sounds like a pretty progressive guy.

I'm for equal protection under the law for everyone. American or not. I think that the Constitution shouldn't be a document of convenience. As most of Europe pushes for true equal rights, the U.S. again appears ready to fail its citizenry by failing to act in a progressive manner.

I guess that Bush will try make it unanimous. On issues from affirmative action to waging war, to the environment to tax policy, Bush policies have been failures. Let's hope that he takes the legally responsible stance on the gay union issue. He doesn't even have to alienate his base. All he needs to make clear is that this is an issue of equal rights. Certainly his socially conservative would understand that position. Or, maybe not.