One of the best parts of doing a daily talk show in DC is that, when the president makes a statement regarding same-sex marriage, I get to open up the phones and get reaction.
Not surprising for a show that leads into Rush, most of my callers supported the president’s call for a constitutional amendment. But most interesting was a caller decrying the fact that “in the year 2004, we’ve got a bigot like George W. Bush as president.”
When I asked the caller point blank if one had to be a “bigot” to oppose changing the definition of marriage, he said “yes” and that was that.
This, to me, is the atomic bomb of the pro-same-sex marriage forces, that there are no legitimate social or biological or historic reasons to keep marriage as it is. I get a sense from these advocates that they believe every fact and argument presented in opposition is mere euphemism for “hatin’ them homos.”
I’ve asked Andrew Sullivan several times if it is possible to oppose same-sex marriage and NOT be a bigot. I’ve never gotten an answer and I’ve never seen one posted at his site–though it is certainly possible I missed one.
But if the Left and their media allies succeed in moving a clearly governmental issue, like deciding what is and isn’t a legal marriage, into an arena beyond political debate, with one side declared inherently moral and the other inherently immoral, that would be a disastrous precedent.