Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the FMA (and I have to say that I am not in favor), Ramesh is absolutely correct to say that the political fallout of the debate–and whether the president is successful in getting FMA enacted–will depend on who is portrayed as the aggressor and who the extremist. Yes, the President has been pushed into taking this step by the dodgy decision of an activist court, but that doesn’t absolve him of the responsibility of articulating his own (‘defensive’) position in a way that (a) holds together intellectually; (b) doesn’t appall the large (I suspect) majority in this country that would rather not be talking about this topic at all; and (c) can demonstrate that he regards a constitutional amendment (rarely a conservative idea) as essential in this case. In effect, that means that he has to show why extending secular marriage rights (and rites) to the tiny minority of homosexuals (themselves a tiny minority of the population) who are likely to want it is such a threat to heterosexual marriage that its prohibition should be enshrined in the Constitution. Stanley may not agree, but I suspect that will be an interesting challenge, to put it mildly.