COST WITHOUT BENEFIT: In response to my post saying Bush's support of a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage makes no sense to me, my dear friend Bart writes:

I think this follows a predictable Bush pattern which can be summarized as thus: wealth and the accumulation thereof is what drives the economy and therefore the strength of the nation. This is to be preserved despite any social, environmental, or other costs that may be incurred. This may be his actual conviction or he may have just recognized that policies that benefit the wealth-possessing status quo makes fundraising (and at least to some extent future electablity) much easier. People who possess wealth are better able to determine how to utilize their wealth than the government, therefore taxes and regulations should be as minimally intrusive as possible. Social society (for lack of a better term) on the other hand needs guidance and protection from those that would impose a more open set of social mores. When it comes to civl liberties of almost any type Bush has consistently come down against them: the PATRIOT act (I know, I know, it's a lefty bogyman, but nonetheless it does considerably reduce civil liberty), his support of government funded faith based initiatives, and certainly his support of the same-sex marriage amendment. While I certainly don't agree with his decision to support it it makes perfect sense to me as to why he would.

Bart, I hear you. But I just don't believe Bush & co. are as cynical as all that ("despite any social, environmental, or other costs that may be incurred"). Instead, I submit that Bush (and all leaders) have to weigh the costs associated with anything they propose, undertake, or allow. The answer, the line they all seek, is "reasonable" costs. Because there are costs associated with every path we choose, I'm sure you'll agree. So while I understand how Bush might think drilling in ANWR (which I oppose) is a reasonable cost when laid against the benefit of enhanced domestic oil production and reduced reliance on foreign suppliers; while I understand how Bush might think that some greater powers might be selectively appropriate for law enforcement in light of real terrorist threat/activity (at a real cost of civil liberties for some); and while I understand how Bush might feel that eliminating tax burdens on principle and in practice might cost some programs but free up greater dollars in the long run....I just don't see the same cost/benefit analysis when it comes to same-sex marriage. Amending the constitution to make same-sex marriages illegal...where's the benefit? The costs are great: alienating an entire population, not to mention a wide swath of sympathetic straight folks; making our republic more exclusive, less inclusive; creating a sort of tiered human rights menu in our country; etc.

Surely you'll concede that there are at least some real or at least perceived benefits associated with many of Bush's other decisions. In this particular instance, supporting a constitutional ban on gay marriage, the only benefit I can find is -- perhaps -- a political one with Bush's conservative base...or a divine one with Bush's imagined deity. What am I missing? Is that all this is, a vote grab or an attempt to curry heavenly favor? What's in it for the rest of us?