The longer I think about President Bush’s State of the Union Address, the more one thing bothers me. I’m with him being a hard-ass in the war on terror. Someone’s got to stop Islamism from destroying civilization, but his meaning behind the statement, “A strong America must also value the institution of marriage,” disturbs me.

I too, like my old friend here at netWMD, Donnel, am now in a dilemma about the 2004 presidential election. On the one hand, I feel much more comfortable with Bush’s performance in the war on terror than I would with any of the Democratic alternatives. I’m glad Bush finally created a commission to investigate what really happened with weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. CIA Director George Tenet gave an adequate and spirited defense of the U.S. intelligence community’s attempt to provide information to the president before the Iraq liberation began -- though we had completely adequate justification for taking out Saddam, WMD’s or not. Just ask the Iraqi-American community, the Shiites, or the Kurds whether they’re better off without Papa Hussein torturing them. On the other hand, what’s Bush doing creeping into the bedrooms of responsible, consenting men and men, or women and women, or – for that matter – men and women?

You know his words and intentions were directed at the Massachusetts Supreme Court’s ruling that gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marriage. What’s this about? Why alienate the gay Republicans? Why alienate any gays? Let’s see, how long has it been that humanity has known about gays? How many TV shows now sport gay characters? How many of us live with, work with, and love gays/lesbians? How many of us consider them our brothers, uncles, aunts, friends, etc., in our day-to-day lives?

In the State of the Union Address, Bush said,

I believe we should respect individuals as we take a principled stand for one of the most fundamental, enduring institutions of our civilization. Congress has already taken a stand on this issue by passing the Defense of Marriage Act, signed in 1996 by President Clinton. That statute protects marriage under federal law as a union of a man and a woman, and declares that one state may not redefine marriage for other states.

Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage.

How can we simultaneously “respect individuals” and ban gay marriage? Mr. President, did you miss the boat when IBM began offering benefits to same-sex couples? Yes, IBM; International Business Machines; “Big Blue” as it is known in corporate America. Employer of 225,000 people worldwide. Until the 1980’s, working for IBM was like joining the military. According to Right to Marry,

...almost 3,000 U.S. employers currently offer domestic partner insurance benefits including more than 70 Fortune 500 companies. Some of the most successful and fastest-growing companies in the nation have taken this step, including Shell Oil, Walt Disney Company, IBM, Kodak and Microsoft. (A complete list of employers offering domestic partner benefits is available at http://www.hrc.org/worknet.)

I thought Republicans believed in the free market, smaller government, and generally staying out of peoples' personal business. You say, “the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process,” to ban gay marriage? It’ll never happen. Last time I looked at the Constitution, it stated,

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress…

A super-majority of Americans will never approve of such an amendment. It goes against the American grain. An amendment policing the bedroom?

There is a common American identity. But it is not based on gender, race, sexual orientation, etc. The Preamble so eloquently states,

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I don't see anything about sexual orientation mentioned. Americans will reject this type of exclusionism, just as they overwhelmingly reject crap like terrorism and moral relativism (e.g., saying a brutal tyranny like Syria should be given equal weight at the UN as a democratic country like the Netherlands). The free market has already voted on the subject of gay marriage. It supports it and only more and more companies will understand that this country is great because it respects diversity and creativity, not because it tries to legally encode bedroom behavior.

I'm not talking the divisiveness of identity politics and "multi-culturalism." I'm talking about simple American common sense. The times, they are a’ changin.’