So Rosie O'Donnell says that the President's "vile and vicious and hateful" comments made her go get an invalid marriage certificate in San Francisco. Can someone please point out the vile, vicious, and hateful part of the President's statement?

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Eight years ago, Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage for purposes of federal law as the legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.

The Act passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 342 to 67, and the Senate by a vote of 85 to 14. Those congressional votes and the passage of similar defensive marriage laws in 38 states express an overwhelming consensus in our country for protecting the institution of marriage.

In recent months, however, some activist judges and local officials have made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage. In Massachusetts, four judges on the highest court have indicated they will order the issuance of marriage licenses to applicants of the same gender in May of this year. In San Francisco, city officials have issued thousands of marriage licenses to people of the same gender, contrary to the California family code. That code, which clearly defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman, was approved overwhelmingly by the voters of California. A county in New Mexico has also issued marriage licenses to applicants of the same gender. And unless action is taken, we can expect more arbitrary court decisions, more litigation, more defiance of the law by local officials, all of which adds to uncertainty.

After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence, and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization. Their actions have created confusion on an issue that requires clarity.

On a matter of such importance, the voice of the people must be heard. Activist courts have left the people with one recourse. If we are to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever, our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America. Decisive and democratic action is needed, because attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country.

The Constitution says that full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts and records and judicial proceedings of every other state. Those who want to change the meaning of marriage will claim that this provision requires all states and cities to recognize same-sex marriages performed anywhere in America. Congress attempted to address this problem in the Defense of Marriage Act, by declaring that no state must accept another state's definition of marriage. My administration will vigorously defend this act of Congress.

Yet there is no assurance that the Defense of Marriage Act will not, itself, be struck down by activist courts. In that event, every state would be forced to recognize any relationship that judges in Boston or officials in San Francisco choose to call a marriage. Furthermore, even if the Defense of Marriage Act is upheld, the law does not protect marriage within any state or city.

For all these reasons, the Defense of Marriage requires a constitutional amendment. An amendment to the Constitution is never to be undertaken lightly. The amendment process has addressed many serious matters of national concern. And the preservation of marriage rises to this level of national importance. The union of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution, honoring -- honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith. Ages of experience have taught humanity that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society.

Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all. Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife. The amendment should fully protect marriage, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage.

America is a free society, which limits the role of government in the lives of our citizens. This commitment of freedom, however, does not require the redefinition of one of our most basic social institutions. Our government should respect every person, and protect the institution of marriage. There is no contradiction between these responsibilities. We should also conduct this difficult debate in a manner worthy of our country, without bitterness or anger.

In all that lies ahead, let us match strong convictions with kindness and goodwill and decency.

Everybody is noticing about the visa program into Saudi Arabia not allowing Jews. Too many places to link - basically my whole blogroll. But this is Big News to the world. When I was stationed in the Mediterranean (89-92), I had 2 official passports. One to visit Israel, one for everywhere else. Because essentially every Muslim country (I think Turkey and Egypt were exceptions) would not allow someone with an Israeli stamp in their passport to enter the country.

I always wonder what's going on when old news suddenly becomes big news. It really isn't that shocking that Muslim countries do that. I mean, you can be killed for practicing another religion in Saudi Arabia.

I read a letter to the editor in the Washington Post yesterday that seemed a little odd. Andrew Sullivan cited it today: "Dec. 12, 1912, Rep. Seaborn Roddenberry (R-Ga.) proposed this amendment to the Constitution...."

An elected Republican in Georgia in 1912? Hardly seems likely. I was right:

RODDENBERY, Seaborn Anderson, a Representative from Georgia; born near Bainbridge, Decatur County, Ga., January 12, 1870; moved to Thomas County in early childhood; attended the common schools and Mercer University, Macon, Ga., for three years; taught at South Georgia College one year; member of the State house of representatives in 1892 and 1893 and declined to be a candidate for reelection; studied law; was admitted to the bar in 1894 and commenced practice in Thomasville, Thomas County, Ga.; president of the board of education of Thomas County 1895-1898; appointed judge of the county court of Thomas County in 1897 and served four years; declined reappointment; mayor of Thomasville in 1903 and 1904; elected as a Democrat to the Sixty-first Congress to fill the vacancy caused by the death of James M. Griggs; reelected to the Sixty-second and Sixty-third Congresses and served from February 16, 1910, until his death in Thomasville, Ga., September 25, 1913; interment in Laurel Hill Cemetery.

Of course, no one checks this stuff, because of course the Republicans are always bad guys.

UPDATE: Sullivan makes the correction I sent him.

In history, has there ever been a more narcissistic, self-indulgent, decadent, ungrateful, short-sighted bunch of cretins to ever pass through a country? I understand how they came up with the idea that humans are a plague on this earth, because they are. Okay, I am overgeneralizing. Maybe!

What brings on this moment? Any discussion about Social Security. Alan Greenspan had something to say about it. Everyone says that Alan is for cutting benefits, but Mr. Greenspan, in his usual circumspect manner, was pointing out that the "program" has future problems.

Into the breach step the pundits. And any honesty about the program goes out the window, leaving me yelling at the TV. Therefore, I would like to use this little soapbox to put a couple points to any Boomers out there.

1) There is no TRUSTFUND! It's a pay as you go system. Yes, there are IOU's in the TRUSTFUND, but you spent the money. YOU! Not me.

2) Therefore, stating that there is some "PROMISE" inherent in the system is bullshit. What promise? I didn't make a promise. Did any of you Gen-Xers or later group? And I surely would not have made a promise that approximately like this: I (meaning anyone, but a boomer) promise to keep up a system that has an inbuilt demographic timebomb, wherein you (the boomers) will spend the money that is meant for retirement on other stuff (Who knows what? You just shovel it down the federal moneypit), and expect us (anyone, but a boomer again) to cover our double dipping.

3) Oh, they will also throw in moral decadence and decay. After the boomers are gone, later generations will spend the next century, trying to repair the damage done to society in the name of "good" intentions.

Honestly, I think we should just wait until these reprobates become a political minority and cut them off at the knees (Of course, the boomers will put off solving the problem until it is way to late, since this is their MO). Teach them consequences. Bastards!

And for those that think I am being harsh, think about what these short-sighted, self-centered, buckets of entitlement are doing to us? It should piss you off.

A George Will column about the rise of anti-Semitism on the Left. Almost all of his examples are from Europe. Puts me in mind of a short bit from I think I read in National Lampoon that went something like this: With the reunification of East and West Germany, the sign over the gates of Auschwitz have been changed from "Never again" to "Not for a very, very long time."

One where I pick up the Washington Post and wonder what world I live in. This time, a movie review (the Post requires registration) of The Passion. I haven't seen the movie yet, I expect that I will. But the review confuses me. Especially this part in the second paragraph:

"The Passion of the Christ," a harrowing condensation of Jesus's final 12 hours, engages in some troubling assumptions, for starters by treating the Bible's four Gospels as literal eyewitness accounts of Jesus's arrest, torture and crucifixion.

That's troubling? Weirder still is the VERY LARGE headline for the article, which is: "Less Than The Gospel Truth." So which is it? Relying on the Gospel as truth, troublingly, or not?

I haven't said anything about the gay marriage business until now. But, for a long time - some number of years - I have actually been for allowing gays to marry. Because I think that civil unions, as marriage by everything but name, are worse on the whole sanctity of marriage issue. I don't see the point in establishing a different name for something that is exactly the same.

I think that society should have taken the initiative and taken on gays rather than the other way around. Establish a marriage as two people, with all its legal incidents, and that is that. Civil unions are inherently discriminatory if they are only available to people who are of the same sex - a set of circumstances allowing the benefits of marriage to the unmarried - but only to those of the same sex.

There would obviously be a lot of fallout from such a decision - for example, the military prohibition on gays would have to fall by the wayside - and I don't have all the answers to how we should deal with all of that.

And for that same reason, this is an issue that should be arrived at legislatively, not by judicial fiat. Marriage is a legitimate concern of government, as we have many principles and laws built up around the institution that don't always extend to the unmarried, and it has nothing to do with religion, far-right or otherwise. Government doesn't care what church you get married in, or even if you got married in a church. In some states, it doesn't even care if you actually got married at all - "common-law" marriage.

By not taking this issue on legislatively earlier, we are now faced with the current situation. The courts are trying to impose it by fiat. And renegade mayors are issuing marriage licenses - though I think the correct answer to that is just not recognize them as valid. There was an article in the Post the other day about two gay men from Maryland who went to San Francisco, got 6 copies of a marriage certificate, and came home to present them in court. Of course, that certificate is not valid in California, so I don't see how it can be the basis for something in Maryland. But I am sure that it will get somewhere rather than rejected out of hand as it should be.

I think that trying to keep the courts from interpreting the law one way by writing explicit interpretations is bound to fail. The clear words of the Constitution as it was written are twisted all of the time - I am sure a clever enough, or pig-headed enough, judge, can make whatever judgement he or she wants, regardless of what a new amendment might say. I think that the right way to deal with it is to propose an amendment explicitly defining boundaries for the courts - what they can and cannot rule on. That is the way to rein in activist judges.

Pittspilot is right that this subject takes our eye off the ball. We have a war to win against people who would stone gays to death, and we are fighting over hospital visitation rights. Not that we must abandon all issues in the face of fighting this war, just that we don't need to have a cultural war raging at home at the same time.

I say let's have gay marriages, but on current marriage terms. Draw the lines, and put the ramparts up against those busy trying to renegotiate terms like "family" and "marriage" altogether. The ones who want to make all marriage more like an open homosexual one, rather than the other way around. I suspect that a lot less gays will choose to marry than say they want to.

Bush is backing a Constitutional Amendment to make marriage between a man and a woman only.

The blogosphere is acting like this is a bad thing.

Roger Simon thinks this is a bad idea and so apparently does Glenn Reynolds. Of course, so is Andrew Sullivan.

I, however, think this may be a good thing, for reasons that you may not expect, and with one giant caveat.

First, the caveat. We should not be talking about this subject now, and I will be extremely upset if the media turns this subject into THE Presidential campaign. The War on Terror is the number one priority, and I remain amazed at how we have drifted away from that topic.

Now, on to why this is a good thing. Bush has said that he wants a Constitutional Amendment. I am not in favor of the Amendment, but I think that his stating that he wants the process is a good thing. By stating that this will now be a Constitutional Amendment argument, it ensures that the courts will not have the last say. Instead, with the Constitutional Amendment device, we can have a long and protracted discussion of this complex and very difficult question, and possibly come to to some sort of consensus about the difficult questions involved in this topic.

Furthermore, it will ensure that the question is not resolved along purely legalistic lines. Thus, the legislative process can hash out the complex questions.

You see, I am one of those people who is deeply troubled by this question. On the one hand, I understand the problems of treating a segment of society as second-class citizens. This argument has merit. However, it does not simply trump a great number of very real concerns that I have. The value of the marriage institution is not something to be trifled with lightly, and I have yet to run across a systematic examination of the possible effects of this idea. Additionally, there is a slippery slope argument in there that is very valid.

It is high time that we have a discussion about marriage in our society. The institution is in sorry shape, and a discussion about it may do some good. Thus, this may be a golden opportunity.

What is interesting is that people like Andrew Sullivan seem not to want to engage in this discussion, but instead are fearful of this Constitutional Amendment. To which, I say, if you feel your arguments are sound, lets hear them. You are going to have a nationwide forum. And if your arguments are sound, then you will find the nationwide mainstream acceptance that you seek.

The Marines have adopted a business casual wardrobe to help keep people in!

U.S. Marines arrived Monday to guard the Embassy in Port-au-Prince. (AFP)

From July 15, 2003:

I have this great idea for a TV show. Five fraternity brothers go to SOHO, and help a gay man out by giving his loft a real lived in look, teach him how to drink beer out of longnecks, get him the football package for the Dish, and throw out all of his eyeliner. That would be great TV!

I was even a month ahead of Scrappleface! (Bet he gets the links, though.) And now it is on Comedy Central.

Anyway, who would have guessed that the TV critic at the Washington Post would pan this show, because, you know, its all about stereotypes that we know are all untrue? (The Post wants you to register.)

First, the UK Sunday Telegraph says "Osama bin Laden has been found and is surrounded by US special forces," and then I pick up the Sunday Washington Post and see the top headline says "A Secret Hunt Unravels in Afghanistan - Mission to Capture or Kill al Qaeda Leader Frustrated by Near Misses, Political Disputes." Dang that misguided Bush foreign policy etc. and so on! Of course, it takes more than the first glance to see that above that headline reads: "Ghost Wars : The CIA and Osama bin Laden, 1997-1999."

If you click the link to it, you'll probably get that evil registration thing. It is free, however.

This seems to be the sort of thing that should remain secret...

The book reveals how one such unit, the secret Grey Fox, could turn on cell phones without the enemy knowing it, allowing the CIA Predator to use the phone signal for a missile strike.

So why am I posting it? Like the bazillion people who just saw it on Drudge aren't telling anyone?

Lileks has it. Nobody comment that trickle down is for dummies. Just go read it.

Noone has any problem understanding that if something negative happens, it will have ripple effects. Listen to people bemoaning the closing of a military base. They recognize it. So why is it so hard the other way?