Oh, and by the way--Mary Cheney is a lesbian

The New York Times has some fun with President Bush's statement in an interview that he supports the rights of states to allow homosexuals to enter into civil unions. The story notes that the president's position is in opposition to the Republican Party platform, but frankly, that's not a big deal. Party platforms are written by ideologues, and they have little more than symbolic value. The GOP platform has consistently called for Roe v. Wade to be overturned, for example, even though few Republican candidates have staked out such a conservative position on abortion.

What I don't understand about the president's position--which isn't too far from John Kerry's position, except that Kerry opposes the proposed gay marriage amendment--is why bother drawing a distinction between marriage and civil unions. Obviously, for most Americans, myself included, a wedding entails a religious ceremony and a commitment not only between two people but between two people and God.

But the law does not require people to get married in a religious ceremony, and the law does not compel clergy to marry anyone. The minister who married my wife and I was free to turn us down. And the law recognizes marriages performed by judges. So why should a religious objection to gay marriage be codified into law?