corrente

Robert Pear and David D. Kirkpatrick in WaPo write:

For months, administration officials have worked with conservative groups on the proposal, which would provide at least $1.5 billion for training to help couples develop interpersonal skills that sustain "healthy marriages."

I don't suppose that "healthy" is a code-word for "Christian" and not "not gay".... Naah.

Meanwhile, watch Bush straddle the fence, and rather uncomfortably at that, between pandering to the base and outright bigotry:

[BUSH] "If necessary," he said, "I will support a constitutional amendment which would honor marriage between a man and a woman, codify that, and will — the position of this administration is that whatever legal arrangements people want to make, they're allowed to make, so long as it's embraced by the state, or does start at the state level."

So, which is it, George? Marriage is up to the states, so Vermont and Massachusetts civil unions are OK, or religion should be injected into the constitution by codifying a sacrement because gay people are somehow never going to be right with God?