… against the FMA. And another! Money quote:
Amending the Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman would be unwise for two reasons. Constitutionalizing social policy is generally a misuse of fundamental law. And it would be especially imprudent to end state responsibility for marriage law at a moment when we require evidence of the sort that can be generated by allowing the states to be laboratories of social policy.
This is the Cheney position. And it’s the right one. I’m struck by how so many of the truly excellent conservative writers – Will, Goldberg, Brooks, Horowitz spring to mind – oppose this amendment. Some endorse same-sex marriage; others don’t. But they all see how dangerous the proposed amendment is to sane constitutionalism and robust federalism. Let the states decide.
HEY, BIG SPENDER: The fiscal conservative critique of the Bush administration continues to gain ground. Here’s another tough critique called “The Bush Betrayal.” Why the emerging consensus? It’s true. The current deficits are nothing in comparison with what’s coming. I’ve said it before but if I were a Democrat running for president (hold the giggles) I’d outflank Bush on the right in Iraq and on the deficits. I’d argue for more resources for democratizing Iraq and a war on corporate and agricultural welfare. No, I wouldn’t touch the tax cuts. I love tax cuts. I’m just of the old-fashioned school that you shouldn’t send domestic spending through the stratosphere at the same time. I guess I’d get about three votes in Iowa.
The Dish 