At the Republican Presidential Debate in Columbia, S.C. on Feb. 15, 2000, the following exchange occurred:
Gov. George Bush: I’m going to appoint conservative people in the Cabinet. It’s none of my business what somebody’s — now when somebody makes it my business, like on gay marriage, I’m going to stand up and say I don’t support gay marriage. I support marriage between men and women.
Moderator Larry King: So if a state were voting on gay marriage, you would suggest to that state not to approve it?
Bush: The state can do what they want to do. Don’t try to trap me in this state’s issue.
So that’s pretty clear: Bush, a Republican, naturally favors states’ rights, is opposed to Big Government™, etc. So I was a little puzzled by now-President Bush’s radio address yesterday:
I urge members of the House and Senate to pass, and send to the states for ratification, an amendment that defines marriage in the United States as a union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
Well, now, that’s odd. That’s the opposite of what he said he’d do if elected. He said it was a state issue, and now he’s saying that it’s a federal issue. I don’t understand.
Thankfully, it’s not just me that’s confused by Bush’s flip-flop. From the February 25, 2004 White House press briefing:
Q: You say…that he’s always held this belief. How do you explain, then, the fact that, as a candidate in 2000, he said that this was a matter better left up to the states? How do you explain the change of heart?
Scott McClellan: Well, one, I disagree with the way you characterize it — as I did with John, yesterday. The President’s views were very clear in 2000; they were very clear even before that.
Looks like both the press and McClellan are confused. Given the four other constitutional amendments that he supports (flag burning, victims’ rights, abortion, and balanced budget), I’m not sure that President Bush has much interest in the rights of states at all.
Ain’t that a head-scratcher?