As reported here and elsewhere, Bush is finally going to announce his support for the Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

McClellan, briefing reporters at the White House, said the president wants to end "growing confusion" that has arisen from court decisions in Massachusetts, and San Francisco’s permitting more than 3,000 same sex unions. "The president believes it is important to have clarity," McClellan said.

What’s the "confusion"? Who has it? It seems quite simple to me — some states are (apparently) allowing gay marriage; others are not. Just like some states allow 16 year olds to get married and others do not. This is nothing to get brain-addled about.

So let’s not pretend it’s about "clarity". It’s about Bush’s conservative social agenda — another plank in the politics of divisiveness.

Update: Now I’M confused. Having read the President’s remarks on this issue, I am struck by his repeated use of the word "protect". As in "Our government should respect every person, and protect the institution of marriage". [NOTE: he obviously means "respect every straight person . . ."]

By my count, he used the word "protect" seven times. Which leads me to ask . . . protect the institution of marriage from what? Is this another conjured-up "gathering threat"? Are we (again) chasing non-existent ghouls — only, this time, on the domestic social front?