George Bush in a debate in 2000, speaking about “gay marriage”:
Q: So if a state were voting on gay marriage, you would suggest to that state not to approve it?
A: The state can do what they want to do.
Compare that with his latest desperate attempt to galvanize the frothing religious regressives out to the polls this November:
If we are to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever, our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America. Decisive and democratic action is needed, because attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country.
This position strikes even Bob Barr, the twice-divorced author of the problematically un-Constitutional “Defense of Marriage Act” as, well, a bad thing:
The Constitution is no place for forcing social policy on states, especially in this case.