The Economist weighs in on The case for gay marriage. “Yet that [civil unions in place of real marriage] would be both wrong in principle and damaging for society. Marriage, as it is commonly viewed in society, is more than just a legal contract. Moreover, to establish something short of real marriage for some adults would tend to undermine the notion for all.”

Oliver Willis notes that Arnold Schwarzenneger has clarified his position on gay marriage: he’s not against it as long as voters approve it, and does not support a US Constitutional amendment banning the practice.

weighs in on today’s remarks by President Bush:

He is proposing to remove civil rights from one group of American citizens – and do so in the Constitution itself. The message could not be plainer: these citizens do not fully belong in America. Their relationships must be stigmatized in the very Constitution itself.

a kindly old man. Too bad he’s anything but. Read this article from Vanity Fair to confirm what you probably already knew.

but reading the transcript of Bush’s statement just now, the following quote jumps out at me:

The amendment should fully protect marriage, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage.

To me, it is clear that Bush supports Civil Unions. I hope the press will push him on this point, because it is a significant departure from other statements that have come from the right on this issue.