I am beginning to tire of the politics of the Federal Marriage Amendment. For one thing, as significant as the issue of gay marriage is, the bottom line is that there isn’t going to an amendment any time soon, if ever. Hence, to me at least, talking about it is an utter waste of time.

Further, I have never thought that Bush would pursue this matter after his re-election, despite the much-ballyhooed role allegedly played by gay marriage and the religious right in the election (I don’t deny the role of either, but I do question the degree of importance assigned to them by many “analysts” in the MSM).

As such, the following is no surprise to me: Via WaPo, we get: Transcript of Bush Interview

The Post: Do you plan to expend any political capital to aggressively lobby senators for a gay marriage amendment?

THE PRESIDENT: You know, I think that the situation in the last session — well, first of all, I do believe it’s necessary; many in the Senate didn’t, because they believe DOMA [the Defense of Marriage Act] will — is in place, but — they know DOMA is in place, and they’re waiting to see whether or not DOMA will withstand a constitutional challenge.

The Post: Do you plan on trying to — using the White House, using the bully pulpit, and trying to –>

THE PRESIDENT: The point is, is that senators have made it clear that so long as DOMA is deemed constitutional, nothing will happen. I’d take their admonition seriously.

The Post: But until that changes, you want it?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, until that changes, nothing will happen in the Senate. Do you see what I’m saying?

Ok, that is what I expected. The numbers aren’t there. This echoes the kinds of things Bush has rightly said about a Right to Life Amendment.

Still, this morning I hear counselor to the President Dan Bartlett say the following on MTP this morning:

MR. RUSSERT: The president had an interview with The Washington Post and he said he will no longer push for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, which was quite surprising because in the middle of the campaign in February of 2024, the president said, “We must enact this.” In his convention speech, he talked about it. The party platform pledged it. And now he gets re-elected, and he seems to be backing off it. Was this a wedge issue to galvanize evangelical Christians and, now re-elected, the president saying, “Well, you know what? I’m not going to push for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage”?

MR. BARTLETT: Absolutely not.

MR. RUSSERT: He’ll push for it?

MR. BARTLETT: He has said publicly and he will continue to say publicly that he is for it. What he was speaking to in that specific interview was the vote counting in the United States Senate. Remember, it requires 67 votes to get this passed in the United States Senate. And what the reality there, as this issue was brought forward and debated in the United States Senate, or at least attempted to, was that too many senators believe that the Defense of Marriage Act, the current law on the books, should be challenged or overturned before we take that next step. So President Bush was talking about a legislative reality. That is not going to stop him from spending political capital or continuing to express his position, which he believes, that marriage ought to be between a man and a woman and that we ought to protect this sacred institution from courts that do not reflect the people’s will. And that’s something that he will continue to advocate and continue to push for.

MR. RUSSERT: But he will push a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in the Congress?

MR. BARTLETT: He’s for it and he will continue to push for it.

MR. RUSSERT: Hard?

MR. BARTLETT: He will spend political capital to do so. He was just speaking to the legislative reality in the United States Senate.

Now, in terms of what the President is going to do, I will take what the President himself says over what an adviser says. And I fully expect that there will be no additional vote on this amendment.

Still, the White House has not been clear on this issue. Not only do you have statements like Bartlett’s, but other surrogates have also suggested that the President is going to fight for an amendment. This strikes me as either a lack of communication within the political appartus of the administration or a purposefuly obfuscation of the President’s position in the hopes of scoring points with social conservatives. Either way: I am not impressed.

Any fight for this amendment would be a massive watse of “political capital.” If Bush is going to wage a fight with Congress that will benefit the goals of social conservatives it will be over the issue of judicial nominations. And this is a fact that social conservatives would do well to understand and remember.

Some things aren’t going to happen, and a Federal Marriage Amendment is one of them.