W the Burning Shrub says in his interview last night on ABC News/Primetime that judicial rulings (like the recent one in Massachusetts) “undermine the sanctity of marriage”; and for this reason, they could make it necessary to enact a constitutional amendment to codify marriage as the union of a man and a woman. “If necessary, I will support a constitutional amendment which would honor marriage between a man and a woman, codify that,” Bush told ABC’s Diane Sawyer (Bush would back constitutional ban on same-sex marriage). But he also said it would be the position of his administration that “whatever legal arrangements people want to make, they’re allowed to make, so long as it’s embraced by the state.” That is, that individual states should not be prohibited from allowing and embracing same-sex civil unions.

So, civil unions which have all the legal status of marriage are OK if the states want them, but we should amend the constitution to keep them from being called “marriage” and thereby “undermining the sanctity of marriage”. That is, we should amend the constitution, not to provide legal protections, extend rights, protect the nation and its citizens, or increase liberty and justice, but to preserve the “sanctity” of something — even though that would have no actual practical or legal consequence.

You know, when “sanctity” is a reason for a constitutional amendment, its hard to see how you can even pretend you aren’t trying to have a theocracy.