As Andrew "Having Doubts About Republicans" Sullivan points out, when Bush speaks about the Federal Marriage Amendment, he "cannot even mention gay people by name."
But Bush is not the only one. In fact, those looking to write their opposition to legal rights for gays into the Constitution seem to be leaning increasingly on not-so-subtle euphemism.
I already pointed out Rick "Sort of Freaking Me Out" Santorum's money "man on dog" quote.
But check out WSJ editor James Taranto. Writing in yesterday's WSJ opinionjournal.com, he picks up a headline from the Bradenton, FL press that reads: "Gay Manatee Couple Sue for Right to Marry." As it happens, Manatee is a county in Florida. Taranto uses the opportunity to cheekily invoke the slippery slope argument, asking what's next -- a "walrus marrying a dugong*?"
(Scroll past the rant against lefty uber-blogger Josh Marshall)
And this from John Cornyn... Sunday's Washington Post quotes from a speech the Texas senator recently gave at the Heritage Foundation: "It does not affect your daily life very much if your neighbor marries a box turtle. But that does not mean it is right. . . . Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife."
Walruses? Dugongs? Box turtles? I'm all for humorous analogies. I'm all for wrapping bigotry in scorn. But we're talking about amending the Constitution. Think: freedom of speech. Think: well regulated militias. Is this really as sophisticated as this debate is going to get?