S.H.:

In order to defend that rather scurrilous accusation, you have to defend the notion that individual lifetimes are identical with protoplasm, that every sperm is sacred, and that two cells, or 2^10 cells, are the same thing as a living individual human. These are very shakey propositions.

In the final analysis, you would like to impose moral constraints on other people's lives which are born actually from opinions, not from facts. This is directly contrary to the spirit of common tolerance and common good which informs the core values of our constitution and our bill of rights.

I know that some people believe their moral opinions are MUCH more important than some old piece of paper like the United States Constitution, but the paper is not the issue. What is at issue is that you do not have the right under the principles of the Constitution to force your moral opinions onto other people, even if in your own fevered mind you can convince yourself that abortion is the "same thing" as murder. For the same reason, Mister Bush has no right to use the Constitution as a vehicle for imposing a narrow moral constraint about what constitutes marriage, just because he wants to cater to one group's opinions. To do so is a violation of his own oath. But, he has frequently demonstrated that he does not understand his oath or what it entails, so we should not pretend to be surprised by this evidence of his obstinate ignorance-based approach.

A