This movement Warren's in sells salvation in a jar. It's an industry. He's a lobby. His followers are subscribers, just like cable viewers. They want something for their holes- something to fill the holes in their lives, as provided by the Constitution. They want something more, right? More Preachier? Bigger? Giant? Wal-Mart? Now faith gets a payoff in life, in the guise of a smug smile you share with your neighbor, who you assume thinks right.

I'm not gay, and I only know a few people of that orientation these days. My lifestyle is pretty normal right now: Wife, kid, kid, car, car, no job, pretty good grounding in Western ideals and in the Christian ideals that would counter those Westerns. But I see a clear difference between sexual/romantic relationships with those of my gender and couplings among siblings or offspring. The former produce no genetic progeny, while the latter run the risk of contributing various genetic mishaps for society to absorb. The former have a harder time finding 'mates', and do not in fact mate. But the latter have it too easy, never having to leave the house to find their mate, or victim, as in the Austrian case of the grandfatherly father.

That doesn't mean I have no right to an opinion, and maybe I do have standing to decide whether society should be forced to acknowledge the unions of gay people. However, it is glaringly obvious that marriage between a man and a woman now normally ends at some point and takes up with a different man or woman. Their children become intermingled, and these step-brothers and sisters can mate without risking the genetic, social, moral problems of incest.

Now I'm thinking about the scores of Congress and Senate seat holders, who typically do not include their divorces in their bios. These idiots are being courted by the Rick Warrens of the world to make illegal the gay unions, which may be just as stable as hetero marriages.

But is that gay union marriage? It seems to me to be something else, but I'm not involved. It's not my fight. But it is a legal definition thing, which would properly belong in the legislatures of individual states, since it's not mentioned in the Constitution.

If that were the only problem with this Ricky, it would still be big enough to make me very, very disappointed in Obama's effort to include all opponents. It may have declawed Hillary, but it only donates undeserved notoriety to what should be an dyseducated fringe.

The Constitution is very careful to bestow majority protections on minorities by preventing the organized legislature from acting on the biases of the larger voting bloc. The fact that he promotes doing just that with a warm smile and non-threatening beard don't successfully disguise the fact that he's the enemy of America's future and has no place in this national ritual, where the President of all of us finally dispatches the wastrel-in-chief back to Texass.

Mr. Obama, you're plain wrong here.