June 8 (Bloomberg) -- I wondered whether I could really write about that old chestnut, the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, again. Then I concluded that if the president and the Senate can beat a dead horse, so can I.

In places like Ohio in 2004, Bush's support for an amendment worked better than color-coded terror alerts and Swift-boating veterans to arouse the Republican base. Since then, other hot buttons like the Spanish anthem and flag-burning and Terri Schiavo haven't elicited much excitement. He's got to do something to rally the base in the face of rising carnage in Iraq and rising gas prices at home.

So there was the president on Monday in a ceremony to kick off the latest effort, summoning for 150 invited anti-gay guests his outrage over those activist judges out there undermining marriage.

But he really didn't deliver the red meat the Christian conservatives were looking for. He'd already downgraded the location from the prime venue of the Rose Garden to the decidedly dreary Eisenhower Executive Office Building. And he quickly switched gears to preach that the debate should be conducted with ``tolerance, dignity and respect'' and point out that the states were free to define other legal arrangements for gay couples.

Bye Now

After hosting the anti-gay groups, Bush could hardly wait to tour the country pushing something he really cares about, his immigration bill, fueling the sense of some conservatives that they've been played.

There is always the underlying suspicion that Bush may revert to his family's default position on social issues, which is not to really care. Barbara Bush didn't hide her respect for Planned Parenthood. Laura Bush said on the ``Today'' show in 2001 that she didn't think Roe v. Wade should be overturned. Just last month, the first lady said gay marriage was a sensitive issue that shouldn't be used for political purposes.

Before running for president, Bush surely didn't seem to worry about gay couples. A good friend of mine who worked closely with Bush in Texas was invited by the then-governor to spend the night at the mansion -- with his gay partner. Back then, Bush discussed the issue of gay marriage as a solution to the problem of promiscuity.

Hollow Gesture

On Monday, the Traditional Values Coalition, which claims to represent 43,000 churches, declined an invitation to the White House, calling the amendment a hollow gesture that might actually encourage civil unions. To other conservatives, the issue just doesn't resonate as much as runaway spending, huge deficits and growing government.

Unlike his base, Bush recognizes that gay-bashing has run its course as a political tactic. Every year millions of people watch ``Will & Grace'' and Ellen DeGeneres with no effect on their morals, and slowly make friends with the gay couple who moved in next door. For every homophobe who passes on, a young person grows up comfortable with the lesbians at work fussing over bridesmaids and wedding cakes. And then they register to vote.

In 1977, a third of Americans opposed equal employment rights for homosexuals. That's down to 9 percent. On gays in the military, that explosive precursor to gay marriage that almost derailed the infant Clinton administration, the Pew Research Center finds that by 2-to-1 people now believe gays should serve openly.

Santorum's Stand

Although Republican Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum called gay marriage ``the greatest moral issue of our time,'' and Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, another Republican, stood before a large picture of his 20 children and grandchildren proclaiming that ``in the recorded history'' of his family there had never been ``any kind of homosexual relationship,'' the rhetoric was tamer this time.

The amendment fell short of its supporters' expectations by a 49-48 Senate vote, with two Republicans changing their votes since 2004: Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, who said each state can decide for itself, and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, who said the proposal was a solution looking for a problem.

And one senator escaped. Possible presidential contender Chuck Hagel conveniently hopped on Bush's plane to his home state of Nebraska for a presidential speech, so he didn't have to cast a vote.

Senators up for re-election who voted against the amendment know they're providing grist for 30-second ads characterizing them as deviants unsupportive of Mom, Apple Pie and the American Way. James C. Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, is already running a spot against Colorado Democrat Ken Salazar that asks, ``Why doesn't Senator Salazar believe every child needs a mother and a father?''

Democrats have smartened up on the issue, arguing in favor of the state laws and the sanctity of the Constitution. But they may be ignoring their own chance to exploit a wedge issue.

With 63 percent now favoring civil unions, why not run ads against those lawmakers who oppose them? The Democrats would have Vice President Dick Cheney on their side -- and the majority of Americans who know a gay person down the hall or across the street or in their family and wants them to have the joy of that wedding cake, and all the family values that go with it.

To contact the writer of this column: Margaret Carlson in Washington at mcarlson3@bloomberg.net

Last Updated: June 8, 2006 00:02 EDT