In his speech Saturday, Bush again called for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

Rather than relying on false words, though, Bush based his argument on false premises — reasons with no valid support.

Yesterday the Senate saw right through Bush's proposal when the legislators' vote was 49-48 — 11 short of the 60 needed to pass the amendment.

While it's easy to rely on naturalistic fallacies and religious premises, there is no factual or scientific evidence supporting Bush's claim that same-sex marriages are "bad," while heterosexual ones are "good."

Bush claimed that, "Ages of experience have taught us that the commitment of a husband and a wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children." A seemingly commonsensical claim.

But just because a husband and wife serve and love each other doesn't imply that they don't abuse their children. Bush also forgets to note that some married couples never have children in the first place.

Later in his speech, Bush said that "a constitutional amendment is the most democratic solution to this issue because it must be approved by two-thirds of the House and Senate and then ratified by three-fourths of the 50 state legislatures."

Having elected officials vote for an amendment is not the most democratic method in this situation.

Democracy should give the people a choice to decide among themselves what should be law. So, if Bush is concerned about facing this issue in the most democratic matter, he should reevaluate his claim.

Remember Britney Spears' quick marriage to Jason Alexander?

What about Tim and Lisa Holland, the adoptive parents of 7-year-old Ricky Holland of Williamston, Mich. who were accused of killing him?

Marriage is not an equation. "Wife" plus "husband" does not always equal "good family."

But given Bush's problems with words, maybe he's not so good at math either.