General: February 2006 Archives

You all didn’t really think that all the hoopla over “gay marriage” in the last three years was all about gay marriage, did you?

Conservatives are always saying that they are only “protecting the sanctity of marriage” by denying gay couples access to civil marriage. So, they of course take the next logical step by striving to pass a constitutional amendment outlawing marriage for gay couples. So, Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-Co) introduced such a measure on May 21, 2003. Ancient history now.

As we all know, it went nowhere with Congress. It was never meant too. It was designed to rile up the voters to “save marriage”. It was masterful, and they will undoubtedly try it again. I heard that Senator Frist is talking about introducing it again - all politics - he acknowledges it won't pass - but it will give him ammunition if he runs for President. But after everything that has happened with the war in Iraq, along with other blunders and scandals in the current administration, they need a new strategy.

That new strategy will come in the shape of adoption rights for gay couples. The conservatives are looking to ban adoption in up to 16 other states around the country.

WASHINGTON: Conservative activists are pushing for adoption by gays and lesbians to be prohibited, having been buoyed by recent success in securing bans on same-sex marriages and restrictions on abortion rights.

They now plan to introduce bills or initiatives banning gay adoption in up to 16 states, several of which have voted to outlaw same-sex marriages.

However, polls suggest that they will have a harder time winning support for measures that in effect would deprive some foster children of the chance of adoption. Child welfare groups said homes had been found for only 50,000 of the 120,000 children available for adoption in recent years. (source)

Will it work? Possibly, but this is a much more delicate matter than marriage. While all the people who voted against giving gay couples the rights of civil marriage, it’s not clear that they will be so willing to deny children supportive and loving homes, while keeping them in an orphanage or a foster home. Some voters will. After all, many still believe that we “recruit”. What better way to recruit than to adopt children? And sadly, some still don’t even know the difference between being gay and being a pedophile. This is reality.

On the other hand, while the gay marriage issue at the national level was a political ploy that even experts said would not fly, the aftermath is that various states have passed state constitutional amendments outlawing gay marriage. It would now seem that part of that aftermath is yet to come - laws that will prevent gay households from adopting children.

Is this real, or just another ploy to get conservative voters riled up? I think it’s a bit of both. Although it may not seem like it to us, conservatives are loosing the cultural war. They know it, they are scared, and the know that it’s now or never for attempts to pass these kind of laws. This is what they feel at the grass roots level. Their feeling are sincere, although misguided.

At the national level, the real goal is divide and conquer. They are interested in really nothing more. Does President George W. Bush really hate us? No, probably not. In fact, it’s probably more accurate to say that he doesn’t honestly care if we were here or not. But, as long as we are here, why not use us politically to gain votes?

The man has no integrity. He would sell his mother to gain votes. He will do anything to gain votes for his party; lie, cheat, abandon friends, on and on. And if, by some crazy notion, it was politically gainful for gay couples to have civil marriage, President Bush would find a way in his narrow religious view of the world, to find a new religion; one that would have enough room in it for civil marriage for gay couples. He would undoubtedly package it as being “compassionate and fair” I would assume.

Of course, all of this creates a ripple effect throughout the states who are passing hateful amendments against a segment of society. This will not effect this Presidency, nor does this administration care about this. History, however, will make a judgment on this. When all is said and done, long after I’m gone, history will judge this President with the same scrutiny as those who tried to prevent integration of African Americans into our society, the right of women to vote, and on and on. History is unforgiving.

Conservative Christians are in a frenzy over the fact that they have been so successful in getting so many states to adopt amendments against gay marriage. So, the next logical step for them is gay adoption. But they won’t stop there. Next it will be other things... such as our right to free association, and just perhaps, making an attempt to put homosexuals back on the list of mental disorders of the American Psychiatric Association; the same list that we were removed from in 1973. If that were to happen, all kinds of laws could be put into place under the guise of “protecting society” (denying us jobs), to “protecting children” (no gay teachers), etc.

This is the Christian Agenda. My advice to conservative Christians is to proceed with caution. These are dangerous issues they are embarking on. They will, in my opinion, suffer a backlash if they continue on this course. At some point, people (not gays) will say, enough!

Feb. 22 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush didn’t learn about the sale of six major U.S. port facilities to a Dubai company until after the deal was agreed to and federal approval was granted, his spokesman said today.

Bush was made aware of the $6.8 billion sale of London- based Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. to DP World, a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates in “the last several days,” White House spokesman Scott McClellan said. By that time congressional opposition already was bubbling up.

“This didn’t rise to the presidential level,” McClellan said at the White House. [...]

The rare intra-party battle creates a political liability for Bush and an opportunity for Democrats that was “entirely preventable,” Republican political consultant Rich Galen said.

The controversy is “another example of the White House not having the capacity to see over the horizon when it comes to the public-affairs piece of what they are doing,” Galen said. “Too few senators and congressmen knew anything about this program, and so they are upset about not being informed.”

McClellan today acknowledged that the administration erred in not informing lawmakers about details of the transaction. (source)

I have the perfect candidate for protecting our ports. He has...

extensive experience in terrorism

knows (yes, actually knows) many of those who are performing terrorist acts, so he could also be a diplomat for the United States in securing our ports.

hates Bush, but would probably be "ok" with working with him for the right price (he’s really into palaces and power)

could improve our relationship with Iraq

not picky about grooming and appearance - just wants to get the job done.

already speaks the language of those trying to kill us. That’s important since we kicked out all the arabic speaking linguists from the military because they had the “gay issue” going on

probably has better organizational skills than our president

believes as Bush does - “I don’t have to tell no one nuthin’, so leave me alone while I clear my brush.”.... or dig my hole, as the case may be.