I was going to write this as a comment in response to some of the notes responding to my previous post on the MPA, but I think it bears higher priority, and heck, I get to post here, so I will:
You know something I just noticed about this whole argument?
Curiously, those who are so animated about opposing the Amendment and the outrage shown over “writing discrimination into the Constitution” (who needs to come up with better catch-phrases? Anyway…) are more troubled by legislators (who are elected and therefore held accountable for their actions) not accomodating the will of the people. The point being that the majority of Americans are opposed to the Amendment (another thing that makes me wonder what the hell all the fuss is about…like you could pass an unpopular Constitutional Amendment–my point exactly) so how dare their representatives pass unpopular legislation, as if there were no remedy for such action.
What’s so ironic (if irony weren’t dead in the gay community already) is that these activists have no problem, it seems, with unelected and unaccountable judges thwarting the will of the people (in some places, for example, overruling overwhelmingly popular–whether I agree with them or not–votes against gay marriage).
Point being: Any of those who oppose the passage of this Amendment on small-d democratic grounds is either playing very cynical politics or lost in their own self-interest if they’re not at least as bothered by the usurping of the public’s will through judicial decisions.
Oh, and another thing: Those who say W and the rest of the Republicans are waging a “campaign of fear” (oh brother), take a look at some of the comments on this very blog from the apocalypic Anti-Anti-Gay-Marriage Amendment Cassandras when anybody dares tell the truth about this horrible Amendments lack of hope.
I’ve been critical of the Bush Administration and the GOP lately, for many good reasons I believe, but it is nice to be reminded of some of the successes. Sebastian Mallaby had a good column the other day in the Washington Post wherein he highlighted the promising results of President Bush’s efforts on fighting AIDS. One wonders if the man will get the credit he deserves by liberal gay groups. I somehow doubt it.
Spending on AIDS:
“[S]ince the president’s pledge, spending on global AIDS programs has risen steadily: to $2.3 billion in 2004, $2.7 billion in 2005 and to $3.3 billion this year. The administration’s budget for 2007 requests $4 billion from Congress, more than quadruple the level in 2001. So the Bush team is on target to exceed the $15 billion promise”.
Generic drugs for AIDS:
“Starting in 2004, the administration fixed this problem. It directed the FDA to license generics for use in U.S. global AIDS programs, even when those generics could not be sold in the United States because they infringed U.S. patents…generic after generic was soon licensed, and in some countries around two-thirds of U.S. spending on AIDS drugs now goes to non-branded medicines. Given how often foreign aid is tied to exports from donor countries, it’s remarkable that the Bush team stiffed Big Pharma in favor of cost-effective help for AIDS patients”.
Funding to abstinence-based programs:
“Abstinence and faithfulness teaching consumes only 7 percent of the total, and an unknown fraction of that is constructively combined with teaching about condoms. The critics cite a few wacko preachers who have received U.S. money even though they proclaim that condoms don’t work, and the Government Accountability Office has described how the abstinence earmark complicates the work of front-line AIDS groups. But it’s wrong to paint the entire Bush AIDS program as a Christian-conservative plot when the abstinence-only stuff is relatively limited”.
On this at least I can say Bravo Zulu, Mr. President.