I agree with Robbie @ The Malcontent in a post earlier this week (FMA The Half-Assed Way) where he said…
To date, we’ve received basic, run-of-the-mill mumblings about, “Marriage is between a man and a woman.” There are occasional riffs about the “sanctity” of a thirty minute church service followed by a full-on drunken bash where all the gay men are coveting the centerpieces and egging on the plastered mother-in-law – eh, it’s what we do. However, the president has never elucidated why gay people would make worse spouses, worse parents, worse couples who are unworthy of the institution. Not a single word.
Isn’t a constitutional amendment, the altering of the Republic’s most sacred document, worth at least a twenty minute, solo topic, national primetime address? Certainly the gravity of such an undertaking requires the attention of the entire country, no?
He’s right. So, in the spirit of a full debate on the MPA, I thought it was important to post President Bush’s radio address from yesterday. While not the type of bright light that Robbie (and I) believe a Constitutional amendment debate should receive by the President, Congress and the American people, it does articulate the President’s view of the issue.
Let me make it very clear that I personally oppose MPA and am disappointed in the President and the Senate moving this forward. What I am most angry about is that the Senate seems more interested in restricting the rights of legal Americans while at the same time, protecting the rights of Illegal Aliens. What it tells me is that the gay community has zero political clout, influence and respect across this country (compared with lawbreakers migrating here and their rallies) and that is the most distressing thing of all to me. The President highlights that point in this part of his radio address.
In our free society, people have the right to choose how they live their lives. And in a free society, decisions about such a fundamental social institution as marriage should be made by the people — not by the courts. The American people have spoken clearly on this issue, both through their representatives and at the ballot box. In 1996, Congress approved the Defense of Marriage Act by overwhelming bipartisan majorities in both the House and Senate, and President Clinton signed it into law. And since then, voters in 19 states have approved amendments to their state constitutions that protect the traditional definition of marriage. And today, 45 of the 50 states have either a state constitutional amendment or statute defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. These amendments and laws express a broad consensus in our country for protecting the institution of marriage.
We as gay Americans are responsible to improve the perception and clout about us by the rest of society. Unfortunately our representatives to the world (Log Cabin, HRC & NGLTF) are too busy following a Leftist, Anti-American agenda that runs counter to the views of most Americans. It is the Gay Left Death Spiral and we are the losers.
Back to our fearless leaders in Congress and the White House though…. .Come on…aren’t there more important things to worry about? Mr. President, instead of wasting time with using legal American gays as a political tool…. how about issuing an executive order and start drilling in Alaska due to the nation being at war? You should have done that on Sept. 12, 2001 anyway. And I think that action would help your poll numbers more than choosing gays as a political issue in 2006.
Finally… to my readers…. I am comforted to know that when I read most other mainstream conservative blogs and publications (not including religious-based ones), I see that most true conservatives agree that this MPA folly is a waste of everyone’s time.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
(Full text of President Bush’s speech after the jump below….)
Good morning. Next week, the United States Senate will begin debate on a constitutional amendment that defines marriage in the United States as the union of a man and woman. On Monday, I will meet with a coalition of community leaders, constitutional scholars, family and civic organizations, and religious leaders. They’re Republicans, Democrats, and independents who’ve come together to support this amendment. Today, I want to explain why I support the Marriage Protection Amendment, and why I’m urging Congress to pass it and send it to the states for ratification.
Marriage is the most enduring and important human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith. 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 and the stability of society. Marriage cannot be cut off from its cultural, religious, and natural roots without weakening this good influence on society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all.
In our free society, people have the right to choose how they live their lives. And in a free society, decisions about such a fundamental social institution as marriage should be made by the people — not by the courts. The American people have spoken clearly on this issue, both through their representatives and at the ballot box. In 1996, Congress approved the Defense of Marriage Act by overwhelming bipartisan majorities in both the House and Senate, and President Clinton signed it into law. And since then, voters in 19 states have approved amendments to their state constitutions that protect the traditional definition of marriage. And today, 45 of the 50 states have either a state constitutional amendment or statute defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. These amendments and laws express a broad consensus in our country for protecting the institution of marriage.
Unfortunately, activist judges and some local officials have made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage in recent years. Since 2004, state courts in Washington, California, Maryland, and New York have overturned laws protecting marriage in those states. And in Nebraska, a federal judge overturned a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
These court decisions could have an impact on our whole Nation. The Defense of Marriage Act declares that no state is required to accept another state’s definition of marriage. If that act is overturned by activist courts, then marriages recognized in one city or state might have to be recognized as marriages everywhere else. That would mean that every state would have to recognize marriages redefined by judges in Massachusetts or local officials in San Francisco, no matter what their own laws or state constitutions say. This national question requires a national solution, and on an issue of such profound importance, that solution should come from the people, not the courts.
An amendment to the Constitution is necessary because activist courts have left our Nation with no other choice. The constitutional amendment that the Senate will consider next week would fully protect marriage from being redefined, while leaving state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage. 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.
As this debate goes forward, we must remember that every American deserves to be treated with tolerance, respect, and dignity. All of us have a duty to conduct this discussion with civility and decency toward one another, and all people deserve to have their voices heard. A constitutional amendment will put a decision that is critical to American families and American society in the hands of the American people, which is exactly where it belongs. Democracy, not court orders, should decide the future of marriage in America.
Thank you for listening.
“the Senate seems more interested in restricting the rights of legal Americans”
No, it’s not the whole Senate. It’s the GOP. All but one of those Senators supporting the amendment are Republican. The GOP Senate leadership supports the amendment, the Dem leadership opposes it. The President devoted his radio address to supporting the amendment. All the 2004 and potential future Dem Presidential candidates we know of oppose the amendment. This a political ploy by YOUR party to demonize gay people so that the homohaters will come out and vote for Republicans in November. YOU and YOUR party own this amendment.
like most conservatives, you follow the party line till something effects you, then you are a moonbat liberal. Howard Stern once said that it’s too bad christopher reeve wasn’t Bush’s son, then we could get stem cell research. You can only dodge the bullet for so long. “when they came for the gypsies, …”
Let’s see if I have this right:
The President, “that good man”, (hereinafter: “TGM”) has followed through on his promise to help pass the MPA, an issue that his been identified by his base as a critical issue and an issue that has majority support in this country. Who are you to thwart the will of a majority? Are you a moonbat judicial activist?
Your president and your party have repeatedly used gays to whip up declining support for all of their policies and yet the fault of this is somehow the alleged “gay left”–a term that appears to define anyone whose politics are not as right wing as yours–the connection here appears to be a bit muddled, but okay let’s move on.
All however is not lost because you are comforted by the fact that (unnamed) mainstream conservatives see this all as a political ploy. (Hmm-let see which mainstream non-religious conservatives are we tallking about? The National Review types that you co-blogger wrote so fawningly about recently? Nope can’t be them as they seem pretty happy with the MPA. Perhaps GPW did not make as good as impresssion on the NRO folks as he thought. Oh well there is always next time. Back to GP’s comfort. So it is comforting if “TGM” is just using gays for cynical political purposes, but not comforting if TGM really means what he says. So your faith in “TGM” is predicated on your hope that he really is only an opportunist here. Did I get that right?
Now comes the part that is really hard to follow, but in fairness I have not had coffee so I am sure it must be me. But if I read correctly, your proposed solution to all of this is that “TGM” should drill oil in Alaska. Putting aside the fact that “TGM” was not especially successful drilling oil in Texas where it is a might bit easier to pull out of the ground, what does this have to with the MPA? Does your proposed solution have any connection to reality or is this blog becoming unhinged with “TGM”‘s declining poll numbers?
I must say in the past I periodically visited this blog every now and then, but it is now becoming addictive in a bad soap opera sort of way. (However, I would recommend letting ND30 become a regular poster and not simply a commentator–he has his own unique style.) In the menatime, I look forward to posting regarding the flouridization of water as a communist plot.
Bruce, you’re right. You nailed it.
The MPA is wrong. We should be worrying about other things. But the fact that we aren’t – the fact that we have to give discussion time to this at all – is a failure of our useless gay leadership institutions, in addition to being an obvious failure of President Bush’s leadership.
What would this guy say about court decisions that integrated schools (since he doesn’t seem to like court decisions that are opposed to majority FEELINGS) and that made inter-racial marriage legal (which pertains more exactly to judges making decisions regarding marriage)? There is no case against marriage equality here; there are only feelings.
Ian, Brendan & Lester-
Congrats. You are defining what it means to talk out of both sides of your mouths.
In one breath, you deride my fellow posters and I for always marching lockstep with the President (which is far from the truth if you actually read this blog. Or comprehend is a better word, perhaps.)
So now when I do outline an argument in opposition to the President… that is bad too.
Some advice: Go see a doctor for your Bush Derangement Syndrome.
Stop visiting this blog. Look up the words nuance, sarcasm and subtle in the dictionary.
Goes double for you, Raj before you start up.
Unfortunately, most “mainstream” Conservatives are no longer considered mainstream by the GOP. In the words of another reader, they are a small minority of a small minority of the GOP leadership.
This amendment thing is totally off the wall IMO. All this amounts to is trying the get the conservative base back in Bush’s corner. Personally, I wish he would avoid such a waste of time. The process to amend the US Constitution is a long and laborious one and has no chance in hell of getting anywhere in this Congress or any Congress for a long time. This is why I hate election time because it means a lot of pandering to this group or another when we all know it is a lot of hoop and holler that is so unimportant in the total scheme of things. I support Mr. Bush on a lot of his issues but this none is a total red herring IMO and he knows it. Even people you respect a lot lose sight of reality sometimes and for the majority of American people this ‘issue’ is not an issue they want to get involved with at this time. By the way, I personally oppose gay marriage per se (support civil unions and all the benefits they deliver) and I think my gay colleagues who feel gay marriage is the only means to an end are wrong. Even with this post, we lose sight of one major thing…all couples who wish to should be able to enter into civil unions and that has a better chance to create a healthier discourse than arguing with someone on the emotional word of ‘marriage.’
“Some advice: Go see a doctor for your Bush Derangement Syndrome.
Stop visiting this blog. ”
Well that is a knockout punch if I ever saw one! It is my right wing playground and I want you to go home. Not surprisingly, you did not respond at all to any substantive criticism raised.
Not one of us who criticized your post said anything vile or personally nasty, (unlike some of your supporters who spew pure bile at any critic) and yet we are told to stop even visiting. It is not a lack of comrehension on our part, we simply criticized the rather weak analytical reasoning in your post. Your rather typical, and tiresome, trope is to make a mild criticism of “TGM” but in your alternate universe the real villian is, as always, some mythical “gay left”. Any one who does not leave a comment that says :” you hit the nail on the head” or “fucktard moonbats” or some other blather is simply not welcomed and now diagnosed with “Bush Derangement Syndrome”, a diagnosis which is not listed in the DSM-IV presumably because it is run by moonbat lefties.
Where is Dick Cheney? If he opposes the amendment, as he has said in the past, why doesn’t he use his platform in opposition? The American people elected him too. It’s not like he serves at the leisure of the President. His name was on the ballot, just like Bush’s. I guess some might say, well, he doesn’t want to sour his relations with the Administration. Still, this issue has to do with his own daughter. His silence is disappointing.
#6: “you deride my fellow posters and I for always marching lockstep with the President”
No Bruce, I called you to task for trying to suggest that it is the entire Senate that is pushing this amendment. It is not. It is the Republicans and their leadership including the President that is doing so. I am glad you oppose this amendment. Any gay person who supports it is one sick and/or self loathing puppy IMHO.
Ian writes: “I called you to task for trying to suggest that it is the entire Senate that is pushing this amendment. It is not. It is the Republicans and their leadership including the President that is doing so.”
What Ian writes is of course demonstrably true, but it one of those truths that does not fit well with the alternate reality of the world of GP. So it calls forth the non-response response in comment 6 and the threat that all heathens will be banished from the kingdom of truth and goodness.
I can agree with the above.
However I think you leave out another large culprit. American media. It pretty much justs repeat the press releases sent out of either side of the issue. But they almost never actually debate anything.
“Well that is a knockout punch if I ever saw one! It is my right wing playground and I want you to go home. Not surprisingly, you did not respond at all to any substantive criticism raised.
Not one of us who criticized your post said anything vile or personally nasty, (unlike some of your supporters who spew pure bile at any critic) and yet we are told to stop even visiting. It is not a lack of comrehension on our part, we simply criticized the rather weak analytical reasoning in your post. Your rather typical, and tiresome, trope is to make a mild criticism of “TGM” but in your alternate universe the real villian is, as always, some mythical “gay left”. Any one who does not leave a comment that says :” you hit the nail on the head” or “fucktard moonbats” or some other blather is simply not welcomed and now diagnosed with “Bush Derangement Syndrome”, a diagnosis which is not listed in the DSM-IV presumably because it is run by moonbat lefties. ”
LOL! This comment could be left on just about every thread on this blog. I too am virtually addicted to the mind rush caused by regular reading of this blog’s Bush apologetics, the predictable invective (of exactly the sort they accuse “moonbats” of) and the inevitable and projective erection of strawmen (like accusing Brendan and Ian of saying something they didn’t). Oh, and leave us not forget the regular comparisons of Peggy Noonan to the Goddess Hera.
I try to get friends to read GP, but they refuse, dammit.
#4: “is a failure of our useless gay leadership institutions,”
I don’t think this particular go-around has anything to do with the gay leadership institutions unless you are also willing to give them credit when the amendment fails. This is a desperate pandering to the homohating base of the GOP because the GOP is worried about the November elections. Even most conservatives are hard-pressed to deny it.
#15: “I too am virtually addicted to the mind rush caused by regular reading of this blog’s Bush apologetics, the predictable invective (of exactly the sort they accuse “moonbats” of)”
Lately, as the GOP at all levels appears headed off a cliff, it’s been more like the irresistible lure of slowing to look at a car wreck.
“Unfortunately our representatives to the world (Log Cabin, HRC & NGLTF) are too busy following a Leftist, Anti-American agenda that runs counter to the views of most Americans. It is the Gay Left Death Spiral and we are the losers.”
See, when you post comments like this, it is very difficult for new readers like me to know if you are really sincere or whether this site is actually a parody, a “Landover Baptist” send-up of Kapo-gay conservatives. As a deep red state resident, I can assure you that these organizations had and have ZERO influence, political or otherwise, on the voters who are most supportive of antigay measures. Do you really think people who believe that homosexuality is fundamentally wrong are going to make an exception for the conciliatory conservative kind?
Also, if this site is indeed for real and not just for laughs, for credibility’s sake you all might want to set up shop in a nice Republican area of the country, the better to sing the praises of conservative policies in action. Bitching about liberals and leftists while enjoying San Francisco’s tolerant atmosphere just makes you look like an ingrate. Or a hypocrite. Or both.
#10. Yeah, you raise a good point. We hear all about how Mary loves her father and supports him, but where is he right now while this all takes place? Will he make it to the Rose Garden? Will his absence be interpreted as supporting and loving his daughter and opposition to the amendment? Or will he have the balls to actually say or do something?
As for the President and the Party “using gays” for the upcoming elections, let’s stop being so abstract. He and they are using Bruce, Dan, Nick, Dan, the Dallas cop, you, you, you, you, and you…and Mary Cheney.
Dick Cheney’s silence now is speaking out both sides of his mouth, even if the one side’s conversation is taking place in a closet.
Chris (#18) – I assure you I am very serious in the comment you chose to cut & paste.
Prove me wrong.
Even famous people support Bush
MICKEY ROURKE has pledged his support for US President GEORGE W BUSH’s controversial foreign policy in Iraq. The SIN CITY actor, who is famed for being for being outspoken, has come forward as one of the few stars to support the war on terror. The former boxer says, “George is doing a hell of a job during very difficult times, more power to him. Screw all them people who don’t like him.”
Bruce, I’ll agree with you that HRC is ineffective in all things except for raising money. One thing that would help from your end, is when there are contested Republican races, it would help if you would educate your readers about the various candidates. In Minnesota, Michele Bachmann – a Marilyn Musgrave clone, just won Republican endorsement. She had three opponents – one who was pretty indistinguishable from her on issues, though he was more broadly focused, and two opponents who never took a stand on the Federal Marriage Amendment. Idiots like Michele Bachmann will no longer be successful in the GOP when gays start being visible in the Republican party – and in the mainstream of the party – not in a Log Cabin Republicans chapter.
I think in the end we can’t blame gay organizations for being ineffective. Instead, each of us as individuals needs to be out there talking to people about these issues.
If we want to change this in the GOP, it means that more of us have to get involved in the grass roots of the party – that means being active in local party units.
I’m amazed if Ben Nelson is going to be the only Democrat voting for this thing in the Senate. I was expecting Robert Byrd to vote for this thing also.
I’d expect the same republicans to vote against it this time, as did last time. Those would include McCain, Sununu, Hagel, Snow, Colins, Specter. Norm Coleman in Minnesota should know better, but he’ll vote for the bill.
I thought the Republican Unity Coalition was a good counterpoint to Log Cabin Republicans in the way they dealt with Bush. They did not enable Bush when he promoted the anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment – but instead, put out a statement that the amendment was “distracting, divisive and wrong” and left it at that.
Have you heard when there are plans to bring this up in the house. What’s interesting there, is HRC hasn’t done much to lobby house members on this issue and it shows – many house democrats voted for this when it came up a few years ago.
“It is the Gay Left Death Spiral and we are the losers.”
Speaking as a hetero libertarian-conservative, I agree.
Seems a lot of time is spent by gay conservatives justifying the actions of the GOP when it comes to using gays to whip up their base. They used gay marriage ammendments to get people out to the polls to vote for Bush. They’re doing it again now to drum up a support to help turn the tide that is growing against Bush and, probably more important, future conservative leadership.
Lester makes an excellent comment…you can’t fight for equal rights as a minority group while at the same time ignoring the lack of equal rights to other minority groups. Strength through a diversity of groups joining together….
To Eva Young, commenting in number 22: Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) may have other reasons (like a tougher than expected challenge in November from an ultra-right-wing Republican with millions to spend on his campaign) but at the time he originally announced his intention to vote for the amendment it was because a federal judge struck down Nebraska’s state amendment banning same-sex marriage.
But Nelson misunderstood the federal judge’s decision (as did much of the national media and the theocratic fundraisers). The first sentence of the Nebraska amendment, defining marriage as between one man and one woman, was NEVER an issue in the federal court case. The second sentence was the basis for the federal judge’s decision; it virtually stripped gays of their rights in the legislature and before state courts.
Bruce, I agree with much of your post but take great issue with your claim that the Log Cabin Republicans follow a leftist “anti-American” agenda. If you really believe the LCR follows an “anti-American” agenda I don’t really want to know your definition of “pro-American”.
Howard Stern once said that it’s too bad christopher reeve wasn’t Bush’s son, then we could get stem cell research.
We have stem cell research. You can research on stem cells all you want — as long as they’re from existing lines. Indeed, even beyond that, you can get all the stem cells you want from adult donations and from umbilical blood.
The one thing you can’t do is to extract them by taking apart and destroying human embryos.
This simply says that, if you want to research on something, you do it without compromising human life. It’s no different than the restrictions that prevent physicians from performing vivisections, or psychologists and sociologists from performing isolation or disruption experiments on children.
As a deep red state resident, I can assure you that these organizations had and have ZERO influence, political or otherwise, on the voters who are most supportive of antigay measures.
Really?
Do you think that NGLTF’s public proclamation that unlimited abortion and removal of parental notification rights are inextricably linked to gay rights doesn’t bother them?
Do you really think that HRC’s regular diatribes against religion and its support of groups like the ACLU that try to defend pedophiles and people who want to chase religion completely out of public life doesn’t catch their attention?
Do you think they don’t notice when “Queers for Palestine” and gay supporters of Cindy Sheehan proclaim their love for terrorist organizations?
There is a reason that the only thing that pamphleteers need to do to stir up antigay activity is to tell the truth. “Gay rights” groups do support banning the Bible from public view, unlimited abortion, and other various and sundry leftist causes. They support hiking taxes, punishing businesses and corporations, and banishing the military (like our dearly-beloved SF Board of Supervisors and Board of Education).
Do you really think people who believe that homosexuality is fundamentally wrong are going to make an exception for the conciliatory conservative kind?
No.
But my concern is less with their miniscule fraction of the electorate and more with the voters who, thanks to the antics of “gay rights” groups, are now convinced that anything gay-supportive is pro-abortion, anti-religion, and anti-conservative/Republican.
#12
Over and over some gay conservatives have said that gay issues shouldn’t be a main priority. They have criticized gay organizations that put gay issues first,
Name ONE. We see “gay organizations” putting womyn’s rights, abortions etc. first. I haven’t seen a gay organization that put “gay issues” first in a coon’s age.
“Do you think that NGLTF’s public proclamation that unlimited abortion and removal of parental notification rights are inextricably linked to gay rights doesn’t bother them?
Do you really think that HRC’s regular diatribes against religion and its support of groups like the ACLU that try to defend pedophiles and people who want to chase religion completely out of public life doesn’t catch their attention?
Do you think they don’t notice when “Queers for Palestine” and gay supporters of Cindy Sheehan proclaim their love for terrorist organizations?”
Yes, I do. The vast majority of straight Americans have no idea what the NGLTF, HRC, and Queers for Palestine are or do. You do, because you are gay, you hate these groups’ politics and you make it your business to track their activities. But you are hardly normative in this respect. I’ll bet not one in a hundred could identify NGLTF.
I’ll grant you that mainstream American opinions are in part shaped by provocative media images, like tasteless behavior at parades and such. And I certainly think public opinion can be influenced by negative stereotypes. But out here, the anti-gay propaganda is generated by the conservative right, period. And believe me, its focus is not on gays’ positions on Cindy Sheehan! And I have yet to meet someone who is uncomfortable with gay marriage because gay rights’ groups were too liberal.
“We have stem cell research. You can research on stem cells all you want — as long as they’re from existing lines. Indeed, even beyond that, you can get all the stem cells you want from adult donations and from umbilical blood.’
Again obfuscating or downright lying.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5252449
NIH Director’s Statement on Research Using Stem Cells—1/26/99
“Because human pluripotent stem cells continue to replicate robustly, stem cells derived from a few embryos or from a few fetuses could potentially be used in hundreds of individual research protocols.”
http://ga3.org/campaign/stem_cell_google
There are currently hundreds of thousands of surplus embryos in storage. One source estimated that there were 400,000 stored embryos by mid-2003. They are destined to be thrown away.
You know NDT , the womb (which you seem to want to control, in lieu of having one) regulary flushes fertilized eggs. I’m surprised you’re not there picking them up with mirco tweezers, in order to give them a proper funeral.
Kevin takes the plug out and writes: “… you can’t fight for equal rights as a minority group while at the same time ignoring the lack of equal rights to other minority groups. Strength through a diversity of groups joining together….”
Kevin, Kevin, Kevin.
If that was put to a tune we’d all be with ya’ down on the Democrat Plantation singing da Masters’ praises. Yes, such strength thru diversity… diversity? I love it! “Victims of the World, Unite!” Or is it untie?
When you stood with the abortionists and chanted “Keep Abortion Legal” and opposed the latest rightwing jurists, didn’t you think we’d get those people to stand with us when gays wanted to step into the City Clerk’s office and get the license? Where were those sisters-of-abortion when state after state passed versions of FMA? The sisters-of-abortion were telling us “Oh, this isn’t ONE of our issues.”
When you stood with black Americans and helped them by encouraging discriminatory preferential treatment for jobs, grad school admissions or govt contracts… did you really think some of those same concerned black pastors would be standing alongside us when we marched for parity in civil unions? Oh, they were busy taking care of “fags on the down low be hurting da black family” on Jerry Springer.
When you stood on the State Capitol steps and yelled “Down with the 10 Commandments; Keep the Church Out of Govt” with all those ACLU anti-God, sectarian atheists, you really didn’t expect them to pull out their wallets and help advance our civil rights protection efforts to expand the definition of Hate Crime to include gay bashing? Oh, they have other political concerns like keeping Israel free from Arabs and are tapped out? Have to save their political capital, eh? Oh, I see.
When you and the GayLeft were out pimping for HowieDean and the Democrats so they could steal Bush’s 2000 mandate, you really didn’t expect them to treat us well after the election? “They kept all the promises they intended to keep”. OK, shutting down the DNC’s Gay Outreach Office, firing staff for being strong gay advocates, and pandering to the Religous Right isn’t all that bad for a party that tries to be the home of the GayLeft.
Diversity and Victimhood, Kevin. They go hand in hand. Right.
Most of the time, the GayLeft just makes our community a big tight bottom for the DNC… and we get zero for it expect a promise to be nice to us in the future.
#31 – Re-visiting the hank who goes off the rails, when someone expresses opinions he doesn’t care for with justified confidence.
Must one point out that there is NOTHING in the vague, general statement:
“…human pluripotent stem cells… COULD potentially be used in hundreds of individual research protocols…”
that would even slightly contradict NDT’s quoted statement?
Nor anything in the whole cited NPR article, for that matter! So no, dude – NDT wasn’t lying or obfuscating in the slightest. You are.
I’m currently working on a supplemental degree in human biology and biotechnology and have completed about 15 units (6-7 classes). I’ll share from that knowledge.
There is absolutely no need to use stem cells from aborted fetuses in any stem cell research project. It may have been technically easier for certain scientists in the very beginning. But today? no.
First, the human adult body generates stem cells which are perfectly good for most medical stem cell research.
“… ethical problems can, however, be avoided altogether if the right kinds of stem cells can be obtained from the patient’s own body. A simple example is the use of epidermal stem cells for repair of the skin after extensive burns. By culturing cells from undamaged regions of the skin of the burned patient, it is possible to obtain epidermal skin cells quite rapidly in large numbers. These can then be used…”
p.1310, _Molecular Biology of the Cell_, 4th ed., Alberts et. al., 2002
The same principle would apply for stem cells from other human tissues – spinal or nerve tissue, bone marrow, etc.
If they are cells from your body, just like a blood draw – No ethical problem – and, in some ways, medically or scientifically EASIER as you avoid immunological problems as well.
Second, if a researcher really wants EMBRYONIC human stem cells from some reason, the cells can and are being easily cloned from NON-HARVESTED (i.e., non-aborted) embryos.
There is much angry ignorance and confusion surrounding the stem cell issue.
All President Bush did, in 2001, was restrict FEDERAL FUNDING for embryonic stem cell research from HARVESTED (i.e., aborted) embryos. That’s all. hank’s own NPR article makes that clear. I doubt it slowed down any worthwhile stem cell research project for more than 2-3 months.
The facts remain that:
(1) “Human embryonic stem cells” are only one kind of stem cell and AREN’T necessary to the kinds of medical breakthroughs people are hoping for.
(2) “Human embryonic stem cells” are being used in research today, without being harvested from terminated fetuses.
(3) President Bush has, in fact, approved federal funding on continued research from several HUMAN EMBRYONIC stem cell lines.
Any notion that the Bush Administration is against stem cell research or holding it back is flat-out ignorant, or wrong on basic scientific facts. hank’s own cited NPR article fails to support otherwise.
Any campaign to supposedly “keep the Bush Administration from holding America’s health hostage” on stem cell research is, in fact, totally unnecessary and a ripoff of your money (if you have ever donated to it).
Sorry hank – You lose again.
P.S. In case it is lost on anybody: The basic ethical issue, that we’ve quite gotten around now (as I discuss above), is the idea that people would terminate human life JUST to be able to do stem cell research.
We avoid terminating and harvesting human embryos for the stem cells, for the same reasons we banned Nazi medical research practices.
_South Park_ did an episode on this a few years back. I can’t remember the official title or episode number, but it involved a very funny spoof of Christopher Reeve, and of the protestors / arguments on both sides of the issue.
Probably 6-7 more than you!! LOL
Bruce- But you don’t oppose gay marriage on principal. You oppose because you are a homosexual. If you opposed it on principal you would probably be a democrat. muslim conservatives probably oppose the patriot act. the problem is conservatives are self absorbed and feel the rules should be broken for them and not others. Do as i say and not as i Do
#40 – But of course, hank. Let’s re-cap:
– #35 – Does nothing to address #33 facts; waste of time.
– #36 – Does nothing to address #33 facts; waste of time.
– #38 – Does nothing to address #33 facts; waste of time.
– #40 – Does nothing to address #33 facts; waste of time.
“What it tells me is that the gay community has zero political clout, influence and respect across this country (compared with lawbreakers migrating here and their rallies) and that is the most distressing thing of all to me.”
It’s all about the numbers, the potential growth among the voters in each demographic, and religion, plain and simple.
Gay / Lesbian community: growth = stable
And then there is religion.
Gay / Lesbian community: less devout Christian
41- edit. I meant you support gay marriage, not oppose. gay conservatives support gay marriage ( if they do ) because it is the freedom they want of the freedoms that conservatives deny the country. it’s easy for a gay male conservative to be say, pro life. so it has nothing to do with principles.
lester writes: “… it’s easy for a gay male conservative to be say, pro life. so it has nothing to do with principles.”
Pro Life has NOTHING to do with core values and principles, lester? WTF. It is all about principles, you schmuck. You couldn’t be wrong if you voted for Kerry and Gore all over again!
And perhaps lester forgets that he’ll become pro-life eventually… once they figure out (as they eventually will) how to screen late-term fetuses for brain-developmental homosexuality and let parents terminate them.
Lester….um…. where to begin?
You really are making no sense whatsoever.
That’s all of my brain power I’m giving to your comments.
Bruce in regards to lester… see above… good point.
Does that work for raj, too?
Apparently, several posts have been deleted, but the numbering does not indicate that. Note to webmaster: it’s terribly confusing when comment #36 (for example) refers to comment #40.
#10 (at the current time) Erik — June 4, 2006 @ 1:22 pm – June 4, 2006
Where is Dick Cheney? If he opposes the amendment, as he has said in the past, why doesn’t he use his platform in opposition?
Where is Dick Cheney? Apparently you missed this:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/1/11/101918.shtml
You don’t really believe that Dick Cheney would speak out in opposition to a proposal pushed by Dubya, do you? Or Mary, for that matter?
On another matter, I’m amused at the discussion regarding embryonic stem cell research. I don’t do biology, so I’m not going to address the issues raised in #32 (# at the current time), except to wonder whether the “simple example” of the “use of epidermal stem cells for repair of the skin after extensive burns. By culturing cells from undamaged regions of the skin of the burned patient, it is possible to obtain epidermal skin cells quite rapidly in large numbers. These can then be used.” is little more than tissue culturing, which apparently has been going on for some years. But that is hardly an illustration of use of embryonic stem cells to treat, for example, spinal cord breaks or Parkinson’s disease.
From what I have read, there are two expected benefits to use of embryonic stem cells. One, that embryonic stem cells are more adaptable (in other words, one would not need to use cultured skin cells to generate tissues for use in skin repair after a burn); instead the embryonic stem cells would adapt themselves to the particular organ in which they are used. Two, that use of embryonic stem cells significantly avoids the rejection problem.
Reading between the lines on the embryonic stem cell research debate, it has become clear to me that the primary (and often unstated) reason that opponents of embryonic stem cell research oppose such research is that they fear that, if the research pans out, that will lead to the wholesale creation of human embryoes solely for the purpose of harvesting their stem cells. That is indeed a significant ethical issue, and it should be brought out into the open.
On the more general point, though, the sad fact that Americans seem to forget is that, if embryonic stem cell research shows signs of promise, it will be conducted somewhere on the world, whether or not it is conducted in the Untied States. I know that it is a blow to many Americans, but research in many fields is being conducted elsewhere.
What we (my spouse and I) have wondered is whether those who are opposed to embryonic stem cell research will, if the research pans out, eschew usage of the fruits of the research. We doubt it.
#41 Calarato — June 5, 2006 @ 5:11 pm – June 5, 2006
And perhaps lester forgets that he’ll become pro-life eventually… once they figure out (as they eventually will) how to screen late-term fetuses for brain-developmental homosexuality and let parents terminate them.
A Twilight for the Golds moment (I think that was the name of the Broadway play on the same issue).
And that is one reason that I oppose one or more of
(i) abortion;
(ii) genetic testing of fetuses; and/or
(iii) research of the human genome into a possible genetic basis for homosexuality.
It is amazing the extent to which purported liberals say that they would abort their babies if there was an indication that they would be homosexual. I discovered that a few years ago on the NYTimes gay rights board, where one liberal said that she would abort the baby rather than have it have to suffer going through life as a homosexual. Ugh.
It hurts, doesn’t it raj? To hear someone anonymously contend that being gay and suffering is a good enough reason to kill you while you grow in your Mother’s womb.
I wonder how all those aborted children might have felt if they knew they were killed because they’d be born black or white or poor or born into suffering? Probably the same way when Germans decided in the last century that being born Jew or gypsy or homosexual was cause for an early death sentence.
Liberals are no more better prepared to make these fundamental choices about life and death than the organ grinder’s monkey on the curb of the street.
“ugh” is right. I hope she changed your mind about abortion.
gyapatriot- okay bad example. My point is most conservatives are against gay marriage. the main ones that aren’t are themselves gay. If that’s not an indictment of conservatism I don’t know what is.
Evidence? No? I thought so.
And there is a difference between being against gay marriage, and being against having an out of control judiciary forcing gay marriage on the states.
“Evidence? No? I thought so.”
In fact lots of conservatives have come out and explicitly said it is not conservative to be dictating people’s personal lives.
“and being against having an out of control judiciary forcing gay marriage on the states. ”
Which isn’t what’s happening. (Where bans on homosexual marriage are being struck down, it is generally on procedural grounds rather than sunbstantive, or else it is where the laws go beyond the marriage issue and affect basic and uncontroversial civil rights.) Even the Massachussstts example doesn’t fit this characterization, since the issue had to go to the legislature for final resolution in the end. I realize that some weddings took place, but final resolution happened in the legislature.
[quote]Evidence? No? I thought so.
And there is a difference between being against gay marriage, and being against having an out of control judiciary forcing gay marriage on the states.
[/quote]
you are trying to tell me you don’t think most conservatives are against gay marriage? bro, you are crazy!
You guys are out to lunch on this. virtually all conservative politicians and many democrats are against gay marriage. which wasn’t even my point. My point is republicans love social conservatism till it affects them. till they need or want sem cell therapy, or if they are gay and want to get married. My guess is if gaypatriot bruce wasn’t gay he’d be against gay marriage.
#46. Don’t knock the organ grinder’s monkey!
#46 by Michigan-Matt — June 6, 2006 @ 10:56 am – June 6, 2006
I suppose that this is supposed to be in response to one of my comments here, but I’ll be darned if I can figure out what it’s responsive to. Or what it is referring to.
I guess it’s a 2L problem, but, just to let you know, a “brief” can be too “brief.”