Political Punch

Just because many of us are not out protesting doesn't mean that we don't detest divorce and fornication as much as homosexuality. Why? Because God says that they are all WRONG, but society has--in recent years--said that they are OK. That's what is particularly irksome . . . exchanging the truth for a lie. Isaiah says, "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil." That's what the world is doing these days . . . and you think that God won't step in a some point and do something about it? Have you never read about the Flood and Sodom and Gomorrah? They occured because of massive disregard for God's ways.

Once again we see the "right", christian or not,
butting into other peoples business. As was said of a Mich. Senator long ago "have you no decency at long last" The comments of J. Crouse citing the Cheney pregnancy(single mothers)as "the biggest problem we're facing in this country"
Is silly and sad. Clearly the vast majority of fatherless children come from the hetrosexual community. By any measure we face much greater problems. As to R. Knight's nonsense that Cheney's purpose in having a child was to "deny it a father" shows a stupidity and meanness not worthy of polite discussion. People have the right to follow their desires and one of the most precious is the right to have offspring. I hear a little NAZI in his comments and exactly what is "sexual anarchy". The "right" should be happy when a gay couple is faithful and not engaged in random or rampant sexuality. I do not support all aspects of the "gay agenda" but basic descency should be universal. As we have seen recently, neither Congressmen nor Religious leaders have a lock on morality, honesty or decency.
Additionally, Cheney and her partner have not as far as I know attempted to marry.
And lastly, the vast number of children in foster care should be something the "right" would care about, but instead they would bar gays from adopting. They would "throw the baby out with the bath water". How smart is that?

People, people... you have to parse what the VP and Prez say very, very carefully. When Cheney says "people should be able to form whatever relationships they want" and the WH says "adoption agencies blah, blah, blah", they are pursposely and explicitly avoiding saying the only important thing: what the GOVERNMENT should think or do about the issue. And they don't say it because the OPPOSE the government looking on these developments with an accepting view. They OPPOSE legal recognition of same-sex couples. They OPPOSE legal adoption.

If the Cheneys cared one freakin' bit about their grandchild, they'd set up the Mary/Elizabeth household in one of their properties in a state where the child will have some legal connection to his/her second mother, Elizabeth. Instead, the couple resides in the most anti-gay state in the union, where Elizabeth will forever be a legal stranger to her child, to her wife, and to her in-laws.

If you're the praying sort, add Elizath Poe to your list of those who need help.

I don't the Bush adminstration ever really planned on taking a stand against marriage or adoption. It was just their drum to beat rally the Christian right and worked all to well.

Cordelia, you're absolutely right. What makes the conservative Christians VERY uncomfortable is to see two men kissing, or, as you so aptly put it, "getting it on." It seems that they can view two lesbians as only a little removed from straight porn, while two men are an abomination to them. Witness the inevitable lesbian scene--or scenes--in most straight porn movies.

It's always nice to see instances where life works out its problems all by itself sometimes.

Regardless of whether or not Mr. Bush and his friends WANT to come to terms with their apparent struggle to accept that a homosexual family is every bit as legitimate as a heterosexual one, their only choice now is to hide from this truth or embrace it.

Like dandelions slowly re-taking the earth from a deserted and crackled parking lot, their well-paved and no doubt bible-branded preconceptions about "the way life should be" will eventually lose their once-firm grip on their brains.

As I mentioned as a reply to your blog of "Cheney's Grandkid WIll Have Two Mommies" of December 6, "...silence implies consent: if you disagree with something, you voice that disagreement. I don't think it's going too far to label someone a hypocrite when, despite the feelings for his own children, he says nothing or does nothing which implies any degree of disagreement with this administration's policy."

It's not at all surprising that few conservative Christian groups would want to touch this issue with a ten-foot pole, despite the fact that they wouldn't hesitate for a second to criticize the pregnant lesbian daughter of a Democratic Vice President. As for the President's non-answer to Ms. Travers' question (and kudos to her for her persistence!), it's safe to assume that his position hasn't changed one iota. He's clearly evading the issue so as not to discomfort his VP.

jake, no one cares about lesbian unions. Two lesbians getting it on is totally fine with these people.