Those 2 Votes for Bush -- Doug and Fang?

Log Cabin Republicans decided Tuesday to oppose President George W. Bush's re-election because he supports a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

From Capitol Hill Blue

Politics

Gay Republicans to Bush: You Ain't Our Guy

By Staff and Wire Reports

Sep 8, 2004, 06:48

The board of the largest group for gay men and lesbians in the Republican Party voted 22-2 on Tuesday night against endorsing Bush.

Log Cabin in 2000 endorsed Bush against Democrat Al Gore, and in 1996 endorsed Republican Bob Dole against incumbent Democrat Bill Clinton.

The group in February criticized Bush for supporting the amendment. "Writing discrimination into our Constitution violates conservative and Republican principles," Executive Director Patrick Guerriero said at the time. "This amendment would not strengthen marriage -- it would weaken our nation."

Log Cabin last month supported statements by Vice President Dick Cheney, who has a lesbian daughter, that an amendment banning same-sex marriages is unnecessary.

Cheney said he believes individual U.S. states should decide whether to sanction such marriages, but accepted Bush's decision to pursue a ban as administration policy.

The group has also criticized what it calls "flip-flops" by John Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee, for statements that he opposes same-sex marriages but also opposes amending the Constitution to ban it.

Log Cabin, however, has supported Republican positions on what it has called "issues that bring us together: lower taxes, strong national defense, personal responsibility and a commitment to individual liberty."

About 1 million gay men and lesbians voted for Bush in 2000, Log Cabin has said.

© Copyright 2004 Capitol Hill Blue

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/printer_5204.shtml

This doesn't hurt Bush, but it destroys the Log Cabin Republicans.

It's good to see that the Log Cabin crew has finally gotten enough gumption to say "enough is enough." Until now, their capacity for being doormats has seemed limitless.

And just for the record (before Doug and Fang start ranting) there IS a significant difference between Bush and Kerry's positions on same-sex marriage. Although both oppose "marriage", per se, Kerry supports civil unions and opposes amending the U.S. constitution to prevent gay marriages. Bush supports amending the constitution, and as currently written, the amendment would not only prevent same-sex couples from marrying, it would also prevent any other form of legal recognition of our relationships, including civil unions.

I recognize that Kerry's approach (and that of just about every other big-name Democrat) is opportunistic, out of fear of alienating theologically conservative Christians. But his opposition to a federal constitutional amendment leaves the door open for the U.S. Supreme Court to issue a decision legalizing same-sex marriage, and it also leaves it up to the individual states to act. Kerry's approach also leaves the door open for civil unions, and after the depressing Missouri vote on their state constitutional amendment, realpolitik suggests that civil unions may be all we can achieve in the immediate future. We may have to settle for incremental progress in obtaining marriage rights, instead of "all or nothing." Bush's approach would block all progress permanently, and even repeal any gains that have already been achieved. That's a clear difference between the two candidates, and reason enough to vote for Kerry and not for Bush. (Except, of course, for the handful of self-haters who just salivate at the thought of being relegated to the status of pariah second-class citizens forever.)

>I recognize that Kerry's approach (and that of just about

>every other big-name Democrat) is opportunistic, out of fear

>of alienating theologically conservative Christians.

......if there are any left who haven't been alienated by Kerry's position on partial-birth abortion, aka that procedure where they get the baby into the birth canal, shove some scissors into the base of its skull and then suck its brains out so its head can be smushed more easily for an smoother "birth".

What I don't understand about that procedure is: why bother with all the skull piercing and brain-sucking? Why not just deliver the baby and then strangle it right there on the operating table? The end result is exactly the same: the kid is dead. Why bother doing it in the woman's hoo-ha?

(Ask the following question using Carrie Bradshaw's voice)

Is vaginal brain-sucking more acceptable than infant stangulation?

Inquisitively yours,

FFF

The ONLY reason for the partial birth procedure is that, if the baby is allowed to come all the way out before it is slaughtered, it will be considered a murder under the law. The procedure is never necessary for the mother's physical health, although, mentally, having to deal with the demands of a healthy new born baby may cause stress to some.

>The ONLY reason for the partial birth procedure is that, if

>the baby is allowed to come all the way out before it is

>slaughtered, it will be considered a murder under the law.

OK, so let me get this straight:

If the mother allows another person to enter her body and suck the brains out of her unborn child, then its merely called her "right to choose".

However, if that same child whom the mother wants the brains sucked out of accidentally pops all the way out of her and THEN the doctor sucks its brains out, then it's called "murder".

So the only difference between a "woman's right to choose" and "murder" is whether or not a doctor's hands are up her vagina?

Clarifyingly yours,

FFF

>Kerry's position on partial-birth abortion, aka that procedure

>where they get the baby into the birth canal, shove some

>scissors into the base of its skull and then suck its brains

>out so its head can be smushed more easily for an smoother

>"birth".

It's called a fetus. Try not to confuse it with your cousin Festus.

What I don't understand about your explanation is where you say "they" do it. Who are "they"? Are "they" members of the medical profession who have taken an oath to "do no harm" ? Does that mean that some doctors can't be trusted? Maybe that includes Bill Frist?

And are these the doctors that Bush wants to protect from malpractice lawsuits so that they can practice their love? As Jay Leno points out, maybe that's why they're being sued for malpractice.

POPLAR BLUFF, Mo. - President Bush offered an unexpected reason on Monday for cracking down on frivolous medical lawsuits: "Too many OB-GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country."

The Partial Birth abortion involves babies who are developed enough to survive on the outside as other premature babies survive. You can call them fetuses if you think that changing the words changes the act. But surely you can see that people who see it as wrong to kill such children are not completely unreasonable.

Your "ire" over the rights of the unborn might be taken more seriously if Republicans gave a flying fuck about children after their born. Their abysmal record on children's welfare issues speaks for itself.

>that procedure

>where they get the baby into the birth canal, shove some

>scissors into the base of its skull and then suck its brains

>out so its head can be smushed more easily for an smoother

>"birth".

No one cares about your childhood trauma, fim fang fool.

Donnie, you forgot to put the smiley face...people might think you are serious!

>The Partial Birth abortion involves babies who are developed

>enough to survive on the outside as other premature babies

>survive. You can call them fetuses if you think that changing

>the words changes the act.

Or I can call people who want to impose their religious beliefs on me "fanatical Muslims," because often that's what they are.

Those who can read, should see the explanation in the 2000 decision by the U. S. Supreme Court which explained that this procedure is used as an alternative to another procedure, based on a medical evaluation. Note that the D&X procedure (which you can call "partial birth," if you think that changing the words changes the act) is used at the same stage of fetal development as the much more common D&E procedure. Opponents of one are simply trying to get halfway home to banning the other one also.

==(a) Because the statute seeks to ban one abortion method, the Court discusses several different abortion procedures, as described in the evidence below and the medical literature. During a pregnancy's second trimester (12 to 24 weeks), the most common abortion procedure is 'dilation and evacuation' (D&E), which involves dilation of the cervix, removal of at least some fetal tissue using nonvacuum surgical instruments, and (after the 15th week) the potential need for instrumental dismemberment of the fetus or the collapse of fetal parts to facilitate evacuation from the uterus. When such dismemberment is necessary, it typically occurs as the doctor pulls a portion of the fetus through the cervix into the birth canal.

The risks of mortality and complication that accompany D&E are significantly lower than those accompanying induced labor procedures (the next safest mid-second-trimester procedures). A variation of D&E, known as 'intact D&E,' is used after 16 weeks. It involves removing the fetus from the uterus through the cervix 'intact,' i.e., in one pass rather than several passes. The intact D&E proceeds in one of two ways, depending on whether the fetus presents head first or feet first. The feet-first method is known as 'dilation and extraction' (D&X). D&X is ordinarily associated with the term 'partial birth abortion.' The District Court concluded that clear and convincing evidence established that Carhart's D&X procedure is superior to, and safer than, the D&E and other abortion procedures used during the relevant gestational period in the 10 to 20 cases a year that present to Carhart. Moreover, materials presented at trial emphasize the potential benefits of the D&X procedure in certain cases.==

>It's called a fetus. Try not to confuse it with your cousin

>Festus.

To argue that a baby who is seconds away from birth is not a human being - and is instead just some worthless, sub-human object that can be freely slaughtered in the most torturous and barbaric way possible - is about the most depraved and deranged argument in mainstream political discussion.

And the notion that the "right" of a woman to slaughter her baby in this fashion - or in any fashion - is some sort of indispensible liberty, without which we would cease to be a free society, is just moronic. The only "principle" remaining about which most Democrats have any real passion is their belief that nothing is more important to our liberty than ensuring that women will continue to be able to slaughter their babies.

I would pay anything to hear the reactions of the authors and ratifiers of the Constitution upon being told that the document which they created guaranteed a woman the right to kill her baby (or prohibited the state from allowing only opposite-sex, but not same-sex, marriages). I suspect that would come as quite a surprise to them.

The whimsical way in which the Left advocates and justifies the extermination of all sorts of innocent human life - from babies who are seconds away from being born to helpless, comatose women lying in hospitals whom many on the Left would like to starve to death - is endlessly astonishing. Anyone who dismissively waves away objections to PBA's with the line of "oh-that-thing-is-just-a-fetus," as Ignoto did, is as criminally sick as any inmate sitting in a jail cell.

>To argue that a baby who is seconds away from birth is not a

>human being - and is instead just some worthless, sub-human

>object that can be freely slaughtered in the most torturous

>and barbaric way possible - is about the most depraved and

>deranged argument in mainstream political discussion.

Your doddering Pope would no doubt agree with you. However, he is your Pope, not mine.

>And the notion that the "right" of a woman to slaughter her

>baby in this fashion - or in any fashion - is some sort of

>indispensible liberty, without which we would cease to be a

>free society, is just moronic.

Go tell it to the Supreme Court.

>I would pay anything to hear the reactions of the authors and

>ratifiers of the Constitution upon being told that the

>document which they created guaranteed a woman the right to

>kill her baby (or prohibited the state from allowing only

>opposite-sex, but not same-sex, marriages). I suspect that

>would come as quite a surprise to them.

I would pay anything to hear the reactions of the authors and ratifiers of the Constitution upon being told that women would be allowed to vote in another 140 years. I suspect that would come as quite a surprise to them.

>And the notion that the "right" of a woman to slaughter her

>baby in this fashion - or in any fashion - is some sort of

>indispensible liberty, without which we would cease to be a

>free society, is just moronic.

Doug, where is your proof that this procedure has ever been done at the whim of the mother? It is my understanding that it is rarely performed, and when it has been done, it was only when the mother's life was at risk...in other words, when giving birth would have killed her and probably the baby, too. Oh, I get it now. You have displayed a hatred for women on more than one occasion, so I can see why you would not respect a procedure that saves women's lives.

There's only one reason that this so-called "partial birth" (there is no such medical term) ban was enacted, and that is so it could be a stepping stone to overturning Roe v. Wade and making all abortions illegal. And you know that.

>Doug, where is your proof that this procedure has ever been

>done at the whim of the mother? It is my understanding that

>it is rarely performed, and when it has been done, it was only

>when the mother's life was at risk...

I posted here before an example - from NATION MAGAZINE no less - of a woman whose life wasn't in any danger but who nonetheless had her baby's skull crushed in moments before being born because it was going to be defective and she didn't want a defective baby. So she had it slaughtered on the grounds that it wasn't perfect enough to be considered human life worth protecting - just like the Nazis did in 1937 and 1938 when they emptied out the hospitals where cripples and other "sub-humans" were being cared for.

in other words, when

>giving birth would have killed her and probably the baby, too.

> Oh, I get it now. You have displayed a hatred for women on

>more than one occasion, so I can see why you would not respect

>a procedure that saves women's lives.

I am truly amazed when people make this argument. In the civilized world, one person does not have the right to kill another person simply because doing so is necessary for the killer to live.

If you have a failed liver and will die without a transplant, you don't have the right to kill me in order to take mine so that you can live.

If a woman needs a kidney transplant, she doesn't have the right to murder her baby in order to take its kidney so that she can live.

So how can anyone justify a woman causing her baby's skull to be smashed and collapsed and slaughtered on the ground that she needs to kill her baby in order to live?

What the fuck is the difference between: (a) a woman stabbing her one-day old baby to death in order to take its kidney so she can survive (which would be an act of murder that would send her to jail), and (b) a woman who has her baby's skull smashed until it's dead just moments prior to her baby's birth just so that she can survive (which, in our sick society, somehow isn't murder, but instead, is an act of "choice")? What is the moral difference bewteen those two acts?

>There's only one reason that this so-called "partial birth"

>(there is no such medical term) ban was enacted, and that is

>so it could be a stepping stone to overturning Roe v. Wade and

>making all abortions illegal. And you know that.

Guess what, Rick? The reason that so many people are against partial birth abortions isn't because they think it's a "stepping stone to overturing Roe v. Wade." They're against PBA's because they think that it's wrong for fully viable babies to have their skulls smashed in and their brains sucked out in order to kill them. People think that infanticide is wrong and repulsive. Is that really news to you?

And if it's true that a ban on PBA's will lead to the overturning of that constitutional abomination knowns as Roe v. Wade, then that's just another reason to be in favor of the ban. But speaking for me, personally, I don't need any other reasons to be against a procedure where viable babies are slaughtered in the most barbaric and violent way possible. The depravity and evil of the act speaks for itself.

>I would pay anything to hear the reactions of the authors and

>ratifiers of the Constitution upon being told that women would

>be allowed to vote in another 140 years. I suspect that would

>come as quite a surprise to them.

You just proved the point that you thought you were arguing against.

When people wanted to argue that woman should have the right to vote, they didn't find some federal judge to try to convince the judge to pretend that the Constitution guaranteed that which it plainly did NOT guarantee - i.e., the right to vote to women. Instead, they followed the democratic path and convinced their fellow citizens and their elected representatives that this was a good idea, and so the Constitution was amended in order to provide for thie right.

By stark and critical contrast, abortion activists and gay marriage activists have decided not to bother with democracy and not to try to convince their fellow citizens of the rightness of their positions. Instead, they are trying to find judges (or in the case of aboritonists, have found judges) who pretend that rights which are plainly NOT guaranteeed by the Constitution as it exists - such as the right to slaughter your baby or the right to marry someone of the same sex -- were somehow secertely encoded into the Constitution when it was enacted.

Thus, the reaction of the Constitution's authors and ratifiers to a woman's right to vote is irrelevant, since nobody had the temerity and intellectual dishonesty to claim that that rigtht was embedded in the Constitution. That's why an amendent was needed. Those who ratified the Constitution knew they were imperfect, which is why the provided for a process for that document to be amended.

That the Constitutional authors and ratifiers would react with great shock to learn that their document somehow guaranteed the right of abortion and gay marriage proves just how false and dishonest it is for unelected judges to impose these "rights" - based on nothing but their own personal viewpoints - on the majority of citizens who don't agree with them.

Surely even you see this distinction now.

One last thing, while I have you: the cartoon caricature of an insufferable, mediocre liberal cliche is someone who mindlessly spouts every liberal orthodoxy and who oozes juvenile hostility towards all symbols of civil and religious authority, while thinking he's so sophisticated and smart and intellectual for wallowing in this pitiful bohemian plaitutde, and who sneers at anyone who doesn't adopt his simplitic political world-view as being stupid, unsophisticated and provincial.

That cartoon is why the term "liberal" is poiltical poison and why there is such universal scorn for those who embody this caricature.

Every post you write - and I mean every post - is a vivid illustration of this sickness.

Just sayin'.

>But speaking for me, personally, I don't need any other

>reasons to be against a procedure

Of course not, because you'll never get a woman pregnant or get pregnant yourself. Kind of like Bush and Cheney sending kids off to war when they themselves weaseled out of it.

>I am truly amazed when people make this argument. In the

>civilized world, one person does not have the right to kill

>another person simply because doing so is necessary for the

>killer to live.

Dougie:

Why would you be amazed at such an argument? That argument is essentially the same rationale the Bush Administration used in launching a preemptive war against Iraq......we should kill them because they might be a threat to us. Of course, no one has ever accused the Bush Administration of moral or logical consistency.

OK-

My turn. I have always supported a woman's right to choose in the cas of more traditional abortions.

However, in late term abortions, I would support the proceedure only where natural birth would likely result in death to the mother and/or the fetus.

While it can truly be argued that a 12 week fetus is not a true baby, a late term fetus is indeed a true baby. Many, many premature babies have been able to live wonderful lives.

If I were straight however, I would never abort any child of mine. I love children and would want to do all I can to make that child's life extraordinary.

>Why would you be amazed at such an argument? That argument is

>essentially the same rationale the Bush Administration used in

>launching a preemptive war against Iraq......we should kill

>them because they might be a threat to us. Of course, no one

>has ever accused the Bush Administration of moral or logical

>consistency.

Bucky - Please tell me that you recognize a distinction between: (a) killing someone who is planning to kill you and (b) killing an innocent human baby just in order to improve or preserve your life.

I don't think I'll be able to sleep very well tonight if I believe that there are people who are walking free on our streets who see no distinction between these two acts.

>>But speaking for me, personally, I don't need any other

>>reasons to be against a procedure

>

>Of course not, because you'll never get a woman pregnant or

>get pregnant yourself.

Rick - it is a real sign of psychological sickness to look for hidden motives as to why someone thinks it's wrong to crush an innocent baby's skull in order to kill it.

People, including me, are against Partial Birth Abortions for one very simple reason: it's wrong, depraved, criminal and evil to murder a baby moments before it's to be born.

It's always surreal to have to point that out to someone who denies that most self-evident moral truth.

Try just saying this once, Rick: It is wrong to take a needle and stick it into a baby's skull and collapse the skull in order to slaughter it.

The real seflishness is to be found in what you whine about and what you don't. You don't give a fuck that babies are being slaughtered by their selfish, criminal parents because that isn't going to happen to you - so you don't give a fuck. You'll whine about how you can't marry - but babies being slaughtered by having their skulls smashed - that doesn't phase you at all.

Kind of like Bush and Cheney sending

>kids off to war when they themselves weaseled out of it.

Is that kind of like Bill Clinton doing the same thing - or Howard Dean having promised to do that when he wanted to be President?

"If I were straight however, I would never abort any child of mine. I love children and would want to do all I can to make that child's life extraordinary."

Since when does one have to be "straight" to do all one can do to make a child's life extraordinary? What about gay adoption? What about working with abused, underprivileged children? What about working with gay youth via the SMYAL programs, or any social program that adults can avail to help children? Or are you implying that reaching out to and helping children, is only limited to one's biological children?

“So how can anyone justify a woman causing her baby's skull to be smashed and collapsed and slaughtered on the ground that she needs to kill her baby in order to live?

Maybe because survival is the strongest instinct of any living being, whether that being

is a human female, a raccoon, or even a tree? Why else would a trapped animal gnaw off its own limb to escape? Why would a man trapped under a boulder saw off his own leg with a knife? Why would men in a plane crash in the Andes eat the dead passengers?

”What the fuck is the difference between: (a) a woman stabbing her one-day old baby to death in order to take its kidney so she can survive (which would be an act of murder that would send her to jail), and (b) a woman who has her baby's skull smashed until it's dead just moments prior to her baby's birth just so that she can survive (which, in our sick society, somehow isn't murder, but instead, is an act of "choice")? What is the moral difference bewteen those two acts? So how can anyone justify a woman causing her baby's skull to be smashed and collapsed and slaughtered on the ground that she needs to kill her baby in order to live?”

Now this analogy, imo, is at best “really stretching it”. Killing a living human being to harvest an organ for survival can’t possibly be compared to aborting a baby whose life will not even exist without the woman giving birth first. And if giving such birth will result in the death of the mother, then only that mother to be, has the right to decide if she is willing to die to accomplish that, period.

>

>Bucky - Please tell me that you recognize a distinction

>between: (a) killing someone who is planning to kill you and

>(b) killing an innocent human baby just in order to improve or

>preserve your life.

Provide some evidence that the Iraqis intended to kill me, and I might buy your lame argument. Of course, you have none, so once again you're just pissing in the wind.

>

>I don't think I'll be able to sleep very well tonight if I

>believe that there are people who are walking free on our

>streets who see no distinction between these two acts.

And I don't think I'll be able to sleep very well tonight knowing that there are smug, self-righteous folks like you who are more than willing to force their bible-thumping morality on others, when they don't have to live with the consequences of those decisions. As a man, you are in the biological position of placing a woman in the moral dilemma making a decision to have or not have an abortion, but as a man, you are biologically exempt from having to deal with what a woman faces. Of course, your position is a classic example of those who somehow think it is their right to decide how others should live when they have no real stake in the outcome of things. Have you ever thought of joining the Taliban?