Sunday, January 18, 2004

It is good to see that President W. wants to spend one and a half billion dollars for "programs trying to increase marriage rates in poor neighborhoods. "The president loves to do that sort of thing in the inner city with black churches, and he's very good at it," a White House aide said." I'm sure they'll love him there. After all, he's giving them a helping hand, just like the Australians are lovingly acting to control wild unchecked population growth in their eucalyptus ghettoes.

Of course, there are leftist doubters in one of our most socialist enclaves. "The state's $5 million abstinence-only sex education program isn't working, according to an independent study commissioned by the Minnesota Department of Health. The study found that sexual activity among junior high kids at three schools where the program was taught doubled between 2001 and 2002 -- a pattern similar to that exhibited by kids statewide -- and that the number who said they would probably have sex during high school nearly doubled, as well." You know what really happened. Those hopelessly liberal Scandinavian bureaucrats probably sabotaged the abstinence program with comments like "Don't try this position from the Kama Sutra, because it delays orgasms and stretches them over a longer period, so that you might get hooked on that evil sex." Could this have possibly been a fair test?

And the need is urgent. Senator Santorum's penultimate warning is already coming true. Not "man on dog" yet, but legal group marriage. "A civil rights attorney challenged Utah's ban on polygamy Monday, citing a Supreme Court ruling that struck down a Texas sodomy law. The lawsuit says Salt Lake County clerks refused a marriage license to a couple because the man was already married to another woman, who had consented to the additional marriage. In denying the marriage license, the county violated the plaintiffs' First Amendment right to practice their religion, attorney Brian Barnard said in the complaint ." They are always calling for polygamy, but never for polyandry. Why aren't the liberal feminists up in arms over this call for sexist unfair treatment? Where's their consistency?

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Weblog Commenting by HaloScan.com