The continued reference to Mary Cheney by the Dems

I'm just so confused about how you guys think this works.

You watch a TV show with your kid. There's this kid making maple sugar. The kid has a couple of moms.

...and?

What earth-shattering thing happens?

The kid asks, "why are there two moms?", maybe. You say, "well, there are lots of different kinds of families."

That might be the end of it.

The kid might say, "I thought only a man and a lady can get married." You say, "most of the time, that happens. Sometimes two men or two ladies get married."

That might be the end of it.

The kid might say, "Why? Why would two ladies get married?" You say, "because they love each other."....

Following on her protest last week against a PBS cartoon character's visit to Vermont, where he encounters a lesbian couple, Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings announced at a press conference today that her department was not engaged in a "trivial" or "merely symbolic" campaign against a children's television program.

"Buster Bunny is not the problem," said Spellings. "Though I note with some dismay that Buster travels the country accompanied only by his father because his parents are divorced, and I do not see why our children should be subjected to yet another glamorization of the divorce lifestyle. No, the problem is Vermont itself. It is Vermont to which I object. Christians everywhere should be outraged that it was represented in this children's program."

Spellings proceeded to unveil the Department of Education's proposed map of the "forty-nine God-fearing United States," with the "territory of Vermont" represented by a lightly shaded area. "Until such time as Vermont sees fit to rejoin the rest of the nation in condemning gay ?'civil unions,'" Spellings said, reading from a prepared statement, "we propose that Vermont be visually expelled from the heterosexual Union. We further propose that the nation's students be instructed that Vermont is no longer a real state, and that they will not be responsible for remembering its capital, which is not only obscure but French-sounding as well."

Robert Knight, director of the Culture and Family Institute of Concerned Women for America, the nation's largest public policy women's organization, had warm praise for Spellings. "Parents don't want their children homosexualized in the name of ?'education,'" Knight said. "Mrs. Spellings has given notice that left-wing lobbies will have to find other ways to peddle their pansexual propaganda. Let's hope that other leaders in federal and state agencies find a backbone thanks to her courageous example."

Focus on the Family director James Dobson also endorsed Spellings' decision, saying that "it kills a lot of birds with one stone" by taking a strong stand against gay rights while eliminating "three or four really bothersome figures" from American politics. "We've long known that ?'Vermont' is basically just a code word for the gay agenda," Dobson said, "and it's about time our nation's leaders eliminated Vermont, just as we at Focus on the Family have eliminated other homosexual code words like ?'diversity' and ?'tolerance.'"

"But I'm not sure about letting Buster Bunny off quite so easily," Dobson added, remarking that "Postcards from Buster" is a spinoff from the popular "Arthur" series, and that "Arthur," too, has been active in promoting homosexuality. "The whole show just looks queer to me," Dobson said. "We can't even tell exactly what kind of animal Arthur is supposed to be, never mind that other strange character Binky. If that's not some kind of queer-identity thing going on there, I don't know one when I see one! And don't get me started on that reggae-flavored theme song, which might as well come right out and say ?'smoke marijuana, boys and girls, if you want to be ?'cool.' In every respect, ?'Arthur' is the poster child for the depravity of public television."

HOUSTON (Reuters) - Abstinence-only sex education programs, a major plank in President Bush's education plan, have had no impact on teenagers' behavior in his home state of Texas, according to a new study.
Despite taking courses emphasizing abstinence-only themes, teenagers in 29 high schools became increasingly sexually active, mirroring the overall state trends, according to the study conducted by researchers at Texas A&M University.

"We didn't see any strong indications that these programs were having an impact in the direction desired," said Dr. Buzz Pruitt, who directed the study.

The study was delivered to the Texas Department of State Health Services, which commissioned it.

The federal government is expected to spend about $130 million to fund programs advocating abstinence in 2005, despite a lack of evidence that they work, Pruitt said.

"The jury is still out, but most of what we've discovered shows there's no evidence the large amount of money spent is having an effect," he said.

The study showed about 23 percent of ninth-grade girls, typically 13 to 14 years old, had sex before receiving abstinence education. After taking the course, 29 percent of the girls in the same group said they had had sex.

Boys in the tenth grade, about 14 to 15 years old, showed a more marked increase, from 24 percent to 39 percent, after receiving abstinence education.

Abstinence-only programs, which have sprouted up in schools across the nation, cannot offer information about birth control and must promote the social and health benefits of abstaining from sex.

Pruitt said he hoped the study would bring about changes in the content of abstinence-promoting programs.

"These programs seem to be much more concerned about politics than kids, and we need to get over that," he said.

One program technique has been to try to bolster students' self-esteem, based on the theory that self-confident teenagers would not have sex. Those programs, which sometimes do not even mention sex, have shown no effect, Pruitt said.

Other programs that focus on the social norms and expectations appear to be more successful, he said.

"These programs seem to be much more concerned about politics than kids, and we need to get over that," he said.

Do I think homosexuality is a deviance? Of course it is. If it wasn't, there would be a gene pool for it and there isn't. Would most gay people choose to be gay had they a choice? Most that I know would not.

Those of you who think Lash or JW or I think there is something wrong with being homosexual are simply wrong. Or at least I can speak for myself there, and I haen't picked up the least sense of homophobia in the other two ladies.

Do I think homosexuality is a deviance? Of course it is.

The thing is, I think if that cartoon was teaching a clear message that the best families have a mommy and a daddy who work and play and go to church together and that's what you should strive for, many of you so adamently defending the program would likely want it taken off the air.