I read that a little differently, Nico

[elfs]

Over on thinkprogress.org, Nico has an interesting article in which he illustrates the Department of Health and Human Services guidelines for the submission of grants, two of which state (a) that "abstinence is voluntarily choosing not to engage in sexual practices until marriage", and (b) "the term 'marriage' must be defined as 'only a legal union between one man and one woman as a husband and wife'".

Nico says that he believes this means that, according to the Bush administration, gays should never engage in sex. However, I read it that if one never intends to get married then one cannot be abstinent, since there is no period in one's life that can accurately described as "before marriage." The Bush Administration is teaching gay kids to not bother holding back at all since, after all, what they are is already forbidden.

Gods, I don't know if I can stand two more years of this crap.

Comments

[elfs.livejournal.com]

I think that's the objective here. We're mostly addressing those officials who are advocating the involvement of the state into our private lives. Much like the young man who, after Scalia said the government had the right to prosecute people who committed sodomy, had the audacity to ask (http://www.poormojo.org/pmjadaily/archives/002909.php), "Judge Scalia, do you sodomize your wife?" He was immediately escorted from the room by security.

[mothball-07.livejournal.com]

Ah.. I support pointing out hypocrisy. I read any time an unmarried administration professional holds a press conference as suggesting a broader scope of doing this by default, rather than with precision.