OMG A veto? Oh, of COURSE he's vetoing a GOOD bill

Yesterday, the Senate passed a bill that would increase funding for stem cell research. In case you don't know, stem cells are these amazing cells inside embryos that form into any other kind of cell the body needs while it's developing, creating entire organs when need be. These cells are also being used around the world to help find cures for thousands of dibilitating diseases. This sounds absolutely amazing, right?

As it turns out, president bush-league as decided to veto his first piece of legislation EVER today. Guess what that is?

It passed 63-37, which means, for now, it's 4 votes shy of being able to override a veto. However, when it comes back, they can reintroduce the bill, and HOPEFULLY get those last 4 votes. In a latest poll, almost 70% of americans support stem-cell research, realizing all the good it can do. The bill also enjoyed much bi-partisan support, obviously.

Then, of course, there are the idiots (*cough* bush*cough*) who, as his mouthpiece tony snow said, "believes stem-cell research is murder". Perhaps he should try, like, reading into the science a little bit, and not just jumping to conclusions. The embryos used, 400,000 I believe, are about to be discarded as medical waste, and destroyed forever. So why NOT put them to use curing diseases and helping people? It isn't murder, since those emryos will never become people anyway, but the president and apparently 37 senators don't see it that way. The choice isn't between ending life and doing research; the choice is between throwing away genetic material, or using it to save, potentially, millions of lives. It's really that simple.

No wonder bush doesn't understand. Somebody draw that guy a picture or something. Maybe if you put it in a Blues Clues episode he'll get it.

All men are created equal (but only if they're straight)

I read an article I found on a friend's site debating gay marriage, only this time the fanatics tried to argue that it wasn't just immoral, it should be ILLEGAL because that's what the law requires. Here's the article.

So the gist of the whole legality argument is that the role of the law is to teach, and what it needs to teach is that families must have a mommy and a daddy. Therefore, anything that doesn't promote that concept of family should be illegal. Just amazing.

For starters, the whole "Perfect family unit" is absolutely bogus. Great men and women have come from single-parent families, or even orphanages, and monsters have been raised in prototypical mommy and daddy families. So remind me again why homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to be married? And considering people are allowed to be artificially insiminated or adopt children, what does marriage have to do with raising children anyway? What STUPID FUCKING logic.

Here's what else these homophobes think;

"The problem with a pair of homosexuals raising children isn't that they couldn't love them; it's that Moms and Dads are different, and children need one of each. Having 'two Moms' or 'two Dads' just isn't the same. This is common sense, but a large and growing body of sociological research backs it up."1

First, their reference to the "growing body of sociological research" is junk; it's one book referring to diminished likelyness of teen pregnancy when a girl has a father. One book with a very narrow focus. Saying that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry because being raised by two mommies or two daddies is different than being raised by a mommy and a daddy is obsurd as well. By that logic, we should take away the children of all single parents because it "just isn't the same". None of this even matters though, because marriage isn't defined by procreation; it isn't a requirement, and many married couples don't even have children. It's just the latest flavor-of-the-week topic to pick on. Except yet again, it's absolutely flawed. First it was because it's immoral; now, we don't need to focus on that because based on someone's view of what marriage is about, homosexuals can't meet the obligation.

The problem with the whole argument is that they focus on the law, yet ignore the constitution. The goal of the Bill of Rights is to make sure everyone is equal; we are all born equal. Some people are born with different sexual preferences, but the equality MUST remain. Remember Segregation? The whole "Seperate yet Equal" argument didn't hold up then, either. Everyone MUST have the same rights and opportunities for our democracy to remain free, and it's people to remain equal. If you think that people shouldn't be equal based on your religious beliefs, move to Iran; just hope it isn't YOU who is the oppressed, because you probably wouldn't appreciate the irony.