Unheard argument for civil unions

There’s a “gay marriage” amendment up for a vote in our state this November. Based on previous posts in this blog, one might expect that I’d be for defining marriage to be between a man and a woman. However, one argument, which I haven’t heard bandied about threatens to convince me that “gay marriage” is a good idea.

I started considering the rates of sexually transmitted diseases especially HIV in the homosexual population. I came across one study which indicated that urban men, who have sex with men, have an infection rate of 17%. This is well above the level for heterosexuals. So, in order to prevent the spread of HIV, decrease the long-term burden to our health care system, promoting monogamous behavior among homosexuals might be a good idea. Perhaps, tax benefits for gays to marry and strict penalties for divorce might help promote this behavior.

Just a thought. I wonder why we haven’t heard it elsewhere.

Protecting the pages or the ports

In all the contraversy surrounding one sick man and his dealings with a handful of pages, another piece of Congressional news happened to slip below the collective radar.

In committee, provisions which would have required criminal background checks for port workers disappeared from a port security bill. Based on this revised bill, there will be no statutory requirement to see if whoever is unloading the containers has been a smuggler, drug dealer, or murderer.

If either party were really concerned about “protecting our children” or “national security” this wouldn’t have happened. One man and his dealings with a few kids is sad; the consequences of failure in the ports could be disasterous for millions.

Why don’t we get our priorities straight instead of using e actions of an indefensible man to jockey for political advantage or trying to prevent perceived political disadvantage from having that man in your party.

That should be common sense.

Election revelations

I’ve made a momentous decision. The barrage of advertising and talking heads have finally gotten to me.

* I am not re-electing George Bush in 2006, and nothing is going to change my mind.

* I don’t think I’ll vote for that Foley guy, especially since he’s not in my district.

As for the other races, I guess I’ll have to decide them on their own merits.