Not too early is it? 2008 Presidential fun

[innerSpaceman]

Yes, perhaps Bush Junior did not sign (m)any laws in that regard (or the even more pertinent and imperial Signing Statements), but he did succeed in prohibiting federal funding of viable stem cell research, and he's campaigned while in office against gay marriage rights and women's reproductive rights. And I think he should, if he can't stomach rights for Americans, stay out of it.

As is often the case around here, Alex said it best:

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

In my view, a president, when in such a situation has only one reasonable option: punt it to congress.

"Because of my religious and moral views I can not endorse federal funding of that nature. However, this is an issue still very much up for debate and reasonable people can disagree. Therefore, I ask Congress to tackle this issue and try to find the will of the people. While I personally stand on one side of this issue, I will accept their answer for that is their role."

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

To the extent that our government forces religious morality on the population of our country, that is the role of Congress (where it can be debated, minority voices can be more prominently heard, and the sentiment of constituencies are more directly felt) and not the president.

But no, Bush works actively to deny rights to gay AMERICANS, to deny rights to female AMERICANS and to dampen treatment potential for seriously ill AMERICANS.

In the above cases, granting those rights and treatments would harm fetal AMERICANS (re abortion), zygote AMERICANS (re stem cells), and absolutely no AMERICANS (re gay marriage).

So if a man is President of the Unted States and his moral convictions come down on the side against Americans (but purportedly for his jealous hate-filled God) .... yes, he should stay the fvck out of it, and leave the matters to the deliberations of Congress.