Dodd Flips on Gay Marriage

Per Politico, embattled U.S. Senator Chris Dodd announced that he has changed his position on gay marriage today on his Senate website:

Public officials aren’t supposed to change their minds. But I firmly believe that it’s important to keep learning. Last week, while I was in Connecticut meeting with members of the gay and lesbian community from across the state, I had the opportunity to tell them what I’ve learned about marriage, and about equality.

As for the politics of the move, the effort to remove potential black marks from Dodd’s liberal scorecard marches on.  Liberals have one less issue to grumble about with Dodd, and left-leaning gay rights’ groups in DC can now write more PAC checks in good conscience. 

The issue doesn’t add much ideological daylight between himself and Republican Rob Simmons, who at this point seems most likely to be Dodd’s opponent in 2010.  Simmons has long been a supporter of gay marriage and was regularly endorsed by the Log Cabin Republicans during his Congressional career.

In terms of the issue, Dodd’s view is now similiar to many people under the age of 40.  According to a New York Times article from late April, 57% of those polled under the age of 40 were supportive of gay marriage.  Keeping the government out of the business of regulating marriage is a fine step for Dodd and good for society. 

Unfortunately we’ve had no such luck in getting Dodd to keep the government out of the business of auto manufacturing, health care, housing, or banking.

Advertisements

41 responses to “Dodd Flips on Gay Marriage

  1. Simmons has long been a supporter of gay marriage…

    This should make for an interesting primary fight.

  2. AndersonScooper

    Heath,

    Despite your bold headlines, this isn’t a “flip-flop” for Dodd, who has always been on the side of gay rights.

    Sure, Chris has finally come on board for gay marriage, but he would have been there a long time ago, — except for the GOP’s constant use of gay rights as a wedge issue.

    So the storyline here isn’t Dodd. It’s the FIC’s friend Sam Caligiuri and their anti-gay crusade.

  3. The bigger question is whether Simmons will feel the need to “flip-flop” away from stuff like this in order to calm the rabid GOP culture warriors who will inevitably make up a large part of the primary electorate:

    I oppose bans on gay marriage because I believe state legislatures should be free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements for gay couples, without interference from the federal government. In fact, had such interference been in place, it could have prevented Connecticut from becoming only the second state to allow homosexual couples to enter into civil unions, allowing them to receive virtually all of the benefits of marriage. In short, banning gay marriages would weaken our families rather than strengthen them.

  4. The bigger question is whether Simmons will feel the need to “flip-flop” away from stuff like this in order to calm the rabid GOP culture warriors who will inevitably make up a large part of the primary electorate:

    Rob’s comment on this stuff has always been the same – “fiscal conservative because it’s your money and social moderate because it is your life.” Any Second CD voter that has been in the same room with Rob can vouch for that.

  5. Despite your bold headlines, this isn’t a “flip-flop” for Dodd, who has always been on the side of gay rights.

    So the storyline here isn’t Dodd. It’s the FIC’s friend Sam Caligiuri and their anti-gay crusade.

    These two points are completely inconsistent. It is entirely possible for one to have no problem with gay people, but have a problem with gay marriage. Sam Caligiuri’s position is the same as Barack Obama’s, and was the same as Chris Dodd’s — until Dodd saw “the light.”

  6. except for the GOP’s constant use of gay rights as a wedge issue.

    Considering about half the Republicans in the state don’t care if someone wants to marry their goldfish and the rest tend to agree with Obama on the gay marriage issue; it seems to me that it’s you and in here on CTLP only you that seeks to make it an issue at all.

  7. AndersonScooper

    So ACR, you take no responsibility for your national party? Here you go, from the Official 2008 GOP Platform, that tiny bit where you guys make banning gay marriage part of your declared agenda.

    Preserving Traditional Marriage

    Because our children’s future is best preserved within the traditional understanding of marriage, we call for a constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage as a union of a man and a woman, so that judges cannot make other arrangements equivalent to it. In the absence of a national amendment, we support the right of the people of the various states to affirm traditional marriage through state initiatives.

    Republicans recognize the importance of having in the home a father and a mother who are married. The two-parent family still provides the best environment of stability, discipline, responsibility, and character. Children in homes without fathers are more likely to commit a crime, drop out of school, become violent, become teen parents, use illegal drugs, become mired in poverty, or have emotional or behavioral problems. We support the courageous efforts of single-parent families to provide a stable home for their children. Children are our nation’s most precious resource. We also salute and support the efforts of foster and adoptive families.

    Republicans have been at the forefront of protecting traditional marriage laws, both in the states and in Congress. A Republican Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act, affirming the right of states not to recognize same-sex “marriages” licensed in other states. Unbelievably, the Democratic Party has now pledged to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which would subject every state to the redefinition of marriage by a judge without ever allowing the people to vote on the matter. We also urge Congress to use its Article III, Section 2 power to prevent activist federal judges from imposing upon the rest of the nation the judicial activism in Massachusetts and California. We also encourage states to review their marriage and divorce laws in order to strengthen marriage.

    As the family is our basic unit of society, we oppose initiatives to erode parental rights.

  8. AndersonScooper

    Hey Dobbs, the question isn’t whether Caligiuri has a problem with gay people, it’s rather whether gays, (and those of us tolerant of gay couples), are going to have a problem with Sam and his far-right views on social issues.

    The State Senator from Waterbury actually wants Roe v. Wade over-turned! How is that going to play?

    Me, I want to ask him if believes contraception is wrong. My guess is that he’ll say the “timing method” is okay, but that if married couples don’t want to take their chances, they ought not to have sex.

    Freak-y!

  9. AndersonScooper

    From Daily Kos diarist ElsieElsie, more on this, with a question of where all our CT legislators stand on the repeal of DOMA (the “defense” of marriage act).

    Pam Spaulding has asked the important follow-up question: what effect does this shift have on what Senator Dodd will do with regard to repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell”, the Uniting American Families Act, and support for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act? It would be great to have another strong voice for equality regarding ALL of those legislation pieces.

    I’d also like to see what Senator Lieberman has to say in response.

  10. Hey Dobbs, the question isn’t whether Caligiuri has a problem with gay people, it’s rather whether gays, (and those of us tolerant of gay couples), are going to have a problem with Sam and his far-right views on social issues.

    The State Senator from Waterbury actually wants Roe v. Wade over-turned! How is that going to play?

    Now it’s clear that you’re just not paying attention. For starters, forget about Roe, and take a look at Planned Parenthood v. Casey. In that case, the Supreme Court whittled down Roe’s holding that the right to first-trimester abortions was grounded in the Fourteenth Amendment. Planned Parenthood held that the woman’s rights outweighed the fetus’s at the point of viability — and not some arbitrary point on the calendar.

    So, two things are clear: one, don’t get all excited that the Supreme Court might reduce Roe, because it has already done so. Two, over history, the point of viability has moved farther and farther toward the point of conception: it was around 28 weeks at the time Roe was decided, and about 22 weeks when Casey was decided. Connecticut’s abortion law permits abortions up to the point of viability, so the availability of abortions in this state shrinks as technology improves.

    Finally, Sam’s views on gay marriage and abortion are hardly “far-right.” Most of the country believes that gays should not have the right to marry, and most of the country is now “pro-life.” Sam’s views will be a bigger issue in the primary than if he wins the nomination.

  11. The State Senator from Waterbury actually wants Roe v. Wade over-turned! How is that going to play?

    I’m Pro-Choice and I want it overturned as it sets a poor precedent.

    Ever bother to read it?

  12. So ACR, you take no responsibility for your national party? Here you go, from the Official 2008 GOP Platform, that tiny bit where you guys make banning gay marriage part of your declared agenda.

    You’re correct.

    How embarrassing for us to agree with Obama and most other Democrats on some issue.

    Clearly we should have disagreed if no other reason than to argue with the left.

  13. How embarrassing for us to agree with Obama and most other Democrats on some issue.

    My view on gay marriage matches that of this crazy right-winger.

  14. AndersonScooper

    Dobbs, please don’t try to pretend Sam Caligiuri’s whacked-out social views are mainstream, because they’re not.

    His FIC-endorsed views might play well in Waterbury, but they’re out of touch with the rest of Connecticut. Just ask Jodi Rell!

  15. Bruce Rubenstein

    Over the last decade many millions have changed their minds and now support gay marriage…Dodd isnt alone here nor do I want a politician so static that he/she never changes his/her positions, even in the face of changing exigent circumstances. No politician worth their salt clings to positions when the facts change or when their philosophical underpinnings change.

  16. Dobbs, please don’t try to pretend Sam Caligiuri’s whacked-out social views are mainstream, because they’re not.

    Are Obama’s whacked-out social views mainstream? I agree with him wholeheartedly: I think that marriage should be between a man and a woman, but that there should be no federal Constitutional amendment to this effect because marriage is a state-law issue.

    If I cared enough about Kerrigan (and really, I couldn’t care less), I could always move.

  17. AndersonScooper

    And Sam Caligiuri was for civil unions?

    I can’t wait to ask him if he agrees with the FIC crowd and believes that homosexuality is a sin which can be cured.

  18. ACR: I’m Pro-Choice and I want it overturned as it sets a poor precedent.

    I’ve heard you make that claim several times, but I don’t recall you ever saying something like this:

    “I support Congress legislating safe and legal abortion laws so that Roe v. Wade is rendered superfluous.”

    That way, women’s rights are protected nationally. If you’re truly pro-Choice, then you obviously agree with that.

  19. Dobbs, please don’t try to pretend Sam Caligiuri’s whacked-out social views are mainstream, because they’re not.

    By the way, Ed, every single place where gay marriage has been placed on the ballot, it has been rejected — every single time.

    Tell me again how Obama’s and Caligiuri’s views on gay marriage aren’t “mainstream”…

  20. AndersonScooper

    Caligiuri is anti-Civil Unions Dobbs. Why are you being so dishonest in pretending there is an equivalency between the FIC guy and our President?

  21. “I support Congress legislating safe and legal abortion laws so that Roe v. Wade is rendered superfluous.”

    I wouldn’t.

    What part of “authentic republican” don’t you get?
    Why would I of all people, support a large over-controlling federal government?

    Seeing as abortion isn’t mentioned in the Constitution, that would be inconsistent on my part.
    Ideological inconsistency is a most perverse form of prevarication.

    There was safe legal pregnancy termination in the US prior to Roe and it was brought here by a Republican Governor, Nelson Rockefeller.
    Goldwater was pro-choice as well.

    Late term is another issue.

    Personally, I’d rather see privately funded Norplants, privately funded bonus-bucks for vasectomies, etc.

    Some of the right wouldn’t like that any better than they do abortion; but it would save taxpayers a mint.

  22. Caligiuri is anti-Civil Unions Dobbs. Why are you being so dishonest in pretending there is an equivalency between the FIC guy and our President?

    On gay marriage, their views are identical. Who knows what Obama wants, and is it really relevant? Marriage laws are state issues, and Obama knows this.

    Please provide me with an ounce of proof that Obama’s and Caligiuri’s views on gay marriage deviate from the mainstream. Thanks.

  23. Who knows what Obama wants, and is it really relevant? Marriage laws are state issues, and Obama knows this.

    That should have read, “who knows what Obama thinks about civil unions.”

  24. What part of “authentic republican” don’t you get?
    Why would I of all people, support a large over-controlling federal government?

    But making Choice illegal is exactly the definition of an over-controlling gov’t.

    Late term is another issue.

    Not judging by the hysterical, GOP-led charge to “protect the life” of Terri Schiavo. Who was deemed completely and irrevocably brain dead and had been for years.

    Can you imagine the terrible consequences of forcing women to give birth when the fetus is found to be either non-viable or completely crippled by birth defects during the late-term? That is, if the women survive the birth…

    Abortion is a heart-breaking decision for many women, but if we start legislating the kinds of abortions allowed, you know that the Christian religious extremists in this country will fight tooth and nail to force women to birth the fetus, regardless of the survivability or viability of the result.

    Personally, I’d rather see privately funded Norplants, privately funded bonus-bucks for vasectomies, etc.

    Ha ha ha! Good luck selling THAT one to the Religious Right! Don’t you get it? Sex is bad bad bad, and we shouldn’t allow anyone to have it! Sarah Palin got it right, “abstinence only” is the way to go! Anything else is a terrible sin and will probably cause the total destruction of our society!

    /sarcasm mode off

  25. But making Choice illegal is exactly the definition of an over-controlling gov’t.

    Reversing Roe would not make abortion illegal.

    Abortion is a heart-breaking decision for many women, but if we start legislating the kinds of abortions allowed, you know that the Christian religious extremists in this country will fight tooth and nail to force women to birth the fetus, regardless of the survivability or viability of the result.

    Define “Christian religious extremists“.
    As an attending and observant, tithing member of an Evangelical church; I don’t think you know what you’re talking about.
    Our denomination doesn’t even take a stand on abortion aside from a hand-wringing statement declaring what a shame it is.
    No where does it call for a legal ban.

  26. AndersonScooper

    Okay ACR, say we follow your Republican lead, and appoint judges to the SCOTUS who will over-turn Roe v. Wade.

    What happens next?

    Your logic is as messed-up as Dobbs’.

    Honestly, we’ve got one thread where it’s asserted that Caligiuri and Obama have the same views on homosexual rights, and this one where you argue that Roe v. Wade isn’t essential to continuing an American woman’s right to choose.

    Sheesh.

  27. Okay ACR, say we follow your Republican lead, and appoint judges to the SCOTUS who will over-turn Roe v. Wade.

    Take a look at who nominated the judges in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Actually, take a look at Casey. You’d grow infinitely smarter as to the inherent complexities of the issue.

    Your logic is as messed-up as Dobbs’.

    I’m not sure you know my logic. I’m not sure you know your own logic. Anyway, my point is (and has been) that the decision as to when a woman’s rights override those of the fetus inside her (who has no access to the political system and cannot vote) is an intrinsically fact-based question with a different answer for every single fetus, and certainly not one that can be answered with 100% accuracy by nine old people in black robes.

    Reversing Roe would not make abortion illegal.

    This is why ACR is the smartest guy in the room: reversing Roe or Casey would not make abortion illegal, but would leave it up to the states to decide. Connecticut’s law bars abortions after the point of viability, i.e., when a fetus could survive on its own, outside the womb. That statute wouldn’t be repealed regardless of what the Supreme Court decides.

    Honestly, we’ve got one thread where it’s asserted that Caligiuri and Obama have the same views on homosexual rights, and this one where you argue that Roe v. Wade isn’t essential to continuing an American woman’s right to choose.

    Nowhere have I suggested that Caligiuri and Obama have the same view on “homosexual rights.” Each man, however, has said that he believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

    You seem to be having a hard time with reality, TrueBlue. Do you think you’ll ever get around to telling me how Obama’s and Caligiuri’s views on gay marriage aren’t mainstream? You’ve been ducking and running that issue — which has been decided on the ballot at every single opportunity, in every single state — for a day now.

  28. Weicker Liker

    I thought Heath was the smartest guy in the room????

  29. Anyway, my point is (and has been) that the decision as to when a woman’s rights override those of the fetus inside her (who has no access to the political system and cannot vote) is an intrinsically fact-based question with a different answer for every single fetus, and certainly not one that can be answered with 100% accuracy by nine old people in black robes.

    It has no access to the political system because the law does not recognize a fetus as a person. I think there was one state that considered a ballot measure to make fertilized eggs citizens, which if strange is at least logical.

    I’m struggling with your language a little, Jack, but while I could argue with the “fact based question” formula that you offer, let me ask a question instead: at the point of medical viability, is a woman obligated to continue carrying the fetus to term, or is she merely required to not abort it? If you grant a fetus “personhood” and establish a right of government protection at that stage, should the woman have the option of simply giving it up for adoption right then and there?

    It seems that if both woman and child have legal rights at the point of week 22, it would be reasonable for the woman to be legally separated from the child she does not wish to carry by either a c-section or induced delivery.

    As soon as a fetus becomes a legally discrete individual, its rights are increased, but I don’t see that it follows that the woman’s rights should therefore be constrained.

  30. As soon as a fetus becomes a legally discrete individual, its rights are increased, but I don’t see that it follows that the woman’s rights should therefore be constrained.

    Put a different way, if a post-viability fetus is a ward of the state, can the government compel an individual to serve as its legal guardian against their will?

  31. primusinterpares

    Put a different way, if a post-viability fetus is a ward of the state, can the government compel an individual to serve as its legal guardian against their will?

    Well my philosophical argument would be that for the vast majority of cases the child is given tacit consent by the woman to use her uterus for the gestation period seeing as the primary natural consequence of sex is pregnancy and the woman knows that. So in engaging in sexual conduct, even with protection, a woman knows that there is a chance she will become pregnant and therefore accepts the fact that a human life may be generated. Ultimately, I would argue from a purely philosophical standpoint that the child’s right to be inside the uterus during gestation is greater than the mother’s because the mother HAD that right before she had sex and in having sex knowingly consented to losing that right to another human being for a few months. If you’ve read a little Locke this makes complete sense, however inconvenient it may be.

  32. …So in engaging in sexual conduct, even with protection, a woman knows that there is a chance she will become pregnant and therefore accepts the fact that a human life may be generated…

    I’ll assume you’re not familiar with the concept of non-consensual sex. Where does that fit into your argument?

  33. I thought Heath was the smartest guy in the room????

    He is, and by a long shot a lot brighter than me.

  34. primusinterpares

    I’ll assume you’re not familiar with the concept of non-consensual sex. Where does that fit into your argument?

    Of course I am. As i said:

    …for the vast majority of cases…

    It’s certainly an exception, but rape does happen. The question ultimately is a question of justice which is defined in its most basic form as someone getting what they deserve and not having to endure undeserved punishment. In the instance of rape the woman’s body has been violated unjustly by both a unwanted sex and unwanted pregnancy. On the other hand the child also does not deserve to have the rest of it’s life stripped out from under it -because it has done nothing wrong.

    Now the problem we are presented with here is that a very basic human right of will be violated no matter what course is taken. The decision we must make then is which right is most basic, Consenting to pregnancy or the right to live? Surely depriving someone of their entire life is a far greater deprivation than depriving them of the right to consent to the use of their body for a short period. And while having the abortion would certainly be understandable and in some basic sense justifiable, I believe it is clear that having the child would be the more noble option on the part of the woman who now is presented with a choice to put the life of another before the conveniences of her own.

    Thus, there is only one decision in this situation that can be purely good, which is for he woman to sacrifice her bodily domain for 9 months and to have the child because the decision to abort, while understandable, does inflict injustice on the child and therefore while perhaps not inherently bad, it cannot be considered intrinsically good.

    NOW we have an even more complicated moral conundrum: Should society promote the “good” or right decision or should it simply forbid explicitly bad ones. This issue cuts to the very core of centuries of legal philosophy. If you believe in promoting the “good” then you would say the law should stipulate no exceptions for rape cases because the only good that can come of he situation is the decision to have the child. If you believe in simply restricting bad decisions then the moral grey area described above creates a debate and an exception for rape victims could be justified.

    My opinion? I believe long standing philosophical disagreement as to the resolution of this dilemma necessitates that the practice be outlawed by a super majority in direct democratic fashion on the local level and by default allowing the decision be made by the mother.

    Interesting, though, how an issue that is usually perceived to be so intensely religious really comes down to logical but irreconcilable views of legal philosophy.

  35. A fetus isn’t a “child”. Calling a fetus a child is like calling a sperm a child. Stop with the anti-choice rhetoric, please.

    How about this:

    Provide access to realistic 21st century (i.e. not religion-based) sex education, free gov’t-provided contraception, and leave the decision to abort as the woman’s choice of last resort? The result, of course, would be far fewer abortions, less unwanted pregnancies, and still allow women an option?

    If your intent is to reduce the number of pregnancies that require termination, you’d likely see a huge reduction in abortions.

    But I’m guessing that your “long standing philosophical disagreement” would override any inclination toward finding a solution that doesn’t involve total banning of the procedure.

  36. Provide access to realistic 21st century (i.e. not religion-based) sex education, free gov’t-provided contraception, and leave the decision to abort as the woman’s choice of last resort? The result, of course, would be far fewer abortions, less unwanted pregnancies, and still allow women an option?

    Why must the government fund contraception? In your opinion, at what point should we expect someone to take responsibility for his or her own actions?

    I have to believe that very few pregnancies are the result of someone saying, “I can’t afford contraception and I really wish the government would provide it for me, but I’m just going to go ahead and have unprotected sex anyway and blame the result on George Bush.”

  37. Provide access to realistic 21st century (i.e. not religion-based) sex education, free gov’t-provided contraception, and leave the decision to abort as the woman’s choice of last resort? The result, of course, would be far fewer abortions, less unwanted pregnancies, and still allow women an option?

    There is a lot to digest there, but why do you want far fewer abortions if you are willing to leave the choice to women? Also, if a “fetus is not a child” then why does it matter if there are fewer abortions? Just don’t get the logic of why you want fewer abortions if it is just a fetus?

  38. There is a lot to digest there, but why do you want far fewer abortions if you are willing to leave the choice to women? Also, if a “fetus is not a child” then why does it matter if there are fewer abortions? Just don’t get the logic of why you want fewer abortions if it is just a fetus?

    Because I feel the less abortions there are, the less likely the religious right will succeed in overturning safe and legal choice because they might feel they made reasonable progress. That’s all.

    Why must the government fund contraception? In your opinion, at what point should we expect someone to take responsibility for his or her own actions?

    It’s a common-sense investment in people’s health and well-being. For instance, how many unintentional pregnancies occur simply because a boy doesn’t have a condom when he bangs a governor’s daughter? 😉

  39. Because I feel the less abortions there are, the less likely the religious right will succeed in overturning safe and legal choice because they might feel they made reasonable progress. That’s all.

    Ah. So, this is entirely a political issue to you. You don’t care about fetuses because you fear people who care about fetuses. Really?

  40. There is a lot to digest there, but why do you want far fewer abortions if you are willing to leave the choice to women? Also, if a “fetus is not a child” then why does it matter if there are fewer abortions? Just don’t get the logic of why you want fewer abortions if it is just a fetus?

    It sounds like he’s conceding that his opponents may have a good faith argument to make, even if he disagrees with them.

    Which is certainly a better way to go about disagreeing than to gun your opponents down as they’re coming out of church.

  41. primusinterpares

    A fetus isn’t a “child”. Calling a fetus a child is like calling a sperm a child. Stop with the anti-choice rhetoric, please.

    True, a fetus isn’t a child, kind of like an child isn’t an adolescent, an adolescent is not a teenager, a teenager is not a young adult, and a young adult is not middle aged and middle aged is not a senior citizen. These are stages of human development and a human in each of them has the right to move on to the next without the choice of another preventing them. What is undeniable is that a fetus is certainly human, is alive, and has a distinct genetic code. So whatever terminology you want to use, your semantics don’t change the fact that injustice is always done to an innocent human life when an abortion occurs.

    Provide access to realistic 21st century (i.e. not religion-based) sex education, free gov’t-provided contraception, and leave the decision to abort as the woman’s choice of last resort? The result, of course, would be far fewer abortions, less unwanted pregnancies, and still allow women an option?

    See here’s the problem people on the left have. They are unable to make logical moral arguments. All you need to say is that you don’t believe laws should promote GOOD action but rather should simply punish explicitly BAD actions and, because in the case of rape or life of the mother there are basic rights at odds, there should be a legal exception for choice in those cases.

    That is a justifiable non-religious philosophical stance. But instead you try to “reduce” abortions for no reason whatsoever. You do this because in fact you don’t have a really logical reason for believing in choice across the board or that fetuses have no human rights. It’s funny how ideological and faith based the pro-choice argument is revealed to be in the face of a logical, non-religious, pro-life argument.

    Maybe you should look at the facts that a fetus is human, is alive, and is genetically an individual and make a logical argument as to why it would be a GOOD thing that the life should be prevented from progress in the interest of convenience or whim or really any reason at all. I understand that sometimes abortions are necessary in the interest of saving the mother’s life or at least justifiable in some sense in the case of rape. But not believing a fetus has rights across the board (simply because you say so) is equally as illogical, non-scientific, and fundamentally based on ideological faith as the religious pro-life arguments you and those like you abhor.

    It’s a common-sense investment in people’s health and well-being. For instance, how many unintentional pregnancies occur simply because a boy doesn’t have a condom when he bangs a governor’s daughter?

    As for contraception being an investment in people’s health and well-being, maybe you should look up the side effects of contraceptives before saying that. Long term contraceptive use is not good for a woman’s body. And if free condoms are your solution then you can join that club in sub-saharan africa that believes free condom distribution makes safe sex.

    I guess to get that joke you’d have to know that a harvard study (among others) are showing that using protection actually leads people to become overly secure in their inability to get pregnant or diseases and therefore leads to increased promiscuity which offsets for the effectiveness of the contraceptives. We have to instill the morals AND the education so people know that they shouldn’t be sleeping around no matter what kind of contraceptives they use. They should also know that if they do they are risking pregnancy and disease and they will be expected to take responsibility for the consequences of those voluntary actions. But you guys don’t like promoting good behavior through government policy and until you give up this ideological sticking point and admit that morality is an integral part of solving these social problems they will only get worse.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s