Darkside Rainbow

Well, I was wondering how long it’d be before I got to b*tch about our darling President Shrubby-kins again.

Bush Threatens To Veto DC Budget For Not Blocking Domestic Partner Funds - 365gay.com

(Washington) President Bush issued a warning to Congress on Wednesday that he will veto budget appropriations for the District of Columbia unless the measure contains language barring the district from using any of the money for its domestic partner registry.

The registry allows same and opposite-sex unmarried couples to register their relationships.

[...]Under Republicans the legislation stated that none of the federal money could be used to support the partner registry. When Democrats took control of Congress the requirement was removed.

In threatening a veto the White House on Wednesday issued a statement saying: “The Administration strongly opposes the bill’s exclusion of a longstanding provision that disallows the use of Federal funds to register unmarried, cohabitating couples in the District, to enable them to qualify for benefits on the same basis as legally married couples. Under Federal law, legal marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Federal tax dollars are not used to extend employment benefits to domestic partners of Federal employees, and D.C. should not enjoy an exception to this rule.”

Oh gods, my head hurts. Get me the coffee and an ibuprofen.

Let me get this straight…Bush is fine with spending $120 billion on war, but he’s freaking out that part of a $120 million budget - only part, mind you - might be used to fund the domestic partner registry?

Say it with me now, kids: misplaced priorities. I know those are multisyllabic words, but I’m sure you’re not having any trouble wrapping your heads around ‘em, are you? No? Good.

Now wrap your head around this question: would Bush veto the budget if the domestic partner registry only allowed heterosexual couples to register for benefits?

Based on his past behavior and aggressive attacks on the rights of others in an attempt to preserve marriage as a religious artifact locked solely between male and female, thus imposing religion on government policy because marriage has a place in taxation…

…I’d have to say no.

If this were any other president, any other man, I would be happy to play the devil’s advocate and say hey, you know? I can see some reasoning behind this, something that has less to do with homophobic bigotry and more to do with controlling government spending and trying to make sure that allocated funds are used fairly and for their original intention.

But I’ve long since given up on giving Bush the benefit of the doubt. Oh, sure, in the early days even when I was sighing and saying “Look, I didn’t vote for him” I was still willing to step back and say “I may not agree with this man, but I do remember that he is a human being, just as flawed as the rest of us, and as a human being he is going to screw up…but at the end of the day he’s just a man, and it’s not so black and white as politics like to paint it.”

Seven years have disillusioned me of that idealism. It scares me to think that his man has presided over the years that are considered to be the prime of my life. Seven years, a botched war, frightening changes in domestic and foreign policy, repeated and alarming displays of prejudice and bigotry towards homosexuals, people of diverse faith, and many other minority and even majority groups that don’t suit his viewpoint…at this point, things like a threatened veto are just the icing on the cake.

While I may not go so far as the article does to assume that the proposed veto is specifically and definitely anti-gay in intent (domestic partnerships are for heterosexuals too, kids, and they stand to lose out as well), I just don’t have the blind optimism left in me to say “Well, we don’t know that for sure, let’s wait and see”. That’s it. I’m worn out. Completely tired of this man. Screw Calgon; 2008, take me away.

This election can’t come too soon.

I’m out for the day.

P.S. Remember when I said that I love the Edwards? Elizabeth Edwards has given me another reason to love her even more: she actually called that toxic-tongued wretch Ann Coulter out on her reprehensible behavior. (Letia on HerDailyNews blogged about it yesterday, too.) That woman is too nasty even for my foul mouth, and I cannot understand how anyone that vicious and poorly-spoken (not to mention ill-behaved) continues to be a widely-liked political icon. Apparently neither can Elizabeth Edwards. You go, girl.

george w. bush, president bush, presidential veto, domestic partner registry, domestic partner benefits, washington d.c., elizabeth edwards, ann coulter