Bush is a liberal disguised in conservative clothes, just like his dad was. Bush claims all the time that he's a "conservative," yet many of his actions don't reflect his words.

So for those of you living in Europe who think that Bush represent the "Right Religious Conservative," forget about it.

Bush is a hypocrite-liar. There are no true conservative politicians yet in America with the exception of one or two who are not popular, or unknown to the general public.

I here briefly respond to the virulent and demeaning comment of Rosanna Flamer Caldera, Co-Secretary General of the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA), in which she says, "State homophobia has been hit and will not remain unchallenged anymore." By "State homophobia" she can only be referring to the state's effort to comply with the universal understanding of marriage in all times and cultures and the state's effort to protect families and children from becoming fatherless or motherless.

Please note that ILGA had been rejected from NGO status numerous times and that it had included the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) among its endorsed organizations. It later made the astounding claim that it did not know what NAMBLA stood for. We know what ILGA stands for and what it seeks to undermine.

We must reject the irresponsible position taken by the ECOSOC representative from Finland, that the "United Nations must try to ensure diversity in the representation of those groups." Responsible lines must be drawn and ECOSOC has a responsibility to reject groups that threaten to corrupt the meaning and function of marriage and the stability of family and society. The Bush administration must do all it can to be consistent in its emphasis to support marriage and family.

I agree with George2 that, in a democratic polity, people should be able to form associations of common interests and/or beliefs.  That is something of genuine importance.  Thus, the fact that in some countries, say Belgium for instance, official attempts are being made to ban political parties selectively on the basis of their belief systems, that is a genuine outrage. 

By contrast, what happens in the ECOSOC of the United Nations is not important.  Partly because the UN is not a 'democratic polity', and because Ecosoc is purely an expensive talking shop. Whatever pious declarations are made in Ecosoc do not matter at all for people in the world.  Why?  Because nondemocratic regimes do what they want anyway; they are governed by 'rule of men', not rule of (genuine) law. And, luckily, democratic regimes ultimately follow their own constitutional dispensation and not pious statements from UN organs. 

So, it would be silly for the Bush administration to take a 'stand' in the totally irrelevant Ecosoc, and it has wisely decided not to do so.  Even more so, given that the issue at hand was 'accreditation' of ngo's with a homosexual agenda.  There is nothing illegal about homosexuality itself under the US Constitution, which does not mean that the specific agenda of the ngo's in question would be legal in the USA.  They are just special-interest groups, and what is legal will be determined in parliament, after elections, and in the courts on the basis of genuine laws.   

I imagine that there were many European votes in favor of the Ecosoc resolution in question, and only 1 American vote.   So why selectively pick on Bush in the context of a totally irrelevant vote inside a UN organ.  We all know that Bush would leave the UN tomorrow if he could, but his parliament (the American Congress) would not allow him to do that.  

Wise men pick their fights wisely.  On this particular irrelevancy of an Ecosoc vote, Bush allowed Condi Rice's State Department to  choose wisely.      

I have absolutely no problem with people forming organisations based on common political or religious beliefs, based on a preference for a certain soccer club or whatever. So, I have no objection against gay, lesbian or bi-sexual organisations. I have absolutely no problem with the fact that the UN recognizes these organisations. I applaud the fact that the US recognize these organizations.

I do have a giant problem with countries/religions who refuse to give the freedom to individuals to organize themselves. Just take a look at any Islam based country. Or take a look at Belgium, inventing new laws in order to bar the largest Flemish party, an organisation of free people with a rightist view on life. Officially, even a plumber doing a job in the basement of one of the party buildings can be accused of being a criminal. Welcome to the free world.

...sadly, we have become familiar with the US State Dept doing stuff with little regard to the wishes of the Bush admin. One wonders if the Bush people even knew about this vote.

   In other news, reports of increased vibrancy in the Netherlands' Christian community.
http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/110vxfxj.asp
Holland's Post-Secular Future

by Joshua Livestro