The Radical Heterosexual Agenda

Via Nico at Think Progress, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has new(ish) guidelines for anyone eyeing its abstinence-only education funding. Abstinence is to be described as "voluntarily choosing not to engage in sexual activity until marriage," with "sexual activity" broadly defined. The guidelines also require that programs define marriage as "only a legal union between one man and one woman as a husband and wife" -- which should leave any homosexual teen credulous enough to listen wondering what, exactly, she is saving herself for. And why not divvy out some free milk if the cow is unsaleable?

The Washington Times offers a scare quote-happy update on the fight for a federal marriage amendment here.

Reason's very own conservative foot soldier, Julian Sanchez, fell out of lockstep to defend gay families in September. That piece is here.

Comments

[KipEsquire]

The Washington Times always uses scare quotes (and the word "homosexual") when referencing gay marriage; it's a long-standing part of their (Moony-inspired) style guide.

[Anonopotomous]

"...only a LEGAL union..."

What I don't understand is why these religious nuts aren't worried about the government usurping the ability to confer a sacrament.

[rhywun]

The Washington Times is a great "newspaper". It's where I get all my "news".