[MEGoody]

"On Dec. 21, 2001, President Bush signed a historic bill, which "for the first time allows the District of Columbia government to fund a program that will give domestic partners of city employees access to health benefits."

The President of the U.S. signed a bill for a city program? Me thinks your information is incorrect (and not just on this particular point).

As far as the other items listed in your post:

Bush has no control over what kind of rally any gay or lesbian group decides to hold. Apparently it wasn't very big - it sure wasn't mentioned on any news shows or in any papers I read.

I doubt Bush has had any time to even think about reversing policies put in place by Clinton re: gays. Seems he's been a bit busy lately fighting the war on terror and dealing with the economy. This argument doesn't hold any water with me.

As to the appointments you mentioned, I will say again, it does not appear he's appointed any to positions from which they can significantly impact the political/moral landscape.

[nmh]

Bush HAS control over who is appointed to what and the fact is that he insists on appointing gays to positions of authority and power over and above NORMAL heterosexual people who comprise the MAJORITY of the population. Why Bush goes out of his way to chose the abnormal, 1-2% of the gay population so they "feel good" about their stupid perverted lifestyle that is a choice. By doing this he attempts to NORMALIZE what is ABNORMAL - homosexuality. It sure DOES send a moral message out there. Unfortunately you're too worked up to see it and defend the undefendable.