More about Mary

I really shouldn't, I know, I'm just feeding the frenzy that Rove, et al want fed, so as to distract from the fact that Kerry smashed their guy in the debates. But this occurred to me a few days ago. In response to the question Kerry was answering, Bush, who answered first, said this:

Do you believe homosexuality is a choice?

BUSH: You know, Bob, I don't know. I just don't know.

Would it have helped ease the Rethuglican outrage if Kerry had said, "Gee, George, since you don't know if it's a choice or not, maybe you should ask someone in a position to know. By the way, there is a person you could ask, Dick Cheney's daughter. You know, there are a lot of people in America who know people who could give them some information on that, if they really wanted to know."

But more importantly, what is George asserting here? He doesn't know whether homosexuality might be a trait people are born with, yet he's willing to have a constitutional amendment limiting their rights? Look, George, since you say that you don't know it's not, shouldn't you err on the side of caution? What if it turns out they are born, not made? Should we institutionalize racism based on limited information?

No one is appearing outraged by the idea that the President seems to be fine with advocating Constitutional amendments when he admits he doesn't know the most fundamental thing about the people who will be restricted. Doesn't that worry anyone?