The key phrase was "culture of life". For George W. Bush and the congressmen who passed the ridiculous legislation at the time, that was what it was all about.
If you want to claim that that's an entirely secular political viewpoint, fine, go ahead.
You've lowered the bar a bit there, don't you think? Now I have to claim it's an "entirely" secular political viewpoint?
The reality is both sides of any political question are made up of different viewpoints. Sure, there were people on my side who were coming from a religious viewpoint. But there were also a lot of people who thought the husband's position is hopelessly compromised by his own interests, and since her parents were still alive they should have been allowed to take custody of their daughter.
People on the left have this idea that religious conservatives somehow control the Republican party or set the agenda. It's a mistake to think that.
My original contention was that the only reason someone would care about a power-of-attorney dispute over someone they had never heard of and had been in a coma for 15 years was religious. You've proven me wrong and changed my mind, though -- apparently secular "go team" loyalty to party is enough on it's own, without sharing religious views or really any reason to care besides rooting for the home team.
>You've proven me wrong and changed my mind, though -- apparently secular "go team" loyalty to party is enough on it's own, without sharing religious views or really any reason to care besides rooting for the home team.
Which is something I've always suspected about the people who sided with the husband. Thanks for the confirmation.
I can't speak for everyone, but I thought that it should be decided by the county/state court who's jurisdiction it was in. I know nothing about power-of-attorney disputes, and way less about the particulars of this case than you seem to. But I know the president shouldn't be signing legislation aimed at a single power-of-attorney dispute that happens to be a national controversy for some dumb reason.
Oh, well, if you're talking about the politics side I agree with you. It was a Florida case and the federal government should never have been involved.
But they were involved, and the reasons for that were entirely political. Those congressmen and President Bush didn't give a crap about the dispute at hand, and they didn't have deep feelings about the jurisprudence. It was entirely about 'right to life'. You flip the script and they'd have been supporting the husband and slandering the parents.
You're probably making some unwarranted assumptions here. I think George Bush did a lot of things because he felt they were the right thing to do even though they hurt him politically. Everybody says that's what they want in a politician, but nobody really wants that.
If you want to claim that that's an entirely secular political viewpoint, fine, go ahead.