Ravings of John C. A. Bambenek

Update

2008-02-13T18:49:31Z

I have moved my blog to Part-Time Pundit, you can find my columns and commentary there.

TTLB Fix - Ignore me

2005-10-03T21:20:48Z

Moved my main blog again

2005-05-02T19:04:21Z

I got tired of blogger because it was so flaky and unstable. (i.e. why I left Live journal)...

My new blog is at http://jcb.pentex-net.com

Go check it out.

Redirection and New Site

2005-02-02T04:55:27Z

Since most everyone has figured out I have a new site and has gone there, I'm taking off the automagical redirection to http://jcb.pentex-net.com (i.e. my new blog)...

Posts here will be available to LJ subscribers only going forward.

Blog Relocation

2005-01-17T17:34:18Z

You will be relocated to my new public blog in 60 seconds on viewing this page.

I have relocated my blog to http://jcb.pentex-net.com for my public blogging. The reason was in part the 2 days downtime, and in part, the hooky interface that I just can't stand. Please go there for my new content. I'll put up a redirect in the near future.

I will continue to use this as a more personal blog, but probably mark it private in the near future.

Only in California

2005-01-08T23:49:50Z

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/01/07/BAG3UAMJ1O1.DTL

Dog owners said it was about time that man's best friend got his own housing code.

"It's only fair and reasonable,'' said Jim Gunther, who shares his house with a Schnauzer named Hugo. "A lot of people are ignorant, and they shouldn't own pets. Maybe this will make some people think twice.''

That's right... San Francisco has mandated a housing code for dogs, what they can drink out of, etc.

Apparently government's job is to tell people how to deal with all the petty little details of how to run their lives. Heck, why don't we have tax-payer funded animal nannies in every home because we stupid citizens can't handle that either...

School strips students to search for 10 dollars

2005-01-08T19:55:58Z

http://www.local6.com/news/4061915/detail.html

TEXAS CITY, Texas -- Some parents were up in arms Friday after 10 students were strip-searched for a missing $10 bill at an award-winning charter school in Texas.

The incident happened Thursday at Mainland Preparatory Academy near Texas City, The Galveston County Daily News reported.

This is outrageous. As far as I can tell this is a publicly funded charter school, I base this on this excerpt from their website:

The Texas Department of Health has issued an important update on immunization requirements for children and students. All public schools must be in compliance. The law requires that "students" be fully vaccinated against specified diseases. A student may be enrolled provisionally.. to remain enrolled, the student must completed the required subsequent doses in each vaccine series on schedule and as rapidly as is medically feasible and provide acceptable evidence of vaccination to the school. (From: http://www.mainlandprep.org/news/Vol6Issue2-Immunizations.htm)

If you support the concept of stripping down 11 year-olds over 10 dollars, then by all means do nothing. If you think this is despicable, contact the school.

http://www.mainlandprep.org/

Wilma Green, Principal
Phone: 409-934-9100
Email: wgreen@mainlandprep.org
319 Newman Rd.
LaMarque, Texas 77568
Main school #: 409-934-9100
Fax #: 409-934-9136

Academic Diversity in a Hostile World

2005-01-06T19:56:30Z

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,52888,00.html

You can read the story, some praying student for Israel were surrounded, assaulted, and threatened with death. The University and the Police (not UI but in California) did nothing.

Liberalism is dying as a political force in this country. It's just that simple. And the more they begin to realize this, the more violent they will get. They can't accept election results when they lose, they will engage in outright vote fraud in order to win (see Washington State governor race), and they will threaten death very publicly to anyone who voices opposition while administrators stand by. Sure, conservatives (or those who call themselves such) engage in bad behavior too, but they generally aren't protected and I've heard of no such story involved a conservative mob. Heck, we can't even stand on the sidewalk of an abortion clinic with a rosary in our hand and not be arrested.

Now, SFSU receives tax dollars and is a state institution. It need to abide by the laws, particularly equal protection. If you are offended by this, let the administrators know. Here is the contact info.

Robert A. Corrigan
President, SFSU
http://www.sfsu.edu/pdirect/561.htm
(415) 338-1381
http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~corrigan/
corrigan@sfsu.edu

Dean Saffold
psaffold@sfsu.edu
(415) 338-2032
http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~psaffold/

Department of Public Safety -- upd@sfsu.edu -- (415) 338-7200
http://www.sfsu.edu/~dps/ headed by Chief Kimberly Wible wible@sfsu.edu
Office of the Chief (415) 338-2747
http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~wible/

Let them know what you think about this...

Friday Fax Relay

2005-01-06T19:29:11Z

Hundreds of thousands die, millions are homeless and at risk for disease. The UN's top priority? Make sure these people contracept and can get abortions; "Get those people free condoms NOW". Can there be any more proof that the UN is completely out of touch with the needs of the human race? Take care of the poisoned water? Nah... just make sure they have ~~substandard~~ free condoms. The more I see this, the more I'm glad the US set up an aid coaltion (which looks like is going to give up to the UN). There needs to be an honest humanitarian agency in the world, and not a day goes by where the UN proves it shouldn't be it.

===================

FRIDAY FAX

January 7, 2004
Volume 8, Number 3

UNFPA Elusive About Abortion Aid for Tsunami Victims

The UN Population Fund (UNFPA) describes itself as the "largest international public sector supplier of contraceptives, condoms and other reproductive health essentials," and states that such supplies are "critical to protecting reproductive health in emergency situations." Yet in press releases on its tsunami relief activities, UNFPA steers clear of directly stating that it provides contraceptives or abortion aids. UNFPA may be responding to past public criticism after disclosures that it was providing such supplies.

In its January 6 press release, the latest and most explicit to date, UNFPA has requested $28 million in donations for, among other things, "the reestablishment of basic reproductive health services" in Indonesia, the re-establishment of "reproductive health services," purchases of "reproductive health commodities" and promotion of "adolescent reproductive health" in the Maldives, and to meet "urgent reproductive health needs" and "restore" and raise awareness of "emergency reproductive health services" in Sri Lanka.

According to UNFPA's "Reproductive Health in Emergency Situations" manual, the "reproductive health needs" of refugees include "guaranteeing the availability of free condoms." Indeed, UNFPA's website says that "Free condoms are among the first reproductive health supplies to reach people caught in a crisis situation...UNFPA provides both male and female condoms in emergencies."

The manual also describes the "reproductive health kits" developed by UNFPA for "the initial acute phase of the emergency," which include "condoms," "oral and injectable contraceptives" including the abortifacient morning-after pills, and "IUD[s]." The kits also contain manual vacuum aspirators, portable abortion devices that are easily used
in primitive conditions such as refugee areas.

The supplies in the kits are "stored by UNFPA in preparation for immediate distribution when an earthquake, flood...or other crisis arises." Thus, UNFPA is able to "mount a quick response to emergencies, especially in the initial stages [and] can ship out supplies of condoms and other commodities within a few days." In 2003, UNFPA shipped out over 300 of these "reproductive health kits" to 34 "emergency destinations." [Each reproductive health kit is designed to assist populations totaling between 10,000-150,000 for up to three months.] UNFPA has not disclosed
whether it is providing these kits for tsunami refugees.

UNFPA's increasing caution in revealing the full extent of its activities may be the result of past public relations flops. In 1999, UNFPA faced public criticism after it was revealed that it had distributed reproductive health kits to Albanian refugee camps. The Population Research Institute, among others, claimed that UNFPA had "constructed a 'social marketing' campaign to fabricate demand" for contraceptives and abortifacients among a "captive audience" of refugees.

According to its mandate, UNFPA should not participate in any efforts to increase access to abortion or to provide the medical or technical expertise to facilitate abortion. However, numerous reports from both governmental and nongovernmental sources reveal that UNFPA aggressively promotes abortion.

Copyright 2004 - C-FAM (Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute).
Permission granted for unlimited use. Credit required.

Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute
866 United Nations Plaza, Suite 427
New York, New York 10017
Phone: (212) 754-5948 Fax: (212) 754-9291
E-mail: c-fam@c-fam.org Website: www.c-fam.org

I thought this kind of jurisprudence was long gone...

2005-01-06T19:24:39Z

http://www.lifenews.com/state825.html

Rochester, NY (LifeNews.com) -- A family court judge who gained national attention last year in a similar case has told a drug-addicted mother of seven not to have any more children until she can prove she is able to care for the kids the has. However, the judge ruled out using abortion as method of birth control.

While I like the fact the judge ruled out abortion, a court order regulating when someone can or cannot get pregnant is a road that should not be traveled in this country. We were there during the eugenics days in the 30s or so. We should not go back, even in this case where the woman shouldn't be having kids, it isn't up to the government to decide that.

It's about time - tort reform

2005-01-06T19:23:02Z

http://www.gopusa.com/news/2005/january/0106_bush_tort_reform.shtml

It's about time... the unknown secret is that you can't make a business pay for a lawsuit, especially in the era of liability insurance. All the fees for both sides, the insurance company, and the settlement are all built into the insurance premium the company pays. Through acturial magic, bean counters can estimate how much they will pay out in legal fees for the year and then map that to the fees they charge. Those fees are built into the cost of goods sold by the business, so in the end, the consumer (as always) pays. You tax a business, the consumer pays. You create regulatory costs, the consumer pays. There is only one case the consumer does not pay. When the fire employees to save money to offset.

Billions are bilked from the economy through these bottom-feeder lawsuits (and ironically I'm writing this from a law office), it's time to put it to an end. There is no justice in making society pay for someone else's bad actions.

Good news...

2005-01-06T19:05:53Z

http://www.livejournal.com/news.bml

Well I'm happy about it. Livejournal's interface is not the world's best. I have to manually write code to do the blogroll and that code is not pretty. No trackbacks. No real good stats. No javascript, so on and so forth.

Hopefully all this will change and I can have a more functional blog so I can pretend to be an important blogger too. :)

Can we have a serious discussion about treason yet?

2005-01-06T19:02:01Z

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=512&u=/ap/20050106/ap_on_go_co/electoral_vote&printer=1

They lost. Every recount shows they lost. There is no evidence of a conspiracy. Yet they continue to insist that Bush cheated.

There is a great middle of this country that doesn't blog, doesn't sign petitions, doesn't engage in angry politics. But they remember this stuff on election day and punish the offenders... They DNC is driving themselves into irrelevancy. Good riddance. If they can't manage to shut up and support democracy when they are on the losing end of it, they do not deserve to hold any office whatsoever.

Another fun reason why I'm glad I don't live in the Chicago area

2005-01-06T05:36:16Z

I'm up here til Friday, and today spent some time at Woodfield Mall. When I left I saw that my truck was paintballed (i.e. someone took a paintball gun and shot it a few times). No damage, but highly obnoxious. Apparently it hasn't been an unheard of circumstance up here where kids drive around and do "driveby" paintball shootings because they think they are hardcore, just like the gangs in the city.

Yeah.

Classless College Football

2005-01-05T05:36:15Z

Having just arrived at a friends house who likes college ball (I don't really watch sports) and caught the end of the USC / OU game. USC blew them out. The standard award ceremony ensued with the absolutely ridiculous plug for ADT Security while awarding the trophy. Moving on.

Running Back Reggie Bush got up and said something to the effect of "We expected a better game than we got..."

Wow, I hope he gets chewed for that. This isn't the NBA, there should be some sportsmanlike conduct and saying the other team sucked while on the field and on national television is way out of line.

Culture & Cosmos - Report Confirms Harmful Effects on Contraception

2005-01-04T18:39:17Z

I got this in my inbox about 5 hours after I wrote my post... go figure.

=====================

CULTURE & COSMOS

January 4, 2005 Volume 2, Number 22

Social Science Confirms Harmful Effects of Contraception

The predictions found in Pope Paul VI's encyclical affirming the Catholic Church's constant teaching that artificial contraception is wrong have been confirmed by the social sciences which show that ignoring the Church doctrine on sex and marriage is harmful to individuals and society. These are the findings of a Nobel Prize winning social scientist.

Writing in the current issue of Touchstone Magazine University of Virginia professor W. Bradford Wilcox writes that when the encyclical, "Humane Vitae," was published in 1968 it was surrounded with controversy. In it Pope Paul said widespread use of contraception would lead to "conjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality." The Pope said men would no longer respect women but would treat them as a "mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as is respected and beloved companion."

"Humane Vitae's" publication was met with vigorous protest by many prominent American clergy who were also academics. They said the Church's continued ban on contraception proved that Church authorities were indifferent to the plight of "real people." Thirty-six years later Wilcox says that an examination of the effects of the contraceptive mentality on society shows that it is those who dissent from "Humane Vitae" that are indifferent.

Wilcox, an assistant professor of sociology at UVA, cites research by six scholars which shows contraception to be responsible for a significant rise in divorce and illegitimacy, both of which lead to other social ills like heightened rates of criminal behavior and increased high school drop out rates. Wilcox also argues that the poor are especially susceptible to the harms caused by the contraceptive culture. Wilcox notes that the research is not partisan. "The leading scholars who have tackled these topics are not Christians, and most of them are not political or social conservatives"

Robert Michael, of the University of Chicago, believes that sudden widespread use of artificial contraception and the availability of abortion is responsible for "about half of the increase in divorce from 1965 to 1976." Wilcox cites George Akerlof, a Nobel prize-winning
economist, who provides an economic explanation for why widespread use of artificial contraception resulted in an increase in illegitimacy rather than a decrease as many predicted.

According to Akerlof, traditional women who wanted to either abstain from sex or at least receive a promise from their boyfriend that he would marry her in the case of pregnancy could no longer compete with "modern" women who embraced contraception. This created an environment in which premarital sex became the norm and women "felt free or obligated to have sex." "Thus, many traditional women ended up having sex and having children out of wedlock, while many of the permissive women ended up having sex and contraception or aborting so as to avoid childbearing. This explains in large part why the contraceptive revolution was associated with an increase in both abortion and illegitimacy."

Wilcox says contraceptives remove one of the key reasons to getting married, the moral incentive. And while many members of the middle and upper classes marry because they know it serves their economic interest, the second key incentive for marrying, the poor are much more likely to marry solely for moral reasons. The result is that in the contraceptive era the poor have even less of an incentive to marry than do other classes. For this reason the poor have been hit even harder by the negative consequences that came about through widespread use of contraceptives.

Copyright, 2005 --- Culture of Life Foundation. Permission granted for
unlimited use. Credit required.

Culture of Life Foundation
1413 K Street, NW, Suite 1000
Washington DC 20005
Phone: (202) 289-2500
Fax: (202) 289-2502
E-mail: clf@culture-of-life.org
Website: http://www.culture-of-life.org

---

The truth behind the $1 contraception to $3 welfare claim...

2005-01-04T08:26:50Z

Dawn Eden gave me this idea to take a look at the following claim:

From an article looking for the cloud in every silver lining.

Family planning is a "fiscally conservative policy," countered Jensen of the Women's Health Research Unit. For every $1 spent on contraceptive services, he said, $3 is saved in other government programs such as Medicaid, the State Children's Health Insurance Program, welfare and education.

This claim, as far as I can tell, is a bastardized version of the following claim from an article in Family Planning Perspectives by Forrest and Samara entitled "Impact on publicly funded contraceptive services on unintended pregnancies and implications for Medicare expenditures":

While these expenditures may seem excessive to some, research estimates that for every dollar spent on publicly funded contraceptive services, 3 dollars are saved in Medicaid bills for pregnancy-related health and medical care (Forrest & Samara, 1996). (Quoted from: http://www.aahperd.org/iejhe/template.cfm?template=current/jan12002.html)

The full reference is :

Forrest, J.D., & Samara, R. (1996). Impact on publicly funded contraceptive services on unintended pregnancies and implications for Medicare expenditures. Family Planning Perspectives, 28, 188-195.

This report, which is the source of the 1 for 3 claim, says nothing about future welfare expenses, only expenses in the narrow sense of medical expenses related to birth and neonatal care.

N.B. Sorry, no online version that I found, but I grabbed something off JSTOR because I have access to it. Check it out at your library, check out Lexis, or find another source... sorry.

Now, on to the study. :) It says the link is http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0014-7354%28199609%2F10%2928%3A5%3C188%3AIOPFCS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-%23 but this may not work if you don't pay them.

This study says that for every $1 in contraception spent, it saves $3 in medicaid costs...

Thus, for every dollar spent to provide publicly funded contraceptive services, the public saved an average of $3.00 on Medicaid costs for pregnancy-related and newborn medical care.

The study makes one big fatal leap that jumps out at me. It links people who use Title X government funded contraceptive services with people on Medicaid (this is also inflated because, for instance, Planned Parenthood uses the woman's income, not household income, when determining eligibility). Being this was written in 1996, contraception is often uncovered by insurance and certainly never covered without cost. However, having babies is covered by insurance. No one chooses Medicaid over insurance when insurance is available, ask anyone who has been on Medicaid. Being eligible for Medicaid also does not equal expenditures on Medicaid, anyone who works in a legal aid clinic encounters people who had no idea they were eligible for services and would otherwise not apply. I tried to find a study that examined the number of people eligible for Medicaid versus the number of people actually getting it, I didn't find anything on quick examination. But for this, I'm just using people who have insurance, and thus, insurance coverage for child-birth and newborn medical costs (the same costs this study is using).

So to modify this data, I dug up a study that shows how many of these women have some form of insurance. For this, I used the Census Report "Health Insurance Coverage: 1996" to get an estimate of people in that income range who do not have health insurance (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/hlthins/cover96.html).

In 1996 the poverty line for a 2 person household (according to: http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/histpov/hstpov1.html) is $10,233. For 3 people it is $12,516. For 4 it is $16,036. The percentage of people earning under $25,000 who didn't have insurance is 24.3%. This is well above 185% of the poverty line for a 3 person house (which in this case would be a mother and 2 kids ALREADY). Most states do not offer Medicaid for married women, and this study doesn't include them anyway. Common sense would dictate 1/2/3 person households would be much more common in this demographic, certainly enough to offset the number of 4+ member households there are, so that 25,000 line should provide a decent estimate. (I'd use something better if the Census Bureau broke it out better).

24.3% of people without insurance inversely implies that 75.7% of people DO have insurance. That means the Forrest and Samara figures are inflated by 300% or so by not taking into account insurance. Refiguring this means that in reality instead of the instead of the $1.2 billion in additional costs they predict, it would be only 300 million. To redo their math then:

$300M (cost savings to Medicaid) / $412M (spent on contraception) = .728 or in cleaner terms, for every dollar spent on contraception, it saves only 72 cents in Medicaid costs. There is a net LOSS of $112 million for using contraceptive programs to save Medicaid costs using the same methodology to estimate these costs in 1996 terms.

This of course, does not take into account contributions these children will make by working, paying taxes, and otherwise being productive members of society. That influx of workers along could keep Social Security solvent.

Conclusion, the 1/3 ratio touted by pro-choicers is simply untrue and a lie, for one, because they aren't even using it correctly, but for two, the study that produced it was flawed and didn't include health insurance in the mix. In the end, the numbers show that for every $1 in contraceptive spending, it saves the government 72 cents, or more poignanty, for every $1 in contraceptive spending it COSTS the government 28 cents.

The MSM does something right...

2005-01-03T23:59:17Z

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashzz.htm

NBC is planning a telethon for the victims of the tsunami...

I encourage everyone to support it (if true and legit) send money and write letters. If they want to make the world a better place, doing things like this is great and I fully support it.

An examination of legal fees...

2005-01-03T23:34:53Z

Take a look at : http://www.overlawyered.com/archives/001865.html

Not so much the case, which is unremarkable, but the distribution of the settlement...

The child: $440,139
The parents: $223,238
The lawyers: $730,000 (nearly)

How is it that when someone dies, the lawyer representing the estate gets over half the take?

Another word from our sponsors

2005-01-03T22:58:23Z

A late Friday Fax - Prochoice groups sue Costa Rica under int'l law

2005-01-03T22:17:22Z

FRIDAY FAX

December 31, 2004
Volume 8, Number 2

UN-Funded Pro-Abortion Group Attacks Costa Rica's In Vitro Ban

The Center For Reproductive Rights (CRR), the most active pro-abortion litigant in the United States and a major global pro-abortion force, has filed supporting documents in a case against Costa Rica that is now pending before an international human rights commission. The outcome of the case could have repercussions on pro-life legislation throughout the Americas.

Costa Rica's Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court issued its landmark pro-life ruling in 2000, finding that "the human embryo is a person from the moment of conception ... not an object," so that its life and must be protected by the law from conception, and banning in-vitro fertilization (IVF) due to the "disproportionate risk of death" to embryos used in the procedure.

The Chamber's decision has been challenged by Costa Rica's only IVF clinic and ten infertile Costa Rican couples, who have filed a complaint with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR). The CRR filed an amicus brief earlier this month in support of their claims.

The challengers allege among other things that the Court's ruling violates various provisions of the American Convention on Human Rights, which was ratified by Costa Rica in 1970. However, the American Convention itself contains a "Right to Life" provision stating that "Every person has
the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life." The challengers want to limit this clause by arguing that "the right to life is relative, and...it is subject to limitations when it is opposed to the protection of other fundamental rights."

The CRR openly admits that it uses international law to promote abortion, saying in a recent report that it has "pioneered using international human rights law and legal mechanisms to secure women's reproductive rights," and that it has "filed groundbreaking legal cases in the inter-American human rights system." The CRR considers this case important because "Depending on the Inter-American Commission's final decision, governments and courts across North and South America could cite its ruling...in developing and interpreting their countries' laws on reproductive technologies, contraception and abortion."

The Commission is due to consider the case in March, 2005. It will then issue a report recommending actions to be taken by Costa Rica, and if its recommendations are not adopted within three months, it may submit the case to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, where any decision would be binding on Costa Rica.

CRR is one of the most aggressive promoters of abortion in the world and is financially assisted by the UN Population Fund (UNFPA). UNPFA, however, denies they support abortion.

Copyright 2004 - C-FAM (Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute).
Permission granted for unlimited use. Credit required.

Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute
866 United Nations Plaza, Suite 427
New York, New York 10017
Phone: (212) 754-5948 Fax: (212) 754-9291
E-mail: c-fam@c-fam.org Website: www.c-fam.org

A quote to stay up here forever

2005-01-03T21:16:14Z

"We are doing very little at the moment," U.N. emergency relief coordinator Jan Egeland acknowledged in New York. The United Nations estimates up to 5 million people need aid.

From: http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=646553

Hat Tip: INCITE

Perspective on Aid relief

2005-01-03T21:11:48Z

I've been following the tsunami aid issue for awhile, and did some work on an aid portal that was set up for Tamil, a province out there. I find the stingy debate laughable, but this nugget passed by today and I think it's good for persepctive. (Hat Tip: Kevin McCullough)

Sandra Bullock (an American) donated one million dollars, more than Canada, more than Germany, and more than many other European nations, the so-called stalwarts of human rights in the world.

Peace in Suadn?

2005-01-03T21:08:43Z

I read a few days ago about the truce signed in Sudan. You can read more commentary here: http://sudanwatch.blogspot.com/2004/12/permanent-truce-signed-in-sudan.html ( I blog I recommend for people interested in the issue ).

Without the US pressure on this issue, would we be here today? Doubtful, but still, time will tell if this is the real McCoy.

Speaking of Natural Selection (gay marriage)

2005-01-03T16:34:51Z

Here are some quotes about gay marriage:

"As times marches inexorably on, human society...evolves" - Judge William L. Downing in his opinion striking down Washington's Defense of Marriage Act

"There is an evolution of society" - Canadian PM Jean Chretien announcing his gay marriage policy

"Extending marriage to people of the same sex may be the final frontier and the logical conclusion of this evolution" - Jacquelini Murray, Toronot Globe and Mail

"[Gay marriage is] the result of an evolutionary process" - Virginia Postrel

And so on. (Hat Tip: Allan Carlson, "Two Becoming One Flesh: Marriage as a Sexual and Economic Union")

Now, let's define evolution and natural selection.

evolution In biology, theory that a species undergoes gradual changes to survive and reproduce in a competitive, and often changing, environment, and that a new species is the result of change from the ancestral forms. (From Oxford Reference Online / World Encyclopedia)

evolution / i:v'lu:()n/, / 'v-/

→ n.
1. the process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed from earlier forms, especially by natural selection. (From the Concise OED)

natural selection

→ n.
(Biology) the evolutionary process whereby organisms that are better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring.
(also from the Concise OED)

Notice the large focus on reproduction and producing more offspring and survival ultimately of the species. Is it possible that the advocates of gay marriage are just that unaware of what evolution is?

If anything gay marriage is devolution. It is taking people out of the gene pool by putting them in non-reproductive relationships where they can't have children (save extreme medical intervention and a sperm donor / surrogate mother).

One day the far left might be able to get all their positions traight and non-contradictory...