I wanted to blog on this story yesterday, but Oswego's server had indigestion all afternoon. And then, as it turns out, the story became old news by this morning (as the WP reports here), as Thacker withdrew his name from consideration because of the controversy. But did it?

If the objection to Thacker is that he believed that homosexuality was a sin that could be cured by conversion to Christianity after personal acceptance of Jesus Christ as one's Savior, then objections should also be raised about former Representative Tom Coburn, who is also on the panel, according to the People for the American Way. Coburn's on the Board of Directors for the Family Research Council: not exactly pro-gay, those folks. In a recent publication, FRC castigates the Washington newspaper the Blade for refusing to run an ad that promotes conversion to Christianity as a possible "cure" for homosexuality: according to FRC, the ad was "a message that would have brought hope and deliverance to thousands of readers." You can find lots more of that kind of stuff among FRC literature. The FRC is, however, slightly more subtle that Thacker: for the most part, its message is simply anti-homosexual without playing up the protestant fundamentalist angle.

If Thacker's focus on abstinence education was the reason for the public reaction, then folks should also be upset about two other members of the panel -- in addition to Clark -- who, according the PFAW, support abstinence education as a response to HIV/AIDS.

Perhaps it's easier to prevent an appointment than to force the resignation of people already entrenched. Plus, perhaps Thacker's views were more readily discernible than the views of those on the panel already, and his website redactions cast him in an even more unappealing light.

Thacker was a huge target. I'm glad that people took their shots. But I also think that Bush has been given a pass, although for understandable reasons. Bush already seems willing to enact the social policy views of his conservative base in the areas of abortion and family planning. The Thacker nomination rightly raised fears that the anti-gay policies of the religious right might now be gaining a hearing in the administration, contrary to what seems to have been the trend. On same-sex partner benefits, Bush has earned some points from gay rights groups. See, for example, the HRC press release here. The religious discrimination against gays question with respect to the Faith Based Initiatives program seems to be moving in favor of gay rights, although, as the HRC notes, the jury is still out. And in 2000 Bush probably benefitted from his sometimes oblique attempts to court gay voters.

Let's call Bush's approach to gay rights issues "semi-benign semi-neglect." Maybe that's not so bad from a Republican administration that relies on Christian fundamentalists during election time. Clearly, there's a tension in the Bush coalition that neither mainstream gay rights groups nor Christian fundamentalists have been willing to push strongly.