Patriot, I have read over and over everything that you are saying. The one thing that your missing is that us (yes i'm gay) as gay humans don't have the same rights that a stright couple has. We did not vote and say hey lets say you can get married or not. We are told that we should not beable to do it because we can't have kids, and we will just mess it all up for other people. From what i can see stight people has already downgraded it to nothing you can get married and end it in what a recored 72 days or something really close to that. Now because we can not get married we are together for a while before we even can so our marrages last! I get so tired of having to fight for my right i pay taxes, and i work full time i do not get anything for the state or goverment. I guess i will go with what i say all the time when someone looks at me and say your gay and goes off on all the reason why its so wrong, "do you sleep in my bed with me, they say no, then why does it matter to you, if your not in my bed" then they walk away. It so funny to watch the looks on the persons face when i prove that they don't live my life don't worry about what i do. Most people don't like us because they don't think we are like them you might want to look around, there are more gay people in Richmond County than you know it. The bad part about that is they won't come out of the closet because of people like you that treat them different and will push them to the side. I guess i'm one of the ones thats far from afraid of the poeple that think they can judge me of my life.

Sharkee - I don't know...you may be right as to the inevitability of gay marriage - although that inevitability, in my opinion, should be decided by the citizens - not by unelected, unaccountable judges who pretend to find a specific right to marry buried in the Constitution. I think we can agree that gay marriage was nowhere on the Founder's radar during those hot summer months in Philadelphia.

Your arguments regarding the 14th Amendment and the struggle for equal rights for black citizens is spot-on, it's just one heck of a stretch for me to see how this applies to gay marriage. I don't see the civil rights of gays being violated - I'm not sure what additional legal rights they would assume if their union is called a civil union rather than a marriage.

How about this thought experiment - What if subsequent research over the next few decades does indeed support that contention that children raised by gay parents experience significantly higher rates of social problems - ie drug abuse, dropout rates, crime, unemployment, etc. due to the absence of the traditional mother/father family structure (similar to the problems we see in the minority community today) - would you still be in favor of gay marriage?

All I'm trying to argue is that what we're talking about is massive, sweeping societal change that could potentially have negative and dramatic consequences on American society - we just don't know. Why rush into the re-definition of traditional marriage when - in all practicality - nothing changes when it's called gay marriage instead of a civil union. We've seen the social problems resulting in the breakdown of the family structure in this country and other countries - why do something rashly that could exacerbate these problems without the approval of the citizens of this country through their representatives.

You imply that we have two sets of marriage laws. Not true. We have one set for what society has appropriately defined as legal marriage and this institution is open to everyone. If you don't want to participate, you don't have to. But society has recognized, rightly so in my opinion, that this institution

provides value by providing a mother and a father to nurture children.

Separate but equal meant a black man couldn't use the white man's water fountain. Anyone can partake of the institution of a state-recognized marriage - it simply has to be with a member of the opposite sex. That's what "We the People" have defined as a marriage. If "We the People" want to re-define what a legal marriage looks like - then let's do it...the right way.

Patriot,

Yeah my attempt to explain the 14th Amendment and how it relates to the gay marriage issue was pretty weak. My bad. Let me try again. I don't want this to come across as a lecture, but be patient, please.

Following the Civil War and the abolishment of slavery, the freed slaves were still mistreated and denied rights in the southern states. The 14th Amendment (1870) was passed to correct that. First, it defined citizenship-making sure to include the freed slaves as citizens. Then it made clear that states could not deprive citizens of their rights, or that all citizens were entitled to "equal protection of the law". Maybe my interprettion of this Amendment is too strong, but I think this means, or should mean, that the states must treat all citizens the same with respect to the law. States cannot discriminate and treat some law-abiding citizens one way and other law-abiding citizens another way. The question is: are gay people-as citizens-entitled to all the rights of citizenship, including the right to legally marry the ones they love?

Unfortunately, it didn't take southern states long to circumvent the 14th Amendment. They segregated whites and blacks. In Plessy (1896) the Supreme Court ruled that segregation was not a violation of black citizens' rights. The Court's opinion was that as long as the facilities were "separate but equal" then the black citizens' rights were not violated. As we know segrgation prevailed in the South for many years until 1954, when the Court overturned Plessy in Brown vs. Bourd. So now states cannot segregate.

This idea that states cannot segregate-that they cannot provide separate facilities for whites and other facilities for blacks in an attempt to conform to the 14th Amendment-is relevant to our discussion of gay marriage. I believe that it necesarrily means that we cannot have one set of marriage laws for heterosexual couples (true marriage) and another set of laws ( pseudo marriage laws/civil unions) for another group of citizens. You see there are no sparate groups of citizens here. We are all entitled, not only to the same rights, but to the same marriage. At least that's how I see it. And eventually that will be the law of the land in the United States. It's inevitable, I think.

Do you see how allowing civil unions for gay people is not the same as legal marriage? Do you see the similarity between segregation and separate but equal to civil unions? Do you see that homosexuals are not asking for anything special, they are just seeking their full Consttutional rights?

Sharkee - You continually reference the 14th Amendment with regards to the legalization of gay marriage. The Supreme court has already spoken on whether a state's refusal to authorize same-sex marriage violates the equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th Amendment. In 1972, Baker v. Nelson, a case over whether Minnesota violated the Constitution by issuing marriage licenses only to opposite-sex couples, was UNANIMOUSLY thrown out on the merits for lack of a substantial FEDERAL question. In other words, the Supremes said this was an issue for the states. This represents a binding precedent in favor of California's Prop 8. So, I'm not sure your confidence in gay marriage being a constitutional right under the 14th Amendment is warranted. We'll have to wait and see.

Our President is a typical political participant who knows no first principles and possesses no moral core, so I disagree with you on his motivations.

The rest of your post assumes a constitutional right to gay marriage; I've addressed that in my first paragraph. Again, in my opinion, and in Supreme Court precedent - it is not.

Your analogy to gay activists and true civil rights activists in incoherent, in my opinion, because gays are denied nothing in this country. As I have stated numerous times, they have the identical rights as heterosexuals with regards to a legally-sanctioned marriage by the state -to marry someone of the opposite sex. Once the citizenry of this great nation become convinced that 'gay marriage' represents a special value to society, then I'm sure it will become law at that point. But America is not there yet, with good reason in my opinion. Even we can agree that legalizing gay marriage is a major societal transformation that should not be imposed by a few unelected, unaccountable judges. Can't we?

The Webster dictionary meaning of deviant is as follows:

"deviating especially from an accepted norm"

Agree with the choice of homosexuality or not, the gay lifestyle is most definitely a deviant lifestyle, deviating especially from an accepted norm. Gays understand this - the gay agenda is to make homosexuality "acceptable" hence the push for "legalizing gay marriage." It's the only reason that makes sense since civil unions already provide privileges and benefits of traditional marriages.

Tilley - if I felt that way, you can be assured I would be honest about my feelings. But I do not believe that "gays should burn in Hell" and nothing I have ever written supports your slander.

I'm not sure what you mean by "backwoods rhetoric" - maybe you can enlighten me with a few examples of such. You seem to imply that those who are raised in the country are less sophisticated, less intelligent that you - I suspect you could learn quite a lot from some of their "backwoods wisdom."

Cite one example of my "Bible bias." You cannot, of course, because there are none. But you resort to the usual tried and true tactics of liberals once they realize they are losing an argument. Name-calling, insults, obfuscation...pathetic. You could learn a lot from reading Sharkee's posts - who I disagree with - but he makes a solid effort to actually debate his position.

You state, "Those of us who think rationally don't have this problem..." Amusing - if your posts are indicative of what you call rational thinking, you don't have very high expectations for yourself.

Your paragraph about either "loving or hating" your country is absurd and pathetic - and again, if this is your idea of serious thought - then you are incapable of one. Are you really saying we aren't supposed to disagree on issues like first principles - ideas like economic freedom, limited government, traditional values, the rule of law (not unelected and unaccountable judges)individual liberty and a strong national defense - expecially when you liberals are trying to take these precious things away - the values that have made America the greatest country on earth? Forget it, pal- Conservatives are in this fight for the long haul.

"there is no gray.." What a dumb statement...

Again, orient yourself any way you choose - but don't expect silent opposition to policies that will harm the social fabric of this nation. And here's one for you...

"It's not that liberals are ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so..." Reagan

Patriot, I honestly cannot believe that you breathe anywhere but through your mouth.

Just come out and say what you really think...gays are wrong and they deserve to burn in Hell. You come on here and speak intelligently about the subject, but your backwoods rhetoric bleeds through every word you type. At least Jbee has the huevos to come out and say what he really feels.

Yes, I have a problem with you Bible-thumpers for the very reason I'm typing this now. You don't think for yourselves. You're mindless automatons. You worship God because your parents did; had you been born in China, you'd be Tao or Buddhist; in India, you'd be Hindu. You were simply one of the millions of gullible masses who drank the Kool-Aid and put on the letter jacket.

And because of your belief, you feel you have to be the mouthpiece for the majority, and you litter your opinion with your Bible bias. Those of us who think rationally don't have this problem.

What you fail to realize is that this country you claim to love by calling yourself Patriot is a melting pot of various faiths and sexual orientations, and if you love the country, you don't get to pick what part. You either love it or you hate it. There is no gray.

And since you like leaving lil one liners at the end of your posts, here you go:

"Patriot: The person who can holler the loudest without knowing what he is hollering about" - Mark Twain

Patriot,

Yes, civil unions are great. I'm all for granting rights to gay couples. And civil unions do demonstrate that some who oppose gay marriage are willing to compromise their opposition to homosexuality to ensure the rights of others. Our prsident, I believe. is one of those people.

But the fact that many gay people are not happy with only civil unions; that they want more: that they want full marriage rights, does not demonstrate that their intentions are to "normalize gay relations", as you put it. It could be true, and it might be true in some cases, but it doesn't necessarily follow. And it doesn't "inform" me of their intentions.

Probably many gay people are not satisfied with civil unions beause they do not want a substitute for full cititenship rights. They don't want an almost substitute for marriage. Let's try an analogy: What if the 14th Amendment did not make freed slaves citizens, but instead only granted them all the rights of citizens? Would you expect them to be satified, to be happy? I doubt it. It's not just that they wanted all of the rights of citizens, they wanted and were entitled to be fully citizens.

To another point you made, let's try a thought experiment: Suppose there are objective outsiders-chidren even-observing our country and culture as we allow civil unions for gay couples These observers look around and see that gay couples live together as if they are married: they raise children as if they are married; they call themselves married; they have all of the rights and responsibilities of married couples, and they even freely show affection in public as if they are married. Wouldn't these children, and observers, assume that our society already approves of the gay lifestyle? In fact an intelligent observer would correctly think we are hypocrites to allow homosexuals all of the rights of married couples, but still, as a country, claim it's deviant, harmful, and illegitimate. You see, as far as our accepting the gay lifestyle, there is no difference between civil unions and gay marriages?

Sharkee - No one wants to deprive gays of anything. They already enjoy civil unions - possessing all the legal rights that legally married partners have today. This was unheard of 50 years ago. This fact alone should inform you that the push for gay marriage is not about rights - gay couples enjoy those already. Rather, it a push to normalize gay relations - the drive to seek approval of a biologically-deviant lifestyle. This is the greatest country on earth - a country that treats its citizens better than any other country on earth. Gay citizens are not deprived of the right to pursue happiness. Gays in Muslim countries - now there's a group that is deprived of the pursuit of happiness.

And "it might be true" that procreation is the foundational purpose of marriage? C'mon Sharkee - surely you can at least acknowedge the obvious. The only reason that marriage receives special consideration today is precisely due to its value as an institution to procreate and nurture children for the benefit of society. You cannot argue against that fact and expect to be taken seriously.

Point me to a non-partisan study that supports children of gay couples are mostly normal and happy. I'd like to review that research.

With today's medical technology - of course gays can "have" children, or adopt children - but it does not necessarily follow that this is best for society. On the contrary, centuries of experience prove - again - that a traditional mother and father in the home is the best way to raise children. And healthy, stable children are our best way to continue a healthy society. Just look at the breakdown of the family in the minority community in the absence of fathers - there's no denying rampant social pathologies with these kids. No denying it. Will the children of gay couples trend the same way. I think common sense should at least exercise caution in moving fast-forward through judicial activism, thwarting the will of the citizens, to ramrod gay marriage.

Sharkee - We KNOW the traditional family is the best way to rear children. We most certainly DO NOT know how children of gay couples will develop. We simply do not know. But we DO KNOW how children without a mother or father in the home fare in adulthood. On average, significantly worse than those who are raised in a traditional family unit. So, logic requires us to acknowledge the children of gay parents (either without a mother or father) could very likely encounter some of the same problems.

Marriage is a legal arrangement to ensure we provide the best situation to channel sexual desires, procreate and rear healthy and well-adjusted children. That is marriage's primary purpose and the reason in receives special consideration by the state. When the state extends the same special consideration to gay marriages - then the traditional family structure suffers.

I'll leave you with this thought...if every union is special, then no union is special. And that's the problem...

Patriot, I'm not a liberal who wants to turn 2000 years of hitory on its head. I just want all citizens in our country to be free and to be treated equally under the law. All citizens, including gay people, have a right to the pursuit of happiness. That is what distinguishes our country. That makes us great.

And, it might be true that procreation is the foundational purpose of marriage, but many people procreate outside of marriage, and many people who are married have no intention of having children. Many married couples cannot have their own children. Yet, these people are free to legally marry. Would you deny an older couple, who love one another, but who have no intention of having children a marriage license? Would you deny a gay couple, who love one another but have no intenton of having children a marriage license? It's not about having babies.

And, I'm on board with you about the research. If research strongly suggests that homosexual marriages harm children, then I'm against gay couples having children. I do not trust, either studies done by gay activist, or those who sympathize with homosexuals. Nor do I trust the validity of studies done by religious conservatives. The studies must be objective. There have not been enough of those studies. The few studies that have been done are inconclusive, or they demonstrate that children reared by gay parents are mostly normal and happy.

Another problem is that gay couples can already have children. If research so strongly proves that homosexual couples produce unhappy, poorly adjusted children, then it's not gay marriages we have to prevent. We have to prevent them from having children. What if we allowed gay couples to marry but not have children, would that be okay?

Finally, what about that gay couple down the street who are great neighbors, who hurt no one, but who have commited to each other and love each other. Is it okay for them to get married? Or, will sinply allowing them to marry, destroy the foundation of our society? I say that it would make them happy and hurt no one. And, most importantly, it would demonstrate that the great thing about our country and the rights that we have is that individuals-like them-are intitled to those rights.

JBee, It's okay to believe homosexuality is wrong. It's okay to try to convince gay people to become straight. It's even cool to tell them to repent; that they are on a fast train to eternal hell. But it's not okay for the state to descriminate based on a person's gender. Heck that's what destinguishes our country from other counties: though we have diffeences, we do not deprive people of their freedoms. It's all about freedom. That's who we are.

Just a note. I dont think it is called walking off of a cliff, It is called getting called up in the rapture. Anyway over 90 percent of the world know it is wrong to be homosexual. Some countries still kill individiuals that claim to be. Every ex homosexual will tell you that they were wrong. I have spoken with friends that are now practicing the homosexual lifestyle, and some of them will tell you that they know it is wrong. But they are still humans, God loves them, we christians love them. The way I see it it is no ones job here to prove that being homosexual is wrong.

Maybe you need to prove it is right.

Tilley...Tilley...Tilley...Heh heh heh...

There's quite alot of common-sense in the good book as well Tilley, and I'm remiss for not reading it more than I do. You obviously have some hostility toward "that book" as you call it. You and Sharkee share that trait. It's interesting that although I never mention the Bible, it's never far from your conscience. A psychologist could have a field day with that one - some unresolved issues of guilt, perhaps.

Heh...heh...heh - anyway, I critique Sharkee's arguments below - but at least he puts some thought into his posts, although I disagree with most of what he says.

And yep - social pathologies will be greater among the population of children who are raised in non-traditional homes (ie single mothers, gay parents, etc). It's really not hard to understand why if you just put a little, just a little, thought into it. Children raised without the benefit of a mother and a father - a real mother and father - are starting off in life at a disadvantage. Of course, if your agenda is merely to demagogue an issue and push for change for which you have no clue what the impact will be...well, then that makes you a bonafide liberal... and a resounding joke. Only a wispy liberal could argue that changing a basic family structure such as traditional marriage that has been recognized by generations and generations of humans over thousands of years could be no more significant that changing tires on your car. Argue for gay marriage all you like, heck, enter into one if you like - but don't insult the rest of us by pretending there could be no detrimental consequences to radically altering the family structure. The evidence is far too overwhelming for you to even attempt to get away with that one.

I am quite capable of thinking for myself - and researching those things I think about. And you are right about one thing - it is clueless to continue the conversation with you... and oh yeah, if you are successful in your rush for gay marriage and it really catches on...I wouldn't bank on you and yours moving forward for long...

Patriot - Honestly, you're so clueless it's pointless to continue this conversation. Sharkee has said everything that needs to be said, and you don't have to quote the Bible for me to know that everything you base your arguments on is in that book.

And 'social pathologies'? You're going to sit here and tell me that people who grow up in gay homes will be more prone to violence and crime?!? You have no idea what you're talking about; you're just against gays because your daddy and your daddy's daddy told you that being gay was wrong. You are incapable of thinking for yourself and the only thing that makes me smile about this is that you and all the other lemmings will walk off the cliff soon and leave the rest of us here to move forward.

Good day to you sir.

Sharkee... Traditional marriage is not granted special status because of its penchant to ensure love and commitment between two individuals; rather, its special status comes from the simple fact that society has recognized the value of the traditional roles of mother and father in the family for thousands of years when it comes to raising children. Period. That's my argument. Anything that further erodes the family unit in this country is detrimental to society. I don't want you to trust me on the facts - the research is voluminous regarding the most common non-traditional family structure today - the single mother household. Social pathologies are rampant in the children that come from broken homes. While research is relatively new with respect to the children of gay parents, similar trends are being seen. Any why not? You cannot deny that confusion and insecurity could be prevalent among children from these households. Sure, there will be well-adjusted kids who are raised by gay parents - but that is merely the exception that proves the rule. So the ones hurt are the children, specifically, and society in general.

You state that gays can marry in every meaningful way - except procreation. That is the most primary and foundational aspect of marriage to begin with. To argue otherwise is a fool's errand.

States most definitely CAN say what they will recognize as a legal definition of marriage - its usually referred to as the "will of the people." That's a phrase that most liberals have forgotten. Gay marriage is not a civil rights issue. Both gays and straights have identical rights - to marry someone of the opposite sex and have that union given special status by the state BECAUSE OF ITS VALUE AS AN INSTITUTION TO THE IMPROVEMENT OF SOCIETY AND THE PERPETUATION OF THE HUMAN RACE. Gays cannot contribute in this regard.

Sharkee - you're a pretty serious thinker. You cannot really believe that recognizing gay marriage would "change nothing." Again, we're talking about 2500 years of human experience that liberals want to turn on its head in a couple of decades...The Founders knew we would encounter issues like this, and created a process that would handle them...it's called the amendment process. If the will of the people is to have gay marriage, then let's have it through the democratic process. But let's don't change the most fundamental building block of a society with another liberal experiment that will have visible and invisible ramifications for generations to come - against the current will of the people, who have made it clear where they stand in the gayest of all gay states - California.

You are correct that race does not matter and cited the Loving vs. Virginia case as evidence. But gender most definitely matters when discussing the value of traditional marriage to society in general.

The evidence is there if you care to research it. I would be most interested in your opinion after you spend a little time studying it.

Patriot; You are right; traditionally marriage has been between a man and a woman who commit to love each other and to live with each other until death. But it doesn't have to be between a man and a woman. Just down the street there is a gay couple who live together and who are commited to each other. They bother no one, and are bothered by no one (pretty good for Hamlet, huh?). They live with each other as if married. What would it hurt if they were allowed to get legally married. How does it benefit you, or anyone else, to say no?

All around the country there are thousands of gay couples who have pledged to love each other and to live with each other. Many of them have gone through the process of marrying each other in church. These people, though they might not meet your trditional, or religious, definition of marriage, are married in every meaningful way, except that they are not opposite sexes, they cannot procreate, and the states do not recognize their marriages. If states recognized their marriages it would change nothing. The only change would be that these citizens would have the same rights as heterosexual couples, and they would have the benefits of marriage. You must admit it would hurt no one. In fact, allowing gay couples to marry might encourage fidelity. How is that bad? And how would that negatively influence the rest of society? How would it hurt you? What is your problem with allowing these people their human rights?

But marriage is more than just a social union between two people. It is also a legal contract recognized by the state. States cannot descriminate based on gender anymore than rhey can descriminate based on race. States cannot say: "We will recognize this couples' union because they are a man and a woman, but we will not recognize this other couple's union. The reason we will not recognize the second union is not because they haven't commited to each other, it is because one of the citizens involved is the wrong gender." <--- You see that is blatant, in your face, gender discrimination. States may not do that. The 14th Amensment says so. All adult law-abiding citizens have the same rights. And, by the same rights, I do not mean the right to marry who the state says they can marry. It means they have a right to marry the person they love and have commited themselves to. Race and gender do not matter.

As to whether or not there is evidence that children reared by gay couples are less healthy and less well adjusted than those reared by traditional man-woman couples: you are right, I do not trust you, or anyone else who just asserts the truth. I must see the evidence myself. I must see the results of repeated unbiased studies and scientific tests. Those results must be convincing before I agree to descriminate against gay citizens. The states must have the same standard. there must be a compelling reason to descriminate. Watch, when the California Prop. 9 case goes before the Supreme Court, the issue will be: Does the state of cAlifornia have a compelling reason to deny citizens their human, civil rights. Watch.



Drogers, I'm not angry at all, but the fact is that anytime someone uses the Bible as a source, I'm going to bring up talking snakes and talking donkeys. The Bible is absurd. That is all.

Osama: You ask a specific question so I am going to answer your question. My anscestors came to this country for religious freedom. That means to worship as they (I) see fit, which I do. Why do I defend Gays? Because I have gay friends who have many, many more Christian attributes then you have ever had or will ever have. (I say gays because the letter is concerning gay rights) Obviously you do not believe that anyone can be gay and be a "believer" what ever that means. If you are referring to "believer of the Christian Faith", I will remind you that both the Episcopal and Presbyterian Faiths are accepting gay ministers, Bishops and etc. Clearly sexual preference has no bearing of whether or not one is a Christian, in their eyes and in the eyes of Most GOOD PEOPLE. Now if you are referring to my support of non terrorist Moslems(and clearly 99.9% of the Moslems in the world ARE NON-TERRORIST), then again I have Moslem friends also. Frankly most of them seem much closer to God then you appear to be!

Now I know that you are "thick as a post" but this should have been clear enough for even you to understand!

Tilley - it's obvious that you know nothing about which you speak - do some research on the social pathologies (crime, drug abuse, dropout rates, depression, suicide, etc. ) of children raised in dysfunctional or non-traditional family structures versus those raised in normal homes. The incidence rates of all the above mentioned pathologies are much higher in those non-traditional households. And for very good reason - humans have learned centuries ago that children have a much higher chance to thrive under the influences of a normal mother/father household - it has been proven that children also fare much poorer without the mother and father inflences in their lives. Of course, plain common sense tells us the same thing. You don't care a whit about the impact of these aberrant family structures on innocent children. You are a good example of what is so infuriating about liberal do-gooders like yourself. You could care less about the "unintended consequences" that always accompany liberal, elitist policies. You could care less that human society has learned through thousands of years of experience what arrangements work best for the betterment of society. And you support it all so you can feel 'good' about yourself as you stand up for our fellow gay citizens - regardless of the future impact on the family unit in this country.

I have made not one reference to Christianity or the Bible in my defense of the traditional family. My arguments are merely pragmatic and focus on what is best for America. You use the strawman arguments of bigotry, fear and ignorance - but your arguments are dishonest. There is no bigotry in my defense of the family - only love for this great country and disgust for liberals who want to destroy our foundational principles.

The ignorance lies with thee, not with me.

See you in November...

Patriot - Yes, it is about civil rights. See the title of this letter? We're not discussing wwhether it is right or wrong in your eyes; those are subjects for morals and ethics. What we're arguing and what you're failing to see past your Bible-colored glasses are that gay people should not have their rights infringed upon by others, just as women and people of color did so long ago. You keep making this about 'tradition' and it has nothing to do with that at all. And for you to say that two gay people aren't capable of being a 'healthy family' as you put it is downright ignorant on your part.

I have mentioned this before, but would someone explain to me why Hamlet and Dana (both self proclaimed christians) are always arguing on the side of nonbelievers?

Tilley - To begin with...I don't know why it is so difficult to understand. This ain't a civil rights issue:

A heterosexual man cannot marry another man and have it recognized as a legal union either. If you want a marital union sanctified legally by the state - marry someone of the OPPOSITE sex. Again, and one last time, marriage is the building block of the family, the family is the building block of society...for real obvious reasons that even gays understand. Without healthy families, you cannot have healthy societies. Evidence (and common sense) abounds that support and prove that healthy, traditional marriages are the best arrangement for nurturing children who represent society's future. You can ignore those facts if you choose - liberals often do - but that doesn't alter them.

No one (least of all conservatives) is trying to tell gays how to live their life - we're merely saying they do not have the right (without popular support) to change the legal definition of marriage which we believe - with good reason - would be detrimental to the family structure. If "We the People" choose to re-define marriage to include two men, two women, two men and a women, three women and a man, two gays and a straight, four straights and a gay, six gays and a caboose, etc. etc. - then all is well. Until then, legal recognition of marriage requires one partner to be a man, and the other to be a woman - very, very simple. No amount of contortion or argument can make this a civil rights issue - period. MLK is turning over in his grave.

It is beyond absurd to compare women's rights (suffrage, equal pay, etc) to two men marrying each other - I suspect that thought is absurd to 65-70% of the population or more.

You can delude yourself if you choose that America is not on the wrong track...it takes but little effort to observe our country today and see otherwise - unless, of course, you support the "fundamental transformation of America" - which you obviously do.

And I never trust a liberal - especially one so uninformed as you...

Au revoir - "The Simpleton"