As a Christian I can understand their point. However, I do reconize there is a war on but this is no excuse to brush the issue aside. How can we wage a just war when our domestic foundation is corrupt? Our policies that effect the world start here so I feel that domestic concerns can be just as important as any war or international concerns.

I, for one, am against same sex marrage. I believe that reconizing it chips away at the foundation that made this nation great. You may not agree with me but that doesn't mean my feelings are any less important or relevant because of that.

You know, you can hold that position and defend it if you want. But there are an awful lot of us out here with gay friends, gay relatives. And these folks are not just talking about saying "no," they're talking about wanting a Constitutional Amendment to ban it nationwide. Such an attempt would cause a huge and fractious fight for the entire nation, including both political parties.

It would be almost impossible to pass it--getting 2/3rds majority votes in both houses of Congress AND 3/4ths of state legislatures to ratify it would be an enormous undertaking, and just because most people now say they don't support gay marriage doesn't mean they won't have their minds changed.

The vitriol required to pass something like this would be poisonous to our country's soul. A lot of Democrats might walk out of their party for opposing the amendment, but a lot of Republicans would walk out of theirs for supporting it.

Dick Cheney's daughter is a lesbian for God's sake. So is Newt Gingrich's sister. Do you really think Republicans are going to unite behind a cause like this, that it won't hurt them as a party to try? Do you not think that Democrats would lose a lot of their centrist base if they opposed the amendment?

There is no way I can look at this and not see it being bitter, nasty, hateful, angry stuff for the country, right at a time when we least need it.

If Massachussetts wants to let the lesbians next door protect their relationship, why is that any skin off your nose? Tell them you don't approve and move on. But a Constitutional amendment? Come off it.

Bully for Bush for recognizing all this, and doing his best to avoid it.

You replied befire I could but I wanted to add that I did agree with you on that it should be a state decision. However, the federal government, in particular the Supreme Court, has developed a bad habit of usurping state soverignty and seeing federal and Constitutional issues where there are none. In this light, I can see why some Christians want a Constitutional amendment simply because they know it will eventually come before the Supreme Court anyway should a state choose to ban same sex marrages.

I can't say that I'm too surprised. But quite honestly I wish the proponents of same sex marriage would attempt to change the law through the legistatures, or hold voter initiatives as opposed to the favored stragety of having a court change the law.

This is my main sticking point on this issue and I just get the feeling that people for SSM think people, like me, who are opposed to this are barbarians and not worth listening to.

It's actually pretty depressing at times.

The one factor of a Consituation Admendment is that it would require every state to either approve it or disapprove it. Like the Equal Rights Admendment, it could be stopped. Its suppose to be a way for people who oppose this change to have a forum to affect policy.

What if a state bans same sex marrage? What will happen next? Proponents of same sex marrage will take the issue all the way to the Supreme Court, there is no doubt. And can there really be any doubt that the court will rule such a law unconstitutional? I think not.

Frank, I totally feel you when you say those who oppose same sex marrages are often view as barbarians and not worht listening to. I see it all the time and, indeed, is it depressing. Christian values built this nation but when you try to enforce those values now you're viewed as anti-progress or some such crap.

I wonder how many gays there are out there who-- like me-- do not particularly believe that gay marriage is of huge importance?

I think most people who dismiss right-wingers' objections to SSM (on the grounds that it "threatens marriage") are deliberately misinterpreting the objection. It's not that people think their own marriages will be threatened; it's that they think they will be cheapened. And frankly, I can see their point.

Marriage is supposed to be an affirmation of a natural family pairing, with the nuclear family as the basic building unit of the community. Now, the argument is over whether we've socially evolved to a point where the nuclear-family unit is no longer crucial to a healthy community fabric, and whether the definition of "family" is ready to be extended to include gay unions, and the dreaded "etc".

Reasonable people can disagree about whether we've reached that point, or whether that point is one that we should aspire to reach.

I believe gay marriage will someday be a reality-- but if it doesn't happen in my lifetime, I won't complain. This is because I believe SSM is something that will be made de facto law by individual Americans, not imposed by fiat from the top down. I don't want to antagonize Middle America by forcing people to accept something they're not ready for. Yes, I'm gay, but I'm not about to put my individual interest above that of a much larger majority of Americans. My allegiance lies with the country, not with my social splinter group. I'm an American first, and a gay man second. And I recognize the importance of marriage. Anything that lets people treat marriage with more respect, and cuts down on divorce rates and "marriages of convenience" and Joe-Millionaire-style hijinks, I'm in favor of.

If conservatives say that the idea of gay marriage threatens the concept of marriage, try to get inside their heads. Understand why they feel that such an alteration of the definition of that ancient establishment is threatening. It's not because they think having married lesbians next door will make their own spouses start wandering. It's because they think they've been cheated, in much the same way as amnesty for an illegal immigrant would make a legal immigrant feel cheated. Marriage is a sacred pact, involving sacrifice as well as ease. To have "holy matrimony" placed on the same reverential level as a "civil union" or a marriage for the sake of other things than the raising of a nuclear family is something that's going to set off warning bells.

Now, maybe that's paranoid. There's something to be said for the fact that gay guys who get married aren't doing it for some kind of "no sex out of wedlock" reason, because that's meaningless in their case-- instead, marriage is almost certainly going to be for the purpose of genuine long-term emotional commitment, or even for the raising of a family. This is Sullivan's argument (I believe), and I think there's a lot of truth to it.

But also remember that gays don't have to burden themselves with the albatrosses of family life; we're not expected to. We've effectively claimed a big exemption on life. I myself feel extremely guilty over this-- I know that I'd be nowhere near as independently wealthy as I am if I had to support a wife and kids. (Sam Austin said: "Homosexuality is God's way of insuring that the truly gifted aren't burdened with children.") And this guilt drives me to achieve more and give back more to society in my own pursuit of the American Dream. But that guilt probably isn't universal, and gays can be quite rightly seen as "taking the easy road".

And for such people to be awarded all the rights and privileges of marriage and retain the freedom and independence inherent in being gay seems like having one's cake and eating it too.

So no, I don't have much trouble seeing how conservatives can find gay marriage to be threatening or cheapening to the institution of marriage. And I'm willing to wait until gay family units have become a bit more mainstream before I stump for any legislation that rams it down anybody's throats.

(Hearty applause to Bush for refusing to support DoMA, though. Whatever else may happen, keep the feds out of this kind of decision. Bush has the right idea.)

Marriage doesn't exist. It's all in your heads.
If you and your significant other think you're married, then you're married.
It's only when you get divorced that you need the government to decide stuff.

Brian... wow. What you've written actually touched me. I've never, ever, heard a homosexual person state anything like that before in my life. Nothing that ever came close. I thrills me to see that while we may disagree on the SSM issue, you reconize, and respect, that America may not be ready for it. That the majority of America is heterosexual and many of them still value the traditional "Nuclear Family".

Thank you so very much.

I also agree that it was smart of Bush to stay away from a consitiutional marrage amendment. The decision should be made by the state and, by extension, individual communities.

There were a lot of Americans who were not ready for a constitutional republic, who were not ready for women's suffrage, who were not ready for the end of segregation. If we only passed laws Americans were ready for we would still be singing God Save the Queen.

Brian makes some good points. I think a lot of the animosity towards the gay&lesbian community comes from people's perceptions of who the average gay&lesbian person is. People see extremely leftist, angry, mean-spirited gay&lesbian activists on TV , or read the hateful, outrageous statements such"activists" make, and then assume all GLBT folks are like that. But, we have to realise that not all GLBT folks are like that, they are our neighbors, our friends etc. As far as I am concerned, what folks do in their bedrooms are their own business. As long as people are not supporting or promoting any odious illegal activity or organisations like NAMBLA, I could nt care l ess about what whether 2 gay dudes get married wearing long wedding dresses!!!!

As a practical matter, I don't see how the question of same sex marriage CAN be left to the states. A situation where some state secognize such marriages and others don't would lead to nightmarish legal issues...because it isn't just about marriage, it's about child custody, and inheritance, and divorce, etc.

What would happen when a same-sex couple who gets married in, say, Vermont, has a child, and then dovirces, and then one of the partners moves to a state that doesn't regognize same-sex marriage, let's say Kansas. Will Kansas recognize the custory agreement, or enforce the child support orders?

I think that the basic rules of marriage have to be the same for all states; a situation where marriages are considered valid only in parts of the country and not in others would be very, very bad...

How can you bash Christians for wanting the FMA, when the same Federal judiciary declares a constitutional right to sodomy?

On a philisophical level, I agree that the FMA is a bad idea. But on a philosophical level, I think many of the issues the Federal judiciary involves itself in should be decided in state or federal legislatures, not the courts.

But how long do you stick with philosophy when those who wish to destroy traditional values use the courts to trump the democratic process. It is not Christians who have chosen the field of battle. In fact, Christians are the late arrivals on this field. To castigate them because reality has demanded that they fight on the field chosen by their opponents is not a fair criticism.

i agree with james here. to my mind, there are two separate parts of a "traditional" marriage. there is the civil aspect, that of sharing insurance, taxes, incomes, visitation rights, child custody, etc, etc, etc. and then there is the religious foundation of marriage. now, we all know most religions view homosexuality as something "evil," or at least pretty base. therefore, that aspect of marriage is up to the churches themselves to decide. but in terms of strictly civil unions, everyone, straight or gay, should be treated equally in that respect. kevin claims that the u.s. was built on christian values. i'd like to think it was more built on the idea of a refuge for the persecuted. after all, it was the puritan settlers who came here to escape religious persecution who really started the colonization of america. the u.s. was founded on the concept of the equality of all man. in the beginning this meant landed white men, but over time it has spread to include women, people of other races, the poor, and it should also come to include homosexuals. it is the only natural course of action the united states can follow. while i'm sure many politicians may be ruffled at the idea of gay unions because of religious convictions (and dean makes a good point about how it's fine for officials to be informed in their decisions by their moral codes), the fact is that here separation of church and state /does/ apply. as a state, we must guarantee equal rights for all citizens. and if the straight majority can have the benefits (and troubles) of civil unions, then it should absolutely 100% be guaranteed to the homosexual minority, regardless of whether 99.999% of the country opposes it.

Brian, that was perfectly stated. At least that is how I view the issue. "Get in their heads" is the perfect advice.

My husband would like permission to post that comment on his website (Dean, Brian, would that be OK?).

It is too easy to ascribe some sort of evil or discriminatory motive to people who fall on the Nay side of the SSM issue. For many of us, it was a painful decision, for exactly the reasons you and others have listed--we have gay and lesbian family and friends, and our hearts want them to have every opportunity of happiness possible, and society to accept them as we do.

Then our head focuses on the issue. And, as you've stated, we have to set aside what our hearts may want, and choose what is best for the country.

You are also 100% correct when you bring up the issue of how progressive our society is and the issue of whether or not this is a good thing. For many of us, me being one, progressive is an egotistical notion, and a blatant lie or ruse perpetrated on the blindly, but optimistically, ignorant. We are no different than the human beings of 100 or 10,000 years ago, and it is foolish of us to think that we can try (and succeed) at forcing something like this on the masses, without negative consequences.

If the day comes when homosexuals are expected to participate equally in the bedrock of society, and are able to achieve that participation with equal outcome, then the issue will be moot. And those of us in the grandstand will cheer that change came about the way it is supposed to--effortlessly and without a single activist bull horn.

Brian Tiemann I am an extremely conservative Christian heterosexual. As expected, I have strong opinions about homosexuality. However, in my entire life, I have NEVER thought being gay was easier. If you have succeeded in your life, its because you're smart and creative and persistent. You did NOT get any edge because you're gay (there are plenty of successful heterosexuals with wives).

One version of the proposed Defense of Marriage Amendment would ban any financial or legal obligations or considerations from any sexual relationship outside of a marriage between a man and a woman. Whoever wrote this apparently didnt consider things like premarital pregnancies and child support (or did and is violently anti-woman).

I said way back when that President Bush sounded a hell of a lot more sympathetic to gay couples than any of the backpedalling candidates following the Massachusetts decision.

I do not think that America is ready for same-sex marriages yet, although it is trending in that direction, and, if you look at polls, people under 35 are much more in favor of same-sex marriage then older folks. All of this means that in 10-20 years or so, same-sex marriages will be pretty well accepted.

The key now is not to push things too fast. At this point, I am a true federalist on the issue. I think that the matter should be left totally to the individual states and their own courts/legislatures. I know this will likely create a messy pathwork for a couple decades, but that is better then a federal fiat that would "fight the future" by banning same-sex marriages via the Constitution, or the reverse, a federal imposition of same-sex marriage nationwide.

Yeah... the only worry I have about "leaving it to the states" is, as James said above, that the Constitution has provisions for each State respecting the licenses and treaties of all other States, right? And a big part of that is so that a marriage recognized in Nevada (say) is still valid in Oregon... right?

The reason I think this needs to be left to the States is that some regions of the US are more ready for SSM than others, and it needs to be legalized on a piecemeal basis, as each State becomes ready for it. (And once the first few do, the rest will likely follow quickly.) Once that's done, Federal recognition can codify what's already there.

Does that sound reasonable?

Oh, and Mrs. du Toit, go right ahead and repost-- I'm flattered. :)

Isn't the problem the conflation of "holy matrimony" with "civil marriage"? It's the "M" word.....

I think that the states should be able to confer civil unions with equal legal protection. Once people realize that doing so doesn't lead to gross moral collapse (we have Britney for that ;-) I suspect it will become a non-issue. Keep religion out of it--it's a civil matter. Just because civil divorce and remarriage are LEGAL doesn't mean that anyone forces the Catholics to perform re-marriages; ditto that no one will force a CHURCH to recognize a civil union. But the State is not the Church.

Speaking as one of the lesbians next door, who lives a boring, tax-paying, unremarkable monogamous life that threatens no one's marriage, I am perfectly happy with the concept of civil unions or domestic partnerships. But I am vehemently opposed to the FMA. The supporters are SO mean spirited. It would even bar civil unions--because a subset of religious practitioners don't like gays. Excuse me, but as the recent Episcopal Church events have shown, there is room for disagreement even amongst Christians. Conservative Christians don't get to enshrine their religious beliefs in our great Constitution, because our Constitution protects us from that.

I would think that with poverty, hunger, war and divorce, all rampant, all of which Jesus had a lot to say about, people would stop obsessing about how two people make love! Haven't we got bigger problems in this tired old world than worrying about legal commitments between gay folk?

To start off with: Thank you, Dean Esmay, for this. And I know Rosemary agrees, she has written wonderful stuff on this issue herself. Hail to the Queen of All Evil!

Politically, I'm willing to do the necessary and have marriages or civil unions on a state-by-state basis. But, morally, I will not compromise.

Kevin D. wrote:
"I, for one, am against same sex marrage. I believe that recognizing it chips away at the foundation that made this nation great."

I, for one, am for same sex marriage and against your Taliban morality. Which nation are you talking about? Iran? Saudi Arabia? The foundation that made _my_ nation, the United States of America, great is _individualism_, "the moral fact that the individual belongs to himself and not to others or to society," as Justice Harry Blackmun said in his noble dissent in Bowers vs. Hardwick, 1986 (i.e., Dred Scott II, now gone the way of the Berlin Wall).

Or, as Justice Kennedy put it: "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."

I refuse to play the game where the pro-homosexual, pro-sexual side is expected to be reasonable and civil and tolerant, while the anti-sexual side gets to have all the religious and moral conviction and damn us as immoral, perverts, degenerates, deviants, etc.. I take those as compliments. I am proud to be a selfish deviant, i.e., an individualist. I will _not_ let the enemies of passion have a monopoly on passion. I will instead be passionate in defense of passion.

For centuries, my enemies have characterized all who oppose them as moral relativists, devoid of all conviction, weak, wishy-washy, compromising, shades-of-gray, neither here nor there, and too many liberals have allowed them to get away with it. I am here to let you know that I, for one, do stand on religious convictions, i.e., polytheism, the Gods and the Goddesses Who created me, that I do see black and white (and blue and red, etc.), that _I_ have absolute values which I will not compromise and for which I will fight to the death: All that which proceeds from the Godlike or Goddesslike self is the good. All that which negates it is the bad. Sex is the highest expression of the Divine self, the passion of the Divine in one for the Divine in another, the ultimate integration of body with soul, of body with body, of soul with soul, the total, eternal commitment of one self to one other self. Up With Beauty!

That is where I stand.

As for my enemies, as for the American Family Association, the Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America, Falwell, Robertson, Santorum, Buchanan, etc., etc., I regard them exactly as I regard all other Communists and Nazis. To everyone who advocates "sodomy" laws, I say: Keep your jackboots out of my bedroom, not only because the Supreme Court says so, but because the Second Amendment says so.
We are at War against the same enemy both at home and abroad, and I am acting accordingly.

Brian Tiemann, I applaud and wholeheartedly support your position. It actually speaks to the position of my own soul on this matter, and the ability to (at least, apparently) understand the objection and the reasoning behind it is, regrettably, rare among gays who bother to opine publicly.

As for Steven Malcolm Anderson...

I disagree vehemently, axiomatically, fundamentally (but not fundamentalistly) with a large part of your statement. And I don't think I can even begin to explain why without 1) turning this into an armed-camps comment thread, and 2) totally derailing onto another topic than the post in question.

Brian's post was about the closest thing to any kind of "common ground" that I've ever seen on this issue, and while interesting, it is more descriptive the prescriptive. I suspect same-sex marriage is simply not an issue upon which anything other then the most temporary tactical compromise is possible. Like slavery was 150 years ago, it is an issue on which two unreconcilable world-views clash. I certainly don't think America will come to civil war on this issue, but both sides will attempt to use brute force (constitutional amendments, sweeping court rulings) against the other until long term demographic and cultural changes make the argument moot.

And that's the point, Mike. There are activists on both sides of this issue--people who do not speak for the majority on either side, but they get all the media play (and the majority of web play, too). But, the choice seems to be SSM or nothing. There IS middle ground, but forcing people to stand on one side of the line or the other will close doors for a long time to come.

Reasonableness is called for. Baby steps. Broad, sweeping generalizations about those who are opposed to SSM just makes folks more stubborn. It's forced many folks (like myself), who are supportive of 90% of other homosexual rights issues, to stand with the folks at the other extreme. And to be perfectly frank, I don't like it over here, but that seems to be the only group to stand with. (And, I should add, while I'm over here, I'm getting an earful on a whole bunch of other issues. My "resist, resist, resist" warning systems are pretty good, but I'm sure there are cracks in my armor. Do you want a significant majority of reasonable folks left out with this side? I don't).

I wish more folks like Brian would speak up. But that's probably asking for too much. When I speak about this issue, it attracts the vultures, and makes other reasonable people like myself keep silent--unwilling to express their objections to SSM for fear of attack. This doesn't help. It fact it makes the case that those on the side of supporting SSM are unreasonable and MEAN. The silent and opposed remain firmly opposed to SSM (even more so after seeing what happens when you come out against the idea). That WILL put them off of other reasonable homosexual rights issues.

There is a THIRD choice, and that is one of Civil Unions--a new term, new laws, providing a synomym equivalent of marriage, but with the recognition that it IS different (because it IS), but providing the equal protection homosexuals demand. Further, Civil Unions would not be an exclusive arrangement for homosexual couples. Hetereosexual couples wanting the same civil protections as traditional marriages, but without the social/moral requirements of same, could choose the latter option, too.

The Civil Union compromise actually STRENGTHENS traditional marriage, rather than demeaning or cheapening it. Folks who want something akin to an "open marriage" would likely opt for a Civil Union instead. Not interested in all the requirements of a traditional marriage, but want most of the bennies? Well, here ya go... Civil Unions.

Then, after a few decades, we'll have some data and can determine if folks in Civil Unions benefit society in the same way as traditional married people do.

Blame school prayer, Roe v. Wade and follow ons for the FMA. When the SCOTUS discovered the wall of seperation between church and state and abortion rights in the Constitution they prevented federalism from working. As far as conservative Christians are concerned the SCOTUS is an organization where we are unrepresented and unloved. The SCOTUS has incredible power, and once it speaks only the SCOTUS itself or the Constitution can change things. The FMA is an attempt to preempt the SCOTUS.

The problem with Senate Democrats blocking conservatives from the courts is that it will only increase the alienation that conservatives (including conservative Christians) feel towards our Judiciary. Long term, how can this be a good thing?

Yours,
Wince

Hey 'Wince and Nod', just checked out your blog...are you out of Kansas City? I'm out of Lawrence, always nice to hear from someone in the region!

...

Mrs. DuToit, Civil Unions are a logical compromise, and one which I would expect a significant chunk of people in the middle would support. The problem is that those on the right do not accept them, and will fight just as hard against them as they do against full-blown same-sex marriage. Or take a look at California, where a very broad domestic partnership law was passed legislaively (without any court mandate!) and now conservative Golden Staters are trying to sue to have the law blocked...apparently their objection to judicial activism only applies when the judge rules the "wrong" way!

"Judicial activism": When the Supreme Court refuses to read Leviticus 20:13 into the Constitution.

As I said, I have no trouble with civil unions. BUT I don't think they should be "marriage lite" for the straight crowd. Don't want gays to get married? Okay, I can respect that,even if I don't agree with it, and I'd settle for unions since something is generally better than nothing.

BUT nothing will weaken "real marriage" like making a less serious version of it for uncommitted straight folk. If the justification for civil unions is that marriage should be restricted to straights, then if you're straight, you shouldn't be able to get a civil union. Civil unions should be only for those committed couples who don't qualify for the "real thing", ie., us gay folk.

I think the last thing anyone wants is to weaken marriage--although admittedly we have different conceptions of what would do that. In my view, civil unions should have the same fundamental meaning for gays that marriage does for straights, the same seriousness, the same strength. Dissolving them should be non-trivial. It's not a casual business partnership and never should be.

that's how important the concept of marriage is to me, too. My relationship to my partner is just as important to ME as my straight friend's marriages are to THEM. It cheapens my relationship to imply that we can't, or shouldn't, make the same commitment as partners and citizens, or that our unions should be "easier" or involve "less commitment". No way. Make 'em tough to get into and tough to get out of.

Interesting thing about marrying in Canada, by the way. They'll marry anyone but you gotta live in Canada to get divorced. Which means those US gay couples going up there, are pretty much married for life. I'm game. Are you? ;-)

I don't know if that is enough "middle ground" to satisfy the folks in the middle, but I'm trying.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks Mr. Anderson is off base. But then, that's his right as an American.

Kevin D, here's a voter that says Mr. Anderson is right on target, it's your right as an American to be wrong on this issue. Opposing same-sex marriage is akin to opposing candy bars. Who cares what an adult puts in his or her consenting mouth...some people just like their candy with nuts - some don't.

Brian Tiemann:
"Marriage is supposed to be an affirmation of a natural family pairing, with the nuclear family as the basic building unit of the community. Now, the argument is over whether we've socially evolved to a point where the nuclear-family unit is no longer crucial to a healthy community fabric, and whether the definition of 'family' is ready to be extended to include gay unions, and the dreaded 'etc.'"

Brian, like a lot of others here, I agree with most of what you say. The showdown mentality among a lot of gay activists and supporters over gay marriage is truly frightening lately. Threatening to hold our breath until we turn blue if marriage isn't opened to gays this very minute is a horrible, horrible idea. It can't work. Even if we did think just of our own kind, it would be a disservice to future generations of gay men and women to force the issue in a way that damages our reputation.

May I point out, however, that not everyone who gets into the fray from the gay-supportive side is failing at empathy with conservatives? The idea that the nuclear family is the basic building unit of the community--as opposed to a node in its web, say--is very new. Historically, one sees couples striking out on their own in rare roles as pioneers (as with, say, Abraham and Sarah in the Old Testament), but to the extent that there is a universal marriage tradition, it involves binding the couple into each other's extended families. This has been true even for most of the last few centuries, after openly allowing young adults to choose their own mates became common. When we rewrote the Japanese constitution post-War, it had to be written into it that marriage is a man and a woman and that they were permitted to choose their own mates and domiciles, because arranged marriages had still been the norm.

All of which is to say, I don't want any changes that are going to compromise my parents' marriage, or Dean and Rosemary's, or the du Toits'. But I also find it unspeakably grating to talk about the contemporary nuclear family, in which a couple may live 1500 miles from each set of grandparents and know almost none of their neighbors, as if it were some time-honored norm that we were returning to from the frivolous '60's. That the family is the basic unit of society is difficult to dispute, but the definition of the family was in transition long before Andrew Sullivan set foot in the offices of The New Republic. One wearies of arguing these things with people who don't seem to have so much as walked past the Anthropology shelf at Waldenbooks in their lifetimes.

Steven Malcolm Anderson:
"All that which proceeds from the Godlike or Goddesslike self is the good. All that which negates it is the bad. Sex is the highest expression of the Divine self, the passion of the Divine in one for the Divine in another, the ultimate integration of body with soul, of body with body, of soul with soul, the total, eternal commitment of one self to one other self. Up With Beauty!"

I like beauty, too--ugliness can be so unpleasant. But it's false to say, even as an individualist, that you can help people pursue happiness simply by telling them all options are open and then leaving them to wander into a way of life that works. You can believe that traditional sex roles shouldn't be used as straitjackets without going the whole way and arguing that we should all give vent to every impulse that passes, cloud-like, over our brow.

I know that that's not exactly what you said, Steven, but the fact remains that too many individualists don't address the good-will compromises we need to make if we're going to live in communities. A country of 280 million divas is not going to work, however much we all value passion and our Goddesslike selves. Obviously, I don't agree that extending marriage as a government-enforced contract to gays would cheapen heterosexual marriage and child-rearing, but the way to convince people is not to call the Family Research Council communists. And isn't being outside society supposed to be part of the thrill of being deviant?

"...the thrill of being deviant?"

Deviant implies some form of mischief (legal or not).

Gays aren't deviant. Michael Jackson is deviant.
Howard Dean is deviant. Carrot Top is deviant.
Carrot Top and Howard Dean wrestling naked in jello is waaaaaay deviant. Makes being gay look kinda normal huh?

"Carrot Top and Howard Dean wrestling naked in jello is waaaaaay deviant."

Tim, sweetcakes? It's lunchtime here in Japan. I'd like to keep the miso soup down, if it's all the same to you. Anyway, I was only using the same word that Steven Malcolm Anderson used to describe himself.

Judicial activism: Where only five members of a court decide that laws common to the states for over a hundred years are suddenly unconstitutional.

Democratic process: Convincing enough of your opponents that you are right so the legislature changes the law and you avoid decades of bitter division. I, for example, am convinced that homosexual behavior is wrong and that anti-sodomy laws are wrong but I waffle on whether homosexuals should be allowed to marry.

Bad tactics: Publically hating Dr. Dobson and calling him a Nazi, even though he loves homosexuals but condemns homosexual behavior. I have long been a fan of his work and his worth. He knows more about raising children well than any other human alive, IMHO. How will you convince me you have anything sensible to say on the subject of homosexual marriage by tearing down a man I admire? Have I shown signs you can convince me by insults and invective?

Conclusion: We all have our Howard Dean-like moments.

Yours,
Wince

Tim, if you want to trivialize the arguement in your own mind, that's up to you. I see it as something a tad more important than that. The arguement, "What consenting adults do in private" and so on doesn't apply to EVERYTHING. I feel that reconizing SSM attacks the healthy "Nuclear Family" model, a model scientificly proven to be the most healthy. When you attack that model you attack the foundation of an orderly, healthy society. Now, you can feel free to disagree with me but that doesn't mean I cannot be possibly right. And I take issue with Mr. Anderson's ignorant statement that since I have this view I am somehow the same as the Taliban. Well, he is wrong, immature and showing very clearly the depth of his character, or lack thereof, for making that antagonistic statement that serves no useful purpose.

You can disagree with me, fine. But that doesn't mean my opinion is any less relevant than yours (or his). Nor does it mean my opinion is inheriantly inaccurate, bigoted, small minded or whatever else ignorant people who have disagreements label one another.

I.T: I agree with you, in principle, that Civil Unions should not be interpreted by those who undertake it as a commitment and consider it "marriage lite." But... and that's the hard part.

(There's a point to what I'm about to say, that had to do with your point about a marriage for straights and Civil Unions for gays only.)

Legally, a marriage now consists of a man and a woman (one of each). We don't ask if this couple plans to have children, if they are sexually compatible, or if they are sexually attracted to each other. That's not really something we can ask. I've known plenty of homosexual couples who adorn a traditional marriage, and find a suitable opposite gender partner (for oodles of reasons). In that sense, marriage is not prohibited to homosexuals. Nothing is stopping a gay man from marrying a lesbian woman, so the prohibition is not on homosexuals marrying, it's on same sex unions.

It is an important distinction. If only homosexuals were prohibited from getting married, then there could be a discrimination element to the prohibition. It would be, I believe, un-Constitutional to establish Civil Unions, but only make them available to homosexuals--that's a requirement and distinction that is NOT placed on a man and a woman marrying (nor is there a fidelity requirement imposed by the State).

So, while I get your point, and I agree, I don't think there is a way around it legally. I would prefer if people only got married for the right reasons, but I was once guilty of that mistake myself (and man-o-man, that's a mistake that never stops paying). I'm thoroughly convinced that I made that mistake (not blaming, just analysis with 20/20) because marriage HAD been trivialized. I knew far too many people who believed that marriage was whatever you wanted it to be. WRONG! I think it's the wrong advice to send to the young, or the yet to be married. My children pay for that mistake every day (not that I’d try to put that cork back in the bottle, they were the silver lining of the whole thing), but HAD I known differently (or what I know now) I could have made a better or wiser decision. I was left out there with little or no advice from anyone, and any advice I did get was from the "do whatever you want" crowd. I think we can do better than that, and expect more from people, even if some people don’t want to listen.

The other aspect of this, that I believe is crucial, is that a civil recognition of marriage didn't fall out of the sky. Governments adopted the laws and statues AFTER millennia of experience with the practice (they didn't invent the rules, they just wrote them down in an official law book). There have been slight variations in history, but not dramatic differences--at least not since we stopped carrying clubs or followed the herd. There are (and were) differences with nomadic peoples, but we're not nomadic anymore. Once a culture decided to stay put and live in fixed communities, marriage entered the picture as a requirement. Government formalized a SOCIAL practice, not the other way around. Therefore, change, if there is to be any, must work from that same direction, not imposed by the outside in the form of the State.

I stand by every word I wrote in my post.

Judicial Passivism: Courts allowing any majority to have its way with any unpopular minority (such as "faggots", "niggers", Jews, lovers of classical music, Catholics, Huguenots, capitalists, landowning aristocrats, etc.)

Democratic Process: Tyranny of the majority. Mob rule. Rule by demagogues. "Democracy" not mentioned in the Constitution. "Republic" is used instead. Our Founding Fathers were landowning aristocrats and merchants who wanted to protect their property, and therefore set up checks and balances to thwart majority rule. Among these: the Electoral College, the Senate (apportioned by states rather than by population, elected by state legislatures until 1913), property qualifications for suffrage, the Supreme Court, the Bill of Rights.

Deviant: Anyone who deviates from the majority "norm" in any way. E.g., lovers of classical music are regularly portrayed as villains in Hollywood movies today. I'm going to be writing on that in my blog in the future.

Bad tactics: Compromising, conciliating, always trying to see the other side, and, most disastrously, conceding the Enemy's premises -- while the Enemy has no hesitation about damning you to Hell, throwing you in jail, "curing" you through "reparative therapy" (Communist brainwashing), or passing a Constitutional amendment to read you out of the country.

"You catch more flies with honey..." Except that I'm not trying to catch flies. I'm trying to ward off a swarm of killer bees, and you can't do that while covering yourself with honey.

Sean Kinsell wrote:
"Obviously, I don't agree that extending marriage as a government-enforced contract to gays would cheapen heterosexual marriage and child-rearing, but the way to convince people is not to call the Family Research Council communists."

And just what _do_ you call the Family Research Council (which, by the way, derives much of its "research" from Dr. Paul Cameron, who is on record as advocating the extermination [his word] of homosexuals)? I know what you call them: "religious conservatives" Oh, yes, calling them _that_ will certainly persuade people to oppose them because everybody surely hates "religious conservatives". While they call you a "pervert", a "sodomite", a "degenerate", etc., the worst thing you can think of to call them is "religious conservatives", thereby conceding to _them_ a monopoly on all that is religious or conservative. You concede to _them_ a monopoly on all religion, on all moral conviction, on all absolutes, on all values (even though their only "value" is the negation of all values), on all passion (even though their only passion is for the negation of all passion), on all concept of the Good (even though their sole motive is hatred of the good _for being the good_). No wonder we are losing!

An interesting point of view, Mr. Anderson. Perhaps one I don't wholly agree with but interesting nevertheless. I have one question, though. At the end you say: "No wonder we are losing!" What "we" are you apart of? No sarcasm intended or anything like that. I just don't know who you are refering to, that's all.

One thing that always saddens me is when I hear from supposedly "tolerant" straights who go on and on about how they are forced to support anti-gay marriage measures even though they have so many gay family members and friends.

Mrs du tuit, your words actually made me cry, because when you say that the far-right zealots are on the verge of talking you into joining them on other issues, it really does remind me of how casually people can stab homosexuals in the back. What people such as yourself may not realize is that these groups are using same-sex marriage as a cash cow and a breeding factory. Their real goal is to punish and demonize all gays and lesbians. They use these slippery slope arguments every step of the way. Sodomy laws should be on the books and enforced because otherwise, gays will win same-sex marriage. There should be non-discrimination laws to protect the many men and women who are fired for being gay or being suspected of being gay, because that will lead to same-sex marriage. Teens and young adults who are on the verge of suicide because they can't make themselves straight and they think God will punish them should not hear that there is an alternative to a life of forced heterosexuality, because that will lead to same-sex marriage. The argument used to be "gays in the military and same-sex marriage", but the public now supports gays in the military by a huge margin (78% in the last poll), so the paranoia has been whittled down.

Don't you see that these people care nothing about marriage? They have been married and divorced multiple times. They leave their kids to be raised by nannies or relatives while they go out plugging their books and videos.

They do not just want to ban marriage. They want to ban EVERYTHING. So, Mrs. du Tuit, if you do work on this amendment, you will be banning not only marriage, but also civil unions, domestic partnerships, and health insurance from companies. All of these gay people and gay couples you supposedly know will be very, very lucky if they can see each other in the hospital, or if a will they have is not thrown out of court because the relationship is "immoral" and that family members should get everything, no matter how tenuous their relationship was to the deceased. But hey, I can go out and marry a lesbian, so who says I don't have rights?

I accepted a long time ago that I lived in a country which despised people like me. I accepted that this would never really change. But it still kicks me in the gut when I hear so many "caring" people who do not even begin to understand the motives of the anti-gay movement. Those of you who are straight and are supposedly so tolerant of gays and lesbians do not seem to realize that your fears and worries are hypothetical. You and your future heterosexual children will still be able to marry or divorce, or have common-law relationships which are recognized by many states.

But to gays and lesbians, THESE ARE OUR LIVES. Do you know what it's like to be called a pedophile because you love a consenting adult of the same sex? Do you know what it's like to hear over and over again that you are going to burn in hell, that you have AIDS, or that you want AIDS because "you people get all kinds of money and perks once you get the fag plague"? Do you know how it feels to be fired from your job or kicked out of your home solely because of who you love? Do you know how it feels to have to lie to your mother, your father, your siblings, your friends, and to see the shame in their eyes because they know the truth and you know the truth but it's just too ugly to say out loud? Do you know how it feels to be blamed for every ill in society, to be smeared as a communist, athiest, baby-killing freak no matter what your religious beliefs or personal feelings are? Do you know how it feels to not barred from attending the funeral of your partner and then be "comforted" by someone telling you that this was a message from God that you should go straight or you'll be next?

The reason for "all or nothing" is because bigots, Christians and Republicans have spent many years ensuring that we get nothing. They don't like human rights ordinances. They don't like non-discrimination laws. They don't like gays being near kids. They don't like marriage, unions, partnerships, or even registries that carry no legal weight. They don't like gays and lesbians wanting to be involved in church or politics.

Every second of every day in this country, gays and lesbians are reminded of their place. Inhale the exhaust fumes on the bumper of the bus. Don't expect anything, because really, we're being kind by not putting you in jail, a coffin or a nuthouse. And now, after a long, long time of trying to get any legal benefits and instead seeing none, when the Supreme Court decides that we should not be demonized for having consensual sodomy in our homes (that was what started this, not the Massachusetts decision), suddenly we need to be reminded of our place again. Ya gotta love the conservative mentality which says a man (Bill Prior) who gave a gun permit to an abusive husband and who applauds executing the mentally retarded is fit to serve on the bench, but judges who want grown adults to live private, legal lives are way out of line.

Spare me. I know all about it's a choice, and reparitive therapy, and Adam and Steve, and Leviticus. I know about arch-conservative state legislatures, moderate politicians who are sat on and destroyed by fundamentalists, and a President who thought sodomy laws were needed for "symbolic value". I know about polygamy and bestiality and necrophelia and pedophelia and how doing anything but spitting on queers will make these all the rage. I know about "loving" groups like Focus on the Family and Family Research Council which go around calling gays "domestic terrorists" and saying that Jesus caused 9/11 because of Sodomites. I know about ballot measures which strip any small kernel of recognition for gays and faith-based iniatives which protect organizations on every level who advocate the imprisonment and murder of homosexuals.

And sadly, I know about people who claim to be above this stuff, people who will go shopping with you or pat your head, but when you actually need their help on serious issues that affect your future, they suddenly find morality, just in time to stop their pristine hands from getting dirty.

One of my friends, a few days before he blew his brains out, told me, "I'm sick of hearing people warn about the gay agenda and our plans for world domination. I don't want power. I don't want acceptance. I just want people to leave me alone." And that's what it comes down to. Many of the comments in this thread reinforce it. To be gay and to want anything is to somehow magically destroy the lives of "normal" people. So you "normal" people destroy us or pray that we destroy ourselves. And you say that we asked for it, because we never knew our place.

We know our place.

It's on the bottom of your shoe.

I think you're something of a self-righteous backstabber and a stereotyper, Jon--and the exact kind of person who tends to drive anti-gay sentiment.

But I doubt you'd understand that, you poor victim of evil people who disagree with you, you.

I'm glad I've known plenty of gay people who lack your self-righteous intolerance and prejudice. Your friend killed himself because people said paranoid things about gays? Sounds like he had bigger problems than that to me.

And you're not the only one who's lost people to suicide around here, by the way. My experience is that people rarely kill themselves for the reasons they say they do--especially when it's something so silly as, "The Ultraconservatives say there's a gay agenda."

Sorry bunky, not buying it.

Steven Malcolm Anderson:
"While they call you a 'pervert,' a 'sodomite,' a 'degenerate,' etc., the worst thing you can think of to call them is 'religious conservatives,' thereby conceding to _them_ a monopoly on all that is religious or conservative."

Oh, donnez-moi a break, Steven--I think I'm pretty good about keeping my temper, but what the hell? I said the FRC aren't communists, and that makes me sanguine about being called a pervert? Must you and John Kusch always, always, always spoil your eloquent arguments for personal liberty by windmilling your arms at the end and treating advocates of moderation as if we're passionless naifs who don't care whether non-conformists are exterminated? No more than you do I want the government to tell us which consenting adults we're allowed to get happy with in our own houses with a can of Crisco.

But I also don't think that everyone who opposes gay marriage in 2004 wants me dead. A part of my parents--the part that wanted a house full of grandchildren on holidays and hoped I'd be baptized into their religion--died when I came out to them. They love me; they consider my boyfriend one of the family and think I bagged a good one; they make an effort not to show discomfort. But it's hard. There is no way to achieve a free society in which we both develop our personalities to the very fullest and have sunshine-and-flowers benevolent encounters with everyone else. If we all want to get along, we have to make concessions--not in our moral convictions, but in whether we're going to use them to run other people's lives as well as our own.

Well, Dean, if someone says, "I'm firing you because you're gay and that's not acceptable here", or a former friend says, "stay away from my kids you homo", then I do think that makes them a victim. That happened to me. But according to your logic, I guess I deserved it. And not staying silent and deep in the corner means that I further anti-gay sentiment, right?

You can blame the homosexual all you want, but everything I listed has happened to me or to people I know. Being barred from funerals, losing jobs, losing homes, being shunned by those who claim to be tolerant, Christian, forgiving, etc. These things happens every single day. The FMA *does* ban all legal benefits (the wording is 'or any legal equivalents', I think), and Concerned Women for America does call gays "domestic terrorists". If you want to dispute that, go ahead. I can't change your mind. You certainly haven't been able to change mine.

BTW, Dean, congratulations, you were right. My friend didn't just kill himself because of a gay agenda. He was pretty unstable anyway. He had attempted suicide a few other times. What finally helped him over the edge was when his parents didn't let him come home for Thanksgiving becuse they wanted to "get tough". They told him that although they'd tolerated his lifestyle, he'd better try to find Jesus and enter heavy therapy to help him go straight. Otherwise, he was dead to them. To them, a gay son and a dead son were interchangeable.

How dare you come in here and act like anyone who has any doubts about any part of the gay rights agenda is automatically to be equated with such people? HOW DARE YOU?

Who do you think you are?

I am not responsible for what your friends or former friends do to you. I am not responsible for what your family does to you. If I want to sit here and say I side with you and find such things deplorable, but I have other concerns about other areas of the gay rights agenda--AND THERE IS ONE, JON, because you can't pretend you're both for gay marriage and then pretend that that's not an agenda--that makes me a hater and evil and somehow responsible for your friend killing himself.

How DARE you imply such a thing? How DARE you??

It's intolerant, self-righteous people like you who ALIENATE people who might otherwise be ON YOUR SIDE if you would lose the vicious, snotty, screaming drama queen attitude and talk to people like adults.

You know something? There is no more of a "vast right wing conspiracy" than there is a "secret homosexual agenda." There are no membership cards, there are no secret club meetings where the Mrs. du Toits of the world get together and plot ways to put you in jail. And if your friend killed himself, it was because HE HAD ISSUES, not because anyone here said, "Wow, gay marriage, seems pretty weird to me."

I have GAY FRIENDS WHO AGREE WITH MRS. DU TOIT. How fucking dare you to treat them like garbage with your attitude? Who the hell do you think you are?

You learn some God Damn Manners and to treat people who disagree with you with some God Damned Respect or GET OFF MY WEBLOG. You are in my home and you will comport yourself as a guest, or you can just leave--and leave behind people who might care about you and might be brought around to agreeing with you, but who you'd rather flip off and call murderers instead.

Christ, I'm sick of arrogant, bigoted, steroetyping people who think "Oh, I'm gay, so I get to act like a jerk any time I want."

Get over yourself and your own bigotries and stop crying because someone dares to question you.

Oh, and my suggestion for your friend would have been that he write off his asshole family. I've known others who've done so without killing themselves, thank you very much.

Ummm... wow. I've never seen you this angry, Dean. And that's all I'll say about this, ah, discussion.

---
I think you're something of a self-righteous backstabber and a stereotyper, Jon--and the exact kind of person who tends to drive anti-gay sentiment.

But I doubt you'd understand that, you poor victim of evil people who disagree with you, you.

---

Is this an example of treating people with respect? What kind of response did you expect me to have? Your words screamed 'blame the victim'; if that wasn't what you meant, then I'm sorry.

You're the only one who has said that my friend killed himself because of gay marriage. I said that my friend killed himself because of mental problems and because of the crap he had to hear over and over again about being gay.

I would settle for civil unions. I don't need marriage, and realistically do not expect marriage. But to BAN marriage and ALL OTHER FORMS OF BENEFITS for ALL TIME is unacceptable to me. How is that an "agenda"? How would straight couples feel if there was momentum to pass an amendment which would permanently sever any legal benefits or ties between them?

If you don't want to believe that there IS a movement, a longstanding movement, to punish gays and lesbians, to destroy them, then fine. Are there really no demands from the American Family Association or Traditional Values Coalition to "quarantine" all gays and lesbians (this was on AFA's website for a long time, and I wouldn't be surprised if it still is)? Did Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson not say that gays and lesbians were responsible for 9/11 (along with liberal judges and feminists)? Did the Moonie zillionaire who owns the Washington Times not recently say that gays and lesbians should all be murdered? Is Reverend Fred Phelps not going around trying to put up anti-gay statues and picketing the homes of murder victims' families with signs like "AIDS IS A PLAGUE FROM GOD" or "KILL ALL FAGS"? Why would I make this stuff up?

If someone does not like homosexuals, that's fine. That is disagreeing. But to enact prohibitive laws and to applaud violence and hate, as these groups do, is not merely having a different opinion.

I find it hard to believe that your gay friends have the same opinion as Mrs. de Toit. Do your gay friends really say this:

---
It's forced many folks (like myself), who are supportive of 90% of other homosexual rights issues, to stand with the folks at the other extreme. And to be perfectly frank, I don't like it over here, but that seems to be the only group to stand with. (And, I should add, while I'm over here, I'm getting an earful on a whole bunch of other issues. My "resist, resist, resist" warning systems are pretty good, but I'm sure there are cracks in my armor. Do you want a significant majority of reasonable folks left out with this side? I don't).
---

Do they really find themselves being drawn into anti-gay, hostile views solely because they oppose same-sex marriage? As you said, "I don't buy it."

---
Christ, I'm sick of arrogant, bigoted, steroetyping people who think "Oh, I'm gay, so I get to act like a jerk any time I want."
---

Really? Well I'm sick of people who think that they have a monopoly on Jesus and who say that I am the scum of the Earth because the Bible says so. I'm sick of people who think they have the right to literally spit in my face and wish me dead because the Bible says so. I'm sick of people who say that gays want "special rights" and who froth at the mouth whenever gays want to discuss issues like marriage.

I really wonder about these gays who bothered you so much. You make a very sweeping statement about them and you act like you are their victim, even though you condemned me for doing the same thing in regards to bigots. I would guess that no gays or lesbians ever tried to kill you or tried to have you run out of town or anything else. Gays cannot say the same about many of the zealots who infest their lives. You don't seem to realize that these aren't just sob stories -- they happen all the time.

I'm leaving this weblog; you don't have to worry about banning me. I'm sorry if I ruffled any feathers. I am not the most articulate of speakers and I've said a lot of stuff in this thread that I regret. But the TRUTH is that many of the groups opposed to gay marriage are dangerous and destructive. People who say, "oh well I don't mind gays, but I'll side with these groups because of marriage" don't realize the horrible plans that these groups have for gays and lesbians. If you think I'm shrill, or I'm just some freak show who magically makes supposedly tolerant people such as yourself hate all gays, then don't listen to what I've said. Just do the research for yourself.

(one thing I forgot)

a good example would be at the JewishWorldReview website. In spite of much criticism from anti-gay marriage activists, they published a series of articles about the Muslim part (ISNA) of Alliance for Marriage (who wrote the amendment). Some of their members have been supportive of Hamas, they have called out "death to the Jews!!!" at rallies, they have advocated overthrowing America's government. Who is the real threat to the future here? Nothing against all Muslims; the ISNA are feared by many, many moderate Muslims.

Is this an example of treating people with respect?

Of course not. It's an example of treating you like you're treating other people around here.

I would settle for civil unions. I don't need marriage, and realistically do not expect marriage. But to BAN marriage and ALL OTHER FORMS OF BENEFITS for ALL TIME is unacceptable to me. How is that an "agenda"?

You're playing word games.

You're asking for something that doesn't exist now to be created. That's an agenda.

Is it an evil agenda? No. In fact, as it happens, I support it. I also know gay people who think it's silly. I also know straight people who might be persuaded that it's a good idea of folks like you would stop treating them like they're evil.

If you don't want to believe that there IS a movement, a longstanding movement, to punish gays and lesbians, to destroy them, then fine.

Didn't say there wasn't one.

Now, do you want to drive everyone who has any doubts or concerns straight into their arms by treating them like garbage for having issues?

But by the way? Can you tell me which groups CURRENTLY advocate quarantining gays? Who said they wanted to "exterminate" homosexuals by actually killing them?

Are you aware that Fred Phelps has a congregation of perhaps 200 people who go to his stupid church every week, and never travels with more than a dozen or so people in his insane little protests? Protests where he's also said God Hates George Bush and God Hates Rush Limbaugh?

Wave your hands and generalize too much and you start to look pretty prejudiced to me.

Do they really find themselves being drawn into anti-gay, hostile views solely because they oppose same-sex marriage?

Yes, and you might try to learn enough introspection to start asking yourself why.

Well I'm sick of people who think that they have a monopoly on Jesus and who say that I am the scum of the Earth because the Bible says so.

Funny thing is, I know lots of fundamentalist Christians, and have yet to meet one who has this attitude.

So how much of this is just your own prejudices and bigotries coming out? It feels real good to be self-righteous and accuse everyone of being on one radical extreme end of the spectrum, doesn't it? That way it simplifies discussions: evil people vs. poor old innocent me.

You're doing more damage than good, Jon. So's Steven Anderson, come to think of it.

And whether you believe it or not, I know gay people who think the idea of gay marriage is silly, or utterly irrelevant to their lives, who are sickened by much of the gay rights movement and refuse to associate with it for various reasons.

Including, come to think of it, at least one former gay friend who killed himself.

So what's that say about me, or him, Jon?

I've done more than enough research, thank you, but you obviously have no idea what I believe or what I've seen but are happy enough to generalize anyway. Whatever. Have fun in your little world where people who question you are by-definition evil and therefore worthy of being stereotyped.

You're not going to find many people around here sympathetic with any such groups, Jon.

Quote:

"Did Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson not say that gays and lesbians were responsible for 9/11 (along with liberal judges and feminists)?"

Actually what they said is, and I'm paraphrasing, is that since America is embracing anti-Biblical practices God may no loger be protecting the U.S. like He once did. That is wholly different than what the extreme left say they said. It makes a bit of sense even if you disagree with it, and it's not the same as saying such people should be killed or put in jail.

While Falwell is an ass, simply saying "America has been sinful--here are a bunch of examples" honestly isn't the same thing as saying that the above-listed sinners need to be killed or imprisoned or spit at. I guess that's true enough Kevin.

At the same time, people can hardly be blamed for failing to understand the distinction. Furthermore, he only picked certain kinds of "sinners." Didn't hear him say anything about rapists or muggers or murderers or people who swear or drink too much, did you? He picked a couple of groups, honed in on them, and it's hard not to believe that at least some of his listeners would have thought he was blaming them in specific.

Then again, I also think that Falwell gets far more media attention than his following really warrants. Like I said, I know a number of fundamentalist Christians, and none act like him or talk like him, and few even like him.

Dean:

"Protests where he's also said God Hates George Bush and God Hates Rush Limbaugh?"

That means...These nine things doth the Lord hate, yea ten are an abomination unto Him (counting fags)? Same number as the commandments. So nice and symmetrical.

"Of course not. It's an example of treating you like you're treating other people around here.

Now, now. If you always stoop to other people's level right back at them, you never get the delicious feeling of behaving well when others do not (though you mustn't show it, of course--that proud look problem). What fun would life be without that? And anyway, Jon didn't exactly cover himself in glory, but I didn't see him committing any sins besides hasty generalizations. Heaven knows how blog comments would be thinned if that were outlawed.

Dean, I think you are being a bit too hard on Jon.

I don't agree with how he expresses his sentiments, but they are real, and I've felt them too.

I am a big believer in the words of Elenor Roosevelt, that "no one can make you feel inferior without your consent." That is a big part of my philosophy, standing up for myself, and not being a victim.

At the same time, I am not naive. The anti-gay-marriage agenda is real, and a large part of it is not based on 'protecting' marriage but is based on using the issue as a wedge to deny gay people any protection of the law.
There really are anti-gay "boogeymen" and they really are out to get me.

I just do not let them.

The anti-gay marriage agenda IS real. I agree with that wholeheartedly. This gets to the heart of this issue for me (as well as others). Where is the end? Where does it stop? When can we say, "OK [insert name of special interest group here] you have now been given equal opportunity in every area. We can stop coddling now, right?"

But that never happens. It's a line in the sand issue because many people have had enough.

The government cannot change people's minds. In fact, the more you intrude into the bastion of the mind with protectionist laws, the more the mind of those who MIGHT have been convinced with persuasion, instead of force, go underground.

The government cannot stop private individuals from BELIEVING or THINKING that gays are bad (or evil), that minorities are inferior, that women are bloodless cunts (or incompetent naifs), etc. And the more their activists and race/gender baiters push, the greater the chances of a PUSH BACK when the load gets too heavy.

Back OFF. It's just common sense, for gawd's sakes. When an object is moving towards you with force, don't try to stop it coming your direction. Wait until it starts the swing back in your direction and then push to give it greater momentum on the return. Right now, the momentum is on the other side. Giving people cause to push it further into your region, stripping away what has been achieved. Continuing will begin to erode all that has been accomplished.

Rome wasn't built in a day. Allow the last decade's achievements to settle. Pride can be found in what HAS been accomplished, not a constant whine and complaint list of what is left to be accomplished.

If someone said that the ultimate goal of the "homosexual agenda" (I know, it's as real as the VRWC) was to make homosexuality an option for people, to encourage people to explore it, and to present it on a equal footing as an alternate for everyone (regardless of their orientation), to encourage children to have homsosexual sex (especially girls) to prevent unwanted pregnancy, etc. Would that seem extreme to anyone? Would it seem "out there" and way over the top? You pick an example that would be "too far." It doesn't matter what it is. The point is, that gay marriage for many people IS that extreme. It is so far over the top that it is mind boggling (as was middle and high school age children being taught how to fist) was to me. Then, ask yourself what kind of response, how effective it would be for your cause to push that extreme agenda? Would it happen? Would you be able to persuade people to your side, or, would they begin to rebel and not only disagree with you on that issue, but start chipping away at anything else you support?

THAT is the point we have reached with same-sex marriage. Don't think for an instant that I represent that "evil right wing." The "evil right wing" thinks I'm a communist and a sell-out.

I know you are not the Evul Rite Wing (tm), Ms. du Toit!

And there is wisdom in aveything you have said in your post.

Were I in command of the Vast Homosexual Conspiracy, I would order an immediate halt to give our troops, and the American public, time to regroup and assimilate what has already happened. I would stop pushing right now because the ground has gotten weak, and it would be best to wait for it to be shored up.

The problem is, I can't do this. I have to deal with the real terrain as it is.

One of the greatest battles of the civil war, Gettysburg, was basically an accident, and was kicked off by a small Confederate batallion that was foraging the countryside looking for shoes! Neither side wanted a major fight at that particular time or place. However, the confederates ran into a small Union detachment, the pieces were set in motion, things escalated, and all you had to fight on the given terrain with what you had, as there was no other option.

I don't want this fight now, it is a bad tactical situation for my side. But, the enemy is counter-attacking, and if we try to withdraw or pause the fight, we will get wiped, because now THEY have smelled blood.

It is a sorry situation all around.

I have the same problem with the gender-feminists Mike. Black people have the same problem with Jesse Jackson. Gloria fucking Steinem does not speak for me, nor does NOW. But I can't be quiet in my objections. I can't buy into the hype that speaking against them hurts women's issues. NOW hurts women’s issues, not speaking against them. It is defeatist thinking to do otherwise (actually, it's more lazy and fearful than anything else). I can, for example, simultaneously support a pro-Choice agenda, but ALSO agree that it is a not a decision to be made lightly, that there are long term emotional consequences, etc. A position that makes the absolutists on the pro-Choice side FURIOUS. I can be pro-Choice and dislike the recent Late Term Abortion laws, but see that it isn’t the end all threat to first trimester abortion that the Permanently Disgruntled want it to be—I can see a need for some give and take—COMPROMISE.

I can criticize NOW and their Bitch Brigades because I believe they ARE wrong, that they have gone too far--that women have achieved so much—everything and more we set out to achieve. I think it's time for those offices and organizations to close up shop, pat each other on the back with a "Well done!" and get on with life. (Get married, start having babies, learn to bake cookies, or learn to knit or something. HA!) If there comes a time when things do begin to fall off the other side, we can always return to the effort.

The problem with activist groups is that they must continue to agitate or they won't have a job anymore--they literally have to protect their pay checks. You can’t raise money by being happy and cheerful—there must be a dire need or threat before people will contribute to your effort. What are they going to do if they admit success? Get a job at Target? Raise funds for Feed the Children?

Once their original goals have been achieved they continue to make new goals--then they become worse than the problems they originally set out to solve.

Dear SMA, the selfish aesthete,

Good tactics: Self deprecation, especially of the humorous variety. Your signatures ARE honey and I love them. One of my recurring problems is taking myself too seriously. The excellent arguments in your previous post (for the most part).

It's a shame: Gays and lesbians are treated badly and it's terribly wrong. The things you all have to go through are nasty and difficult and, well, wrong. Just to be certain I'm clear on this I mean that nearly all of the ill treatment you have received was a sin against you and God, and the sinner will go to Hell unless they obtain forgiveness from Jesus. The Bible is a two-edged sword. It cuts both ways. I don't want my lesbian sister treated badly. I don't want my gay and lesbian aquaintances to be treated badly. I did not want my wife's friend to die of AIDS.

An experience: When my sister came out I found it terribly uncomfortable. I had been in a roomful of people who were out of the closet, so I was very self conscious and deathly afraid that I would say the wrong thing. As a result I was quite stiff and my conversation was embarrassingly inane. My sister noticed and complained about it. Ugh.

Some of the things Pat Robertson and I would agree that I'm going to Hell for (unless I repent and do what it takes to obtain forgiveness): Pride, Envy, Gluttony, Lust, Anger, Greed and Sloth. That's all of the seven deadly sins. I've also taken the Lord's name in vain, dishonored my parents, stolen, lied and coveted, which is half of the Ten Commandments. The particulars and the other sins I've committed are none of your business.

Judicial Passivism: You are right.

Judicial Activism: Inventing law, especially constitutional law. The Constitution does not allow Congress to make partial-birth abortion illegal, much as I would like it. Discriminating against a newly unpopular minority (conservative Christians) in favor of a smaller but newly popular minority (homosexuals). Find me a TV show on anything but Christian channels which portrays homosexuals in a negative light or conservative Christians in a positive one. This point is, of course, very arguable, and homosexuals, although newly popular are also still persecuted. Conservative Christians are not.

Really, though, if they could keep from inventing law I wouldn't mind too much if the SCOTUS were to extend marriage to homosexuals as long as we weren't forced to marry them in my church. It would be horribly devisive, though. Integrating the schools, for example, was causing riots thiry years later. Integrating the armed forces, which was done by an elected official performing his normal duties, went much smoother.

I do mind the school prayer decision. It is just as bad to force the Christian God out of my kid's education as it is to force the Christian God into an atheistic, Jewish or Hindu kid's education. Education is better when religion is every day and informs every subject. That's why school choice (vouchers) is best for every parent.

I also mind the abortion decision. Now there is no chance for us to do anything legally to preserve the life of the baby up to the day of the birth. That's wrong.

Republican process: You persuade me and others like me. I tell my legislator what I want, sometimes via a poll. Activists (like you, since you are most interested) lobby the legislators in a back breaking tireless way, like those who got concealed carry passed in Missouri, in spite of polls (and an actual referendum) showing it did not have majority popular support. In my state (Kansas) the Democrats get together with the moderate Republicans, probably because they are temporarily angry with the conservative Republicans. They vote to make civil unions or homosexual marriages the law. Our current Democratic governor or perhaps our future moderate Republican governor signs the bill (start work now, we occasionally elect conservative Republican governors, and our moderates have been known to waffle).

Deviant: I like science fiction, war games, role-play games, Harry Potter and shooting, myself. Do you know what some conservative Christians organizations say about role-play games and Harry Potter?

Bad tactics: Telling people who don't know deep in their hearts that you love them that they are going to Hell for things they don't believe are wrong, especially when they don't believe in Hell. This tactic is so bad it's sinful, since you are endangering someone's eternal soul. Love them and make sure they know you love them first. (Caveat: Preachers have to preach against sin and about Hell sometimes. It's a real balancing act.) Blasting other people's sins without coming clean on and condemning your own. There is a log in my eye. Is there a splinter in yours, you beautiful aesthete, made in the image of God? I can't quite see. Overemphasizing certain sins, especially very uncommon ones, when there are plenty that nearly everyone is prone to.

Absolute refusal to compromise. If California was willing to repeal every portion of their assault rifle ban except the high capacity magazines I take it in a heartbeat. Demonizing your 'enemy' for premises which are heart-felt, are not going to change and are actually immaterial. Rosemary probably believes you are going to Hell, you wonderful aesthetic heathen you, (based on what she said about Dean) but she's too smart to say so (see above), and I think she's on your side. I think we can agree that lying is a sin, but I don't think it should involve jail unless it is actual perjury.

I'm a fly, not a killer bee. There aren't any killer bees on this thread (I may be anonymous, but I am not Pat Robertson or Dr. Dobson). As a fly, I like honey and so does Dean (see above).

Discrimination: Giving up on homosexuals and other sinners and saying, "Let them go to Hell." Forgetting that their sins are just as hard to fight as your own. Not letting them know that your own sinful nature has been with you as far back as you can remember and that you appear to have been born with it. Concealing from them how disgusted, and dirty and insignificant and wrong your own sins make you feel. Pretending you are not consumed by shame. Failing to reach out to let them know that we can help each other fight our sins and that forgiveness is available, even for sins we fight until our dying day. I pray that God will help me save people's souls as well as my own, and if I do get to Heaven I pray he'll let me go to Hell and get you out, if you are willing.

Not discrimination: Reparative therapy, as long as the therapist obtains complete consent. Leaving a homesexual male in charge of Boy Scouts, for the same reason as you shouldn't leave me in charge of Girl Scouts. It just isn't prudent.

Conclusion: I have a lot of work to do, don't I? Do you?

Yours,
Wince

Meaning altering correction: I had NEVER been in a roomful of people who were out of the closet...

Ye gods. What a mess has been made here. I apologize for any part I've played in what's clearly a very discouraging comment thread for Dean.

I think it might be indicative of some sort of healing process, though... these are all questions that need to be discussed, and up till now they haven' much been. A coalition of gays who are indifferent to (or guarded about) SSM, and conservatives who want to extend as many rights to gays as possible without significantly diluting existing values or capitulating to moralistic browbeating, may just have a significant amount of power. One that can project far more appeal than the strident victim-gays or the reactionary and hateful Right (of which, I agree, Dean, I have yet to see more than a few examples, and those mostly in the form of mostly-unwelcome commenters at Misha's blog). One that I think most of Middle America can get behind.

Great Gettysburg analogy, Mike. :)

Brian,

I thought you did great. This thread may be messy, but we're hanging in there, huh? We can't learn how to agree without learning how to disagree. The coalition you mention sounds righteous to me. And Mike's analogy is really cool, especially since we're not actually spilling any blood.

Yours,
Wince

Always looking for a chance to use a civil war analogy :-)

I've been on a civil war kick in my reading recently, and since Alex Trabek isn't returning my calls, I get to spring my trivia on you all!

Just out of curiousity, assuming that somehow we had magic power to 'settle' the same-sex marriage issue, this is how I would do it...is this something to build on here?

1. Individual states have the right to set whatever rules they want for same-sex marriage, anyway from allowing it fully (through any judicial or legislative means they want) to totally banning it in their own state constitutions.

2. No religious group or institution can be coerced or forced to change its doctine or practices with regard to marriage, or forced to bless such marriages.

3. The part of the Defense of Marriage Act that allows states to not recognize same-sex marriages from other states stays in existance for indefinitely. No state will be forced to recognize a marriage against its will.

4. The Federal Government will treat same-sex married couples from states allowing this as married -- but only if they reside in the state that married them. This will prevent the "nationalization" of same-sex marriage while at the same time still being fair to couples residing in a state allowing SSM.

My "plan" isn't perfect, and would result in a patchwork of conflicting laws among states, but it seems to me that it would be the best way to both allow states to experiment as "laboratories of democracy" while at the same time making sure that states where the public is very against SSM do not have to worry about it being imposed on their state.

Any thoughts?

I stand by every word I wrote.

And I agree with everything Jon wrote, too. Nothing he wrote has been refuted, not even by Dean Esmay. Telling him he is "too extreme" does not prove that he is wrong. He is extremely right. Everything he describes, in every detail, is real, and pervasive, as real and as pervasive as was anti-Semitism in Europe in the 1920s. I have witnessed much of it myself. The parallels are indeed ominous. We are now living in what can only be called -- Weimar America. It's not too late to turn back, but we _must_ turn back. The Decline of the West, the destruction of the strongest nation of the West, is not irreversable, but it is happening. We must ruthlessly expose and oppose the agenda of this subversive totalitarian movement to enslave our country, beginning with the destruction of their chosen scapegoat, homosexuals. Complacency is as debilitating and as deadly as despair.

Kevin D. asked a very good question of me:
"An interesting point of view, Mr. Anderson. Perhaps one I don't wholly agree with but interesting nevertheless. I have one question, though. At the end you say: "No wonder we are losing!" What "we" are you a part of? No sarcasm intended or anything like that. I just don't know who you are refering to, that's all."

I can't speak for others, but I'm happy to answer your question with regard to myself. By "we" I mean all those men and women described in Romans 1:26-27 _and_ in Romans 1:32:
"Who knowing the judgement of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them." -Romans 1:32
That's me. I'm worthy of death in the eyes of St. Paul, of Jerry Falwell, of Pat Robertson, of all those who agree them, because I do indeed, proudly, take selfish pleasure in the existence and presence of homosexual men and women. They give color, beauty, and meaning to my own existence. A world without homosexuals, both men and women, would be intolerably drab and dull and poor. I am a gynosexual man, drawn to the beauty of women, and especially women who can see and feel in their own inner beings the beauty of other women even as I do. I identify with such women, but I also admire the manliness of men's men like John Kusch and of the great men's men of the past such as Alexander the Great. I believe that homosexuality is inherent in, intrinsic to, the Divine order of the Gods and the Goddesses.
Therefore, I selfishly and implacably oppose any attempt to eradicate homosexuals and homosexuality, whether by the Nazi method of exterminating homosexuals as Dr. Paul Cameron of the Family Research Council and Rev. Sung Myung Moon (owner of the "Washington Times") advocate, or by the Communist method of _changing_ homosexuals into servile heterosexual "breeders" through "reparative therapy" as the "kinder, gentler" totalitarians advocate.
And I unalterably oppose any attempt to _change_ the United States Constitution to stigmatize homosexuals and homosexuality, to subvert the United States Supreme Court, to overthrow the noble decision by the Supreme Court of June 26, 2003 (John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner vs. State of Texas) upholding my right to privacy in my own home. The radical demogogues scream "judicial activism!" and "legalized perversion!" in order to whip up envy and hatred among the mob in order to destroy our freedoms and make us their slaves. I oppose them without mitigation or apology. Better dead than a slave. And better them dead, too, if it comes to that. We must stop them _before_ it comes to that, _before_ we reach the stage of a second Civil War, or a second Warsaw Ghetto. If it comes to that point, we will need another Sherman's March to the Sea, another D-Day, another Hiroshima, to put an end to the tyranny. We must stop them _before_ it comes to that. Complacency will destroy us.

Mike,

Sounds like a good compromise to me, in general, but point 3 and 4 probably run afoul of Article IV of the Constitution, which reads in part as:

"Section. 1.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Section. 2.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States...."

Too bad Spoons, Eugene Volokh or Glen Reynolds (among others) aren't reading this thread. Where's a lawyer when you need them?

Yours,
Wince

SMA,

Martin Niemöller’s said: 'First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist, so I said nothing. Then they came for the Social Democrats, but I was not a Social Democrat, so I did nothing. Then came the trade unionists, but I was not a trade unionist. And then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I did little. Then when they came for me, there was no one left to stand up for me.'

First they came for the homosexuals, huh? Over my dead body, and as many of theirs as I can take with me.

Yours,
Wince

Mike,
I agree with 1 and 2. In fact, 2 should be obvious; we don't make Catholics remarry divorced people even though it is civilly legal for the divorced to remarry.

3 and 4 is a problem. Here's an example. What happens if we have a state that has an FMA type anti-civil union law, and my partner and I are in a car accident there? Can they deny me the ability to see/make decisions for my partner, because they deny the existence of our partnership? Just wondering.

As other threads here have pointed out, there is much more ground in the middle but too often we are pushed to extremes. I recognize that a lot of people don't approve of my (committed, monogamous) gay lifestyle. However, I am heartened that disapproval in polls drops off when people actually KNOW gay folk such as me rather than the -- shall I say, foaming fundamentalists? Extremists on either side are doing no one any favors.

I don't think that the US is ready for gay marriage. But I think individual states ARE ready to provide some protections to gay couples, for fairness and equality. And these aren't solely due to "activist judges"; in California, it was legislative. I think we should take it a step at a time.

I am annoyed as all get out at the activists who are crying for all or nothing on this front. HELLO, I already got nothin', so please, can I get just a little, okay? And then, people will see that it's a positive, and a good thing for our communities and cities, to promote stable, committed relationships between gay couples, just as marriage promotes the same between straights. And maybe we'll get to the point where, yes, it's worth doing this in more places, even if we don't call it marriage, because there is a positive effect for all of us.

And I'll respect your right not to want to include me in your Church,(of course there are Churches that will include me, if I want to go), if you respect my desire to live a humble, happy, peaceful life as an honest, taxpaying, contributing American just like you. I'm not trying to seduce your children and hopefully you are not trying to seduce mine!

Really, I think we have much, much more in common than not. Victimization on either side is just polarizing--what we have to do is humanize both sides of the argument and listen to what concerns us, and find compromise so we can all move forward.

Remember compromise?

Clearly many do not, but I'd like us to try it.

Steven Malcolm Anderson, the selfish aesthete,

BTW, I read everything both you and Jon wrote. I haven't addressed Jon, since Dean kicked him off and I thought he had left. As for you, I thought I was hearing what you were saying. Sadly, I think we are typing past each other. But I'm not giving up on our conversation yet. I don't expect to convert you to Christianity. I do hope you can understand that someone can think a person is completely wrong about something and still love and respect them. You should hear the arguments I have with my Dad, the gun-grabber.

The Bible makes it very clear, through many verses, that all sins are deserving of death (the wages of sin is death), and that all human beings except Jesus have sinned and deserved to die. All the apostles have made it clear that they themsleves deserve to die for their sins. If we did not sin, we would never die. I'm afraid your sins don't get special Biblical treatment. Neither do mine. The New Testament does not call for either the government or Christians to put any sinners to death, in fact it is clear to me that the Inquisition and other persecutions by Christians are all horrible sins.

So which part makes me a totalitarian? The part where I think you deserve to die for your sins, or the part where I think I deserve to die for mine?

Yours,
Wince

To Dean Esmay (and his lovely wife Rosemary, the VERY _GOOD_ Queen of All Evil), Mike Silverman, Wince and Nod, Mrs. du Toit, Sean Kinsell, and Kevin D.:

I'm going to stop flaming any of you now. You are right. And I am right. What Mike Silverman proposed is exactly what I advocate. It's what we _must_ have if we are to avert the scenario I described above. I was very moved by Wince's post, and I find I can't really disagree with anything in it.
Dean is right. Any further warmongering from me in this thread would only damage me my cause. I'm going to declare victory at this point and more or less go home. Dean is Abraham Lincoln and I am William Lloyd Garrison. Lincoln needed Garrison to get the ball rolling against slavery. The moderates need the extremists. But we extremists need the moderates like Dean and Wince and Mr. Silverman and Mrs. du Toit to keep the ball from rolling the wrong way. Garrison came to understand the need for Lincoln's compromises and kinder, gentler, but still firm, approach. "Bind up the nation's wounds." Better to do so, if we can, _before_ a Civil War. I do hate those who seek to enslave me, to take away my freedom, and I know who they are. But I do not identify any of those of you I named in my salutation with that crowd. You may or may not believe that I'm going to burn in Hell based on the Scriptures I quoted, and such is your right, as long as you do not seek to enforce your view on me by law. We can agree to disagree.

Sorry, I drifted off message after the first few paras, so instead of talking to MIke, when I used "you" it was general to these with an opposite viewpoint and not him....

Steven Malcolm Anderson the fantastic flaming firebrand,

What a cross post, and on the same minute, too. I guess we were communicating, after all.

Yours,
Wince

Actually I didn't kick anyone out of anything.

I merely noted that a person who wants to go around accusing others of being vile homophobes needs to get over himself.

No one's been "kicked out" here.

I.T.,

Your example shows why the Framers put Article IV in the Constitution. I'd be royally pissed if my wife had an accident in Missouri and suddenly my insurance was no good and I wasn't allowed to make decisions for her. Without Article IV, traveling between the states would become way too much like being in a foreign country.

Yours,
Wince

Dean,

Sorry, my bad. Hope he comes back then. We have relatively thick skins around here, I think, and he could 'experience the consensus building process', which I thank you for providing and hope you can moderate to your satisfaction.

Yours,
Wince

Wince, that's true. However, it's my reality , and represents one of my biggest fears!

Dear Wince and Nod:

Yes, we were typing past each other. While I was composing another salvo in the flame war, you were writing a truly excellent post in reply to my earlier one. You, like Dean, like Lincoln, bring it all together. And while I was writing my nicer ("declare victory") post in reply to yours, you were reading my harsher ("declare war") post. No, I do not consider you one of the totalitarians. I do not consider you my enemy. Indeed, bless you and yours.

I must reiterate, though, that I.T.'s is actually the most _conservative_ position, as she is in a committed, monogamous relationship with the woman she loves, a marriage in all but name. That is certainly far more conservative than the strategy promoted by my enemies of consigning homosexuals to bathhouses and then demagoguing about AIDS. Especially if that loathsome agenda is carried out through a Constitutional amendment.
Bless you and the woman you love, I.T.. May you and she have and hold each other always.

I.T.,

My heart goes out to you. I pray God never makes you face such a trial.

Yours,
Wince

Wince: You are a good man.

Thanks, Wince. I appreciate your caring, and I hope your prayers are answered. :-)

Meanwhile, how mean-spirited can the Ohioans get? Fine, don't recognize same-sex marriage--that's their right--but disallowing DP benefits? I've only heard brief news summaries on this, so my take may be wrong, but that just seems cruel. :-(

FYI, both Brian and I have longs posts on same sex marriage which reference this thread on our respective blogs.

Brian -- www.grotto11.com/blog/

myself -- www.mikesilverman.com/log.html

Mr. Anderson,

So... where do you think I fall in your view? Dean is Lincoln... I am...?

Just don't want to get left out! ;-P

Dear All,
I am a Christian. There is no scriptural mandate for a theocracy, despite the contrary history of the Church of Rome and some of its splinter reformers. I do not want to revisit all of that here; but let me say that St. Augustine was taken much too literally by that same church. It is too bad that his position on the grace of God was not taken as seriously by that same church.
Having said all of the above, I will now say that it is in the best interest of this society to mandate heterosexual monogamy. All governments, including the Roman Empire, have understood the necessity of incouraging certain human propensities