[King Black Robe]

You mean the top story in the country today isn't questions about Bush's National Guard service?

[Right_Handed_Writer]

Those with no regard for Natural Law will never have any regard for a man made law, like Marriage. They have their agenda come HELL or high water.

[asmith92008]

One had to be amused by Barney Frank’s on fox News Sunday. Here is an excerpt

WALLACE: All right. Congressman Frank, let me turn it around to you. If you're going to argue for the right of gays to marry, why stop there? Why not, say, polygamy or any other personal choice?

FRANK: Because society has, I think, a right to make certain decisions. They ought to make them fairly.

Deciding that a relationship between two people promotes stability, is likely to help society, is a rational decision. And two versus three is a very clear thing. You have a three-way situation, the likelihood of dissension, et cetera, is greater.

As to the traditional family, I think it's a wonderful thing, and same-sex marriage will in no way alter it. I think we ought to be very clear.

What's happened in Massachusetts is this: To the overwhelming majority of heterosexual Massachusetts citizens, marriage will not change in any way, shape or form. The legal benefits, the legal obligations, most importantly the emotional sense — it doesn't change.

This is not going to destroy the intact family. We don't have heterosexual couples who are now going to say, "Hey, I can go marry a guy," and leave his wife. I mean, it is a separate issue.

And I think it is fair for society to say relationships between two people, we want give those legal sanction, because we think that mutuality can produce stability.
***


Where do I begin pointing out the inconsistencies and sheer stupidity contained in this exchange? (More importantly, why did not Chris Wallace or Senator Cornyn do so?)

First, he explains that society must make its decisions fairly. I certainly agree. However, does a decision fair arise from the process of democratic debate or the decree of unelected judges? When asked to vote, the people have consistently condemned "gay marriage?"

Then he explains that "gay marriage" is different from polygamy because the latter involves three or more people. Well, most people feel the same disapproval he expresses for polygamy when they think of "gay marriage." If Frank’s disapproval of polygamy justifies a ban on that odious institution, why does he deny the majority of Americans the right to disapprove of homosexuality? Personally, the thought of a world in which society can condemn only what Barney Frank finds perverse frightens me.

As to the idea that polygamy is different because of its inherent instability, Frank ignores the rampant promiscuity of homosexuals. This is an odd omission, considering that one of his lovers ran a ring of gay prostitutes from the Congressman's home.

Then he claims that heterosexual marriages will not end because society recognizes "gay marriage." This assertion ignores the case of Gene Robinson. An Episcopal cleric, Robinson abandoned his family to live with his gay lover. This occurred despite society's, and his religion's, condemnation of homosexuality. If society endorses homosexuality, as "gay marriage" inevitably does, then those with marginal marriages might be tempted to follow Robinson's example. We cannot attempt to divorce marriage from morality and hope to reap anything but chaos.

Finally, Frank claims that "we think that mutuality can produce stability." So does this mean that he will allow incest? Will fathers be allowed to marry sons? Why not? These "mutual" relationships have as much claim to "stability" as any other homosexuals. Again, we are left in a world in which only Barney Frank’s good taste protects us.

In short, the case for gay marriage is that this influential pressure group should be allowed its perversion. If we give in here, there is no intellectually consistent argument to protect society when the next group of deviants begins its campaign for society's endorsement.

[Spanky the Yankee]

Hi MegaSilver, here's some additional infomation from over the rainbow. Beware this can happen in your town, state, country. It happened here.

The Boston Chapter of the Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network
Be sure to check out their "Calender" for "Blurring Lines, Crossing Bounderies"
and their "Address about Lesbian-Gay-Bi-Transgendered (LGBT) Issues at MIDDLE Schools" http://www.glsenboston.org/


The State Department of Education's website about pro-homosexual classes in Massachusetts. http://www.doe.mass.edu/hssss/GSA/OutAbout.html

The worst of the bunch........
Actual Audio Tapes of what they teach in schools these days:
http://www.forthechildreninc.com/issues/homosexuality/TheAgenda/MAsituation.html


Actually this is.........
Children In Massachusetts Can Marry at Age 12!
http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/Table_Marriage.htm

I'm a first time poster here so I hope this post is within the rules, some of the links are graphic but sadly, truthful.

[the invisib1e hand]

this is what the democrats are hanging (no pun intended) their hats (no pun intended) on.

there is apparently some vast pink conspiracy to make this the issue of the year.

we will, as a result, see just how abberant this behavior is, as measured in per capita participation, when the democratic party is flushed down the sewer by voters, having tethered itself to that pile of crap known as The Left.

[StopGlobalWhining]

I don't use the word gay in discussions relating to homosexuals. There is nothing "gay" about the consequences of homosexual acts.

[Jorge]

I am so sick of this whole thing.
Even if gay "marriage" becomes legal, it will still be a farce.

Just the idea this a subject of debate, shows how far gone our society already is.

[little jeremiah]

Homosexual Agenda Ping.

Let me know if you want on or off this list.

This issue is not going away. The homosexual activists and their minions are not going to give up. This is a fight to the finish. And if those of us who see the truth of the homosexual agenda give up, the future looks quite dim.

[willyboyishere]

If the Dems think they're going to make this some kind of defining issue between Kerry Vs. Bush, they're barking up the wrong tree: Kerry would seem like the consummate hypocrite if he suddenly became stridently pro-Gay marriage. This reminds me of another non-issue that got pushed to the forefront during the 92 election, and got dealt with in the opening days of the Clintoon Admin.: Gays in the Military: the net effect of the progressive Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell" program was that gays were drummed out of the military in ever greater numbers,and 99% of them were good soldiers sacrificed to the ambitions of the most two-faced pol of our time.
I hope the Repuiblicans figure out how to play this one: it would be a shame to let the Dems "steal" this issue that they would do nothing with anyway.