Replies

How can you BAN something that is already illegal? How is it BANNING same sex marriage by reinforcing an already defined and accepted legal institution? It is the radical gay leftists who are trying to change a preexisting norm.

Why is it that the Senate (run by us) seems to take a positive interest in things that no one, except maybe Democrats in the Senate, care about? CFR, agriculture and steel subsidies, education and Medicare boondoggles etc. and absurd immigration "reform" to name a few?

Homosexual Agenda Ping.

I hope some of these (R) Senators get spines and other anatomical features congruent with steely resolve and a fighting spirit....

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

We shouldn't forget that what follows is the real reason homosexual activists want "gay" marriage:

Homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile, who writes periodically for The New York Times, summarizes the agenda in OUT magazine (Dec/Jan 1994):

"A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes, but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution... The most subversive action lesbian and gay men can undertake --and one that would perhaps benefit all of society--is to transform the notion of family entirely.

It's the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statues, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into the public schools and in short to usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us."

Frist said he wanted to reject intolerance against gays while making sure marriage remains a union between a man and a woman.

Cue on the homoactivist groups who will whine to high heaven that only granting them marriage by that name will constitute lack of intolerance. It's high time we stop trying to play nice with them. If it means dragging a few knuckles so be it.

Seriously, I've yet to hear a convincing argument about how allowing gay marriage is going to bring on all the catostrophic ends that so many here predict. I don't necessarily support gay marriage, but I just don't see it as being so overwhelmingly destructive to the institute of marriage as so many here seem to think.

If anything, it will help to alleviate the promiscuousness among gays that many here are always opining about. The libertarian in me says it's just not such a major issue. Life will go on even if gays are allowed to marry.

But while the issue is up for discussion, it seems many "pro-family" organizations are seeing a fundraising bonanza. But that's just the cynic in me talking.