[SandRat]

.... not in our democracy ..

Uh, it's a REPUBLIC. Someone needs to remind the author. Maybe he should recite the pledge of allegiance one more time and really listen to the words.

[SevenDaysInMay]

This matter is simply whether we normals allow this small abnormal homosexual sector conspiring with fascists in and out of courts to pervert the definition and meaning of "marriage" in culture and law.

We shall not tolerate these abnormals and outlaws in high office buggering THE meaning of "marriage".

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Poll: Will the institution of marriage suffer if it fails to be inclusive of gays?

[Coleus]

`

[Congressman Billybob]

Armstrong Williams is a smart cookie with a good sense of public opinion. (He's also a rousing speaker in person.) And he's dead right on this issue.

Notice the human zipcode, Teddy Kennedy, woke up long enough to denounce Bush's stand on homosexual marriage as a "campaign year stunt." The good Senator dud not explain how Bush pursuaded four Democrats on the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, and one Democrat green-horn Mayor of San Francisco to play such essential roles in the Republican plan.

But then logic, other than the logic of Scotch single malts, has always been beyond the ken of Teddy. LOL.

Congressman Billybob

Click here, then click the blue CFR button, to join the anti-CFR effort (or visit the "Hugh & Series, Critical & Pulled by JimRob" thread). Don't delay. Do it now.

[Kryptonite]

Democracy v. Republic aside, Armstrong is correct on everything else in the article - worth digesting. Here is an excerpt:

[Just one thing - there is also a long tradition in this country of using moral codes to prohibit conduct deemed immoral by the majority of the citizens, as evidenced by restrictions against prostitution, bestiality, pedophilia, etc. As Justice Scalia tersely noted in his dissent, Texas's anti-sodomy laws is "well within the range of traditional democratic action, and its hand should not be stayed through the invention of a brand-new 'constitutional right' by a court that is impatient of democratic change." In other words, the matter of homosexual rights should not simply be dictated by the whims of appointed judges.

The judiciary should always be sensitive to leaving room for democratic debate on issues that are bound up in complex notions of morality, religious belief and personal autonomy. This is when the court is at its best - when its decisions spill out of the courtroom and stimulate earnest and important debate and legislative decision making. This is the democratic process. And it is ripped to shreds when the judiciary uses fiat to impose their own views about what our law should be, as the Massachusetts Supreme Court did when they legalized homosexual unions.]

[CSM]

I asked the question as to what rights were not extended to homosexuals that they would receive with legalizing marriage for gay couples. The only non private-sector benefit that would be provided is the inheritance of SS benefits. This could be solved by allowing for private investment of SS money.

The homosexual community should stand up in support of privatization of SS. This is the only Federal benefit they may not have the same beneficial results from civil unions. If we allowed privatization, then all of the supposed benefits of marriage could be provided to them in the private sector, just like they are for a married couple today!

[EdReform]

Ping

What We Can Do To Help Defeat the "Gay" Agenda

Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1)

The Stamp of Normality

[little jeremiah]

Homosexual Agenda Ping -

I really like what Armstrong Williams says whenever I get the chance to read his articles. I admit I haven't read this one yet - trying to get all the pings out.

Let me know if want on/off this list!

[Cronos]

Hey. Man marries donkey, woman marries dog should be allowed too. Man marries rock and 6 year old girls should be allowed too (might make the slammies happy -- after all that's what Mad Mo did!) </sarcasm