[Military family member]

For the record: Social conservatives did not choose the time or place for this argument, it was thrust upon us by out of control courts who believe the Constitution assigns them the power to decide what is and what is not a right and consistent with the mores of European Societies..

I concur, we did not bring this argument to life. But why the "mores of European Societies." Many families left Europe because of the European mores, including those which dictated which religion what proper and which was not. Given the current mores in Western Europe, particularly France, I see little to be gained from such a following.

I am not for gay marriage. I am not against gay marriage. I simply feel that this issue is getting too much air time and is taking time away from other issues far more important, such as the war against terrorism. Government acquiescence to equating same sex marriage to heterosexual marriage necessarily means that public policy will not be able to take a neutral position vis a vis religion in the public square.

There will be a time to argue this issue. but not now. My point here is that I believe this election is far more important than gay marriage. I can even see discussing it to a point. But what I am seeing on both sides of the aisle is an attempt by both parties--both being prodded by the media--to make this the pivotal issue in this election. And I firmly believe there are more important issues. My family has been and will be taught that the act of homosexuality is a sin while the government publicly proclaims it is a transcendent liberty right deserving of respect.

My family was taught the same thing. My family also taught tolerance to those who are different from our family. I will continue to teach this to my children. My children are young (13, 11, 8,7) and are very fond of pointing out the faults of their siblings, while ignoring their own foibles.

I have on several occasions pointed to the passages in the Bible that say "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." I also like "Take the plank out of your own eye..."

I do not write this accuse you of fault or misdeed. I am trying to teach my children to be good people, to police their own actions first and foremost, and not to worry about what others may do.

I think the government needs to do the same thing. Stay out of the issue. Ignore it. Let it die a natural death. If we teach our children the values we were taught, we have nothing to fear from what others do. There is tension there and the government promotion of anti religious dogma can not be reconciled with the neutrality demanded by the First Amendment. Like Canada and Europe it won't be long after Goodridge, if it is allowed to stand, that the Bible will become hate speech and the preaching of the Bible will demand criminal sanction

Again, these are slippery slope arguments. Show me the connection. Show me the steps. Another problem with a slippery slope is that it is too easy. What are the steps in between? You are arguing that a court ruling in Massachusetts allowing gay marriage will lead to the Bible being outlawed.

There is no logic in that, period. Only chaos theory supports it.

The fact is that according to Catholic teaching, a gay couple can attend mass and receive holy communion as long as they remain celibate.

[familyop]

"Again, these are slippery slope arguments."

No, it's common knowledge as to what the social left is pushing for. And the following, from Phillips' piece, is a slippery slope. It's also common knowledge that the slippery slope in the following quote from Phillips' piece (in slippery terms) has no common causality or base in morality.

"After all, if conservatives are willing to give Big Brother the power to tell you who you can or can’t marry, why get upset when liberals want to dictate what your salary should be,...”

It's that sort of thing from the teeny, tiny minority of insurgents against legitimate fathers' rights public affairs that is the deciding factor for me to start campaigning for the Republican Party. I'll toss links to the piece above into the multitude of fathers' rights fora that are specifically for the purpose of opposing homosexual activism (thanks to their disruptions over the years) right now.

We don't need stinkin' feminist advocacy (homosexual advocacy--same thing) pretending to be from us. It's time to start greater publications for the decent majority that's from somewhere between our nasty coasts, now.

[Torie]

Your bottom line is that you think this issue is trivial, I take it. Maybe you are right, but I doubt it, as do those who advocate either side. None of them think it is trivial. I don't think it is trivial, either, because it speaks to a very important human issue, with conflicting concerns and hopes and fears about rights and quality of life issues and the health of the polity that are indeed not trivial. And the fiscal cost is not trivial either. This isn't like whether the near invisible cross on the Los Angeles seal should be removed, or whether the ten commandments should be removed from that court in Alabama. This issue has far greater and tangible reach. You need to engage more substantively is my opinion.

For the record, I favor a federal law passed by Congress legalizing gay marriage. And so it goes.