Replies

It is already too late. My 24 y/o staunchly Republican, Bush supporting, Rep. precinct chairperson niece and her 22 y/o staunchly Republican, poll working brother proclaimed to the whole family on Thanksgiving that they could care less if two guys or two women get married.

People haven't seen the Left's in your face tactics yet. These people in the gay lobby won't be content with leaving things alone. As I've said before, they will overreach and it will be back on the floor of Congress.

well sure, if the issue is framed only in the context of what adults do in private - then the balance shifts.

but as we all know, that is not the true agenda here for the gay activists. they don't just want tolerance, they want acceptance. and those are two totally different things. acceptance will turn the public schools into recruitment zones for homosexuality. confront your relatives with that reality.

It is already too late. My 24 y/o staunchly Republican, Bush supporting, Rep. precinct chairperson niece and her 22 y/o staunchly Republican, poll working brother proclaimed to the whole family on Thanksgiving that they could care less if two guys or two women get married.

Well, that's kinda' the issue here: demographically the trends are running pretty strongly against the prohibitionists; you can take a stand on moral or pragmatic grounds if you wish too, but with each passing year in more and more areas of the country it would be a issue that reduces the attractiveness of Republican candidates in the general election and tends to split the party in the meantime.

This is the problem with such litmus tests; observers who want to RINO much of the next generation of leadership out of the party may eventually find that it's they who are marginalized.

IMO we are pretty clearly headed toward a system of "dual" marriage, on the legal level it's going almost impossible - whatever politicians attempting to evade the issue may say - to address this problem on a "States-Rights" basis, it's just too complicated to live with a situation where fundamental legal arrangements are subject to radical change when you change your residence. For example even in states where there was strong opposition to "gay marriage" or equivalent partnership arrangements there would be strong economic disincentives to create more restrictive laws, for example many large employers will be reluctant to site or expand headquarters operations to states where employee lose rights granted under less restrictive law elsewhere.

So what you are left with if you oppose such unions is right to hold a second ceremony reaffirming your conviction that marriage should be possible only between a man and a woman, held before a voluntary association of like minded men and women, and to restrict your associations to the extent you desire to the company of people who agree with you.

This of course will not satisfy opponents with either "moral" or pragmatic reasons to oppose such unions.

But if they are correct, opinion will reverse itself in time.

And if not (if this issue becomes no more important than the moral and pragmatic "problems" of "race-mixing" seem 50 years after the end of legal segregation) they will remain more politically effective on other issues on which thay have more leverage.