That, has to be most negative and least true post I've seen on Freep.
Really? Let me link you to some drive-by posts by gay "seminar" posters on FR.....oh, wait, they usually get zotted. Well, they say things like "you people are so negative" and "you people are so small and mean and obsessed with homosexuality" (translation: back off, stupid, we're doing our propaganda and we don't need your comments, and if you stick around I'm going to make sure everyone suspects you're a closet case).
So I had to post one of their attacks for them, since they get spotted and zotted pretty quickly as seminar disruptors usually do.
But they're quick to supply you with links to sites like Poppy Dixon's standing assault on received Christianity (she's a lipstick lesbian from the Coast who was raised Christian and hated every minute of it), and the latest "interesting study" that tries to sell the "essentialist" POV that this Clintonoid judge was buying in this case, even though other gays retailing Queer Theory are very quick to tell you how subjective and fluid sexual identity really is.......
IOW, the Gay Propaganda Machine doesn't have its act together -- but it doesn't need to, with so many friends appointed to the federal bench by Bill and Hillary. And that's what's really happening. The arguments, the reasoning, is all just a sideshow. It's all about the judges -- and they think they've got five on their side on the Supreme Court, thanks to the wonderful social skills at introduction that the late Pamela Harriman put to work for the liberals, handing around Republican Supreme Court appointees.....helping Justice Souter get dates.....helping Justice Kennedy understand how appreciated he was by People Who Really Understand the Issues......and thanks, too, to the back-stairs influence of Professor Tribe of Harvard with his former students, the Supreme Court clerks, and the access they afford him to the Justices on cases before the Court. (A cite here, an interesting argument there.....clerks can do a lot of good....)
But then, I'm just repeating what bad old Bob Novak said a few years ago, and everyone knows how dyspeptic he is. Can't possibly be true, can it, that liberals are cribbing two or three votes on every case that comes before the High Court through improper influence? Naaaaaahhh, they wouldn't do that -- that'd be unethical!