Homosexual Agenda Ping.
This raises some very interesting questions.
Note this:
Words of warning came from Toronto lawyer Bruce Walker, a gay and lesbian rights activist. "Generally speaking, marriage should be for love," he said. "People who don't marry for love will find themselves in trouble."
So friends should be able to get married according to this logic - don't real friends love each other?
Or maybe he means that marriage should be based sexual lust. In that case, what about the man and the horse in Enumclaw (of course, that story had a tragic ending - maybe if they had been allowed to be married, it wouldn't have happened that way?)
Freepmail me if you want on/off this pinglist.
*Note - I slacked off the last couple of days, I'll be apinging a few now, maybe not with so many acidic comments as usual...
Radio host Michael Medved often debates this topic with leftist guests and callers. His favorite example is the one about his mother and her sister. They lived together for 30 years, did everything together, ran a business together, they were the best of friends. He always asks the homo activists why his mother and aunt shouldn't have had access to same-sex partner benefits and/or marriage? They loved one another dearly and shared a life together.
The activists and leftists never, NEVER have a good answer. They just want to dismiss it as an illegitimate question. But it isn't. I could certainly see widows/widowers or lifelong single people deciding to make a life together, live in the same home, share income, run a business, etc. It happens quite frequently. And why SHOULDN'T they be able to get "same-sex married"?