>>>>>POSTER'S NOTE: historically, this has always meant "marriage" and "adoption," insofar as homosexual advocacy groups are concerned] as non-gay men and women?"
Again. That is your note. Not what is said.
And it has not always meant marriage or adoption. The date of this application is 1989. Marriage and adoption equating to rights was not in consideration in 1989.
You're doing a good job.
Those who have themselves reflected upon the subject, or who have attended to the observations made in other parts of these papers, in relation to the appointment of the President, will, I presume, agree to the position, that there would always be great probability of having the place supplied by a man of abilities, at least respectable. Premising this, I proceed to lay it down as a rule, that one man of discernment is better fitted to analyze and estimate the peculiar qualities adapted to particular offices, than a body of men of equal or perhaps even of superior discernment.
Etcetera, etcetera. (This doesn't even begin to scratch the surface, sadly. Five minutes with Google will teach you a great deal more than you evidently know concerning this topic.)
It's the eerily owlish, glassy-eyed denial of the Miers Apolgia Choir which disconcerts so many of us here, ultimately. I mean: she could perform a nude interpretive dance on behalf of the ICC, in front of the entire United States Senate assembled, on live television... and they'd STILL continue insisting that we all just "... trust Bush... trust Bush... trust Bush... *click*... WHRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR..."
Don't confuse Kent and his fertile imagination. Miers checked that she was not in favor of repealing the law which criminalized homosexual behavior.. Only those who can't think would somehow believe Miers was in favor of gay marriage, but still wanted queer behavior punishable under the law. DUH!