[nathanbedford]

Thanks for the kind words Jim.

I agree with your observations about civil unions with this caveat: the bundle of rights, which you say the homosexual couple already has, is something they can accomplish therefore seriatim. Query: Should the law prohibit the bundling because to do so would be to somehow endorse sodomy which is repugnant to the majority of the people or should the state allow what is otherwise legal because to prohibit it amounts to little more than an act of petulance done because we are disgusted by the sex act?

Your comments to Bill the drill about the application of public health laws is interesting. It seems that we as a society tie ourselves into all kinds of knots when we address this issue.

[Billthedrill]

Oh, my yes. I don't think many on this thread would believe the extent to which the government has already been empowered in the pursuit of public health, and even tested and approved through the Supremen Court. Confinement without a trial in the form of quarantine, for example. It's absolutely legal, and has been since the Yellow Fever days. It is difficult to believe how far public health issues trump what we might normally consider as unquestionable civil rights.

This is an entirely peripheral issue and I apologize for that, but gay activists who complain that Reagan, et al "didn't do anything" about the AIDS epidemic should be very careful what they wish for.