Marriage ban is not a 'wedge issue'

LA Times ^ | 5 June 2008 | David Benkof

[shrinkermd]

...Mayor Gavin Newsom explained his decision in 2004 to grant marriage licenses to San Franciscans in defiance of state law: "We're reacting to the president's decision to use this as a wedge issue to divide people. I think what he's doing is wrong. It's hurtful."

Newsom told CNN that gays deserved "the same kind of rights that are extended to my relationship with my wife" -- whom, Californians later learned, he cheated on with his friend's wife. I find it interesting that the four most prominent heterosexual politicians supporting a new definition of marriage -- Newsom, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer and his successor, David Paterson -- have all acknowledged committing adultery, in the latter two cases with numerous women. Shouldn't that disqualify them from deciding what marriage should be?

The theory that marriage initiatives exist to turn out Republican voters in presidential elections is simply baseless. The marriage measures in the states of Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Missouri, Nevada, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and Wisconsin all appeared on ballots that did not contain a presidential general election.

Despite the paranoia of "marriage-equality" advocates, ballot initiatives to enshrine man-woman marriage in state constitutions are not a political ploy to win elections. They are the only logical response to the constitutional lawsuits funded by the gay and lesbian community that threaten to impose the gay community's definition of marriage on the vast majority of Americans who prefer the traditional definition of marriage.

[red irish]

How can I get that book? In the library maybe?

[CaspersGh0sts]

“Gay people have children and raise families as well.”

Not on any measureable or appreciable level, they don’t.

[Diana in Wisconsin]

Your library most likely has it. It’s been published in paperback, too...in 1962 or so. Used copies are available on Amazon.com for $6.50.

It’s well worth reading and committing to memory. The Socialists you run into in everyday life will, of course, think you’re a NUT, but they’re in on it too, whether they admit to it or not. ;)

I also have his book, “So You Want To Raise a Boy?” 1962. A time-travel trip to read, but it’s basically all common sense. It explains every year of a boys life and what you should expect and how to handle the problems that crop up along the way, and emphasizes the importance of a MOTHER and a FATHER heading the FAMILY. Gee. What a concept, LOL!

My Mom gave me a copy when I married and “inherited” three boys, 3, 4 and 5. It was a package deal. They’re 19, 21 and 22 now, and all are functioning members of Society. :)

[goldstategop]

Agreed. I could care less if California sees same sex marriage as economically lucrative. I think its wrong, period!

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[fwdude]

The issue really is a homosexual claim to "normality." From their perspective, they are "normal" and need reasurrance that others see and treat them as "normal."

Exactly right. But you should add that (activist) homosexuals need the ENFORCED recognition of others by government action. The force of law will require those who don't agree with this aberrant lifestyle to behave as if they do.