[little jeremiah]

Homosexual Agenda Ping.

Stanley Kurtz is right on. Sullivan isn't human any more.

I wonder what the author thinks is the solution if he is against a constitutional amendment and against same sex marriage? Is there a third option?

Let me know if you want on or off this ping list.

And in case someone hasn't read this yet, here is what a noted homosexual spokesman says about "gay" marriage:

Hint: It's about the children.


An excerpt from: In Their Own Words: The Homosexual Agenda:
"Homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile, who writes periodically for The New York Times, summarizes the agenda in OUT magazine (Dec/Jan 1994):

"A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes, but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution...
The most subversive action lesbian and gay men can undertake --and one that would perhaps benefit all of society--is to transform the notion of family entirely.
It's the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statues, [NOTE THIS:] get education about homosexuality and AIDS into the public schools and in short to usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us."

[b9]

My heart absolutely aches for the new generation of "experimental" children, who will be paying for their caregivers' "right" to destroy the family.

America has been asleep, or this would NEVER have happened.

[longtermmemmory]

Andrew Sulivan? Required reading? hardly. He is exposed for the fraud he is with this issue.

[Salman]

Where gay marriage is on a par with heterosexual marriage, as in some areas of Norway and Sweden, everyone simply loses interest in the institution.

He's got cause and effect swapped. In Norway and Sweden, they had already pretty much lost interest in marriage, or they wouldn't have allowed 'gay marriage'.

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

Statement: "Genuine debate on gay union is over"

Response:An illustration of the basic problem: "Debate," Discussion," "Different points of view." all such statements indicative of the toying, tampering, licking and fingering of serious matters. A symptom of the inability to say yes or no, the inability to take a stand!

[jordan8]

But it operates from the historic conservative principle that government should not inhibit individuals from the pursuit of happiness.

There is nothing historical or conservative about the "principle that government should not inhibit individuals from the pursuit of happiness". That is the recasting of libertarianism or even anarchism in a conservative mold. Conservatives, and everyone else, have historically had no problem limiting the activities of individuals, of inhibiting them from "the pursuit of happiness", in the interest of larger society. No society could exist without such inhibitions. This recasting of libertarianism as conservatism is a tribute to the domination of social and political thought by left, to their power. It is a fallback position in reaction to the popular post-60s decadence of modern society.

Barry Goldwater country, that.

Barry Goldwater of later years, maybe, when he was winning "Strange New Respect" from the establishment by pissing on his former supporters. But it is simply dishonest to imply that Goldwater (or for that matter anyone else) would have seen a constitutional imperative or support for allowing gay marriage in 1964.

[EdReform]

'Activist Judges' Phrase Offends Homosexual Advocacy Group