Replies

Your statement that I wouldn't let people vote based upon religious views shows an ignorance of human rights on your part. You imply that this should be subject to vote. You can't deny or approve equal treatment under the law or the exercise of a human right on the basis of plurality vote.

Make up your mind. Are you basing your views on what's Constitutional, or what you view as "human rights"?

The sarcasm was a response to the arrogance on this thread of people telling others that their religious beliefs are wrong and that their beliefs should be subject to the will of the majority.

The case could easily be made that all the gay organizations are doing the exact same thing in opposing the Massachusetts measure -- except it would be the will of the minority.

If you are bothered by the answer, like I told you, you asked for it. Don't blame me. As Fleetwood Mac said years ago, "Don't ask me what I think of you, I might not give the answer that you want me to."

Constitution or human rights. Yes to both. I believe the constitution does not intend to list all human rights. I hold that there is a right to marry or join with another or whatever you want to call it. And someday the court, maybe even a conservative one, will require the government to treat adults equally. BTW no one has answered my question about the need for the government to be in the marraige business.

Have you surrendered on your plurality vote method of deciding this?

I don't care two hoots what gay groups, conservatives, libertarians, librarians, Bill Clinton, or late night posters think. I decide what I think on the basis of my own logic, knowledge, and beliefs. I don't determine my position because some "out group" may agree with it.

You said I got the response I deserve and I might say the same to you for the sarcasm.

I'm out for now. Til the next gay marraige thread. One is due along any hour now.