Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

June 3, 2006

THE GOP BASE IS UNIMPRESSED....Just to follow up on an item from yesterday, I suggested that the religious right would not be terribly impressed with the president speaking out in support of the so-called Federal Marriage Amendment at the last minute. Given the reactions yesterday from some leading activists, I think I understated the case.

"I'm going to go and hear what he says, but we already know it is a ruse," said Joe Glover, president of the Family Policy Network, which opposes gay marriage. "We're not buying it. We're going to go and watch the dog-and-pony show, [but] it's too little, too late."

Of particular interest in the LA Times report, however, was not just displeasure with the Bush White House from the GOP base, but an under-reported division among conservatives over the anti-gay amendment itself. To be sure, most conservatives love the idea of writing a gay-marriage ban into constitutional stone, but some far-right heavy-hitters are balking -- because it's not harsh enough.

At least two prominent social conservative groups -- Concerned Women for America and the Traditional Values Coalition -- believe the language contains a loophole that would allow gays to seek civil unions. [...]

Andrea Lafferty, executive director of the Traditional Values Coalition, and others say the second sentence leaves open the option that gays and lesbians could enter unions other than marriage; and that's a deal breaker for them.

On its website, the Concerned Women for America says it "does not support the Marriage Protection Amendment as currently worded because the second sentence is open to differing interpretations."

Does it? Well, there are some competing ideas on the subject.

The proposed amendment reads: "Marriage in the United States shall consist solely of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any state, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."

Apparently, under some conservatives' reading of the text, some states might still be able to recognize gay relationships in some legal way. That, in and of itself, is so troubling that they're withholding their support for the amendment.

For what it's worth, the Human Rights Campaign believes the opposite and has told amendment opponents that legal scholars believe the FMA "could forever invalidate civil unions or other legal protections for same-sex couples, like the right to partner health benefits or fair taxation upon the death of a partner - even if state legislatures passed them and voters approved them."

It's just one more thing to argue over before Tuesday's vote.

Steve Benen 11:36 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (90)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Nothing like some good, old-fashioned lack of enthusiasm for the President on the part of the fundie right. We can only hope that that will carry over to their attitude towards voting this November.

Posted by: RT on June 3, 2006 at 11:46 AM | PERMALINK

To be sure, most conservatives love the idea of writing a gay-marriage ban into constitutional stone, but some far-right heavy-hitters are balking -- because it's not harsh enough.

For a lot of these people, anything short of reeducation camps would be an insufficient response to the gay menace.

Posted by: dj moonbat on June 3, 2006 at 11:48 AM | PERMALINK

Steve,

At least some on the Right have realized they have been nothing but tools. Perhaps if Bush Co. keeps paying them this kind of lip service they will stay home from the polls. For the rest of their lives.

Time to tackle the Right Wing media bias and their smear campaigns, eh?

Posted by: jimi on June 3, 2006 at 11:59 AM | PERMALINK

The amendment is of course bigoted idiocy, but I think the HRC is overreaching. The second sentence seems pretty clear. It would prevent judges from ruling that the federal or state constitution requires giving marriage-like rights to same-sex unions, but it doesn't prohibit using legislation to extend marriage-like rights to same-sex unions that are not marriages. The first sentence might prohibit civil unions if a judge rules them to really be marriages, but I don't see how it could prohibit partner health or tax benefits, since describing them as a marriage would be a real stretch -- though it would prohibit judges from extending such benefits to same-sex couples without there being any legislation to do it.

Posted by: KCinDC on June 3, 2006 at 12:15 PM | PERMALINK

Librul tools! You're just allowing yourself to be pawns, again. Don't you realize this is *just* what Bush wants you to do?

The right DEFINES itself as being contrary to your position. So you should definitely SUPPORT the amendment; only that will guarantee it's failure... Which is what you want, right? The special-interest right to continue of your abominable lifestyle choice to have conjugal relations with Crate and Barrel catalogs?

Posted by: IOKIYAR on June 3, 2006 at 12:16 PM | PERMALINK

Their problem with the "second sentence" is that it makes no mention of public flogging.
.

Posted by: VJ on June 3, 2006 at 12:20 PM | PERMALINK

Read an analysis of the Bush / Rove strategy that points out that despite the grumbling from many far right Republicans, the vote on the marriage amendment, even though it won't pass, is part of a calculated effort to turn out record numbers of conservative voters in November...here:

www.thoughttheater.com

Posted by: Daniel DiRito on June 3, 2006 at 12:22 PM | PERMALINK

It's long past time to out all the hypocritical Bu$hCo bastards, homo or hetero; all the adulterers, sodomites, masturbators, cocksuckers, rimjobbers, and muffdivers. Lets insist that Panty-sniffer David Broder and others of his ilk write about what goes on in Mary and Heathers bedroom, does Shooter actually have sex with that crone douchebag wife of his, is Mehlman really a bare-backing girlie-man, can Dumbya manage to get it up anymore, WTF is the real deal with Condi, and of course what really goes on in congress-critters marriages. The public has a right to know if the Repugs expect support for defining morality for the citizens of this country. The days when this was strictly personal information ended with investigations into jism stains on a certain blue dress. If they truly want a morality war lets give them one.

Posted by: red_neck_repub on June 3, 2006 at 12:23 PM | PERMALINK

Will President Bush come out in favor of the rumored "Wildlife Protection Act" supposedly sponsored by Senators Rick Santorum and John Cornyn?

Bans marriage between a man and a dog, box turtle, mammal, fish, reptile or bird.

Posted by: AvengingAngel on June 3, 2006 at 12:39 PM | PERMALINK

Too bad these sick, deviant right-wingers don't have anything better to do than worry about who is loving whom....

Posted by: Stephen Kriz on June 3, 2006 at 12:59 PM | PERMALINK

If these Bible thumping tools couldn't see through the Pro-Life scam their Republican Congressmen and Senators have been doing for 20+ years, why would we think the chances of them seeing through this ploy would be any better? Afterall, it's only the second go-round.

Posted by: rypasp on June 3, 2006 at 1:26 PM | PERMALINK

I think they're withholding their support because they don't really want this to pass. How would it help their cause for this to pass? They'd have to stop playing victim all the time. They want the issue, not the outcome.


Posted by: rabbit on June 3, 2006 at 3:03 PM | PERMALINK

Oh c'mon rabbit. They'll still be victims, as long as non-Christians have the vote, women have the right to seek political office, evolution is taught in schools, it's legal to read things like the Vedas or the Koran in public, and so forth.

Posted by: JakeBCool on June 3, 2006 at 3:34 PM | PERMALINK

Of course there's nothing at all bigoted about codifying the traditional definition of marriage in the law. It appears those on the left are still incapable of anything but name-calling.

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/dennisprager/2006/05/23/198416.html

Posted by: BW on June 3, 2006 at 5:05 PM | PERMALINK

A bit of explanation here.

From Wikipedia (I know. But on occasion it's pretty good). There's an old wording and a new wording. The old wording is...

Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

The "new" wording is what is listed in the first post.

It's pretty simple. The first would do a few things...first, it would wipe out common-law status. Any statute that would expand rights similar to those of married people would be unconstituional overnight.

It also prevents any law that would give homosexual couples basically any rights. Supporters at the time, most of them said that this was simply a misreading of the bill. That this wouldn't happen.

REALLY.

So now that the murky language is gone from the proposed amendment, now they're complaining.

The amendment isn't as bad as the old one. (It's still beyond awful, so that isn't saying much really. Maybe it is, but that only shows how REALLY bad the old one was) I still oppose it, of course.

But those that are complaining about the "loopholes", are showing themselves to be hateful, hurtful bigots.

Posted by: Karmakin on June 3, 2006 at 5:43 PM | PERMALINK

If the 2nd sentence does indeed leave itself open to different interpretations, it is planned. To quote Danny Glovers dad in Silverado, "Just like Gawga." Same thing with this, on a national scale. The voters, in Georgia, passed an anti-gay marriage amendment even though it was clearly un-constitutional. Both proponents and opponents of the amendment pointed this out at the time. A higher Georgia court struck it down, because, it was un-constitutional. That means it gets to be weapon #1 in the theo-cons bag of tricks for another election cycle. This is just another tactic, for the rethugs to keep picking at the scab for uneducated bigots and garnering their votes.
Were the national amendment to pass, and unlike a lot of you, I am not at all convinced it won't, then the Supreme Court (controlled by whom, again?) gets to overturn it when it is challenged, and the silly gits flog the horse with it for another, and another election cycle.
Is there anyone out there, with an IQ over 70 who honestly believes that allowing LGBT individuals to marry threatens anyone in any fashion?
Re-reading this, I realise I should have quit at beer #12, coherence wise.

Posted by: Grotesqueticle on June 3, 2006 at 5:54 PM | PERMALINK

Grotesqueticle -- After beer #3, your mention of LGBT suggests that the FMA obviously needs to include a definition of gender.

Posted by: has407 on June 3, 2006 at 6:24 PM | PERMALINK

All you folks who are parsing the wording of the thing get an "A" for earnestness, but you needn't bother. The "proponents" of it know it won't pass, and don't care whether it does or not. Indeed, if it *did* pass, it might represent one less arrow in the GOP election day quiver.

Experience has shown that there's always gonna be a fraction of the electorate -- currently, about a fifth -- that's irredeemably stupid, and will fall for this sort of Republican ploy. They're lost; they're not worth worrying about or reasoning with. Otherwise, Dems and liberals should be happy, because this FMA stunt is going to alienate non-ideologues, and shave a few points off Bush's hard-right constituency. The more perceptive social "conservatives" recognize that after five years of the Boy Prince, they have fuck-all to show for it. Alito and Roberts, for instance, are hardly Roy Moore. And isn't it funny how, at a time when the GOP controls Congress and the White House, abortions are still perfomed?

Posted by: sglover on June 3, 2006 at 6:30 PM | PERMALINK

Hey, some wench in India married a snake! [And I aint talkin about Rupert Murdoch, here.] So whats the big deal with a couple of gay blades? Sheesh, you people are so-o-o sensitive!

Posted by: Fred Flintrock on June 3, 2006 at 6:30 PM | PERMALINK

If I were a Democratic legislator I'd be dwelling at length on the cynical, manipulative nature of the Amendment.

This sort of thing is going to be the meat and potatoes of the Repubs' 06 campaign.

Posted by: Rake Stately on June 3, 2006 at 6:59 PM | PERMALINK

Fred Flintrock -- Hey, if it was a male snake, it's OK (after all, the FMA doesn't specify specie).

Don't forget that "Earlier this year, a tribal girl was married off to a dog on the outskirts of Bhubaneswar." And on a purely practical level (for those gutter-rats of you who have spent too much time on the path-less-traveled in Chihuahua, Bangkok, Lagos, ...), which is really likely to be more... ummm... undignified?

Posted by: has407 on June 3, 2006 at 7:18 PM | PERMALINK

Everyone should make a point of asking a Republican, George W. Bush for example, exactly how his marriage is being threatened.

Surely one of them will have an answer.

Posted by: Jack Nasty on June 3, 2006 at 7:29 PM | PERMALINK

Chris almighty, this administration is imcompetent!! They can't even bash the queers properly.

Posted by: Pat on June 3, 2006 at 7:40 PM | PERMALINK

Does "Jack Nasty" truly believe politicians should only back legislation that affects them personally? Or is Jack simply unable to think of an argument?

Posted by: BW on June 3, 2006 at 7:42 PM | PERMALINK

4 out of 5 Republican Divorcees are FURIOUS with gays for undermining the sanctimony of marriage.

Posted by: Jack Nasty on June 3, 2006 at 8:03 PM | PERMALINK

So, BW, tell us: exactly how is YOUR marriage being threatened?

Posted by: Jack Nasty on June 3, 2006 at 8:05 PM | PERMALINK

Jack,

Since I never implied in any way that my marriage is being threatened, you are clearly incapable of coherent thought. No wonder you support the redefinition of marriage.

Posted by: BW on June 3, 2006 at 8:08 PM | PERMALINK

". . . I never implied in any way that my marriage is being threatened. . . "

Thank you for making my point, BW.

Posted by: Jack Nasty on June 3, 2006 at 8:13 PM | PERMALINK

Jack would have obviously opposed the participation of whites in the abolitionist movement, since they weren't threatened in any way by slavery.

Posted by: BW on June 3, 2006 at 8:16 PM | PERMALINK

You don't seem to have any point, Jack.

Posted by: BW on June 3, 2006 at 8:17 PM | PERMALINK

We're still waiting for BW to identify how he or anyone else is harmed by granting gay couples equal protection under the law.

Posted by: Jack Nasty on June 3, 2006 at 8:23 PM | PERMALINK

Gays already have equal protection under the law. They can marry under identical circumstances to every other American under current law in all 50 states.

Nice to see Jack finally drop all that idiocy about how only people personally affected by an issue can comment on it though.

Posted by: BW on June 3, 2006 at 8:29 PM | PERMALINK

"Gays already have equal protection under the law."

That's nonsense.

Gay men and women cannot marry THEIR choice of partner and hence they and their children are denied the protection afforded by hundreds of state and federal statutes that are afforded by marriage.

Posted by: Jack Nasty on June 3, 2006 at 8:39 PM | PERMALINK

So tell us exactly how two gay men or women marrying threatens your or anyone else's marriage, BW.

We're still waiting.

Posted by: Jack Nasty on June 3, 2006 at 8:41 PM | PERMALINK

As to the notion of imposing a heterosexual marriage on gay people: would BW really wants his straight daughter to marry a gay man?

Posted by: Jack Nasty on June 3, 2006 at 8:46 PM | PERMALINK

"Gay men and women cannot marry THEIR choice of partner..."

Either can polygamists or pedophiles. There are limits on everything. The state is in no way obligated to recognize every individual's aberrent behavioral proclivities. Equality doesn't mean there are no limitations, it means the same limitations apply to everyone. The same limitations in current marriage law apply to everyone.

Again, I never claimed two men or two women "marrying" (an oxymoron, since marriage is by definition the union of a man and a woman) threatened anyone else's marriage. Why do you choose to repeat the same idiotic thing over and over again?

Posted by: BW on June 3, 2006 at 8:50 PM | PERMALINK

I am a political blog junkie and, usually, lurker, as mostly others make my points for me, and more eloquently besides.

First, let me state that I believe in extending rights and freedoms to all people, to the extent possible, unless an action can be demonstrably harmful. So, obviously, murder, rape, stealing, etc., all cause clear and demonstrable harm to victims, so people are not free to commit such actions without getting into trouble and prison, assuming they are caught and convicted.

Homosexual and lesbian relations don't cause clear and demonstrable harm to others, or for that matter, any sort of harm. I am straight myself, but know a number of gay couples, all of whom are in longterm committed relationships. I cannot begin to fathom the cruelty of someone who would deny these people the right to care for their partners when ill, to visit them in hospitals, etc.

Someone upthread asked what the rationale is behind people's opposition to homosexual or lesbian relationships. To me, the arguments I have seen don't make any sense, so I probably won't do them justice. But here are some of the arguments I've seen.

One argument is that marriage is TRADITIONALLY between one man and one woman. This ignores a long history of polygamy, still ongoing some places today. But when this is pointed out, I have yet to see an opponent to gay marriage acknowledging the point. They just reiterate that marriage is between one man and one woman, period, game over.

Or they talk about the "fabric of society". I quit using this phrase when I realized that it's almost always invoked when someone has a really weak argument which cannot be made upon another basis.

Also, some of the opponents conflate homosexuality with bestiality and/or pedophilia. And they seem to genuinely believe that if gay marriage is legalized, these will automatically ensue. No. They won't. Pedophilia does do clear and demonstrable harm to children. And in both pedophilia and bestiality, no informed consent is possible from the victims. So, no, there is NO slippery slope here.

By the way, I'd just like to mention that this liberal and her friends all lead very staid lives, with jobs, church/temple attendance and involvment (or not, if someone is not of that mind), involvement in the community, no wild parties, no spouse-swapping, etc.

I believe this is true for most liberals, and we've got to start counteracting the utter bullshit put out on screaming talk radio and Faux News. It's time for us to say we're liberals and proud of it, and we have nothing to be ashamed of!

Posted by: Wolfdaughter on June 3, 2006 at 9:13 PM | PERMALINK

"Either can polygamists or pedophiles."
It's "Neither can" Smartypants.

So you never claimed gays marrying threatened anyone's marriage, however the common argument against used against it by your right wing brethren is that it's a threat to traditional marriage. That's the main argument. Your argument otherwise is that it's simply and aberrant behavior. Says who? Oh right, religion, we must make sure all our laws are crafted to fit your personal definition of religion. You know, sounds kinda like Al Quaida and the Taliban. They hate gays too, how does it feel to be a philosophical brother to your country's enemies?

Not too many decades ago it was illegal for blacks and whites to marry. How come? Aberrant behavior, unnatural for people of different races to marry, each to his own kind right BW?

You know BW, those who are most fervently anti-gay are usually the ones who have suppressed homosexual urges. Of course you'll deny this, a classic symptom.

Posted by: Orion on June 3, 2006 at 9:18 PM | PERMALINK

BW declares the desires of homosexuals "aberrant behavioral proclivities." There's our answer. Here's a clue BW. Homosexuals don't choose to be gay. Whether they are born gay, or become gay in early childhood, I have no idea. But no serious person doubts that gay people's orientation "proclivities" are pretty much set in stone by the time they reach puberty. Thus, defining their proclivities as "aberrant" - which according to OED means "Wandering away or straying from a defined path; hence fig. diverging or deviating from any moral standard" - is, by definition, an act of bigotry. If they cannot have homosexual relations, they can have no relations. Forcing them to forgo homosexual relations is identical to forcing a heterosexual to forego heterosexual relations. In bothe cases it's discriminatory and bigoted.

If gay people are going to have permanent relationships with members of their own sex, why cannot they consecrate them with marriage - or at least the "incidents thereof." By using the bigoted term "aberrant" - a term used precisely to castigate interracial marriages not too long ago - you reveal your real objection. You just hate homosexuals.

Pedophilia is an obvious red herring because the "relationship" is not even remotely "consenting."

As for polygamy, the issue is one-ness. Polygamy fails because human can never truly "share" their love with others in a remotely equitable way. Two-person relationships - whether between members of the opposite sex or by those of the same sex - involve the complete commitment by one person to ONE other person. As such, two-person marriages at least make possible the notion of equality in marriage. Each can share for the other. Polygamy renders that impossible because two will inevitably be jealous of the third. Polygamy, though "traditional" in many cultures around the world, is nearly always exploitative. There is a reason, for example, why socities that allow polygamy only allow one man and multiple wives, and not one woman and multiple husbands.

Posted by: Elrod on June 3, 2006 at 10:11 PM | PERMALINK

Ooh, Orion caught a typo, impressive.

Changing the definition of marriage threatens the institution. That does not mean it's going to end the marriages of people currently married. If that distinction is too difficult for you to grasp, then your IQ is too low to handle simple logic.

Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and Orion hate President Bush. How does it feel to be a philosophical brother to your country's enemies, Orion?

Equating race and sexual behavior is totally idiotic.

"Your argument otherwise is that it's simply and [sic, smartypants] aberrant behavior. Says who?"

Basic biology. But I know how you lefties hate science when it contradicts your agenda.

Posted by: BW on June 3, 2006 at 10:14 PM | PERMALINK
Were the national amendment to pass, and unlike a lot of you, I am not at all convinced it won't, then the Supreme Court (controlled by whom, again?) gets to overturn it when it is challenged, and the silly gits flog the horse with it for another, and another election cycle.
Grotesqueticle, if it's a constitutional amendment, the Supreme Court doesn't get to overturn it. It can't be unconstitutional, because it is itself changing what the Constitution says. If it were just a normal federal law (like the Defense of Marriage Act), the Supreme Court might rule it unconstitutional (and it would be a lot easier to pass), but that's not what's happening. Posted by: KCinDC on June 3, 2006 at 10:17 PM | PERMALINK

Elrod,
"Homosexuals don't choose to be gay." Some do, some do not. If there was no choice involved, then societies that accept gay behavior, such as ancient Greece, would not see more of the behavior. In any case, since I did not say anything about choice before, your statement was a red herring.

People don't choose to be pedophiles or schizophrenics either. That's irrelevant.

Society is under no obligation to equate different types of relationships that are not equal. To do so would be to lie. Saying that different types of relationships are different is not at all bigoted.

"Forcing them to forgo homosexual relations..."

Talk about a red herring! This thread has nothing whatsoever to do with forcing anyone to do anything.

"the issue is one-ness" is gibberish.


Posted by: BW on June 3, 2006 at 10:25 PM | PERMALINK

People don't choose to be pedophiles or schizophrenics either.

They do choose to be pedophiles. And that's why they are punished, or at least separated. They do not choose to be schizophrenics. What is your point with this?

Society is under no obligation to equate different types of relationships that are not equal. To do so would be to lie. Saying that different types of relationships are different is not at all bigoted.

Society is under obligation to justify why it ascribes certain rights and privileges to some relationships and not to others. Different doesn't automatically mean unequal. Gays have made the case that their desire for marriage, with all its rights and responsibilities, is equal to the desire for marriage between men and women. Their behavior isn't "aberrant." It's different, sure, but it's also consistent with their "nature." Tradition alone cannot stand in the way of recognizing the claim of gays to the same rights to marriage.

If there was no choice involved, then societies that accept gay behavior, such as ancient Greece, would not see more of the behavior.

The problem here is that societies define homosexuality differently from one another. Some define those who only perform the "male position" as not gay. Ancient Greece was this way. Men who performed the "male position" with other men were not considered gay. Those who performed the "female position" WERE considered gay. This was true to a large extent in 19th century America as well, and it was a result of repressed heterosexual relations. The whole stereotype of gays in the Navy comes from the days when men in the Brooklyn Naval Yard used to have sex with men when they came ashore - and they always performed the "male position." Nobody suggested they were gay, though. To be crude, it was just an available hole. The same is true of closed institutions like prisons. Prisoners don't "become gay." They just want a hole to screw, and they take advantage of other men to get it. Under modern conventions of sexuality, men in open society who desire sexual relations with other men, regardless of the "position", are considered gay. And 99% of gay men will tell you that they knew they were attracted to other males in a sexual way since puberty, at the latest. The only proper thing for society to do is to accept that some people are gay, and recognize that their desires are equally worthwhile as straights. That includes the rights, responsibilities and privileges of marriage. Anything else is bigotry.

Posted by: Elrod on June 4, 2006 at 12:27 AM | PERMALINK

The gay marriage amendment has to be the biggest fraud in politics today.

It's a feel good law for bigots who believe religious intolerance has something to do with, "the institution of marriage."
Why not protest Elvis and Priscilla Presley theme weddings or drive-through wedding chapels in Vegas or don't these Mcchapels threaten the tradition of marriage?

Posted by: D. on June 4, 2006 at 1:01 AM | PERMALINK

KC: I believe the HRC was disussing a prior proposed amendment which did bar gay marriage legislation too (neither the laws nor the constitution of any state...).

Posted by: phil on June 4, 2006 at 1:01 AM | PERMALINK

BW: Changing the definition of marriage threatens the institution.

Then why is it that right-wingers are trying to change the definition of marriage so that couples who want to marry, can't?

12 Reasons Why Lesbians and Gays Can't Marry

Posted by: Jesurgislac on June 4, 2006 at 3:56 AM | PERMALINK

"I'm going to go and hear what he says, but we already know it is a ruse"

Give the guy his due, he's a lot smarter than Instapundit and the rest of the pro-war right that _still_ hasn't figured out that there is no such thing (in policy terms) as the WOT.

On the other hand, I think this is designed to fail so that they can get the anti-gay initiatives rolling to make sure the base doesn't stay home. Principled? No, but as the guy says, you run a campaign with the ethics you have.

Posted by: michael farris on June 4, 2006 at 5:04 AM | PERMALINK

Well, I'm impressed.

So fuck you, Kevin!

Posted by: egbert on June 4, 2006 at 9:06 AM | PERMALINK

I freaking LOVE this issue. We are in a quagmire in Iraq. Fanatics in Iran are getting the bomb. China owns us. Global climate change threatens our very way of life. Peak oil, ditto. Entitlements, unless reformed, will bankrupt the country. But hey: There's always time to bash the homos, right?

Posted by: Pat on June 4, 2006 at 9:12 AM | PERMALINK

It's really true, the Republicans in the WH and Congress figured they were fooling their (red evangelical) public, and to hell with the Democrats and critics. But no! They weren't fooling anyone with their misleading and dishonest statements, and irresponsible and corrupt leadership.

Posted by: jerry on June 4, 2006 at 9:18 AM | PERMALINK

Quick! Look over there!! Two gays doing a wedding registry at Crate and Barrel!! Booga-booga!

Posted by: Pat on June 4, 2006 at 9:22 AM | PERMALINK

Elrod,

"They do choose to be pedophiles."

You think people make a concious choice to become attracted to children? You really think so? That's nuts.

The notion that it is bigoted simply to continue to define marriage as it has always been defined is also nuts. But liberals tend to have difficulty thinking, so they just call people names instead.

Same-sex relationships and opposite-sex relationships are fundamentally different things. There's absolutely no bigotry in saying so, and in our laws saying so.

Posted by: BW on June 4, 2006 at 10:59 AM | PERMALINK

Everyone is missing the point of this amendment and its timing. Rove is giving the media the script it will need to explain away yet another stolen election. The MSM will tell us that record numbers of conservatives turned out in anger over the failed passage of FMA.

Yes, they do steal elections. They're crooks, remember?

Posted by: Michael Buchanan on June 4, 2006 at 11:14 AM | PERMALINK

"Yes, they do steal elections. They're crooks, remember?"

Yes, the Democrats are crooks. But at least in 2000 and 2004, their attempts to steal elections failed.

Posted by: BW on June 4, 2006 at 12:52 PM | PERMALINK

"Yes, the Democrats are crooks. But at least in 2000 and 2004, their attempts to steal elections failed."
--BW

What brilliant repartee - kind of like when first-graders say, "I know you are, but what am I?"

Proof please, that Democrats have "stolen" any election, and please don't cite Illinois in 1960, because you will be shot so full of holes you will look like Swiss cheese, not to mention that 1960 is almost ancient history at this point. Why don't you bring up Benjamin Harrison's election while you are at it?

I can give you a hundred links that support the assertion that the last two presidential elections have been stolen.

What a bunch of weak-minded fools support the GOP.....

Posted by: Stephen Kriz on June 4, 2006 at 1:18 PM | PERMALINK

Stephen,

"Proof please, that Democrats have 'stolen' any election"

Since I said, "their attempts to steal elections failed" you are evidently illiterate.

"I can give you a hundred links that support the assertion..."

I can give you a thousand links that 'prove' Elvis is still alive. Take off your tinfoil helmet and stop believing all the nonsense you read on the Internet.

I can show you actual convictions of Democrats for election-related criminality in 2004:

"Tossing aside a plea agreement that called for probation, Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Michael B. Brennan sentenced four Democratic Party workers to jail Wednesday for slashing tires on 25 vans rented by Republicans to take voters to polls for the 2004 presidential election."

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=418855

What a bunch of weak-minded fools support the Democrats...

Posted by: BW on June 4, 2006 at 1:56 PM | PERMALINK

election-related criminality. ok.

we were talking about election fraud.

what a bunch of homophobic racists support the GOP...

Posted by: Michael Buchanan on June 4, 2006 at 2:19 PM | PERMALINK

BW wrote: "The notion that it is bigoted simply to continue to define marriage as it has always been defined is also nuts."

If marriage had truly "always been defined" as it currently is, you might have a point. Since it has not, differing wildly from culture to culture and from age to age, I'm afraid you really don't. Marriage has been "redefined" countless times. Expanding the definition to include same-sex couples is no different than the other "redefinitions" that have taken place over the years. Hell, marriage isn't even consistently defined in the Bible.

"But liberals tend to have difficulty thinking, so they just call people names instead."

ROFL.... Pot. Kettle. Black.

"Same-sex relationships and opposite-sex relationships are fundamentally different things."

Really? Then it should be easy for you to support that assertion. Care to do so and demonstrate that you don't "have difficult thinking?" Simply stating this does not make it so.

"There's absolutely no bigotry in saying so, and in our laws saying so."

There is bigotry in opposing a law for no good reason simply because it helps someone you don't like.

Posted by: PaulB on June 4, 2006 at 2:49 PM | PERMALINK

BW wrote: "Changing the definition of marriage threatens the institution."

Really? Then how did it survive the many other changes of definition over the years? Perhaps it's stronger than you give it credit for being? Oh, and for the record, simply repeating this assertion does not make it true: how does changing the definition in this specific instance "threaten the institution?"

"Equating race and sexual behavior is totally idiotic."

Equating race and sexual orientation, on the other hand, is completely logical and rational. Got any other straw men you'd like to throw in the mix?

"Basic biology."

In a word -- no. I don't think you understand basic biology or science.

Posted by: PaulB on June 4, 2006 at 2:54 PM | PERMALINK

PaulB,

Equating race and sexual orientation is completely irrational.

Marriage has always been between men and women, due to the sexual duality of men and women, and their ability to reproduce. The existence of polygamy does not erase that fundamental distinction. You can read about this in any high school biology text.

"Same-sex relationships and opposite-sex relationships are fundamentally different things."

"Really? Then it should be easy for you to support that assertion..."

Go have sex with a woman, then with a man. Report back. Have sex with another man, with the goal of producing a child. Report back. Read a basic biology textbook. Report back.

Or, continue spewing mindless gibberish -- your call.



Posted by: BW on June 4, 2006 at 3:57 PM | PERMALINK

BW, continuing to duck and dodge, wrote: "Equating race and sexual orientation is completely irrational."

LOL... My goodness, what a predictable response. Then it should be quite easy for you to demonstrate that this is the case. You're very long on assertions but short on support for them, aren't you? Simply repeating things does not make them true.

"Marriage has always been between men and women"

And again, no. Your knowledge of history and anthropology is just as weak as your knowledge of biology, I see. Moreover, your artful phrasing of this response attempts to gloss over the fact that marriage has, at different times and places been defined to be between more than just a single man and woman, the very type of "redefinition" that you are pretending will somehow damage the institution of marriage in this case. And we haven't even gone into the differing definitions of marriage in the Bible, not to mention the divergent definitions of marriage in different eras and different cultures. Care to take a whack at those?

"due to the sexual duality of men and women, and their ability to reproduce."

LOL... My goodness, that phrase, "sexual duality of men and women," sure sounds impressive. Alas, that it is semantically meaningless in the context of this discussion. The same could be said of the "ability to reproduce," since the intent and the ability to reproduce are not even remotely a requirement for marriage, civil or religious.

"The existence of polygamy does not erase that fundamental distinction."

So far, you have yet to demonstrate that that "fundamental distinction" matters one whit when it comes to marriage. As usual, you are simply making blanket assertions without bothering to actually support them.

"You can read about this in any high school biology text."

Um, no, BW, I can't, since high school biology texts are resolutely and appropriately silent on the subject of marriage: "normal," polygamous, or same-sex. That there are biological differences between men and women merits a big "duh!" That these differences matter at all to this discussion is what you have to demonstrate. Thus far, you have entirely failed to do so.

Oh, and while you're at it, you might want to consult that biology text you are so fond of to see what it says about homosexuality. Suffice to say that biologists do not agree with your characterization of homosexuality.

"Go have sex with a woman, then with a man. Report back."

ROFLMAO... Wow... just... wow.... Is this really the best you can do? This is such a mindlessly idiotic reply that it's hard to know where to begin. I think I'll not bother, since such idiocy needs no response. I'll simply let it stand there for all to see and laugh at.

"Or, continue spewing mindless gibberish -- your call."

ROFLMAO.... Oh, the irony....

Oh, and BW, I'm still waiting for you to support your assertion that same-sex marriage "threatens the institution" of marriage. Care to take a whack at that?

Posted by: PaulB on June 4, 2006 at 4:26 PM | PERMALINK

Go have sex with a woman, then with a man. Report back.
Posted by: BW on June 4, 2006 at 3:57 PM | PERMALINK

When does your Mom want me to come over?

Posted by: Pat on June 4, 2006 at 4:45 PM | PERMALINK

"My goodness, what a predictable response. Then it should be quite easy for you to demonstrate that this is the case. You're very long on assertions but short on support for them, aren't you? Simply repeating things does not make them true."

Pot. Kettle. Black.

PaulB is not making any arguments or attempting to refute any. Next.

And now we have another liberal tagging in with the ever popular "yo momma" schtick. What a group of intellectual giants.

Posted by: BW on June 4, 2006 at 5:22 PM | PERMALINK

Hey, there, Intellectual Giant: You are the one who urged us to have sex with a woman and a man and "report back." And since I already have plenty of notes about your Dad ...

Posted by: Pat on June 4, 2006 at 5:30 PM | PERMALINK

BW wrote: "Pot. Kettle. Black."

LOL.... And another, entirely predictable argument (or complete lack thereof).

"PaulB is not making any arguments or attempting to refute any."

Dear heart, has it really escaped your notice that you are the one making the assertions? And that you have yet to support even a single one of those assertions? Not one. I'm simply having a great time calling you on it.

And what is your response when called on this? To duck, dodge, evade, point fingers, and play "yo mama" games, the very type of games you pretend that I'm playing. This is absolutely fricking hilarious.

So give me something to work with, BW. Show me that you can support any of your assertions. Give me an argument that I can address and, if necessary, refute. So far, you have entirely failed to do so.

"What a group of intellectual giants."

I repeat... oh, the irony....

Poor guy... He hasn't got a case and he knows it, so he's forced to resort to kindergarten insults and ad hominen attacks, all the while whining that everyone is doing the same thing to him! Dunno whether to laugh at his cluelessness or to be insulted that he thinks that we are so clueless that we'd fall for such transparent idiocy!

Well, actually, that's not true. I do know what to do, and that's to laugh my ass off at him. I wonder what he'll come up with next?

Posted by: PaulB on June 4, 2006 at 5:59 PM | PERMALINK

The only thing anyone against gay marriage can come up with, the bible.

Next!

Posted by: Michael Buchanan on June 4, 2006 at 6:04 PM | PERMALINK

Michael, you're the one who brought up the Bible, you dishonest hypocrite.

PaulB, has it really escaped your notice that you are the one making the assertions? And that you have yet to support even a single one of those assertions? Not one.

Posted by: BW on June 4, 2006 at 6:07 PM | PERMALINK

why does that me a hypocrite?

You have not offered any reason for this amendment that isn't just thinly disguised hate for gays. Anyone who argues against gay marriage can only look to religion for support. Everything you have brought up so far is pure crap and you know it. Everyone knows it. We are just amazed that you keep at it.

Posted by: Michael Buchanan on June 4, 2006 at 6:15 PM | PERMALINK

So let's recap, shall we? BW has claimed:

"Equating race and sexual orientation is completely irrational." Support for this assertion: None.

"Changing the definition of marriage threatens the institution." Support for this assertion: None.

"Same-sex relationships and opposite-sex relationships are fundamentally different things." Support for this assertion: None. Even better, I'm apparently supposed to go out and do some field research for the poor guy.

"Marriage has always been between men and women" Support for this assertion: None.

Marriage, as it is defined today, is "as it has always been defined" Support for this assertion: None.

Homosexuality is "aberrant." Support for this assertion: None.

What's truly fricking hilarious about all of this is that the assertions are just so damn ignorant. It takes about 30 seconds in Google to find half a dozen examples of same-sex marriages in different cultures and different eras, for example, not to mention easily finding out what anthropologists have to say on this subject. One wonders just why our dear little "intellectual giant" friend has so stubbornly refused to educate himself?

As for ad hominem attacks and name-calling, let's look at the record, shall we?

"It appears those on the left are still incapable of anything but name-calling." In his very first post on the thread, no less.

"Or is Jack simply unable to think of an argument?"

"you are clearly incapable of coherent thought."

"If that distinction is too difficult for you to grasp, then your IQ is too low to handle simple logic."

"Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and Orion hate President Bush. How does it feel to be a philosophical brother to your country's enemies, Orion?"

"Equating race and sexual behavior is totally idiotic."

"But I know how you lefties hate science when it contradicts your agenda."

"But liberals tend to have difficulty thinking, so they just call people names instead."

"Or, continue spewing mindless gibberish -- your call."

"What a group of intellectual giants."

Gee, I wonder who could have said all of these nasty things? Maybe someone who has "difficulty thinking," so he "just call[s] people names instead?"

Posted by: PaulB on June 4, 2006 at 6:21 PM | PERMALINK

There is the tradition arguement.

But hey, we've had a lot of evil 'traditions' that we saw fit to abolish. I bet those make you angry too huh, BJ?

Posted by: Michael Buchanan on June 4, 2006 at 6:22 PM | PERMALINK

BW, determined to dig that hole deeper and deeper, writes: "PaulB, has it really escaped your notice that you are the one making the assertions? And that you have yet to support even a single one of those assertions? Not one."

Dear heart, are you really so determined to remain in kindergarten? Fine, I'll be happy to play long. I like to keep children happy. My turn:

BW, has it really escaped your notice that you are the one making the assertions? And that you have yet to support even a single one of those assertions? Not one.

Posted by: PaulB on June 4, 2006 at 6:22 PM | PERMALINK

Michael Buchanan wrote: "You have not offered any reason for this amendment that isn't just thinly disguised hate for gays."

Actually, he hasn't even done that. He's just mindlessly repeating talking points, without any regard for whether those talking points are true or whether they even remotely make sense. Personally, I find him to be enormously entertaining. This is almost as much fun as playing with DonP or rdw.

Posted by: PaulB on June 4, 2006 at 6:24 PM | PERMALINK

We should give BJ a break. We should tell him that maybe one day a man will find him worthy of love and will want to marry him. Maybe this hate simply stems from jealousy or self-loathing.

It can't be easy being a BJ.

Posted by: Michael Buchanan on June 4, 2006 at 6:29 PM | PERMALINK

PaulB,

"Equating race and sexual orientation, on the other hand, is completely logical and rational" Support for this assertion: None.

Homosexual behavior is not aberrant." Support for this assertion: None.

"It takes about 30 seconds in Google to find half a dozen examples of same-sex marriages in different cultures and different eras, for example"

Yet PaulB offered not a single example. None.

I haven't called people names. Calling your idiotic assertions idiotic, for example, or calling an argument illogical, is not ad hominem.

As for the race/orientation equation you've so pitifully tried to make, I don't know anyone for whom the race of their spouse has much if any importance. I've never known anyone for whom the sex of their spouse was not of critical importance. There is just no comparison between race and sex in terms of their role in marriage. It is therefore idiotic to suggest otherwise. Further, I don't believe for a second that you equate them either. You're simply not being honest about it.

If you want to go ahead ignoring basic scientific biological reality, knock yourself out.

Posted by: BW on June 4, 2006 at 6:43 PM | PERMALINK

What does sex have to do with marriage?

If I have no penis, I can't get married? What if I have both sex organs? Can I marry a man or a woman?

Posted by: Michael Buchanan on June 4, 2006 at 6:46 PM | PERMALINK

Yep, you are stuck. Got that bible verse yet?

Posted by: Michael Buchanan on June 4, 2006 at 6:48 PM | PERMALINK

BW, determined to continue dodging and weaving, wrote: "Equating race and sexual orientation, on the other hand, is completely logical and rational"

Dear heart, has it really escaped your attention that this was in response to your silliness about race and sexual behavior?

"Homosexual behavior is not aberrant."

Dear heart, has it really escaped your attention that this was in response to your silliness that it was?

"Yet PaulB offered not a single example. None."

Dear heart, has it really escaped your notice that I don't feel compelled to educate a moron who is incapable of rational argument or thought? Oh, and here's a free clue: Nuer.

"I haven't called people names."

ROFLMAO.... No comment needed.

"As for the race/orientation equation you've so pitifully tried to make,"

Dear heart, has it really escaped your notice that every single argument you and those like you have made was also made in the days of Loving v. Virginia?

"I don't know anyone for whom the race of their spouse has much if any importance."

ROFLMAO... Oh my, just when you think that he's reached the apex of silliness, he manages to climb even further. I think I'll just let this bit of ignorance stand without comment, as well, since it requires no debunking on my part.

"There is just no comparison between race and sex in terms of their role in marriage."

So you continue to mindlessly assert. Alas that mere repetition does not make it any more true than it was the first time you said it.

"It is therefore idiotic to suggest otherwise."

ROFLMAO.... Can't you just see this guy smug with satisfaction that he's put me in my place, satisfied that he's made his point, all the while wholly ignorant that he's established precisely ... nothing? And don't you just love the fact that he's completely missed the point that I, and others, have made? This is great stuff. Usually I have to pay for such entertainment.

"Further, I don't believe for a second that you equate them either. You're simply not being honest about it."

ROFLMAO.... And now he's a mindreader, as well. Is there no end to this guy's talents?

"If you want to go ahead ignoring basic scientific biological reality, knock yourself out."

And once again, oh, the irony.... How is your search for support for your assertions about biology and "aberrant behavior" coming, BW? Had any luck?

Posted by: PaulB on June 4, 2006 at 7:24 PM | PERMALINK

BW, determined to continue dodging and weaving, wrote: "Equating race and sexual orientation, on the other hand, is completely logical and rational"

Dear heart, has it really escaped your attention that this was in response to your silliness about race and sexual behavior?

"Homosexual behavior is not aberrant."

Dear heart, has it really escaped your attention that this was in response to your silliness that it was?

"Yet PaulB offered not a single example. None."

Dear heart, has it really escaped your notice that I don't feel compelled to educate a moron who is incapable of rational argument or thought? Oh, and here's a free clue: Nuer.

"I haven't called people names."

ROFLMAO.... No comment needed.

"As for the race/orientation equation you've so pitifully tried to make,"

Dear heart, has it really escaped your notice that every single argument you and those like you have made was also made in the days of Loving v. Virginia?

"I don't know anyone for whom the race of their spouse has much if any importance."

ROFLMAO... Oh my, just when you think that he's reached the apex of silliness, he manages to climb even further. I think I'll just let this bit of ignorance stand without comment, as well, since it requires no debunking on my part.

"There is just no comparison between race and sex in terms of their role in marriage."

So you continue to mindlessly assert. Alas that mere repetition does not make it any more true than it was the first time you said it.

"It is therefore idiotic to suggest otherwise."

ROFLMAO.... Can't you just see this guy smug with satisfaction that he's put me in my place, satisfied that he's made his point, all the while wholly ignorant that he's established precisely ... nothing? And don't you just love the fact that he's completely missed the point that I, and others, have made? This is great stuff. Usually I have to pay for such entertainment.

"Further, I don't believe for a second that you equate them either. You're simply not being honest about it."

ROFLMAO.... And now he's a mindreader, as well. Is there no end to this guy's talents?

"If you want to go ahead ignoring basic scientific biological reality, knock yourself out."

And once again, oh, the irony.... How is your search for support for your assertions about biology and "aberrant behavior" coming, BW? Had any luck?

Posted by: PaulB on June 4, 2006 at 7:26 PM | PERMALINK

Oops... my apologies for the double post.

Posted by: PaulB on June 4, 2006 at 7:46 PM | PERMALINK

"has it really escaped your attention that this was in response to your silliness about race and sexual behavior?"

It has not escaped my attention that your responses were assertions that you offered nothing to back up.

In response to my statement, "I don't know anyone for whom the race of their spouse has much if any importance."

PaulB replied, "ROFLMAO... Oh my, just when you think that he's reached the apex of silliness, he manages to climb even further. I think I'll just let this bit of ignorance stand without comment, as well, since it requires no debunking on my part."

He seems to imply that I do know someone who considers race a central issue in their marriage. OK, Paul, then prove it. Who do I know that thinks race is important to their marriage? ROFLMAO

Your continued inability to find a basic biology textbook is your problem.

Posted by: BW on June 4, 2006 at 7:59 PM | PERMALINK

BW, back to entertain us, writes: "It has not escaped my attention that your responses were assertions that you offered nothing to back up."

Dear heart, out here in the real world, the person who initiates the argument has the responsibility, when challenged, to back up his or her assertions. Those who are confident in their knowledge, who know what they are talking about, immediately do so, eager to score points and win the debate. Those who are not, on the other hand, who do not know what they are talking about, play childish games, utter ad hominem attacks, and mindlessly reiterate their assertions. Guess which group you fall into, BW?

"He seems to imply that I do know someone who considers race a central issue in their marriage."

No, dear. I'm simply laughing at your silly attempt to make an argument. I really didn't think I needed to point this out to you, but since you seem incapable of comprehension, I'll endeavor to educate you:

1. The original statement, that you don't know anyone who considers race a central issue in their marriage, may or may not have been true. I have no way of knowing.

2. The clear implication of that statement is that nobody considers race a central issue in marriage.

3. The implication is so mindbogglingly stupid, not to mention, wrong, that it deserves nothing more than mockery and laughter.

4. Even had you not intended that broader implication, the statement is still mindbogglingly stupid, in that "proof" based on "my circle of friends" is so pathetically inadequate, not to mention immediately suspect, that the statement still deserves nothing more than mockery and laughter.

5. The fact that you seem to be wholly unaware of this is hilarious, deserving nothing more than further mockery and laughter, which I'm delighted to provide, and will continue to provide so long as you see fit to continue making such ridiculous "arguments."

"Your continued inability to find a basic biology textbook is your problem."

Thank you for conceding that you cannot support your assertions. It's been fun, dear. Got any more entertainment this evening?

Posted by: PaulB on June 4, 2006 at 9:40 PM | PERMALINK

Same sex marriage is wrong !!!! No need to debate it. It is a black and white issue. It will continue to be wrong now and twenty years from now. Acting upon your gay urges is wrong. It is a clear cut black and white case.

Posted by: calmlamb on June 4, 2006 at 9:57 PM | PERMALINK

What's funny, in a kind of a pathetic way, is that that is precisely the kind of argument that BW is using, not to mention the argument that is used by damn near all opponents of same-sex marriage. BW is trying desperately to disguise the fact that he has no case, no facts, and no argument, other than mindless repetition, but alas, it's not exactly difficult to figure out.

Posted by: PaulB on June 4, 2006 at 10:34 PM | PERMALINK

Calmlamb, you can act on your gay urges. It's ok. Hell is just a myth to scare you into following some guy with a fat book in his hand. You only have one life. Enjoy it and tell the pope to shove it!

Posted by: Michael Buchanan on June 5, 2006 at 4:13 AM | PERMALINK
Grotesqueticle, if it's a constitutional amendment, the Supreme Court doesn't get to overturn it. It can't be unconstitutional, because it is itself changing what the Constitution says.

Well, unless it eliminates equal representation in the Senate, which is pretty much the only way an amendment could, itself, be unconstitutional.

But not really relevant to the issue at hand.

Posted by: cmdicely on June 5, 2006 at 10:44 AM | PERMALINK

BW: The notion that it is bigoted simply to continue to define marriage as it has always been defined is also nuts.

And why is it that conservatives constantly lie, BW?

Marriage has been defined in many cultures and in many eras as including one man and several women, so in fact the amendment doesn't define marriage as it has always been defined.

In fact, let me just pose a little problem for you: find a pre-2000 definition of marriage in any dictionary or any law that states explicitly that it is between one man and one women and give us the link, eh?

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 5, 2006 at 10:54 AM | PERMALINK

明星,音乐,图片,写真,铃声,下载,bbs

Posted by: dfds on June 5, 2006 at 12:26 PM | PERMALINK

With respect to the wording of the amendment, I think the HRC is right. If the sponsors really wanted to protect states' prerogatives to enact civil unions, there is a time-honored way of doing that which is used in many statutes, called a proviso. "Provided, however, that nothing in this Amendment shall be construed to prohibit the United States or any state or political subdivision thereof from recognizing any status other than marriage."

Everyone knows that's what you say if you want to preserve civil unions. What the right wing is hoping is that they can claim that this thing doesn't bar civil unions to get it passed, and then argue in court that it actually does bar them. So instead of using an express proviso, they didn't put any language in the Amendment that expressly permits any governmental unit to recognize ANY rights.

FYI, the right wing succeeded here in California with a similar scheme. They passed Proposition 209, barring affirmative action, making an argument that it had no effect on minority outreach programs (i.e., encouraging blacks to apply for jobs or educational opportunities) so long as no racial PREFERENCE was involved. Then, they successfully argued in court that such programs were actually banned by the initiative. They know what they are doing.

Posted by: Dilan Esper on June 5, 2006 at 4:24 PM | PERMALINK

Since PaulB didn't even bother to try refuting anything I said, we can conclude he could not.

The Importance of Protecting Marriage

"Americans are tolerant, generous, and kind people. We all oppose bigotry and disparagement, and we all wish to avoid hurtful disregard of the feelings of others. But the debate over same-sex marriage is not a debate over tolerance. It is a debate about the purpose of the institution of marriage.

Attaching the word marriage to the association of same-sex individuals mistakenly presumes that marriage is principally a matter of adult benefits and adult rights. In fact, marriage is principally about the nurturing and development of children. And the successful development of children is critical to the preservation and success of our nation."

Posted by: BW on June 6, 2006 at 10:40 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly