Article

2004-02-29

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Super Hose 2004-02-29 12:43:59 PM|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 More importantly, he carefully and deliberately indicated that he has not yet reached a decision about the wording of the amendment he will support.

Unfortunately, the President appears to have cast his lot with this approach.

These statements appear contradictory. That doesn't inspire confidence in the rest of the article.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-2-29 1:00:45 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/] 2004-2-29 1:00:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 The core of the argument is not gay marriage. By law and by custom there is not such thing as gay marriage. But, at the moment, there is a legal power play to redefine marriage to permit same sex couples to be recognized as 'married.' THAT is gay marriage.

But, heck, it is altogether possible that gay marriage, once marriage can be redefined to accomodate the concept, will suffer a similar fate as the 'Roe effect.'

The 'Roe effect' is a concept that since liberals embrace abortion and most likely use it to their personal convenience, 20 years down the road there are fewer liberals appearing at the ballot box to continue to support abortion. And it appears the Roe effect is about to take effect with numerous state statutes being passed to limit the 'right' to abortion.

And so it may be with gay marriage. Those who do support are far more likely to be gay and even more likely to take a gay partner. Thus the gay population will suffer the Roe effect in a diminuation in numbers of available gay folks and their enablers for conventional marriage, and the breeding of children. (aka 'coming out of the closet') This means far, far fewer children raised by homosexuals being admitted to the bar and/or being available to vote will mean an eventual reversal of this shitty excuse for human rights.

Posted by badanov 2004-2-29 2:18:34 PM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2004-2-29 2:18:34 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 Badanov-
Actually, won't there be far more children raised by homosexuals now? I keep hearing stories, high-profile and not, of lesbian couples using the ol' turkey baster method and gay men wanting to adopt children; plus surrogate breeders for both. Won't this all increase with state-sanctioned gay marriage?

In a different vein, was there legal gay marriage 200, 20, or 2 years ago; or even 6 months ago? What changed suddenly?
Some people who shape the debate of American culture (like Andrew Sullivan)are all up in arms about how Bush is going to destroy this 'civil right' for gay citizens. It seems to me that the only thing that has changed is that some Massachusetts court and a radical mayor of San Francisco have just DECREED that gay marriage is legal, and poof!... we now have another 'civil right'.
Gee, is it too much to ask if the American people have a say in this; through an Amendment or a Defense of Marriage Act or some other debate?

Posted by Les Nessman 2004-2-29 6:51:45 PM|| 2004-2-29 6:51:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 I'm still waiting for my right to leave the toilet seat up.

Posted by Super Hose 2004-2-29 7:41:32 PM|| 2004-2-29 7:41:32 PM|| Front Page Top

17:09 mike
17:05 mike
17:39 Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo)
00:39 Traveller
23:42 mojo
23:41 True German Ally
23:38 mojo
23:20 Jennie Taliaferro
23:15 Barbara Skolaut
23:13 Alaska Paul
23:13 Stephen
23:09 Karen
23:02 whitecollar redneck
22:55 B
22:49 B
22:48 B
22:43 Robert Crawford
22:43 Robert Crawford
22:42 B
22:40 B
22:39 Robert Crawford
22:38 Robert Crawford
22:36 Robert Crawford
22:32 Robert Crawford