The Loving Decision

Same-sex marriage was beaten back at the ballot box. Now here's a history lesson on why victory is inevitable in the long run.

By Anna Quindlen | NEWSWEEK
Published Nov 15, 2008
From the magazine issue dated Nov 24, 2008

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: nawawimohamad @ 11/16/2008 4:07:38 AM

    Marriage between different races is is different form marriage between the same sex. It is not wrong to have mixed marriages, it will inculcate racial harmony but marriage between the same sex is not marriage at all, it is madness. If same sex marriage is not banned, then in no time, incest will be made legal.

    • Posted By: Timshel79 @ 11/16/2008 7:45:21 AM

      Incest in the worst scenario is violent, coercive and most important results in a victim. That is why it is a crime. Homosexuality garners no victim, hurts no one, and in the cases we are talking about, results only in two people together being happier than they would be apart and their union being fully supported by the state. Incest when between two adults with close bloodlines has the potential to hurt someone if they choose to procreate, in which case they have an increased risk of birth defects. This risk is not even present for same sex parents, and as the first generation of children raised by same sex couples come of age, the theory that children would suffer as a result of such an environment has been proven false. The adult children of same sex couples have no higher rate of homosexuality, no higher rate of depression or anxiety or maladjustment than those with heterosexual parents. There is no practical down side to same sex families other than in the eyes of those that gutturally feel homosexuality itself should be discouraged and frowned upon. That is what this is really about, and the moral and guttural feelings of people who feel that way are not in the best interests of justice and are by definition bigoted. Under the 14th Amendment, states are not allowed to enact laws that limit the rights of any group of its citizens because of the bigotry of its majority. That is why this is the same as Loving. The reason you see it as different is because you hold a prejudicial view of homosexuals and not of racial minorities.

      • Posted By: unrealmeee @ 08/24/2009 7:37:27 AM

        have you ever been in Europe?
        Sex marriage has been leagal for decades, and some places even in churches also.. it a questi

    • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/17/2008 1:09:38 PM

      " If same sex marriage is not banned, then in no time, incest will be made legal."

      And you base this whackjob notion on...what?

      • Posted By: neeka @ 11/19/2008 11:01:22 PM

        You yourself say in your posts that as long as they are consenting adults there should be no problem. Now you're calling this person a whackjob?

        • Posted By: Blue in AZ @ 11/20/2008 12:45:49 AM

          incest rarely occurs between consenting adults. It is generally a forced (physically or emotionally) between an adult and a child.

          • Posted By: neeka @ 11/20/2008 1:22:57 AM

            "incest rarely occurs between consenting adults." Key word being "rarely" meaning it does still happen. Think about siblings who grew up apart, only to meet as adults and fall in love, being fully aware they are related. Should they be able to marry?

            • Posted By: Blue in AZ @ 11/20/2008 5:22:42 PM

              Are you serious? I think you've read too many VC Andrews novels. Show me an example where such a scenario has actually occurred and we can compare that to all the cases of molestation that are documented by CPS. The problem with the argument against same sex marriage is exactly what is happening in this discussion. Instead of discussing the reality, people who oppose would rather play the "what if" game, the main motive being to compare a loving relationship between two consenting adults to beastiality or pedophilia or rape.molestation.

            • Posted By: not-fooled-by-slick-talking-charlatans @ 11/20/2008 3:08:58 PM

              Where do you get these ideas? Watch Jerry Springer much?

    • Posted By: farneyblakeley @ 11/16/2008 4:45:24 AM

      Legal marriage is a serious commitment with life-altering results. If two people of the same gender want to enter into a marriage contract with one another because they are so committed to being together than I don't see what the problem is with that. Leave reproduction out of it and just see it for what it is.

  • Posted By: Jimmy5804 @ 11/16/2008 2:49:19 AM

    I have yet to see anyone who supports gay marriage provide a more thoughtful defense of the proposition than that "it's a civil rights issue". I'm sure someone can do a good job and I would like to see it. If someone knows of one, please point me to it, because Anna's comparisons, like most others, are poor at best. I suspect that if more people believed it was really that simple, blacks wouldn't have voted for Prop 8 by more than 2:1.


    • Posted By: Timshel79 @ 11/16/2008 7:54:38 AM

      What about the fact that allowing same sex marriage hurts no one and would make tens of thousands of families that already exist feel more safe, happy and secure and allow them greater protection under the law? Or what about the fact that no matter how passionately you feel, it is wrong to limit the rights of a minority group simply because you see them as different and less deserving by the nature of who they are?

      • Posted By: unrealmeee @ 08/24/2009 7:33:56 AM

        have you ever been in Europe??
        Same sex marriage has been legal for decades.. Not in church, but we are chaning...

    • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/18/2008 3:57:32 PM

      "I have yet to see anyone who supports gay marriage provide a more thoughtful defense of the proposition than that "it's a civil rights issue". "

      No further argument is required. The rights of the individual trump your petty hatreds and bigotries.

  • Posted By: greatmidwest @ 03/23/2009 9:26:16 AM


    Yet another landmark Supreme Court case may very well be the civil rights case regarding the overturn of Prop 8 in the State of California. Though it may seem to many gay Americans like the morally wrong thing, it may also be legally right to uphold it...


    As difficult as the likely outcome of the case will be for those of us who support gay marriage, the court's rationale will almost certainly strengthen a fundamental tenet of the progressive movement: the right of ordinary citizens to maintain authority over their state constitutions.The court's challenge will be whether the state will become the second state in the nation to extend the freedoms of gay Americans and allow marriage to same-sex couples, or to continue the national quagmire with regards to the reality of gay marriage and the discriminatory undertones of it in a nation that is just beginning to finally overcome the scars of slavery...God Bless America

  • Posted By: jes22 @ 01/06/2009 10:33:05 PM

    The response about the penis and the anus and the excrement and the perfect bluntness is just wonderful except that its author disregards the ability of the prostate gland to evoke orgasm in men when stimulated through anal intercourse. But I am so "blilnded by [my] pride" as are "a great many like [me] in the media as well as political liberals" it's a wonder that I noticed it in the first place...

  • Posted By: pdha @ 12/11/2008 7:46:24 PM

    The last word, Ms Quindlan, is you and a great many like you in the media as well as political liberals are BLIND, just totally blind to natural law. Blinded by your pride. To be perfectly blunt-- A penis is not intended to go into a anus and be covered in excrement--clear enough picture for you now to understand?? Does not a penis fit just perfectly into a vagina and bonus of bonuses, such a paring often creates children--its a LIFE giving and life promotoing, adn a wonderful blessing in marriage, this design of nature (or God if you believe).

    Those who insist on gay marriage as some right, or a matter of "love" are people who like same sex sodomy and want to do it with no stigma attached and have everyone applaud it . Baloney.. Its not just jews, muslims, catholics christains etc who can see the truth of what is going on here, it is many more Americans who have no particular religious inclinations, but they DO have COMMON sense and do';t deny what is so clear to the eyes and what you could see to if you were willing to open them and accept R E A L I T Y.

  • Posted By: lzais @ 12/09/2008 12:06:32 PM

    Wow! What a response your article has generated. Keep writing, Anna. You and Fareed are the reasons I continue our subscription to Newsweek.

  • Posted By: lzais @ 12/09/2008 11:03:34 AM

    Wow! What a response your article has generated. Keep writing, Anna. You and Fareed are the reasons I continue our subscription to Newsweek.

  • Posted By: Beagl @ 12/08/2008 1:06:22 PM

    I've met ex-drug addicts and ex-homosexuals but I've never met an ex-black person. The condition of those with same sex attraction disorder: SSAD people, or gender-disordered people, is more accurately compared with that of drug addicts. Both unfortunate groups need to be treated with compassion, but they need to be treated, and they know it. Both groups enjoy doing what is wrong and despising others for being 'straight', and are offended when not considered normal or accorded elite status.
    Despite the endless Spock speak on both sides, is it not obvious that human beings are made to procreate and that marriage traditions are the right context for this. Btw infertile couples still uphold the goods of real marriage, so it would be silly and nasty to annul them, would it not. Also btw, Psychology and homosexuality have become new religions seeking to displace the older ones. It is little wonder that many people are returning to traditional religions. Homosexual activists don't know what inadvertant evangelists they are. Thanks.

  • Posted By: Willian C DeMuth @ 12/03/2008 1:20:11 PM

    The issue is obvious. Can the majority legislate the morality of the minority?

    It can, and it often does. Beyond the few rights guaranteed by the bill of rights, any and all privileges of citizenship are at the whim of the majority.

    Certain sexual behaviors are illegal and some are merely frowned upon. Pedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality and necrophagia are all examples of sexual activity that was once accepted somewhere by some society as normal, but thru the passage of time they have become illegal because a consensus of opinion developed that they were immoral.

    In fact, if we cannot use the will of the majority to restrict sexuality then any form of sexual expression should be legal. This is NOT about marriage in any way, this is about the battle for public opinion and if certain behaviors are moving away from being perceived as immoral as a way to prevent their return to illegality

    Some believe that gay marriage will lead to polygamy and other changes as well, and while some scream foul, I believe it is a legitimate question to ask.

    If we are rewriting the laws of marriage, and marriage is an inherently good institution, why can???t I have two wives? Why can???t I marry my Labrador? Why can???t my partner and I swap sex organs surgically and be as one? Why can???t I clone myself and have I as a lover?

    Or upon the other extreme why do we tolerate divorce if marriage is desirable? Why isn???t ???till death do us part??? taken literally?

    I propose a simple solution. Charge a fee of ten thousand dollars per marriage, which is held in abeyance and decreased by one thousand a year. If you stay married for less than ten years you pay, and for every year longer than ten, you are paid with the funds taken from the failures. Then I wouldn???t care who married who, and society would be far better off!

    • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 12/04/2008 3:30:44 PM

      "It can, and it often does. Beyond the few rights guaranteed by the bill of rights, any and all privileges of citizenship are at the whim of the majority."

      Absolute rubbish. Read amendments XIII, XIV, among others. In fact, try reading the constitution itself before spouting off.

    • Posted By: not-fooled-by-slick-talking-charlatans @ 12/03/2008 2:39:00 PM

      Pedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality and necrophagia are all examples of sexual activity that was once accepted somewhere by some society as normal, but thru the passage of time they have become illegal because a consensus of opinion developed that they were immoral."
      These examples are agreed to be immoral because they involve sexual activity that is not consensual. To equate anything you have listed to homosexuality is senseless.

  • Posted By: vincehuth @ 11/19/2008 8:46:05 PM

    Ms. Quindlen, Your "Last Word" (Nov 24) is mostly wrong. The equal rights argument is fallacious--civil unions have equal protection under the law. There is nothing anti-gay or mean-spirited from the MAJORITY that want to preserve traditional marriage. By contrast the opponents of Prop. 8 in California were hostile, vitriolic and intimidating. The gay marriage advocates, and your editorial, reveal disdain for majority rule and contempt for religious and cultural values. The vote settled the issue. Vince

    • Posted By: not-fooled-by-slick-talking-charlatans @ 12/03/2008 2:56:38 PM

      Civil unions have similar benefits to marriage, but they are not the same. Civil unions do not have the same social standing as marriage. Also, civil unions are only valid in the state they were granted in, or other states that legally recognize these unions. Marriages are recognized not just in every state, but every country. There is no reason why any law-abiding, tax paying adult should not be able to legally marry the law abiding, tax paying adult who loves them.

    • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/20/2008 8:46:28 AM

      "The equal rights argument is fallacious--civil unions have equal protection under the law."

      We've seen "separate but equal" in the past. It didn't work then, and it isn't good enough now.

      • Posted By: orangeandblue @ 11/21/2008 2:58:08 PM

        Sorry Vince, you're wrong. The MAJORITY has spoken is not a good defense. It is the court responsibility to protect minorities from discrimination. They will overturn Prop 8 and the fight will go on.

    • Posted By: neeka @ 11/20/2008 1:24:46 AM

      Great points Vince.

      • Posted By: noahsdad @ 11/20/2008 9:26:26 PM

        The NJ Supreme Court has required marriage OR civil unions with all the same rights & responsibilities. The state has gone with civil unions for now, but implementation has shown here again that this separate status is by no means equal.

    • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/20/2008 8:43:52 AM

      "The vote settled the issue. "

      No, it didn't. The CA supreme court is getting involved.

  • Posted By: Biichama @ 11/24/2008 12:36:08 PM

    I'm a cashier at a hardware store and a part-time student, but also an adult child of a lesbian mother. Yesterday morning, a pair of twins and their two moms came through my register. The kids were so cute and their moms were so friendly, that I can't imagine anyone who after meeting them wouldn't want to support gay families. "Hey," I said to one of the twins. "I see you've got two moms. I have two moms too."

    • Posted By: Willian C DeMuth @ 12/03/2008 12:28:38 PM

      What about dear old dad? Or is he just a secretion in a test tube. Unless you are a clone you had a mother and a father, not two mothers.

      • Posted By: not-fooled-by-slick-talking-charlatans @ 12/03/2008 2:44:30 PM

        It is very possible that children can have same-sex parents. One of them biological, one of them not. In the case of two females in a relationship, one can have her fertalized egg placed in her parter's uterus and the partner will be the "birth" mother. I was raised with a stepfather that I call "dad". I suspect I am not alone in this experience.

  • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 12/03/2008 12:10:08 PM

    Well, yesterday, Florida's law banning gay adoption was struck down.

    The CA supreme court is going to listen to arguments against prop 8.

    Things are looking up.

  • Posted By: Biblical @ 12/02/2008 11:58:22 PM

    Ms. Quindlen, the basis for your argument in this article is that the people who decided that miscegenation was wrong based their argument on so called teachings of the bible which are not there and that the conservative Christians who argue against same-sex marriage do the same. It is clear that you do not have a thorough knowledge of the bible but only your own idea of what God wants. It is true that those who argued against miscegenation were acting outside of what the bible says, but on the other hand it is clearly stated in both the New and Old Testaments of the bible that marriage is something instituted by God between one man and one woman and that homosexuality is a sin--both gay men and lesbian women. Since the Christian Church operates based on the New Testament as the fulfillment of the Old Testament 1 Corinthians 6:9 is an important verse to show this, "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders..."
    You base your argument for same-sex marriage on a false assumption. You assume that Christians just use the name of God to make whatever argument they want without it being in the bible. It is true that there is no basis for an argument against miscegenation in the bible but you are wrong that the bible does not condemn homosexuality.

  • Posted By: tellsithowitis @ 11/24/2008 7:24:57 PM

    I am a "Bible believing Christian" as well and I believe that Gays should and will recieve the right to marry. Because of my religious beliefs, I do not believe in homosexual relationships. What this means is that I will never engage in a homosexual relationship or oversee the marriage of one. MY RELIGIOUS BELIEFS SHOULD NOT DICTATE THE LEGAL RIGHTS OF OTHERS. Marriage is a legal right. Marriage in a particular church's denomination is up to that church. If God doesn't agree with their marriage, all they have is a piece of paper and a tax deduction. Get over yourselves you Christians who think you should run everyone elses lives.

  • Posted By: greatmidwest @ 11/30/2008 12:54:43 AM


    In the anticipation of a new Obama era with a major changes planned in American economic and foreign policies, such will be the case in terms of America's dilemma regardnig same sex marriage. The Mormon Church's significant financial contributions to influence the vote on Prop. 8 in the State of California not only made Our Founding Fathers roll lover in their graves, but clearly violates our nation's Separation of Church & State and necessity for a secular laws and government composed of the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Branches of government.

    The Mormon Church's actions now clearly jeopardize their non-profit tax exemption status, and calls into question why these monies weren't spent on children and families in need rather than political propaganda to support Prop. 8. Their support for a propostion that violates the civil rights of gay Americans is reminiscent of the protests against young women who sought termination of their pregnancies and the subsequent bombings of abortion clinics. Funny how the GOP tried to politicize the Ayers matter, yet didn't talk about those "Evangelical Extremists" who killed physicans who performing abortions. We must learn from our nation's history of civil injustices, whether they be slavery, racism, gender discrimination, and now sexual orientation. Interestingly enough, Sen. John McCain was one of the deciding votes opposing the Employee Non-discrimination Act on floor of the Senate in 1996. A "maverick" does not vote AGAINSTa bill that ensures the civil liberties of its citizens. Joe Biden should have brought that one up when he debated Sarah Palin, as gay marriage is a civil liberties matter, not a "loving" one.

    Could you imagine if our US Constitution had amendments which legalized slavery, legalized segregation of men and women in our schools and workplaces, legalized paryers of all denominations in our publci schools, legalized a ban on alcohol, contraception, stem-cell research and abortion, and also legalized a ban to same-sex marriage? How could we continue to keep the words "indivisible with liberty and justice for all" in our nation's Pledge of Allegiance? How has our nation become such a a technologically advanced one, though we have yet to finally progress from our sad legacy of discrimination. Let's not repeat a Civil War composed of Yankees and Confederates, though this time with Straights vs.Gays. Our elected and politically appointed Judical Branch of government must decide this matter, not religious organizations and not these state propositions and referendums.Since, as we all know, a majority vote does not necessarily equal a consttiutionally just vote. I agree with Gov. Schwarzenegger in that the California Supreme Court should decide these civil rights matters. I disagree with Gov. Crist's support for a ban on gay marriage and adoption. Isn't the role of government and religion to educate its people , not disicriminate against

  • Posted By: miguel221 @ 11/19/2008 5:27:19 PM

    One of Quindlen's many misleading arguments is the suggestion that because Catholics can get away with refusing to marry divorcees, they will always be able to get away with refusing to marry gays. She knows as well as I do that divorcees are not a specially protected class in California or anywhere else. By contrast, gays are a specially protected class.

    A similar argument is often made that Catholics may refuse to marry non-catholics, so they can also refuse to marry gays. Again, people of a certain religion do not have protected class status.

    • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/19/2008 5:30:08 PM

      No church is required to marry anyone to anyone, so-called "special protections" or no.

      • Posted By: calibloggerl08 @ 11/26/2008 5:34:22 AM

        Churches can and do discriminate against protected classes. Need proof? Catholic churches only allow men to be priests--this discriminates against women--and yet they continue to do so without any legal repercussions. Our government has a clear separation of church and state so that the government cannot force its will onto churches. However, this separation works both ways; the dominant religion does not determine the law.

  • Posted By: J. Steven @ 11/20/2008 12:30:25 PM

    There is no scientific evidence to show that homosexual behavior is biologically determined. None. The social influences are strong and we now know that sexual activities do change the brain. To see Anna offer in rebutal DeGeneres' limp comment about the social and family influences in her life, "They did not influence me," is painfully sad. It reflects prejudice in Quindlen's own approach. The honesty of Fausto-Sterling of Brown U who is openly and actively Lesbian and wrote regarding the biological argument, "It provides a legal argument that is, at the moment, actually having some sway in the court. For me, it's a very shaky place. It's bad science and bad politics. It seems to me that the way we consider homosexuality in our culture is an ethical and a moral question." Quindlen moves away from ethics when she bases her argument on that which is not true. In the mean time we all hope for a more loving approach. It is one thing to write as a prophet. It is another thing to distort.

    • Posted By: J. Steven @ 11/20/2008 1:09:06 PM

      Mark Breedlove of UC Berkeley reports research on sexual activities changing the brain.
      Researchers Byne and Parsons and Friedman and Downey reviewed the studies linking biology and homosexual attraction. They concluded that there was no evidence to support a biologic/genetic theory but rather they contend that homosexuality can best be explained via an alternative model wherein "temperamental and personality traits interact with the familial and social milieu as the individual's sexuality emerges."

      • Posted By: calibloggerl08 @ 11/26/2008 4:42:54 AM

        So you read one article in the Salt Lake City Tribune and think you are well versed in the literature about the biological bases for sexual orientation? Clearly, your research on this subject has been biased--when you only look for information to confirm what you already believe, you tend to miss some important facts. The article you read says that because researchers have failed to find a genetic basis for homosexuality (a gay gene), that homosexuality must not be determined by heredity. Scientists have also failed to find a genetic marker for race. Should we then conclude that race is not biological? Clearly such an assumption would be ludicrous.

        It is laughable that you cite Mark Breedlove to support your claim that sexual orientation is not biological when the body of his work demonstrates the opposite. Dr. Breedlove has demonstrated that there are significant differences in the brains of homosexuals when compared to those of heterosexuals. There is a considerable amount of evidence that these differences are due to hormonal differences (based on our biology). The Breedlove study that shows sexual activity having an impact on the brain does not invalidate a biological influence on sexual orientation; it only shows that nature as well as nurture plays a role in the people we become. For example, the findings give scientists an explanation of why victims of sexual assault are more likely to be homosexual than those not abused. The relationship between biology and environment is complicated, but the vast majority of scientists agree that homosexuality is not a choice and that homosexuals are not simply unethical people.

        Use your brain. Did you sit down one day and make a conscious decision to do the moral thing and be straight? I know I didn???t. If being straight is a choice for you, I have some news for you???you???re gay!

    • Posted By: noahsdad @ 11/20/2008 9:16:46 PM

      The evidence is complex, but considerable and growing.

    • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/20/2008 12:49:59 PM

      " The social influences are strong and we now know that sexual activities do change the brain."

      You have a link to peer-reviewed proof on that?

  • Posted By: LMN II @ 11/23/2008 7:35:36 PM

    That's fine and dandy Anna. When and IF your prediction happens what will you say to those who want polygamy. Will you jump on their bandwagon as well? What will you tell to the incestuous couple that wants to marry? It's a slippery slope, no matter which way you put it.

    • Posted By: Wild Clover @ 11/25/2008 1:59:49 AM

      Your slippery slope is a fallacy. Incest is against the interest of the state because of the dangers of inbreeding. The one case of incest I have personal knowledge of is a pair of first cousins who married, and their daughter paid by almost dying and almost losing her vision. They were legally married. In my 50 years I have perhaps known 8 poly groups, only 4 qualifiy as group marriges as opposed to open relationships. All the marrige type relationships(ie-pooled property, child rearing, etc) were some combination of both sexes. I personally know of exactly 1 triad of same sex folks, and one that is only heterosexual because the male has transitioned from female-count that however you will. It seems to me that HETEROSEXUAL marriage is much more likely to lead to polygamy being legalized(after all, it is Biblical) than gay marriage.

  • Posted By: moichi @ 11/19/2008 2:28:49 PM

    We aren't stopping any person from living a normal life or having normal relationships. It's just that we aren't going to recognize a deviant lifestyle by sanctifying it as marriage. If you choose to be a homosexual that's your call but we certainly don't have to recognize your choice or legitimize your choice.

    • Posted By: kshortSD @ 11/24/2008 2:20:53 PM

      You are ignorant. It isn't a choice.

    • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/19/2008 3:14:43 PM

      "We aren't stopping any person from living a normal life or having normal relationships. It's just that we aren't going to recognize a deviant lifestyle by sanctifying it as marriage. "

      Nobody is asking you to recognize anything. You are being asked to stop insisting on denying gays the same rights everyone else has.

      • Posted By: miguel221 @ 11/19/2008 3:40:43 PM

        They have the same rights everyone else has always had. To marry someone of the opposite sex as nature intended.

        What they are asking for is a special exemption due to their personal preference or inclination.

        I have a personal inclination towards insider trading. I demand that the government stop denying me this fundamental right. Many people agree that insider trading is not immoral and doesn't harm anyone. Who are you to impose your moral values on me?

        • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/19/2008 4:12:05 PM

          "What they are asking for is a special exemption due to their personal preference or inclination."

          A special exemption from what?

          "I have a personal inclination towards insider trading."

          Insider trading harms others. Gay marriage harms nobody.

          Also, you have the right to marry the consenting adult of your choice. They do not.

          • Posted By: miguel221 @ 11/19/2008 4:48:52 PM

            Actually, most (or at least many) experts believe insider trading harms nobody. That's why I chose the example. In addition, at least some experts believe gay marriage is bad for society. Prominent sociologist David Blankenhorn is one. It is not unreasonable to think that children are best off in a home with a married mom and dad who love them. Normalization of gay marriage promotes the view that kids don't really need a mom and dad.

            • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/19/2008 5:25:28 PM

              "Actually, most (or at least many) experts believe insider trading harms nobody."

              Rubbish. It corrupts the market, removing the level playing field...ie, the insiders make money with an unfair advantage at the expense of the outsiders.

              • Posted By: noahsdad @ 11/20/2008 9:30:55 PM

                Bizarre analogy. Government is never bigger than when it preempts people's right to form families. What about the pursuit of happiness? It's as simple as that.

            • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/19/2008 5:26:35 PM

              "Normalization of gay marriage promotes the view that kids don't really need a mom and dad. "

              So, do you suggest the state take possession of childen from single parent homes?

          • Posted By: miguel221 @ 11/19/2008 5:29:34 PM

            "You have the right to marry a consenting adult of your choice. They do not."

            I only have that right provided the consenting adult of my choice is of the opposite sex. That's like a person whose chosen hobby is stealing telling someone who likes sailing, "You have the right to engage in the hobby of your choice. I do not."

    • Posted By: Explain that one @ 11/19/2008 2:45:20 PM


      "We aren't stopping any person from living a normal life or having normal relationships."

      You should have more correctly stated: "We aren't stopping any person from living an abnormal life or having abnormal relationships."

      Homosexuals and homosexual relationships are not normal. They are aberrations of nature.

      • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/19/2008 3:15:03 PM

        Thanks for your input, Jethro.

        • Posted By: Explain that one @ 11/19/2008 3:30:52 PM

          You are welcome, Dorothy. And thank for wasting the effort to post a pointless comment.

  • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 11/24/2008 11:45:19 AM

    Let them get married. Why shouldn't they suffer like the rest of us?

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse