But I certainly hope that more and more proponents of homosexual marriage come around to your way of thinking. Disdaining fellow citizens simply because they have a reasonable disagreement especially bad for a republic that, by its nature, depends on the exchange of views among equals.

Two men or two women seek life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as they see fit. It doesn’t directly harm anyone else. Except that the harm through power usurpation and associated systematic leftist indoctrination will undoubtedly harm America and impinge upon my rights in some yet-to-be-realized downstream form.

Along with this is exactly what the protections Pres. Bush put in place to protect Catholic hospitals from performing abortions. When the Obama admin get rid of those protections they’ll be suing the hospitals, etc.

I was reading somewhere, in Europe, Marriage is done in a civil manner, court or registrar office and then by personal preference people can go off and have a marriage ceremony in the religious institution they choose. That allows a church, synagogue, mosque to decide for themselves, based on their religious beliefs, who to perform a marriage ceremony for.

Recommended.

The constitution is silent on the matter, so we are free to decide, legislatively, what constitutes “marriage”. It’s a straight, role-of-government decide-at-the-proper-level issue, and one I can live with, regardless of my personal, religious perspective. I would probably vote against it, if given the opportunity. However, I would abide the decision either way as long as it completed through the proper process.

My biggest concern is advocates confusing the two and trying to force constitutionally protected rights out of the way – like the photographer in NJ and attempting to force a church to allow an SM on their grounds. With those protections, I have no problem with it at all. They can call it what they want, that’s all semantics anyway.

Oh, and your point about “sore losers” in CA., you hit the nail on the head. That’s exactly why I have absolutely NO sympathy for those groups. And what was it many of these groups keep telling us, “abandon the social issues, they’re losers for you?” So why do THEY keep a heavy strain in that arena? Hmmmmm, methinks they want us to stop pushing back so they can get their way.

My apologies if this was an annoyance.

That’s not irony. That’s compounding error with error.

While I understand the comment, as a “Plank” of the Republican party, the hard line stance does not help win I’s a moderates to the party. I’d assert that it drives the middle away from the party.

The fact is that probably a majority of people probably know personally a gay person or a gay couple, and while not validating their life style choice I somehow doubt a majority of people support restricting “rights” granted by society and government to domestic partnerships.

Again, this is one of those issues that the R party is going to have to struggle with, obviously your view is one that is held by some segment of the party. How much compromise space there is on the issue of domestic partnerships, who knows.

Can you expand on your point?

Thanks.