All Comments on 'George Bush, Gay Marriage, & Love'

Gays, Lesbians, Bisexual and the transgendered are all God's children. We all love, laugh, cry and do great and wonderful things! We all deserve to be able to marry that special person we love. And, live with them in joy and sorrow "till death do us part".

When I see all of the great photos of members of the Family of Man getting married in San Francisco, my heart fills with joy, I get a wonderful ache in my throat and my eyes start to tear up....

Ain't it grand?

This is nothing more than political speach. Why is it ok to band the ten commandments from a court house and remove someone from the court for breaking the law but it's ok to break the law for this. If you want change do it the right way through the courts and the constitution. If I broke the law I would be arrested, why is this any different.

As a bisexual couple we want to marry a third, is this OK?

This is a country and society that used to prohibit marriage between blacks and whites. But why should the government have any say in who anyone wants to marry? I think that Literotica is a good forum for discussing the political and legal issues going on with gay marriage right now. Bush is using this as a political wedge issue to try to get swing voters on his side, and it's despicable.

As to the previous person who posted about "political speech" and the Ten Commandments, I'm not sure what exactly it is you are arguing. The Ten Commandments were removed from the courthouse because we believe in the separation of church and state. And do you really think we should amend the constitution to declare that marriage is for straight people only? 1st Amendment--free speech. 13th Amendment--ban slavery. 19th--women can vote. 28th--we don't think being gay is ok. yeah, that looks just great.

I'm straight and do not claim to speak for gays/lesbians etc, but I don't think that just allowing civil unions is enough--a separate legal system for gays/lesbians who want to be together doesn't sound good enough. "Separate but equal is inherently unequal..." I'm probably going to offend people by drawing analogies to Brown v. Board and desegregation, but we look back now and are incredulous that we ever lived in a society that treated blacks as second-class citizens. I hope that one day we will look back in history books and find it strange that gays and lesbians were ever denied the rights that straight people have.

And as for the other person who claims that if gay people can marry, then bisexuals can have three-way marriages--huh?? Oh yes, i forgot, gay marriages will "ruin the sanctity of straight marriages", cuz it's not like Britney Spears' 48-hour "just for fun" marriage does that.

For those Americans that are not aware of the history of the Bush family and tyrants/dictators should familiarize themselves of the Bush's family past, present and what they have planned for us in the future. New World Order sounds very dangerous to me as does this "Homeland Security" which the Germans used in World War Two under Hitler. We've had priests and ministers of the church involved in more sexually wrong doings than any gay person and I do and have known many personal and some very intimately. I'm a Vietnam vet and in Vietnam it is not uncommon to see same sex sleeping together or walking together holding hands. Many Americans looked upon this as homosexual, when in deed it was just two friends showing their love of friendship. Americans can be so open minded about certain things, naive and gullible about others, Ethnocentric and blind to the rest. To even suggest an admendment to the Constitution, is to suggest that we surrender all of our rights as citizens in the near future. This administration is already steeping on our freedom of speech. What people fail to realize and recognize is that the Bush family is about oil. The President's brother Neil Bush, was paid $2 Million as a consultant to China. Neil Bush was behind the "Savings and Loan' scandal in Colorado in 1983 and it has been we the tax payer whose been paying. "The Unauthorize Biography of George Bush" goes back to his father Prescott Bush and his involvement with Nazi Germany. Our President's grandfather and many corporate big wigs (Ford, GM, GE, ITT, etc.) helped financed Hitler. Are we doing the same today with our Congress and President Bush's Regime.

I would imagine that the majority of us here at Literotica already have an open mind, and a general acceptance of those that are different. Otherwise, would we be here? I also like to think that we are not sheep blindly following religious authorities and our national government. Sadly, such openmindedness and individuality is not the majority in this country. Ignorance prevails. So,I say to you, Ms. Rich, Bravo! and thank you for speaking so eloquently on these matters. Common sense should give us the indication that if we allow our government into our love lives they will not stop there. Your article should be in our national newspapers (not that George Dubya reads them) informing those who are clueless on the issues, but I fear the repercussions would be greater than slashings and eggings.

In short, this just goes to show you how little the REAL problems in this country mean to the current president. Crime, poverty, healthcare, jobless rate, deficit, and scores of others are being shoved to the wayside so that Bush can threaten to break Constitutional Law, yes, I said Constitutional Law, to enforce his own "ethical, moral and religious" (President Bush in a statement made several days ago during an interview) beliefs. How is he breaking Constitutional Law, you ask: Article [1]. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The making of a new amendment based on the above quote by him, is in direct violation to the First Amendment, a law. If Bush would challenge this, and succeed, the Constitution might just as well be used as toilet tissue and our country given over to the church to run.

I'm a straight male. I have had gay friends, and bi-sexual girlfriends. They show their love the same way anyone else does. Why shouldn't they have equal rights of marriage. The gay society isn't asking for special treatment, just equal treatment; they are only being seen as "forcing" their beliefs on people because when they asked nicely, they were turned away. So, what's the difference? The gay/lesbian advocates going to the court to ask for the equality, or the church advocates going to the court to try and ban such things? When you look at it, the gay/lesbian community isn't trying to MAKE you gay/lesbian, but the church IS trying to MAKE you practice their way.

This was an excellent article and I congratulate the author for taking the time and effort to put forth her personal feelings and share with the rest. Keep it up!

In short... just wanted to thank you for wonderfully expressing what so many of us are thinking in regards to this topic. I am a straight, single woman but applaud lovers of all ilks for their commitment and courage. We don't need an amendment restricting love and commitment.

It was good to read your essay, V. Rich. You made some very good points. I would like to add my own. As others have pointed out, we have abolished the laws that prohibit interracial marriage, that prohibit women and blacks from voting, and have struck down various other segregating laws, many within our own lifetimes. Progress forward is moving at a rapid pace, perhaps faster than history has ever seen. As wonderful as this is, I think we might also need to be a bit patient while those who are still stuck in the past with the past's values catches up. (My grandmother, age 94, still thinks that blacks and whites should not be married.) I think it is really just a matter of time before we see the legalization of gay and lesbian marriages. The tide of history says so. Personally, I have tried to find a real political, social, or financial reason why gays and lesbians should not marry. After an honest and open minded search, I have come up with nothing. All reasons seem to lead back to a religious standpoint. It seems that now, it is just religious preferences and dictates that stands in the way of legalizing gay and lesbian marriages. If this is so, then the argument becomes one of separation between church and state. We have already done that by legalizing marriages made by the Justices of the Peace (and ship captains)instead of church ministers. I can think of several reasons why we should legalize gay and lesbian marriage, although some may be said with tongue firmly planted in cheek. Adoptions will increase. For lesbian or gay couples who want to raise children, adoption is a legal option, is it not?. For financial reasons, let's consider the "marriage penalty tax". The government would profit from marriage by making gays and lesbians pay more taxes if married. Also, it stands to reason that the more marriages there are, the more divorces there would be. Divorce attorneys should be exaltant over the idea of more people getting married. Also, from a sarcastic point of view, if the Christians want to stop gay sex, then legalizing gay marriage would be a way to do it...Anyways, other questions I would pose is, if I am a married male, and I decide to legally get a sex change and live as a woman,(which by law I am allowed to do), am I still legally married? What in the world is the real difference between a "civil union" and marriage? Are a male and female allowed to have a "civil union", or is that just for gay and lesbian couples? And while I am ranting, I would also like to address this "institution of marriage". Folks, the greatest threat to this so called "institution of marriage" is not gay and lesbian marriage. It's divorce. If we want to protect marriage so bad, then the proper thing to do would be to outlaw divorce. By the way, I have no idea where this "institution of marriage" is located at. I have gotten no letters requesting money from them, or have gotten any notification from them that my marriage license has expired or needed renewed. I am sure however, that it probably is a non-profit organization....

Thanks for letting me rant.

Once we have the institution of marriage 'cheepened'.. how about the fact that I Love my dog... and I want my dog to have the best.. so I want to marry my dog! Well gee why not?

My dictionary states "Marry" is between a man and a woman.. simple!

If a pair want to live together, it don't bother me... it's their life.. however to Marry is a different topic!

Like it or not, Bush is just one reason our country has become something of a joke. However, he is among the largest reasons. While I, personally, am straight, my best friend is gay. I don't think that he should be deprived of rights that I have just because some people can't read beyond the words of the Bible and see the message that it sent.

There is a reason why America has freedom of religion, and that is because our ancestors know what religious intolerance is like. I cannot imagine what it would be like if America suddenly had a state mandated religion. Where would people like me, who conform to no single religion, go? Would burning heretics become legal? Would burning gays become legal?

The point is that we have rights, as Americans. That's why America is a good place to be. You start taking those rights in the name of religion, and that just swings the door open for religion to take a few more rights, then a few more, until our rights are those that are dictated to us, instead of those that we deserve.

Bravo, I say to you, for saying what you thought. I say such things frequently and loudly, but then, I am considered a little odd.

I am so angry that its hard for me to be civil when addressing this topic. I think that the President has fallen back on the ploy of introducing a divisive issue to deflect the attention from his failures domestically and internationally. The best thing that could happen is for us to ignore this shibbleboth and focus our attention on the issues of consiquence. Job flight, health insurance, children left behind, 500+ of our dead in a war which hasn't really made us safer, challanges to the most basic of our constitutional rights, failure of his intelligence community, and most importantly the introduction of wedge issues to divert our attention from his administrations short comings.

amazed at the depth of vindicativeness Bush often descends to. In this case I have to wonder if perhaps he is overcompensating for something. Your essay is well spoken and I fully agree with your position. Well done.

jim : )

One point all of you are forgetting is marriage is a privilege granted by the state, NOT a right. You are given a LICENSE, the same as you are given a license to drive. The state can and should make decisions on who gets a license for anything it licenses whether that be hunting or marriage. To the person who questioned the comment about bisexuals wanting a three way marriage, what don't you understand? Once you've opened up marriage to two people of the same sex the same argument is just as valid for three people or more. What is to stop me from marrying my sister? Nothing based on that same argument. If you are going to discriminate against more than two people getting married why are you even making the distinction between two people of the same sex. If the argument of love and commitment and equal protection under the law are valid for two people of the same sex then they are just as valid for three, four or twenty. They are just as valid if I want to marry my sexy sister. Be careful what you wish for, you may just get it!

well your aguments are good but i will admit that religion which basically controls the fundamentals of our society no matter where we are has made it clear now that the church has accepted homosexuality as existing they need to form the marriage. its catch 22 marriage is between male and female but the law doesnt reoconize any other forms of bond ... Office of Births death and marriage. Its just another hang up that we have of the church having way to much control in the past

V. Rich seems to be saying her way is the will of the majority. No so.

- - - - -

If you look at the overall scheme of things, at all of humankind on earth, there is only one way for 'mankind' to reproduce...and it's not male-male or female-female. No one can deny the 'love' between homosexuals, and no one can stop them from it, but it's obviously not part of the grand scheme. Here's something for the 'educated thinker' to think about - once all of mankind decides they are 'gay', how then can there be a next generation??

in response to the previous person who commented: you're absolutely right. this is why we make sure straight couples are both fertile before we allow them to marry. it's all about reproduction. homosexuality is very unnatural, just like black people marrying white people. yes, that's right, scientific arguments against interracial marriage used to include the belief that they wouldn't be able to reproduce, or that their offspring would be sterile.

it makes me angry, the sorts of hypocrites who visit this site. before mapp v. ohio, the police could go into your home and arrest you for having obscene materials--stories like the ones you read every day here. sodomy was deemed illegal, until lawrence v. texas

oh and to the people who say that gay marriage opens the way to me marrying my dog--stupid argument. dogs don't have legal standing like people (straight or gay) do--they can't hold property, they can't vote.

I have heard recently that one reason to ban or be against gay marriage is that it's unnatural, and that perhaps if people were raised in a gay family, they would decide to be gay themselves. Folks, who in their right mind would decide to be gay if it was a choice? With all the persecution and abuse, being gay in this society has for the most part been akin to being Jewish in Hitler's Germany. I firmly believe that a person is born gay or straight, with perhaps some shades in the middle, too. And with six billion people on the planet, I think we could afford to skip a generation or two. Besides, no matter how much I watch "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy", or "Will and Grace", Ben Afflack still does nothing for me. Jennifer Lopez on the other hand...yum!

By the way, I heard it said from a local professor of biology, that homosexuality occurs in many other species besides ours. He sees it as a form of population control. When the population of a species becomes too great, more are found to be homosexual.

This was so inspiring that I cut out my reply because it's becoming an essay of its own. Watch and see if I publish it.

To friends and foe alike, and I include all your anonymous contributors, too! I love you all, but I guess I have a brief addendum for you.

My essay was about love, and people's commitment to being together. From "News of the Weird" I give you:

In a wedding to vanquish bad luck a 9-year-old girl, in West Bengal, India, married a dog. And in Nice, France, in 2-2004, Ms. Christelle Demichel wed her sweetheart Eric in a male-female ceremony. Eric the groom, however, had died in 2002,2 years previous, but French law allows the marriage to proceed if the paperwork had been completed.

How very strange? In France a woman can marry a dead man and yet the President of the USA is scared-to-death of 2 loving, commited adults getting married??

Something wrong with this picture!... Vee Rich

Hey Rs Rich,

Liked your comments, loved your picture though I wonder how you type with them paws.

I agree with your article, this the Pres needed get is ducks in a row! The economy is shit-faced, his buddies from Enron are sinking us in the quicksand of depression, he needs to our guy's and gal's home from Iraq and then deal with the national heathcare crisis before he gives a flying f*ck about 5,000 or so people who want to get married.

What the hell does he think?? That if that gay guy in San Francisco wasn't getting married to his gay lover he would then be available to marry me and be my husband and partner?? HEY!!! Get real!

All these gay and lesbian marriages are demeaning good, honest, god-fearing marriages?? Nah. I have a feeling that the drunk, workaholic, philanding, spouse-abusing husbands who as secretly hoarding child pornagraphy might be doing far more to undermind heterasexual marriage.

Maybe the President needs to consult with his brother. You know?? The straight married one who has made business trip to Thailand and had naked prostitutes show up at his hotel room door unsolicited who were not turned away from his doorstep.

Sorry, I just wanted to answer a question posed earlier in an anonymous post...I don't think it has been answered, and sorry for repeating if it has.

Anyways, someone asked this: If a man and a woman are married, and the man has a sex change and becomes a woman, are they still married?

The answer: Yes. In the eyes of both the law and (I think) the Church, they are still man and wife, with all benefits that marriage brings. This is according to a Republican State Representive who is very against gay marriage, and who claims that gay marriage will destroy our society by leading to a life of decadence and moral decay.

Ms. Rich?s essay left a strange taste. Most confusing was that she seriously claimed Bush ?represents every Jew and every Moslem in America (just like he made sure American knew after 9-11)?. I was shocked not to find any irony in these lines: Arab origins have become a category in computer search and any citizens (Tom, Dick and Harry???) may be detained without trial as long as the FBI pleases. He labels his (mostly Muslim) enemies ?axis of evil? saying that they feel an irrational hatred against America and thus denying any reasons of their feelings that were based on reality. What is implicitly left to be their reason is their religion. However, that a president with comparably tender feelings towards Hallyburton might have to be the president of all Americans is too theoretical an issue to mention nowadays.

Later Rich mentions that in a lot of countries the openness suggested by her is ?actually illegal?, but that there is a tendency of decline in America as well. She?s obviously sleeping in the eye of the storm. Incest, which makes up for an astonishing number of stories on Literotica, is surely illegal, and so is sex with minors of considerable age. In the Netherlands and Spain the age of consent is twelve (without any disturbing consequences for the kids involved), European standard is fourteen. Your really unique sodomy laws in some states have already been mentioned by another contributor. So, juridically, the US seems to me the Western country with the least sexual freedom. If one ?actually? engages in any of those categories, leaving the closet and entering into realms where ?love, sweet love is thought a crime? means no less than lovely US prison.

Rich suggests that Literotica may put a challenge to the status quo. As far as authors draw genuine pictures of , for instance, incestuous relations it might encourage someone that has fallen into physical love with a related person to actually allow her or his feelings. But then this person has to speak out and take the blows, and many others have to do so to legalize a desire. On the other hand I doubt that it is possible to convince anyone hostile to pederasty (and hardly an issue is attacked more severely than this in the press) to change his mind thanks to a realistic and so on story about that theme. It is so easy to have ones own ?perversions? and at the same time condemn other moods of love! So desires have to be made understandable, to be shown as harmless and to be cleaned of social and especially religious prejudice in another indirect way, if we want to refrain from engaging in self-created supreme sacrifices. Hence texts like the one I just commented on may help to build up a more realistic understanding of love and desire, while erotic stories won?t. And unfortunately, the latter by far outweigh the former on this page.

What the heck did that last guy just say?

As to queer marriage itself you mean? For me that issue wasn?t controversial at all and hence I commended on other aspects of Ms. Rich?s article. Besides excellent points have already been made; just read the texts long enough for content. But I might still add a few points, and sum up a little:

If, as shown below, in India it is possible to marry a dog and in France to marry a dead, if queer behaviour is attested for (to say the least; I?m not sure about one additional zero) 500 animal species and if other cultures like the Vietnamese or pre-communist Chinese allow male members of society to show their affection for another in a way that seems only appropriate to women in our society, it may be stated that there is nothing unnatural about queer relationships and thus marriages as they have ceased to be a religious institution. Human sexuality, by the way, has developed primarily as a social means of establishing relationships between two people which were necessary to bring up children in the Stone Age. Now who could blame a really beautiful, but ancient book like the bible for stating it otherwise? But those Christian authorities who refuse to read the bible in a historically profound way are to blame indeed. Queer marriage is not a matter of religion, not even of Christianity or Christian churches (as the Scandinavian Christian authorities have shown), but of some ridiculous, yet powerful fundamentalists.

As to child adoption: A lot of studies have shown that children brought up by queer parents are as likely to be queer as those brought up by straight parents. From a solely scientist point of view this was to be expected: There is scientific agreement that sexual preferences are either innate or completely developed before a child reaches the age of four. However, it is obvious that those kids have no difficulties admitting their feelings while other kids often have to undergo an inner struggle in which implemented ?morality? can win (and thus the child will be lost). Therefore, it is heterosexual parents that are really problematic, and if there were means to keep heterosexuals from being parent...?! Also for reasons of child protection queer marriage shouldn?t remain just a matter of time as was suggested below. If we look at the hell of discrimination queer kids are exposed to at school (the probability for queer kids to try suicide is about five times as high as for straight ones), every possible move to finally render homosexuality normal has to be made as soon as possible. And queer marriage will surely contribute to the utmost important notion that homosexuality is a normal kind of affection.

By the way, who do you believe more capable of taking care of a queer person in hospital: her family that might hold completely anti-gay opinions or her partner who might otherwise even be denied access to her sweetheart? This is but one point underlining that queer marriage is far more than a romantic luxury.

I just want to contribute a further rejection of the assumption that queer marriage might be the final straw leading our miserable society inexorably into incest, bigamy and bestiality. Just take the opinion of most queer people towards pederasty which shows that those who have gained their freedom often forget about their struggle for legacy for their PER SE justified desires and cling to common prejudice about other kinds of affection. A lot of queers don?t view their fight for equality as part of a whole, greater fight for sexual freedom or against institutionalized oppression itself. They even overlook the obvious connection and take up social norms that divide sexual activity into normal and perverse, and just shift their individual desire from ?perverse? to ?normal?. So who will stand up for him or her if a pederast should dare to declare her desire openly, after queer marriage has been legalized? All scientific evidence will be blown to hell by her fellow beings, and by their re-establishing of social norms another individual will be destroyed for her affection. So why does anyone worry?

I am also a heterosexual woman, and I agree with you 100%. The purpose of marriage is to affirm a commitment of love. It is not, contrary to what a previous poster stated, simply to populate the world with offspring. Furthermore, there is no need to worry about our species going extinct; overpopulation is still a problem, and just because some married couples would be gay or lesbian doesn't mean that all of them will. Besides, gay and lesbian parents adopt children currently, and from what I've heard and read, these children are just as likely to be well-adjusted as children of heterosexual parents. There is too much hatred in this world. Love between consenting adults should never be illegal.

Respectfully,

Lalenya

This is mostly in response ot the poster who referred to marriage being a priveledge that the state granted.

Anybody remember the Declaration of Independance, and what those 3 rights that no governtment could take away were...

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happyness.

I'm not sure what they taught before, or even what they are teaching now, but when I was in school the pursuit of happyness was summarized in very simple terms, the right to hold a job of your choice, marry who you want, and choose what you want to do with your money...

Well, the Patriot Act says your liberty may be taken at any time, for any amount of time, with no evidence granted a claim that you are a terrorist threat, actually, by the terms of that act they never have to let you have a lawyer, or even a trial, you do not qualify as a suspect, or even a criminal, but a new category Bush created for Terrorists. Sorry for the tangent.

If marriage is to be viewed as a priveledge, then from the founding of this nation on, they have violated their own ideals. The purpose of a marriage "liscene" serves only 2 actual purposes. First, to ensure that both parties are eligable (not already married, not underage) this should be done as a seperate verification for the both, if both parties are allowed to get married then they should be allowed to marry eachother if that is what they want. Secondly, for a paperwork record of the marriage, since married couples get certain rights, tax benefits, etc. due entirely to the fact that they are married.

Going slightly off of my topic again to the guy who made the comment about a Man and a Woman getting married, then one of them having a sex change, legally they would still be married- but I am personally quite certain that it would very quickly end up in court, even if the entire purpose of that is to force the government to allow same sex marriages by using them as precident.

...if I gave this a five because it is so well presented or because I wholeheartedly agree. Maybe both.

I work with conservatives. They insist that MY marriage, although they will not refer to it specifically, is less than a proper marriage because my wife and I plan to go without children. We married for love.

Two of my friends grew up in "two daddy" households. They are among the most well-adjusted people I know.

It all boils down to high school level "Eww! Fags!" mentality. I wish our world leader was more evolved.

The point where this essay is utter nonsense is to equate the concern over marital status to a matter of love. Granted, most members of both sides of the argument seem to rally under this banner, but it is childish foolishness and completely fails to address the real and rational concerns that homosexual couples should have concerning marriage. This misconception is further compounded by the extensions both sides make i.e. "Sanctity of Marriage" and "How can you legislate love?".

Given that Atheists get married I'd have serious doubts about Sacred being integral to marriage. Similarly a more secular concept of sanctity is routinely violated by the existence of adulterers and open marriages. Sanctity in that sense is either only violated on a case by case basis, or has been so utterly violated for so long that attempts to preserve it are like protecting the maidenhood of a bride six months pregnant. As for legislating love, if marraige is your definition for love then I assure you, it is legislated so any questions about the how are moot.

Marriage is a legal status. As such it is by definition both secular (therefore not sacred) and law (therefore definitely legislated). If it fails on either count it should be stripped completely from the realm of law as either unconstitutional or frivolous and meaningless respectively. In the form that it has been legislated in the US, it is also a deliberate social engineering project designed to create the nuclear family--in which it has been very successful.

The problem is not one of any authority saying to anyone that they cannot demonstrate their love for each other. No one is legally forbidding homosexual couples from having ceremonies before their family and friends to affirm their love for one another. The problem is the associated attributes that the legal status of marriage creates. Anyone making claims to contrary has either never tried... or lives in Tennessee....

The what? Well, little things like being considered family when your loved ones are admitted to the hospital, or being able to apply your medical coverage to your spouse. Buying a house together, adoption, being the next of kin in the unfortunate event of a partner's death, power of attorney, joint bank accounts, filing income taxes- all these things are affected by whether or not you are married, and to whom. This is because marriage is NOT about love but about assets. Interestingly, there seem to be a large number of workarounds to these problems-- but not all of them.

A problem glossed over in the essay was that it has been understood that civil unions are not expected to guarantee that the legal rights associated with and guaranteed by marriage (such as spousal confidentiality) will be completely protected and preserved. This is what should be focused on. Not this concept of love.

What I would much rather see done, is the removal of marraige as a legal status. Completely. Provide civil unions with all the robust protections that marriage has--but this time around we could get it right and remove the social engineering aspects altogether-- or at least as many as can be readily identified. We could create a contract between person(s) and person(s) and get rid of a lot of other silly and spurious arguments in the process.

A conservative, educated, thinker.

This was an interesting, intelligently presented opinion. It is so cool that we have a country, and a thing like the internet, that allows and promotes thought and the exchange of ideas. Anyone that cares to take the time, can express an idea, concern, fear, hope, or dream and have others share it and respond to it. This is a great time and a great country. This essay, as well as those essays that oppose the arguments presented, are the very essence of a free land!

Well written and thoughtful. Thank you for your input on this critical issue.

However, I agree with the also well written thoughts of "A strange but common misconception." Lets get government out of our private lives.

Sorry to disabuse you, but the educated(overly educated?) might be on your side, but the INTELLIGENT are not. A nation that is tolerant of gays is a noble one. A nation that accepts that lifestyle as an equally valid alternative to the 'straight life' is not sick...it is doomed...period. If some 'backward neanderthal' conservative can prevent some kid from turning into the deadend that is the gay lifestyle (i.e. no children, by definition, no future), then I say more power to them. I don't know if I am part of the intelligentsia (I rather doubt it) but I do have 3 master's degrees, so I am not an unbeknighted yahoo, as some on the left call their adversaries. Having a family is the only road to happiness; I don't say this because it''s in a book somewhere; no, it is a personal finding, as I (alas?) have no family myself.

Anon's argument is well written in terms of style but is (was) too much swayed but conservative narrative.

Questions are

- are all persons equal in their persuit of happiness?

- are gay people persons?

- does marriage make them happy?

- would the right to same-sex marriage infringe on anybody else's rights?

*

I am a Canadian citizen & feel Canadian even though i spent my formative years in one of less affluent European countries.

In light of the fact that in October this year the Conservative Party of Canada might get re-elected (God forbid!) I will discuss the ABORTION ISSUE too ( they would ban it if they could!)

The whole discussion whether fetus is a person is aimed at limiting or banning abortion rights for women.

WE MUST USE A SIMILAR LITMUS TEST WHEN SEARCHING FOR THE RIGHT ANSWER:

- do rights of the fetus infringe on mother's rights?

- whose rights take take precedence?

- does the government has the right to refulate a woman's wumb?

- how far the rights of the government can go?

- would that make women lower-tier citizens?

- does the government has the right to tell men what to do with their reproductive organs?