The American Spectator

Chuck Anziulewicz| 4.25.11 @ 3:07PM

Maybe the law firm of King & Spalding simply came to the realization that there was no point in defending something as transparently unconstitutional as the Defense of Marriage Act.

WHY is DOMA unconstitutional? Consider: A Straight couple legally married in Iowa is automatically entitled to 1,138 legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO). Many of those benefits have to do with tax law, Social Security, inheritance rights, child custody, and so on. But because of DOMA, a Gay couple that is legally married in Iowa is still unrecognized by the federal government for those benefits.

Consider, also, the "Full Faith & Credit" clause of the Constitution. Because of this, any Straight couple can fly off to Las Vegas for drunken weekend, get married by an Elvis impersonator, and that marriage is automatically honored in all 50 states, and at all levels of government. But thanks to DOMA, a Gay couple that is legally married in Iowa becomes UN-married if they relocate south to Missouri.

The ONLY real difference between a married Gay couple and a married Straight couple is the gender of the two people who have made the commitment. It has nothing to do with procreation, since couples do not need a marriage license to make babies, nor is the ability or even desire to make babies a prerequisite for obtaining a marriage license. So there is really no constitutional justification for denying law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples the same legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities that married Straight couples have always taken for granted. This cannot be accomplished in a piecemeal, state-by-state fashion.

LiveFreeOrDie| 4.25.11 @ 3:32PM

"So there is really no constitutional justification for denying law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples the same legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities that married Straight couples have always taken for granted."

I totally agree. That's why we should recognize civil unions and the like. Marriage is the union of a man and woman, literally, by definition etc. Stop trying to redefine reality.

Derek Leaberry| 4.25.11 @ 5:01PM

Mr. Anziulewicz not only ignores 7000 years of civilization when he calls for sodomite "marriage", he turns his back on Western Civilization and Christianity, proof that he is in no sense a conservative. Mr. Anziulewicz is also proof that the cultural Marxists, the Frankfurt School and the followers of Antonio Gramsci have successfully infiltrated Western Civilization with their corrosive and evil views. That sodomite "marriage" is even considered for debate is a sign of a nation that is dying of moral squalor.

NotALibertarian| 4.25.11 @ 5:16PM

"The ONLY real difference between a married Gay couple and a married Straight couple is the gender of the two people who have made the commitment."

Actually, there are other differences you may not be aware of: gay couples rarely--if ever--are monogamous. There happens to be a very well-publicized belief amongst gay marriage activists that monogamy should be eliminated from marriage in addition to the gender requirements.

Difference #2: And then there's the fact that same-sex divorce rates relative to hetero divorce rates are off the charts, particularly when it comes to lesbians, who are constantly portrayed as the more stable, commited gender (ironic, isn't it?). http://www.uni-koeln.de/wiso-f.....ersson.pdf

This kind of commitment isn't a marriage any more than a commitment between a close brother and sister, two best friends, or two neighbors who are very fond of each other .

BD57| 4.25.11 @ 7:09PM

Ummmm ......... no. Sorry. Nice try.

From the beginning of time, tyrants have argued no reasonable person could have any opinion but their own. The worst of them affirmatively punished those who thought otherwise.

Which is what happened here - and the cowards at King & Spalding buckled.

Christopher Landrum| 4.25.11 @ 3:21PM

Okay, I'm confused by this clause: " blatant politicization of the legal profession that this turn of events epitomizes"--call me crazy but when was the legal profession of ANY civilization NOT politicized? When was that politicization NOT blantant? It almost sounds as if the author wants readers to assume a magical non-political legal profession exists at Disneyland (and other such real-world venues). I wonder why they don't mention that in their ads.

Occam's Tool| 4.25.11 @ 3:39PM

Another fine moment in Legal History by Vermin T Maggot, attorney at law. Good for Counselor Clement in overriding the swine.

Occam's Tool| 4.25.11 @ 3:41PM

I'm sorry---the law firm of Vermin T Maggot, attorney at law.

kingsmill| 4.25.11 @ 4:34PM

This is typical tactic of the homosexual activists. Their bread and butter is intimidating elites.

Ken| 4.25.11 @ 4:54PM

Chuck,
Gays and straights have the same access to all the rights and privileges accorded married couples by the law, under precisely the same terms. There is no inequality.
What is not a right, human, constitutional or otherwise, is to redefine the word marriage to mean anything other than a heterosexual union.

Greta| 4.25.11 @ 4:56PM

How about the marriage of father and daughter or brother and sister? The government does not allow this so is this group proposing this legalization of perversion also supports relatives being allowed to marry? How about the limits of one man and one woman and not one man to 30 women? How is this constitutional by this sick argument for gay marriage? I agree with those who think some new defiition of union could be an answer for these perverts and it should include all perversions in the same law. Just no to marriage between one man and one woman who are not related as determined by our society and our laws. I think it should require a constitutional amendment to create this new right to perverted unions and that would make it the law of the land since it seems they are worried about the constitution. It could be called the Defense of Perverted Unions Amendment (DPUA) and according to the polls shows this type of thing and having wide support so it should fly through.

Jim Hlavac| 4.25.11 @ 6:11PM

Speaking of "Orwellian" -- the Defense of Marriage Act does not "defend" marriage -- it merely prohibits it by any name -- even civil union, or "legal sissy smooching." And so instead of using family law for our unions we must use commercial law -- and so there you go -- we already got a gay marriage of sorts -- or do you think all the gay couples aren't really living together? And more to the point, marriage is being extended to a few, much as interracial marriage and inter-religious marriages expended the "definition" of marriage.

Meanwhile, marriage is under attack by heteros who get divorced, commit adultery and bear children out of wedlock and often just engage in brutal spouse and kid killing. Marriage isn't necessary for kids either, from the looks of it, nor do all marriages lead to kids. So that argument is shot in reality, even if the "ideal" is upheld.

Someone mentioned "700o years" of marriage as being exclusively hetero -- well, no, for at least 1000 years we know of, Rome and Greece had no problem with gay relationships, and John Boswell, in two extraordinarily well researched books actually dug up commitment ceremonies conducted in Rome and Greece, and even in Christian churches as late as 1200 AD in Europe and the Near East.

And too, let us not forget that for 7000 years slavery was just peachy, as was keeping and trading women as property, as was polygamy and degrees of incest that would curl people's hair today. Some do forget their history.

But don't blame gay people, there's too few of us to really matter. Why it was proclaimed just the other day that there's "only" 2,491,034! of us -- such an exact number. And there's some 65,000,000 marriages I hear. Which means that we'd be some 1.5 million unions by any name using any word within 100,000 words either side of marriage in the dictionary.

Find one, let us use it, let my people go.

NotALibertarian| 4.25.11 @ 7:41PM

For a person concerned about history, you do not seem to have the full story here. You do not mention that one of the most famous gay "marriage" ceremonies in Rome's history occurred between a psychopathic emperor and a poor young man he had brutally castrated. If my memory is correct, he then dressed up the poor lad in a bridal outfit and "married" him. Some do forget their history, don't they?

Nor do you mention that the bulk of gay "commitments" in historic Greece and Rome were between predatorial older men and young boys. The point is that as "accepting" and "tolerant" as Rome was regarding homosexuality, Rome was still smart enough to understand that these relationships are not marriage.

Jim Hlavac| 4.25.11 @ 6:41PM

Here, let me quote my conservative icon, one Barry Goldwater: "You don't have to like it, but gay people deserve full constitutional rights including marriage and military service." He said it in 1994. You can look it up.

For those who complain that gays aren't monogamous -- well, it's not like we got any training. No practice, either. There are no fairy tales for fairies after all.

And too, until 2003 in at least 24 states gay monogamy -- our very relationships were outlawed. Our very cuddling and kissing even. So don't go talk now about how we're lousy at relationships. Especially when so many people are so intent yet on teaching all the young gay guys that they'll be hedonistic sex fiends. That's what heteros are teaching. I'm trying to instill a search for prince charming in the youth, and many of you folks are still bleating on about how the kid will be a sex crazed bunny or something.

Sometimes you all don't think clearly, and emotion and the past beclouds you view. Try to open up to the future, were the few gay folks will live happily ever after behind a picket fence, just like you, mostly, sometimes. Go ask the Donald and Newt, McCain and John Edwards about marital sanctity and all that, eh? They're quite the experts, I hear. Hypocrisy of course, the worst sin, knows no bounds when it comes to gay folks, that's for sure.

Happy Easter indeed. Treat others as you want to be treated, love thy neighbor as thyself. Good words to follow from a rather wonderful guy.

NotALibertarian| 4.25.11 @ 7:48PM

"For those who complain that gays aren't monogamous -- well, it's not like we got any training. No practice, either. There are no fairy tales for fairies after all."

It didn't take a lot of "training" for gays to learn how to demand to be legally married. As a matter of fact, gays act like their experts on marriage. Why do gays need training to understand monogamy?

"Especially when so many people are so intent yet on teaching all the young gay guys that they'll be hedonistic sex fiends. That's what heteros are teaching."
Actually, it's just the opposite. AIDS workers have spent years in inner cities trying to get the word out to young gays that their neurotic promiscuity is going to kill them. They have been shocked at how these young men refuse to change, even when death is the result.

Jim Hlavac| 4.25.11 @ 6:53PM

You know, some "laws" are indeed so indefensible that they don't deserve to be defended. DOMA is one of them. It serves no purpose but to continue to denigrate peaceful productive harmless fellow citizens and purposely tells us we or our loves are not worth a bucket of warm spit. It's unbecoming a Free Republic of Individuals with Justice and Liberty for All. There's nothing in the Declaration which says "all men except gays are created equal." Nor either does it lay the grounds for a theocratic based legal regime against gay people, but a rather wanton liberty for the rest of you.

And as to the argument that somehow we're a threat to the nation, can a one of you explain how hair dressers, interior designers, Broadway chorus boys, and flight attendants on nearly every flight everyday in this nation are a threat?

Have we attacked any family? No. We have begged for inclusion in first our own. Have we attacked any church? No. We have begged for inclusion in those we were raised in, or found some other that would take us as whom we are.

I got an idea, why don't you all hold a National Commission of Gay Americans, come to the startling conclusion that we really do exist exactly as we say we are -- born this way -- and put us on the autism spectrum, and be done with us, and get on to something more important. Try it, it'll make you breath easier.

BD57| 4.25.11 @ 7:20PM

And who will be deciding which laws don't deserve to be defended?

You? How are you especially qualified for this job?

Are there any other laws His Royal Highness Jim the Discerner of all Things Proper and Appropriate will be summarily dismissing? Care to tell us what they are before you complete your self-coronation as All Knowing Grand Poobah of The Way Things are Going to Be?

"I hate this law therefore it does not deserve to be defended."

Yep - that's principled. /sarc

Jim Hlavac| 4.25.11 @ 7:05PM

By the way, all the gay men and women in this nation are actually funding the defense of this horrid law. Think about it, we pay a few billion in taxes -- and so the Congress is using our money to fight us -- on a law to which there are so many challenges it'll be overturned within a few years anyway. (And we cover all the people with HIV/AIDS too -- we probably even cover the cost of Planned Parenthood's abortion mills, and we're not even a part of that problem. )

Even weirder, there are people in this nation, gaining the ear of presidential contenders, like Don, Mike, Newt, Tim and others who want to round us all up, incarcerate us, and force a "cure" upon us. For fiscal sanity, liberty for all and family values, too. The insanity is that they think this will punish us, and on your dime we will have the weirdest Club Med ever devised by the folly of man.

And stranger still, the more you all harp on "gay people" as a class -- and not, say, me Jim, as an individual, you are making it easier for the Supreme Court to rule exactly that we are a "special class" picked out for negative treatment precisely because of whom we are. You're sinking yourselves by defending the law against us.

Basically, our reality, our fortitude and our American spirit of Never say surrender has simply zugzwanged you. And indeed, our answer to the culture war against us, with its insistent demand for our surrender and be heterosexual or listen to this unbridled crap against us forever is "Nuts!" And that's the most eloquent answer to a demand for surrender ever uttered by an American. Go look it up. Cheers.

NotALiberal| 4.25.11 @ 8:06PM

The American taxpayer has been paying disproporionately for AIDS-prevention this and AIDS-treatment that for 20+ years now. Unlike cancer or diabetes, AIDS is a preventable disease. But for some reason, AIDS gets all the funding. Is funneling obscene amounts of money into propping up the gay lifestyle further evidence that gays are persecuted in America?

Ted Baldwin| 4.25.11 @ 8:09PM

There is nothing wrong with having traditional marriage. My parents had one for fifty six years. They instilled in me the sanctity of the institution, and moreover, left me with an ideal to follow. Marry someone I love. They showed me the littered landscape of their friends who married for other reasons - disasters. Money, looks, religion, brains - none but love was the key. Not even years of friendship - unless there was love. I love men. I am a man. I do not love women other than as friends. I feel no special feelings for them, don't think about them, don't dote on them, don't think they are pretty other than in an dispassionate objective way, no tingle has ever gone up my leg for a member of the opposite sex. I cannot remember women's names, I don't dream about them, nor do I daydream about them. Cannot say the same for men. I have had dreams about the same sex as long as I can remember. This is how I know I am gay.

All of the other characteristics of my personality though - what do they mean in light of this fact? I am a scientist, author, filmmaker, screenwriter, playwright, actor, educator, singer, songwriter, adept at language. I win poetry contests and have had them published, design and produce commercial art, 3-D animations, and have had that published. I own my own film studio and routinely do films for charitable organizations and rights organizations, and did the morphs and animations for Rush Limbaugh's TV show almost 20 years ago. I have won major film festivals and devoted ten years of my life to teaching in the university setting after getting my degree in quantum mechanics. I started the university TV station at LSU, and helped start an MCC in Baton Rouge so gay people did not have to go to the bar to be with other gay folk. I did a weekly tv ministry for four years, ending this year. I ran and was elected to the Republican State Central Committee - am fiscally conservative and go to most of the Tea Party meetings, and Pachyderm club meetings. I am out to the Republican party of Louisiana. I have been sober 26 years, and I take care of my aging Mom.

There is no reason why I should not be accorded the same benefits in marriage as my heterosexual neighbor - that is to marry someone i love. And my marriage? You need have no more cognizance of it than I do of yours. As Mr. Hlavac said - there are 65 million marriages - we don't have time to destroy them all, even if we wanted to.

But making a gay guy marry a straight woman? Now there is a recipe for a destroyed marriage!

As for you left handed people out there - you disgust me! Why can't you write with your right hand like normal people? And to see you shoveling food into your mouths or using left handed scissors! After all Jesus sits at the right hand of God. Just saying.

NotALibertarian| 4.25.11 @ 8:29PM

"You need have no more cognizance of it than I do of yours."

This remark is not at all reassuring to parents of schoolchildren in the state of California. The state legislature is now weaving "gay education" into all subjects for all ages. It is not reassuring to the religious bed and breakfast owners in Illinois who are going to be fined and probably lose their business because it goes against their conscience to host a couple of men that are using -- abusing -- their bodies in a way that goes against Nature itself. Nor does it reassure countless psychological professionals who have been attacked and had their careers destroyed because they believe it is their moral duty to offer gay therapy to people who suffer from unwanted same-sex attraction.

You are perfectly free to live your life as you wish, Mr. Baldwin. But a functioning society is under no moral obligation to turn itself upside down to celebrate and support every one of your desires, no matter how long you have had them.

Ted Baldwin| 4.25.11 @ 8:09PM

There is nothing wrong with having traditional marriage. My parents had one for fifty six years. They instilled in me the sanctity of the institution, and moreover, left me with an ideal to follow. Marry someone I love. They showed me the littered landscape of their friends who married for other reasons - disasters. Money, looks, religion, brains - none but love was the key. Not even years of friendship - unless there was love. I love men. I am a man. I do not love women other than as friends. I feel no special feelings for them, don't think about them, don't dote on them, don't think they are pretty other than in an dispassionate objective way, no tingle has ever gone up my leg for a member of the opposite sex. I cannot remember women's names, I don't dream about them, nor do I daydream about them. Cannot say the same for men. I have had dreams about the same sex as long as I can remember. This is how I know I am gay.

All of the other characteristics of my personality though - what do they mean in light of this fact? I am a scientist, author, filmmaker, screenwriter, playwright, actor, educator, singer, songwriter, adept at language. I win poetry contests and have had them published, design and produce commercial art, 3-D animations, and have had that published. I own my own film studio and routinely do films for charitable organizations and rights organizations, and did the morphs and animations for Rush Limbaugh's TV show almost 20 years ago. I have won major film festivals and devoted ten years of my life to teaching in the university setting after getting my degree in quantum mechanics. I started the university TV station at LSU, and helped start an MCC in Baton Rouge so gay people did not have to go to the bar to be with other gay folk. I did a weekly tv ministry for four years, ending this year. I ran and was elected to the Republican State Central Committee - am fiscally conservative and go to most of the Tea Party meetings, and Pachyderm club meetings. I am out to the Republican party of Louisiana. I have been sober 26 years, and I take care of my aging Mom.

There is no reason why I should not be accorded the same benefits in marriage as my heterosexual neighbor - that is to marry someone i love. And my marriage? You need have no more cognizance of it than I do of yours. As Mr. Hlavac said - there are 65 million marriages - we don't have time to destroy them all, even if we wanted to.

But making a gay guy marry a straight woman? Now there is a recipe for a destroyed marriage!

As for you left handed people out there - you disgust me! Why can't you write with your right hand like normal people? And to see you shoveling food into your mouths or using left handed scissors! After all Jesus sits at the right hand of God. Just saying.

Paul McGrath| 4.25.11 @ 9:44PM

Neither you, Mr. Baldwin, or you, Mr. Hlavac, have seen the need to bring up the fundamental reason that the institution of marriage exists in the first place, which is, of course, that the relationship between a man and a woman might possibly produce children. As children are so obviously incapable of caring for themselves, and as society is incapable of caring for them, and as society also believes that the healthiest way for children to be raised is by the natural mother and father, it chooses to bestow the so-called privilege of marriage on those who may have them.

Despite the myriad of straw men you have both set up, nobody is suggesting that gay people be prohibited from raising children or from otherwise living out their lives as they see fit. Society is instead arguing that allowing marriage between two men or two women will detrimentally alter the institution of marriage, which, again, is designed SOLELY for the purpose encouraging a system by which babies in this nation--and just about every other nation--are nurtured and raised.

That children aren't always raised in this way is a problem, but because they are not always raised in this way doesn't mean that it should not be the ideal. Society should continue to encourage marriage between heterosexual couples only, rather than let the institution be destroyed piece by piece by the selfish desires of those who seemingly could not care less.

Mike P.| 4.26.11 @ 12:06AM

Jim Hlavac- do you oppose group marriage? If so, why? Would it harm your marriage? Would it harm anybody's marriage? Poly people already live together, after all; the government is not allowed to prohibit their relationships simply because they are a minority whom the majority disapproves of. If you say that they are not an 'orientation,' I simply ask you to prove it. Of course, those who are 'bisexual' (that would be the 'B' in 'LGBT') do love both sexes, and should be allowed to marry both. Right? If not, why not?

Furthermore, if you want to convince anyone that the public agrees with you, a good start would be winning a single referendum on the question. When such measures are being defeated even in the most liberal states in the country when put to a vote, there is no popular consensus. Left-wing legal elite types are easily pressured by politically correct hooey, but they still each only get one vote.

JimH| 4.26.11 @ 7:57AM

The question is what if anything is the role of the State regarding marriage. Some say that in the interest of society the State should define it a particular way and have legislation to support it. The theory here is that families must be protected and encouraged for the benefit of society as a whole. Others are of the opinion that the only legitimate role for government regarding marriage is that of contract enforcement, where marriage is then considered a private or religious matter.

A Lawyer in Fairfax| 4.26.11 @ 1:12PM

I would object to the characterization of K&S as "elite". They have damaged a fundamental value of the legal profession. We tell our clients that while other players in the system may have various duties to other parties, there is one person who the client can count on -- his/her lawyer. Our clients should expect that their lawyer won't let them down when the going gets tough. Now, a so-called "elite" firm has done precisely that. What is particularly galling is that K&S didn't even put up a fight. I think this will prove to have been a mistake. Their clients (and everyone else) would have respected them more if they dug in their heels a little bit.

Mick Lee| 4.26.11 @ 3:17PM

LiveFreeOrDie, Jim Hlavac, Ted Baldwin and NotALibertarian, by their posts, demonstrate exactly why gay marriage—such as it can be marriage—will win legal status in America: by boring everyone to death. Many will let gay marriage go through just to get it off the table and get its supporters to shut up and leave them in peace. Supporters of gay marriage will win not by the force of their arguments. Indeed, the arguments they put forth are the same ones I heard in 1970. They are no more convincing now than they were then.

Let’s face some uncomfortable facts. If “gay marriage” had not become an enthusiasm of the left, we would not be talking about it now—at all. The “normalization” of homosexuality is nothing more than a piece of the “enlightened” folk’s press towards radical egalitarianism.

For the homosexuals themselves, it is less about marriage than about removing social stigma. Relatively few homosexuals will actually seek marriage. They will gladly accept the benefits and cash that go with all domestic partnerships. But the real aim is to remove another social “hint” that there may be something morally objectionable to homosexual carnal behavior.

But for the larger numbers of the left, their hunger is to remake society according to their ideals and their vision of a more “rational” culture. To do this requires reform from the top down. It is only by the coercive power of the government social elements can be remade “best” and uniform. It is only by the coercive power of the state that memory will be erased, history can be rewritten, and the knowledge that how we order our lives together could be drawn from transcendent principles can be repressed. It also necessitates that there is no honoring or acknowledgement that the individual has a higher allegiance and accountability to something greater above the state.

In the left’s world, there are only two actors: the state and the individual. As such, there is nothing to shield the individual from the caprice of those in power. In a natural, evolved, and organic community, there are mediating institutions such as the church, civic organizations and the family that can shield the individual and preserve his liberty. Thus the attack. We have all witnessed the sustained endeavor to put the church “in its place” and diminish its influence and relevance upon the questions before us. In the same fashion, the attempt to remold the family is to change it into something it isn’t, denature it, and essentially change the character of the family members’ relationships to one another. While those seeking such reform see the effort as a benevolent one, the most significant feature of such transformation is the removal of the family as an independent institution that can teach different values and can defend the person from the arbitrary dictates of those in power.

While establishing gay marriage as a legal entity will be unlikely to make an impression on my marriage, the real impact will be upon the social ecology my children and grandchildren will live in. Marriage will no longer be that pre-existing institution that fastens a man and women into a covenant where each in wholly bound to each other no matter what should happen. Instead, two individuals will live together according that abomenation where marriage is said to be fundamentally only a contract. They will live in a world in which marriage is not for the procreation and raising of children. Rather, it will only be for what serves each partner only for as long as they see fit. Children will not be essential to the meaning of marriage. They will be an option, an add-on to a couple’s relationship.

More importantly, in the name of a “just” world, our children will live with contradictions that undermine their liberty. In the name of freedom they will be less free. In the name of diversity they will have to live under only one approved, “enlightened” standard. They will be free to believe whatever they wish; but they won’t be free to act on those beliefs. They will be free to keep faith in whatever they wish; but they won’t necessarily be free to speak and advocate it in “polite company”.

Yes, heterosexuals have made a mess of marriage. “We” have given ourselves permission to engage in all sorts of hurt in the name of “compassion” and the sexual revolution. The result has been great for some. But it also has brought misery and has been a crippling disaster for most children. Each step has been resisted by the more traditional among us only to result in loss and the accusation of hard-heartedness and having a closed mind. Yet, which “reformers” have stood up to be accountable for what has been wrought? None. Who will stand up for what will wrought by their attack on traditional marriage by establishing gay marriage? I dare say none. Yes, heterosexuals have made a mess of marriage. Nevertheless, bad behavior does not justify other bad behavior.

Paul McGrath| 4.26.11 @ 4:02PM

Brilliant post. If the state destroys marriage, the state raises your children. If the state destroys schools (you called them civic organizations), the state educates children. If the state destroys the church, there is nothing left for children to bid allegiance to but the state.

And for the stubborn few that are left, there is always the re-education camps.

NotALibertarian| 4.29.11 @ 12:48AM

What's so funny about this post is that the guy declares our discussions "boring" and then proceeds to post a very very long-winded speech that is no more or less interesting than any of the other comments.

mick lee| 4.29.11 @ 10:26AM

Yes, I can see how a post of 838 words compares to over forty years of repeating the same lifeless arguments ad nauseam. Perhaps, if you refrain from moving your lips as you read, 800 words won’t seem like such an burdensome task.

Note, by the way, you do not reply to the content of my post. My family thinks I’m long winded as well and generally just go on their merry way without bothering to respond to me either. They, on the other hand, make no pretense that they were listening to begin with.

NotALibertarian| 4.29.11 @ 2:31PM

My, we are thin-skinned, aren't we? Your assumption that I would disagree with any of the substance of your post simply because I found it no more interesting than the others is quite incorrect. I concur with your arguments and have expressed them numerous times myself. By all means, please continue to inform people of the destructive nature of the Left. Fight the good fight. But gratuitously putting down people who are on your side -- to compliment yourself in the process -- is usually poor form.

Paul McGrath| 4.26.11 @ 4:11PM

By the way, let me be the first to predict that the resolution of the gay marriage issue is not going to be the last frontier for the homosexual left. There will come a time, likely beginning with those in high school and college--perhaps ten years from now--when, to show solidarity with our gay brethren, one will be "encouraged" to occasionally take part in homosexual behavior. There's nothing wrong with it, right? What's the problem? And if one does so, one will be considered "enlightened" or "progressive." To disagree with this, one will be bigot, a homophobe, a reactionary, not with it, on the wrong side of history, etc.

Sounds crazy, I know. Just watch.