-
Do Beyonce & Jay-Z Understand The “Complexities” of Syria?
June 18, 2013 | 2 comments
-
What’s So Moderate About Iran’s New President?
June 15, 2013 | 9 comments
-
When Did The Obama Admin Know Syria Was Using Chemical Weapons?
June 14, 2013 | 15 comments
-
If Erdogan’s Hold On Power is Threatened
June 13, 2013 | 4 comments
-
Dodgers, D’Backs to Open 2014 Season in Australia
June 12, 2013 | 2 comments
The Spectacle Blog
It should come as no surprise to those of you familiar with my writing that I am not losing any sleep over the passage of gay marriage in the Empire State.
Of course, there are others who are quite distressed by this state of affairs. John Guardiano argues that the institution of marriage is threatened. Amongst other things, he cites Rich Lowry of National Review Online who in turn cites Brad Wilcox of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia claims that intact marriages amongst moderately and highly educated have fallen almost in half (from 73% to nearly 39%.)
Let’s assume that Wilcox’s numbers are accurate. If the decline of intact marriages has taken place since the 1970s it can hardly be blamed on those who wish to enter a same sex marriage. Activism towards same sex marriage is a development that has taken in this country only since the late 1990s. With only a handful of states having adopted gay marriage, it is impossible to determine at this point whether gay marriage will contribute to the overall decline of intact marriages. If we use Wilcox’s timeline as a model then it will take another three or four decades to meaningfully measure the impact of gay marriage on intact marriages.
In the meantime, I maintain that marriage is only as good as the two people who enter into it.
View all comments (53) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Aaron Goldstein
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/06/25/thoughts-on-gay-marriage-in-ny
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- How Not To Buy a Fighter
- Celebrating Our Lady of Paris
- Confessions of a Soft-Drinking Newspaperman
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 4:12PM
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
David| 6.25.11 @ 3:45PM
What exactly is the connection between what the two gay people down the street do and my relationship with my wife? I realize that it's completely illogical to think their relationship affects mine but has anyone ever tried to explain their logic?
Chris| 6.25.11 @ 4:22PM
David, at a fundamental level it changes the definition of marriage. In general it is a troubling action to think we can just legislate or rule from the bench and change a fundamental institution.
But, in general, no, two homosexuals having a pseudo-marriage does not directly effect your relationship with your wife. Of course, if you have kids, how are you going to feel when the school starts teaching them that homosexuality is just the same as being heterosexual? Or how about when your church is forced to perform said pseudo-marriages? (If you believe the exemption is going to last, I have some swamp land for sale.)
In the end, this isn't about marriage, it's about homosexuals wanting to force everyone to accept their immoral behavior.
Paul McGrath| 6.26.11 @ 12:30PM
Someone getting raped or murdered in San Francisco doesn't affect my life either, but if the city doesn't respond to it, my life might, eventually, be affected.
In the same way, gay marriage will fundamentally alter the way children are raised in the country which will, eventually, affect all of us.
Handy| 6.25.11 @ 4:34PM
How about this idea? All gays should be forced to marry each other. I mean, it's not actually legal for heterosexuals to fornicate outside of marriage. Why should queers be exempt?
USSAlabama| 6.26.11 @ 10:35AM
The underlying question I have had about this 'movement' since we began hearing about it is why is it so important to them to submit to the government in legal union that is imposed on the rest of society to prevent illegitimate children?
I'd personally be way happier in Holy Matrimony without the government determining the legitimacy of my children.
I am forced to believe that it comes down to "getting something for it" as in monetary benefits. Being able to include your "spouse" on health insurance, pension benefits etc.
Handy| 6.26.11 @ 11:47AM
You nailed it. Remove income taxes and this whole issue will just go poof.
SharpRightTurn | 6.26.11 @ 9:24PM
I belief, at least for some gays...and definitely for liberal politicians, this movement is geared toward the disintegration of marriage, traditional families, Christianity, and a moral society.
Once a moral society is no longer, the vaccuum is filled with the state....instead of moral laws we are forced under the thumb of the state.
Many in Washington drool over more power for them and less freedom for us.....immorality is just one more way to get there.
If we don't have a moral compass....they will legislate and dictate their values upon us....much like gay marriage.
LC JB | 6.27.11 @ 2:24PM
Oh sorry, lost track there. I agree with you completely.
LC JB | 6.27.11 @ 2:23PM
That's a false argument in favor of gay marriage. The legal system already has remedies for most of the points in question, such as hospital visitation, end of life decisions etc. One can devise and enact many types of Powers Of Attorney for a spouse. I did this pro se when my kids were little. Their Mom was living out of state and my wife needed to be able to take them to medical appointments, sick at school, etc. I created a parental Power of Attorney for her, and our primary care doctor had his attorney review them for us. It was absolutely legal without any question. End of problem. The only other issue for them is employer medical benefits. Merely a civil union is needed for these. This issue WILL redefine marriage in a way outside of tort law that is the basis for existing marriage law. I agree, it seems to be a moot point, in that today's law is nearly 100% concerned with protection for children, born out of wedlock.
Bo| 6.25.11 @ 7:06PM
I still think it's dumb but at least they didn't establish it through some bogus court case.
Wayne | 6.26.11 @ 11:59AM
As in Iowa.
John2| 6.26.11 @ 2:36PM
Their method was bogus enough. What were these few Republicans thinking?
Take names, then vote them out. Don't listen to their reasons this time. Vote them out.
C Bowen| 6.25.11 @ 7:48PM
If one really wanted to see the 'gay community' destroyed, it would want them to get a state-marriage. They have sure done a number on traditional marriage, witness Thomas Ball in New Hampshire.
Sarah| 6.25.11 @ 10:15PM
Christ for the sins of the world; however the world rejected Him. If we repent of our sins, ask for forgiveness, and turn to the Lord in obedience to follow Him, we become children of God. Following the Lord and what He wants for our lives is not popular and will lead to persecution by the world. However, if you love the Lord, you will obey Him because He knows what is best for us. Homosexuality destroys, as does fornication, and adultery. All sin destroys an individual if that person does not confess sin to Lord and lets that sin rule his or her life. Personally, if I did not read the bible or care about the Lord, I wouldn't be against homosexuality. But the Lord knows best, and He will reveal to you through the word of God why homosexuality is wrong. There will probably become a time when most Americans will believe that homosexuality is okay. There will probably come a time when people who disagree with this will face charges of some sort. People will not be allowed to say that something such as homosexuality is wrong. Only certain people will be allowed to express their beliefs about things in our society. People do not know what is best for themselves and for others. God only does. We are the created, not the Creator.
Kingofthenet| 6.26.11 @ 7:36PM
I heard the same thing from Christians about inter-racial Marriages. They were wrong than and now.
ejp| 6.26.11 @ 8:20PM
You never heard any such thing from mainstream Christianity on inter-racial marriage. Christian doctrine however is quite explicit on homosexual conduct as a moral sin, because when the Apostle Paul mentions it in the Corinthians as merely one in a series of things we would regard as sinful conduct even *today* that is ultimately a far more powerful piece of evidence than the Leviticus passage. The amusing thing is how we are told that Christians today should trust the world of present-day secularists who have no use for Christian doctrine on all levels over that of the man Jesus chose to reveal Himself to on the Damascus Road to spread the Gospel to the Gentile world (and in the process make Christianity an inter-racial faith!)
LC JB | 6.27.11 @ 2:26PM
Really? Please provide some proof of a legitimate Christian church against inter-racial marriage. Individual thoughts don't count.
VRWC| 6.25.11 @ 11:28PM
regardless of people's opinion on this issue, i find this whole "how does X person doing Y affect me at all?" reasoning ridiculously childish. something doesn't have to affect you _directly_ to have an effect on how people perceive marriage down the line, for reasons entirely separate from any one individual same-sex couple.
whether that change'll be positive, or logically lead to silliness where it's "heterosexist" thoughtcrime to claim that there's any meaningful difference between men and women when it comes to raising kids, is what should be discussed.
John2| 6.26.11 @ 2:40PM
Of course! The indirect effects are many and great. It is plainly there for all to see. This thread has been trolled with a stream of nonsense, disguised as the 'sensible' claim that normal people do not have reason to oppose homo"sex"ual marriage.
Curtis Rasmussen| 6.26.11 @ 9:41PM
Rot American morality from within. I see this as an attack on traditional definitions. Why get married if the state redefines the institution in a way that diminishes it for you personally?
southernsue| 6.26.11 @ 8:24AM
GOD created this world and the rules.
homosexuals and lesbians consisted of sodom and gamorrah(sp?) we , as believers know how that ended. the people in the sodom and gamorrah region got so depraved that GOD took them out.
watch out NY. GOD will not be mocked.
Anthony M| 6.26.11 @ 10:27AM
America's steep decline can be traced to the legalization of abortion in 1972. Look how far our country has sagged since that decision. Southernsue is right and though we're all very sophisticated nowadays and have no fear of a vengful God, I think we might be in for some serious trouble ahead. No civilization in the history of the world that has endorsed sodomy has lasted very long.
John2| 6.26.11 @ 2:43PM
Whatever you do, don't stop fighting now. A considerable majority favors your point of view. The substantive debate over abortion has been won, it is now a technical matter of getting the law to reflect the truth.
Don't quit. It will be a while, but you (we) are going to win that one. What a pleasant day that will be.
Kingofthenet| 6.26.11 @ 7:38PM
Yup, China which many times FORCES abortions is doing terrible. Wake Up
SharpRightTurn | 6.26.11 @ 9:02PM
Uh, Kingofthenet....have you ever lived in a Communist country?
JPM| 6.26.11 @ 9:32AM
Same sex marriage is an oxymoron and any society in which the concept can be taken seriously is in deep trouble. The problem with New York's law isn't that it will hurt marriage. Some of the rhetoric on this point has been overheated. The problem with pretending that two people of the same sex can marry is that any society capable of accepting that pretense no longer clearly understancs what marriage is for which is something no society can afford to be confused about.
The New York legislature can insist that chalk is cheese and that two guys shacking up is a marriage, that won't make it so. Anyone with a grain of sense knows that the legislature is spewing nonsense. Unfortunately, the fact that the legislature believes it can get away with doing so is evidence that people with a grain of sense are in perilously short supply, at least within New York's profligate and foolish political class.
The whole "gay marriage" movement is more pathetic than dangerous. It is an effort to use government power to strong arm society into accepting homosexuality as normal and morally neutral. The effort is totalitarian to the core. Fortunately it is doomed to fail. You can't make a culture such as ours with a deeply ingrained conviction that homosexual conduct is wrong abandon that conviction merely by playing childish semantic games with the law.
Even if all 50 state and the federal government write a moral lie into the law, most people will know better. Gay romcoms will never be mainstream. Very few people will ever urge their sons to hang out in gay bars, and homosexual relationships are never going to have the same social status as marriage. It is always a bad thing when "the law is a ass." Sensible people should resist efforts to make it more assinine. But it will take more than a bit of legislative posturing to demolish our cultural roots.
Kingofthenet| 6.26.11 @ 7:40PM
So you believe state sponsored Discrimination is a virtue? interesting
ejp| 6.26.11 @ 8:23PM
There is no discrimination involved in the absence of state sanctioned gay marriage. This is the usual lie put forth by the gay lobby to put forth the bogus argument that at present they are somehow experiencing less than the normal protections of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as any other individual which is not true. This is all about getting special privileges from the government including I might add a government sanction to one day eliminate freedom of speech and freedom of religion for those who believe they engage in immoral conduct (but the person who believes their conduct to be immoral isn't calling for temporal punishment of them, which is more than I can say for those on the other side).
Kingofthenet| 6.26.11 @ 8:49PM
How is getting what YOU can get already 'Special Treatment'? You seem to think WHY someone wants a 'Constitutional Right' is important, it's immaterial. Some Blacks wanted equal rights to be a pain in the butt, but you see that's the thing, it doesn't matter WHY. I might want to have freedom of speech to produce a great work of art, Larry Flint might use his differently, we are BOTH protected.
SharpRightTurn | 6.26.11 @ 9:16PM
Kingofthenet:
Real marriage is definitely a religious institution. It is also is a building block of society. The ONLY role that government should (and has had) in marriage is to ensure the continuity of the state and the society. This occurs through large numbers of marriages and the procreation that occurs there. The state should, rightfully, have a small role in protecting it.
So what WE in real marriage have (ie "special treatment") is a religion-based commitment and/or a support of the state for continuing society through marriage.
I'm going to take a wild stab that the vast majority of homosexuals don't want marriage for the religious commitment.
The state role in real marriage is as I described. In a so-called gay marriage it is not possible to continue the state/society through procreation. The benefits of real marriage in society can not be produced in a so-called gay marriage. It is impossible.
Therefore, the state has no right and should have NO role in establishing gay marriage and in the process redefining real marriage. The state has no right to undermine the huge building block of society that marriage is....
Also, marriage (gay or otherwise) is not a Constitutional right. Our government does not create rights. Our rights are unalienable (ie come from God).
Now, in the case of blacks, they were denied their unalienable rights and, thankfully, our country has come a very long way since the days of slavery.
Sex and marriage are not unalienable rights and to compare gay marriage to the plight of blacks is a slap in the face to every black person in this country now and in the past.
You talk about protection in the freedom of speech....where will my pastor's freedom or my freedom go when one day New York (or a court) decides that to speak out against homosexuality is a crime? I am not protected under your gay marriage utopia...sorry to say.
Kingofthenet| 6.26.11 @ 9:28PM
Look I have no problem with Religious 'Marriage', obviously the Govt. doesn't care whether you have kids or not, there is no penalty for NOT having kids.IF the Govt. just created a 'Family' license between two Adults(Any Sex) with the same rights as the current 'Marriage' one, that would be fine. you get to have your 'Marriage' hold it's special religious significance, Gays and others get needed benefits, no one's feelings are harmed.But' that's not the way it went down, blame the Govt.
SharpRightTurn | 6.26.11 @ 9:50PM
Well thank God we don't have a government who passes out penalites "for not having kids". !?!? But the government does have a small role in protecting the advance of society and the state which comes through man/woman marriage and children. Will every couple have children? No. Does the entire procreation structure benefit society? Yes. Can gay marriage offer that same benefit to society? NO.
But see you don't need marriage to get your benefits....that is a legal issue.
If benefits are what you seek, seek it....but don't reinvent marriage in your own image.
I don't blame the government entirely, other than those elected officials who have bought into or were coerced into supporting the mistake of gay marriage. I do blame the disingenuous gays who have said all along they "want benefits" but are only (currently) happy with destroying marriage and lobbying politicians to do so.
What's next to make the gay lobby happy?...lobbying politicians to silence me because I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman? working through the courts to force my state to perform gay marriage although it would NEVER pass in the legislature or a vote of the people?
Kingofthenet| 6.26.11 @ 10:18PM
Civil Rights for Blacks would NEVER have passed any Southern State Registrable either, that's why the Fed's get involved. You know we had this 'little' war, because some states wouldn't give up the right to 'own' other people.Guess what I am Progressive but 100% against abortion in most cases, but I don't mess with women's bodies OTHERWISE someone is going to pass laws messing with mine.You have TWO things, your Marriage between YOU/WIFE and your GOD and a LEGAL Doc. from the Govt. they are NOT the same thing.
SharpRightTurn | 6.26.11 @ 11:04PM
Kingofthenet--
Because many people were wrong about basic human rights in the issue of slavery, does not make people wrong about gay marriage. One involved basic human, unalienable rights. The other does not.
One was about the life of blacks and suppression of their basic rights to liberty and happines...even life.
Gay marriage is nothing more than a ploy for legalized "benefits" in the name of so-called equality. Every gay person in this country has every single right that I do....including the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.....EVERY SINGLE ONE!
However, as I and many believe, the entire effort, for some, is an attempt at destroying fundamental values and cultural morals surrounding real marriage and family; an attempt for forced validation of a lifestyle many hold as immoral and wrong; and an attempt to neuter and even criminalize Christianity.
Other than that....you never answered my questions.
And I'll add another. Since you seem to think gay marriage is Ok and you wouldn't "mess with" a woman's abortion....whose to stop the next state from allowing father/daughter marriage or polygamous marriage?
Once you disintegrate real marriage into some competition for benefits ....marriage can pretty much be just about anything you want to define it as. Standards, eons of real marriage, and morality be damned.
But I guess you wouldn't want to "mess with" a father's body who simply wants benefits, among other things, to share with his daughter by lobbying for laws against father/daughter marriage.....for fear that government may pass laws "against you."
Also, you probably don't even realize the fear of your government you have displayed, when in truth, you should be defending your right to stand up for your principles and have the government fear YOU!
LC JB | 6.27.11 @ 2:35PM
Flag on the play !!! Tired of seeing the Civil War being couched as a war to end slavery. That was most assuredly NOT the basis. Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation after Antietam, in an attempt to instigate an uprising in the south, by the newly freed slaves. This had the effect of adding freeing the slaves to the conflict as a side (and very important) issue. Most honest historians agree that absent the Civil War, slavery would have ended in a decade or two at most.
AngloSaxon| 6.26.11 @ 10:47AM
What angers me is that the Gay activists and their allies are able to change public opinion so much that people like me who believe marriage to be what it has always been are now to be thought of as "bigots." When Carl Paladino said that NYC's gay pride parade wasn't appropriate for children Andrew Cuomo said that it was repugnant to hold such thoughts. For the left now it's repugnant to protect children from deviancy.
Wayne | 6.26.11 @ 11:57AM
Why does the author assume 2 people? You are using an OLD definition of marriage. The NEW definition is much more maleable. For example Sex is no longer required for marriage.
There is no reason then a brother and a sister can't marry or a brother and a brother or perhaps a brother, sister and brother. The moral argument against incest is now meaningless. See how that works. Buy changing the definition of marriage, one in effects ends the concept of marriage.
SharpRightTurn | 6.26.11 @ 9:18PM
Wayne....you hit the nail on the head there....so true.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 6.26.11 @ 11:59AM
It's fairly fascinating that conservatives who want smaller government are always the first on the bandwagon to get the power of government to force their beliefs on others.
This is the fatal flaw in American conservatism.
Wayne | 6.26.11 @ 12:03PM
You have a point in that government did not invent marriage and should not be re-defining it or using establishing it at all. It should just be enforcing contracts. Same with employment. We should not have a status of employer or employee. Instead the government should just be enforcing the terms of contracts between individuals.
Government should stay out of marriage and out of labor.
USSAlabama| 6.26.11 @ 12:33PM
Holy Matrimony and what you get at the marriage license bureau are two different things.
A couple can live in Holy Matrimony without government laws (ever more) unless they plan to have children, in which case they must invite the government to sanction their children as legitimate.
Gays are liars because they are using 'acceptance' as a cover to seek government benefits.
Oldefarte| 6.26.11 @ 12:05PM
As some fool above indicated, this is predominately about money, tax breaks, employment benefits etc. Now the employers of many workers in NY have one more reason to exit that state for financial reasons. Not only is the humongous tax rates in NY causing these companies to abondon same, but now the certainty of tripling their employee benefits-costs will result in more of a mass exodus from the DEAD APPLE. We Southerners can duplicate Bob Barker's words in saying to these employers to COME ON DOWN!!!!!!!!!!
Wayne | 6.26.11 @ 12:12PM
And why shouldn't two brothers say in their 60s get married for the purpose of tax breaks and social security benefits. There are many advantages for older people to marry siblings.
Oldefarte| 6.26.11 @ 2:31PM
'Siblings' ? Think that's called INCEST, which is another unrelated problem altogether. Let's don't go startin' another marriage-for-money scheme just yet, okay?
John2| 6.26.11 @ 2:46PM
I think he is pointing out an irony, not really recommending incest for seniors (I could be wrong).
Wayne | 6.26.11 @ 9:10PM
You are thinking of the old definition of marriage. The new one does not require sex, plus how is marrying one's brother a problem anyway? They can't have children.
Michael L. Hauschild| 6.26.11 @ 1:54PM
Yesterday Bachmann was going to introduce a constitutional amendment to outlaw marriage between two men or two women; here is what she is saying today.
“Poised to formally launch her presidential campaign, a more cautious Michele Bachmann suggested Sunday that she regretted assailing President Obama’s “anti-American views” and refused to rule out nominating judges who favor gay marriage.”
I could give a rat’s patooty about gay marriage; but I will not put up with pandering, nor will I put up with another wishy-washy beltway bonehead saying one thing one day and something different the next. We have one of them in office now that has just about destroyed the country. No more.
MarkJ| 6.26.11 @ 6:49PM
Question: How many SSM's will be conducted in New York in 2020?
Answer: None. By 2020 the cost of living in New York will be so high that everyone will have moved out by then.
Kingofthenet| 6.26.11 @ 7:25PM
'Goldstein" KNOW'S the score, the Gays are the 'canaries in the coal mine' after a Govt. messes with them it's on to the Jew's.
Mimi| 6.26.11 @ 9:06PM
Michael...Idon't know where that was said by Michele Bachmann...I saw her on Fox Sunday but did not here that! She talked about the recent N.Y. legislation , on gay marraige and the Govenor signing it into law and due to states rights she would respect that R/T to the 10th amendment...she said that as president she would appoint judges that hold the view of Marraige between a man and women. also refered to possibility of a Federal Constitutional amendment defending traditional marraige. I saw no change in her position from previous ones. I felt a need to say this in her defense and a matter of the truth.
Jim Hlavac | 6.26.11 @ 11:45PM
Mr. Goldstein -- you are to be commended. We gays have nothing to do with your hetero marriages -- it's about our tax and property and inheritance and other legal situations. We are couples, and just sticking your heads in the sand and going lalalala is not going to end that reality. And without family law we use commercial law to effect what we need to do -- so the relationships are recognized and legal already anyway, in all 50 states.
Nor will you ever force us to be straight and marry the girl of your dreams. Mr. Goldstein, I think you see this -- so many others do not. Sad.
If I might paraphrase Jesus -- render unto heteros what is hetero, and unto gays what is gay -- we have committed relationships of long duration -- I personally know at least a dozen couples that were "married" longer than the combined sis marriages of Newt and the Donald. I know dozens of other couples together for 10, 20, 30, 40 years -- married in all but legality, and welcome in their families -- as I am a gay man fully loved and accepted amongst ALL my cousins and aunts, uncles, siblings, mom and dad since I was 10 years old and knew I was gay, long before I knew a word for it, or the trouble I would get from you heteros, long before -- we just are, it is reality, deal -- as conservatives deal with reality -- and we will not change for anyone, for we cannot. I have argued we are akin to autism -- it's a brain wiring issue.
Why, just the other day yet another study showed that gay men's reaction to certain drugs is different -- there must be a reason -- and it's not because our minds are so powerful to do so. There are now over two dozen studies that show gay men react differently to all sorts of drugs than our hetero counterparts -- it must be genetic. And the fact that gayness occurs in the exact same percentage all over the globe, from Peru to Indonesia to South Africa to Italy to Europe says that it cannot be an American political position. Let our people go, and give us something, by any word within 100,000 words either side of "marriage" in the dictionary, so that we might settle down as we do, and deal with the legalities of business and home ownership, insurance, and all the other things of life. And leave us alone. Stop the condemnation, it is unholy to harass your fellow citizens because I refuse to live as some demand I live. Who the hell is anyone to demand I change my ways?
We are not going anywhere, you will not condemn us out of existence. We are a voting block ready to be picked up with merely a kind word -- why chase us away? Who ever heard of a political movement whom chases potential voters away? It's nuts.
Why is it though, that heteros are so afraid of gay folks? We are gay, you are not. We keep saying this -- we shout it from the roof tops -- we are, you are not. So you heteros go do what you do -- and don't blame us for your problems. And if you think that any more than the less than 5% of us who are gay are going to wreck your world, you're, frankly, nuts.
Peace be upon you this blessed day of gay marriage in NYC -- I went to the parade -- 1 million or more patriotic Americans whom want to enjoy the fruits of the nation, and not be hounded all our days. Cheers.
yisong| 10.30.11 @ 10:13PM
single row four point contact ball slewing bearing . http://www.1stbearaing.com