On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 13:37:22 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 17:16:07 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:


Anyway, to head off a huge name calling response, I do not believe that
gay marriage is the end of the world as we know it. I would prefer that
the term be reserved for those who can propagate the species, but that's
not completely necessary. I do believe that those who are part of the
gay/lesbian community are entitled to some sort of civil recognition as in
civil unions, but I'm not wedded to it.

What I find interesting, the term "gay marriage" makes a difference. Use
the term "civil union" or "domestic partnership" and the issue isn't
nearly as divisive.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...il-union_x.htm

I totally agree with that and it was pretty much the point of the
article.

Hell, I'm like everyone else - I have pejudices that influence my
immediate reactions to concepts and ideas, but let's try and solve
this one without trying to rip each groups throats out. Get it
written into law and let it go.

In MA, Tom "I never met a contribution I didn't keep" Finneran almost
got it done, but couldn't keep the consensus because the Supreme
Judicial Court ordered gay marriage into law. What folks reacted to
in MA was the absolute arrogance on the part of Margaret Marshall who
was going to have gay marriage and she didn't give a damn about what
the citizens thought or said.

If the bozo politicians worked at it, I'd bet we can get it done
quickly with no muss or fuss. Just have to keep the judicial fiats
out of the mix.

And don't give me any crap about masses of red Christian coalitions -
they don't exist. It's little advocate groups that make the most
noise, not the great unwashed proletariat.

Later,

Tom