On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 08:15:39 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

As a Democrat, for example, I frequently am annoyed by the toughness
with which Kerry is treated by the general media, and the relatively
free ride Bush gets, no matter what he says or does. As an example, Bush
should have been excoriated by the editorial writers and commentators
for his gay bashing (over the definition of marriage bull****) via
Congress while the country is facing so many serious problems. But, for
the most part, he hasn't been. The tight-wing outlets, on the other
hand, have been jumping up and down in their praise for Bush (and in
news reports, not just commentary) on this issue.

That's funny, I see totally the opposite. The CNN reporter yesterday
just could say it enough times that the republicans have failed to
make the votes to pass the change.

And, as another for instance, why is the liberal press still trying to
make hay out of Bush's irrelevant military records, while Kerry's post
Vienam antics, including an admission that he took part in the
"burning of villages", is pretty much a non-issue? Why are the growing
numbers of anti-Kerry Vietnam vets, each with a compelling story to
tell, not being given an audience?

The gay marriage exclusion is an important precedent in the
preservation of the sanctity of marriage. Marriage has its roots in
religion, and that transcends secular interpretation.

This cannot be handled at a state level. You can't have one state
legalizing gay marriage, and a neighboring state not recognizing them.
What if a "legally" joined gay couple wants to move into a state which
does not recognize their marriage? This needs to be handled at a
federal level.

I, and most other conservatives have no problem with gay people
entering into civil unions for the purpose of gaining the legal
benefits (and liabilities) that other married people currently enjoy.
But don't call it a "marriage".

Dave