posted 02-13-2004 11:16 AM            

I just don't see it as marriage.

Marriage, (imho) is normally done to PROCREATE (again, in my opinion) or bring forth children in a stable environment, [mother and father figure] etc.

I'm not against gays but somehow I just look at it from a biological/anatomical standpoint that the "parts" don't fit.

Psychologically, they certainly do.
You can't really change what someone is INSIDE.

Be that as it may, call me old-fashioned, i still see marriage as between a man and woman and civil unions between gays.

posted 02-13-2004 11:29 AM            

Love is Love, and in my opinion, having gays and lesbians marry will not bring the Plague and Locusts upon us, that Fundamentalists fear. It will further the cause of Love in the world, and besides, it is Constitutional to allow people to marry. At last check, The Constitution is the law of the land, and not The Bible, as much as some people would like to believe the opposite.

Which brings us to the fear (Hmmm...all these opinions seemed to based upon fear) of Cloning. I read that SOuth Korean biologists have cloned a human embryo. If homosexuals could have a child from cloning, then the last argument, weak as it is, against gays and lesbians would be rendered moot. The raising "monsters" from cloning is a smokescreen to hide the fact that there could be no excuse to hate homosexuals. Diabetes and multiple sclerosis could be cured from cloning, but religious politicians would rather have those horrible diseases present, than find a cure.

With a 50% divorce rate amongst heterosexual couples, the "straight" populace would be better to look at their own relationships, rather than trying to condemn gays/lesbians.

posted 02-13-2004 11:33 AM            

AGAIN...I look at it from a BIOLOGICAL/ANOTOMICAL standpoint... THE PARTS DON'T FIT.

Their PSYCHOLOGY DOES. Therefore I think they should have all finacial/social rights as hetro couples and certainly shouldn't have to deal with the pain of the closet...BUT

I DON'T view it as marriage, sorry.

Civil union, yes.

posted 02-13-2004 11:49 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mech:
I'm 100% opposed to human cloning.
Dolly the sheep is just ONE reason why cloning is a bad idea. Much like GM food.

---

So you're saying that diabetics and multiple sclerosis victims must suffer with their diseases. What would you do if you had one of those diseases?

I have been a health adept for over 35 years, and their is NO cure for diabetes type 1, and I have studied with the Masters, Viktoras Kulvinskas, Ann Wigmore, and Gary Null. Sure, you can relinquish some problems, but THERE IS NO CURE, except to replace with a cloned pancreas or Beta Cells.

Civil Union is a polite way of saying, "You're a freak, and don't deserve the rights of us "normal" people"...Sorry

The tide is in the favor of Gay Marriage, and I support it 100%, because Theta and I have been harassed because of our weird lifestyle, by people who are all in horrible relationships. I think heterosexual people better clean up their own house first.

posted 02-13-2004 11:50 AM            

Hmmm yeah...mabye too much so.

Ive heard stories that gay literature is becoming a requirement in public schools there and people who don't agree with gay people are being CRIMINALIZED.

As long as they don't push their agenda on me and call me "abnomal" for NOT being gay...we wont have a problem.

Personally, I don't think the human sewer system was made to have sex in.

posted 02-13-2004 11:53 AM            

If you are WILLING TO LIVE with the CONSEQUENSES that a human born through CLONING won't LIVE to their 30th birthday..then fine.

Also...you are opening up a PANDORAS BOX for all kinds of experimentation and NEGATIVE cloning research.

I think Cloning is just about as dangerous as nuclear weapons are personally.

posted 02-13-2004 12:02 PM            

I work with some gays and lesbians, and in music, I have been involved with them for decades. Normal in every way, and in fact, some don't even like "sewer sex".

I find it also hypocritical of the heterosexual "normal" males like watching lesbians having sex, but are repulsed by the male equivilant (not "sewer").

What if a heterosexual couple has "Sewer sex"? Should that be banned or frowned upon?

Gay literature in public schools is fine. Criminalization? Wasn't speaking out you were gay at one time basically a death sentence? Karma, if you will.

posted 02-13-2004 12:05 PM            

Hmm....I don't see what's "wierd" about your "lifestyle". Ive met the both of you. You're artists.

I don't think gays are "wierd" either.

posted 02-13-2004 12:10 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mech:
I think Cloning is just about as dangerous as nuclear weapons are personally.

There has to be a better way.

---

There isn't at this point, as far as genetic predisposition diseases. There will be improvements in the science, to have clones live as long as natural born creatures.

Look at Nuclear weapons. Yes, they are dangerous. But, if an asteroid was hurtling towards earth, and the only way to knowck it off it's path was a nuclear device, well, I'd go Nuclear. Solar sails and mass drivers could work, but would take an awful long time to impliment.

The same with cloning. You are looking at the negative results of the technology. the positive results could be eradication of genetic disease, and possibly life extension. Truthfully, if it comes to cloning or hoping for hyperspace or heaven, I'll take the cloning. Every technology has it's positive or negative side. Kraftwerk summed up computers in their song " Computer World", back in 1979.

"Numbers"
Scotland Yard"
"FBI"
"Surveillance"

or

posted 02-13-2004 12:19 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mech:
Marriage is between and man and woman....that is the way its always been.Facillitating the male and female to bring forth offspring and to have a mother andd father figure present for the children.

---

Gays have been here since the Cro-Magnons were bashing the Neanderthals over the head (Hmmm..Could it be that Neanderthal gays were seen holding hands, and the Cro-Magnons didn't like it?). You should see some of my birds. Some are strictly hetero (The King CB, his queen, Ollie), and others fall in love with their own sex. Apes show signs of homosexuality, as does most other creatures. It is normal, and has been here as long as sentient creatures have roamed the earth.

posted 02-13-2004 12:27 PM            

I understand that...and AGAIN...I SAID that gays shouldn't have to live in the closet.

BUT...I DISAGREE THAT 2 MEN TOGETHER OR 2 WOMEN TOGETHER IS MARRIAGE. Okay buddy?

MY OPINION.

They have a right to be together and yes...all rights granted. But MY VIEW is
MY OWN.

They BEST not push their agenda on MY KIDS in the schools and media..if I ever have them.

Just like i dont want Black panther Kalid Muhammad pushing his racist (kill all whites) garbage in taxpayer funded venues.

posted 02-13-2004 12:36 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mech:
They BEST not push their agenda on MY KIDS in the schools and media..if I ever have them.

Just like i dont want Black panther Kalid Muhammad pushing his racist (kill all whites) garbage in taxpayer funded venues.

Deal with it.

---

I don't see the corollary. All Black Panther's were not out to murder "whitey", and given the racism that has existed, sometimes I couldn't blame them, although violence begets violence, and that's not an answer.

What Agenda of Gays? Is George Bush's NeoCon War-based agenda any better, that is being pushed on the public? Is the Agenda of the Super Bowl? Everything taught in schools and the media is an "Agenda". This gay/straight issue has always been ridiculous anyway. We had Heterosexual agendas pushed on us as children. Does majority rule or does logic? I also think that the male/female tension in the heterosexual world, has it's roots in the homophobia that exists in society. Maybe males and females could accept their male or female part in themselves, if they accpeted Gay Marriage as normal.

My parents taught me to respect and care for animals, find a mate that i love, and they were way ahead of the times. Back in the 50's, they told me that being gay was OK, as long as you hurt no one. My mom worked with a black man and a gay man, and I met them both on numerous occasions. She told me what is important is the soul of a person.

It's time for gays not to be afraid to speak their minds.

posted 02-13-2004 01:49 PM            

By LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writer

SAN FRANCISCO - Opponents of gay marriage went to court Friday to stop an extraordinary act of ongoing civil disobedience in which San Francisco has issued nearly 100 marriage licenses to gay couples.


Weddings were continuing Friday and over the long holiday weekend — despite the effort by the Campaign for California Families to obtain a restraining order that would prevent the city from issuing more licenses or performing more ceremonies inside City Hall.

But under normal legal procedures and because of Monday's President's Day holiday, it appeared unlikely that anyone would succeed in blocking the gay marriages before Tuesday.

"Frankly it was a brilliant strategy. They got it done. The unfortunate fact is that these people who think they are married may find out Tuesday they are not," Richard Ackerman, an attorney for the conservative group, said Friday.

Around the country, gays and lesbians emboldened by San Francisco's move and by the constitutional debate over gay marriage in Massachusetts went to courthouses Thursday and Friday demanding their own marriage licenses — and getting summarily rejected, since every state in the nation bans gay marriage.

But in San Francisco, with the blessing of newly elected Mayor Gavin Newsom, the county clerk has issued nearly 100 marriage licenses to gay couples. Many of the weddings have taken place in quick civil ceremonies inside the ornate City Hall, and the clerk's office planned to remain open Saturday in observance of Valentine's Day (news - web sites).

"I'm not interested as a mayor in moving forward with a separate but unequal process for people to engage in marriages," Newsom said in an interview Friday on ABC News' "Good Morning America." "I think the people of this city and certainly around the state are feeling that separate but unequal doesn't make sense."

In all, 87 couples took their vows on the spot Thursday. By Friday morning, 300 more had lined up to get their licenses, many of them driving from as far as Los Angeles.

"Even people who are anti-gay marriage might shift their thinking now and realize it's most harmful to take something away when someone already has it," said Virginia Garcia, 40, after wedding Sheila Sernovitz, 50, her partner of 14 years.

They city's bold move, however, caused an outcry from elected officials and groups opposed to gay marriage.

Campaign for California Families asked that a Superior Court judge issue a restraining order that would prevent the issuance of any more licenses to the same-sex couples, to void any licenses that have been granted, and to require city officials to abide by the rules that govern changes in law.

"Apparently, Mayor Newsom felt he's above the law and like a dictator, could simply dictate what the law should be. And he has no authority to do that, either under the city charter or state law," Ackerman said.

While it remains unclear what practical value the marriage licenses will carry, their symbolism was self-evident as lawmakers in Massachusetts debate a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage but legalize civil unions.

City officials tried to keep the first marriage — between longtime lesbian activists Phyllis Lyon, 79, and Del Martin, 83 — confidential so they could complete it before any court intervention. The pair, who will celebrate 51 years together on Valentine's Day, were wed by San Francisco Assessor Mabel Teng at 11:10 a.m. in a closed-door ceremony.

Afterward, Lyon said she "never dreamed" that she and Martin would be wed within their lifetimes, but that she was excited "to make it legal." Newsom was not present at that ceremony, but later presented the couple with a signed copy of the state constitution with sections related to equal rights highlighted.

"I don't think there is anyone in good conscience who can tell me that denying the same rights my wife Kimberly and I have to same-sex couples is anything but discrimination," said Newsom, who maintains the equal protection clause of the California constitution obliges the city to grant marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples.

As word spread about the marriages, couples rushed to City Hall, most dressed casually in jeans with hastily assembled witnesses, and holding hands as they waited in a long line to pay their $82 license fee. The marble passages beneath City Hall's ornate golden dome echoed with applause as jubilant couples breezed through brief ceremonies, promising to be "spouses for life" instead of husband and wife.

"There is a part that doesn't feel romantic at all, but obviously it feels historic," said Guillermo Guerra, 29, who married Andrew Parsons, 39, his partner of eight years.

Many state officials, including Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (news - web sites), shied away from commenting on the events. Attorney General Bill Lockyer said through a spokeswoman he has not been asked to issue an opinion on the legality of same-sex marriages under California law.

Other state officials, including Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, shied away from commenting on the events. Attorney General Bill Lockyer said through a spokeswoman he hasn't been asked to issue an opinion on the legality of same-sex marriages under California law.

But Lockyer has asked his civil rights enforcement section to review how Massachusetts' legal debate might apply to California law.

"California's constitution provides broader equal protection rights than other states," spokeswoman Hallye Jordan said.

The Massachusetts Legislature, to undo the high court ruling by rewriting the state constitution, must pass an amendment with at least 101 votes in two consecutive legislative sessions — this year and in 2005-06 — before it winds up on the ballot before voters in November 2006. The most votes any of the varying amendment proposals received Wednesday and Thursday was 98.

posted 02-13-2004 06:19 PM            

that before I ever mentioned gays they were already aware before they were teens. My own personal view and the one I've shared with them is that gays simply have a different bearing on their compass, and my own feeling also as Christian AND a scientist, is that this is in large part due to biological factors (like heteros) and also at times to psycological reasons. But "choice" or not I have to ask as a freedom loving American, why should gays NOT be allowed to mary? I cannot really come up with a satisfactory answer that does not contradict the CORE values I believe in.

Marriage really at its heart can be achieved by separate individuals with or without the approval of The State. A real marriage IMO never needs a peice of paper to show what is already known. I assume though that gays want the tax advantages associated with a "state-approved" marriage though and all of the legalities that go along with it. AS they are citizens such as myself, seemingly entitled to the same rights INDIVIDUALLY, then I have to say, more power to them, if thats what they need, even if I might have to suffer a small biologically induced momentary discomfort, should I happen along upon such a happy couple. Just my thoughts,

posted 02-13-2004 06:55 PM            

WHAT IS MARRIAGE?

What is its purpose?

What are the consequenses of 2 same sex
partners on kids health REALISTICALLY.

I still say marriage should be classified as between a man and woman.

Gays should have all the rights married couples do. I don't think it should be called marriage.

posted 02-13-2004 07:56 PM            

SmT- That's a good question Mech, and I have wondered that before also. I have no data on the subject to determine whether the overall effect is negative or positive so will have to withold judgement at this time. I would have to imagine some gay parents though could provide good loving homes, I guess really what is being asked is will it impact the kids sexuality and perhaps how will the child cope with possible ridicule. Again, questions I am not sure of the answers to at this time.

But really I guess the main question is how far do I or another have the right to go to determine what "family" or "married" life for another individual should or shouldn't be like. I guess I almost always end up falling on the side of the Individual when it comes to personal freedom to conduct our lives as we each see fit as long as it can't be shown that we are DIRECTLY harming or depriving another individual of property or liberty or related concerns. But I respect different feelings on the matter, in fact some close to me see it quite differently.

posted 02-13-2004 09:05 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Show-Me Truth:
that before I ever mentioned gays they were already aware before they were teens. My own personal view and the one I've shared with them is that gays simply have a different bearing on their compass, and my own feeling also as Christian AND a scientist, is that this is in large part due to biological factors (like heteros) and also at times to psycological reasons. But "choice" or not I have to ask as a freedom loving American, why should gays NOT be allowed to mary? I cannot really come up with a satisfactory answer that does not contradict the CORE values I believe in.

---

SMT,

Before I continue this, please check these out.

http://www.gaychristians.org/

http://www.gaychristianonline.org/

http://www.gaychristian.net/

http://www.christianlesbians.com/

http://www.qrd.org/qrd/www/orgs/axios/

http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Heights/3358/

Being 53 years old, lived, REALLY lived through the 60's, married going on 32 years, no children, and my belief system, or Operating System, is a combination Unified Field Theory, and a sub-combination of Gnostic Christian/Hindu/Buddhist/Vegetarian. I have known, played in bands, and conversed deeply with every sexual preference you can imagine. I see the teenagers today, as the natural outgrowth of the positive aspects of the 60's. They know about sex and drugs before most of us did. Sex is like a drug, and more importantly sexual preference is even more drug-like. The DARE program teaches kids the DANGERS of drug use. Logically, kids should be taught the good and bad of every drug, rather than every drug is a frightening thing. That itself creates more addiction because children always will question parents. Boy, did we question when we were their age! If kids were told, "Pot is bad to your lungs if smoked too much, but none if it is vaporized. The positive effects would be listening to music more intensely, and a relaxing state of mind". You could the same for alcohol, LSD, Aspirin, and Ecstasy. Heroin, so on. Some will kill you quick, some will kill you slowly. Some will be a spiritual experience. Some will a trip to hell. Some will make you smart. Some will make you stupid. If the kids were told the truth up front, instead of some burned out yuppies telling kids to be drug-free, when they were screwin', drinking', and stoning. when they were their age. Kids know when you're BSing them.

This same theory could be applied to sex education. The good and the bad of being Gay, Straight, Lesbian, transgender, Asexual. From my perspective on believing the Gnostics more than Biblical Prose, I don't think Jesus would be upset over gays getting married. Wait a second; didn't he hang out with twelve gay guys and a prostitute? Anyhow, my image of Jesus was a very tolerant man, illuminated, and more of a Pagan, since the Essenes were more in tune with Nature. As I've stated in other posts, I have no conflict in myself with that idea.

Which brings me to the last part of that post, Freedom and The Constitution. All Men (and womyn) are created equal. With equal rights. Marriage. Period. Anything else is a hijacking of The Constitution. It's simple, BushCo wants a Constitutional Amendment because IT IS Constitutional for Gays and Lesbians to marry. Like the Patriot Act, an anti-gay Amendment is Un-Constitutional. No Civil Unions. Full Marriage to adopt children. No Banning. No more beating. No more hate. Equal Rights Under The Constitution. NOW! End of Story.

posted 02-13-2004 09:41 PM            

Some men are more like women, and some women are more like men. There is a very similar social structure in the gay lifestyle. One plays the mom and one plays the dad and some want children. And they want to live a life, be family.

In England they separate the males and females during the school years, as a result there is a higher gay and lesbian population. In the innocence of puberty they fell in love with the person who was there at the time. So, they have the right to make a life that feels right to them.

So many kids who are gay are rejected by society, by their family and friends and they go into this living in the fast lane. Doing one-night stands, etc. This is why what is called Aids exists. Completely run down health and no security insight. Let these people make a commitment to live together to kiss and hug and to raise children, who are spiritual and know they are loved, and that it is ok if they are heterosexual. This could happen, too.

As swamp mentioned we have known many gay and lesbian persons. In the world of art and music there are many. And they can be as good a friend as any and to me friendship and commitment is what it is all about.

Viva La Difference!!!

Congratulations to a dream come true so many true hearts!!! Who have had to go through alot of rough times.

posted 02-14-2004 08:14 AM            

That is the first time I have seen gay Christian websites. I have little doubt that they are just as sincere in their beliefs as any other "mainstream" Christians. Perhaps theres something about being persecuted or ridiculed by some elements of society (Churchianity types NOT Christians) that makes 'suffering' an aid to the soul, as the few openly gays I have known and worked with were the mildest, most polite and most non-aggresive people imaginable. Though this is perhaps in itself a stereotype (and I realize there are probably all kinds of temperaments) it is just my personal experience and observation.

Yes, indeed as you say, I think simply telling our children the Truth of matters as best we can is almost always the best way to go. As far as alcohol, drugs, sex, materialism, hate, envy, bad diet, lack of exercise, etc. etc. go, I want my children to simply realize what real effects on themselves each choice might have. The artificially and politically sanctioned lines The State has drawn between what is "right" and what is "wrong" can never replace teaching our kids sound judgement.

Of all the "drugs" out there I think here in mid- Missouri my greatest concern is the abuse of alcohol. I know so many that have died from it. As far as "pot" it appears many parts of the world are now realizing it is foolish and wasteful to continue to use much needed resources in trying to prohibit it. I recently heard that cops in Britian now are just giving a warning if citizens are caught using or having it as long as they aren' being obnoxious about it. Canada I believe too is coming to it's senses. In fact it seems that not only is cannabis becoming legal, the medical community (not officially) is realizing it has very real therapuetic value, hence the attempt by the pharmaceuticals to synthesize it ie, Marinol. With the citizens of 9? states now voting to allow medical marijuana I think Bush's war on it is wrong, politically motivated, and mean spirited. But I expected nothing less.

Theta-"In England they separate the males and females during the school years as a result there is a higher gay and lesbian population."

SmT- That is a very intersting observation, and if true says alot about how conditions affect choice. Any idea exactly the numbers on gays/lesbians in U.K. vs the rest of the world?

posted 02-14-2004 11:48 AM            

But as far as the schools go. They do traditionally have different schools for girls and boys. My theory is that this also promotes gayness. I don't have a problem with it. Gentle folk are ok with me.

The other indicator which Swamp and I have talked about are the New Wave bands of the 80's. Boy George, The Psycedelic Furs, the Beatles with the start of all the long hair all English. They were considered 'Fags' by the tough guys of Rock and Roll and many of them were gay. But, man did they produce good music.

posted 02-14-2004 08:57 PM            

I followed it and read up on Greek homosexuality and Roman elite male sexual desire for young boys, among other subjects. Not subjects I have in the past been prone to research ,but nonetheless interesting to see the sexual "norms" of other cultures and times. Reminds me of the scene in "Life of Brian" with Bigus Dickus. That movie was a riot. Apparently it was acceptable for Roman Elite men to go after their young male slaves, but improper to make out with other young males. If this is the case I do have to wonder how this fits in to the biological/hormone driven behavior pattern that is one of the major explanations for the reproduction of organisms.

SmT

posted 02-16-2004 10:56 AM            

yes I'm sorry I was straying a bit...

It IS sad to see Mr. Falwell and his Immoral Minority suffer sexual disfunctional problems and one must wonder what repressions they suffered as children growing up. To much Fundamentalism? Locked in a closet? To many encounters with "wire hangers"? As a Christian myself I find Mr. Falwell's OBSESSION with sexual matters between consenting adults none of his business. Perhaps a few sessions with Dr. Ruth could help him on his way to recovery.

The Messiah's main concern and Evil that Yeshua constantly railed against was THOSE WHO LOVE MONEY more than others, as he knew their influence to affect almost all other areas of life. When it came time to stone the prostitute he STOPPED it and simply sent here on her way, knowing that if a sin was being committed it was herself she was "sinning" against and perhaps to the one she had broken the bond too. NOT society's job to STONE those who fail or choose path's that though we personally may not condone, have no RIGHT to prohibit upon other freedom deserving citizens.

Why isn't Mr. Falwell pursuing more relevent issues that deal with the Greatest expressed Evil "LOVE OF MONEY"??? Because it would hit WAY WAY to close to home. Though Mr. Falwell claims to be a "Christian" I can tell you honestly I doubt our "Christianity" has much in common in practice only bearing the name. Like any other label 'Christian' is often misused to include those who seek money and power employing methods in direct opposition to the Way as lived by The Teacher. Fake Christians IMHO. Anti-Christians for those that take it to the extreme. The System of Anti-Christ sucks people in as it has for thousands of years.

But back to your post, just remember for every fanatic IMO like Falwell seeking to ban someone or thing, there are people out there seeking to ban "Falwell's" and all of the bashing that they bring to the table. So life goes on. I wouldn't count on allowing the Constitution to be tampered with without alot of opposition. From both "left and right". The courts have so far backed down some of Bush's dictatorial attempts at power grabbing such as indefinate incarceration of AMERICAN CITIZENS without charges and trials.Some Republicans stood up and applauded when Bush mentioned the possible repeal of the patriot act, cutting him off before he had a chance to finish saying he wanted to renew it. There is division within "the camps" and 'sides' a realigning many AGAINST THe NeoCOns and there attempts to DOMINATE all policy. I am basically an Independent who sides usually with Libertarian "goals" though I realize their IS a proper role and place for government.
The government needs to stay the hell out of peoples private and personal lives and and stick to the goals it was designed to achieve. NOT Big Brother supervising each and every person 24/7 micro-managing every aspect of Citizens lives.

SmT

posted 02-18-2004 11:27 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Show-Me Truth:
But back to your post, just remember for every fanatic IMO like Falwell seeking to ban someone or thing, there are people out there seeking to ban "Falwell's" and all of the bashing that they bring to the table.

---

Again, the difference between gay marriage, and Falwell, Robertson, Ralph Reed, etc, spewing forth their opinions is this. The actions of an individual directly upon someone else should be the the litmus test, and not the theoretical effect. If someone smokes pot or drinks a gallon of beer in their own home, that is their right, or should be. If someone engages in strange sex, or watches cartoons hanging upside down, again, their right. If you start coming into the Land of Caesar, meaning outside your property, you are now infringing on someone else's right. I'm speaking of actions, and not thoughts. Driving stoned or drunk is NOT the same as listening to Pink Floyd in Surround Sound in your living room.

Which brings us to thought crimes. If you are implying that their are gays, progressives, liberals, libertarians, and socialists that want Falwell and Company to shut up, you are correct. If Prgressives got the same time on the air, as Falwell and Bush, it would be balanced. Of course, Far-Rights and Neo-Cons get much more airtime than Liberals, contrary to the myth of the Liberal Press and Media. The argument the Anti-Gay crowd uses is, "The Children, The Children". If the overwhelming majority of gays don't molest kids, then it is a thought crime they are commiting. Could I then say as a Pagan/ Essene Christian/Buddhist/Hindu/Vegetarian/Unified Field Theorist, that a Fundamentalist Far-Right Political Christianity is detrimental to mine and my kids or relatives teaching, that has already happened by parents before they reach kindergarten? When I saw my Dad throw his shoe at the TV in the early 50's, when McCarthy and The Operation Paperclip crowd, was destroying the fabric of the nation, I was already starting to be aware that something was amiss in society.

I say ley everybody have their say, but equally. Let the people decide for themselves, but don't slant the news, and opinions by the people with the Big Bucks.