You seem to have gotten over those doubts about self-quoting pretty thoroughly, there, dude.

Excellent point that refutes hysterical stories being thrown around. As a homo, it's depressing to see so many (the majority) of gays incapable of making intelligent analyses of such things without resorting to ad hominems & absurdities

As I've said, I'm not into fisking the Left as though they were a subversive threat of any kind, but only in order to brush aside their weak arguments and shallow fallacies that get in the way of deep thinking about the real issues. As usual, they get it backwards, thinking that the anti-homosexual drive was a means to get Bush elected, in other words, their usual Marxist fallacy of thinking that the moral is merely a tool of the political and economic.

It's the other way around. The anti-homosexual movement, the Enemy Within, was using Bush as a tool to acheive their ends. Bush himself is not an enemy of homosexuals, I do not believe, but he believed that he had to obey the Enemy. He obeyed them up to a point, but removed himself from them to a significant enough degree toward the close of the campaign.

Contrary to the rhetoric of Leftist "moonbats", Bush is far from being a Hitler or even an Eichmann. He is merely a Hindenberg. America's totalitarian movement, while it has its Jews, i.e., homosexuals, does not have a single Fuhrer, but rather a number of Fuhrers, e.g., Lou Sheldon, Robert Knight, Tony Perkins, etc.. It operates, not as a single visible political party, such as were the Nazi party or the Communist party, but as a seemingly inchoate, shadowy movement consisting of hundreds of organizations, usually bearing the name "family" something-or-other, which infiltrate the already long-existing Republican party, ironically, the party of Lincoln. In this way, they resemble the shadowy terrorist cells of the Enemy without.

They are superlatively clever. And a large part of their cleverness consists of getting their opponents to dismiss them as ignorant "rubes". It is they who have manufactured the anti-homosexual "backlash".

I don't think this election was won or lost on gay issues, sorry. There, doubtless, was a portion of the electorate who went to the polls to defeat gay marriage. But they were a small, unimportant (and unappealing) minority.

Yes, all the amendments were defeated. Has it occurred to anyone that because this election had the largest turn out in history, it got a lot of people who'd never given a thought to gay marriage and, when confronted with the amendment went "sheeeeet, they want to marry now? No." I mean, a bunch of the amendments in our area I'd given no thought to, were voted on -- by me -- in the same reflex manner. Basically, anything that would cost me money got a "no." And then some that wouldn't got a "no" too because the other amendements were such bad ideas I was taking no chances on the inocuous seeming ones. (No, gay marriage was not in my area ballot.)

I think this election was about 9/11 and the war.

This said, I think the position both sides ended up taking "civil unions but no marriage" is a very liberal position. Really. Think on it for a moment. Put on your conservative acts and think about it -- instead of knee jerking.

Despite Pat Buchanan's and co.'s belief that if gay marriage were allowed I would HAVE to leave husband and kids to marry my female buddy (if they don't believe that, why do they think it threatens hetero marriage?) the truth is gay marriage would simply render marriage the uniform expectation of society. Regardless of what he/she chose to do when he/she grew up each child would grow up with the expectation of getting married one day. They would be surrounded by married couples of various persuasions and this would be the "expected" outcome.

OTOH a society with civil unions is very different. I think legally they can't keep civil unions for gay couples only -- so many constitutional pitfalls -- so, there would be this "like marriage as far as the conveniences of marriage go but without the weight of tradition and family expectations" route available to every kid.

Anyone want to take a bet that in our divorce-crazy, insecure world civil unions would become the route of choice for young couples? Anyone want to take a bet that marriage would die within a decade?

Is this good or bad?

My political opinions are multi-fractured because I think about each issue instead of swallowing a party line. In marriage I'm a conservative. I realize this is shaped by my experience, being happilly married, but I think it is worth it and a path of growth and while I don't impose it on anyone I think lots of people can benefit from it.

I want it to be available and encouraged when my kids come of age, whatever orientation they turn out to have. Which is why I think both parties are wrong on the civil union thing. And I think true conservatives would be voting FOR gay marriage.

Just my two cents.

I should add that I find the issue of "common law marriage" creepy. It is, as you pointed out, coercive. This applies in heterosexual cases too.

If marriage is to mean anything -- and you're right about its being religious. Even for non believers, marriage means you must at the very least believe in concepts such as "honor" and "your word" which can be fluid -- it means you gave your word to someone else and agreed to become a linked entity. I was very aware of this, which is why I stayed away from it for very long and only married when I felt I wanted to be part of that joint entity. It worked out for me, as I've said, but I have great respect for friends who say "I'll try to make it work; I gave my word" -- I often think they need their heads examined, but I respect them nonethless. I BELIEVE in individual responsibility and individual contracts.

And -- btw -- common law marriage crossed with gay marriage could get incredibly interesting. Suppose I become -- forfend -- widowed tomorrow and so does one of my best female friends (our husbands get caught in a freak rain of fish or something) and for convenience of jobs and kid raising we move in together into my house.

Ten years from now, all kids are out of the house and I want to move out and get a small condo. Let's suppose she hasn't prospered at her job, and I have. What's to stop her from seeking alimony? Can I prove there was no sexual relationship? I tend to (shoulder, hand) touch and hug friends I'm comfortable with. In NC TODAY being behind locked doors alone together can serve as proof of "adultery" in a male-female relationship. Would the same apply to homosexual relationships?

Yes, big can of worms, and it needs to be fixed, for heterosexual couples too. It should not be possible to get married against one's will. People get married waaaayyyy too much and too lightly and part of it is knowing this will be legally assumed anyway. Marriage should only happen if you feel you "want and have" to. It will happen to some of us, not nearly all.

This said -- between marriage and civil unions, go marriage! (Wanna bet they extend the law to "common law civil union" too, if they grant those?) Civil unions are the same but wimpier...

As Michael Totten has noted over at his site, Oregon went heavily for Kerry AND an anti-gay marriage issue. Make of that what you wish.

One curious thing - here in SW Ohio (Cincinnati, which leans quite Rep.), I don't remember one TV or radio ad from either side on the anti-gay marriage issue on our ballot. It was almost as though you walked into the booth, and POOF! there it was on the ballot. Wouldn't you think if W and his troops were counting on that issue to save the day, we would have been inundated with "save marriage" ads? I'm wondering what the ads were like in other areas/states.

Portia:

Excellent. I have been saying that for a long time, as have Jonathan Rauch and Andrew Sullivan. This is the spectrum of it as I see it:

Marriage, with all that it entails, commitment and fidelity, permanence and exclusivity, as well as conjugal rights or privileges, is intrinsically conservative. Holy Dawn and her holy Negro wife Norma -- bound in eternal holy wedlock, the Divine Sacrament of Total Commitment Marriage, Tight and High.

Civil unions (or "domestic partnerships", "domestic partnership-related program activities", etc.), or "marriage-lite", all or most of the conveniences but none or little of the obligations of marriage, is liberal.

The MOST liberal or libertine position is no legal or moral ties at all, the promiscuity of the orgy or the bathhouse, which is what the anti-marriage so-called "conservatives" are relegating homosexuals to -- and then they complain about promiscuity. Wicked Wanda and her women (Wendy, Cindy, Sandy, Candy, Brandy, Brenda, Glenda, Stella, Hannah...) in non-stop free-wheeling wild scientific orgies. No God, no law.

The most radical, Communist position is to eradicate homosexuality and all other "deviant" behaviors and thoughts in order to bring about a collectivist utopia where everybody is the same as everybody else. Mauhatt, Rev. Becker, Mrs. Haight. I'm against that!

The left is so bent on the "divide and conquer" idea that they are always creating divisions among themselves lol. Really funny to see it in motion.